immediately flow from spirituall union and relation to Christ and his members but are dispensed by Christ to his people mediately and in such an order as he hath in wisdome ordained and this the nature of visible government and ordinances of Christ necessarily requires And hence it is that although the Church in its nature and essence and in respect of its spirituall union and relation to Christ and one another profession of the same faith c. have been always one and the same in all ages yet both the visible government and ordinances of Worship and also the instituted form and order of Church-societies hath been various according to the wisdome and will of Christ whereby it appears that the order government forms of visible Church-societies to which actuall enjoyment of visible ordinances doe belong cannot justly be deduced from the common nature of the Church Catholick or any respects of reason or logicall notions under which it may fall but onely this depends upon the will and pleasure of Christ who hath in all ages instituted the forms and orders of such Societies to whom the actual enjoyment of instituted ordinances was given And hence the argument for a nationall form of a Church to be in the New Testament as wel as in the Old drawn from the common nature essence prosession of faith c. of the Church in all ages falls flat to the ground for by the same reason it must then be in families onely now as it was about Abrahams time Propos 6. Hence it follows that the true state of this great dispute about a Catholick Church so far as tends to clear up to what Church the actuall administration of Church-government and all instituted Worship belongs doth not lye in the consideration of the common nature essence unity visibility or any other notions under which it may fall but the true state lyes here concerning the nature order form of such visible Societies as Christ Jesus by Divine institution in the Gospel hath reduced his visible members unto for the actuall and immediate enjoyment of all his instituted ordinances And therefore with due respect to the Godly-learned be it spoken we conceive many large disputes in this question fall short of the issue that is desired and intended for what if it be granted 1 That there is a Catholick visible Church which in some respects of reason as Mr. Ball saith is one that having partes visibiles is a totum visibile 2. That the visible Church is not onely a totum genericum in relation to all the particular Congregations as species specialissimae of a visible Church in generall which respect of reason in some sense we freely consent unto but also that it may fall under the notion of a totum integrale as some contend though we conceive in this notion they are so intangled in their own logicall principles as that they cannot get out without breaking them and flying to theologicall considerations yet we say what if that also be attained 3 Yea further what if this Catholick Church be in some respects of reason and order of nature also the first Church and particular Churches ortae 4 Yea further what if it were gained also by such disputes that the Keys and Officers Ordinances c. be given firstly to this Catholick Church as to the object and end We confesse we do not see that what our Brethren contend for is by all this obtained For first if the universall number of visible beleevers be one totum aggregatum yet it will bee hard to prove that these are one instituted and politicall Society that can enjoy visible communion together in visible Worship and government and yet more hard to prove that by the institution of Christ these all are to be actually governed as one totum Secondly what though the members of the Church Catholick be in order of time before particular Churches as being fit matter for them and constituting of them yet this proves not one politicall body before they combine but rather the contrary Thirdly be it so that this Catholick Church is the first Church to which Christ hath firstly given the Keys Ordinances Promises c. for which Christ firstly performed the Offices of King Priest and Prophet and what else soever can be said in this kinde yet all this may be in this respect that Christ looked at this Catholick Church firstly as the chief object and end for whose sake and good he ordained and gave all these things and this will not carry the cause for as the Church Catholick visible in this sense is the first Church in respect of the particulars so the invisible body of Christ is in nature and priority the first Church in respect of visible as visible for Christ no doubt firstly intends and gives all these things to the invisible Church as to the object and end of the same for whose good they are all ordained rather then for the Catholick visible Church which containes many hypocrites and reprobates within the verge of it But now if we speak of a subject of the Keys to which the actuall exercise and dispensation of Keys and instituted Ordinances belong who doe not see that in this sense the invisible Church quâ talis cannot be that instituted Society to which the Keys c. belong and by the same reason the Catholick visible Church quâ totum and quâ Catholick cannot be this instituted Society to which they are given It is a known rule in Reason that That which is first in intention is last in execution and so it is here first Christ propounds this end to himself to gather edifie perfect sanctifie save his Catholick Church Ephes 4. 11 12. 5. 26. and therefore institutes all ordinances as means to farther and attain this great design but in execution he may for all this give the Keys and ordinances in regard of the immediate exercise to any form of visible Societies that he shall be pleased to institute and it may be that will prove the least Society sooner then a greater And seeing our Brethren otherwise minded make much use of similies in this dispute we hope it will not be amisse for us to illustrate what we say by a similitude partly to make our conceivings the more plain to all whose edification we seek and partly to discover the invalidity of many discourses of this nature and because similia arguunt fidemque faciunt as he saith viz. so far as rightly applyed we will therefore propound it in way of argument The similitude is this genus humanum or mankinde in generall is the subject of Civill government in generall and of all the priviledges thereof as the object and the end and let the question be whether this Catholick number of all mankinde is the first subject of all power of Civill government and the priviledges thereof and if so whether such consequences will follow as our Brethren deduce from the unity visibility and priority of
not the English Churches out of the number and herein we deal no otherwise with them then with the members of our owne Churches Reply All possible care to keep the ordinances of God from contempt we allow and commend so you deny not Church priviledges to whom they are due nor the name of Churches to such as God hath blessed with meanes of grace and have râ—ceived the Tables and Seales and entred Covenant with God Your liberty to receive such satisfaction as is meet is not questioned nor whether you are to keep the bond of the spirit inviolable according to order but whether this be according to order to exclude from the Sacrament true visible Christians or known recommended Christians formerly members of visible Churches amongst us and their children and to put such difference between them and such as are in your Church order Answ 1 If the learned Author would hold to what here is granted we hope this controversie would soon be at an issue but it will appear after this order allowed binds onely in case of the Ministers to dispense Sacraments but Christians are left at a loose end in respect of combining themselves unto particular Churches according to the order of Christ which is the thing wee plead for 2 We have not denyed the name of Churches to such as are said to have plentifully the means of grace Tables Seales and Covenant 3 Concerning the stating of the question too much liberty is taken as in other cases for neither in the Position or in our Answer doe we limit the question to members in our Church order as here it is called but expresly extend the same to other Churches of Christ though through error or humane frailty defective in matters of order yea to the members of any true Church as in the Answer is said 2. Concerning such as come over and are for a time without Seales it is not because we refuse communion with them as being members of your Churches known or recommended Christians as you say For if any godly man remaining a member in any true Church with you or elswhere come so recommended or be well known to the Church we never under that notion refuse any but giving such other satisfaction as is meet shall readily receive them as we always professe and therefore we must still call for attendance to the state of this question in its right terms viz. whether the children of godly parents or themselves though of approved piety are to be admitted to the seales not being members of some particular Congregation or untill they be such CHAP. IV. Reply TO the first consideration If by the Church be understood the society of men professing the entire faith the seales are given to it as peculiar priviledges but if you understand a Congregationall assembly the seales were never appropriated to it Answ 1 Our meaning is plain in the second sense as may appear by the reasons alledged against any such universall Church as instituted and politicall wherein the seales are dispensed which reasons you answer not but grant there is no such Catholick Church in our sense pag. 21. And if no such Church wherein the seales are administred as we proved then the cause it self is yeelded and the seales must belong to particular Churches 2. Seeing the main hinge of this question turns upon this point to what Church the administration and participation of the seals belong wee shall a little further open our selves in this point And because we affect and study peace with truth we shall freely acknowledge First that as there is an invisible Church and Body of Christ consisting of all the elect effectually called throughout the world in all ages of it the whole family in heaven and earth so unto Jesus Christ all the visible beleevers and Churches of the world are as one body to him he governing protecting instructing all as his visible body Secondly we acknowledge a visible communion of all the true Churches of the Lord Jesus in all offices of brotherly love and in the holy things of Christ so far as may appear the Lord have ordained and commanded and by his Providence called them to exercise one with another Thirdly we grant that all true beleevers where-ever they bee have by faith in Christ a true right and interest unto Jesus Christ and all his benefits whatsoever he hath purchased for them but here we must first distinguish of these benefits of Christ whereof some are meerly spirituall inward and flowing immediately from Christ unto them and therefore peculiar to true beleevers as justification sanctification adoption accesse to God in prayer c. some are outward and tending to the help and furtherance of our spirituall communion with Christ being outward and visible meanes thereof and therefore are also extended to hypocrites being visible beleevers as the Ministery of the Word Seals Church-discipline c. And these cannot be dispensed by Christ immediately nor ordinarily but by means of a visible Church 2. We distinguish of right to these outward benefits of Christ which is either remote called jus ad rem or near and immediate called jus in râ— right to the enjoyment and fruition of it Now in the first sense we grant all visible beleevers have a right to seals c. But the immediate fruition of them they must have mediante Ecclesiâ visibili now here lyes the true state of the question Whether the Lord Jesus have ordained an universall visible Church in which and unto which by the Officers thereof all these outward visible priviledges and means of Grace are to be dispensed and immediately enjoyed of the faithfull or whether not the remote right but the immediate fruition and administration of all these ordinances by the institution of Christ be given to particular visible Churches and surely to whom one of these is given all are given For there is the same nature reason and use of all Ministry of the Word Seals Discipline all are outward ordinances priviledges means of Grace belonging to the visible Church where Christ hath given one he hath given all But we must confesse however you call this A new Church way it is new to us to read so much of late of such a Catholick Church to which administration of Seals Censures c. belong We are yet of the opinion of Baynes Parker and Cartwright c. that have against Papists and Prelates maintained that in the new Testament there is no instituted Catholick Nationall or Provinciall Church but onely the Church of a particular Congregation both for the reasons alledged in our Answer as also for the impossibility thereof in the days of the New Testament when the Lord Jesus sent his Apostles into all the world therefore impossible both in regard of distance of place and variety of language almost ever to meet in one so much as by representation and that not onely by accident as may befall a particular Church by sickness persecution c.
