The Due Right of Presbyteries
And for Ephesus. The huge number of Believers and yet making one Church, Rev. 2. 2. saith that Ephesus was a presbyterial Church as many circumstances evince, Acts 19. for. 1. Paul established twelve men Prophets who spake with Tongues, and prophesied. To what end did Paul set up twelve Laborers at Epheseus, with diverse languages, but to establish divers Assemblies? did they all meet daily in one house with Paul to hear him, and turned silent Prophets themselves, when they were indeed with the gift of Tongues to speak to the edification of Assemblies of divers tongues? It is not credible. 2. And v. 10. Paul continued here for the space of two years, (and was this for one competent number, who did all meet in one private house? how can this be credible?) 3. All that dwelt in Asia heard the Word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks, then in great Ephesus there behooved to be more then one Congregation. 4. The great miracles done by Paul. v. 11. 12. to admiration of all, and to procure the imitation of false Prophets. 5. The name of the Lord Jesus was magnified by the Jews and Greeks that dwelt at Ephesus. 6. There behooved to be a great work of God, when great Ephesus turned to the faith. It is, 1. Remarkable that Christ the wisdom of the father directed his Apostles to the most famous Cities, to cast out their nets, for conquering of souls to Christ, as in Indea they came to Samaria, and to great Jerusalem; in Syria to Antiochia, in Grecia to Corinth, in Italy to Rome, in Asia the less to Ephesus; now the Scripture is clear the Apostles, that ever we read, planted but one Church, as is clear in one City in Jerusalem, in Antiochia, in Corinth, in Rome, in Ephesus: and observe, the basis and prime principle of our Brethren's independent Churches doth all lie upon this mere conjecture, that the Lord's Grace did restrict and limit the fruits of the triumphing Gospel, in the hands of the Apostles the conquerors of the World to Jesus Christ, that they planted but in the greatest Cities they came to (and they appointed Elders in every City) only one poor single Congregation, as a pattern of all independent Churches, and this consisted of no more then could meet conveniently in one House for Word, Sacraments, one Lord's Table, and one Ecclesiastical Church- court for censures. Certainly this Church being a pattern to all instituted Churches, could not exceed the number of a thousand men, or two thousand Believers, and this is a greater number by some hundreds, I am sure, then can make a competent Church-meeting, and I hope no man could say we erred, if we should now make eight or ten thousand one Congregation in ordinary, as our Brethren say the first Congregational Church of Jerusalem wa • . B • t. 2. This City was the mother City and flower of Asia. 2. It was noble, because of Diana's Temple, the length whereof was four hundred and twenty five foot, the breadth two hundred and twenty foot, the pillars were an hundred and twenty seven, the height of every pillar was sixty foot. Amongst which there were thirty pillars most curiously carded. Others say they were an hundred and thirty seven pillars made by several Kings, the Temple was built by all Asia for the space of two hundred and twenty, (some say) forty years. It was enlarged by Alexander; And thither came all Asia the less to the Temple of great Diana. For they had no other Religion, here dwelt the proconsull of Asia, as saith Philostratus, It abounded with arts and Sciences, Philosophers and Orators, Chrysostom saith that in it were Pythagaras, Parmenides, Zeno, Democritus, it was compassed with excellent Cities, and noble for Asiatic commodities, see Plinius, and Alexander Neopolitanus, Ignatius highly commendth it from the purity of the Gospel. All this I relate not as an unpertient digression, but to show that the Gospel behooved to be more mighty here; then that Paul set up but one single Congregation and an Eldership congregational only, Acts 20. 28. v. 36. 37. Especially consider what Beasts Paul fought with at Ephesus, for here were many Jews who opposed him. 2. All the multitude, by the instigation of Demetrius, avowing that their Diana was the goddess not only of Ephesus but of all Asia; yet God made the word so mightily to prevail, for v. 10. Paul remaining there by the space of two years, all that dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks. I ask how it could stand with Paul's universal commission to preach to Jew and Gentiles, 1 Cor. 9. 20. 21. as an Apostle, to • em • ine near three years at Ephesus for one single congregation, and the erecting of one Congregational presbytery? 3. We see how zealously mad they have been on their Religion, when they had such a curious Temple for Diana. And 4. Demetrius and the crafts had their living by making silver shrines to Diana. And 5. What power of the Gospel it behooved to be, which made their learned men who used curious arts, to submit to the Gospel and bring their Books and burn them before all men? and the sums of these Books extended to a great sum of money, the common people ordinarily follow the learned and the wise of the City and Land; This could not have been done except the far greater part of the City had submitted to the Gospel, for when they were well near ready to tear Paul in pieces, they behooved to be wonderfully tamed, when many Believed, and came and confessed and shown their deeds, v. 18. Baynes come. on 1. ch. Ephes. saith, Ephesus was a City sogiven to riot that it banished Hermodor. Upon no other consideration, but because he was an honest sober man; And also Paul 1 Cor. 16. saith, v. 9. for a great door and effectual is open to me at Ephesus, This was, as all Interpreters Protestant and popish say, uno ore, a large harvest. Upon these considerations, I leave to our reverend Brethren their judgment: if Mr. Mather, and Mr. Thomson say right, we do not think they were more in number at Ephesus, then in Corinth and Jerusalem, where the Christians met all in one place.
Likewise Samaria a numerous City was one Church, for that it is said of them, Acts 8, 5, 6. They heard Philip, v. 14. Samaria received the Word, it was a public visible Churchreceiving of the word; and v. 12. They believed and were Baptized both men and women. Where a multitude no better then Heathen as Samaria was, receive the Seal of the Covenant, to wit Baptism, they must receive it in a Church-way, except we think that promiscuously all come to age were received to the Seals, and when Peter and John came to Samaria to help Philip in the work, it cannot be that they all went to one House, and to one single Assembly to preach the Word;
The Church of Antiochia must be a Presbyterial Church, a • it is Acts 11. v. 19. 20. for the multitude of Believers may be collected from These who were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Steven—20—when they were come to Antioch, spaks unto the Grecians preaching the Lord Jesus. 21. and the hand of the Lord was with them: and a great number believed and turned to the Lord. This is not like to be one Congregation, seeing they are, 1. much people. 2. many scattered preachers. 3. And the Hand of the Lord accompanied their labors 2. v. 23. when Barnabas, sent by the Church of Ierusasalem, came and saw the Grace of God, he exhorted them all, That with purpose of heart they would cleave to the Lord, and upon Barnabas his preaching, v. 24.— much people was added to the Lord. Here is a second accession made to the Church of Antioch. (3) v. 25. Then departed Barnabas to Tarsus to seek Saul. 26. And when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. And it came to pass that a whole year they assembled themselves with the Church, and taught much people (here is a third accession;) And such a huge multiplication, that the Church of Antioch giveth a denomination of Christianity to all the Christian Churches of the World. All which saith, it cannot be one poor single Congregation, for there was at least, if not more then one Congregation at Antioch, when tidings came to Jerusalem that the Lord had a Church at Antioch, before they sent Barnabas to these Churches, v. 22. and what might this Church grow to when much people was added to the Lord, by the labors of Barnabas? v. 24. And how was it increased when Barnabas and Paul after that taught the Word to much people a whole year? v. 26. It grew after that a great Church, so that Chrysostom commendeth Antioch for the prime Church. And Oecumenius saith, for this cause there was a Patriarch appointed at Antioch, which certainly saith thus much, that it was a more numerous Church then one single Congregation, and Cyrillus so extolled the Church of Antioch, because the Disciples were first named Christians there, that he saith, this was the new name that Isaiah said the Mouth of the Lord should name, and so doth Hilarius expound the Text; which, seeing it is clearly the new glory of the Church of the Gentiles, adjoined to the Church of the Jews, it cannot arise from a handful of a single Congregation, in the mind of these Fathers, and though we love not with some antiquity to make Antioch the first Church before Rome; yet seeing it was of old before Rome, we may hence collect that that Church which was patriarchall, was not Congregational, and therefore I make no use hereof, Volaterranus who saith of old the Patriarch of Antioch had under him 14. Metropolitans, 53. Bishops, and 366 Temples, only it is like that Antiquity hath believed that there was a great number of Believers in this Church at first. Now to These, which to me prove it was more then one Congregation, we may add that there was, Ch. 13. 1. in the Church that was at Antioch, certain Prophets and Teachers, as they are reckoned out; These at Antioch Ministered to the Lord, in public prayers (saith Beza) and preaching, and (saith Diodatus) in administration also of the Sacraments, and other parts of the Evangelic Ministry Oecumenius 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Now I would know what all these Prophets and Doctors, beside Paul and Barnabas who preached a whole year at Antioch, did, in peaching to one single Congregation? and also it is said, Acts 15. 35. Paul and Barnabas continued at Antioch, Teaching and preaching the Word of Lord 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , with also many others. Certainly here is a College of preaching Pastors, who also did lay hands on Paul and Barnabas, Acts 13. v. 3. which all could not be busied in Teaching one single Congregation at Antioch.
Mr. Mather saith that the whole multitude of the Church of Antioch were gathered together Acts 14. 27. and Acts 15. 30, 31. to hear the Epistle read which was sent from the Synod. Therefore this Church was no more then might meet in one place.
Answ. I answer, the place Acts 14. 27. is the representative Church, for they met for a point of Discipline, at least for a matter that concerned all the Churches, to wit, to know how God had opened the door of faith to the Gentiles, then must the many thousands of Men and Women, which made up the Church at Jerusalem, Acts 2. 42. Acts 4. 4. Acts 5. 14. Acts 6. 1. v. 7. Acts 21. v. 22. be many Congregations; now any Man may judge, how unpossible it was for the many thousands of the Church of Jerusalem to meet as one Congregation, for the Lord's Supper and matters of Discipline, and it is known that the many thousands of the believing Jews convened to the feast did not make one Church, Acts 21. 20. 21, 22. for our Brethren say, that was an extraordinary confluence of many people from all • udea came to the feast of Pentecost. And this, many learned Protestant Divines answer to that place. But 2. I do believe that the assembling of the multitude at Antioch, c. 15. v. 30. which saith Judas and Silas gathered to • ether the multitude, and delivered the Epistle, and Acts 11. 26. and Barnabas and Paul their assembling with the Church a year, must be taken distributively. And that there were more assemblings of the multitude and Church at Antioch then one, for Silas, Paul, Barnabas abode a good space at Antioch and taught the Word of the Lord with many others, Acts 15. 34 35. and therefore there is no ground or warrant, to say, that the Epistle was read to all that meeting in one day, and at one meeting, and as little warrant there is to say that Barnabas and Paul assembled themselves, Acts 11. 26. with one and the same single Church-assembly consisting of all the Christians at Antioch, in one house, and in one day, the space of the whole year in which they abode at Antioch, nor shall I believe that Paul and Barnabas and many other Teachers at Antioch, Acts 15. 35. Acts 11. 20, 26. Acts 13. 1, 2, 3, 4. assembled all in one material house at one single Church-convention: but it suiteth not with the wisdom of Christ who sent his Disciples out, two by two, for the hastening of the work, Mat. 10. That they did all, even the many prophets at Antioch, Acts 15. 35. Acts 13. 1. 2. only bestow their labors upon one single Congregation. And the word Church, and (Synagogue) both are taken distributively in the Scripture, and must of necessity be taken so. And so must we take the word, Exod. 12. 6. and so Ainsworth readeth it, and the (lamb) shall be kept by you, until the fourteenth day of this month, and the whole Church of the congregation of Israel shall kill it. between the two evenings, & immolabunt eum 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Arias Montanus turneth it, omnis cetus catus Synagogae Israel. Now the Word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in that place must be taken distributively. For all the children of Israel collectively did not meet to slay the Lamb; for the Text saith, v. 3. it was to be slain in the House, that is, (saith Ainsworth) as the Greek translateth, Houses. And here v. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 according to the House of their Fathers. The word (House) here must be taken distributively for Rivet with great reason inclineth to think that the Passover was not a Sacrifice properly so called. And truly to me the Lord doth determine the question, Jer. 7. 22. for I spake not to your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the Land of Egypt concerning burnt offerings and sacrifice, for 2 Chro. 30, v. 2. 17. there is no necessity to expound the place of these convivall Lambes of the Passover, but of other Sacrifices offered at this time, see Lyranus, and Cajetan. And also Cornelius a lapide saith on the words (because he can find no ground for the Mosse in the place) hinc pate • universos sacerdotes non immolasse hos agnos paschales in Templo, uti sentit Claudius Saints, 1. Repet. Eucharist. c. 7. Abulensis in Exod. 16. & ex eo Serrarius in Josu. 5. 9. 22. and it is certain every Master of the Family did slay his own Lamb, and Diodatus on these words (in every House) to show the communion of the Church, in the enjoying of Christ and his benefi • s. And the seventy Interpreters render the place, Exo. 12. 6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; and the Chaldee paraphrast, &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 immolabunt eum omnis Ecclesia filiorum Israel. Hieron. immolabit eum universa multitudo filiorum Israel. However, there were neither Priests nor Temple as yet in Israel, when they came out of Egypt. And therefore every head of a Family did slay the Lamb, and so the Church of the Congregation distributively taken slew the Lamb, everyone by himself; and so is the word (Synagogue) taken where its every way a Congregational assembly; as Mat. 13. 54. And when he was come to His own Country, He taught them in their Synagogue 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , The word (Synagogue) must be taken distributively. For he did not teach in one single Synagogue only in his own Country, but in many Synagogues, one after another, in diverse places, and at divers times; as it is expounded, Luke 4. 44. and He was preacking, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in the Sgnagogues of Galilee, in the plural number, Mat. 9. 35. He went about all Towns and Villages teaching in their Synagogues, &c. Joh. 18. 54. I ever taught in the Synagogues, and daily in the Temple whither the Jews always refort. And therefore (Synagogue) Mat. 13. 54. in the singular number must be expounded distributively, for many Synagogues in diverse places and diverse times, and so do I think the word (Church) and muluitude Acts 11. 26. Acts 5. 30. must be taken distributively; and so the word Church is taken. 1 Cor. 14. 19. Yet in the Church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may teach others, then ten thousand words in an unknowen Tongue. Paul (I hope) desired not to speak in a known tongue to edify in one single Congregation of Corinth only, but in all the Churches where he taught, and 1 Cor. 14 35. It is a shame for a Woman to speak in the Church: the word Church cannot be in that place restricted to the one single Congregation, supposed to meet all in one house at one time in Corinth, because it is a shame for a Woman to preach in all the Churches of the World, as is clear, 1 Tim. 2, 11, 12. and Exod. 12. 47. all the Church, ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) of Israel shall do it, that is, they shall eat the Lamb in their Houses, and shall not break a bone thereof, so the 70. Interpreters render it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , The Chaldee paraphrast, Omnis caetus Israel faciet illud. It were easy to b • ing infinite instances out of the Word of God to make good that a collective, noun such as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a Church, is taken distributively. So James 2. 2. if toere came unto your assembly, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a man with a gold Ring, &c. Except the word (assembly) or, Church, be taken distributively and not collectively, it shall follow that all the dispersed Jews, to whom James doth write, have one single place of Church-assembly, as Heb. 10. 25. not forsaking 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the assembly of yourselves together, a • the manner of some is; but can any infer from this place, more then from Acts 11. 26. Acts. 15. 35. that all the whole Hebrews, to whom that Apostle doth write had one ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) single Church-meeting, and one Congregation, in the which they did all meet for worship? I think not: or will it follow that there were none amongst all these Jews who did separate from any Church-assembly, except only from the Church-assembly of a single Congregation, because the Apostle mentioneth only one single Church-meeting? I think not, and therefore the Apostles mentioning of one assembling of the Church, acts 11. 26. and of one multitude, in the singular number, acts 15. 30. can never prove that there was but one single Congregation at Antioch. Therefore there be great • dds betwixt meeting in a Church, and meeting in the Church.
