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.
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
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
first institution that it should bee dispensed to none but members of a Congregationall assembly Answ It is freely granted First That baptisme is a priviledge of the Church Secondly that such as professe the faith and have received the Holy Ghost are members of the Church if by Church bee meant the Church mysticall considered as visible though not alwayes political Thirdly that these may receive baptisme by such as have power to baptize them but immediately to baptize them none had power but by an extraordinary call of God so to doe as hath bin formerly shewed But it wil not hence follow that ordinary officers have such a power wanting such extraordinary call because the members of the Church Catholicke having right unto the seales yet the immediate fruition of them they must have by ordinary officers in a politicall body the onely subject according to order of all such institutions otherwise we must admit private baptismes if the extraordinary examples of the Apostles be pressed for our patterne Reply Then the Apostles in dispensing seales walked by rules of Scripture and grounds common to us and then the difficulty remaining is onely this Whether a Pastour may dispense seales to such as have right to them and do orderly desire them though hee be not yet a set member of a Congregation Answ Wee grant the Apostles ordinarily and generally baptized upon common grounds but still when they did so they received them into some particular Church and so baptized them and in the like orderly way any pastour may doe the same Secondly we answer things may bee done sano sensu upon common and morall grounds and yet may not be done by others upon the same grounds To give one instance in stead of many the Apostles preached the Gospel to gather in the elect of God and to edifie the Church c. and Ministers upon the same common grounds must now preach the Gospel also yet in that the Apostles on those grounds preached to all Nations this doth not warrant Ministers now to do the like so here though we baptize beleevers as they did yet wee may not do it to all in all cases as they did And therefore the rule holds onely when all circumstances are alike as well as the Common grounds Reply Secondly In the instance given it is not probable that baptisme was evermore administred by the Apostles or Evangelists For before the death of Christ the Disciples baptized when they were neither Apostles nor Evangelists properly After the death of Christ c. If Philip Ananias and others might baptize such as were no members of particular Congregations then may ordinary Pastours doe the like Answ You mistake here in the force of our answer as hath beene shewed in the first consideration to which this objection and answer belong For wee doe not make all the Acts of the Apostles and Evangelists extraordinary but generally orderly in the way wee professe Secondly wee answer to the particulars not to wrastle with the Ghosts of humane imaginations and conjectures whether any besides the Apostles baptized the 3000. Act. 2. As for Philip and Ananias if they baptized did they baptize as private men or as Church Officers If the second what Officers were they ordinary or extraordinary Wee thinke it will not bee thought they were ordinary who were honoured with such extraordinary worke But in what Office soever they were those particular actions in baptizing the Eunuch and Paul were done by an immediate call of God as is evident in the story Reply Thirdly It is very improbable that the persons baptized were in Church State or Order If they were members of the Jewish Church not yet dissolved this is not to the purpose for men have not right to baptisme because members of the Jewish Church but because Disciples and as you say joyned together in Covenant c. Answ Wee grant that since the visible kingdome of Christ was set up in visible Christian Churches the seales belong properly and ordinarily to the members of Christian Churches not Jewish yet wee may affirme that if in any speciall case a beleever was baptized by any that had a speciall call thereto where there was no Christian Church present actually to joyne unto yet being a member of the Jewish Church not yet dissolved the case does not so much vary from the set Order of Christ in those times and that is all wee intend Reply If the Eunuch and Centurion were proselytes and of the Jewish Church the Samaritans whom Philip baptized were not so and that any Gentiles or the Jaylour were set members of a Christian assembly is very strange c. Answ This is fully answered before in the first consideration and that which is according to the rule and mind of Christ and the first and common practise of the Apostles Act. 2. to joyne men to the Church when they baptized them need not seeme strange Reply In the Apostles practise two things are to bee considered First the circumstance of the action Secondly the substance or quality of the Act. In some circumstances the baptizing of some of these might bee extraordinary but the substance and quality of the action was grounded upon â—ules perpetuall and common to us and them That is done in an extraordinary way c. Answ 1 Wee suppose amongst such Circumstances you will reckon that for one that the Eunuch was baptized alone in the Wildernesse not in any visible assembly of Saints Wherein ordinary Pastors may not imitate that Act and this comes not farre short of what wee say for the chiefe proof that they were not received into