that are to come to the Lords Supper Whereby we see 1. that his judgement was that Act. 8. and Mat. 3. the people did make known their spirituall estate to the congregation or Minister when they professed faith and repentance and secondly that the same ought now so to bee Lastly We may appeale herein to the consciences of very many godly Ministers in our deare England whether they groane not under the mixture of the precious with the vile in the Ordinances of Christ and would not gladly have it otherwise which cannot bee without such a way of admissions into the Church as we plead for or else in constituted but corrupted Churches by casting out such as after admonitions appeare impenitent in sin by the severity of discipline And this was evident by the qualifications of persons to be received to the Lords Table voted at first by the present Reverend Assembly and presented in their Directory to the Parliament if wee bee not mis-informed whose words are these None are to bee admitted thereto meaning the Lord Suppers but such as being baptized are found upon carefull examination by the Minister before the other Church-Officers to have a competent measure of knowledge and ability to examine themselves and professe their willingnesse to submit thewselves to all the Ordinances of Christ and are of approved conversation according to Christ the ignorant and scandalous are not to bee admitted nor those of another Congregation unlesse they have sufficient testimony or be very well knowne If it bee objected that some of these instances concerne unbaptized persons onely which is not our case Answ 1. Multitude of baptized persons in these dayes are as ignorant and prophane as some unbaptized and therefore as apt to pollute Gods Ordinances 2. Chamiers reason why unbaptized persons were to go under such strict examination holds good in our case 3. Such profession of faith was required by John and the Apostles of those that were Church members before Reply The Creed is honored by the Ancients with glorious titles as the rule of faith c. by which they understood that rule of faith given by Christ when hee was about to ascend and commanded his Disciples saying Goe teach al Nations In after times some Articles were added for explanation to meet with the heresies of those times but for substance the Church never required other acknowledgement c. Answ If you meane that which is called the Apostles Creed it is justly doubted whether it bee so ancient however the times which followed the Scripture patterns are both obscure to us and no infallible pattern yet many Churches used great strictnesse as is shewed in receiving and restoring fallen members and if afterward heresies gave just occasion to require further professions of the doctrine of faith and to add more articles for explanation why may not the Churches require a more explicate confession of the work of faith and repentance the formality and meere outside profession of so many Civilists Formalists and Atheists requiring the same Reply If you put men to declare that worke of grace God hath wrought in this or that way which perhaps is not determined by the word of grace at least not agreed upon amongst your selves wee beseech you to consider by what authority you doe it and upon what ground you stand Answ This is but upon a supposition if so c. which is contrary to our judgement and professed practise to limit the spirit of grace in the workings of it If any have so done as it may bee in the times of opinions prevailing among us wee doe not owne it but disapprove the same It is enough for us to see any have some way or by some meanes or other beene humbled for sinne brought home to Christ by faith or have any breathings of the Spirit of Christ with a life answerable to the Faith of Christ CHAP. XVI Position 7. That a Minister is so a Minister of a particular Congregation that if they dislike him or leave him unjustly hee ceaseth to be a Minister Reply The question is of Ministers unjustly forsaken or driven from the Church and your answer is for most part of Ministers set aside or deprived by their owne default wee never purposed to speake one word for an unworthy Minister whom Christ hath put out of Office and therefore your labour to prove that such justly rejected by the the Church are no longer Ministers might well have beene saved Answ The ground of this Position being about the Nature of a Ministers Office Whether it consist in his Office relation to the flocke of a particular Church the former part of our answer was not in vaine nor the grounds impertinent and wee accept your grant of it That a Minister justly rejected by his Church is no longer a Minister then wee inferre that there is no indelible character in the Office but that his Ministery stands in relation to a particular flocke not to the Catholike Church for then a particular Church could not dissolve his Office and therefore it will follow that if hee bee found worthy after upon repentance to bee called to another Church hee must bee new elected and ordained to his Office being no Minister upon his just deposing Reply But wee will examine your conclusions upon which you build the sentence which you passe against them first it is certaine c. Answ What is said to the first is spoken before and we will not repeat things in vaine Reply Secondly The power of feeding which the Minister hath is neither confined to one society onely nor nextly derived to him from Christ by the Church The Office and authority of a Pastour is immediately from Christ the deputation of the person which Christ hath designed is from the Church ministerially but neither vertually nor formally Answ These things about the call of a Minister by the Church were also spoken to before when wee spake of the power of the Keys and the first subject thereof and therefore the assertion being granted these things might well be spared but what we finde here more then in the other place we shall consider The power of the Church in electing her Officers is so cleare in the Scripture and so confessed a truth by the godly learned that it cannot bee denyed yet here seeme to be given so many restrictions in the case that they much abate and weaken this great and precious liberty and power given by the Lord. 1. That the power and Office of a Pastor is immediately from Christ by his institution is granted but the question is how this man comes to have this Office applyed to him if immediately then hee is in this an Apostle if mediately it is by the Church or else shew by whom 2. That the Church choose Ministerially and ought to choose whom Christ hath described in his word and fitted with gifts and so farre designed by Christ wee grant but what if there bee twenty such Which of