the Catholich Church Now we reduce what we intend into an Argument thus If all that can be said from Scripture and Reason concerning the unity visibility and priority of the Catholick Church may as truly be affirmed upon like grounds of the Catholick body of mankinde then à pâ—ri it will follow that there is no more one Catholick visible instituted totum that is the first subject of Church power and priviledges in the actuall exercise and enjoyment of the same then that there is such a Catholick body of mankinde that is the first subject oâ— Civill power c. and that actually doth or ought to govern and be governed as one Catholick body in communion but it will appear from Scripture and Reason that the same things may be said of mankind that can be said of the other Ergo And it is proved per partes thus 1 For the unity are not all mankinde oft in Scripture called the world Joh. 3. 16 So God loved the world that is mankinde in the world which is one So frequently all mankinde is called man Gen. 6. 5 6 7. I will not strive with man c. yea it is one kingdom Psal 145. 11 12 13. which if we view the whole Psalm must be understood of the generall government of Gods providence over all the world and especially mankinde therein 1 Chron. 29. 11 12. c. so that all is one kingdom Acts 17. 26. God hath made of one blood all Nations all are one blood all have their bounds set by God c. that they might seek him and feel after him and as it is said for one Catholick Church because it hath one Lord one Faith one Baptism one Spirit and are bound to love and pray one for the other c. so there is a like unity here for the whole number of mankinde hath one Lord and King over all God who is King over all the earth called an head over all 1 Chron. 29. 11. yea Jesus Christ is Lord of Lords and King of Kings and head over all to the Church Ephes 1. 22. All have one Law the Morall Law the common rule of equity and righteousness whereby they are bound to walk towards God and one another and this writ in the hearts of all they have all one spirit of reason disposing them to society and mutuall offices of love one faculty of speaking to fit them for communion one end to feel after God Act. 17. and seek ye good of the whole kinde all ought to love one another desire and seek the welfare of the whole and of one another Esay 58. 7. yea the Lord as a common head by the working of his common Providence and out of his love of mankinde hath a common and constant influence into all giving not onely life and breath and all good things Acts 17. but also all gifts of wisdom art skill for Government c. to Kings Judges Fathers Masters and all Officers of Civill government for the good of the whole and what ever else may be said to prove the Catholick Church Onâ— may here be applyed And as for principles of reason it is easie to conceive that all mankinde will fall either under the notion of one genus homo whereof the individua are species specialissimae or in another respect all persons all Families Cities Kingdomes may in a sense make one totum integrale or aggregatum Secondly it is as evident that all this number of mankinde are one visibile totum by the arguments used for the visible Catholick Church for that which hath visible parts is a visible totum iâ— holds here as well as in the other case Yea if the Catholick Church be one visible Body because it hath organs and visible Officers in it it will hold here for all mankinde is but one Army of the Lord of Hosts who hath Armies of heaven and Armies on earth and in this Body God by his Providence hath set and by his ordinance hath ordained Fathers Masters Husbands Judges Kings c. to govern in this Body of mankinde for the good of the whole Ruling and subjection by the fifth Commandement of the Morall Law which is in all mens hearts is ordained of God for the order peace and welfare of all mankind and therefore why is not this by the same reason a totum visibile Thirdly for Priority it is clear that as God hath firstly in nature and intention given Christ to the whole Church then to this and that particular beleever and the power of feeding and being fed and governed by shepheards First to the whole race of sheep Secondly to this or that flock So in nature and Gods intention he hath firstly given to the race of mankind power of being governed with Government and Governors before they are given to this or that Family City Kingdom c. So likewise what is said of Promises given to the Church Catholick firstly is it not as true here Those promises and blessings increase and multiply Subdue the earth and inhabite it The feare and dread of you shall be on all beasts and all like promises and priviledges of marriage of liberty to eat flesh c. mentioned Gen. 2. 9. and all over the Scripture are they not in nature first given to mankinde and then to this or that person family City So if Church power and all Officers and Offices be firstly given to the Catholick Church not to this or that particular Church So it 's here when the Scripture saith Submit to the higher Powers for all Powers are of God Rom. 13 〈◊〉 me saith God Kings reign and Princes decree judgment and such like Scriptures doth this firstly belong to this or that Kingdome City c. and not rather that God hath firstly set up and ordained Civil Powers for mankind to be obeyed of all mankinde firstly and then in this or that state Is foederall holinesse first the priviledge of the Catholick Church which in a sense we will not now contradict so is legitimation first the priviledge of married society in generall in all mankinde and then of this or that family Are the members of particular Churches firstly of the Catholick Church and is it not so here the members of every family city c first and last of the number of mankinde and so when the Societies are dissolved they are still of mankinde and doe not all Societies spring of mankinde and are an additament and increase to it the one is true as well as the other It would be over tedious to follow this parallel so farre as wee might these may be sufficient instances to guide the Reader to apply whatever else is or can be said in this kinde from the common nature and logicall notions under which the Catholick Church visible may be considered What is said that may more properly concern the case under the notion of an instituted Society we shall consider in due place Now from that which hath
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
and so might they circumcise themselves must not this bee done amongst and before the people of God in his visible Church whence such were called Proselytes and reckoned of the Common-wealth of Israel Esay 56. 3 4 5 6. And is not all this to joyne themselves to the visible instituted Church before they were circumcised Lastly it is not true that no man could be reputed a visible beleever before hee did all this That which followes pag. 40. is answered before Reply If Lot Job c. were not circumcised there is not the like reason for Circumcision and baptisme in this particular Answ The force of the consideration doth not depend upon the likenesse of reason betweene the persons to be circumcised and baptized in every respect but in this that as Circumcision and the Passeover were given onely to visible members of that instituted visible Church and therefore so in this case of baptisme and the Lords Supper now therefore if you could alledge many more different reasons betweene Lot Job c. that were not circumcised and those not to bee baptized it would little availe in the case but wee shall consider your differences particularly Reply First If ever circumcision was appropriated to Abrahams family and might not be communicated to other visible beleevers it was in the first institution but in the first institution of baptisme it was not so observed that beleevers should bee gathered into a Christian Church and then baptized Mat. 3. 7. John baptized such as came to him confessing their sinnes the Apostles baptized Disciples such as gladly received their doctrine c. Answ There is no such disparity in this as is objected for Abrahams family was in Covenant before Circumcision was given onely the Covenant was more fully explained and confirmed and so when John baptized hee baptized the members of the Jewes Church in Covenant before to whom hee was sent to turne the heart of the fathers to the children c. and to prepare a people for the Lord and baptisme was then given to the Church of the Jewes with reference to so many as would receive the doctrine of John concerning repentance and remission of sinnes by faith in the Messiah now come amongst them and therefore Christ himselfe and his Disciples remained yet members of that Church Secondly Though the visible Kingdome of Christ was not yet to bee erected in Christian Churches till after Christs death and Resurrection whereby hee did put an end to the Jewish worship and therefore no Christian Churches could bee gathered by John yet there was a middle state of a people prepared for the Lord gathered out of the Jewish Church which according to that state were made the Disciples of John by solemne profession of their repentance or conversion to God and acknowledgement of Christ the Lambe of God already come to whom the seale of baptisme was appropriated As for the instances Act. 2. 37. c. and 8. 37. and 10. 47 48. they are spoken to before in the first consideration Reply Secondly Lot Job c. were not bound to joyne to Abrahams family and bee circumcised but now all visible beleevers are bound to seeke baptisme in an holy manner Answ First This difference makes little to the point in hand it is enough that all that would be circumcised were bound to joyne to that Church and so now Secondly in after times no doubt every true proselyte fearing God was bound to joyne to that church as well as now and if now all visible beleevers be bound to professe their faith and seek baptisme in an holy manner why should they not bee bound to joyne to some visible Church and seeke it there as well as of old yea where should they professe their faith but in the visible Churches as the Proselytes of old did Your third difference is oft pressed and answered before Reply Fourthly If Circumcision bee appropriated to the family of Abraham it is because that Covenant was peculiar to Abrahams posterity namely that Christ should come of Isaac but baptisme is the Seale of the Covenant of Grace without peculiarity or respect Answ This difference is of little moment neither will it hold for first though that and other promises had a speciall eye to Abrahams family yet Circumcision sealed the righteousnesse of faith Rom. 4. to them being in visible Covenant with the Church as baptisme now doth Secondly this peculiar respect you speake of no way hindereth the joyning of many servants to Abrahams family and Covenant nor any proselytes to the Church afterward of any nation no more then now in respect of baptisme Thirdly the true reason was because although the Covenant was made with others yet not established nor enlarged towards them and hence if they would partake of such a Covenant they must joyne in this which also is the glory of the rich grace of Christ shining forth in Church-Covenant with all that will become a people to him to this day The first difference is answered in the first and second CHAP. IX Consid 4. Reply TO the fourth consideration first Men are capable of Church censures either as having power to dispense them or as being subject unto them c. In the second sense many are capable of Church priviledges who are not subject to Church censures as the children of Christian Parents are capable of baptisme and approved members of any true Church are capable of Seales in other Congregations amongst you who are not subject to the censures of the other Congregation spiritual Communion in publike prayer whereof visible beleivers not in Church order are capable but not subject to common censures in your sense Answ This distinction is needlesse our meaning is plaine in the second sense and therefore wee say nothing to what is objected against the first To the instances objected against the proposition in the second sense wee answer first concerning the Infants of Church-members they are subject to censures whensoever they offend the Church as others are though so long as they live innocently they need them not Secondly Members of any true visible Church are subject and so capable of censure though not in another Church which is not in in the proposition 2 Also they are capable of censures mediately by and in that other Church if they there offend for that Church may admonish and prosecute the admonition in the Church to which they belong and refuse society with them if they repent not which cannot bee said of such as are not members of any visible Church who cannot be prosecuted to excommunication in any place Thirdly Publike prayers of the Church though they bee an ordinance of Christ and the Church have a speciall Communion in them in which respect others do not share yet they are not a priviledge or peculiar ordinance wherein none but the Church may share for an Heathen or Infidel may hear the word and joyne in the prayers being cultus naturalis saying Amen unto the same
which cannot be said of seales and censures being cultus institutus Reply Secondly A Person baptized is not baptized into that particular Congregation onely but into all Churches and in every particular Church hath all the priviledges of a baptized person and so to be esteemed of them Now the priviledge of the baptized person walking in the truth and able to examine himselfe is to bee admitted to the Lords Supper as all circumcised persons had right thereby to eate the Passeover in any society where God should choose to put his name there Exod. 4. 47. Deut. 16. 1 1. Answ This seemeth to touch the question it selfe rather then the proposition of this fourth consideration but wee shall answer to it as it stands 1. Here you grant that a person baptized is baptized unto a particular Congregation which wee accept as a yeelding of the question unawares 2. If you meane that such hath a liberty of Communion in a way of brotherly love in all Churches where he comes wee grant so farre as nothing in him justly hinder but if you meane that hee is baptized into all Churches so as to challenge a right of Membership in them all wee deny it as a position that would take away all distinction of Churches as wee have formerly shewed 3. We deny that the Lords Supper is the priviledge of a baptized person able to examine himself walking in the truth as a baptized person for then a Papist converted to the truth able to examine himselfe hath a right to the Lords Supper in every Church before he make any profession of his conversion and faith in any particular Church for hee may bee such a baptized person And we may say the like of an excommunicate penitent 4. We grant that a baptized person is not onely baptized in to that particular Church whereof hee was first a member For if it bee a seale of his initiation into that particular Church onely then he must bee rebaptized as oft as hee enters into another but hee is baptized in the sense formerly shewed into the whole mysticall Body of Christ and hence hath jus ad rem or a remote right unto the priviledges of the Church every where but that therefore he hath immediate right to the fruition of all when he is severed from that particular church wherein he was baptized that follows not for as he had this latter right in the first Church wherein hee was baptized so he must have it in any of the Churches of Christ afterward now if in the first Church the fruition of ordinances came by orderly joyning to it so it must be afterward for as wee said before such as the communion is such ought to be the union he that would have politicall communion with the politicall Churches of Christ must be some where in politicall union with them otherwise one may have communion in all Churches yet never unite himself to any one which loose walking we are perswaded Christ Jesus will not allow 5 The similitude from a circumcised person will not hold First because there is no parity between severall families in the same Church and severall Churches in the New Testament but rather severall seats of communicants in the same Church answers severall families eating the passeover in the Church of the Jewes Secondly an Edomite circumcised though he were converted and acknowledged the true God in his owne country never so fully yet might not eate the passeover till he joyned to the church of Israel as all other Proselytes did so is it here Reply Thirdly there is not the same reason of every Church priviledge one may have right to some who may not meddle with others as members of one Church may joyne in hearing and prayer with another Church but not meddle in election and ordination of their Teachers and therefore the proposition is not so evident to bee taken without proofe that they have no power to admit a beleever into communion in any Church priviledge who have no power to excommunicate Answ What is here objected from the liberty or restriction of Church members in another Congregation is answered before in the first objection and therefore the proposition may stand good for all that is here said 2 That which is set down as the proposition is neither the same with that in our reason nor any way allowed by us for wee speake not here of power to admit but of the right to bee partakers neither doe wee deny a power in officers to admit members of other Churches to the seales though they have no power to excommunicate them 3 If our proposition seeme to need proofe the reason of it is at hand because those that are the peculiar priviledges or proper priviledges or proprieties of the Church as seales and censures being of the same nature viz. outward ordinances of Christ ordained by him for the edification of his Church and joyntly given to his Church and therefore looke to what Church hee hath given the one hee hath given the other also if the one viz. censures bee given to the Church of a visible Congregation then the other they are all both seales and censures contained in the keys which are given to the visible instituted Churches of the New Testament not to the Catholick as such for a godly man justly cast out of the particular Church yet cannot bee cast out of the Catholick Reply That visible beleevers baptized into a true Church professing the true faith and walking in holy obedience and their seed should be judged such as are without in the Apostles sense because they are not externally joyned as set members to some peculiar Congregation in Church Covenant is affirmed not proved Answ Comming to the assumption of our argument it is expressed according to the frequent manner in this Reply in such termes as it is not affirmed by us and therefore if it want proof blame not us our assumption is Such as are not in Church Covenant are not capable of Church censures where by being in Church covenant wee meane either implicitly or explicitly membership in any true Church as in our answer wee expresse to prevent mistakes and this is proved from 1 Cor. 5. 