Also Tit. 1. 5. for this cause was Titus left at Crete, that he might appaynt Elders 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in every City, if 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be not all one with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Acts 14. 23. acts 16. 4. 5. That is, if ordaining of Elders of every City, be not as good, as ordaining of Elders in every Church, then must there be but in all, and every City, where ever the Apostles or Evangelists planted Churches, but one single Congregation, and not anymore then could meet in a single Congregation; which is a conjecture, and much contrary to these times when the Gospel admirably grew in the World. And it must follow that every City had but such a competent number as met in one place; and if this hold, as an uncertain thing, in great Cities, then must we say an Eldership in a City, and an Eldership of many Congregations were the first planted apostolick Churches, and so rules to us also. And look what frame of Churches the Apostles did institute in Cities, that same they behooved to institute in Villages also, for places cannot change the frame of any institution of Christ. 2. The communion of Saints and Church-edification is as requisite for Villages, as for Cities.
Arguments removed, which Mr. Richard Mather, and Mr. William Thomson Pastors in New England, in their answer to Mr. Charles Herle, do bring, so far as they make against the authors former Treatises, and a scanning of some Synodical propositions of the Churches of N. England.
MR. Mather, Mr. Thomson, c. 1. 9. Governing power is only in the Elders, 1 Cor. 12. 28. Rom. 12. 8. Heb. 13. 17. the people hath no power but rather a liberty or privilege, which when it is exercised about Ordination, Deposition, Excommunication, is of the whole communiter, or in general, but not of all and every member in particular; Women for their Sex, children for want of discr • tion are d • barred.
Answ. If there be no governing power in Women, nor any act at all in excommunication. You loose many arguments that you bring, 1 Cor. 5. to prove that all have hand in excommunication. 1. Because Paul writeth to all. 2. All were to mourn. 3. All ware to forbear the company of the excommunicated men. Then belike Paul writeth not to all Saints at Corinth, not to Women, and Women were not to mourn for the scandal; nor to forbear his company. 2. The privilege being a part of liberty purchased by Christ's Body, it must be due to Women, for the liberty wherewith Christ hath made Women free cannot be taken away by any Law of God from their Sex, except in Christ Jesus there be difference betwixt Jew and Gentile, male and female; nor is it removed because i • i • a power or authority, for the authors say it is no power, but a privilege. 3. What privilege the people have in ordination to confer a Ministry which they neither have formally, nor virtually, I know not. But I do willingly say something here of the people's power; The first Synodical proposition of New England, is.
1. Propos. The fraternity is the first Subject of all Ministerial power, radicaliter, idest 〈◊〉 per modum collationis, some say suppletive, non habitualiter, non actualit • r, non formaliter.
That is, (if I conceive it right) The people void of all Officers have a virtual power to confer a Ministry on their Officers though they have not this power in themselves. I could in some sense yield that Believers not Angels, are capable of the Ministerial power to exercise it formally, but that Believers do, or can, by any way of causative influence, make Church- Officers, I see not: they may design a man qualified to bean Officer to the Office, and that is all. But say they, people wanting, or being naked and without all Officers hath not formally or habitually any power in them, this latter part Igrant, and the
2. Proposition I grant, to wit.
That the presbytery is the first subject of all presbyterial power habitually, and formally. But I do not see how it standeth with the third proposition; which is
3. The fraternity or the people without the Officers, and without Women or children, have an authoritative concurrence with the presbytery, in judicial acts.
Because if the Brethren have an half Ministerial power with the Officers in acts of Jurisdiction and Excommunication, Deposition, and Censures, I see not how there is not a Ministerial power formally and habitually, at least in part, in the Brethren; and so contrary to the third proposition, the Prasbytery is not the first subject of all Prebyteriall power, for the brethren are sharers with the Elders in this power. 2. We desire to see it made good by God's Word, that the brethren have a joint power of Jurisdiction with the Elders, for the Table giveth them a brotherly public power not by way of Charity, but a politick Church power, in many eminent acts, especially in those eight; and that constantly,
| 1. In the admission. | 1. In Sending Messengers to the Churches. |
| 2. In the excommunication of members. 2. | 2. In interpretation of Scripture. |
| 3. In the calling. | 3. In a judicial determination of controversies of Religion in a synod. |
| 4. And Deposition of Ministers. | 4. In a power of disposing of things indifferent. |
I cannot see any judicial power, or any farther then a charitative yielding by way of a loving and brotherly consent, that the Scripture giveth to brethren. 3. How this can be denied to be a power of jurisdiction and governing; and an actual Ministerial using of the Keys of the Kingdom by those who ex officio, by place, and calling are no Officers, I believe is not easily understood. 4. The letter that I saw saith, that that learned and godly Divine Mr. Cotton and some others think, that the Church as it is an Organicall Body made up of Elders, and people is the first subject of all Ecclesiastical power, and they divide it into a power of authority, and a power of liberty, whereof the power of authority belongeth to the Elders or Eldership, and the power of liberty to the Fraternity, or Brethren that are not Officers; and therefore these reverend brethren deny any authoritative concurrence to the brethren, and they think that the Church as it is an homogeneal body, that is, a company destitute of Officers, cannot formally ordain, excommunicate, or censure the Elders, though in case of obstinacy they may do that which is equivalent, and so separate from them.
The 4. Proposition is;
The fraternity or Brethren in an Organicall Body, or in a •• med and established Church consisting of Officers and people, act and use their authority, subordinate per modum obedi nt • ae, subordinately, and by way of due obedience to the Elders, 2 C • r. 10. 6.
But I desire a word of Christ's Testament for this, where we a • de that collateral Judges acting as Judges do act by way of obedience and subjection one to another: for if the brethren, 1 Cor. 5. convened in Court with the Elders to deliver the incestuous man to Satan, do act in that Court as giving obedience to the Elders, I see not how they concur authoritatively is sharers with them of that same Ministerial power: if it be said, brethren though they act as Judges in excommunicating, yet they remain brethren and a part of the flock, and so in all their moral acts of authoritative concurring with the Elders, they are under the pastoral care of these who watch for Souls, and so they judge and act even in the Court as under subjection to their watchmen, who must give an accompt for their Souls; I answer, so the Elders in their acts of the most supreme Ministerial authority and acting in a Church. court, leave not off to be brethren and a part of the flock of Christ, and so in subjection one to another; for six Elders watch for the Soul of one, and one also for the Souls of six, and so if this were a good reason the Elders should act with subordination of obedience to Elders. As the people act with subordination to the Elders. 2. The place cited for this 2 Cor. 10. 6. where it is said, that the Preachers have in readiness to revenge all disobedience, must infer that they are to revenge, by the word which is mighty through God to cast down strong holds, as is said there, v. 4. 5. even disobedience of Elders ruling unjustly and abusing the Keys, no less then disobedience of the people. And I see not how brethren acting in a Church-Court jointly with Elders, how in that they put on the relation of the flock, and the part governed in the very act of exercising acts of governing, for other ways one Pastor in the act of preaching in the Name of Jesus Christ, and so in authority above these to whom he preacheth, doth preach subordinate, and as in subjection to the whole organical and formed Church, who hath power to censure him, if he preach erroneous Doctrine. 3. I see not how the third Proposition doth stand, to wit, that the brethren, share with the Elders in authoritative acts of the Keys, and yet they • ct (according to the. 4. Proposition) as under the Eldership by way of subjection and obedience to them. Except this be that which our brethren mean, that the people of a single Congregation exercise acts of Jurisdiction by way of dependence, so as they may be censured by the Elders if they err, but the Elders if they err, are every way Popes, and so independent; that there is no Church-power on Earth above them, that in a Church-way may censure them, or call them to an accompt. 4. The Table of New England divideth the actual exercise of the power in a Charitative power by way of Love and Charity, and a politick or Church-exercise, the politick exercise again is either brotherly, fraternal, or Presbyterial,
| and the presbyterial exercise is either | 1. Teaching. |
| or, | |
| 2. Governing. |
And Teaching is either by way of Office, or Administrating the Sacraments.
The Presbyterial exercise of the Keys is independent Elders, in the power of governing, sed respect • apotelesmatis s • u complementi censurae, in respect of the effect, or a complete act of governing, the Elders Rule and Act with dependence upon
| the people, in these four cases | 1. In excommunication. |
| 2. In judging. | |
| 3. In sentencing the aocused. | |
| 4. In election or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in calling of a Minister. |
So that the Elders there alone without the people, can exercise none of these acts completely, without the people so hear the Elders depend upon the people in their actual governing, and the Fraternity or Brethren depend on the Elders by way of subjection, or obedience to them.
Yet give me leave, the letter informeth me that it is said by many learned and godly men in New England, that if their policy should make the government of the Church popular, they should give up the cause. But I conceive the government to be popular, though the people only be not governors, for Mor • llius never taught any such thing; now this government maketh Elders and people to govern the Church jointly with mutual dependence one upon another, which certainly maketh the brethren in the Lord, as well as the Elders; for if the Elders be not these only which watch for the people's Souls as these which must give an accompt Heb. 13. 17, 18. and they be not only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 over the people in the Lord, as is said 1 Thess. 5. 12. 13. Then the brethren must be taken in with them a • joint governors, as is said Propos. 3. Which certainly must confound the Scriptural order established by God betwixt the Pastors and the Flock, the Watchmen, and the City, the shep • eards and the flock, these who are to obey, and these who are over them in the Lord.
The 5. and 6. Proposition is, The Brethren may not excommunicate an Elder but mediante concilio, by the intervening sentence of the Elders; is, but the brethren may separate and withdraw from the Presbyteris, after they refuse sound advise.
Answ. 1. This is much contrary to that which they ordinarily teach, to wit, that people destitute of Officers may ordain and excommunicate their Officers. 2. By this learning the Souls of Elders are in an hard case, for when they do all scandalously 〈◊〉 , there is no Ecclesiastical mean of edifying them, for there is no Church on Earth to excomunicate Elders when they •• re. Separation from them is an unwarrantable way, except they be excommunicated. 3. In the case of the Elderships incorrigible scandals, the power of excommunication retireth into the brethren. yet it was never formally in the brethren, nor can they exercise this power, but mediante Presbyteri • , that is, they cannot excommunicate the Eldership, but by the Judicial sentence of the Eldership, and so the power is but a shadow.
Mr. Mather, Mr. Thomson, cap. 2. pag. 16, 17. though some have appealed, as Luther and Cranmer from the Pope to a general council. Yet not from a Congreation to a general council.
Answ. In matters doctrinal, some as Luther and others have justly appealed from a Congregation, to a general council, though Luther and Cranmer did it not; though verily I profess I cannot see what power of Jurisdiction to censure scandals can be in a general council, there may be some merely Doctrinal power, if such a council could be had, and that is all.
M. Mather, Mr. Thomson, c. 2. pag: 20. if Churches be dependent on Synods, because the light of nature teacheth a communion and assistance in government, by the same reason Churches must end in a Monarchy on Earth.
Answ. I see this said, without any probation. Churches depend on many above them for unity; but what consequence is this; Ergo, they depend upon one visible Monarch. It is an unjust consequence.
Mr. Mather, Mr. Thomson, c. 2, pag. 26. The Grecians and Hebrews made not two Churches, but one Congregation, they called the multitude of Disciples together, v. 2.
Answ. That the chief of both Grecians and Hebrews were convened in one to give their consent to the admission of their Officers the Deacons, I conceive; but that all the thousands of the Church of Jerusalem were here, as in one ordinary Congregation I judge unpossible.
Mr. Mather, c. 3. pag. 27. 28. If your argument be good, if thy Brother offend and refuse to submit tell the Church, because Christ's Remedy must be as large as the Disease: then if a National Church offend, you are to complain to a higher Church above a National Church; and because offenses may arise betwixt Christians and Indians, you may complain of an Indian to the Church.
Ans. Because ordinary communion faileth, when you got higher then a National Church, and Christ's way suppoleth an ordinary Communion, as is clear. If thy Brother offend, &c. Therefore I deny that this remedy is needful in any Church above a National Church. 2. Christ's remedy is a Church. remedy for Offences amongst brethren, and Members of the visible Church. And Indians are no Members of the Church, and so being without, they cannot be judged, 1 Co. 5. 12.
We say that if the Magistrate be an enemy to Religion, may not the Church without him convene and renew a Covenant with God? Mr. Mather, and Mr. Thomson answer, c. 3. pag. 29. if the supreme Magistrate be an enemy to Religion, it is not like, but most or many of the people will be of the same mind. Regis ad exemplum—as it is in France, and Spain, and was in the days of Queen Mary, and then the Believers in the Land will not be able to bear the name of the Land or Nation, but of a small part thereof; nor can it be well conceived how they should assemble in a National Synod, for that, or any other purpose, when the Magistrate is a professed Enemy, nor doth God require it at their hands.
Answ. This is a weak answer: the Christians under Ner • were not like their Prince, and its not like but sincere Christians will be sincere Christians and profess truth. even when the Magistrate is an enemy. And 2. If your meaning be, it cannot be conceived how they should assemble in a National assembly when the Magistrate is an Enemy; because it is not safe for fear of persecution. Then you say nothing to the argument, because the argument is drawn from a duty, a Nation professing the Gospel after many backslidings are obliged to convene in a National Synod, and are to renew their Covenant with the Lord, and your answer is from an ill of affliction: and if you mean that because the Princes power is against their Synodical convening, this is nothing against the power of the Synods that CHRIST hath given to His Church; But if your meaning be that it is not lawful to them to convene in a National Synod to renew a Covenant with GOD against the supreme Magistrates will, I hope you mind no such thing • ; for so do Malignants Now allege that we never read of any Reformation of Religion in Scripture warranted, but where the Prince did contribute his authority, because he only is to reform, and he only rebuked for the standing of the high places, but he may soon be answered.