minded from us in some things as Melanchthon did in another the like case to live and die in their bosomes The name of this servant of Christ now asleep is an oyntment poured out and precious to us we could therefore have wisht it our portion to have answered the Booke without the least reflecting upon him but the necessity herein is unavoydable This onely we adde that whatever weaknesses may passe from us let them not bee imputed to those servants of Christ that set us on work and have wanted leisure to review what is here done Every one may not bee in all things of the same mind with us for they may meet us in the same end though they use not the same arguments or become followers of us in the same path yet we know wee are not alone in any thing but may safely say thus much that what is here defended is generally acknowledged and received in these Churches of Christ A DEFENCE OF THE NINE POSITIONS CHAP. I. Concerning the Title WHereas it is called a new Church-way wee little expected that Brethren studious of Reformation who have been so exercised with imputations of novelty would have so readily and in the frontispice cast the same upon us who with them desire to walk in the first wayes of our Lord Jesus Christ and his holy Apostles but as in most substantiall points of Church-order wee goe along with the best reformed Churches so wee doubt not to make it good that wherein wee pressing after further Reformation seeme to differ from them yet wee build upon Scripture grounds acknowledged by many godly and Learned Reformers in our English and other reformed Churches which if the Lord have in mercy given us further light or rather opportunity to practise then they had let it not bee imputed to us for novelty A new edition of the old Church-way of godly Reformers in some things perhaps corrected and amended is no new Church-way or if it be thought the mending of some crooks in the old way make a new way wee answer with Junius in a case not unlike Vteunque novam esse videatur attamen quaecunque sunt vetera fuerunt nova ac non propterea novitati◠nomine vitiosa nisi forte novam pro renovatâ restitutâ accipitis quo sensu novam esse hanc viam agnoscimus One thing more in the Title page the Reader is to take notice of that whereas it is said This Treatise of Mr. Ball was penned a little before his death and sent over 1637. it seemes to bee a mistake of the Printer for the Nine Questions themselves were sent over 1636 the answer returned 38 but miscarrying another was sent 39. from which time wee longingly expected a return but partly for the reason rendred in the Epistle and what else wee know not wee never in so many yeares received any till this printed Reply by a Friends meanes came occasionally to our hands 1644. Concerning the Epistle to the Reader Whereas the publishers of this Treatise impute unto us or some related to our Cause That we are the Volunteers such as cry up this way and forward to blow such things abroad in the world which pressed them to make this Controversie publique 1 Wee may truly professe before the world that our Epistle sent with our former Answer proceeded from a spirit of love and peace with an humble willingnesse to receive further light by the holy and just Animadversions of our reverend and beloved Brethren which wee earnestly expected as men searching after the truth 2 That wee were altogether ignorant of the Printing of that our Answer and in that it was published then was not without our utter dislike wee have neither sounded trumpet nor struck up drum to any if any such volunteers wee heartily grieve that there are any differences between Brethren much more that they should bee published most of all if before they bee privately debated and brought to some head by mutual consent are thought fit to be sent out to publique considerations 3 For our Brethren in England we know no reason to question the truth of that Apology of our Brother Mr. Thomas Weld in his answer to W. R. pag. 2. Obj. 3. Answ 1. where he professeth in the name of himselfe and others of our way a lothnesse to appeare in the case and that although they had Bookes of this subject ready for the Presse yet by joint consent they suppressed them happily to the detriment of the Cause being unwilling to blow a fire and whether they appeared in Pulpit or Presse without instigation and how sparingly hee appeales to all the godly to judge 4 Lastly wee desire our Brethren to consider the date of Mr. Ball his Booke printed for stinted Liturgies one chiefe part of this controversie and the Printed answer to the Nine questions and let that resolve the question who of us came first Volunteers into the field and if any through weaknesse or zeale without knowledge have been too clamorous to cry up New-England way with reproach to others wee desire the world to take notice that they have neither patent nor patterne from us so to doe who came not hither proudly to censure others but to reforme our owne CHAP. II. Qu. 1. That a stinted Forme of Prayer and set Liturgie i◠unlawfull Reply THis Position cannot beare that meaning which you give it if you take it according to our minds and the plaine construction of the words We never questioned why you made not use of a Liturgie c. Answ Let our Answer bee viewed and it will appeare that wee had just cause to premise those distinctions of Formes of Prayer into private and publike and publike into such as are imposed by others or composed and used by Ministers themselves before their Sermons otherwise we must have involved such in the Position as wee doe not condemn Now if your generall thesis justly admit such limitation to publike imposed Formes where shall wee finde any set stinted imposed Liturgies but in Churches of the Papacy or Prelacy no Reformed Churches stinting or imposing their Formes of Prayer but leaving Ministers and people at much liberty Onely the English Liturgy therefore is such according to the plaine construction of the words 2 Concerning your minds in the Position wee deny not but you might intend to draw from us an approbation of stinted Liturgies in generall that so you might have to stay the separation of people from your Liturgy whereof you complaine but by that it appeares plainly what your chiefe scope and ayme was in the Position according unto which wee thought it most safe and pertinent for us to answer And this wee did the rather for our reason mentioned in our letter because though all of us could not concurre to condemne all set Formes as unlawfull yet wee could in this viz. that though some set Forms may bee lawfull yet it will not follow that this of the English Liturgy is therefore to
been said the Conclusion as we conceive doth easily and naturally follow That as notwithstanding all that is said there is no Catholick visible Body of mankinde to which or to the Officers wherof is given the power and priviledges of Civill government to rule this Catholick Body either as one totum politicum or the parts of it Families Cities Kingdoms in communi by subordination of all Societies with reference to the whole or so as every King Major c. should be an Officer of the whole So these and like consequences will not follow in respect of the guides government priviledges c. of the Catholick Church notwithstanding all that is said from these considerations of unity visibility priority of nature c. 1 Object If any shall Object the case is not alike because in this Catholick Church were universall Officers set up as the Apostles not so in the world of mankinde Ans We say these were but for a time in the first beginning for the setting up of the firâ—â— order in all the Churches who being dead there is none to succeed them in that respect of Catholick power Secondly we say likewise at the first for a time Adam and after Noah had a generall power over mankinde though after them none had the like as it is here And therefore the comparison stil runs clear 2 Object If any object as some doe in answer to an argument somewhat like this that this similitude holds not because there is not that externall union of visible communion in the Common-wealths of the world as in the Church if one say God hath placed Kings Dukes in the Common-wealths as in one organicall Body who have one head who giveth influence to so