12. and in applying hereof wee doe not affirme that such are simply without in the Apostles sense but in some respect onely viz. in regard of visible church Communion Reply First It doth oft fall out that the true members of the Catholick Church and best members of the orthodox Church by a prevailing faction in the Church may bee no members of any distinct society and shall their posterity be counted aliens from the Covenant and debarred from the Sacraments because their parents are unjustly separated from the inheritance of the Lord Answ This objection is before answered in the first consideration where was given the instance of Athanasius and it is answered by the Reply it selfe in the next words Surely as parents unjustly excommunicated doe continue still
visible members of the flock of Christ understand that particular Church out of which they are cast so the right of Baptism belongs to their Infants which being so they are not without that Church though debarred unjustly of the present communion with it unlesse he renounce that Church or other Reply Secondly If such Churches renounce it as are no members of a politick spirituall fellowship be without then the members of one Church are without unto another c. Answ This objection wee have had and answered oft before In a word there cannot bee the like reason no not in respect of that other Church who may in a due order of Christ persecute the censures against them though not compleatly amongst themselves which cannot bee said of such as have not joyned themselves to any Church and therefore wee deny that the Apostles reason was because they were without to Corinth but without to all Churches Reply Thirdly The fornicators of this world doe they not explaine whom the Apostle pointeth unto by the title of being without Verse the 10. 11. such as had not received the Covenant of grace Answ Wee never thought otherwise but that the fornicators of this world and the heathen are most properly without in the Apostles sense but if our words bee observed that in a certain respect or as our words are in regard of visible Church communion such as are in no Church society are said to bee without what great offence have wee given For first is not a godly man if justly excommunicate without in this sense Secondly doth not the Apostle Iohn expresly call them without that forsooke the fellowship of the Church 1 Iohn 2. 19. saying they went out Thirdly were not the Catechumeni of old in this respect without and the lapsed in times of persecution and the like who in those zealous and severe times of Church discipline were not onely said to bee without but stood without though weeping and praying as penitents at the Church doores sometimes for two or three yeeres and after this degree of preparation for entrance into the Church which they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there were three more before they were received to the Lords Supper which severity though wee approve not yet it may mollifie the mindes of the godly learned that are apt to bee offended at such a word from us Fourthly our Saviour himselfe expresly saith and that not onely of those of no Church but such as were even of the visible Church and his ordinary hearers that many of them were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or men without and therefore this application of 1 Cor. 5. 12. need not bee called insolent or raise such an hubbub abroad as wee perceive it doth Reply Fourthly Church order is necessary wee deny not but that a man should bee a constant set member of a particular society by Covenant to make him a member of the visible Church or to give him title or interest to the publike order this is not taught of God This is but a bare denyall of the position it selfe but what is meant by publike order wee know not or where the order of Christ which is granted to bee necessary can bee found but in particular Churches wee are yet to learne neither is it any where taught in this Reply and wee would gladly learne how that Church should orderly deale with such a man in case of offence that is of no particular Church Reply Fiftly Paul divides all men into two rankes the first and greater without the last and lesser within but that beleevers c. and their children should be reckoned without we read not in any Scripture but in Scripture phrase hereticks themselves are within 1 John 2 19. 1 Cor. 11. 19. Answ All that is said in this objection except the last clause is but a repeated deniall of the conclusion in other words to the objection about Hereticks within wee grant they are within till cast out or gone out of the Church 1 John 2. 19. and if gone out how are they within and so if an orthodox professor will frowardly forsake all Churches and live alone or among the heathen how is hee within we speake onely in generall Reply Sixtly This hath not beene beleeved in the Church Answ Wee are not bound in every thing to be of the Churches faith and what wee have said before may satisfie here Reply Seventhly Without are Dogs c. Rev. 22. 15. not such as are faithfull holy c. Answ True properly such are without not these yet in some respects as hath been said others also may be without as such as forsake the Church c. as was before said more fully Reply Eighthly They that are without in the Apostles sense are Aliens from the commonwealth of Israel strangers from the Covenant of promise having no hope and without God in the world but we hope you will not passe such rash censure upon the brethren who bee not gathered into the society as set members Answ To say some beleevers may bee without in some respect is farre from such a censure the Scripture saith of Israel in their corrupt estate and defect of the Ordinances of God that they were a long time without God without Law without a teaching Priest yet that hard expression doth not equall them with the heathen much lesse to say some beleevers are without the visible Church in regard of visible Church communion and wee judge no otherwise of such then of our selves when wee were in the like case Reply Ninthly Let this interpretation stand and hee shall bee without also that is not subject to the censures of the community of the particular combination few or many without or with Officers and so all the reformed Churches that ascribe the Keyes to the Presbytery or Classis and not to the community and some amongst your selves if not most shall bee without also And therefore wee cannot thinke that approved Christians desiring seales are either without or not capable of Church censures if they offend though no set members for desiring seales they put themselves under the ordinances for a time and may be proceeded withall as offending members Answ This objection hath no colour without extreame straining of our application of 1 Cor. 5. 12. seeing wee never limited the position to Churches of the same judgement or in like degree of order to ours it is onely a forced odium which is cast upon us but wee can beare more at our brethrens hands neither doe we know any Church or elder that ascribes the power of the Keys to the Presbytery or Classis excluding the community amongst us Secondly for that objection that such put themselves under the ordinances of Christ for the time if with profession of faith and subjection to the government of Christ they desire seales it is something but that the very desiring of seales doth include such a subjection in it selfe being but for this or that act of administration
be taken in the first sense he remaines every way and in every respect by right a Minister as hee was before except he reject them and so dissolve the relation that was between them But if the question speak of an orderly censure of deposition unjustly then we judge of that case as we would do in any other censure of a member by excommunication therefore we say he is stil a Minister in foro interno before Christ for clavis errans non ligat Secondly in respect of that Church he hath stil right truly to minister to them and is their Minister though unjustly hindered in the execution of his Ministery as a member unjustly censured hath a true right to the Ordinances and membership though unjustly hindred from the same though in foro externo we grant to them or in their account he is no Minister as a person excommunicated is to them no member Thirdly in respect of other Churches if it doth appeare unto them that hee is unjustly deposed they may and ought to esteeme him still and receive him and have communion with him as a true Minister of Jesus Christ in the Church he doth belong to as they may do with a member unjustly cast out but til that appeare unto them they cannot so esteem and honor him being orderly deposed but must at least suspend their judgment til the case be cleared Fourthly we answer clearely and plainely to the chiefe scope of the question If a Minister bee unjustly deposed or forsaken by his particular Church and he also withall renounce and forsake them so farre as all Office and relation betweene them cease then is hee no longer an Officer or Pastour in any Church of God whatsoever you will call it And the Reason is because a Ministers office in the Church iâ— no indelible Character but consists in his relation to the flocke and if a Minister once ordained his relation ceasing his Office of a Minister Steward of the mysteries of God shall still remaine why should not a ruling Elder or Deacon remaine an Elder or Deacon in the Church as well all are Officers Ordained of Christ alike given to his Church Officers chosen and Ordained by laying on of hands alike but wee suppose you will not say a Deacon in such a case should remaine a Deacon in the Catholique Church therefore not a Minister Secondly wee shall now consider what is here said and first this language of a Minister in the usuall Church as a particular Church hath union with and is a part of the universall it is an unusuall expression to us and to the Scripture phrase and therefore beare with us if wee fall short of your meaning the usuall Church in England hath beene either the Arch-Deacons Church in the Deanaries or Diocesan in the Bishoprick or Provinciall or Nationall but wee hope that there is no such intended here yet to all this and the jurisdiction thereof particular Churches have been subject as parts there But if by usuall Church you meane a Classical Provinciall or Nationall Church wee must intreat better grounds for any of these and therefore wee must confesse our minde and meaning is not so that wee looke at a Minister of a particular Church in any such relation to the usuall and intermediate Church betweene it and the Catholique The second sense therefore we owne and acknowledge as before But whether this be contrary to the judgement and practise of the universall Church wee know not because it is hard for us know what the universall Church judgeth except we could heare it speake or see its practise if the onely head Prophet and Shepherd of the Church Jesus Christ be fit to declare her judgement we will be tryed thereby who we know hath sâ—t Elders in every particular Church Act. 14. 23. to watch over their particular flock Act. 20. 28. but not over any other Church that wee can finde Neither doth this destroy the unity or Communion of the Catholique Church nor of particular Churches one with another as is said for Churches may enjoy brotherly Communion one with another without such stated formes under the power and authority of one another as hath been shewed before Reply For if he be not a Minister to other Churches then are not the Churches of God one nor the Communion which they have together on nâ—r the Ministers one nor the â—â—â—cke which they feed one Answ In what sense is intended to have the Ministers one and flocke one we doe not see If you meane one by one visible Government over the Catholique Church wherein there is a subordination of Churches and Ministers you must at last rise to Oecomenicall Pastor or Councell that must be the supreme which can scarce ever be had If you meane an unity by brotherly Communion in offices of love and mutuall helpefulnesse of Churches and Ministers without usurpation such an unity and Community is not destroyed and the argument doth not follow Cannot many distinct societies ot Townes or Corporations make up one County except the Major or Constable in one Towne be a Major or Constable in others also By this Reason the Deacon of one Church is the Deacon of all or else the unity is destroyed Reply If the Pastor derive all his authority from the Church when the Church hath set him aside what right hath he to administer among that people Answ True but we say he derives all his authority from Christ by the Church indeed applying that office to him to which the authority is annexed by the institution of Christ hence being the Minister of Christ unto them if they without Christ depose him they hinder the exercise of his Office but his right remaines Reply As they give right to an unworthy man to minister amongst them if they cal him unjustly so they take right from the worthy if they unjustly depose him Answ We grant there is a parity in foro externo but as in the call his outward cal consists in the election of the calling and the acceptation of the called to compleat his power of administration Now this by Christ in his Church may be destroyed in a just censure without his consent but cannot unjustly be wrung from him without his consent therefore he may hold his right till either hee be justly deposed or willingly relinquish the same upon their injurious interruption of the use of his right Reply And whereas you say the Minister is for the Ministery and the Office for the execution and so the Pastor and the flocke are relatives and therefore if their election gave him authority among them to feed their casting him off hath stripped him of the same power they gave him Aâ—su Wee grant it is so yet the execution may bee unjustly hindred though the right and Office remaine But we may well retort this argument upon the Minister of the usuall or Catholicke Church Thus if the Minister bee for the Ministery and the Office for