1. Both Israel and Judah were so bent to backsliding, that we read not that ever the people made any real Reformation of Religion, Josiah, Hezekiah and Asa did it for them. But what an argument is this: Judah did never, for the most of the Land, seek the Lord God of their Fathers with all their heart; Ergo, the seeking of the Lord God with all the heart is an unwritten tradition?
2. Princes are obliged to remove high places; But are they obliged with their own Hands to break all the Images? No, I think if they remove the high places by the Hands of their Subjects, or command their Subjects to remove them, they do full well. But I see not this consequence. Ergo, Princes only are obliged to remove the high places, it followeth not.
3. If it be the Princes part to command his Subjects this duty of Reformation and removal of the high places, then they may perform their duty without the Prince.
4. There is a twofold Reformation, one an heart-Reformation. Sure this is not the Princes only. All the Land may repent without the King. There is another, an outward Reformation. And that is twofold, either Negative, or Positive • Negative is to refrain from ill, and the unlawful and superstitious manner of worshipping GOD, as in new Offices not warranted by his Word, Antichristian Ceremonies, and a Mass-Book, &c. Certainly all the Land are to abstain from sin, though the King command not: now all the Reformation for the most part in both Kingdoms is in obstinence from superstitious superadditions that defiled the worship of GOD, and to this there is no necessity of the Magistrates authority, more then we need • the Kings warrant, to put an Obligation upon God's Negative Commandments. All that is Positive is the swearing of a lawful Covenant to observe and stand by the faith and true Religion of the Land, but I see no more a necessity that a King warrant the lawful Vow of twenty thousand, then the Lawfull Vow of one Man, seeing it is a lawful profession of CHRIST before Men commanded in the third Commandment. And to the observance of that Law of God, which God and Conscience hic & nunc do oblige us, there is no addition of a Kingly authority by necessity of a Divine Law required to make it valid, no more then if all the Kingdom at such a solemn day of humiliation, should all in every several Church swear to Reformation of life.
5. The Apostles and Christ positively did reform Religion, and the Church without and contrary to the mind of civil authority, nor is it enough to say the Apostles were Apostles, but we are not Apostles, for upon this moral ground, Acts 5. 29. We ought rather to obey GOD than man,) they reformed contrary to the Magistrates mind. And we do but contend for that very same Faith, Jud. 3. which was once delivered to the Saints. So to Reforme is to seek the old way, and to walks in it, Jeremy 6. 16. to turn to the LORD with all the heart, Jeremy 1. and for this cause, Jeremy 3. 10. Judah is said not to veturue to the LORD with her whole heart, but feinedly, because when a zealous King reformed, them they returned not with all their heart. Whence Reformation of Religion must be the people's duty, no less then the Kings; and I believe such a divine precept carrying the new sense of our Malignant Divines should be black policy, not sound Divinity, if any Ierimiah or Prophet should say; amend your ways and turn to the LORD with all your heart, and put away your Idols and your strange God's, providing the King will go before you, and command you so to do. Hence I say that's a poor Court-argument of Parasites for Kings. We never read of any Reformation of Religion in Israel and Judah but when holy and zealous Kings commanded the Reformation; Ergo, the Reformation begun in Scotland without the consent of the Supreame Magistrate, and a Reformation now prosecuted in England against the Kings will is unlawful. To which. I desire the Malignant Divines to receive these answers for Justifying the zeal of both Kingdoms in their Reformation.
1. It is a question, if they question not the Reformation according to the substance of the action, that is, if they are not offended that the Queens Mass, the popery of Prelates and Divines under their wings, and their Arminianism, and Socinianism should be abolished, or if they condemn not the Doctrine, but question only the manner of abolishing such Heterodox stuff. If the former be said, i • is known, never Malignant, Prelate or other had grace, by Word, or Writing, to entreat his M • jesty for a Reformation, and this is enough for the former. If they mean the latter, they be very like the Pharisees, who when they durst not question the Doctrine and Miracles of Christ, they only questioned the manner of doing. And said by what authority doest thou these? But because they are joined to the Papists side, and fight under their banner; It is most evident it galleth their stomachs, that Popery, Atminianisine, and Socinianism are cried down; else the manner of doing a good work, and such a necessary work as Reformation, would not have offended them so highly, as to move them to kill the people of GOD; an error in the circumstances of a good work is very venial to Papists and Arminians.
2. Let them give to us, since they argue from a practice, a warrant of any such practice, where a whole Land went on in a Negative Reformation without the Prince Ergo, Negative precepts, by this logic, shall lay no divine obligation on us, except it be the Kings will to forbid that which GOD forbiddeth, then suppose Episcopacy and the Ceremonies were the Idol of the Mass established by a standing Law, it should be unlawful for the Kingdoms to forbear and abstain from Idolatry, except the Kings Law forbid Idolatry. What were this else but to say, we are obliged to obey Christ's will, but not except with a Reservation of the Kings will?
3. This is an argument Negative, from one particular in Scripture, and therefore not concludent. For it is thus, Reformation without the King wanteth a practice in the Sc • ipture; Ergo, it is unlawful, it followeth not, except it want Precept, Promise and Practice, for the argument Negative from Scripture is only undeniable in this sense; And in this sense only pressed by our Divines against Papists. And therefore it is like this argument, Purgatory is not commanded in this Chapter, Idolatry is not forbi • den in this Commandment, Ergo, neither Purgatory, nor Idolatry is forbidden in God's Word. So let the adversaries give me a practice in the Word of God, where a Brother kept this order of Christ's three Steps, Mat. 18.
First, to reprove an offender alone.
Secondly, before two or three witnesses.
Thirdly, in case of obstinacy, to tell the Church; and to these add, that the man was by the Church to be reputed as an heathen and a Publican. And I hope, because such a practice we do not read, yet it followeth not that it is unlawful. So where read you a Man forgiving his Brother seventy seven times: Ergo, it is unlawful to forgive him seventy and seven times? Where read you that Christ and His Apostles, and the Christian Church in the New Testament raised War and Armies either to defend or offend, but I hope Anabaptists have not hence ground to infer, then must all Wars be unlawful to Christians, for we can produce warrantable precepts, where we want practice.
Fourthly, where it is said, Kings only are rebuked for not removing high places, and Kings only are commended, because they are removed, therefore none should reform but Kings. This followeth no ways, but only Kings by Royal authority should reform; but it followeth not; Ergo, the people without the King are not obliged to reform themselves in their manner, for I am sure, that the people should all universally resolve and agree, never to sacrifice in the high places and accordingly to practice: And to sacrifice only in the place which the Lord had chosen to place His Name there, at GOD'S express Law commanded, Deuteronomy 13. 23. Deuteronomy 12. 14. 18. Deuteronomy 16. 2. 7. 11. 15. Deut. 31. 11. had been a removal of the high places and a warrantable Reformation, though the King should have, by a standing Law, commanded that they should sacrifice in the high places, for the people are rebuked, because 2 Kings 17. 11. They burnt Incense in all the high places, 2 Chronicles 33. 17. Hosea 4. 13. and, a Chronicles 20. 33. the reason why the high places were not taken away, is: For as yet the people had not prepared their Hearts unto the GOD of their Fathers. If then not Sacrificing in the high places was the people's duty, they were to remove the high places, in their place; and so far to reform without the KING, yea suppose the KING command the contrary, the people ought to obey GOD, and the Parliament may by GOD'S Law abolish Episcopacy, popish Ceremonics, and the popish Service though the KING consent not, upon this ground that those he the high places of England, for the which the Wrath of the Lord is kindled against the Land.
Fifthly, the adversaries may read, 2 Chronicles 15. 9. That the Strangers out of Ephraim, and Manasseh and Simeon gathered themselves together to Asa without the consent of their KING, and did enter in a Covenant to seek the Lord God of their Fathers.
Sixthly, the Pastors of the Land are obliged to preach all necessary truth, without the KING, and accordingly are to practice what they preach; now Reformation is a most necessary truth, they are then to reform themselves and Religion without the KING: for the Word of GOD, not the KINGS will is the Pastors rule in preaching, and he is to separate the precious from the vile, that he may be as God's Mouth, Jeremy 15. 19. and Ezekiel 2. 7. Thou shalt speak my words unto them, that was the Doctrine of Reformation, not the KINGS words, verse. 8. But, thou son of man, hear what I say to thee; yea Pastors are to preach against Kings and their sins, 1 Kings 13. 1. 2. 3. Jer. 1. 18. Ier. 26. 10, 11, 12.
Seventhly, if no Reformation can be without the KING, 1. People are not to turn to the Lord, and repent th • m of the evil of their doings, and to prevent the Babylonish captivity, or a worse judgment, except the KING will, and all Religion and. 2. Church-worship must be resolved ultimately on the KINGS will and pleasure: for if it be not the KINGS pleasure to reform, the people must continue still where they were, and Scotland who contrary to the will and heart of authority at our first Reformation put away the Mass and Popery, and established Religion in sincerity, is greatly to be condemned. Luther had authority against him, and the powers of the World, it was one point of Reformation that John the Baptist took up, against the Law of the Land to preach against Herod's sin; for if Popery be in a Land, to leave Popery is a great degree of Reformation, and if the people, without the Prince, may go on in the greatest step of Reformation, why not also in the lesser? except you say the people without the King, are not to abstain from the grossest Idolatry under the Sun, which is to worship and adore the work of the Bakers hands.
Mr. Mather, Mr. Thomson. The name Church, 1 Cor. 14. 4, 5. 35. 26, 27. 28. is plainly given to that company that did assemble and come together for performance of spiritual duties, and for the exercise of spiritual gifts, as Acts 14. 27. Acts 11. 26. 15. 4. 22. 30. 1 Cor. 11. 18. 20 22. 23. 3. John. 6. which places do abundantly show that a company gathered together to one place is called by the name Church, as Cenc • rea, Rom. 16. 1. which could not contain many Congregations, being but the prot of Corinth.
Answ. We seek no more, if it be called a Church which conveneth for performance of spiritual duties: as some of your places do well prove; Ergo, no assembly should have the name of Church, but such as assemble for Word and Sacraments; this now you cannot affirm, and it followeth not, the Church spoken of Matthew 18. is not assembled to Word and Sacraments, But to bind and loose on Earth. The meeting, 1 Cor. 5. 4. is not for Word and Sacraments, but to deliver to Satan, for ought we can read, the word Church, Acts 14. 27. is not an Assembly for Word and Sacraments; but to hear how God had opened the doors of Faith to the Gentiles, and whether this was preaching of the Word and receiving the Sacraments, or rather a matter that concerned the Apostles and Elders that they might not think hard to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles, I leave to the judicious Reader; and if to be received of the Church, Acts 15. 4. be a matter of word and Sacraments, let all judge. And if to lend a decree of a Synod, Acts 15. 22. be the act of a Church assembled for word and Sacraments, let the World judge: and therefore all these places do strongly confirm a Presbytery assembled for acts of Jurisdiction, and matters that belong to many Churches, as is most clear, Acts 14. 27. Acts 15. 4. Acts 15. 22. and seeing we find the name (Church) given to a meeting assembled only for discipline or things that concern many Churches, for anything we can read or observe from the word: as Acts 14. 27. Acts 15. 4 22. 30. Matthew 18. 17. and also the word Church given to a meeting assembled for the word, 1 Cor. 14. 1 Cor. 11. 18. 20, 22, 23. Rom. 16. 1. and not for acts of Jurisdiction for ought that we can collect from the word. I beseech you, Brethren, why do we contend? if the word Church, be a meeting of persons assembled to one place, for spiritual duties, sometimes for word and Sacraments only, sometimes for acts of Jurisdiction only, then is the word Church, by our brethren's argument taken both for the Congregation, and for the Elders of one, or of diverse Churches; and so we have our intent. And we desire our brethren to prove (which they must prove, if they oppose our principles) that the word (Church) is never taken for the Eldership only, in all the Word of God, but these places prove the contrary, as I have shown. 2. Whereas our brethren say; a company gathered into one place (which is nothing else but a Congregation) are called by the name of a Church. I answer 1. Such a company is only called by the name of a Church, as I have proved; for a company meeting for discipline only, Matthew 18. 17 1 Cor. 5. 4. is a Church also. 2. It is false that a company gathered in one place are nothing else but a Congregation. As you take the word (Congregation) for to you (Congregation) is an assembly of men and Women meeting for word and Sacrament with the Elders of the Church, I appeal to the judgment of our reverend brethren; If the Church, Mat. 18. 17. assembled to bind and loose, if the Church, 1 Cor. 5. 4. (though the Text speak nothing of the word (Church) assembled to deliver to Satan. If the Church assembled, Acts 14. 27. Acts 15. 2. to hear things which concerned the Apostles, and many Churches, rather then one; If the multitude convened, Acts 15. 30. to hear the decree of the Synod read, and if the Church of Apostles and Elders from Antiosh and Jerusalem. Acts 15. 22. be a Congregation or a Congregational Church assembled for word and Sacraments, as the word Church is taken, Acts 11. 26. 1 Cor. 11 20, 22, 33.
Mr. Mather, and Mr. Thomson, Num. 8. 10. The children of Israel which were not the Church of Officers laid on hands on the Levites, therefore when a Church hath no Elders the people may confer ordination, and it is not to be tied to the Presbytery only. Hence other of our Brethren say, ordination is but accidental to a Ministers calling, and may be wanting, if the people shall choose, in the defect of Elders.
Answ. Here two points are to be discussed shortly. 1. If Ordination belong to the People. 2. If Ordination to a certain stick be necessary, for certainly the people do not call but to a certain flock. To the first I say; There is not a place in all the Word of God where the people confer ordination to the Pastors of the New Testament. Therefore our brethren flee to the Old Testament to prove it from the Levites who received imposition of hands from the children of Israel; but our brethren hold, that the calling of the Levites and of the Pastors of the New Testament are different, as the Officers and Churches of the Jewish and Christian Church are different. 2. Our brethren grant pag. 49. That it wanteth all example in the New Testament that the people lay on hands. 3. These who laid on hands on the Levite, Num. 8. were Elders and (our brethren say,) It is like they were, but. 1. They did it not as Elders. 2. But as representing the people, not as Elders civil, for that belonged to Aaron and his sons, Levite. 8. else it will follow that where the Church hath no Magistrate to lay on hands, the Church may do it. Nor did they lay on hands as Ecclesiastical Elders, because what these which laid on hands did, they did as from the Congregation for 1. These Levites were taken instead of the first borne of Israel and not instead of the first borne of the Elders only, Num. 3 40, 41. 2. They were presented to the Lord, as an offering of the children of Israel, not of the Elders only. 3. When the multitude brought an oblation, the Elders put their hands on the head of the sacrifice Levite. 4. 15. instead of all the multitude.