many organs of head feet c. as the Apostle speaketh of the Body the Church 1 Cor. 12. then indeed all the Common-wealths of the world would make but one body Answ To the Scripture alledged we shall speak after here onely let us clear our parallel And first take the similitude as it is stated by us and it will be clear First compare the Catholick number of mankinde with the Catholick Church which is the number of called ones and then there is as much externall union of visible communion in one as in the other For first all mankinde may and ought to maintain Civill communion one with another in all Offices of humanity for the common good of the whole as the members of the Catholick Church doe or ought to doe and common humanity and the command of the Morall Law binds thereto as well as Christianity and rules of the Gospel bind here Secondly if we compare Civill societies as Families Cities Common-wealths with instituted Churches it is as possible and as well the duty of all Common-wealths in the world by principles of humanity and the Morall Law in all mens hearts to maintain externall union of leagues of friendship and communion in all Offices of Civill society as it is possible and the duty of all Church societies by the principles of Christianity and rule of the Gospel to maintain externall union of visible communion in the duties of Church society Thirdly not to dispute here whether there be such an externall union of visible communion amongst all the visible Churches as parts of the Church Catholick if the reason alledged be sufficient to prove the same viz. because there is one head in the Church who giveth influence to so many organs of head feet eyes c. in the Church Then still our parallel will hold for as this Head is no other then Christ Jesus in his spirituall Kingdom the Church giving that influence named so the same Lord that is King and Head over all 1 Chron. 29. 11. Ephes 1. 22. doth give influence to many organs in this Body of Mankinde even to all Kings Judges Fathers of Families And Christ is the same in respect of all authority power gifts administrations Civill c. to this Kingdome of Men as he is to the Kingdom of his Church of all power spiritual And although the Church be a Body of nearer relation to Christ then the Body of mankinde yet in regard of a common relation between a Head and Body there is a similitude which is sufficient in this case There is one thing more we meet withall that here we shall remove viz. when it is objected that the Catholick visible Church cannot be one because it cannot convent together in one Society it is answered usually that such comming together in one society is not needfull because as a Kingdom may be one though all parts of it never meet together having the same King Laws c. And as an Army may be one having the same Generall the same Laws of Discipline the same cause c. though the severall Brigades should never be drawn up into one body So the Catholick Church having the same King Laws Cause Enemies is but one though it never meet To this we shall here Reply so far as it lyes in our way 1 As all union is for communion and all communion flows from union so look of what nature the union is such and no other is the communion and look of what nature the communion ought to be of like nature ought the union to be else it will not reach the end And therefore here as the mysticall spirituall union of the Catholick Church to Christ the head by faith and to one another by love is sufficient to afford spirituall communion with the same So unto Politicall communion there must bee a Politicall union into one policy And as the nature of Politicall communion is such must the nature of the union be that it may reach the end To apply this a Politicall Church is instituted of Christ for communion in all the Worship and Ordinances of Christ instituted in the Gospel as the Ministery of the Word the Seales and Discipline now no Church as One can have communion with Christ and one another in these things but it must have a Politicall union suitable thereunto that is they must be one Society that can at least meet to combine together And therefore if all Churches make one Politicall Body for Politicall communion it must be such an union as will reach that end which cannot be imagined in such a Catholick totum politicum as the Catholick Church 'T is true distinct Churches as distinct Kingdoms may have communion in some politicall priviledges answerable to their union consisting in a fraternall relation one unto another yet not make up one Body Politicall of which we speak Secondly to the similitudes brought we answer This whole Kingdom or Army is properly and clearly one Politicall Body under one Politicall head the King or General as stands by Covenant as members of that one Policy and those who have right to choose their King or Generall may and doe some time or other convene Let the like be shewed in the Catholick Church that all Politicall
in the highest Sanhedrin of Israel But there is not in the Church nor like to be such a supreme Court where such appeals may be ended Ergo. Object 2 If it be said that what a particular Church binds on earth is bound in heaven except they erre but then appeals may be made and their power is gone Answ On this ground the universall Church should not have power to bind on earth so as in heaven without appeales for they may erre and that not onely rarely but frequently witnesse the complaint of Nazianzen and others of the time passed yea they may be as much inclined to erre considering the greatest part of Churches in the world are for the most part corrupt yea though they may have better eyes yet they are further from the mark if particular Churches have no power of excommunication because they may erre be corrupt be partiall or be divided upon the same consideration neither Classicall Nationall or oecumeniall Councells have any such power for they may erre grow corrupt be partiall and be miserably divided as well as a congregationall Church other Churches may admonish in case of scandall and counsell when a particular congregation wants light and moderate if desired in case of difference but still the power is in the particular Church Other arguments might be added but seeing this controversie as we hope will be more fully and purposely disputed by a farre better hand therefore we shall fall to the consideration of such Scriptures and some few generall Arguments which we meet withall in Mr. Ball briefly propounded and in divers other Authors more largely insisted upon which if the Lord be pleased to helpe us to vindicate and clear up we think other reasons and Scriptures of lesse force will fall of themselves And first we finde Cant. 6. 4. c. to prove the whole Catholick church visible to be one Ministeriall Body because it is called One compared to an Army terrible with Banners in respect of the order of Discipline and described as being an organicall Body having eyes hair teeth c. Answ 1 Theologia Symbolica non est argumentativa except it can be made clear that the parable is applyed according to the true scope of it and no further which here is very hard to evince we know the whole Book of the Canticles is variously applyed by good Interpreters Brightman none of the meanest in this kinde of Scriptures applyes this place to the church of Geneva and the times of purer Churches to arise after it which are said to be terrible as an Army with Banners not in respect of Discipline but in respect of warlike power whereby that state of the church shall defend it self 2 But suppose that it is a description of the catholick church visible yet it cannot be a sufficient argument that it is one Ministeriall church For first the catholick church is the same in all ages and therefore by this reason it was a catholick Ministeriall body as well in the days from Adam to Abraham c. as in the New Testament Secondly by this argument we may prove Christ the head and husband of the church to be an organicall body as he is the Head of the Church for Cant. 5. 