Christ hath set in the church and not to give it up to many no more then to one If testimonies were needfull we might produce Zanchi Zwinglius Parker Baines and others who are fully with us in this doctrine of a particular church yea Dr. Downam himself confesseth that the most of the churches in the time of the Apostle Paul did not exceed the proportion of a populous congregation and this confession puts us in minde of a witty passage of his Refuter or his Epistoler who against the Bishops maintains the doctrine of congregationall churches with us with whose expressions for the recreation of our selves and the Reader we will conclude The Papist saith he he tels us just as the Organs goe at Rome that the extent of a Bishops jurisdiction is not limited but by the Popes appointment his power of it self indifferently reaching over all the world Our Prelatists would perswade us to the tune of Canterbury that neither church nor Bishop hath his bounds determined by the Pope nor yet by Christ in the Scriptures but left to the pleasure of Princes to be cast into one mould with the Civill State Now the plain Christian finding nothing but humane uncertainties in either of these devises be contenteth himself with plain song and knowing that Christ hath appointed Christians to gather themselves into such Societies as may assemble themselves together for the worship of God and that unto such he hath given their peculiar Pastors he I say in his simplicity calleth these Assemblies the Churches of Christ and these Pastors his Bishops Thus much concerning the nature of a particular church and that it is instituted in the Gospel Now in the second place wee are to shew how church government and Ordinances are given to it as to the proper subject of the same Where we shall propound these Theses for explication of our selves First Though Pastourship considered as an office in relation to a people to feed them anthoritatively be one of these Ordinances given to a particular church Yet Christ hath given it for the gathering in of his elect unto the church and therfore wee grant some acts of the Ministery viz. the preaching of the Word is to be extended beyond the bounds of the church Secondly Seales and other Priviledges although de jure and remotely they belong to the catholique church or the number of beleevers yet de facto and nextly they belong properly to this Subject which wee speake of as wee hope to make good Thirdly They are not so appropriated to such congregations onely as to exclude the members of those congregations which are undeâ— the government of a common Presbytery or other formes of government for wee have a brotherly esteeme of such congregaâ—ions notwithstanding that tertium quoddam separabile of government as Mr. Baines cals it being a thing that commeth to a church now constituted and may be absent the church remaining a Church Fourthly although it be said by some Divines that as faith is the internall form of the church so profession of faith is the outward form and that therefore bare profession of saith makes a member of the visible church yet this must be understood according to the interpretations of some of them who so speak for there is a double profession of faith Personall which is acted severally by particular persons and common which is acted conjointly in and with a Society The first makes a man of the catholick number of visible Saints and so fit matter for politicall church-society the other makes a man of the politicall church formally and compleatly and in this latter sense profession of faith is the externall form of a visible church but not in the other Now that in and to this subject so professing the seals and other ordinances belong may be proved thus Argum. 1. First the seals and other Church-ordinances must either belong to the Catholick church as such or to the particular Church but these cannot belong to the Catholick in actuall dispensation whereof we now speak Ergo. For that Church which is uncapable of actuall dispensation of seales censures c. is uncapable of the participation thereof in an orderly and ordinary way But the Catholick number of visible beleevers as Catholick and out of particular Societies are not capable of dispensing the same Ergo. The Proposition is evident for it cannot be shewed that any Church in the New Testament was ever capable of participating in seals that was not capable of dispensing them at least not having a next power to elect Officers to do it The Assumption is evident from what hath been proved that it is no politicall Body the sole subject of Church administrations neither in the whole nor in the parts as existing out of Congregations Argum. 2. If the members of the Catholick church be bound to joyn into particular Societies that they may partake of seals c. then the seals are not to be administred immediatly to them for then they should have the end without the means But they are bound to joyn in such Societies for that end for otherwise there is no necessity of erecting any particular Churches in the world and so all the glory of Christ in this respect should be laid in the dust and these particular temples destroyed and thus a door of liberty is opened to many to live loosely without the care and watch and communion of any particular Church in the world Argum. 