Answ. These who laid on hands, did it as a work peculiar to the Elders, because the Elders were a part of the first borne, who by Office were Elders, and in whose stead the Levites were assumed, Num. 3. 40. 41. else the Church of Israel being a constituted Church before this time, wanted Officers, which is against all truth. 2. We grant the Magistrates laid not on hands, but they who laid on hands did it as Ecclesiastical Elders. And the reasons against this conclude not. 1. The first reason concludeth not because these who laid on hands were the first borne, who by Office were Church men. 2. The other two reasons prove nothing, for because these who laid on hands, did lay on hands as representing the whole Congregation, alas it doth no ways conclude that they laid not on hands as it is a works peculiar to them as Elders, for the Priest offered sacrifice first for his own sins, and then for the people's, Heb. 7. 27. and so did represent the people. But, I hope, it followeth not that therefore the Priest did not sacrifice as a Priest, and by virtue of a peculiar Office, but only as a principal member of the Congregation. 3. What if there be no Elders in a single Congregation, as our brethren suppose there were no Elders in Office in Israel to lay hands on the Levites? it will not follow therefore, the people are to lay on hands, except there were no Elders in all the Land or National Church to lay on hands. And though I think imposition of hands not so essential perhaps as a Minister can be no Minister without it, yet I think not so of Ordination (for these to me are as different as the authoritative calling of a Minster, and a rite annexed to that calling) because none can be a Minister in a constituted Church, but one which is called of God as was Aaron. But you will say, in a Church, in an Island one may be a Pastor without any ordination, if the people elect him, and there be no Elders to ordain.
I answer, it is true: but so many Pastors send a Pastor to be a Pastor to a Congregation, though that Congregation never choose him, as possibly they be for the most part Popish, or unwilling, yet both Cases are extraordinary and the Church not constituted and established.
M. Mather, if the people may elect Officers, then in some cases they may ordain them! also, because ordination is less then election, and dependeth, upon it as a necessary antecedent, and it is nothing but a • consummation of election, or the admission of a person into the possession of that Office, whereto he had right before by election. If then a single Congregation may elect, which is the greater, they may ordain which is the lesser.
Answ. Ordination is the more, and election the less; for ordination is an act authoritative of the Presbytery, 1 Tim. 4. 14. and, for ought I see, the authors might argue thus, the people may ordain; Ergo, they may preach and baptize, for all the three are presbyterial acts given to men in office. 2. Some doubt if I said rightly in my former Treatise, that ordination is prior to election, because ordination is that whereby a Minister is made a Minister, and election that whereby he who is a Minister first by order of nature, is made the Minister of such a fl • ck. I will not contend with any of either sides for order. But when I said so, I took the word (election) for the people's actual receiving and their complete taking him for their Minister, after he is now ordained a Minister this is his installing in his Office. And my reason is; because the people's naming of such a man to be their pastor doth stand with his never being their pastor; he being unwilling to be their pastor, and the presbytery thinking it unfit he be the pastor of such a people. 2. The people elect him as a pastor to be their pastor, they do not elect him as a gifted man. And whereas some say. Acts 6. 3. 4, 5. Election of seven men to be Deacons goeth before ordination and imposition of hands, v. 6.
Answ. Election of the people goeth before ordination in the relation of Luke, true; Ergo, election is prior by order of nature, it followeth not. But Acts 1. Ordination of Matthias (God casting the lot upon him, verse. 25.) is prior to the people's electing of him, for the people's appointing of two, verse. 23. cannot be their election; for they were to elect one, but I submit to the learneder my thoughts in this. As also my terming Paphnutius neither Bishop nor Elder at the Council of Nice, which I did not as denying him to be a Bishop, but because he was called to that Council of Nice where as before he had been deprived, but was restored by Constantine, though in the estimation of these who contended for the single life of Priests, whose corruptions Paphnutius opposed, he was in an Ecclesiastical sense neither Bishop nor Presbyter but deprived from both. But let the righteous rebuke me, and it shall be as Oil to my Head. 3. It cannot be that election of the people is the whole calling of a man to the Ministry, and Ordination only a supplement and an consummatory rite, or a benedictory sign which may be spared. 1. Because by the imposition of the bands of the Presbytery, Timothy was made a Minister, 1 Timothy 4. 14. Paul and Silas separatted to preach to the Gentiles, Acts 13. 1, 2, 3, 4. the Deacons ordained, Acts 6. 6. and this is enjoined with the right manner of acting it to Timothy, 1 Timothy 5. 22. 2 Timothy 2. 2. as a Ministerial act. 2. A Ministerial calling standeth in an authoritative sending, Romans 10. 15. and I see not well how the people themselves do send a Minister to themselves. (3) The people have not either formally, or by any grant of CHRIST, virtually, the Keys committed to them, how then can they give the Keys to pastors? 4. People may as the Sheep of CHRIST, John. 10. decern His Voice, and so have a power of Election of their own pastors, nor doth this make good which our Brethren say.
Mr. Mather saith, that because they are all taught of God, Esa. 54. 13. and they knew Christ's 'Doctrine, Joh: 7. therefore they may judge of a Ministers fitness, for it is plain that there it a twofold knowledge; one of Christians, Esal. 54. 13. not denied to Women and believing Children, who cannot lay on hands nor ordain Ministers, as the presbytery doth, 1 Timothy 4. 14. Acts 6. 6. Acts 13. 1 2. 3. 1 Timothy 5. 22. 2 Timothy 2. 2. but for trying of Ministers if they be the sons of the Prophets and must be apt to teach, 1 Timothy 3. 1, 2. able to convince subtle Heretics and gain-sayers and to put them to silence, Titus 1. 10. 11. there must be in a constituted Church a College of pastors and prophets to try the prophets, with a presbyterial Cognizance.
But here some object. If Election be absolutely in the h •• ds of the people, then is the people's will, because will, the absolute determiner who shall be the Pastor to such a flock; but people certainly may err, therefore the Presbytery must be the last determiner in election; And people have only a rational consent, and if their consent be irrational, the Presbyter must choose for them.
I answer shortly in these propositions.
1 Pro. Neither is the People infallible in choosing, nor the Presbytery infallible in regulating the people's choice, yet is power of regulating the choice, the presbyteries due, nor power of election to be denied to God's people.
2. Pro. You must suppose the Church a settled and an established Church of sound professors, for if the Congregation or presbytery, either of them be, for the most part, popish, Arminian or unsound in the Faith, in so far hath Christ given neither power to the one, or other.
3. Prop. When it is acknowledged by both people and presbytery, that of two or three men, any one is qualified for the place, then the man is absolutely to be referred to the people's choice, and though the people give no reason why they choose this man, rather then any of the other two, yet i • the Peoples choice reasonable, for no doubt Acts. 6. there were more men then these seven of good report and full of the Holy Ghost, and fit to be Deacons, therefore the multitudes choice of these seven, and their nomination of them to be Apostles rather then the nomination of any other men is rational and approved by the twelve Apostles, though they give no reason; Yea, though Nicolas be the S • ctmaster of the Nicolaitans (as the learned think) yet the election is Ecclesiastically lawful and needeth not that a reason be given to the Apostles.
4. Prop. We never read that in the Apostles-Church a man was obt • uded upon the people against their will. And therefore Election by the people in the Apostolic Church, as Acts 1. 26. Acts 6. 2, 3, 4. Revel. 2. 12. Acts 20. 28. must be our rule, any election without the people's consent must be no Election, for if it please not the whole multitude, as Acts 6. 5. it is not a choice.
5. Prop. We must distinguish Election and Regulation of the Election.
2. There is a Regulation of the Election, positive; and a Regulation negative. Hence the presbyteries power consisteth only in a negative regulation of the people's choice, not in a positive; For example, Election is an elicit act of the people, and their birthright and privilege that Christ hath given to them, and it cannot be taken from them; if there be any Election, it must be made by the people, the presbytery even in case of the people's aberration cannot usurp the act of Election; because the Apostles, who yet had the gift of discerning spirits, in a greater measure then the multitude, remit the choice of the seven Deacons to the multitude; Ergo, the presbytery should do the same; yet may the presbytery negatively reggulate the Election, and if the people out of the humor of itching ears choose an unfit man, in that case the presbytery may declare the Election irregular and null; as suppose the multitude, Acts 6 had chosen such a man, or all the seven men, like Simon Magus, the twelve Apostles by their Ministerial power might have impeded that Election, or rather nomination as irregular, and put them to choose other seven men; but the Apostles could not have chosen for them other seven, for then Election should have been taken out of the people's hands; Hence that distinction of elicit and imperate acts, even as the understanding commandeth and directeth the will to such and such elicit. actions, and regulateth the will therein, and yet the understanding can neither nill, nor will, and the King may punish pastors who preach Heretical doct in & vitiate the Sacrament; but the King can neither preach the word himself, nor administate the Sacraments; so the presbytery may regulate negatively and hinderth Election of an unfit man, but the presbytery cannot do, as the P • elate did who would name a man to the people, and desire their consent (but consent is not all, the presbytery and neighbor Congregations have consent, but no elective liberty given them by Christ) but if the people refused their consent, he Prelate without more a do, chose and ordained the man, and so he was obtruded on the people without any Election at all.
Ordination of an ordinary pastor is always to a certain flock, Act. 20. 28. 1 Pet. 5. 1. Rev. 2. 1. yet here must we distinguished dedication to Christ's service by the office. 2. The exercise of the office, in the former respect the pastor is a pastor everywhere, and may be sent as a Pastor to plant Churches, but ration finis. He is primario principally to feed this flock, and secundario and ration med • i, secondarily, while he feedeth this flock, he feedeth the Church universal.
Mr. Mather, if people may not m • dle with ordination, because it is proper to Timothy and Titus, this may prove that they were Bishops who did ordain Elders there alone, which ministers may not do there; for these Epistles are not written to them, as Bishops alone, nor as Elders alone, but as to a mixed state, including the people.
Answ. Some parcels of these Epistles are written to Timothy and Titus as Evangelists, such as none may now do but they only, •• 2 Tim. 4. 4. 1 Tit. 1. 3. Tim. 1. 5. and some other things which they gave in charge to Elders. 2. Some things are written to them as Christians, as 1 Tim. 1. 19. Tit. 3. 3. & finaliter or objectively all is written for the Churches good; but (3) the builk of the Epistle is written to them as Elders, and is a rule of perpetual government, and especially, 1 Tim. 1. 22. 2. Tim. 2. 2. for these and the like they were to do with the presbytery, as is clear, 1 Tim. 1. 14.
Object. The Congregations of Jerusalem were not fixed in their members and officers, only the Apostles preached to them (if they were many congregations, which is possible) in a circular way, now one Apostle to this assembly, then another. But in regard not one Paster could say (this is my flock, not this) nor any flock could say (Peter is our Pastor, not Andrew.) Therefore there was no Church-state in any of these congregations as where there is not a head of a Family and members, there is not a Family, and so you prove not Jerusalem a presbyterial Church over many fixed and formed Churches, as they are in Scotland, and if the Apostles were pastors in a circular and fluid way to many congregations, everyone was a pastor to many congregations and so elected by many congregations: which is absurd.
Ans. 1. Fixed or not fixed cannot vary the essence of the government. 1. The Priests, Levites, and Prophets teaching in the wilderness from place to place, and the people by war scattered to sundry Tribes, doth not make these meetings not to be under the government of the great Sanhedrin, more then if the meeting made a fixed Synagogue, divers members and dverso heads in one Family occasioned by death, and pestilence, diverse Soldiers and new Commanders in a Regiment, diverse Inhabitants, yea and weekly altered rulers and watchmen in a City, doth not infer that that family, Regiment, and City is not under one government of the City, one of the whole army, and one parliamentary law of the whole kingdom; no more then if all were fixed in members and heads. 2. Churches their persecution may have both members and teachers removed to a corner, and altered, yet they remain the same single Congregation having the same government. 3. Officiating in the same word, seals, censures, by Peter, today, and by Andrew, tomorrow, though members also be changed, is of the same species and nature, even to the worlds and, if we suppose the Church of Jerusalem to be one Congregation enduring a pattern these sixteen hundred years, members and officers must be often altered, yet it is one Congregation in specie, and one single Church in nature, though not in number, and the government not altered, through the fluidity and alteration of members and officers, as it is the same Parliament now which was in the reign of King James, though head and members be altered; fluidity and alteration of rulers and members must be, by reason of mortality accidental to all incorporations, and yet their government for all that doth remain the same in nature, if these same Laws, and Government in nature by these Laws remain.
CHAP. 4. SECT. 5.
Why we do not admit the Members of the Churches of Old England to the Seals of the Covenant.
Quest. I. WHether the Seals of the Covenant can be denied to professors of approved piety, because they are not members of a particular visible Church, in the New Testament.
Our Brethren deny any Church Communion, and the seals of the Covenant, Baptism, to the children of Believers, the Lord's Supper to believers themselves, who come to them from Old England, because they be not members of the particular Congregation to which they come, and because there is no visible, Church in the New Testament, but one particular Parish, and all who are without a particular Parish, are without the visible Church, and so are not capable of either Church censures, or the Seals of the Covenant, because 〈◊〉 have right to the seals of the Covenant, but only this visible Church.
We hold all who profess faith in Christ, to be members of the visible Church, though they be not members of a visible Congregation, and that the seals of the Covenant should not be denied to them. And for more full clearing of the question, let these considerations be observed.
First, Dist. All believers, as believers, in foro Dei, before God have right to the seals of the Covenant, these to whom the Covenant and body of the Charter belongeth, to these the seal belongeth, but in foro Ecclesiastico, and in an orderly Church-way, the seals are not to be conferred by the Church upon persons because they believe, but because they profess their believing: therefore the Apostles never baptized Pagans, but upon profession of their faith.
Second Dist. Faith in Christ truly giveth right to the seals of the Covenant, and in God's intention and decree, called voluntas beneplaciti, they belong only to the invisible Church, but the orderly way • f the Churches giving the seals, is, because such a society is a professing or visible Church, and orderly giving of the seals according to God's approving will, called, voluntas signi & revelata, belongeth to the visible Church.
Third Dist. The Church may orderly and lawfully give the seals of the Covenant to those to whom the Covenant and promises of grace doth not belong in God's decree of election.
Fourth Dist. The Church may lawfully add to the Church visible, such as God addeth not to the Church invisible, as they may add Simon Magus, and the Church may lawfully cast out of the visible Church, such as Christ hath not cast out of the invisible Church, as the Church may excommunicate regenerate persons for scandalous sins.
Fift Dist. Then the regenerate excommunicated have right to the seals of the Covenant, as they have to the Covenant, and yet the Church doth lawfully debar them, hic & nunc, in such a scandalous case, from the seals of the Covenant.
We hold that those who are not members of a particular Congregation, may lawfully be admitted to the seals of the Covenant.
First, Because those to whom the promises are made, and profess the Covenant, these should be baptized. But men of approved piety are such, though they be not members of a particular Parish. The proposition is Peters argument, Act. 2. 38.
Secondly, Those who are not Members of a particular Church may be visible professors, and so members of a visible Church, Ergo, the seals of the Covenant belongeth to them.
Thirdly, The contrary opinion hath no warrant in God's Word.