10 11. c. the Church doth allegorically describe the beauty and excellency of Christ in severall organs and parts but we suppose though Christ Jesus in his humane nature hath members yet the scope of the Church is not at all to set forth the members of his humane body but the glorious excellencies and spirituall perfections of Christ as the Redeemer and Saviour of his Church according to the manner of Lovers who are taken with the beauty of their spouses in all their members When the spouse saith Cant. 1. 1. Let him kisse me with the kisses of his mouth it were too grosse to apply it to the humanity of Christ or to argue from thence that Christ the husband of his Church is an organicall body Thirdly and lastly when the Church is called One the onely one of her Mother though it 's true she is one it seems rather to set out her excellency as rare and but one then her unity and so the other descriptions all tend to set forth her beauty in the eye and esteem of Christ neither is it any thing that the Church is compared to an Army terrible with banners for in the same Chap. vers the last she is compared to the company of Mahanaim or two Armies which is all one for the company of Mahanaim consisted of two Armies Gen. 32. 1 2 3. where Jacobs host meeting an host of Angels he calls the place Mahanaim or two Hosts and therefore we may as well say the Catholick church is terrible with two Armies of Banners as one Answ A second and chief Scripture we meet withall in divers Authors is 1 Cor. 12. 12 13. c. Whence the reason stands thus That church wherein Apostles Prophets Teachers c. are set is an organicall Church But those are set in the Catholick visible Church Ergo. For the better clearing of this Scripture it is needfull that we attend the scope of the Apostle who comming now to another branch of the things this Church had written unto him about Chap. 7. 1. 8. 1. 12. 1. and this about spirituall gifts wherein they abounded Chap. 1. 7. being the occasion of all their contentions and disorders Chap. 1. 12 13. hence he is studious the more to re-unite them again Chap. 12. 13. and to direct them how to improve their gifts orderly to edification Chap. 14. and in this Chapter he perswades their minds to unity who were divided partly through pride in their own gifts partly by disdain of others not so gifted hence he puts them in minde 1 What once they were following dumb idols 2 That all gifts are from the free dispensation of God and that one God one Lord one Spirit 3 That God in his wisdom hath dispensed great variety of gifts operations and administrations 4 That all are given to profit withal and these things he illustrates by a simile taken from a naturall body which having largely presented and applyed to this Church vers 27. he concludes with the variety of administrations in such things wherein they so much differed Chap. 1. 12 13. God hath set saith he in the Church not onely Apostles or Prophets or tongues c. but all these are all Apostles are all Prophets c no but the wisdom of God hath given you variety of these gifts and administrations and therefore Chap. 3. to quiet them he saith Paul an Apostle Apollos an Evangelist c. all are yours and as this is the scope of the Apostle so we see nothing in the Chapter but is appliable to Corinth in particular yea applyed unto them by the Apostle as what he spake vers 22. of one body he applyes to them vers 27. what he spake vers 28. of Apostles and
particular Society Thirdly joyning to some particular Society being an Ordinance of God of so great concernment if Baptism must be administred in it why ought not why may not such joyn to that Society at least as members for a time Also when he saith divers times That men are made members of the Church by Baptism speaking of such Churches as choose Officers over them yea that the Apostles constituted Chrches by Baptism and the like which we shall note in the answer Now what doe these argue but a yeelding of the cause for if the Apostles made members and constituted Churches by Baptism this was onely sacramentally and if so then of necessity they must be really members of such Churches before Baptism Thus we have run through this large field of the Catholick and particular Church which hath detained us longer then we intended yet to prevent mistakes from any thing that have been said concerning the union communion and combination of the Churches we shall add these two things 1 We observe that the Scripture speaks of the Church sometimes as One body sometimes as many and therefore called Churches and hence our care is to preserve not onely the distinction of Churches as many by particular combinations but also their unity as being one by spirituall relation 2 Association of divers particular Churches we hold needfull as well as the combination of members into one yet so as there be no schism of one from another nor usurpation of one over another that either one should deprive the rest of peace by schism or many should deprive any one of its power by usurpation hence a fraternall consociation we acknowledge consociation we say for mutuall counsell and helpe to prevent or remove sinne and schism yet fraternall onely to preserve each others power consociation of Churches we would have cumulative not in words but in deed to strengthen the power of particular Churches not privative to take away any power which they had from the gift of Christ before For as on the one side it may seem strange that One Church offending should have no means of cure by the conceived power of many so on the other side the danger may appear as great and frequently falls out that when many Churches are scandalous one innocent Church may be hurt by the usurpation of all And hence we see not but that fraternall consociation is the best medicine to heal the wounds of both We utterly dislike such Independency as that which is maintained by contempt or carelesse neglect of sister Churches Faciunt favos vespae faciunt Ecclesias Marcionitae saith Terâ—ullian We utterly dislike such dependency of Churches upon others as is built upon usurpations and spoils of particular Churches Having thus largely digressed for the clearing of the foundation of the dispute in hand we desire to be excused if we be the more brief in our answers to particulars which now we shall attend unto as they lye in order CHAP. VI. Reply THe seals are given unto the Church not onely in ordinary as you say but also in extraordinary dispensation c. And when you say the dispensing of the seals is an ordinance given onely for the edifying of the Church gathered must it not be understood of extraordinary dispensation as well as of ordinary c. added these words ordinary dispensation were to prevent the objection which you foresaw might be made from the Apostles practice and example but so as they cut asunder the sinews of the consideration it self and make it of no force Answ Before we come to the particulars of the Reply it is needfull to clear our