3. If the seals are to be administred immediately to beleevers or professing beleevers as such then they may be administred privately to any one where-ever he be found but that were very irregular and against the common doctrine of Protestant Divines who give large testimony against private Baptism or of the Lords supper neither doe we see any weight in the arguments of the Papists or Anabaptists alledged for the contrary Argum. 4. Lest we seem to stand alone in this controversies let the arguments produced by Didoclavius and him that writes concerning Perth Assembly against private Baptisms be considered and it will be found that most of them doe strongly conclude against administration thereof to any but Church-members Argum. 5. The learned Author Mr. Ball in this his dispute against our Conclusion yet in his Discourse let fall sundâ—y things that confirm it as when he describes the Catholick Church to be the Society of men professing the faith of Christ divided into many particular Churches Whence we argue if the Catholick church existeth onely in these particular Churches the seales must onely be given to them and the members thereof also That Baptism is a solemn admission into the Church of Christ and must of necessity be administred in a particular Society Whence three things will follow First that Baptism sometimes administred privately by the Apostles is not an ordinary pattern Secondly that Baptism is not to be administred to beleevers as such immediatly if of necessity it must be administred in a
a Catholick church representative in Act. 15. If it were such then in respect of the Apostles the catholick Officers onely or in respect of the body of the Assembly also but in neither respects Ergo. 1 Not the first for then as was said any one Apostle may make a representative Catholick church having the whole power as much as all of them together for though they would meet oft to consult and assist one another yet not for defect of power in any one and we think our brethren here will not say it was in respect of the Apostles alone supposing here they acted rather as Elders with the rest then out of their Apostolicall power 2 Not in respect of the whole Assembly for then that assembly must consist of the messengers of all the particular Churches and the decrees should have been directed to all the Churches but neither of these can appear For first wee read of no other messengers but those from Antioch and how to evince more then the Scriptures reveal is hard Secondly if we look back and consider how far the Gospel was spread before this assembly it will appear very strange and absurd to suppose such a thing for Paul had been in Arabia before ever he came to Ierusalem Gal. 1. 17. and when he and Barnabas were sent out from Antioch Acts 13. they went to severall Islands and Countreys as Cyprus Paphos Salamis c. besides what other places scattered Christians and Apostles had preached in now there is no probability of messengers sent from all these places Secondly the decrees were expresly directed to the Gentiles beleeving in Antioch Syria and Cilicia where it seems this question had troubled the minds of the Disciples Acts 15. 23 24. which was far short of the Catholick church neither is it proved that the Churches of Syria and Cilicia had any messengers there much lesse that all the Churches had their messengers Object But it is said they might have had their messengers there if they would and therefore they were bound to the decrees as of a generall Councell Answ It must first be proved that all Churches had lawfull summons to send their messengers to that Assembly before there can be laid any blame on them for neglecting the same or they be all tyed to the decrees of such an Assembly as a generall Councell which seems to us not so much as probable much lesse to be proved by any where the Scripture is so silent Arg. 2. Every politicall Body is constituted by the combination of all the members into a Society But Christ hath not instituted that the Catholick church should combine into a Society Ergo. Propos Proved because there can be no instances given of any free Society civill or sacred that was under policy but that it arose from combination How came Israel to be one Nationall church but by a National covenant and that before it had Officers or how comes any nationall provinciall classicall Church that are pleaded for to be such but by some such combination Why is this Church of this Classis not of another but by combination Secondly in a politicall body the whole hath power to order every part but this power among persons that are free is onely by combination Assump Proved first because Christ never instituted that which is impossible as this is for the Catholick visible Church in every age so to doe Secondly Christ ordained combination for communion in his Worship but this communion also is impossible to the Catholick church as one Ergo. Thirdly corrupt Churches are visible Churches but it is hard for us to beleeve or any to prove that Christ hath instituted such combination of all Churches Asian African European American corrupt and uncorrupt for prudent men may easily foresee the heavy consequents thereof Argum. 