remove all obscurities and breake all snares and resolve the question in the true intent of it wee were forced to distinguish of Formes and so touch the true Helena of this controversie and therefore if any shall narrowly observe Mr. Ball his large defence of set Forms in generall they shall finde those wings spread forth in a very great breadth to give some shelter and warmth to that particular Liturgie then languishing and hastening through age and feeblenesse towards its last end Reply It is true people separate from our Liturgie because stinted not because this or that or ours in particular Answ If because it's stinted then because yours for we know none properly such but yours and it may well bee one offence to all godly consciences that yours are so imposed and stinted as they bee though it is hardly credible to us so farre as our observation reach that the main causes of the godly withdrawing from your Liturgy should be the stinting of it when so many corruptions in Matter and Forme have been objected against it by the best godly Reformers And seeing the same persons will joyne with Prayers of godly Preachers though they use the same forme of prayer usually and so in a large sense freely stinting themselves thereto though not properly in such sense as your Liturgy is stinted Reply But say you such set Formes used by Preachers are disliked also and your reasons especially the two last why you admit not a stinted Liturgie conclude against both in our understanding Answ Wee deny not but some may dislike the constant use of such Formes especially when studiously framed with elegancy of phrases and as the manner of some is but doe any we now speak of condemne all use thereof or withdraw from them that use them which is now the case in hand For our parts wee neither know such men or if we did we should condemn such minds As for our Reasons in generall or the two last you mention in particular it passeth our understanding to conceive how any such inference can bee made if the Reply had formed the inferences from our arguments it may bee wee should have seene more by the helpe of such spectacles But passing over what we say to the Position as we interpret it you think fit to advertise us of some things which are â—ix Reply Advert 1. Your reasons why you accept not a stinted Liturgie are ambiguously propounded and so that such as looke at stinted Liturgies as images forbidden Command 2. may easily draw your words to their meaning Answ If our Reasons themselves being sound and unanswered by you contain any thing that may be drawn to such a Position that cannot arise from the ambiguousnesse of words which are plaine but from their abuse who mis-apply them Reply Advert 2. The Reasons you bring against a set forme of Prayer doe hold as strong against a set forme of Catechisme confession and profession of faith blessing baptizing and singing of Psalmes Answ 1 Concerning forms of Catechismes and confessions of Faith if religiously and perspicuously framed wee account them of singular use though abused by men nor without some sacred allowance yet from hence to infer the like use of set Formes of prayers neither our reasons nor any other will in force for Catechismes and Confessions as well as Psalmes in the nature of the thing require in some sense a set and limited Forme but publike prayers though they may admit of a set and comely order in the generall to prevent errour yet of their owne nature they require no set Forme for God gives us no new matter or doctrine daily to be beleeved but he gives new matter of new affection in prayer daily 2 If by set Forms of Catechismes and Confessions bee meant according to the termes of the Question stinted Formes like stinted Liturgies i. e. beyond or short of which Ministers may not teach or Christians beleeve and professe then wee should say the same of these as wee doe of stinted Formes of Prayer wee confesse there is danger in casting by all Formes of Confessions and Catechismes lest through the instability of ungrounded and heady men pretending new light or searching after further light the Churches adhere to nothing and their Faith as the learned Leyden Professors terme it become fides hâ—raria or menstrua The faith of an houre or moneth and then cast it off the next And on the other side there is danger that by imposing such Confessions too far that which is indeed further light be supprest wee therefore thinke it usefull and needfull to pave out such high wayes of Catechismes and Confessions so as the subjects of Christ Jesus our King and Law-giver may walke therein without shackles reserving liberty for further future light in points lesse cleare yet standing in a readinesse alwayes to confesse and hold fast the present truth which appeares most cleare 3 Concerning Forms of blessing baptizing singing Scripture Psalmes there is a far differing reason from this case for the Lord himselfe hath left us Formes in these cases not onely for instruction but allowing the use of the same as Numb 6. 23 c. Luke 10. 5. Matth. 28. 20. 2 Chron. 29. 30. and therefore such may bee used as hee hath left yet the Lord hath not imposed some of these at least to bee used alwayes and onely in his Churches much lesse doth hee allow any man to impose their own Forms upon his Churches or conforme to such as are tyrannously imposed Reply Third Advert We have not called you at this time to witnesse for or against the corruptions of the Common-prayer-book this you fall upon by straining the sense of our demands Answ Wee have spoken to this before and we thinke whatsoever your intent and desire was yet the nature of the thing and the case it selfe gave us a just call to testifie against it especially seeing the corruptions then increased in England and the impositions were more rigid and violent Reply The reasons you bring against the Communion-booke wee cannot approve them all the exceptions against it wee know but to esteem the whole for some corruptions found therein a Monument of Idolatry that we have not learned Answ The Answer calls it not a Monument of Idolatry for some corruptions onely found in it though the corruptions in matter and manner bee objected as the first reason why wee used it not but being never commanded of God greatly abused unto Idolatry and superstition and oâ— no necessary use the same that was in Popery for substance which are the usuall arguments for abolishing Images Ceremonies and all Monuments of Idolatry and wee marvaile how any could passe over these things in the Answer which might evince it to bee a Monument of Idolatry as the argument of the Abridgement to which we referred doth prove Reply The argument in the Abridgement used against conformity to the Ceremonies did not in the judgement of the Authors bold against the
that are put in some of the replies 1 To the first reply then wherein you put it beyond imagination that such a practise should bee scandalous or offensive wee know not what you have observed in some particular congregations neere you but what ever have beene the opinions of men formerly concerning this practise yet you know that the booke in generall hath been condemned of all godly reformers and the use of any part of it hath been counted burdensome to many for the reasons named But of later times as the booke and conformitie thereto was urged more hotly so the spirits of very many grew more zealous against it and began to loath it and to withdraw wholly from it many very inquisitive about the lawfulnesse or unlawfulnesse of joyning with it at all and your selves complaine of the withdrawing of many from joyning in the ordinances where it was used so that wee see not but at least in some persons and at some places and times it might probably bee offensive and scandalous so to practise 2 Wee looked not onely to the offence of those in your owne congregations but to the imboldning and hardning of Papists in honouring any part of their portuises above the formes of other reformed Churches abroad and you cannot bee ignorant how many of the Lords witnesses now asleepe have testified of the offence and danger thereof Reply 2 You say if the booke were an Idolothyte yet latent offence doth not oblige Answ The offence in this season and as all things stand cannot bee latent complaint is made of the offence taken by many and therefore it is evident Reply 3 The booke so farre as it is sound and good by your confession is no Idolothyte nor taken out of the Masse booke in such sense as you object but rather the Masse and other prayers added to it Popery is a sca◠leaving to the Church and many truths belonging to the Church as her proper Legacy were stolne and heaped together in that Denne And why the true man may not challenge his goods where ever hee finde them or the theefe plead title to the true mans goods by prescription wee know not Answ First wee judge the whole booke an Idolothyte and whence you gather that wee confesse the contrary of any part of it as it stands apart in relation to that whole wee know not Secondly that it was taken out of the Masse booke was proved by the confession of King Edward and other evidences are many but you say not in such sense as wee object But rather ◠contra Masse c. added to it c. But where to finde such a legacy bequeathed to the Church in the Testament of our Lord Jesus Christ wee could never yet see So that wee rather feare all those formes of prayer of marriage burialls visitations of the sick confirmation c. are rather the copper counterfeit coyne of a well growne Antichrist whereby he cousened the Churches when hee stole away the golden Legacy of Christ rather then any part of the true Churches Legacy and therefore it had been more happy for the Churches that they had never challenged the same but let the theefes prescription to have been a good plea to hold them still this further we adde when we say it was taken out of the Masse-booke wee understand Masse-booke in a large sense as it is commonly taken for to speake narrowly it was collected out of three Popish bookes the first part of publique Prayers exbreviario the second part viz. the order of administring Sacraments Matrimony visiting the sick and burialls è Rituali 3. the order of consecration in the Supper the Epistles and Gospels and Collects è Missali as the forme of consecration of Bishops and Priests was taken è Pontificali as the Author of Altare Damase shews pag. 612. Thirdly because those words Popery is a scab c. may bee a seed of much evill an Egge out of which a Serpent may bee hatched if men zealous of mouldy formes may but have time againe to set upon it if the wheele of these evill times through Gods judgement on this wantonage turne the Prelates or other zelotes for this Liturgie uppermost wee shall therefore crave libertie to examine this speech more narrowly And because as it is said unumquodque ex suâ origine rectissime judicatur wee shall grace the steps of the first times and so downeward to see what sound parts of Liturgie there was on which this scab is supposed to grow 1. Our blessed Saviour taught his Disciples a blessed forme which though it may bee lawfully and comfortably used the rather not being of mans but the Lords composing yet it is evident hee never appointed his people to use it as their onely forme and therefore the Apostles in the primitive Church in that heavenly prayer Acts 4. did not attend to the words and forme of this prayer though they might have this in their eye as the comon rule and direction how to powre out their prayers to God for particular things which may be an everlasting witnesse against their usurpations that will limit the Churches to their formes which the Lord Christ would not doe to his owne 2. In the first 300. yeeres after Christ wee read of few formes that the Churches used and those rather short ejaculations then set formes but contrarily wee read frequently of the exercise of their gifts in prayer They prayed sine monitore quia de pectore saith Tertullian i. e. They prayed without a Promptour because from the heart which as Zephirus observes was in opposition to the prompted formes then in use amongst the Pagans Wee read also what they prayed for viz. pro inimicis pro imperatoribus pro statu seculi pro morâ finis c. but of any set formes we read not Their persecutions and dayes of afflictions preserved them from formalitie in prayer and taught them how to finde their hearts and knees and tongues to poure out their soules to God while under the Altar they were pouring out their blood 3. But after the Churches had enjoyed peace for some space of time wherein securitie usually makes insensible and insenssblenesse formall then indeed wee read ofset and imposed formes which the rather prevailed in regard of the grosse and palpable ignorance of a blind ministry under a more learned Prelacy and therefore it is well observed by Chemnitius that the third Councell of Carthage decreed this ut nemo in precibus c. viz. that no Minister in his prayers either names the Father for the Sonne or the Sonne for the Father but when hee comes to the Altar to direct his prayers alwayes to God the Father and that no man use his owne formes till hee have conferred and shewed his formes to men more able which wee finde sometime to bee the Synod 4 After these times they added the commemoration of Saints to their Prayers and Letanies as appears from manifold instances whereof take
other gifts set in the Church he applyes also to them Chap. 14. whereas he speaks of the exercise of divers gifts in that Church when the whole Church came together vers 23 so he speaks the same of himself an Apostle vers 6. When I come c We take notice of divers reasons alledged from the Chapter that he spake of the Catholick church but they doe not inforce it for grant such things are true of the Catholick church in a sense viz. that in it God works all in all in it are diversities of gifts c. yet the Apostles scope is to speak to this Church as hath been shewed and all are truly applyable unto it this Church came behinde in no good gift Chap. 1. 7. this Church was one body vers 27. and baptized into one body whether Jews or Gentiles bond or free the members of this Church needed the helpe one of another must not make schismes in the Body must care one for another c. yea Apostles as well as other gifts were in the church 1 Cor. 3. 1. 1 Cor. 14. 6. So that from the scope and drift of the Apostle all these Offices and gifts might be and were set in Corinth and therefore this place will not evince a Catholick organicall body yet we mean not that Apostles were wedged in here but they were set also in every church as also Teachers are in every church but each according to the nature of the Office the one limited the other not Secondly we deny not but in this discourse the Apostle also vers 12 13. intendeth the whole mysticall body of Christ which is one Christ neither doe we deny that these gifts of Apostles Prophets c. are given to this Church but this will not prove it to be an organicall Church For what is this body of Christ this one Christ into whom all are baptized c. It is properly the whole company of true beleevers in all ages and so containes the invisible body of Christ which Catholick body of all ages cannot properly make an organicall body and be it so that this body is visible having visible ordinances baptized and drunk into one body yet the Apostle respects the reall union of all the members to Christ and therefore Interpreters understand spirituall and effectuall baptism containing the inward vertue with the outward sign Again the Apostles were fit for the gathering in of the elect amongst all the heathen nations but that proves not all these elect who also are a part of Christs sheep John 10. 16. were an organicall Church or a part of it till called and added to the Church In a word Apostles Prophets c. were given to and set in the mysticall body of Christ as the chief object and end for whose sake and good they were intentionally ordained of Christ but not set in it as one organicall body for the actuall and immediate administration of the visible ordinances of Christ to it but thus to it as gathered into such Church societies as the Lord hath instituted for that end and in this sense we agree with learned Mr. Rutherford libro of the right of Presbyt pag. 291. Ask saith he to what end and to what first principall subject hath the Lord given reason and the faculty to discourse Is it to Peter John c. as to the first subject and to them as for their good No no it is to and for the race of mankind The case is just so here 1 Cor. 12. 28. God hath set Apostles c. We say also it is just so here as God hath given reason in respect of the end to mankinde first and then to the individua so God hath set in the mysticall Church for the good of it as chiefly intended by Christ Apostles Prophets c. but now as in the actuall dispensing of this gift of reason for the good of mankinde Reason is not given to any such body as the whole race of mankinde to descend to John Peter c. but first to John Peter and all the individualls that so by induction of all particulars the whole kinde of reasonable man may be made up and the end attained and so it is here God in giving Officers and gifts for the good of the mysticall body of Christ firstly yet in execution gives these Officers and sets them in particular Churches that by the edification and perfection of all particulars the whole may be attained Thirdly Apostles Prophets and all gifts and offices in generall and indefinitely are given to the Church indefinitely considered but particular officers Paul Cephas Apollo Titus Archippus c. are given or set in particular Churches we mean according to the severall natures and extents of their offices As unto Bees in generall is given a power to gather honey and order themselves in their hives but in their exercise of this power it is given to the severall swarms in the hives who have their Queens c. to order themselves But as this power in generall makes not a universall organicall body of Bees no more here an universall organicall Church Lastly to speak more particularly we conceive that the place in the utmost latitude of it is meant of the mysticall body that one body into which all are baptized vers 13. And that the fundamentall mistake of our Brethren is this that because the Church here mentioned hath Organs and politicall Officers in it that therefore it must needs make one politicall Church where some Organs are to rule in common and every part is to be subject to the whole For although the mysticall Church hath Organs and politicall Officers in it yet it follows not therefore that it is one politicall body For the invisible Church conjoyned with the visible hath politicall Officers set in it and given to it as invisible as well as visible in respect of Gods generall designation and particular application of them to this whole Church yet it follows not that they are one politicall body by actuall combination thereunto actuall combination we say for although Christs institution must warrant and prescribe all forms of politicall bodies yet it will not be found that ever there was any politicall Society without actuall combination whether civill or sacred whether nationall or more particular The mysticall Church may be said to be organicall in respect of the Officers amongst them in the severall parts thereof every part being a part of the whole spiritually though not politically But it doth not thence follow that the whole is one politicall body but mysticall Politicall Officers may and must suppose some part of the Church to be visible but not that the whole should be Politicall For the Apostles by extraordinary Commission for their time were officers of visible beleevers fit matter for a combination as well as of particular combinations yet it follows not that visible beleevers existing out of combinations were a politicall Society that would never meet to combine