meaning from this mistake about the word ordinary dispensation which being rightly understood it will appear that it no way cuts the sinews of the consideration as is objected For whereas first you extend the opposite term extraordinary dispensation to the whole generall practice of the Apostles and Evangelists and secondly take it for granted that their practice was not to baptize members of particular Churches we neither intended the first nor doe we grant the second as for the first we acknowledge freely that the Apostles and Evangelists ordinarily and generally practiced according to comon rules in this point of baptizing as well as in other and left their practice for our pattern and therefore their ordinary practice in this thing we shall stick to yet they having not onely extraordinary power above Pastors and Teachers but also having sometime an immediate call unto some acts and speciall guidance of the Spirit to warrant what they did therefore there were some of their actions especially in respect of some circumstances thereof which ordinary Pastors not so assisted may not doe as in this case when they baptized in private houses in the wildernesse alone and not in the face of a Congregation c. and therefore if in some few cases some doe think they did not baptize into a particular Church yet if their ordinary practice were otherwise we ought to imitate the ordinary not some extraordinary cases and thus the sinews and force of the consideration remains strong notwithstanding this word of ordinary dispensation and that this was our meaning was not hard to discern by the Scriptures cited in the answer to prove the seales are given unto the Church in ordinary dispensation amongst which Acts 2. 41 42 47. containing the Apostles first practice in this kinde are expressed and Mr. Ball took notice thereof as appears by his own reference to the same afterwards though in his printed Reply those quotations bee wholly left out 2 Let us consider whether the Apostles ordinarily did not baptize into particular Churches and this may be proved from the stories of their ordinary practice First it will be easily granted that the Apostles did gather disciples into particular visible Churches but there is no other time or season of doing it can be shewed in all the stories of their Acts yea sometimes they were so suddenly called away or enforced away by persecution after they had converted disciples that it is very improbable if not impossible they should do it at all but when they converted and baptized them as Acts 16 40. 17. 5. c. But to come more particularly unto the story it self the Apostles first and exemplary practiâ—â— being the best interpreter of their commission and of their ordinary proceeding therein the first converts which the Apostles baptized after the visible kingdom of Christ was set up were those in that famous place Acts 2. 41. concerning whom observe first that the Apostle Peter not onely preached unto them repentance and faith in the name of Christ with promise of remission of sins and that they should be baptized but according to that commission Mat. 28. with many other words he exhorted them saying Save your selves from this untoward generation being the very scope of his exhortation and this implies a gathering of themselves to the fellowship of the
baptize before there can bee a Church to call a Minister For a company of unbaptized men cannot choose a Minister to baptize them Answ Wee see here still how unawares the truth of this proposition and of the position it selfe breaketh forth for the proposition it is fully yeelded and is most plain in the place alluded to Acts 14. Vers 23. And the position is yeelded also for if the Apostles admitted beleevers into all those Churches in the first constitution of them by baptisme which is the very truth wee contend for and was formerly denyed and these Churches were such as chose Elders and therefore were particular Churches and so the cause is fully yeelded Reply A company of converts unbaptized ought to desire baptisme but they have no power to elect one amongst themselves to dispense the seales unto the rest c. It can never bee shewed in Scripture that any society of unbaptized did first choose from among themselves a Pastour or Teacher by whom they might bee baptized you cannot produce one example or other proofe in Scripture of one man teaching the Gospel ministerially but hee was baptized and a member of a true Church or of a society who made choyce of a Pastor or Teacher but they were baptized persons Answ 1 If all this were granted that when Churches were gathered by Apostles and extraordinary officers out of persons unbaptized they were first baptized into Church fellowship before they chose Officers and so long as the Apostles remained enjoyed from them other ordinances as Act. 2. and so had no Officers chosen by themselves but by Christ immediatly for them yet as when the Apostles left them they must choose Officers if they will enjoy ordinances So when there is no such Apostles nor Evangelists nor no need of baptisme as is usually the cause of Christians arising out of popery in this case wee say such Churches can partake of no ordinances without they choose officers and yet this varyeth not from the Scripture patterne neither But onely so farre as the state of those beleevers differ when Paul found about twelve beleevers at Ephesus who were baptized by John the Baptist Act. 19. 1. c. If these were by the Apostle set into a constituted Church as is probable being called on further to the knowledge of Christ and his will and wayes there was no need of baptizing them againe with water but onely with the holy Ghost as the Apostles were at Pentecost Act. 1. 5. with 2. 1. 2. and yet no varying from the rule in so doing and the like is our case now 2. If this bee so as here you urge then those former assertions must needs fall to the ground as That every society in covenant with God is the true Church of God page 23. and that it is simply necessary to the being of a Church that it hee layd upon Christ the foundation which being done the remaining of what is forbidden or want of what is commanded cannot put the society from the right and title of a Church If these were so a company of unbaptized persons may bee a Church being in Covenant with God and layd on Christ the foundation though they want baptisme 3. Though no such example of unbaptized persons choosing a Pastour among themselves can bee shewed when there was no need thereof Apostles being at hand to baptize them yet why in absence of Apostles c. might they not choose some other baptized Christian who comming into some farre remote country of Infidels is a meanes of their conversion wee see nothing to hinder it would bee hard for any to shew an example of Presbyters holding a Synod or ordaining of Elders without Apostles or some extraordinary officer yet we suppose you make no doubt of such things 4 If an example of one unbaptized that preached baptized Ministerially would satisfie the example of Iohn the Baptist might answer your demand for whether hee baptized himselfe or were baptized by some other at first an unbaptized person did baptize but wee see no need of such an example Scripture grounds are sufficient to guide us in these cases bee they rules examples or good consequences deduced from them and wee reason thus a Church of beleevers professing Christ have liberty from Christ to choose their Officers But a company of unbaptized men professing the entire faith