a particular Church lies in their absence from such an assembly and if they might bee admitted to the Catholick Church without the presence of any Christian but him that baptized them why not into a particular Church as well 2 The large discourse about the Apostles extraordinary power and doing things upon common grounds is so oft said for substance and answered before that it were vaine to trouble the Reader againe with the same thing Reply Secondly an argument followes necessarily from a particular example to a generall when the proofe of one particular to another is made by force of the similitude common to the whole kind under which those particulars are contained Now in this matter wee speake of no reason can bee named why wee should thinke it lawfull for the Apostles to baptize such as were no set members and the same should be unlawfull in all cases for Pastors of particular Congregations Answ Wee deny that the Apostles did so ordinarily and therefore your Argument doth not hold if it bee built upon the common practise but if it be built upon some few speciall cases we retort the Argument thus That which the Apostles did ordinarily upon common grounds that Pastors ought to doe but ordinarily they baptized Disciples admitting them first into particular Churches therefore in the third reason wee grant the conclusion of it
but by the necessity of nature and invincible hinderances foreseen by Christ and intended by him And therfore as the Lord limiting his Church to one Nation united it into that form of a Nationall Church ordaining one place stated times and duties of Worship and one Government for the same so now the Lord neglecting all such things hath ordained a compleat administration of all his ordinances in particular Congregations and therefore if there be no other instituted visible Church but of a Congregation and Seals in their administration be given to the Church our first consideration will still hold firm But seeing in so vast a subject to say little is to say nothing and there is scarce any Truth in this wilie age but is almost disputed out of countenance and much darkned with humane evasions and seeing much depends upon this controversie it may be so most usefull before we come to the defence of our argument to take into consideration the nature and order of the visible Church of Christ Catholick and particular We are not ignorant of the knots and difficulties of this question which of late have so much exercised the minds of many Godly-learned And we think the notions of a Catholick Church as it is now held being but newly taken up amongst godly Reformers who formerly ran in another channell as is ingenuously confessed by some according to the truth this new-birth seems not yet so formed to its distinct proportions as time may bring it unto and it might make us afraid being the weakest of many to venture upon so diffuse and knotty a question when we look upon our own insufficiency to such a task and the Learned labors of such in this Point whom we reverence in the Lord yet when we consider of what great weight and moment the clearing up of this Truth would be unto the orderly proceedings of the great Work of Reformation in hand 2 How unavoydably it lyes in our way in this Work the Lord hath called us unto and that he sometimes doth vouchsafe to speak by weak ones that the praise may be his own in hope of his blessed guidance which we depend upon herein taking the light of his Word in our hands we shall rather as learners then otherwise venture to propound what is suggested to us herein Concerning which having digressed a while we shall return we hope with some advantage of clearer evidence to justifie the first argument of the Answer against what is said in the Reply CHAP. V. A digression tending to clear the state of that controversie concerning a Catholick visible Church in respect of the nature unity visibility and priority of the same THe world hath been long troubled with the equivocation of the word Church and therefore as it is needfull we shall labor to set down our thoughts as distinctly and plainly as we can in certain Propositions that may be some ground of our discourse Propos 1. The true Church of God is the whole number of Elect and called ones out of the world to fellowship with Jesus Christ their Head with whom they make up one mysticall body Ephes 1. 23. This whole Church is of the same nature and one in essence from the beginning of the world to the end for this Church Christ laid down his life Ephes 5. 26. Joh. 10. 15. and therefore he adds vers 16. such as are not yet of his fold actually shall be brought into the same viz. by effectuall calling that there may be one Shepheard and one sheepfold wherby it appears that the whole fold of Christ to which he stands as one Shepheard contains all his members and sheep to the end of the world and it is one fold in relation to Christ that one Shepheard Propos 2◠This one entire body of Christ doth naturally fall under various notions and considerations as omitting others when it is considered according to the adjuncts of visibility and invisibility which are onely adjuncts of the same Church as is generally observed by Divines In respect of the inward union which every such member hath with Christ the Head by the Spirit of Christ and by Faith whereby we are united to him it is called invisible because this union is not visible to men In respects of some visible fruits and manifestations of faith to the judgment of men it is called visible and hence though true beleevers be onely univoce and properly members of this body of Christ yet to