of such Doctrinall power as the pattern Acts 15. holdeth forth and which is all that Learned Mr. Rutherford conceives to belong to a generall Councell for thus he saith Verily I professe I cannot see what power of jurisdiction to censure scandalls can be in a generall Councell there may be some meâ—â— Doctrinall power in such a Councell if such could be had and that is all And how a Nationall Provinciall or Classicall Synod being lesser parts of the whole can put forth such acts as the whole cannot do ipsi viderint 'T is true a particular Church may formally cast out a scandalous member according to the rule Matth. 18. yet the argument from proportion will not hold in respect of the power of excommunication in greater assemblies against any particular Church offending though other means appointed by Christ we deny not for if excommunication casteth out an offender out of all Churches then such a particular Church cannot be excommunicated except it could be cast out of it self though it may be deprived of the communion of other Churches Lastly if it be no sin as is said but a crosse that the Catholick Church cannot meet to put forth its supposed intrinsecall power then let the particular Churches enjoy that power till the Catholick Church can meet 2 It seems to us very strange that the Lord Jesus should institute such a supreme power in a Catholick Body which as is said de jure should be till the comming of Christ and yet should be interrupted by the sin of man so many ages and which for ought appeares never orderly met to this day Object 3. If all Pastors be Pastors of the Catholick Church then there is such a Catholick Church but all Pastors are Pastors of the Catholick Church Ergo. Answ If it be meant thus that they are Pastors of some particular part of the Church and in that respect in the whole and for the good of the whole the good of every part redounding to the good of the whole yea if some Pastorall care also be intended towards other Churches and to fetch in such as are yet not of the Church we grant all this according to the meaning of that place 1 Cor. 12. 28. formerly opened by us But if this Argument intend that they are Pastors of the Catholick Body as of One Politicall Church then we deny the Assumption upon this ground because a Pastorall Office consists properly in having a charge and power over those to whom he is a Pastor Act. 20. 28. but he hath no charge of the whole for if so he must give account to Christ of the whole neither hath he power over such a Catholick church being never chosen by it nor it subjecting to him If it be said such are made Pastors by Ordination of the Presbyters not the election of the people who onely appropriate him to themselves who is a Pastor of the whole Church then he is either a Catholick Pastor that hath power to intermeddle in all Churches as the Apostles had which we think none will yeeld them or else they are Pastors onely in name without power which is absurd Nor doth the similitude of a Physitian made Doctor of Physick at large by a Colledge of Physitians helpe in this case For it suppâ—seth him to be made such a Doctor before he be elected by any people to exercise this faculty which applyed to this case of a Pastor as having Ordination to make him a Pastor at large before election to this or that people is utterly against all examples of Scripture as Acts 1. 6. 14 Object 4. That which belongeth to a little part of a similar body quâ talis belongs to a greater part much more and therefore if the immediate exercise of the Keys belong to a single congregation then much more to the whole and to any greater part of the whole Answ 1 Such as say that the Catholick Church is a similar Body had need explicate themselves For to speak properly and strictly by this rule every particular visible beleever being a part of the whole as a totum aggregativum must have nomen naturam totius and so every beleever is a Church or if they so divide this Catholick similar body as to make a particular Congregation that can joyn in Gods ordinances the minimum quod sic then particular visible beleevers considered as existing out of these Congregations cannot be members formally of the Catholick visible Church 2 We acknowledge the Catholick church considered as visible and invisible is one spirituall or mysticall body yet this Catholick body is under no Catholick policy but onely in the severall parts of it as hath been proved before and in this respect the Church which is spiritually one body is politicè many bodies so that the parts of this spirituall toâ—um are not distinct bodies spirituali relatione for then every company of women are a Church body but politicâ combinatione and hence though the Catholick church be one similar body spiritually due cautions and interpretations observed yet it is not one similar Body politically and hence every society of beleevers is not a Church Hence though it be true that what belongs to a part of a similar body as a part belongeth much more to the whole and that therefore what belongs to a particular Church belongs much more to the whole It is true in this sense viz. what belongs to the part of the whole as spirituall and so participates the nature of the whole belongs much more to the whole because the whole is spirituall yet what belongs to the part as politicall doth not much more belong to the whole because the whole is not politicall Exempli gratiâ consider a particular Congregation as a number redeemed called to Christ espoused to him this much more belongs to the whole and so if any priviledge belong to them as such much more to the whole Yet consider a Church as a combined Body so what belongs to this part belongs not to the whole For it belongs to the part to elect and enjoy constantly Pastors over it but this doth not belong to the whole as a totum The Catholick mysticall Church is indeed the prima materia out of which politicall Churches by their combination are formed but it is no first formed politicall similar Church whence every particular Church immediately participates of the nature of that whole having in it partem talis materiae partem formae Object 5. If there be Church communion between all Churches then there is one Catholick Church but there is Church communion of all Churches in hearing receiving Sacraments exhorting one another praying one for another c. Ergo. Answ We deny the consequence for there may be a fraternall Ecclesiasticall communion not onely internally but externally without such an union as makes one politicall combined Body such as here we dispute of as two or three Congregations may have communion together
may ordinarily be had or given to such as set loose from all societies the Apostles had extraordinary power being generall Pastors over all persons beleeving as well as Churches and therfore at some times by speciall guidance of the Spirit they might doe that which ordinary Pastors may not do Reply Secondly as the seals so the Word of salvation preached and received is a priviledge of the Church c. If by preaching be meant the giving of the Word unto a people to abide and continue with them and consequently the receiving of it at least in profession then it is proper to the church of God Answ We grant in some sense it is a priviledge and proper to the Church so to have the Word but this no way takes away the difference between the Seals and the Word which the answer makes viz That the Word is not such a peculiar priviledge of the Church as the Seals in that the one is dispensed not onely to the Church but also to others for the gathering of them which is not so in the Seals for the Word of God received in Corinth abiding with them professed of them was not so peculiar but an Idiot comming in might partake in the same but not so in the Sacraments 1 Cor. 14. Reply The Word makes Disciples the Word given unto a people is Gods covenanting with them and the peoples receiving this Word and professing their faith in God through Jesus Christ is the taking of God to be their God the laws and statutes which God gave unto Israel were a testimony that God hath separated them from all other people the Word of reconciliation is sent and given to the world reconciled in Iesus Christ and they that receive the Doctrine Law or Word of God are the disciples servants and people of God Answ In these words and that which follows in the second Paragraph there seems to be a double scope First to prove the Word proper to the Church to which is answered afore Secondly that where-ever the Word of God is there is the true visible Church and so where the true Worship of God is there is a mark of the Church especially where it is received and confessed To which we answer 1 There is a covenanting between God and man which is personall and so whosoever receives the Word of Gods grace by faith sent unto him by God enters into Covenant to be his and that before he makes any visible profession thereof and so every beleever is a disciple a servant of God and one of Gods people but many thousands of these considered onely in this their personall relation to God doe not make a visible Church many such might be in the world but no members of the visible Church until they came and joyned to the Church of Israel of Old or to the visible Churches in the New Testament 2 There is a sociall or common covenanting between God and a people to be a God to them and they a people unto God in outward visible profession of his Worship and so the Lord took Abraham and his seed into Covenant and renewed that Covenant with them as an holy Nation and peculiar people to him and in this covenanting of God with a people whereby they become a Church there is required first that they be many not one Secondly that these many become one body one people Thirdly that they make visible profession of their Covenant with God really or vocally Fourthly that this Covenant contain a profession of subjection to the ordinances of Gods Worship wherein God requires a Church to walk together before him and all these may be seen in the Church of Israel who received Gods laws indeed but so as they became one people to God visibly avouched God for their God received and submitted unto all the laws of his Worship Government and other Ordinances And this is expresly or implicitly in every true visible Church though more or lesse fully and purely Now if you intend such a covenanting of a people with God by a professed receiving of his Word and subjection to his Ordinances we grant such to be true Churches and to such the seals do belong and therefore we willingly close with the Conclusion that follows They that have received the Word of salvation entirely and have Pastors godly and faithfull to feed and guide them they and their seed have right to the seals in order And they that joyn together in the true Worship of God according to his will with godly and faithfull Pastors they have right to the sacraments according to Divine institution These conclusions we willingly embrace and inferr that if the seals belong to such a Church then to particular Congregations For where shall we finde a people joyning together with godly Pastors but in such particular Assemblies For we doubt not our Brethren doe disclaim all Diocesan Pastors or Provinciall c. Reply That there is now no visible Catholick Church in your sense will easily be granted c. If this be granted in our sense so that there be no such Catholick church wherein seals are to be dispensed then it will fall to be the right and priviledge of particular Congregations to have the seals in the administration proper to them and so the cause is yeelded but because there is so much here spoken of the Catholick visible Church and so much urged from it we shall refer the Reader to what is said before onely one thing we shall note about the instance of Athanasius that a man may be a member of the Catholick visible Church but of no particular Society Reply You say it is evidenced in that a Christian as Athanasius for an example may be cut off unjustly from the particular visible Church wherein he was born and yet remains a member of the Catholick visible orthodox Church Answ This case proves nothing for look how such a Christian stands to the Catholick so he stands to the particular Church if he be unjustly censured as he remains before God a member of the Catholick so also the particular Church for clavis errans non ligat and in respect of men and communion with other Churches in the seals if they receive him being satisfied that he is unjustly cast out they may receive him not for his generall interest in the Catholick church but in respect of his true membership in the particular Church that unjustly cast him out Whereas if the Churches were not perswaded but that he were justly cast out of the particular they ought not to admit him to seales were he as Orthodox as Athanasius himself in doctrine and as holy in his life Reply Though there be no universall Congregation nor can be imagined yet there are and have been many visible Assemblies or Societies true Churches of Christ to whom the prerogative of the seals is given which have not been united and knit together into one Congregation or Society in Church-order For every Society in