in a combined society is a true Church and therefore may choose their officers Reply The third proposition That the power of calling Ministers is given by Christ unto the Church must also rightly be understood by the Church must not be understood the faithfull alone but their guids and Officers with them who are to goe before them and to governe and direct them in their choyce neither can wee say two or three beleevers linked in a society is such a Church to whom the call of Ministers do belong but that right was given by Christ to such Churches as were gathered by the Apostles Answ The first Limitation of this proposition wee passe over as being spoken to in the former to this wee answer that when a Church have guides wee grant they are to governe them therein but not to limit them whom to choose but when the Church have no such guides as by death and other wayes it may fall out shall they then lose their right of choosing if so let it be shewed to whom the right falls They may take what counsell and helpe from others they want but the choyce is onely in them and therefore this limitation is needlesse For the number of two or three wee contend not but such Churches as the Apostles gathered were particular Congregations and therefore the right is in such bee they more or fewer When Bellarmine saith that our Ministers intruded themselves into Churches no saith Dr. Field for the people elected them which they might lawfully doe and separate from wicked Ministers which hee proves by the testimony of Cyprian writing to the Bishops of Spaine not to communicate with Basilides and Martialis who fell to Idolatry in times of persecution Quando ipsa plebs potestatem habet c. Also from Ocham who saith Si Papa maxime celebres Episcopi incidunt in haeresin ad Catholicos devoluta est potestas omnis judicandi to which hee addes this reason either they must separate from them and choose others or consent to their impieties Field lib. 3. cap. 39. What followeth in this place being little to this point and for the most part not scrupled by us and what is not acknowledged by us wee shall have a fitter occasion to speake to it therefore here wee passe it over Reply Proposi 4. That all those who desire seales are bound to joyne themselves in Church fellowship that so they may call a Minister to dispense the seales unto them will not follow from the former rightly understood for they must partake of the seales before they can joyne themselves together in Church estate Answ
them doth Christ designe but whom the Church freely choose and therefore that is no diminution of their power that they must choose ministerially and whom Christ so designes The case is alike in all other Ordinances dispensed Examination is immediately from Christ by his institution the person to be censured is designed or described by Christ a notorious or obstinate sinner the Church passe this sentence onely Ministerially and yet puts forth a great power of the Lord Jesus Christ in applying the sentence to this or that person and so here and therefore it is strange to us that any should say they depute this Officer neither vertually nor formally when as the act which they put forth which is the outward call of the Officer must needs come from a power formally in the Church to doe the same as well as when the Church or Officers censure an offender c. Reply The consent of the people is requisite in the election of Pastors and Teachers we grant the direction of the Elders going before or along with them Acts 1. Peter declared what an one should be taken c. Acts 6. Deacons were chosen by the consent of the Church c. but in this election the people did first choose when most commonly the Apostles instructed the people and went before them in the electon and they consented Act. 14. 23. The Apostles by consent choose c. Answ This restriction of the peoples power to an after consent at least ordinarily will not hold if the evident light of Acts 6. could not be denyed and the other places were more obscure why should not that place with its light cleare the rest but that in Act. 1. is as evident Peter proves the need of such a choice to be made shews it must bee one that had so long conversed with Christ to witnesse such things and further hee doth not lead them there might be twenty such but they choose two as a preparative act to Apostleship Vers 23. and who were they but such as they speake unto viz. the Disciples Vers 15. whom he cals Men and Brethren Vers 16. so Act. 14. 23. lifting up of hands is the signe of election not of an after consent Lastly by this Doctrine how shall the Church come by Officers when shee hath none to goe before her in choosing for her must shee loose her right or take whom others will choose for her and impose upon her Reply In the primitive times after the Apostles one Church might elect a Pastor for another c. Answ 1 If by way of counsell one Church shall propound and advise another to choose such leaving them free to take or refuse this is lawfull in case but otherwise it is a plaine usurpation and we must leave Scripture rules and patterns to justifie it 2 Wee grant in a safe sense there may be Communis electio whereby a fit man is propounded by Churches or Ministers to be chosen by another people and thus the Philadelphians might elect a fit Pastor for the Church at Antioch as Ignatius exhots with sundry like instances in the first times after the Apostles and this wee deny not may lawfully bee now But this is nothing to that electio singularis whereby a people choose one to be their Minister of which we speake for it is evident from the Testimony of Cyprian oft alledged that it is in the power of the people to choose worthy Ministers and reject the unworthy and Ambrose thinkes that he is worthily thought to bee elected divino judicio whom all the people desire Ambros lib. 10. Ep. 82. It is very true that as the times grew worse the elections were oft disturbed sometimes by the Clergy choosing without the people of which Athanasius complaines sometimes by the peoples carrying it tumultuously sometime the Emperors interposing But this and like corruptions cannot forfeit the liberty of the Church which Christ hath given it and therefore hee that was no great friend to the peoples liberties yet ingenuously saith that although the people is Bellua multorum capitum and most apt to be tumultuous yet this is not innated to a beleeving people qui non minus nunc quam olim gravis esset in electionibus ac publicae utilitatis studiosissima Spalta de Rep. Eccles Lib. 3. Cap. 3. Reply If here it be questioned whether your election of the people be essentiall to the calling of a Minister wee answer First A thing is essentiall two wayes either as absolutely necessary so as the thing can have no existence without it or necessary to the integrity of a thing so that it is maymed without it Againe the people be either few in number and simple unable to judge of the sufficiency of a Minister or they be more in number increased in wisedome sound in faith and able to discerne of things that differ In the first sense the election of the people is not necessary or essentiall in the second his calling in that respect is maymed Answ It is to bee noted that here wee dispute of the outward calling of Church-Officers now the very essence of any outward calling doth lye in the right and power of them that elect If all the Countries of England should elect or call a Lord Major for London bee they never so many and wise it is a meere nullity