men that judge onely by outward effects many hypocrites equivoce and improperly are accounted of the Church and hence the Scripture frequently speaks of visible Churches as if they were all really Saints Propos 3. As this Church comes to be visible so it becomes a fit and capable subject of visible policy and visible communion with Christ their Head and one with another in all the visible ordinances of Christ a capable subject we say or matter fit for such a state for by its visibility it self it is not so having yet no more then a spirituall relation to Christ and one another no visible combination one with another for visible beleevers may be so scattered in severall Countreys that they cannot make up one Society Propos 4. And therefore we add That there is no way for this Church to enjoy actuall visible communion under the visible government of Christ and in the visible instituted ordinances of Christ but in a Society A thousand uncombined persons meeting occasionally in one place though their naturall relations were as near as brethren yet have no power of government or actuall communion in any Civill priviledges if they stand not in relation to one another as a combined Society as after shall be shown so here And therefore Acts 2. 41 42. first they were added to the Church and then followed their fellowship in all the ordinances of the Church as after will more fully appear And hence it is said Acts 5. 14. Beleevers were added first they were beleevers standing in that spirituall relation to Christ and his whole body and then added to the Church by visible combination Propos 5. There is no visible society of a Church who hath actuall and immediate right unto and communion in the visible government of Christ and the dispensation of his instituted Worship and ordinances but such a Society as the Lord Jesus hath in the Gopel instituted and ordained for that end We say actuall and immediate right unto the same for though a beleever quâ beleever have an immediate right and actuall enjoyment of such benefits of Christ as necessarily and immediately flow from his internall union with Christ as justification adoption c. and such right to Christian communion with all the Saints in their prayers gifts c. as flow from his spirituall relation unto them yea and also he hath a true right to all benefits purchased by Christ in a due order and manner yet we say instituted priviledges and ordinances doe not
in the highest Sanhedrin of Israel But there is not in the Church nor like to be such a supreme Court where such appeals may be ended Ergo. Object 2 If it be said that what a particular Church binds on earth is bound in heaven except they erre but then appeals may be made and their power is gone Answ On this ground the universall Church should not have power to bind on earth so as in heaven without appeales for they may erre and that not onely rarely but frequently witnesse the complaint of Nazianzen and others of the time passed yea they may be as much inclined to erre considering the greatest part of Churches in the world are for the most part corrupt yea though they may have better eyes yet they are further from the mark if particular Churches have no power of excommunication because they may erre be corrupt be partiall or be divided upon the same consideration neither Classicall Nationall or oecumeniall Councells have any such power for they may erre grow corrupt be partiall and be miserably divided as well as a congregationall Church other Churches may admonish in case of scandall and counsell when a particular congregation wants light and moderate if desired in case of difference but still the power is in the particular Church Other arguments might be added but seeing this controversie as we hope will be more fully and purposely disputed by a farre better hand therefore we shall fall to the consideration of such Scriptures and some few generall Arguments which we meet withall in Mr. Ball briefly propounded and in divers other Authors more largely insisted upon which if the Lord be pleased to helpe us to vindicate and clear up we think other reasons and Scriptures of lesse force will fall of themselves And first we finde Cant. 6. 4. c. to prove the whole Catholick church visible to be one Ministeriall Body because it is called One compared to an Army terrible with Banners in respect of the order of Discipline and described as being an organicall Body having eyes hair teeth c. Answ 1 Theologia Symbolica non est argumentativa except it can be made clear that the parable is applyed according to the true scope of it and no further which here is very hard to evince we know the whole Book of the Canticles is variously applyed by good Interpreters Brightman none of the meanest in this kinde of Scriptures applyes this place to the church of Geneva and the times of purer Churches to arise after it which are said to be terrible as an Army with Banners not in respect of Discipline but in respect of warlike power whereby that state of the church shall defend it self 2 But suppose that it is a description of the catholick church visible yet it cannot be a sufficient argument that it is one Ministeriall church For first the catholick church is the same in all ages and therefore by this reason it was a catholick Ministeriall body as well in the days from Adam to Abraham c. as in the New Testament Secondly by this argument we may prove Christ the head and husband of the church to be an organicall body as he is the Head of the Church for Cant. 5. 