3. Every Politicall Church by the institution of Christ hath power to elect her own Pastor or Pastors over it But the Catholick visible Church hath not such power Ergo. Proposit Proved This all Scripture examples shew that every Church or flock of beleevers had her Pastor Act. 14. Tit. 1. Secondly according to our Brethrens principles if a particular Church may choose a Pastor much more the Catholick because all priviledges are primarily given to the Catholick church and what belongs to the part of a similar Body as a part that much more belongs to the whole Assump Proved first If the Catholick church may choose Pastors over it then they may make Apostles because Catholick Pastors over the Catholick Church Secondly the Reasons against an universall Bishop are strong here as that their office is not described in the Word nor their power able to reach all Churches If it be said that the Catholick church can choose her Pastors in the parts or particular Societies which are Pastors of the Catholick church though not Catholick Pastors of the Catholick church Answ If this be meant of the particular Churches choosing Pastors over themselves who are in some respects for the good of the whole as being partes partium and so partes totius then they come to our hand for thus it appears that there is no Catholick totum that is the subject of officers but in its parts But the question is Whether all particular Churches having the officers in them do make one political Body or Catholick church and so have power to choose Catholick Pastors Argum. 4. Christ Jesus instituted no such politicall Body as destroys Church policy But such a Catholick church politicall destroys policy Ergo. Assump Proved because it swallows up the power not onely of all Churches congregationall but all other forms of Churches by taking the power of excommunication from them for the power of excommunication is seated by Christ in that Church from which there can be justly no appeal for Matth. 18. the power of excommunication is seated in such a Church as whatsoever it binds on earth is bound in heaven by the highest Judge in the highest Court and from the sentence of this highest court and Judge how can there be any appeal But now supposing such a Catholick church having power of excommunication and that as the highest Church hence no inferior Church can binde on earth so as that the same is bound in heaven seeing appeales may be made from them to an higher power on earth Object If it be said that the sentence of an inferior Judge proceeding rightly as in an inferior Sanhedrin is ratified in heaven yet may we appeale from him Answ We deny that the sentence of every civill Court doth binde in heaven in the sense of our Saviour for every civil Court hath not this promise of binding and loosing the power of the Keys not belonging to the civill Magistrate Secondly suppose there were such a binding in civill Courts and appeals may be yet made from them yet this is because there is supposed a supreme Court in being to which the appeale may be prosecuted and there determined as
forth an act of his Office to those in an other church over whom he is no Officer wee see not but he may but then this act of power is not towards them as over his owne flocke for two things are cleare to us 1. That an Officer of one Church is no Officer over those of an other Church as not being his proper flocke for there being no Office of Pastour at large without power of Office and the power that a Pastour hath over others being by the election of those that chose him their Officer who thereby become his proper flocke hence he hath no power as an Officer over those of an other flock unlesse he should 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That such an officer may put forth acts of his office towards those that are not of his proper flock E. g. A Minister ex officio as a Pastor not barely as a gifted man only may preach for the gathering in of those that are out of the Church as well as for the edificaon of those that are within Ephe. 4. 11 12. and yet these are not his proper flock it is the office of every Pastour to preach the Gospel the meanes of converting and therefore not onely to intend but to attend the conversion of men especially in preaching to his owne Congregation for Christ hath sheep which are his flock to bee gathered into his fold which are not the Ministers proper flock and the Pastour is the Minister of Christ as well as the Pastour of his owne flock and therefore he is to intend their gathering in as well as the good of his owne flock Againe as he hath the Keys of Office by preaching the Gospel to open the Kingdome of heaven to beleevers so also he may ex officio shut it against impenitent sinners and unbeleevers that reject his Doctrine Matth. 16. 19. Matth. 10. 14. Jer. 1. 10. and yet these are not of his proper flocke Againe a Pastour may administer the Seales which is an act of Office to members of other Churches in his his owne Congregation if they desire it who yet are not his proper Flocke Lastly a Deacon of one Church may performe an act of his Office occasionally to those out of the Church or the poore of another Church yet be no Officer or Deacon of the other Church and so 't is here To illustrate this A Captaine of a Band of Souldiers is an Officer onely over his owne Band but it 's an act of his Office to subdue enemies and to bring in those that submit A Steward is an officer over his Masters family not over others yet it 's an act of his Office to provide for the intertainment of Strangers that come to his Lords table Thus far it is cleare But now whether a Minister may administer the Seales in another Congregation