and why Because the right of election is not in them but if the Citizens in whom the right lyes doe elect though weakly hee hath the true essence of the call if others electing a Major the City will receive him submit to him and so give their consent hee may bee said to have the substance of that call though not an orderly and lawfull election and so maymed so it is here Secondly if in our election of the people being the Scripture way of election the proper right and power bee seated by Christ in the Church unto whom they are to minister then it must needs follow that the very essence of a Ministers call stands in their election or at least in their after consent and subjection to his Ministery in which case wee grant though the calling be maymed yet it hath the substance of a true calling But if the people will not receive such as are imposed upon them hee hath no call at all but usurpes the same and it is a meer nullity And therefore it concernes Churches the more to consider what they doe in receiving and submitting to such unworthy Ministers as are oft imposed upon them but if the right and power of electing Ministers bee in any other Persons let it be shewed from the Scriptures for we are not much moved in such cases with the corrupt customes of after-times And this also shewes what kinde of call such men have that are ordained by Prelates at large without any election at all if they be Ministers to the Catholike Church then the Catholike Church is bound to receive them and submit to their Office but
saints and al this Word they gladly received before they were baptized 2 When the holy Ghost vers 41. declareth their baptizing he records withall their adding to them the latter being an exegesis of the former and that the same day as being performed at the same time and indeed when a convert publickly professeth his faith in Christ is it not as easily done to receive him to a particular visible Church as into the Catholick before Baptism but first to baptize them and then the same day to add or joyn them to the Church is altogether unprobable And that this adding was to a particular Church is sufficiently proved before The next place you may note is Acts 5. 14. where the Holy Ghost omitting the baptizing of those beleevers yet speaks of their adding to the Lord as if the one implyed the other and that their adding to the Lord was by their joyning to the Church is evident by the opposition between verse 13 14 Of the rest durst no man joyn himself to them but beleevers were the more added to the Lord. 3 In the conversion of Samaria although so great a work is declared in so few words in one verse Act. 8 12. yet the text puts a manifest distinction of Philips doctrine between the things of the Kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ which plainly enough sheweth that they taught the observing of the order of the Kingdom of Christ as well as the Doctrine of the name of Christ the object of saving faith And this they received by faith and professed before they were baptized Now the first and most famous examples of the Apostles perswading that so they practised why should we doubt of their like practice in other examples when nothing is said that contradicteth the same as Acts 10. in the baptizing of Cornelius his house where so many were met and the Holy Ghost fell on all why should we think the Apostle Peter baptized them and left them out of the order of Christ wherein they should worship him and be edified in the faith If we doubt of it because the Scripture is silent therein we may as well question whether those beleevers Acts 4. 4. 9. 35. vers 42. whether any of these confessed their faith or were baptized for nothing is said thereof So likewise Acts 11. where we read of many beleeving turning to the Lord vers 21. of the adding others to the Lord vers 24. but nothing of their confession of faith or baptism and yet they are called a Church whereby it appears that the holy Ghost sometime expresseth their baptism without joyning to the Church and sometimes joyning without baptism and sometime he expresseth both Acts 2. 41. And therefore hence we may conclude the like of the case of Lydia and the Jaylor considering the former practice of the Apostles and that the Apostle speaks so expresly of a Church at Philippi in the beginning of the Gospel Phil. 4. at which time we have no more conversions expressed but of those two families at least they were the most eminent fruits of Pauls Ministery at that time and it is very probable the Church was gathered in Lydia's house seeing Paul going out of prison to her house he is said to see the Brethren and comfort them so departing verse 40. Besides why might not the Apostle baptize them into that particular visible Church in such a case as well as into the Catholick or all Churches as some say they professing subjection to Christ in every ordinance of his with reference to that Church he had there constituted The fulnesse of power in the Apostles might doe greater matters without breach of order though no rule for us so to do neither is it strange from the practice of those times to begin a Church in a family seeing the Apostle speaks of Churches in three severall families Rom. 16. 5. Col. 4. 15. Phil. 2. which though many understand to be called Churches in regard of the godlinesse of those families yet iâ— we consider First how many eminent Saints the Apostle salutes who no doubt â—ad godly families not so much as naming their housholds much lesse giving them such a title but onely to these three named Secondly how distinct his salutations are first the Governors and then the Church in their house Thirdly that the Apostle doth not onely send his salutations to the Church in the house of Aquila and Priscilla Rom. 16. 5. but also keeping the name of a Church he sends salutations from that Church to the Church of Corinth 1 Cor. 16. 19. All which doe strongly argue there is more in it then that they were godly families and therefore may perswade us that there were indeed constituted Churches in those Families though other Christians also might joyn with them Thus having cleared our meaning and the consideration it self there will remain very few extraordinary cases if any of whom it can be proved they were not joyned to some particular Church when baptized as that of the Eunuch which as it was done by an extraordinary immediate call of Philip so to doe so also there was a speciall reason thereof the Lord intending thereby rather by him to send the Gospel into Ethiopia then to retain him in any other place to joyn with his Church And the Baptism of Paul who as without the Ministery of the Word he was converted by the immediate voice of Christ so he was baptized by the immediate call of Ananias so to do Now let us proceed to consider what further is replyed Reply The seals Baptism and the Lords-supper are given to the Church not onely in ordinary but also extraordinary dispensation True Baptism is not without the Church but in it an ordinance given to it The Sacraments are the seales of the Covenant to the faithfull which is the form of the Church tokens and pledges of our spirituall admittance into the Lords family Hence it is inferred that if the seales in extraordinary dispensation were given to the Church and yet to members of no particular Church then also in ordinary dispensation it may be so Answ 1 It will not follow for first if the Apostle in extraordinary cases baptized privately will it follow that in ordinary dispensation it may be so Secondly if because the Ministery be given to the Church and extraordinary Officers were not limited to particular Churches will it therefore follow that in ordinary dispensations Ministers ought not to be given onely to particular churches Thirdly as we have oft said that seals belong de jure to all beleevers as such as members of the Catholick church they being given unto it firstly as to its object and end and all that are truly baptized are baptized into it and thus never out of it as being tokens of our spirituall admittance into the Lords family both in ordinary and extraordinary dispensation but doth it hence follow that actuall fruition of the seales of which the question is stated