10 11. c. the Church doth allegorically describe the beauty and excellency of Christ in severall organs and parts but we suppose though Christ Jesus in his humane nature hath members yet the scope of the Church is not at all to set forth the members of his humane body but the glorious excellencies and spirituall perfections of Christ as the Redeemer and Saviour of his Church according to the manner of Lovers who are taken with the beauty of their spouses in all their members When the spouse saith Cant. 1. 1. Let him kisse me with the kisses of his mouth it were too grosse to apply it to the humanity of Christ or to argue from thence that Christ the husband of his Church is an organicall body Thirdly and lastly when the Church is called One the onely one of her Mother though it 's true she is one it seems rather to set out her excellency as rare and but one then her unity and so the other descriptions all tend to set forth her beauty in the eye and esteem of Christ neither is it any thing that the Church is compared to an Army terrible with banners for in the same Chap. vers the last she is compared to the company of Mahanaim or two Armies which is all one for the company of Mahanaim consisted of two Armies Gen. 32. 1 2 3. where Jacobs host meeting an host of Angels he calls the place Mahanaim or two Hosts and therefore we may as well say the Catholick church is terrible with two Armies of Banners as one Answ A second and chief Scripture we meet withall in divers Authors is 1 Cor. 12. 12 13. c. Whence the reason stands thus That church wherein Apostles Prophets Teachers c. are set is an organicall Church But those are set in the Catholick visible Church Ergo. For the better clearing of this Scripture it is needfull that we attend the scope of the Apostle who comming now to another branch of the things this Church had written unto him about Chap. 7. 1. 8. 1. 12. 1. and this about spirituall gifts wherein they abounded Chap. 1. 7. being the occasion of all their contentions and disorders Chap. 1. 12 13. hence he is studious the more to re-unite them again Chap. 12. 13. and to direct them how to improve their gifts orderly to edification Chap. 14. and in this Chapter he perswades their minds to unity who were divided partly through pride in their own gifts partly by disdain of others not so gifted hence he puts them in minde 1 What once they were following dumb idols 2 That all gifts are from the free dispensation of God and that one God one Lord one Spirit 3 That God in his wisdom hath dispensed great variety of gifts operations and administrations 4 That all are given to profit withal and these things he illustrates by a simile taken from a naturall body which having largely presented and applyed to this Church vers 27. he concludes with the variety of administrations in such things wherein they so much differed Chap. 1. 12 13. God hath set saith he in the Church not onely Apostles or Prophets or tongues c. but all these are all Apostles are all Prophets c no but the wisdom of God hath given you variety of these gifts and administrations and therefore Chap. 3. to quiet them he saith Paul an Apostle Apollos an Evangelist c. all are yours and as this is the scope of the Apostle so we see nothing in the Chapter but is appliable to Corinth in particular yea applyed unto them by the Apostle as what he spake vers 22. of one body he applyes to them vers 27. what he spake vers 28. of Apostles and
Churches are moulded up into one Politicall Body either de jure or de facto or that it is possible as the case stands so to be and then the similitudes would be of some use Thirdly in a Kingdom or Army suppose they never meet yet there is such politicall union as fully reaches the politicall communion for which end it was combined viz. that they should enjoy peace and justice in and by a just Government or by the protection of the Army But if such a politicall Body were combined to have such communion as a Church-communion is then it would require conventing together as elswhere we shall more fully manifest For our parts we do not see that Christ hath ordained the whole Catholick church as One to have politicall communion together which is impossible And therefore we see no need of such a Politicall combination but as he hath ordained a Brotherly communion of counsell and helpfulnesse one to another as need requires so a spirituall relation and brotherly consociation of Churches together is union sufficient for such a communion And thus far we have endevored to take away all those arguments which are built upon the generall considerations of the unity visibility and priority of the Catholick church which we leave to the consideration and examination of the judicious We shall now as the Lord shall helpe us come to cleare the state of this knotty controversie as we think it ought to be stated and carryed Viz. What is that form of a Politicall Church which Jesus Christ in the Gospel hath instituted and appointed as the subject of Church power of government and administration of all the ordinances of the Gospel for actuall communion with Christ and one with another therein And here give us leave before we enter into the question it self to make a little further use of our former similitude for illustration and then we will shew where the ne plus ultra as we conceive must stand It hath been shewed in respect of the body of mankinde that although much may be said for the unity visibility and priority thereof before any parts of it yet no reason will inforce that it is the first subject of Civill power c. in respect of actuall administration and immediate enjoyment thereof and so here in respect of the Church We will now add but this one