Fourthly, The Apostles required no more of those whom they baptized, but profession of belief, as Act. 10. 47. Can any forbid water that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost, as well as we? Act. 8. 37. If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest he baptized: no more is sought of the Jailor, Act. 16. 31. 34.
The Author saith: To admit to the Seals of the Covenant, is not an act of Christian liberty, that every Christian may dispense to whom he pleaseth, but an act of Church power given to the Ministers, to dispense to those over whom the Holy Ghost hath made them overseers; but we have no Ministerial power over those of another Congregation, and who are not members of a particular Congregation.
Answ. First, To dispense the Seals to whom we please, as if men's pleasure were a rule, were licentiousness, not Christian Liberty. There may be a communion of benefits, where there is no communion of punishment: Beneficia sunt amplianda.
Secondly, It is false that Pastors have no Ministerial power over those who are not of their Congregation; for if so, all communion of Churches should fall, for Letters of recommendation from other Churches, whereof they are Members, cannot make Pastors of New England to have a Ministerial power over those of another Congregation, as set over them, by the Holy Ghost, as they are set over their own Parish, to whom they be only Pastors, having Ministerial power, by a Church Covenant, and the people's Ordination, as our Brethren teach.
2. Manuser. Those over whom (saith our Author) we have no power of censure, over those we have no power to dispense the communion. Now if we should censure any such for drunkenness, or other scandals, who are not of our Congregation, it should be a non habente potestatem, an act done by those who have no power.
Answ. The major proposition by your own Doctrine, is clearly false, for you say your self, Strangers sojourning with us, members of other Churches, known not to be scandalous, are admitted to the Lord's Supper; yet can you not excommunicate strangers, sojourning for a time, falling in scandals. For,
First, to you they are without, how then can you judge them? as you say.
Secondly, You have by the holy Ghost no ministerial power over them, as over your own flock, as you expone, Act. 20. 28.
Thirdly, You look aside at excommunication, for those of other Churches consociated in a classe, we do lawfully excommunicate and censure; for excommunication is not a cutting off of a person from one single Parishonal Church only, as you imagine, but a cutting off of a person from all the visible Churches consociated: first, because he is delivered to Satan, and his sin is bound in heaven, in relation to all the faster Churches, and is so to be esteemed, and not in reference to the one single Congregation, whereof he is a member. Secondly, all are to be humbled and mourn for his fall, and to consent he be cut off, and not one single Congregation only. Thirdly, all consociated Churches shall be leavened, by keeping Church-fellowship with such a lump. Fourthly, all are to repute him as a Heathen, and a Publican. Fifthly, all are to admonish him as a Brother, 2 Thessalon. 3. 15. Sixthly, all are to forgive him, and receive him in Church-communion, if he 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 shall repent, and occasionally to edify him as a brother.
The Seals of righteousness of faith saith the Author) are not seals to the faithful as such, but as they are joined together and consederate in some visible Church, none but in a visible Church may dispense the seals, in the O • d Testament, none were partakers either of the Passover, or of Circumcision, unless they were either Israelites borne, or proselytes in the Church of Israel. We read not that Job and his friends, though righteous through faith, were circumcised, nor would they have omitted to speak of Circumcision, as of a pertinent evidence of the corruption of man's nature, of which they speak much; the Sacraments (saith this same Author are not given to the invisible Church, nor to the members thereof as such, but to the visible particular Churches of Christ, and to the members thereof; therefore the seals are not to be givento those, who are of no particular visible Church?
Answ. 1. The Seals of the Covenant are principally given to the invisible Church, as the Covenant it self in God's decree of election is especially made with the elect, and such as shall never fall away, as is clear, Jer. 31. 37. Jer. 32. 40. Isaiah 54 10. Heb. 8. 9. 10. and the invisible Church as such, as a number of believers have only right before God to both Covenant and seals, yea and consequently are only Christ's body and Spouse, and redeemed Saints, and so only have all the power of the keys, and the ministerial power of dispensing the Seals, and by our brethren's doctrine, the visible Church not as visible, but as the true body, Spouse, and Bride of Christ, & so as the invisible company of the redeemed ones have the Seals, and Covenant, and so all Ministerial power of Christ is given unto them. 2. It is true the orderly and Ecclesiastic way of dispensing the Seals, is that they be dispensed only to the visible Church, but this visible Church is not one parish, but all professing the faith of Christ, though they be not joined in one visible parish by one Church oath, as the Author meaneth: for the Saints in Scripture, as Cornelius, the Eunuch, the Jailor, did profess and visibly evidence their faith, and so that they were capable of the Seals by desiring to be saved, and saying, What shall we do to be saved, by trembling at the Word of God, by asking the meaning of the Word of God, which expressions are in many not in-churched to particular Congregations, not did the Apostles ask if they were members of one parish before they baptized them, but if they believed in Christ. 3. Whether Job, his friends, Melchizedek, Lot, and others the like were circumcised, we need not dispute, but that they were not circumcised, because they were not in a visible Church estate with Abraham, is a question and uncertain, and therefore not sure to be a foundation of new opinions in Church Government; but though it were granted, it followeth not, because none were circumeised but Abraham's seed, and all, and only Abraham's seed were circumcised, therefore none are to be baptized but those who are members of one particular Congregation: Alas this is a weak • consequence, rather it followeth all borne of Jews were circumcised, Ergo all borne of Christian parents are to be baptized; and we see not but sacrificing was restricted to the visible Church, no less then Circumcision, yet Job sacrificed to God, Job 1. and Chap. 42.
The Author addeth The difference here is. The circumcised in Israel might rightly keep the Passover amongst themselves, because the whole nation of Israel made but one Church, and the officers and ministers of any one Synagogue and the Priests and Levites were ministers in •• mmune of the whole house of Israel, in proportion whereunto they that are baptized in any particular Church may in like manner require the Lord's Supper, if there be no other impediment, in regard of their unfitness, to examine themselves, which is a thing requisite, to receive the Lord's Supper, more then was required to receive the Passover. But now because the Churches of the New Testament are of another constitution, then the national Church of all Israel, baptism in one Church doth not give a man right to the Lord's Supper in another, unless the Officers of the one Church were Officers of all (as in Israel they • er • ) or unless that one Church and the Officers thereof did recommend their right and power to another.
Answ. 1. It is true, in the one Church of Israel there was something typical, that is not in our Churches, as one Temple, •• e high Priest, one place of sacrificing, one Priesthood, one A • ke, &c. but this was peculiar to Israel, as such a specifice Church, and typi • ied also the external visible unity of the whole visible Church of the New Testament in professing one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one external communion, and government external, de jure: but this agreed not to the Church of Israel properly as a Church; for as a Church of a nation they might convene and assemble themselves in one national Assembly to reform Religion, to renew a national Covenant, to turn away a national judgment, to make national acts, that they should seek the Lord God of Israel, and put away strange wives, Deut. 29. 2 Chron. 15. 12, 13. Nehem. 10. and this is moral, yea natural to a number of Churches united in one nation, and no ways typical. 2. The proportion betwixt Israel and a parishional Church is questioned, the Author beggeth what is in question, for it is evident that in God's Word there is a visible Church of many Congregations, associated in many visible acts of government. 3. If the Church of Israel and the Churches of the New Testament be of different constitutions, as Anabaptists, Arminians and Socinians teacheth, we shall try. I affirm that the Constitution in matter and form was one with the Christian visible Church. 1. Our brethren bring arguments from the constitution of the Church of the Jews, that for matter they were a holy people, a royal generation, for form they were united in one Church-state Covenantwayes, as they prove from Deut. 29. 2. Separation from sin and the wicked world, but not from the worship of God, was commanded to them, Psal. 26. 5, 6. Isaiah 52. 11. 2 Cor. 6. 7. Levite. 26. 11, 12. Communion with the wicked was forbidden to Israel, 2 Chron. 19. 2. 2 Chron. 30. 6. but communion in worship both in the Synagogue and Temple was commanded to them. 3. That God required not moral preparation in them for eating the Passover, as he doth in us, before we eat the Lord's Supper, I conceive to be an untruth. 1. Because not to profane the holy things of God, and not to take God's Law in their mouth and to hate to be reformed, Psal. 50. 16. not to sacrifice with bloody hands, Esa. 1. 11, 12, &c. Psal. 50. 8, 9, 10. Esa 66. 1. was moral, and did bind and oblige the Jews as they do us, and 2 Chron. 30. 6. The posts are sent to gather the people to the Passover, charging them to turn to the Lord God of their fathers, not to be like their fathers; and it is clear by Hezekiab • prayer, ver. 18, 19. Good Lord pardon him that prepareth his heart to seek the Lord God of his fathers, though he be not cleansed according to the purification of the Sanctuary, verse. 20. And the Lord hearkened, and healed the people. Ergo, there was required a preparation of the heart for the right eating of the Passover, besides the typical and ceremonial preparation. Yea God counted the ceremonial preparation void of the moral preparation, but abomination, as Esa. 66. 1. Esa. 58. 3, 4, 5, 6. and Josiah's Passover is commended from this, 2 Kings 23. 22 (as Junius well observeth) that none did with such care and zeal, as Josiah did prepare the Pr • es • s, the people and himself for the passover, in removing all Id • latry and abominati • n, and in renewing their Covenant and resoluti • n, verse. 3. To walk after the Lord, and to keep his Commandments with all their heart, and with all their soul. 4. The unclean and uncircumcised in heart were no more members of the true and invisible Church of the Jews, and of Christ's mystical body, his Spouse, his royal generation, then Sodom and Gomorrah, Esa. 1 10. then the Ethiopians, Amos, 9. 7. then Ammon and Moab, J • r. 9 25, 26. as in the New Testament, and the true invisible Church amongst them, as amongst us were Kings and Priests unto God, Exod. 19. 5. 9. Psal. 149. 1. as we are, 1 Pet. 2. 9, 10. Rev. 1. 5. 5. Amongst them no man could invade the Priests office, or run unsent, no more then under the New Testament, Heb. 5. 4. 1 Tim. 4. 22. though they were to rebuke one another, Levite. 19. and they had sacrifices for sins of ignorance, Levite. 4. 27. 2. The place seemeth not to want difficulty, how many sacrifices would men offer, how often, yea while they were going home from Jerusalem (which was a long Journey to many) they might fall in these sins of ignorance, and as Master Paget noteth there was no dispensation for this Law, yet when Abraham travelled three days to Mount Moriah from Beersheba in the South, and some of the Tribes Northward, would be als far distant, it would be seven days journey to many; therefore the Text is, if be sin 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in ignorance, or through ignorance, that is, merely of ignorance, as when a man in drunkenness killed a man, he shall offer a trespass offering for it, the Jews call it in their Language 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 timgnol, magnal, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 megnal signifieth Pallium, if he sinned with a cloak casten over his eyes, and Weemes said the sins were done of ignorance, not ignorantly, or the word in the Hebrew, is vel notificatum fuerit ei peccatum ejus, when the conscience is wakened and convinced, and he can find no rest, let him offer sacrifices. And a third step was excommunication and casting out of the Synagogue after the captivity, which are the very degrees of our Church censure. They answer, Israel had civil government which we have not. I answer, Deut. 17. 9. He that will not hearken to the Priest (that standeth before the Lord to minister) or unto the Judge, even that man shall die. He saith not, He that hearkeneth not unto the People. 2. They say they could not in Israel forgive one another's sins, as we do in the New Testament.
Answ. It is a divine Law in the Old Testament, they were to forgive even their enemies, Prov. 20. 22. &c. Robinson saith, No Church hath the absolute promise of the Lord's visible present, which that Church then had, till the coming of Christ, Gen. 47. 10. and 17. 7. Exod. 19. 43, 44. It was simply necessary that the Messiah should be borne in the true Church. 3. In their deepest apost asy God shown them some signs of his presence, by raising up some godly King, Priest, or Prophet.
Answ. That they had Prerogatives above us is clear, Rom. 3. 1, 2, 3. Rom. 9. 4. and that in other respects, far more excellent, we have Prerogatives above them, is as clear, 2 Cer. 3. 7, 8, 9. Matth. 13. 16, 17. So one Christian Church have Prerogatives above another, but the essential constitution of the Church of the Jews, and ours is one. 1. They were a ro • a • d Priest-hood, a People holy to the Lord, the Covenant made with them, as with us. 2. To them one little Leaven, leavened the whole lump. 3. Separation from sin and Idolatrous worship was commanded them, as it is us. 4. Amongst them, none who hated to be reformed, were to take the Law of God in their mouth. But to return to our Author, it is a false ground that one that is Baptized in one Church, hath not right to the Lord's Supper in all Churches, for if he be Baptized to Christ's death, he is Baptized to all Churches. And 2. professedly in Covenant with God in all Churches, and so hath right to the seals of the Covenant in all Churches, for God's Covenant is not principally and first made with a Parishonal Congregation, but with the Catholic and universal Church coming under the name of Israel and Judah; and secondarily with a Parishonal Congregation. Is a believer a member of Christ's body in one Congregation and not in all Congregations? Hath he the keys as a member of Christ's body, and a dwelling house for the holy Spirit in one Congregation, and loseth them and the holy Spirit both when he goeth to another Congregation?
Manuscript, Those who come from England to us are under public scandals and reproach. It is an offense that they come to us, as members of no particular Church visible, (for they leave that relatiin where they left their habitation) but of one National Church, whereof Christ hath given us no pattern in the New Testament, and in 〈◊〉 he hath appointed no National worship to be performed.
Answ. It is admirable that leaving a Parishonal Church in England, they leave not the true visible Church, so all the Parishonal Churches in England must be separated from, as •• om no Churches; yet in that Church, many of you had your Baptism, your conversion to Christ, your calling to the Mini • e •• . 2. How can it be an offense to be Members of no independent Churches in England, whereas no such may be had there? 3. Is it a fault to be members of a National Church? see if Act. 1. Act. 6. Act. 15. there be not a Church-meeting, and public exercise of praying, discussing of matters by the Word, choosing of officers, refuting of false Doctrine? This is worship, and it is not the worship of a particular Church, but there be no true Churches but yours, and all are in offenses and scandals, who are not members of your Churches; this Augustine layeth to Donatists, this Pareus layeth upon Au • baptists, that they taught, they only were the true Church. I conceive our dear Brethren are not of this mind.
Manuscript, It is a public offense, that though they were Baptized in some Parish Church in England (saith the Author) upon some • Covenant and stipulation of Parents, or God-fathers, which also was without warrant, yet they come to the Lord's Table, without any public profession of their faith or repentance?
Answ. To say nothing of God-fathers, who are civil witnesses, that the Parents shall take care to educate the child, in the true Faith, we see no public profession by a Church-oath, (as you mean) in the Church of Corinth, but only that every man was to try himself, and then to eat, nor in the Apostles Church at all, if you debar them from the Lord's Supper, who are not enchurched by your Oath, all the reformed Churches on Earth did never worthily eat and drink the Lord's body and blood. It is (saith he) a public offense, that in the Parish Communion (which not Communion of spirits, but cohabitation begetteth) they partake with all ignorant and scandalous persons, not excluding drunkards, profane swearers, whereby it cometh to pass that not a little leavin, but a great measure of leavin doth deeply leavin the whole lump.