first institution that it should bee dispensed to none but members of a Congregationall assembly Answ It is freely granted First That baptisme is a priviledge of the Church Secondly that such as professe the faith and have received the Holy Ghost are members of the Church if by Church bee meant the Church mysticall considered as visible though not alwayes political Thirdly that these may receive baptisme by such as have power to baptize them but immediately to baptize them none had power but by an extraordinary call of God so to doe as hath bin formerly shewed But it wil not hence follow that ordinary officers have such a power wanting such extraordinary call because the members of the Church Catholicke having right unto the seales yet the immediate fruition of them they must have by ordinary officers in a politicall body the onely subject according to order of all such institutions otherwise we must admit private baptismes if the extraordinary examples of the Apostles be pressed for our patterne Reply Then the Apostles in dispensing seales walked by rules of Scripture and grounds common to us and then the difficulty remaining is onely this Whether a Pastour may dispense seales to such as have right to them and do orderly desire them though hee be not yet a set member of a Congregation Answ Wee grant the Apostles ordinarily and generally baptized upon common grounds but still when they did so they received them into some particular Church and so baptized them and in the like orderly way any pastour may doe the same Secondly we answer things may bee done sano sensu upon common and morall grounds and yet may not be done by others upon the same grounds To give one instance in stead of many the Apostles preached the Gospel to gather in the elect of God and to edifie the Church c. and Ministers upon the same common grounds must now preach the Gospel also yet in that the Apostles on those grounds preached to all Nations this doth not warrant Ministers now to do the like so here though we baptize beleevers as they did yet wee may not do it to all in all cases as they did And therefore the rule holds onely when all circumstances are alike as well as the Common grounds Reply Secondly In the instance given it is not probable that baptisme was evermore administred by the Apostles or Evangelists For before the death of Christ the Disciples baptized when they were neither Apostles nor Evangelists properly After the death of Christ c. If Philip Ananias and others might baptize such as were no members of particular Congregations then may ordinary Pastours doe the like Answ You mistake here in the force of our answer as hath beene shewed in the first consideration to which this objection and answer belong For wee doe not make all the Acts of the Apostles and Evangelists extraordinary but generally orderly in the way wee professe Secondly wee answer to the particulars not to wrastle with the Ghosts of humane imaginations and conjectures whether any besides the Apostles baptized the 3000. Act. 2. As for Philip and Ananias if they baptized did they baptize as private men or as Church Officers If the second what Officers were they ordinary or extraordinary Wee thinke it will not bee thought they were ordinary who were honoured with such extraordinary worke But in what Office soever they were those particular actions in baptizing the Eunuch and Paul were done by an immediate call of God as is evident in the story Reply Thirdly It is very improbable that the persons baptized were in Church State or Order If they were members of the Jewish Church not yet dissolved this is not to the purpose for men have not right to baptisme because members of the Jewish Church but because Disciples and as you say joyned together in Covenant c. Answ Wee grant that since the visible kingdome of Christ was set up in visible Christian Churches the seales belong properly and ordinarily to the members of Christian Churches not Jewish yet wee may affirme that if in any speciall case a beleever was baptized by any that had a speciall call thereto where there was no Christian Church present actually to joyne unto yet being a member of the Jewish Church not yet dissolved the case does not so much vary from the set Order of Christ in those times and that is all wee intend Reply If the Eunuch and Centurion were proselytes and of the Jewish Church the Samaritans whom Philip baptized were not so and that any Gentiles or the Jaylour were set members of a Christian assembly is very strange c. Answ This is fully answered before in the first consideration and that which is according to the rule and mind of Christ and the first and common practise of the Apostles Act. 2. to joyne men to the Church when they baptized them need not seeme strange Reply In the Apostles practise two things are to bee considered First the circumstance of the action Secondly the substance or quality of the Act. In some circumstances the baptizing of some of these might bee extraordinary but the substance and quality of the action was grounded upon â—ules perpetuall and common to us and them That is done in an extraordinary way c. Answ 1 Wee suppose amongst such Circumstances you will reckon that for one that the Eunuch was baptized alone in the Wildernesse not in any visible assembly of Saints Wherein ordinary Pastors may not imitate that Act and this comes not farre short of what wee say for the chiefe proof that they were not received into a particular Church lies in their absence from such an assembly and if they might bee admitted to the Catholick Church without the presence of any Christian but him that baptized them why not into a particular Church as well 2 The large discourse about the Apostles extraordinary power and doing things upon common grounds is so oft said for substance and answered before that it were vaine to trouble the Reader againe with the same thing Reply Secondly an argument followes necessarily from a particular example to a generall when the proofe of one particular to another is made by force of the similitude common to the whole kind under which those particulars are contained Now in this matter wee speake of no reason can bee named why wee should thinke it lawfull for the Apostles to baptize such as were no set members and the same should be unlawfull in all cases for Pastors of particular Congregations Answ Wee deny that the Apostles did so ordinarily and therefore your Argument doth not hold if it bee built upon the common practise but if it be built upon some few speciall cases we retort the Argument thus That which the Apostles did ordinarily upon common grounds that Pastors ought to doe but ordinarily they baptized Disciples admitting them first into particular Churches therefore in the third reason wee grant the conclusion of it