thing more that notwithstanding all such reasons yet in execution for the good of the whole the least civill society yea a family may be and is the first subject of civill power and priviledges of civill government so the least politicall Church society may be the first subject of these Keys of Church power in the exercise thereof and of immediate communion in all visible ordinances and we think that there by Divine institution it is seated and the edification and perfection of the Catholick Church may best be attained thereby Concerning Families we see no footsteps in the propagation of mankinde from Adam and Noah of any soveraign or universall government further then in the first Fathers of mankinde after whom as they increased families went out and combining made cities and so Common-wealths by mutuall consent as in Gen. 10. and other Stories appear except by the tyrannous usurpations of some as Nimrod the rest were brought under and this no doubt amongst any free people is still the most orderly just and safe way of erecting all forms of civill government Families to combine into Townes Cities Kingdomes or Aristocraticall States But here some will say If so that according to this similitude a particular congregation may be the first Church that have the Keys of Church power and Church communion then as families should combine into Towns and Cities and they into greater Common-wealths for the good of all mankinde so here these first Churches may not stand independently but ought to combine into greater Bodies till they come to be one whole Church to this we say this will not follow upon this evident reason because civill societies and government thereof is herein left to rules of humane prudence by the Lord and governor of the whole world and therefore may admit various forms of Government various Laws and Constitutions various priviledges c. according as men shall conceive best for themselves so they be not against the common morall rules of equity and the good of those Societies but here in the Kingdom of Christ as wee must attend what kinde of Church he hath instituted so we must cleave to such rules priviledges and forms of government and administrations as he hath ordained not presuming to goe one step beyond the same And hence it is not in the power of any Church to alienate the power rights or priviledges Christ have set in the same or to mould up any other politicall Churches then he hath appointed and here we conceive stands immovably the ne plus ultra of this similitude between the visible Church and the estate of mankinde in reference to power and government c. All which things well weighed to us seems to overthrow all such intermediate forms of Churches or the usuall Churches as Mr. Ball calls the same as Classicall Provinciall Diocesan Nationall Patriarchicall c. which we see not how according to the rule of Christ they can be constituted either descendendo from the common nature of the Catholick Church or ascendendo from the combination of particulars except institution can bee found for the same We find indeed that some endevor to build such forms upon the foundation of Morall principles and the Law of nature as That God hath given government to be over a multitude and that of many Societies as well as persons that one Society may not suffer as well as one person and that therefore must be given of the God of grace to a society and multitude of little Churches power of externall government To which we answer 1 That there is no such principle in nature that generally binds free Societies to submit to one common government must many Kingdoms c. by consequence all kingdoms combine in government lest one kingdome bee hurt â— must Moab Ammon Edom Tyre Sydon Judea c. being so contiguous in near vicinity to each other combine in one government 2 Is it not as suitable to morality and reason in such combinations that they set up One to rule over them when many grow ignorant evill or heady to preserve peace and prevent wrong as to set up many 3 Did Abraham Lot Melchisedeck and such family Churches walk against grounds of morality and nature that did not so combine We might add more but forbear but we could desire our dear Brethren to be wary of scattering such principles for though in the matters of the Church and Worship and Government of Christ grace doth not destroy nature yet look as a particular Church constitution and government was never erected by the Law of nature but Divine institution so for the
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
baptize before there can bee a Church to call a Minister For a company of unbaptized men cannot choose a Minister to baptize them Answ Wee see here still how unawares the truth of this proposition and of the position it selfe breaketh forth for the proposition it is fully yeelded and is most plain in the place alluded to Acts 14. Vers 23. And the position is yeelded also for if the Apostles admitted beleevers into all those Churches in the first constitution of them by baptisme which is the very truth wee contend for and was formerly denyed and these Churches were such as chose Elders and therefore were particular Churches and so the cause is fully yeelded Reply A company of converts unbaptized ought to desire baptisme but they have no power to elect one amongst themselves to dispense the seales unto the rest c. It can never bee shewed in Scripture that any society of unbaptized did first choose from among themselves a Pastour or Teacher by whom they might bee baptized you cannot produce one example or other proofe in Scripture of one man teaching the Gospel