Answ. This toleration of drunkards and swearers in the Lord's Church, and at his Table, infecteth and is apt to leavin all, with their evil conversation, but doth not leavin the worship to the fellow-worshippers, nor is the sin of private persons, yea nor of our Ministers, who hath not power to help it, (but it is the fault of the Church) except you make no separation from a Church where a scandalous person is tolerated (for suffering moe or sewer doth not vary the spece) to be a sin publicly to be repented, before any can be members of your Church, which is prodigious to us.
Fourthly, It is a public offense (saith the Author) that they have worshipped God, according to the precepts of men, &c.
Answ. This is the crime of conformity which I wish were publicly repented, by all which hath defiled themselves with submitting to a Antichristian government, and the Will-worship of men, yet doth not this make Ministers no Ministers, so as they must receive Ordination to the Ministry of new. Peters fall took not away his Apostleship, nor Jonah • flying from God, nor David's adultery made them not leave off to be Prophets.
Other arguments that I find in Papers from New England are these: First, There is not a Church (say they) under the New Testament, but a Congregational Church, so it will follow, that as City privileges belong only to the Citizens and their children, so baptism and the Lord's Supper, being Church privileges, belong only to the Members of particular Churches, and their seed; and that seeing sigillum sequitur donum, to apply them to any other, is to abuse them. As the scale of an Incorporation is abused, when it is added to confirm a gift to one who is not a Free man of that Incorporation, he being incapable thereof.
Answ. First, The case is not here, as in earthly Cities, a man who is a free Citizen in one burrough is not for that a free Citizen of all the Burroughs and Cities on earth; nor is he who is civilly excommunicated and cast out of his City privileges in one City, cast out of his City privileges in all other Cities, whereof he is a free member: and the reason is, there is not one common owner, and Lord of all the Cities on earth, who can give, or take away, in a Law-way, City privileges; but the case is far other ways in the privileges of visible Churches, for he who is a member of one visible Congregation, is by his baptism, and sincere profession, and his professed standing in Covenant with God, a Member of all visible Congregations on earth, as he is baptized in all Congregations on earth; and if he be excommunicated out of a single Congregation, he is excommunicated out of all, and loseth right to the Scale of the Lord's Supper, in all visible Congregations, as his sins are bound in heaven to all also, for that one common head and Savior, who giveth him right to the Seals of Christ's body and blood in one, giveth him right to these Seals in all. For we worthily communicate with Christ in his body and blood, 〈◊〉 his body was broken, and his blood shed for one single visible Congregation, but as broken and shed for the whole 〈…〉 universal. But this form of reasoning utterly abolisheth all Communion of Churches, nor can a member of one Noble Church be capable of the Seals of grace in another visible Church, because he is not a Member of that visible Church, no more then one is capable of the Privileges of Paris, who is only a Citizen of London, and not a Citizen of Paris. If it be said, one who is a member of a visible Church, may receive the Seals in another Congregation, if he be recommended by Letters, as a sound Professor, to that other Congregation. I Answer, Recommendatory Letters can never give a Church-right to the Church-Privileges of the Seals of the Covenant, they do but only notify, manifest, and declare the Church-right, which the man had before. Ergo, either he cannot in any sort be capable of the Seals of the Covenant in another Congregation, then his own, whereof he is an enchurched Member, which destroyeth all communion of sister Churches, or if he be capable of the Seals in another Congregation, he was capable and h • d a Church-right, in himself, before he received reconime •• a • ory Letters: yea, these whom we recommend by Letters as • it to partake of the Sacraments in another Congregation, •• presuppose they have Church-right to the Seals in another Congregation visible, then in their own, whereof they are members; except our testimony be false. Ergo, before our recommendatory Letters, the person of approved piety was a member of all the visible Churches about, hoc ipso, and by that same reason, that he is a member of one visible Congregation; yea Peter clearly insinuateth that all who have received the Holy Ghost, are to be baptized, Act. 8. 47. as Philip, Act. 8. 37. and That if the Eunuch believed, be might be baptized. So that Faith, to speak properly, doth give us right to the Seals, and to speak accurately, a visible profession of faith doth not give a man right to the seals of grace, but only it doth notify and d clare to the Church, that the man hath right to the seals because he believeth, and that the Church may lawfully give to him the seals, and that profession is a condition required in the right receivers of the seals in an Ecclesiastical way; but faith giveth the right to these seals, and because the faith of the believer goeth with the believer, when he goeth to another visible congregation then his own, that faith giveth him right to the seals in all places, and in all Congregations: for faith giveth right to receive Christ Sacramentally, not in one Congregation only, but in all, and a visible profession doth, as a condition notify this faith, and Church-right in all Congregations. Ergo, the man hath right in all Congregations, as he hath right in a parishional Church. But our Brethren reply, Peter might baptize Cornelius, though he was no member of a visible Congregation, because the Apostles being • fficers in all Churches, might dispense the Seals in all Churches: but Ministers now are pastors only of the determina • e flock, over which the holy Ghost hath set them, therefore they have not City Seals at their power to dispense to any other then to Citizens.
Answ. Peter his argument to Baptize is not from a temporal reason, that endureth for a while, but from a moral argument of perpetual equity and necessity, till Christ's second coming. He that believeth and hath received the holy Ghost is to be baptized. But many out of Church-state, and who are not members of a particular Congregation, have received the Holy Ghost, and do believe, being Christians of approved piety; we are to add no restrictions, or exceptions where God addeth none. Non est distinguendum, ubi lex non distinguit. They that believe should receive the seals, but not except they be in-Churched and members of a particular Congregation. The proposition is God's Word, but the restriction or exception is not God's Word. 2. The Apostles, though they were universal Pastors of the world, yet teach us by word and practice, who are to be admitted to the seals, even to the supper, those who do try and examine themselves, and that to the end of the world.
2. Our brethren say, It is probable that Cornelius was in Church state, and the Eunuch coming to Jerusalem to worship, argueth he was a proselyte, and a member of the Jewish Church not yet dissolved; Lydia and the jailor were members of the Church of Philippi, which Church communicated with Paul at the beginning of the Gospel, Psal. 4. 15. at least it is probable, that Lidia was a member of the Church of the Jews.
Answ. It is hard to build a new Church government contrary to the doctrine of the reformed Churches upon probabilities. 2. If Cornelius, Lydia and others were members of the Jewish Church, it was not a good consequence by our brethren's doctrine to make them members of a Christian Congregation, without in-churching of them by your Church-oath, for you make the constitution of the Jewish Church, and ours different; yea and as you teach, all circumcised were members of the Jewish Church, and had right to their Passover, but all circumcised are not meet to be members of a Christian Church, for many circumcised were Idolaters, murderers, profane mo • ke • s of God, Isaiah 1. 13, 14, 15, 16. Jer. 10. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. Ezek, 10. 6. 17. 18, 9. And though the Church of Philippi was one of the 〈◊〉 Church 〈◊〉 communicated with Paul, yet was there no Christian Church of Elders and people there, when Lydia was converted, for Acts 16. 13. in the place where prayer was wont to be made on the Sabbath day, none heard Paul preach, but some women, Ergo there could not be a Christian Church there; and it is certain the jailor before was a persecutor, and no member of a Christian Church.
They say Abraham and his seed were not circumcised, till God called him into Church-Covenant, and so into Church-state, and there is the same reason and use of baptism, as of circumcision. If the argument taken for baptizing of infants be good, why may we not inserre a necessity of Church-membership, before baptism, as of Church membership before circumcision? So the Apology saith. It cannot be proved that baptism was imposed upon all believers, as such, no more then it can be proved that circumcision was imposed upon all believers as such; and Baptism is no more now necessary to a believer, whose calling or another strong hand of God's providence will not suffer to live in Church fellowship with God's people, then circumcision was necessary to Melchisede • k, Job or others, whom the hand of God detained from Church-fellowship, with the posterity of Abraham; yea circumcision and the Passover, seeing they were administrated in private houses, might more conveniently be administrated to persons not in Church-state, nor Baptism and the Lord's Supper can be administrated so, in respect they are seals given to a Church body in an assembly, 1 Cor. 10. 17. and 12. 13.
Answ. Abraham, Sarah, and the Souls they had gotten in Charran, were in Church-state, obeyed God, built an Altar Gen. 12. 2, 3, 4. before the Church Covenant, which you speak of, Chap. 17. and it is denied that that supposed oath of the Covenant made them a Church: So we see no necessity of Church-membership, to one single Congregation, before either circumcision or baptism; for baptism is a seal of our entry into the visible Church, as I shall prove. 2. We say not that baptism is imposed on all who believeth, as they are such, for God saveth divers believers, who are not baptized, but God's will, the supreme I awe-giver, here is to be looked into, God would have no circumcision from Adam to Abraham, and would himself have the people want circumcision in the Wilderness forty years, and would have it administrated in private houses, it being a bloody and painful Sacrament, but we have an express Commandment of God to baptize all ordinarily of the visible Church; yet not because they are members of one single Congregation, but because they believe & testify themselves to be members of the visible Church in general: we deny that the want of membership in a particular Congregatiō, is that strong band that should hinder baptism or the seals of the Covenant. God hath appointed no lawful calling, such as trafficking by Seas & • equent travelling ordinary to transient members of the visible Church, to be inconsistent with the lawful partaking of the ordinances of grace, & seals of the Covenant; for only those who do not try and examine themselves, and are profanely scandalous are excluded, as swine, from the holy things of God, and from the Lord's Supper, not men, because they are necessarily busied in a lawful calling, and must ordinarily travel to far countries, and so cannot be members of a single parish. 1. This is a physical impediment and not a sin, nor a moral impediment, excluding any from the Seals of grace, yea and an unwritten tradition. 2. I speak against that difference which the author maketh, betwixt the seals of grace in the Old Testament, and the seals of grace in the New Testament, for there were Physical and civil defects in the Old Testament, which by a divine Law, made some incapable of the Passover, as if any were Lepers, bastards, borne Moabites and Ammonites, or typically unclean, or had touched the dead, they could not eat the Passover, though otherwise they did believe in Christ to come, and were morally clean, but by the contrary under the New Testament, there be no Physical or ceremonial defects, no callings, no civil relations, but only moral defects, and sinful scandals, which doth exclude men from the Seals of grace, except you bring in ceremonies in the New Testament, of your own devising, for all Nations, so they believe in Christ, Jew, or Gentile, Barbarian, or Scythian, bond or free, male or female, are to be baptized, Matth. 28. 19. God is no accepter of 〈◊〉 , or Nations, or callings, Act. 10. 34, 35. compare this with ver. 46, 47. and Gal. 3. 27. For as many of you as have been baptized unto Christ, have put on Christ, v. 28. There is neither Jew nor G •• ek there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female, for 〈◊〉 all me in Christ Jesus, so Gal. 6. 15. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision • waileth anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
I must then say, it is boldness in men to say, that there is a lawful calling in the New Testament, which our Brethren are pleased to call the strong hand of God, which maketh persons who are new creatures, and baptized unto Christ, uncapable of the seals of grace. Deare Brethren, yield to the clear and evident truth of God. And for this cause, the seals of the New Testament must be more necessary in this respect, then were the Seals in the Old Testament. Our Brethren say, All circumcised might eat the Passover (though I doubt much of it) and might enter into the Temple, if they were not legally unclean, but all baptized may not ca • e the Lord's Supper; and all baptized, though excommunicated, may enter into the congregation for the public worship, hearing the word, praying, praising, &c. But all circumcised, might not enter into the congregation. The places 1 Cor. 10. 17. and 12. 13. prove not, that the Seals of grace are administrated to a Church body, of a particular congregation only, as they are such; for these seals are common to all the visible Churches on earth. We many are one body, it is not to be exponed, We many are of one Parishonal Congregation, and only are one body; but We many of all the visible Churches on Earth, are one body in Christ. This you must say, except you deny all visible communion of sister Churches.
The Object. They who are not capable of Church censures, are not capable of Church Privileges. But those that are not within the Church covenant of a particular congregation, are not capable of Church censure. The proposition being evident, the assumption is proved, 1 Cor. 5. 12. What have I to do to judge those who are without, that is, without the communion of a particular congregation, So Ames, de consc. l. 4. c. 24. quest. 1. resp. ad.
Answ. First, I answered before, the major is false, by your own doctrine, those of another Congregation cannot be censured, but by their own congregation, yet by Letters of recommendation, they may receive the Lord's Supper in another Congregation. Also strangers of approved piety, may be capable of Church rebukes, which are Church censures.
Secondly, The place, 1 Cor. 5. 12. is manifestly abused, for by those who are without, are meant only the Infidels and Heathens who are without the whole visible Church, and not those of approved piety, who are baptized and profess the truth sincerely: for Peter Martyr, Beza, Calvin, Marlorat, Pareus, Zwinglius, so also Haymo, Aquinas, expone it with us; which is clear, first, by the phrase of speaking (What have I to do?) being a note of estrangement, as, Joh. 2. 4. Woman what have I to do with thee? and 2 Sam. 16. 10. David said, What have I to do with you, ye sons of Zeruiah? now Paul and the faithful at Corinth are not estranged from those of approved piety of other Congregations, he took care to edify and rebuke them, and so are all the Saints to edify, censure, and rebuke one another.
Thirdly, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , always those who are without, are taken in an ill part, in the Word of God, as Mark. 4. 11. Those who are without, are the blinded and hardened, and Rev. 22. 15. for without are dogs, our Brethren expone it of the visible Church. Now not to be in Membership of such a particular congregation, is not a sin, nor a just ground of Paul's estrangement of his Ministerial power from them, it may be caused by persecution when the flock are scattered by Wolves.
Fourthly, Those who are here without, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , are left by Paul to the immediate judgment of God, and not to be judged of the Church, ver. 13. But them that are without God judgeth. Now those who are members of another congregation then the Church of Corinth, or members of no particular congregation, and yet of approved piety, are not left to the immediate judgment of God, because they are without. The banished servants of God, who suffer for the Truth, or transient members, who because their calling is ordinarily trafficking, and so not consistent with a membership in a settled congregation, are they (I say) without, not to be edified by the censures of the Church, but left to the immediate judgment of God? this is contrary to God's Word, and an insolent interpretation, and I find i • not in your place of Ames.
They reason from inconveniencies, Hence (say they) Church assemblies shall be confused meetings, if all out of Church membership • e admitted.
Answ. If by confused meetings you mean, meetings of sound believers and hypocrites, then Christ's Kingdom compared to a draw-net, wherein are good and bad, are confused meetings and unlawful; which none can say but Anabaptists. But if you mean meetings of these of your own Congregation and strangers of approved piety, these are not confused meetings, but you beg what is in question, and utterly abolish all Communion of Churches.