is not so evident yet wee will not deny but that occasionally being called thereunto by the desire of the Church hee may lawfully doe the same yet it 's no foundation of a stated Presbytery out of a particular Congregation for in all such acts the Church still keepes her power in her owne hands while the Minister hath no authority nor can put forth any act of his Ministery but at her desire and according to her owne necessity neither doth this make a Minister a Pastour of the universall Church for pastorall Office consists in taking charge of a people and having power of authority to exercise the same towards his Church But all that is said doth include neither of these nor doth it follow that because they may set up a Presbytery over themselves in the same Church that therefore they may combine set up a Presbytery of many Churches the first being their duty injoyned by Christ not the other for it is necessary for them to have such amongst them as may ordinarily feed teach watch over them and rule them the end of a Ministers Office but it 's not necessary so to submit to others who may finde worke enough to feed and rule their owne and therefore looke as it is not in the power of many Congregations to joyne together to set one Pastour over them successively to feed them for so they make a Pluralist and the Bramble the King of trees nor yet in their power to set up as in the first ambitious time a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with power over all singly but under all joyntly so neither is it in their power to set up many Pastours who by their plurality of votes may wholly drowne that power of their owne Nor lastly doth it follow that if they may desire the benefit and exercise of an others Office occasionally that they may or should doe it constantly no more then because they may desire sundry Ministers to preach amongst them every Sabbath for a time in the want of Officers that therefore they should content themselves to live altogether without any of their owne Now for application of these things to the assumption of our argument Although a Pastour in the sense explained may put forth acts of Office in another Congregation or to others in his owne Congregation yet will it hence follow that a Minister may administer Seales to such as are of no Congregation which is now the question Reply Now to remove those 2013 objections of Mr. Ball which onely reach the question in hand whereof the first is Reply the 8. When ordinary Elders in the Primitive Church were to labour the comming of the Infidels to God these being converted were to bee baptized of the Elders ordinarily in the Cities though the number might bee so great as they could not well meet in one Congregation nor bee subject to the same Pastour and therefore either the Pastours must Baptize them being no members or they must remaine without Baptisme till they grow into a body and choose Ministers to Baptize them which is contrary to all precedents in Scripture Answ There is a third way which is passed over that will ease the difficulty viz. the Pastours might baptize them unto their owne Congregations so long as the numbers did not exceed beyond edification and then dividing their numbers might make divers Churches of one and they call Pastours over them and so wee see Act. 2. they added 3000. and after more till they were scattered and when peace was restored Act. 9. the Churches were not onely edified but multiplied Verse 3. and so the consequence of your 9. Reply is also taken away Reply There is no precept or example in Scripture warrants the admitting of set members of one Congregation to the Seales in another more then the admitting of approved Christians that are not set members The Pastour is no more the Pastour of the one then of the other neither of them set members and both of them may bee members for the time being Answ Wee have before shewed in the first consideration that which warrants the dispensing of the Seales to confederating
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
for the good of the Church but if the question bee of the application of an Office and the power of it to such and such persons in the Church wee would demand whether Christ doth this to such a Pastour and Teacher immediatly or mediatly if immediatly then their call is not in this different from Apostles which Paul expresly distinguisheth Gal. 1. 1. Paul was an Apostle not of man nor by man but of God and by Jesus Christ false Teachers are of man and by man True Pastors as Thomas Iohn c. are of God by man and if Christ communicate this Office and the authority annexed unto it mediatly by man not immediatly the question is Who is the subject of this power to call and so to apply this office in the name of Christ to this or that person John Thomas c. Wee hold this fraternall ministeriall power under Christ is in the Church and so farre wee shall defend this position and where ever it be else placed it will be subject to all the absurdities that are imputed to us To the sentence of Parker we answer that the misinterpreting one word of his sentence doth pervert his whole meaning his words are Pro dono conditionali ut Rectoribus communicetur i. e. that the Church might not communicate that power to Officers nor keepe it in her owne hand Or that it might bee communicated from Christ by the Church And this will appeare his meaning and it agrees