ministerially but hee was baptized and a member of a true Church or of a society who made choyce of a Pastor or Teacher but they were baptized persons Answ 1 If all this were granted that when Churches were gathered by Apostles and extraordinary officers out of persons unbaptized they were first baptized into Church fellowship before they chose Officers and so long as the Apostles remained enjoyed from them other ordinances as Act. 2. and so had no Officers chosen by themselves but by Christ immediatly for them yet as when the Apostles left them they must choose Officers if they will enjoy ordinances So when there is no such Apostles nor Evangelists nor no need of baptisme as is usually the cause of Christians arising out of popery in this case wee say such Churches can partake of no ordinances without they choose officers and yet this varyeth not from the Scripture patterne neither But onely so farre as the state of those beleevers differ when Paul found about twelve beleevers at Ephesus who were baptized by John the Baptist Act. 19. 1. c. If these were by the Apostle set into a constituted Church as is probable being called on further to the knowledge of Christ and his will and wayes there was no need of baptizing them againe with water but onely with the holy Ghost as the Apostles were at Pentecost Act. 1. 5. with 2. 1. 2. and yet no varying from the rule in so doing and the like is our case now 2. If this bee so as here you urge then those former assertions must needs fall to the ground as That every society in covenant with God is the true Church of God page 23. and that it is simply necessary to the being of a Church that it hee layd upon Christ the foundation which being done the remaining of what is forbidden or want of what is commanded cannot put the society from the right and title of a Church If these were so a company of unbaptized persons may bee a Church being in Covenant with God and layd on Christ the foundation though they want baptisme 3. Though no such example of unbaptized persons choosing a Pastour among themselves can bee shewed when there was no need thereof Apostles being at hand to baptize them yet why in absence of Apostles c. might they not choose some other baptized Christian who comming into some farre remote country of Infidels is a meanes of their conversion wee see nothing to hinder it would bee hard for any to shew an example of Presbyters holding a Synod or ordaining of Elders without Apostles or some extraordinary officer yet we suppose you make no doubt of such things 4 If an example of one unbaptized that preached baptized Ministerially would satisfie the example of Iohn the Baptist might answer your demand for whether hee baptized himselfe or were baptized by some other at first an unbaptized person did baptize but wee see no need of such an example Scripture grounds are sufficient to guide us in these cases bee they rules examples or good consequences deduced from them and wee reason thus a Church of beleevers professing Christ have liberty from Christ to choose their Officers But a company of unbaptized men professing the entire faith in a combined society is a true Church and therefore may choose their officers Reply The third proposition That the power of calling Ministers is given by Christ unto the Church must also rightly be understood by the Church must not be understood the faithfull alone but their guids and Officers with them who are to goe before them and to governe and direct them in their choyce neither can wee say two or three beleevers linked in a society is such a Church to whom the call of Ministers do belong but that right was given by Christ to such Churches as were gathered by the Apostles Answ The first Limitation of this proposition wee passe over as being spoken to in the former to this wee answer that when a Church have guides wee grant they are to governe them therein but not to limit them whom to choose but when the Church have no such guides as by death and other wayes it may fall out shall they then lose their right of choosing if so let it be shewed to whom the right falls They may take what counsell and helpe from others they want but the choyce is onely in them and therefore this limitation is needlesse For the number of two or three wee contend not but such Churches as the Apostles gathered were particular Congregations and therefore the right is in such bee they more or fewer When Bellarmine saith that our Ministers intruded themselves into Churches no saith Dr. Field for the people elected them which they might lawfully doe and separate from wicked Ministers which hee proves by the testimony of Cyprian writing to the Bishops of Spaine not to communicate with Basilides and Martialis who fell to Idolatry in times of persecution Quando ipsa plebs potestatem habet c. Also from Ocham who saith Si Papa maxime celebres Episcopi incidunt in haeresin ad Catholicos devoluta est potestas omnis judicandi to which hee addes this reason either they must separate from them and choose others or consent to their impieties Field lib. 3. cap. 39. What followeth in this place being little to this point and for the most part not scrupled by us and what is not acknowledged by us wee shall have a fitter occasion to speake to it therefore here wee passe it over Reply Proposi 4. That all those who desire seales are bound to joyne themselves in Church fellowship that so they may call a Minister to dispense the seales unto them will not follow from the former rightly understood for they must partake of the seales before they can joyne themselves together in Church estate Answ