They add, the Church shall endanger the propbaning of the Seals, and want a special means whereby their grace and piety shall be dis • erned, if without respect of their Church estate, men be admitted to the seals; for their own testimony is not enough: also how can they be of approved piety, who against light refuse to profess subjection to the Gospel, by an orderly joining themselves with some approved Church when they have opportunity? seeing Church-fellowship is an action of piety required in the second Commandment, and this mean of trial hath been so blessed that many approved men have been after trial found light to others, and to their own consciences.
Answ. Means of discovering sincerity or hypocrisy would be warranted by God's word, and means of eschewing the profaning of the Seals also. Simon Magus was not so tried, yea when Peter found him in the gall of bitterness, we find not that he cast him out of the visible Church in respect his sin was not that publicly scandalous, as to offend the whole Church. 2. We grant that strangers are not rashly to be admitted to the Seals, but you prove them not to be of approved piety, because they will not swear your Church-oath, and your discipline, as the only true way, and in so doing, you say they refuse Church-fellowship commanded in the second Commandment; but this is to be proved, and not to be nakedly averred by you; they believe, and can give evidences of their belief, & so should by the word of God be admitted to the Seals. Act. 10. 47. Act. 8. 37. Act. 16. 14, 15. ver. 31, 32, 33. 1 Cor. 11. 38. you deny them the Seals, as i • they were dogs and unworthy profaners of the Seals only, because they cannot swear to your Church-government, which you cannot prove from the word of God. 3. You deny them to be of approved piety who will not join to an approved Church, you mean your own only. But you add if they have opportunity, but what if they want opportunity, then the strong hand of God deharreth them, & their seed from the Seals of Grace; now if any be to traffic by Seas, and to travel to far Countries in a lawful calling, he is legally unclean and incapable of the Seals to himself or his seed; for he cannot in Conscience and through necessity of his lawful calling swear your Church-oath, for he must swear to observe the manners of his fellow-members, to edify them by exhortation, consolation, rebuking, to join himself in an eternal Covenant to that visible Church, yea never to remove thence, except the Congregation consent: so your oath obligeth him to all these, now this is impossible because of his lawful calling, and because he cannot be a Church-member forever: while he traffiqueth in his lawful calling, the comfort of the Lord's supper is denied to him, and Baptism to all his seed, and that by a strong hand of providence without any fault in him: show us a warrant from the Law and the Testimony, where any are to be debarred from the Seals of the Covenant, and that ordinarily, (where sickness and some other Physical impediments doth not occur) where there is no moral unworthiness or guiltiness in the persons debarred: Will you debar all from Church-comforts, the presence of Christ in his Church, the comfort of his walking, beside the Candlesticks, and his influence in the word Preached, the power of the keys, the rebukes of the Saints, their exhortation and private comforting of sinners, the comforts of the Ordinances of Baptism, and the supper of the Lord, because a strong hand of providence in a lawful calling doth perpetually debar them? 4. You say your trying of Church-members is a mean blessed of God, to try many men's sincerity.
I answer, Unlawfull means, as the persecution of Tyrants, may have this success, what then? is it a lawful mean? 2. I would God's name were here spared; it is not a mean blessed of God, it chaseth away many from the net of the Gospel, and the Pastoral care of the Shepherds, and is not a conquering way to gain Souls.
John Alasto (say they) in the days of Edward the sixth, would bapize none, but such as were members of that Church: and therefore p •• paned this question to the Fathers, (Are these infants that you 〈◊〉 , the seed of this our Church, that they may lawfully be Baplized?)
Answ. John Alasto had reason because of some present abuse, some indifferent Atheists, infidels in heart, refused to join to either Churches, either Protestant or Papists, and sought Baptismeto their children in either Churches, as they might have it, and therefore was that question proponed to the Fathers, but it proveth not your point. Alasto excluded the Children of Atheists, who would join to no Church, as his words cited bear. Ergo approved Christians and their seed are to be excluded from the Seals of the Covenant. How weak is your reasoning?
If the Rechabites (say they) the Posterity of Jethro, shall live in the • idst of the Common-wealth of Israel, & some of them prove true beleeters, as Jonadab the son of Rechab. yet if they shall refuse to take bold of the Covenant of Israel, & to become Pr • selytes, it is no sin for Israel to withhold the Passover from them, & circumcision from their Children?
Answ. You might have proved your point a nearer way, many legally unclean, and yet sound believers, because of leprosy, for no sin were debarred from the Seals amongst the Jews: but have you any law to debar any from the Seals of the Covenant of grace under the New Testament, and that ordinarily for no sin? 2. Calvin thinketh their Vow not lawful. Bucanus, Polyander, and Willet think it the lawful Vow of the Nazarites, commanded Numb. 6. What then? If by God's Law of the Nazarites, they abstained from wine, and the Passover? God is above his own Law, Ergo, you may debar men from the Seals under the New Testament for no sin; it doth not follow. 3. How prove ye, they abstained from the Passover? being so divine a Law, might not their Vow suffer an exception for a greater Law in eating the Passover? I think it might, for in case of necessity they came and dwelt at Jerusalem, for fear of the Army of the Chaldeans, Jer. 35. 11. and yet their vow was to dwell in Tents. From these ariseth,
Quest. I. If Pastors may perform Ministerial Acts in any other Congregation than their own.
This is answered unto, by a Manuscript, If you take a Ministerial act improperly, when a Minister doth exercise his gift of praying and preaching, being required so to do, so he may exercise some Ministerial acts, but this he doth not by virtue of any calling, but only by his gifts and occasionally: but if you mean by a Ministerial act, an act of authority and power in dispensing of God's Ordinances, as a Minister doth perform to the Church whereunto he is called to be a Minister, then we deny that he can so perform any Ministerial act, to any other Church, than his own.
Hence though he may preach to another congregation, yet may he not administer the Sacraments to another then to his own.
Answ. First, We hold that by a calling or ordination he is made a Pastor, by election he is restricted to be Ordinarily the Pastor of his flock.
Secondly, A Pastor is a Pastor of the Catholic Church, but he is not a Catholic Pastor of the Catholic Church, as were the Apostles.
Thirdly, The Reformed Churches may send Pastors to the Indians, for that which Acosta saith of Jesuits, we may with better reason say it of ourselves: That Pasiors are as Soldiers, and some soldiers are to keep order, and remain in a certain place, others run up and don ne in all places; So some are affixed to a Congregation, to feed them, others may be sent to those people, who have not heard of the Gospel. Which sending is ordinary and lawful, in respect of Pastors sending, and the Pastors who are sent, because in Pastors, even after the Apostles be dead, there remaineth a general Pastoral care for all the Churches of Christ. Thus sending is not ordinary, but extraordinary, in respect of those to whom the Pastors are sent, yet is it a Pastoral sending.
This opinion of our Prethren, is against the care of Christ, who hath left no Pastoral care on earth by this way, now since the Apostles died, to spread the Gospel to those Nations who have not heard of the name of Christ; but a Pastoral care for the Churches, is not proper to Apostles only, but only such a Pastoral care by special direction from Christ immediately to Preach to all. 2. Backed with the gift of tongues and of miracles; and this essentially differenceth the Apostle from the ordinary Pastor; but the former Pastoral care to Preach the Gospel to all Nations, and to convert, is common both to the Apostle and Pastor.
2. Our Brethren distinguish betwixt office and the calling, and they say that the office extendeth no further then the call, and by 〈◊〉 he is only a Pastor of this determinate flock. But if he be a Pastor essentially in relation to none, but to his own Congregation from which he hath all his calling, as is supposed, by that same reason a Christian, is a Baptized Christian to none but in relation to that particular Church in whose society he is admitted, and he doth partake of Christ's body and blood in the Lord's Supper in relation to no visible professors on earth, but only to the Parish Church whereof he is a Member, 1 Cor. 10. 17. for they expone that only of a Parishonal Communion within one single independent Congregation. And he must be a Heathen, or as a Pagan in all Congregations on earth, but in his own, yea and he is a visible professor of the Covenant of grace, which is one in substance, (as they say) with the Church-Covenant, and hath claim to Christ and all his Ordinances in no Congregation save in his own. I prove the consequence, for by Baptism the Baptized person is incorporated in Christ's visible Church. 1 Cor. 12. 13. If this be true when one removeth from one Congregation to another, he must be re-baptized and incorporated a visible member of a body visible with them. And I see not how one can be in-churched to another Congregation, and made one body therewith, while he eat of one bread with them, as they expone, 1 Cor. 10. 17. if he be not also a member of all visible Churches on earth.
3. If a Pastor can exercise no Pastoral acts toward any Congregation, save toward his own, then a Pastor as a Pastor cannot pray for the whole visible Churches of God: but the latter is absurd: Ergo, so is the former. I prove the major, The praying for the whole visible Churches is a Pastoral Act, due to a Pastor as a Pastor. 1. Because every visible Church is obliged as it is a Church to pray for all the visible Churches on earth: for as a Christian is obliged to pray for all Churches visible; so far more is a Church: now a visible Church doth not pray but by the Pastor, who is the mouth of the People to God; and that this is a Pastoral duty due to a Pastor, I think is said Isa. 62. 6. I have set watchmen on thy Tower, O Jerusalem, which shall never hold their peace day nor night. Ye that make mention of the Lord, keep no silence till he establish, and t • ll •• make Jerusalem the praise of the whole earth. Also Pastors as Pastors are to pray for the King, though the King be no member of that Congregation, whereof they be Pastors. 1 Tim. 2. 1, 2. every Pastor as a Pastor is to Preach against the sins of the Land, else how can the People mourn for these sins? Ergo, the Pastor doth exercise Pastoral acts upon all the visible Churches on earth, upon the King, and upon the whole Land, to which he is not a Pastor by special election.
4. If a Pastor be obliged to Preach in season and out of season, and that as a Pastor, and because he is a Pastor. 2 Tim. 4. 2. Ergo he is to Preach as a Pastor in any Congregation where he shall be desired.
They answer, He may Preach the word in another Congregation, not by virtue of a calling or office, but by virtue of his gifts.
I answer, First, if he Preach by virtue of a gift only, he Preacheth in that case, not as sent of God, and so int • udeth himself, and runneth unsent, and a mere gift to be a King or a Magistrate, maketh not a Magistrate, as Master Robinson granteth. Ergo one cannot warrantably exercise a Pastoral act by virtue of a mere gift. 2. He may in another Congregation preach with Pastoral authority, and use the keys by binding and loosing sins, according as hearers do repent and harden their nockes against the Gospel. Ergo, he may preach as a Pastor to another Congregation. 3. There shall be no Communion betwixt Sister Churches in Pastoral acts as Pastoral, which is absurd, the Communion shall only be of Pastoral acts as Christian acts, but in no sort betwixt them as Pastoral acts.
5. The Scriptures for this opinion are weak, Ergo the opinion it self is weak, I prove the antecedent. Act. 20. 28. feed the flock, over which the holy Ghost hath made you overseers. &c. there is no ground to feed even by Preaching, or by virtue of a gift, these flocks over which the holy Ghost hath not set you: Obey them that are over you in the Lord, Heb. 13. 17. & c. there is no warrant to submit to other Pastors that are not over you in the Lord, though they command by virtue of a gift, not by virtue of an office or calling: these be loose consequences.
6. All reciprocation of mutual duties amongst sister Churches, whereby they exhort, rebuke, comfort one another, must be unlawful, for these be Church acts, and this Author saith, The office extendeth no further then the calling, but there is no calling of Church-membership betwixt sister-Churches, and therefore all these duties are not acts of the Communion of Churches, as they are such Churches or incorporations in a Church-state, but only duties of Churches as they are Saints, but communion of Churches as Churches in the act of Church-dispensing of the Word and Seals reciprocally one to another, is not in the Word of God, as this opinion will infer, which is a weighty absurd.
7. The Authors of this opinion hold, That if the Congregation, for no fault, reject the Pastor, whom they once called and elected to • e their Pastor, though in so doing they sin, and reject God in rejecting him, yet they take nomen & esse, the name and nature of a pastor from him, yet (say they) he still remaineth a Minister of Christ, till he accept a call from another Congregation.
Hence 1. such a one is a Pastor, and yet the people have taken name and nature of a Pastor from him, as they gave him name and nature: Ergo, he is either a Pastor without a calling, which is absurd, or he remaineth a person in relation to another flock, who never chose him, nor gave him any calling. 2. To add by the way, if he be capable of a calling to another Church, Ergo, for the time he is no Minister, else they must say, he may be a Minister capable of two callings, to two sundry Ministries, which yet maketh him a Pastor not in relation to one single congregation only.
It is true, they object that the Apostles, Matth. 18. were commanded to preach to all Nations, but Pastors are not so now, but are commanded to feed the flock over which God hath appointed them, Act. 20. 28. but it is as true the Apostles were commanded to preach to all Nations, in opposition to the charge that the Prophets of old were to speak to the people of Israel only, and the Apostles Matth. 10. forbidden to preach to the Samaritans and Gentiles; and it is as true that God's Spirit limited the Apostles to Preach to Macedonia, not to Bithynia; now because this particular direction for places is wanting in the Church, it is certain that a man is yet a Pastor in office in relation to as many as God's hand of providence shall send him unto, though he be chosen by a people to feed ordinarily one determinate flock, and though he be not an extraordinary and immediately inspired planter of Churches, or the first planter, as were the Apostles, yet is he a Pastor in relation to all. And if this be not said, 1. It were simply unlawful for Pastors now to plant Churches, and spread the Gospel to those nations, who have not heard it, because all Pastors now are ordinary, and none are immediately inspired Apostles: but it is certain what the Apostles did, by an extraordinary gift, as such immediately called pastors, it is unlawful for ordinary Pastors to attempt to do, as to attempt to speak with tongues, and to plant Churches by speaking with tongues and confirming it with miracles, is unlawful. Papists, as Bellarmine, Suarez, Acosta, ascribe this to the Pope and his Apostles. Our Divines answer that the Apostles that way have no successors; But what the Apostles did by an ordinary pastoral gift, as to preach the word, administrate the Sacraments, to erect and plant Churches by ordinary gifts, where the Pastors can speak to the Churches by an ordinary gift in their own language, they are obliged both within and without the Congregation, to preach as Pastors, because where God giveth gifts pastoral to pastors, he commandeth them to exercise these gifts, else they dignity their Lord's talent in the earth: but God giveth to Pastors pastoral gifts to preach to others then their own Congregation, and to administrate the seals to them also, and to plant Churches. Ergo, it is presumed that the Church doth give authority and an external ministerial calling to the exercise of these gifts. 2. It is an unwarrantable point of Divinity that the Apostles and the Pastors succeeding to them do differ essentially in this, that Apostles might preach as Pastors to more Congregations then one, and might plant Churches, but pastors succeeding to them may not as Pastors preach to more Congregations then their own, and may not plan • Churches, for then planting of Churches now were utterly unlawful, because it is certain there be no Apostles on earth, and it is not lawful for a Pastor, yea nor it is lawful for any other gifted person to do that which is essential to an Apostle and agreeth to an Apostle as to an Apostle. It is then unlawful for our brethren, seeing they be not Apostles, to plant Churches in India.