with that position hee holds so strongly that the Church is the first subject of the Keys Reply After the Churches were established it tooke not effect for it is no where found in Scripture that Christ first committed this power to the Apostles and after to the community the Ministers and guides were immediately of Jesus Christ from whom immediately they derive their power and authority by whom they are set over their charge in whose name they execute their Office c. Yea Pastorship is the gift of Christ as well as Apostleship and every Pastor is not immediately called but the office and order of Pastors the calling authority and jurisdiction is immediately from Christ not from the Church Answ First the power of the Keyes in a right sense given to the Church tooke effect from the beginning in Christs institution and in the frequent practice of the Church as is shewed before and therefore this is needlesse to bee proved that it tooke effect after Secondly that Ministers and guides were immediately from Christ if you meane ordinary officers and that every Pastour is not immediately called seemes to be a contradiction the places Act. 28. 8. Ephes 4. 8. c. doe not prove that all Officers are immedately from Christ though they bee set in the Church by Christ and over the Church by the Holy Ghost c. This the Lord can doe and doth doe by the meanes of his Church walking according to his rule and institution and therefore you must come at last home to our tenent as here you doe that Pastorship the office power jurisdiction c. annexed to it is immediately from Christ viz. by his institution in the Gospel but Pastors every one that receive this office hath it from Christ but by his Church calling them to the same and in the name of Christ applying it to them and thus far we agree with you Reply The Steward is appointed of the Master of the family alone and hath all his authority from him Every Embassador in the cause of his Embassage doth immediately depend upon him from whom he is sent but if the function order and authority of Pastors and Teachers bee immediately from Christ then it is not received from the Church as the immediate receptacle Answ Answ First though Pastors in respect of the exercise of their function dispense the Word and other Mysteries of Christ as from him immediately and so are fitly compared to Embassadors and Stewards yet in the call of the one and other to that work there is a plaine dissimilitude the one being called Mediately the other Immediately by their Masters and therefore in this case it proves nothing What doth this argument conclude if onely that the function and order is not from the Church as the first subject we readily grant it if the application of the office to such a person so farre as may bee done by an outward call it followes not at all for the function and office may bee from Christ and the application thereof by the Church Reply Thus Protestant Divines dispute against Papists if Bishops receive their power and authority of exercising immediately from Christ by Mandate Mission and commission from him then not from the Pope and so for Presbyters in regard of the Bishop Answ The reason and ground of that dispute is because the Pope claimes a plenitude of power from Peter whence all must see derived to all Bishops c. bee they never so orderly chosen and ordained in their owne esteeme and so indeed usurps the Prerogative of Christ the head of the Church The like usurpation â—â— its degree was in the Bishops over Presbyters But here the case is farre different the Church claming no such power but onely Ministeriall in the outward call of officers according to his direction and so the application of that office unto the persons which hath sufficient ground of Scripture from Christ and therefore we grant the conclusion viz. That they derive not their power from the people but from Christ by meanes of the Church Ministerially and instrumentally applying that office to them whereunto Christ hath annexed that power Lastly the like argument may be objected against any other subject of this power you can or will suppose even the Presbytery it selfe Reply It is usually objected that the Church cannot convey what she never had but the people may elect their Pastor Whereunto the answer is direct and plaine nothing can give that it had not formally or vertually unlesse it give it as an instrument ministring to one that hath it but so it may give what it never had nor is capable of A Steward may give all the offices in his Masters house as ministerially executing his Masters pleasure Answ This answer doth not satisfie for wee cannot put off our old principles of Reason that every instrument ministring to the principall cause doth Conferre vim ad effectum and so farre or in what sense it gives any thing to the effect in that sense and so farre it must needs have vertually or formally the same in itselfe If a Conduit convey water ministerially from the fountaine to the house it hath water in such a sense as it doth concurre to the effect and so the Church cannot give the Keys to the Officers as an instrument of Christ but it must be granted shee received them from Christ vertually to give them to the Officer Secondly for the instance if it bee meant of a Steward giving the offices to such
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
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