wee cannot understand but let this bee really made good that desiring seales it being a way that subjects themselves to the Church as members and the case will bee issued being understood of such approved Christians as the position speakes of Lastly to proceed against such as are not members or of another Church as with an offending member of our owne is not much unlike the proceedings of Victor in his contentious time or may sow the seeds of such usurpations which wee leave to the godly wise to consider of Reply Tenthly If upon good reason a passage of Scripture can bee cleared to prove that for which it was never alleadged by any writer wee are not to except against it for want of mans testimony onely in such cases our reasons must bee convincing but for the exposition of this Text wee have not observed one substantiall ground or approved author to bee alledged Dr. Ames shewing the necessitie of Christians joyning themselves to some peculiar Church giveth this reason Quoniam alias fieri non potest quin conturbentur signa illa quibus fideles ab infidelibus discerni possunt 1 Cor. 5. 12. But herein Dr. Ames manifestly sheweth that by them without heathens and unbeleevers must be understood and not beleevers though of no setled society for the time for thus wee conceive hee argueth The signes whereby the faithfull are to bee discerned from unbeleevers must not bee confounded but unlesse Christians make themselves actuall members of a Church the signes whereby the faithfull are discerned from unbeleevers will bee obscured and darkned and if this be his reason how can that Text bee alledged unlesse by men without infidels bee understood Answ First That we have reasons to alledge it in that sense and respect declared may appeare by our answers to your objections Secondly That wee have one approved authour so alleadging it viz. Doctor Ames shall appeare in cleering his meaning from your objections 1. Grant that by men without according to Doctor Ames his reason Infidels be understood by the Apostle yet how shall the signes discerning beleevers from unbeleevers bee confounded by such as joyne not to some particular Church if those beleevers doe not in some respect stand without amongst unbeleevers and the consequence is so plaine that the owne Syllogisme whereinto you cast his argument would have concluded so much if it had been suffered to speake out in the conclusion For in stead of saying except such joyne to some Church the signes will be darkned and obscured the reason rightly concluded would have said fieri non potest it cannot bee but the signes will bee confounded and therefore in his judgement it is unavoidable that such mix themselves with unbeleevers that are without indeed properly in the Apostles sense Reply Againe Doctor Ames lib. 4. cap. 17. speaking of Infants to be received saith it is required first that they be in the Covenant of Grace by outward profession c. Answ What you alledge here out of Doctor Ames wee confesse sheweth that hee was very large in his charity about the baptizing of Infants extending the same to the child of a Papist c. but it may seeme by some passages that hee understood by profession of faith such as live in the visible Churches and lookes at the child of a Papist as one of a visible Church for substance though so exceedingly corrupt but all this do not disprove that he understood 1 Cor. 5. 12. otherwise then hath been said What you alledge out of his second Manuduction concerning the Churches of England we consent unto neither doe wee deny seales to any if they demand them as members of any true Church in England and in an orderly way CHAP. X. Consid 5. Reply TO the first consideration If it bee repugnant to divine institution to admit of approved Christians lawfully baptized walking in the faith members of the visible Churches and partakers of Church priviledges amongst us to the Lords Supper or their children to baptisme because they bee not entered into Church-fellowship according to your order then it is unlawfull though no such evill consequences are to bee feared but if by accident some abuse should fall out the evill is to bee prevented by all lawfull meanes but the faithfull are not to be debarred utterly of the order of God whereto they have right and title by his free grant and gracious institution Answ Wee cannot but still complaine of this liberty which is taken in changing the termes of the question First that clause Members of visible Churches is not in the position nor is it maintained by us in that sense neither doe wee limit Church-fellowship to our order as it is called but acknowledge Churches defective in matters of order as was said in the answer and therefore it is an apparent wrong to us and to the readers so oft to put in such things as are not in the controversie Secondly If it bee unlawfull by divine institution may not evill consequences bee added and if both hold are not our reasons the more strong What needeth then such a Reply Thirdly We have oft granted a remote right but next and immediate we still deny and wee conceive no other order of God in his Churches to prevent such evils then by joyning to the instituted Churches of Christ Reply Seals may bee prophaned when the dispensers cannot helpe it but here is no feare or danger of such consequences necessary to follow for wee speake not of all sorts at randome but of Christians professing the faith intirely lawfully baptized knowne and approved to the wise and judicious visible members of the Churches amongst us sufficiently knowne to you or orderly recommended c. Answ The feare and danger in this case is more then so farre off can easily bee discerned though the limitations bee good in themselves yet the application of this description in the first part of it would open a doore wider then many can imagine for many such in the judgement even of the wisest comming in to this state of temptations prove farre otherwise even your selves being Judges if you were here wee suppose the experience of the discoveries God hath made in these late trials of England amongst forward professors will teach our brethren to consider how many professors may prove here Yet secondly if you add such as retaining their membership in your Churches are recommended unto us by your Churches or by known godly Ministers wee can then according to order receive them and avoid the confusion and inconveniences wee objected Thirdly if also it be taken into the description knowne and sufficiently approved of our selves then the doore is open to them to the communion of the Church and all the priviledges thereof though they cannot settle in the place of their present abode and this way of order would prevent the inconveniences but if wee come to put a difference any other way wee cannot avoid it but great offence will be given to
To this objection was spoken before onely we marvell why you say they must first partake of Seales when as Acts 2. they were baptized and added to the Church the same day and 't is granted the Apostles gathered Churches by baptisme Reply Such as for lack of meanes and opportunity cannot joyne in such estate er bee dispersed by persecution or destitute of Pastors or Teachers may for a time seeke the seales in other societies Answ The first instance is the thing in question and such as may come to any society to desire seales are not wholly destitute of meanes and opportunity to joyne viz. to that society The two other instances being of such as may bee supposed still to hold their right in a Church society the thing is granted by us in way of communion of Churches Reply The people also who are deprived of right and libertie to chuse their pastour may desire the seales of him that is set over them Answ This objection is easie for in desiring seales of him and submitting themselves to his ministry they doe now choose him however at first they opposed his comming But what is this to what ought to bee in an orderly way whereof wee speake Reply These propositions being allowed for currant a nation or people plunged into Idolatry or Infidelity or otherwise dischurched cannot by ordinary meanes recover into a Church estate wherein they may lawfully and according to Gods appointment desire or expect that the seales of the Covenant shall bee dispensed unto them Answ What should hinder if the whole nation would bee willing to recover themselves into Churches Indeed that is rare to be found that all will affect such a recovery But wee see nothing to hinder but all the nation or so many as are awakened in conscience to bewaile their Apostasie and lament after the Lord having especially the countenance of the supreme magistrate severall companies of Christians may combine in Churches so as may best suite with their edification chuse officers and injoy ordinances Nay è contra our Protestant Divines as Chemnitius Field Brentius Whitacher Luther c. make peoples power of electing their Ministers the best foundation of a peoples recovery of a true Ministry and Church estate Reply The fifth Proposition riseth beyond measure That no Christian can expect by the appointment of God to partake in the seales till hee have joyned himselfe in Church fellowship and in the call of the Minister We conceive you will not say that children and women have to doe in the call of the Minister If some part of the Church doe not consent in the call of the Minister must they separate from the ordinances of worship c. Answ The seeming swellings of this proposition will easily fall and run within bankes and bounds if it bee received in its true sense and meaning for by the call of a Minister must needs bee understood the voluntary subjection of all Church members to his ministery after hee is called as well as the act of election of him at the first It were irrationall to thinke a Minister is to bee chosen over againe whensoever a member is added to the Church And therefore our meaning was not hard to conceive and being so taken women choose their Minister that is voluntarily submit to him being chosen Children are subjected to him by their parents the dissenting part of the Church ought to submit to him being chosen and doe if they remaine under his Ministry and so in all other cases you have or can suppose Reply Here you say people must joyne in the call of a Minister before they can lawfully desire and bee admitted to the seales And another hath zealously affirmed It is a presumptuous sinne to choose an Officer not trayned up and â—ryed in debating discussing carrying and contriving Church affaires in admonishing exhorting comforting c. Lay these together and consider how long many a poore soule converted to the faith must bee compelled to want Gods ordinances Answ First it doth not answer the profession in the letter thus to joyne us with Mr. Robinson as another of the same sort as it were For such as would gladly receive every Syllable from us that may dislodge their thoughts of separation in us as wee are heartily desired to bee assured of in the Epistle to this Reply wee thinke would not so closely joyne us with such they would have us parted from and upon so little occasion and to so little purpose unlesse they doe much forget themselves Secondly when it cannot be denied but the choyse of Ministers is in the Church and that hands should not rashly bee laid on any man and Deacons the lowest Office should bee proved and then Minister being found blamelesse yea hee saith and these also proved implying that others also should bee so 1 Tim. 3. 10. what fault can be found with the substance of what either Robinson or our selves speake if our meaning and his were but charitably taken If his word bee over-zealous to say it is a presumptuous sin to doe otherwise what is that to us Thirdly For the delay of ordinances if both these be taken together in most cases it need not be long where God affordeth able and fit men for office But if some delay be and that a church want some ordinances and cannot by Communion with other Churches injoy them which is rare yet is it not better to forbeare some ordinances a while then miscarry in so great a worke as the choise of officers upon which the following comfort and good of the Church doth so much depend The demand following is answered in this whole discourse and wee hope not with words but proofes especially in our answer to the Reply in the first consideration neither doe wee see any such difficulty but that such Christians may as easily joyne to such a Church for a time as desire to injoy the ordinances and to sit loose from it for transient members we disallow not Reply If the propositions may stand for good I feare we shal scarce finde that ever in ordinary way the Sacraments were lawfully dispensed or received in the Christian Churches of God since the first foundation of them Answ If they bee taken in their true meaning and in that latitude we intend them wee see no such cause of scruple For what is more ordinary in all true Churches then for people first to chuse their Ministers then to receive the seals at their hands and this hath beene the way of Ancient reformers It is true many corruptions have beene in many true Churches and usurpations upon the right of the people in choosing their Ministers as also in administrations of the Ordinances themselves and oft in the Constitution of Churches But as the maintaining of any truth of God against those corruptions in worship c. doth not argue an unlawfulnesse of the ordinances in such Churches but convinceth onely the corrupt administration of them So in
that the Apostles did walke by ordinary rules generally Reply Fourthly the practise of the Apostles in receiving the faithfull c. is backed on divine precept c. Answ If you meane they baptized such without receiving them into some particular Church wee deny this assumption upon the grounds laid downe before Reply Fiftly In the first consideration you prove the seales to be the priviledge of the Church in ordinary dispensation by this passage of Scripture Then they that gladly received the word were baptized but if the Apostles baptized by extraordinary dispensation in your sense this testimony is insufficient for that purpose Answ Although the printed Copy of our answer omit this proofe wholly and also Rom. 9. 4 yet in our true Cypy wee alledged Acts 2 41 42. 47. wherein you will finde not onely this passage Then they that gladly received the word were baptized but withall that they were added to the Church and such a Church as continued stedfastly in the fellowship c. of the Apostles Likewise Verse 47. that the conversion and baptizing of Disciples being omitted the joyning or adding to the Church is put in the stead thereof which proofes as they are omitted wholly in the printed Copy so also you make no reply unto them Secondly by these proofes it might easily have been seene that wee did not looke upon all the Apostles acts in this case of Baptisme as extraordinary but that their first and leading examples were ordinary and in that order wee plead for which if it had been regarded much labour had been saved in this dispute which hath been spent to little purpose And Our second Reason Reply In due order the sealeâ— belong to them to whom the grant is given but the grant is vouchsafed to the faithfull and their seed forgivenesse of sinnes c. and the benefits of the Covenant are so linked together that where one is granted none is denyed c. Answ 'T is true the Seales belong to all them by a remote right to whom the grant is given as hath been oft said but not immediate yet in the very propounding of this reason wee may observe two things that doe cut the â—â—ewes of it 1 The limitation of due order which as hath been said can no where be found but in a particular Church Let any shew what order Christ hath put his Catholick visible Church into or where that order is to bee seene but in particular Churches by which order every one is bound to joyne to such Churches as well as to partake in the outward Ordinances of Gods worship which are there onely to be found Secondly it is granted that not onely forgivenesse of sins but all other benefits of the Covenant of grace are linked together and are the grant sealed up in the Sacrament and if so is not visible conjunction with Christ and his Church with all the priviledges of the Church and ordinances of the same part of that grant by the Covenant of grace or of the Gospell wee suppose none would deny it why then should not visible beleevers require and take up this part of the grant as well as the seale of it for sigillum sequitur donum let them take this gift and the seale is ready for them And this may answer the first part of the Reply about Rom. 4. 11. as also all the rest which followes being things so oft repeated and answered before as make it tedious to all CHAP. XIIII Position 5. THat the power of excommunication is so in the body of the Church that what the major part shall allow must bee done though the Pastors and Governors and the rest of the assembly be of another mind and that peradventure upon more substantiall reasons Reply This question is much mistaken for the demand is not Whether in the Congregation matters should be carried by number of votes against God as you interpret the position but whether the power of excommunication so lie in the body of the Congregation as that sentence must proceed in externo foro according to the vote and determination of the major part and so in admissions of members c. and though they have no power against God but for God yet in execution of that power they may bee divided in judgement and one part must erre Now hence the question is moved Whether the power hee so in the people that what the major part determine must stand Answ If our whole answer had been attended unto it is so cleare and full that it could not with any shew of reason bee subject to such a mistake To omit the first part of our answer affirmatively wherein wee cite Mr. Parker as consenting with him In the second part to the position as stated our answer is plainely negative that excommunication is not so seated neither ought to bee so in any of the Churches of the Lord Jesus What followes is our reason grounded upon the last clause of the position because Churches ought to carry things not by number of votes against God as this position implies but by strength of Rule and Reason according to God and for edification 2 Cor. 13. 8. 2 Cor. 10. 8. Now let any judge whether the position doth not imply such an absurdity so oft as things should bee carried by the major vote against the Officers and the rest having better Reasons and therefore wee are apt to think that if the learned author had been so ready to embrace any syllable that lends to dislodge these thoughts of us as leaning to separation hee would have beleeved our plaine negation of this position which indeed is according to our constant practise never following the major part of votes against the Officers but counting it the duty of the Officers in such cases either to satisfie the consciences of the major part or lesser by the rule of the word or to yeeld not to the vote but reasons if they bee stranger or to suspend the businesse and referre to the counsell of other Churches if they cannot agree but a division arise according to the patterne Act. 15. Reply Amongst them that hold the power of the Keyes to bee given to the Church some as Fenner Parker I. D. distinguish between the power it selfe which they give to the Church and the execution which they confine to the Presbytery others give the power of the Keyes with the exercise thereof to the whole body of the Church or if in the dispensation they attribute any thing to the Officers it is but as servants of the Church from whom they derive their authority and here lies the stone at which the Separation stumble and which wee conceive to bee your judgement and practise wherein wee required your plaine answer but have received no satisfaction You referre us to Mr. Parkers Reasons to prove the power of the Keyes belong to the whole Church who are of farre differing judgement from him in the point it selfe and if your judgement and
practise bee as the Separation as wee feare you dissent from him and wee from you in these considerations Answ Wee are sorry to see this Reverend man of God so strongly possessed with a prejudicate opinion and feare of our concurrence with the Separation upon what grounds it is not said nor can wee apprehend That neither our flat negation of the position nor our reference to Mr. Parker as concurring with him should give him any satisfaction to the contrary But if that bee the judgement and practise of the Separation which is here imputed unto them viz. That the power and exercise of the Keys is in the body of the Church and what the Officers doe therein is but as servants of the Church from whom they derive their authority if our profession may bee of any use to satisfie wee doe freely and heartily professe to the contrary affirming that the authoritative power of transacting all things in the Church is in the hands of the Officers who minister in the name and power of Christ to and over the Church and that the power or liberty of the community whereby they may and ought to concurre with their guides so long as they rule in the Lord is to bee carried in a way of obedience unto them and when upon just cause they dissent from them still they are to walke respectfully towards them and wee thinke our brethren are not ignorant that Mr. Parker and Fenner give as much to the Church in excommunication as wee have pleaded for in any of our publique writings But seeing wee are led by this learned author from this particular question about excommunication to that beaten controversie of the power of the Keyes in generall and the first subject thereof whereby wee are forced to declare our selves herein wee shall briefly gleane up some few of our scattered apprehensions as may most concerne the case in hand 1 There are divers Keyes that are diversly distributed to severall subjects in respect of execution and therefore the question should have beene first stated and what Keyes are denied to the people and appropriated to the Officers And what to some Officers not to others should have been shewed before Arguments were pressed 2 The state of the Church being mixed of an Aristocracy to which belongs Office and Democracy to which belongs priviledge hence the power of the Keyes is twofold 1 Officiall power 2 Fraternall The first belonging to the guides of the Church the other to the fraternity thereof 3 The officiall power of the Keyes is a power to act with authority in the name of Christ ministerially in opening and shutting binding and loosing c. In respect of which Office while the Minister acts according to the will of Christ he is over the Church in things properly Ecclesiasticall because hee stands in the roome of Christ and comes in his name and hence in those Church acts which are not proper to him but common in some cases to the fraternitie yet there is an office-authority upon them which is not upon the like acts materially done by others Ex. gr Any brother may and ought to exhort and rebuke 1 Thes 5. 14. Heb. 3. 13. Titus a Minister is exhorted to doe the same thing but with all authority Titus 2. 15. some able and gifted though not in Office may occasionally open and apply the word yet not with an Office-authority But an Officer preacheth as an Ambassadour of Christ 2 Cor. 5. So also in admission of members and casting out of offenders wherein though the fraternity have a power whether in consenting or otherwise yet they act obedientially in respect of their guides declaring the rule going before them in example and commanding them if need bee in the name of Christ to doe his pleasure But the Officers act in these things in the name and authority of him in whose roome they stand and hence wee thinke that in case the fraternity without Officers should cast out any yet it is not altogether the same with that which may bee dispensed by the Officers thereof it being no officiall act 2 Fraternall power in publike Church acts is a joynt power of liberty or priviledge in some sense in some cases to open shut which power is not in any one or more severally but in the whole joyntly for as they have power to combine and so to receive others into the communion so by like reason to shut out offenders from their communion but thus they do fraternally not officially and as they have such a power of election of Officers to them so they have also a fraternall power due order being attended to shut them out when there is just cause according to the common received rule Cujus est instituere ejusdem est destituere These things which might bee more fully explained and confirmed wee have onely briefly set downe both to wash off the blot of popular Government from the wayes of Christ as if all authority were taken from the Ministers or nothing left them but to dispense the seales and in all other things to sit meerely as a moderator in the Churches of Christ which wee utterly disclaime And also to make way for our more cleare answer to what is objected here in the Reply Wee grant therefore the first argument and the conclusion thereof thus farre that the officiall power of the Keys was not given to the whole multitude but onely there is given to them a power to choose Officers which Officers should execute the same Reply 2 If Christ gave this power to the community was it from the beginning of the Church or tooke it effect after the Church was planted Not the first for then the Apostles themselves should derive their power from the community which they did not Answ This reason is answered before so farre as concernes our tenent in the second consideration where it is alledged to which wee referre the Reader neither doe wee say the officiall power is so given to the community but such things as are here added wee shall consider so farre as concernes us Reply The Apostles and other Governours were given of Christ to the Church as for their end and all their authority was given unto them for the Church as for the whole but the authority it selfe was immediatly derived from Christ and is not in the Church as the immediate subject nor derived from the Church but from Christ the King of the Church The authority of Governour is given of Christ for a gift to the Church but not a gift absolute That it may reside in the power of the whole Church but for a conditionall gift communicated to the Governours for the good of the whole Parker pol. lib. 3. cap. 8. Answ 1 Concerning the power of the Apostles and extraordinary Officers wee now dispute not it was answered before and for the authority of other Officers wee doe not affirme that it is derived from the Church but from Christ
for the good of the Church but if the question bee of the application of an Office and the power of it to such and such persons in the Church wee would demand whether Christ doth this to such a Pastour and Teacher immediatly or mediatly if immediatly then their call is not in this different from Apostles which Paul expresly distinguisheth Gal. 1. 1. Paul was an Apostle not of man nor by man but of God and by Jesus Christ false Teachers are of man and by man True Pastors as Thomas Iohn c. are of God by man and if Christ communicate this Office and the authority annexed unto it mediatly by man not immediatly the question is Who is the subject of this power to call and so to apply this office in the name of Christ to this or that person John Thomas c. Wee hold this fraternall ministeriall power under Christ is in the Church and so farre wee shall defend this position and where ever it be else placed it will be subject to all the absurdities that are imputed to us To the sentence of Parker we answer that the misinterpreting one word of his sentence doth pervert his whole meaning his words are Pro dono conditionali ut Rectoribus communicetur i. e. that the Church might not communicate that power to Officers nor keepe it in her owne hand Or that it might bee communicated from Christ by the Church And this will appeare his meaning and it agrees with that position hee holds so strongly that the Church is the first subject of the Keys Reply After the Churches were established it tooke not effect for it is no where found in Scripture that Christ first committed this power to the Apostles and after to the community the Ministers and guides were immediately of Jesus Christ from whom immediately they derive their power and authority by whom they are set over their charge in whose name they execute their Office c. Yea Pastorship is the gift of Christ as well as Apostleship and every Pastor is not immediately called but the office and order of Pastors the calling authority and jurisdiction is immediately from Christ not from the Church Answ First the power of the Keyes in a right sense given to the Church tooke effect from the beginning in Christs institution and in the frequent practice of the Church as is shewed before and therefore this is needlesse to bee proved that it tooke effect after Secondly that Ministers and guides were immediately from Christ if you meane ordinary officers and that every Pastour is not immediately called seemes to be a contradiction the places Act. 28. 8. Ephes 4. 8. c. doe not prove that all Officers are immedately from Christ though they bee set in the Church by Christ and over the Church by the Holy Ghost c. This the Lord can doe and doth doe by the meanes of his Church walking according to his rule and institution and therefore you must come at last home to our tenent as here you doe that Pastorship the office power jurisdiction c. annexed to it is immediately from Christ viz. by his institution in the Gospel but Pastors every one that receive this office hath it from Christ but by his Church calling them to the same and in the name of Christ applying it to them and thus far we agree with you Reply The Steward is appointed of the Master of the family alone and hath all his authority from him Every Embassador in the cause of his Embassage doth immediately depend upon him from whom he is sent but if the function order and authority of Pastors and Teachers bee immediately from Christ then it is not received from the Church as the immediate receptacle Answ Answ First though Pastors in respect of the exercise of their function dispense the Word and other Mysteries of Christ as from him immediately and so are fitly compared to Embassadors and Stewards yet in the call of the one and other to that work there is a plaine dissimilitude the one being called Mediately the other Immediately by their Masters and therefore in this case it proves nothing What doth this argument conclude if onely that the function and order is not from the Church as the first subject we readily grant it if the application of the office to such a person so farre as may bee done by an outward call it followes not at all for the function and office may bee from Christ and the application thereof by the Church Reply Thus Protestant Divines dispute against Papists if Bishops receive their power and authority of exercising immediately from Christ by Mandate Mission and commission from him then not from the Pope and so for Presbyters in regard of the Bishop Answ The reason and ground of that dispute is because the Pope claimes a plenitude of power from Peter whence all must see derived to all Bishops c. bee they never so orderly chosen and ordained in their owne esteeme and so indeed usurps the Prerogative of Christ the head of the Church The like usurpation â—â— its degree was in the Bishops over Presbyters But here the case is farre different the Church claming no such power but onely Ministeriall in the outward call of officers according to his direction and so the application of that office unto the persons which hath sufficient ground of Scripture from Christ and therefore we grant the conclusion viz. That they derive not their power from the people but from Christ by meanes of the Church Ministerially and instrumentally applying that office to them whereunto Christ hath annexed that power Lastly the like argument may be objected against any other subject of this power you can or will suppose even the Presbytery it selfe Reply It is usually objected that the Church cannot convey what she never had but the people may elect their Pastor Whereunto the answer is direct and plaine nothing can give that it had not formally or vertually unlesse it give it as an instrument ministring to one that hath it but so it may give what it never had nor is capable of A Steward may give all the offices in his Masters house as ministerially executing his Masters pleasure Answ This answer doth not satisfie for wee cannot put off our old principles of Reason that every instrument ministring to the principall cause doth Conferre vim ad effectum and so farre or in what sense it gives any thing to the effect in that sense and so farre it must needs have vertually or formally the same in itselfe If a Conduit convey water ministerially from the fountaine to the house it hath water in such a sense as it doth concurre to the effect and so the Church cannot give the Keys to the Officers as an instrument of Christ but it must be granted shee received them from Christ vertually to give them to the Officer Secondly for the instance if it bee meant of a Steward giving the offices to such
persons as his Master hath named thereunto and he instals them into the same the case is not alike yet here hee must have some power and authority so to doe so that he hath these offices vertually in his hand but if it be his Masters will he shall choose what persons hee sees fit according to rules given him which is the case here then hee hath this power vertually in his hand Reply Thirdly if Ecclesiasticall and spirituall power be in the multitude and community of the faithfull the Church doth not onely call but make Officers out of power and vertue received into her selfe and then should the Church have a true Lord like power in regard of her Ministers Answ If there be any such that hold the Church hath so the power of the Keyes in her selfe as that she may derive from her selfe authority to the Officers let such looke unto the conclusion as for Mr. Robinson though wee doe not approve the sentences you cite out of him yet we doubt whether you doe not goe beyond his sense meaning but according to our sense of this position before layd downe neither this absurdity of Lordship over the Officers nor any others that are instanced in under this reason doe at all follow and they may bee as strongly urged against the Presbyteries Classes Synods Catholick Church or any subject of the Keyes that can be named And the objection viz. That God will have the Church choose Officers to execute the power committed to her is so answered in the same page as will serve us as well as you viz. God will have her elect Officers of his designment that is such as the rule directs her to choose to doe his worke according to that Power which hee hath given them and by his direction and then they are Gods servants and not the Churches and receive that charge and function immediatly from God and not from the people wee meane no otherwise then by that outward call instrumentally applying that Office unto them and in this sense wee close with you herein and indeed this power of electing Officers doth not ever include authority over them whom they chuse but rather willing subjection unto them and setting them up to rule as when a woman chooseth a husband she makes him her husband in a sort but withall her head and ruler so when a people choose a Major c. Reply Fourthly if the Power of the Keyes be given first and immediatly to the community of the faithfull what reason can bee alleadged why in defect of Officers the Church might not rule feed bind loose preach and administer Sacraments or if any faile in Office why shee might not supply that want by her power for the power of the Keys doth containe both authority and exercise power being given that it may bee exercised as it is vouchsafed but the Church cannot exercise these acts of rule Ergo. Answ The reason is because the Church hath not received some of the Keyes formally but onely vertually and as was said out of Parker not as a gift absolute but conditionall that it might bee communicated to the Officers Such power as the body of the Church hath received formally shee may and doth exercise as a power of choosing Officers a power of judging in censures 1 Cor. 5. 12. and the like the power of preaching properly so called dispensing Sacraments c. being acts of authority the Church hath them onely vertually and therefore must choose Officers to whom Christ her Lord hath given authority in the Church A Corporation that by Patent from the King hath many Priviledges the power is given to the Body incorporated and so it is the first subject of it yet many acts cannot be put forth but by Officers duely chosen and so here Reply For these Reasons not to insist on any more wee judge the community of the faithfull not to bee the immediate receptacle of ecclesiasticall authority and so the Power of excommunication not to belong unto them Answ By this conclusion it appeares that how ever the author began professedly against us as Separatists in this point yet he followes the cause against Mr. Parker with whom hee seemes to be friends Secondly the power of excommunication may belong to the Church or community in respect of a fraternall power of judging though officiall authority bee not formally given to the Church but to the Officers Reply If consent of Churches bee asked in this point to omit others the Churches of Scotland speake fully and expresly for us in the second booke of Discip Cap. 1. The Church as it is taken for them that exercise spirituall functions in the Congregation of them that professe the truth hath a certaine power granted of God according to which it useth a proper jurisdiction c. Beza de Presb. pag. 60. Helv. Confess Cap. 18. Belgick c. Answ If consent of the learned godly and zealous reformers were asked a cloud of witnesses might bee produced that hold the Church the first subject of the Keyes as Fulke Whitaker Parker Peter Martyr Musculus and others besides many of the ancient Divines and Councells Gerson and the Parisian Divines well known to the learned concerning quotation of the Scottish discipline the first words lay so weake a foundation as leave the building ready to fall in these words The Church as it is taken for them that exercise spirituall functions hath a certaine power c. but where is the Church so taken not in all the New Testament that can be proved with any solid Reason notwithstanding all wrastling of men to find it out but generally for the company of the faithfull either the universall or particular Church and this sometime considered with her Officers and divers times as distinguished from them as Acts 14. 23. and 20. 13. 28. Jam. 5. 14. Revel 2. 1. 8. 12. c. but never contra for the Officers distinguished from the Church or body of the Congregation and therefore if the Keyes be given to the Church and the plea of the power of the Keyes to be given immediatly to the Officers be in and under the name of the Church it will fall to the Church of the faithfull if the Scripture may judge indeed among the Papists and so the Prelates the Clergy have long got and held possession of the name of the Church but the testament of Christ will not beare this foundation but wee will not trouble the Reader farther about humane testimonies CHAP. XV. Position 6. THat none are to bee admitted Members but they must promise not to depart or remove unlesse the Congregation will give leave Reply It is one thing abruptly to breake away when and whither they please and forsake fellowship another thing not to depart or remove habitation unlesse the Congregation will give leave also it is one thing mutually to compound and agree not to depart from each other without consent and approbation and other to require a
gracious promise of the presence of Christ in his Churches who is the counsellour so we confesse to his praise that we finde the judgment of a Church of Saints in matters orderly carryed and gathered up from the various gifts of wisedome grace and experience of many Christians when need is to be a blessed priviledge of Gods people to enjoy and sanctified oft to the great good of his Saints and being neglected and slighted hath been oft followed with sad events Reply The nature of your Church-Covenant inferreth not a necessity of bringing every such businesse to the Church for you binde your selves mutually to watch one over another c. but this essentially tyeth not any man to a perpetuall residence in one place for then even occasionall absence should be a breach of Covenant without consent of the Church Answ We grant our Church-Covenant neither requires every businesse to come to publike counsell nor perpetuall residence in one place neither is it so held by us in judgement or practise Reply You say you bind your selves to no new duties but in the word of truth it is not required neither directly nor by consequence that no member of a Church should remove or occasionally bee absent from his habitation before hee have acquainted the Church whither he goeth and on what occasions c. Answ It cannot but grieve us to see how the Replyer still not content to take all things in the harshest sense but will also winde in other matters into his discourse which may make our practise seeme farre more rigid then it is First hee urges us as if wee brought all cases of remove and the occasions thereof as marriages c. to the counsell of the whole Church Secondly hee would by consequence inferre the like of occasionall absence and now hee weaves in that also as if it were practised by us to require men to acquaint the Church with the place whither they goe and the occasions of their occasionall absence which is farre from us Reply And if such businesse must bee determined on the Lords Day c. Answ Wee deny not but the best Churches through weaknesse and temptation may spend too much time in the most necessary administrations of censures or other affaires but to possesse the world with such feares upon so little ground may argue the authors charity concerning our wisdome and christian care of the Sabbath was not very great Reply As for the Covenant it selfe c. but if yee constraine men to meddle with things that belong not to them and winde them up higher then God would and straine every thing to the pitch you seeme here to doe a godly sober minde may well pause before hee make such a promise Answ If the authour had not strained and aggravated things beyond our meaning in the answer and our practise this would not have come to so high a pitch to trouble a sober godly mind we are perswaded that generally sober godly minds that have their pride and self-willednesse in any good measure mortified doe count the yoake of Christ according to our practise of this point to bee both easie and profitable neither doe wee require such a promise of any as was said but if any stumble at the fourth branch of the first reason from the nature of the Covenant let us a little here cleare that scruple when wee reason from the nature of the Covenant and branch our reason into foure things it is not to bee so taken as if every one of those foure things were made a distinct promise in our solemne Covenant for the fourth is but an inference from the three former as is easie to observe and indeed it was never made by us a part of the Covenant or a distinct promise of it either in our judgement or practise If because we extend our watch to the removals of brethren it be taken for granted that we require such a promise it will no more follow then that we require promises in admissions in a thousand cases to which our watch also extends Reply If any shall not meddle with every businesse of this kinde as questioning whether it doe belong to him or no or not aske the advise of the whole societie as knowing the most bee unfit to counsell in such a case doth hee breake his Covenant therein and so commit a sinne in a sort like the sinne of Ananias and Saphira Iudge your selves if in other cases you would not censure this to bee an high incroachment upon Christian libertie and a strict binding of mens consciences by humane constitutions Answ To extend our watch so farre as hath been said unto these cases of removalls from a Church to prevent sinne in abrupt breaking off and forsaking fellowship and to prevent the hurt and damage which the sheepe of Christ oft fall into in their unadvised breaking out of the fold the Lord hath placed them in and to further their best good in their removalls whatever is thought of it wee count it no breach of Christian liberty but a priviledge of the Saints to bee under such a watch and therefore if any shall neglect any duty that one owes to another so farre as it tends necessarily to those ends wee may well reckon it as a neglect of our Covenant but because it is offensive to compare this with the sinne of Ananias c. wee intreat our reverend brethren and the Christian Reader to consider that in the answer this stands in the third thing noted in the nature of the Covenant and hath reference to the duties of the Covenant in generall and is not applyed to this particular case by us nor well appliable in the manner here expressed Secondly it is moderated in the answer which saith in some sort hee shall commit that sinne If these things doe not satisfie wee wish it expunged or any other seeming harshnesse rather then offence be given to any Lastly that you may not impute unto us the infringement of Christian liberty herein wee would acquaint all men with these two things First that removals from one towne and Church to another and from full to new Plantations are frequently practised amongst us with consent and approbation Secondly that wee finde in experience that as there is in sheepe a wandring disposition so in this large Wildernesse wherein the Lord hath exercised his people with various temptations by liberties by offers of large outward accommodations by wants and straights by various opinions vented by Satan and his instruments c. In these respects the Sheepe of Christ are so subject many times to outrunnings that wee finde more then ordinary need of care and wisedome in this point of our watch in many cases and many that have broke loose from the counsels of their officers friends and of the Church have deepely smarted for it How sad a case is it when some brainsicke master of a family transported with a fancy an odde opinion will needs carry his whole
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
no part of the Catholike Church and therefore not the whole is bound to submit to them and therefore indeed they have no office nor calling as Pastors or Teachers except it can be proved they be Evangelists Apostles or Prophets Reply If the people be few and simple they stand in more need of guidance from their owne Elders and other Churches If many and full of wisdome their liberty to choose is the greater and the greater wrong to bee deprived of it The practise of the Apostles and Primitive Churches shew this for many ages sometime men were propounded to the Church to be chosen sometimes the chiefe left wholly to them Answ 1 What is all this to the purpose what light or derection a Church need to receive the essence of a Ministers call lyes not in the propounding or advising of any to elect him but in the Election of such as have the true right so to doe which is still in the Church though few and weake if a true Church and yet you produce not one Scripture example of any Officer propounded by the Apostles or Elders to the Church to be chosen by them much lesse limiting the Church to consent thereto if they had nothing against him Reply In reason this is evident for the Childs consent is required in marriage but the more able he is to choose for himselfe the more liberty may Parents grant the lesse able the more watchfull must they be This similitude utterly faileth in two essentiall things that concerne the case for which it is applyed 1. Because a childe is under the authority of the parents whose right is such that a Childe cannot lawfully choose without them But there is no Church or others have such a right and authority over any Church in their choice of Officers 2. Whatsoever the power of parents bee yet the essence of the marriage consists in the mutuall consent and promise of the children that marry and so here the essence of a Ministers call must lye in the election of the Church and acceptance of the Minister which is not avoided but by the similitude confirmed Reply It is a duty of neighbour Churches to lend their helpe to their brethren in election of their Ministers when the Scripture willeth us to exhort one another or admonâ—sh one another it is not onely a command to every singular person towards his fellow but also to any whole company Answ Wee grant all this and that it is the duty of a Church bee it weake or strong to take all needfull counsell advise or exhortations and admonitions in so weighty a worke But if Churches or others shall impose upon any Church any Officer without their choice this is no brotherly helpe but unjust usurpation And if you understand Junius so as that Charitatis jure Communione sanctorum one Church have power to choose for another other wayes then by advising them to elect such an one for themselves wee see no reason for that nor doe wee thinke it is his meaning neither doth Paul Rom. 12. 12. lay any foundation of such usurpations but onely of mutuall brotherly helpfulnesse by counsell c. and the contrary is not Policy but some degree of tyranny Reply It is a blemish in the call of a Minister if either the people be not fit to choose or being fit they he shut out from the choice but this maime doth not make a nullity in his calling Answ If a people or Church bee never so weake which is here called unfitnesse yet Christ being amongst them and they making an orderly and good choice there can be no blemish in the call seeing the right is them and such a free choice will better stablish the conscience of any godly Minister in his call then if a Synod of the ablest Ministers should impose him without their free choice except it can bee proved that the right of election is in the Synod which we thinke will not bee done But bee they able or weake if the people be shut out it must needs make a great maim in his call and if they doe not consent nor submit to such a one called by others it will make it a nullity as was shewed before What authority hath hee to Minister to any Church if they will refuse him or who shall censure them for refusing by any rule of Christ Reply The saving truth of God and a lawfull Ministery are both essentiall to a true Church Answ Answ What then becomes of the Church when the Minister is dead Reply The true Church hath continued by the blessing of God where the election of Ministers hath beene given away by the people or taken from them Answ True but it hath been continued by the after consent and subjection of the people to their Ministers chosen by others else they must needs have broken a pieces and dissolved the Church or taken upon them to choose others to themselves which still shewes that the essence of the call is in the people What is said of the disorders of Ancient Churches in elections we passe over as nothing to this purpose That the Ministery might bee lawfull for substance where there were many defects in the manner of the call we grant the Church at length consenting to submit thereto in whom the true right is placed by Christ and therefore we passe over what followes to that purpose though wee might object against some passages in the discourse Reply As for the second branch of your answer we know not well your meaning if this be your minde that a Minister lawfully called and set over the Congregation is to bee esteemed a Minister in the usuall Church as the particular Church hath unity with and is part of the universall or Catholique and as a party baptized is not baptized into that Congregation onely but into all Churches and that the Ministery is one cujus a singulis in solidum pars tenetur as Cyprian speaketh and therefore though the Minister be unjustly cast eff by one Congregation yet hee is not to be esteemed as no Minister wee freely consent But if your meaning bee that hee is onely by right a Minister of that particular Congregation because unjustly deposed as formerly in the execution of his Office â—ee was a Minister to them onely and to no other society whatsoever or in what respect soever your opinion is contrary to the opinion of the universall and tends to destroy the unity of the Church and that Communion which the Churches of God ought to have one with another Answ First If our meaning be doubtfull seeing these expressions doe not well suite our notion nor fully enter into our understanding we shall give the meaning of our answer distinctly and then consider what is here said First there is a difference betweene the unjust leaving or casting off a Minister without all orderly proceedings against him and the unjust deposing him in an orderly way of Church censure if the question