Nor is that comparison to be regarded much; A Magistrate or an Alderman of a City may not lawfully exercise his office of Magistracy in another City whereof he is not a Major, and therefore a Pastor cannot preach, ex officio, as a Pastor in another Congregation, whereof he is not a Pastor, nor can he exercise discipline in another Congregation then his own, seeing another Congregation hath not by voluntary agreement, oath or paction submitted themselves to his ministry, nor chosen him for their Pastor.
For I answer, the comparison halteth and doth not prove the point, for by one and the same act the city hath chosen such a man both for to be a Magistrate, and to be their Magistrate, and have given him thereby authority over themselves only, so he cannot exercise the office of a Magistrate over another City who hath not chosen him to be their Major or ruler. But the flock doth not both call such a man, in one and the same act to be a pastor, and to be their pastor, but he is made by the laying on of the hands of the Elders, a Pastor, and a Pastor in relation to all to whom God in his providence shall send him to speak, the Congregation by election doth give him no authority pastoral, but only appropriate his pastoral authority to themselves in particular; and when they refuse him again and cast him off, they take not pastoral authority from him, for they cannot take away that which they cannot give; he remaineth a Pastor though they cast him off, as a College of Physicians do promote a man to be a Doctor of Physic to cure diseases, a town calleth him to be their Physician, he may yet exercise acts of his calling, and ex officio, as a Doctor, upon other cities and inhabitants of the country; and when the city who chose him for their phycisian doth cast him off, they take not from him the office of doctorship which the College of Physicians conferred upon him, for they cannot take from him that which they cannot give to him. Yea if any of another flock shall come and hear the word, the Pastor offereth all in one pastoral sacrifice to God in prayer, though there be many of another Congregation in the Church hearing; yea strangers believers communicate with him at the same Table, yet is he not their Pastor. If a Pastor of a Congregation die or be sick, shall the children of believers, yea shall converted Pagans being desirous to be baptized be defrauded of the comfort of Baptism, and of the Lord's Supper, for no fault in them, but only because their Pastor is dead, may not the Congregation by their desires and requests appropriate the office of Pastors of another Congregation in some particular acts to their necessity? yea is not their receiving of his ministry in that act (when their Pastor is dead) a calling warranting him to officiate, hie & nunc? even as the desires and choice of his own flock electing him to be their constant Pastor, gave him a calling to be their Pastor constantly, and in all the ordinary acts of his calling? yea and it is sure as the holy Ghost set him over his own floeke in ordinary, because they chose him to be their Pastor, so that same holy Ghost set him over this other Congregation, in this act, to preach and administrate the sacraments to them, in this exigence of the death of their Pastor; for God who ruleth officers and disposeth of them in his house, disposeth of particular Acts of his own officers, and he is sent as a pastor from God to speak to the stanger hic & nunc, and to work his heart to the love of Christ, and that as a Pastor no less then to his own flock, except we destroy communion of gifts, and of Pastoral gifts, Paul by the holy Ghost was made the Apostle of the Gentiles, Peter of the Jews, Gal. 2. 8. yet Peter as an Apostle preached to, and baptized the uncircumcised Gentiles, Act. 10. 11. and Paul exercised his office of an Apostle upon the Jews also, both by preaching and baptizing, as the history of the Acts, chap. 16. chap. 17. and other places may clear, Rom. 1. so that the contrary doctrine is a new conceit, not of God, and against the pastoral care of bringing in souls to Christ.
Quest. II. Whether or no children be received into the visible Church by Baptism.
In this Chapter the Author will not have persons of approved piety and baptized to be within the visible Church, and the Author of the Apology saith, We do not believe that children are received within the visible Church by baptism, for if they be not in Christ's Church, before they be baptized, what hath a Minister to do to baptize them who are not of the Church? and if they be within the Church before baptism, how shall they be received in the Church by baptism? if you say, they may be received, that is, declared by baptism to have been received into the Church by the Covenant of their fathers: We demand into which Church? not into our own Church, for their parents were never members of a Church, and we cannot put the seal of God upon a falsehood? not into the Church from whence their fathers came, for we know not whether their fathers were casten out of the Church, or not.
Some considerations are here to be set down.
1. Baptism is not that whereby we are entered into Christ's mystical and invisible body as such, for it is presupposed we be members of Christ's body, and our sins pardoned already, before baptism come to be a seal of sins pardoned, but baptism is a seal of our entry in Christ's visible body, as swearing to the Colours is that which entereth a Soldier to be a member of such an Army, whereas before his oath, he was only a heart friend to the army and cause.
2. Baptism as it is such is a seal, and a seal as a seal addeth no new lands or goods to the man to whom the Charter and seal is given, but only doth legally confirm him in the right of such lands given to the man by the Prince or State, yet this hindereth not but baptism is a real, legal seal, legally confirming the man in his actual and visible profession of Christ, remission of sins, regeneration, so as though before baptism he was a member of Christ's body, yet quoad nos, he is not a member of Christ's body visible, until he be made such by baptism.
3. This question toucheth the controversy anent the efficiency, working and operation of the Sacraments, of which I give a taste shortly.
Sacraments are considered as Sacraments, in abstracto, in genere sign • rum; the reprobate do receive holy Seals and Sacraments, else they could not be said to profane the holy things of God, and so they may be Sacraments and work no grace either by themselves or from God, all operation from, or about the Sacrament then must be accidental to a Sacrament.
2. Sacraments are considered in concreto, according to all which they include in their use, to wit, as they consist of the sign, the thing signified, the institution of God, and the promise of grace, and in this meaning Altisiodorensis (as I conceive) maketh the Sacraments not efficient causes of grace, yet material causes containing grace, uti vas medicinam, so the Scripture saith, Baptism saveth, as the Physicians glass cureth the disease, and Guliel. Parisiens. said not ill, that the Sacraments have a power to obtain grace by faith and prayer, that is, being used in faith and sincere calling upon God, they obtain grace; so to speak accurately this is all about the Sacrament, rather then from the Sacrament: to which sense Durand, Occam Gabriel Biel Aliacensis do deny the Sacraments to be Physical instruments producing grace in a Physical way, (though Papists cry out against our Divines for teaching so) only they say, God at the presence of the Sacrament produceth grace of his mere free will, ad praesentiam Sacramenti operatur deus gratiam ex solâ liberâ suâ voluntate. And for this cause Gregorius de Valentia saith these Schoolmen nihil amplius tribuere Sacramentis, quam haeretici tribuunt, give no more to the Sacraments then heretics give; yet Vasquez, and a Jesult professor at Rome Joan. de Lugo teach that the Sacraments are moral causes of grace, but not physical. It is gross that Henricus saith, that God createth grace, per tactum Sacramentorum, by the touch of the Sacraments, as Christ cured the Leper by the touch of his hand: for Sacraments are not miracles, as Papists say, Physic worketh upon a man's body when he sleepeth, so do Sacraments justify and work grace, ex opere operat • , though the faith of the Sacrament-Receiver do work nothing at all.
4. Sacraments are considered. 1. As holy signs. 2. As Religious seals. 3. As instruments by which faith worketh. 4. As means used by, us out of conscience of obedience to Christ's commandment who hath willed us to use them.
Sacraments as signs are objective and moral causes, exciting the mind as the word doth in a moral way, they represent Christ and him crucified, and this Sacraments have commune with the word. The Sacrament is a visible word teaching us. 2. Sacraments have the consideration of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & non 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 tantum, they be seals, and not teaching and representing signs only: this way also they have no real or physical action in them or from them; for a seal of a Prince and State, as it is such, conferreth not an acre or rigge of land, but it is a legal Declaration that those lands written in the body of the Charter, do duly belong to the Person to whom the Charter is given. But Arminians do here err, as Episcopius, and also, Socinus, and Smalcius, who teach that the Sacraments be nothing but external rites and declarative signs, scadowing out Christ, and the benefits of his death to us, because they find a moral objective working in the Word of God, but a substantial and Physical working betwixt us and Christ's body (they say) is ridiculous, but they would remember that this is an insufficient enumeration, the seal of a Kings Charter hath besides a moral action on the mind, by bringing to the mind such lands given to such a man, and so the seals, worketh upon the witnesses, or any who readeth the Charter as well as upon the owner of the Charter: I say beside this the seal hath some real action, I grant not in it, but about it, and beside it; for it sealeth that such lands are really and in effect given by the Prince and State, the action is about the seal, not in or from the seal: When a General of an Army delivereth the keys of a Castle to a Keeper thereof, he saith [I deliver the house to you] when he delivereth the Keys only Physically, and not the stones, walls or timber of the house, by a Physical action or Physical touch, contactu Physico, yet in delivering the keys, he doth really deliver to him the Castle, but in a legal and moral way.
Arminians and Socinians may see here that there is neither an action by way of naked representation and teaching, for the Sacrament is a teaching sign to the beholders who receive it not, nor is it a Physical action, as if Christ's Physical body in a Physical way were given; yet it is an action real, and moral: so the Sacraments are signs exhibitive and not naked signs. Our brethren do side with Arminians and Socinians, who so often teach that Sacraments make nothing to be what they were not, but only declare things to be what they are. It is true, the formal effect of a Sacrament is to seal and confirm; to seal and confirm is but a legal strengthening of a right, and not the adding of any new thing. Yet in this the Sacrament differeth from a seal. 1. That to a civil seal there is not required the believing and faith of the owner of the Charter, to make the seal effectual; for whether the Lord of the lands believe that his seal doth confirm him in the lands, or not, the seal of it self by the Law of the Prince & State maketh good his right to the lands: but Sacraments do not work ex opere operato, as civil seals do work, even as Physic worketh upon the body, without the faith of the mind, though the man be sleeping. Hence the third consideration of a Sacrament as an instrument, Faith, in and through the Sacrament being wakened and stirred up layeth hold upon Christ his death and benefits, and for this cause there is a real exhibition of the thing signified, and the Sacrament is an exhibitive seal.
4. The Sacrament in the use is considered as we use it in obedience to God, who saith in the Lord's Supper, Do this in remembrance of me, and in this it differeth from a civil seal also. The Prince doth not confer a seal to confirm a man in his land upon condition, that he will make use of it, other ways it shall be to him as no seal. But God hath given the scale of grace upon condition that we make use thereof in Faith, else the Sacrament is blank and null. Therefore if you believe, and not other ways, the Sacrament of the Supper sealeth and confirmeth you in this, that Christ is given already, and is in the present given to be nourishment to your soul to life eternal; and so oft as you eat, the certioration and assurance groweth, and the faith is increased, and a further degree of a communion with Christ confirmed; but it is not so in civil seals, though ye repeat and reiterate the same seal of lands, ten thousand times, it never addeth one aker more to the in heritance, because the repetition of a civil seal is not commanded under the promise of addition of new lands, nor is it commanded, as obedience to the owner of the Charter, that he should make use of the seal; but from the using in faith, the Sacrament, we receive increase of Grace, and a Sacramental Grace.
Hence Baptism is a seal of our incorporation in Christ's visible Church, 1 Cor. 12. 13. For by one spirit we be all baptized into one body, whether we be Jew or Gentile, or whether we be bound or free, Act. 2. 41. Then they that received the word were baptized, and the same day there were added unto them three thousand souls, so Matth. 28. 19. the taught Disciples are to be baptized in his name, Act. 8. 38. Philip was this way received in the Christian Church, and Cornelius, Act. 10. 47. and Lidia, Act. 16. 15. and the Jailor, verse. 23. 2. That which distinguisheth by a visible note the Church as visible from the invisible Church, and from other visible societies, and sealeth our visible union with Christ's body, that is, the seal of our entry in the visible Church, but baptism is such, Ergo. 3. What circumcision was to the Church of the Jews, that baptism is to the Christian Church, because, in re significatâ, in the thing signified and inward substance of the Sacrament, they were both one, Col. 2. 11. 12. Phil. 3. 3. But circumcision was a seal of the Jewish entry in the visible Church, Gen. 17. 13. It being the Covenant of God in the flesh, & the uncircumcised being commanded to be cut off from God's people, v. 14. 4. This is according to the Scriptures and the doctrine of the fathers, Augustine, Cyril, Basilius, Tertullian, Hieronymus, Theophylact, Theodoret, Ambrose, Cyprian who constantly so teach; so do our Divines Calvin, Beza, Bu • nus, Pareus, Piscator, Anton. Walaeus, Tilenus, Kickermanus. So Zanchius, Polanus, Sihrandus, Rivet, Fennerus, Whittakerus, Raynoldus, Willetus, and the professors of Leyden 〈◊〉 .
Our Brethren say, it is the opinion of the Anabaptists, that the Church is made by baptism, and Papists have the same conceit, and therefore place their Font at the Church door to signify men's entry into the Church by baptism; but we believe not that baptism doth make men members of the Church, nor to be administrated to them who are without the Church, as the way to bring them in, but to them that are within the Church, as a seal to confirm the Covenant of Grace to them.
Answ. 1. Anabaptists deny that any ought to be baptized while thy come to age, and while they believe and be regenerated: and they say not far from yourselves in this, who teach it to be absurd, to put a blank seal upon a falsehood, and so you presuppone all to be regenerated, and truly within the Covenant before they can be sealed to be within the Covenant by baptism; and yet you do not think all Infants of believing parents to be regenerated and truly within the Covenant, then is the seal blank. Also you say, baptism is not to be administrated to those who are without, but only to those who are within the Church, you mean not within the Church by profession, for Infants have no profession, and you say the Sacrament cannot be put on a blank or a falsehood, Ergo, you think all that are baptized ought to be within the Church really, and not in profession ouely; Ergo they must all come to age and believe before they can be baptized. 2. We say not that baptism maketh a Church mystical, and the true and lively body and Spouse of Christ, but that it is a seal confirming us of our entry in the visible Church. 3. The placing of the Font at the Church door as a mystical sign of our entry in the Church is an Antichristian ceremony of men's devising, which we disclaim. 4. If Infants baptized must be within the Church, before they can be baptized, how deny you to receive them to the Lord's Supper when they come to age, while they be again, by your Church-oath, received within the Church? then are they both within the Church, because they are baptized, and without the Church, because they are not received in by your Church-oath again. 5. If baptism be a seal of grace to confirm the Covenant of grace to those who are within the Church, that is, only a single Congregation, (for you deny that there be any visible Churches in the New Testament save these only) then are persons baptized persons, and confirmed in the Covenant of grace only within a single Congregation. I would know if baptism should not then be repeated and reiterated in every ones person, as they come to a new Congregation; for they are confirmed in the Covenant of grace, by baptism only in one single Congregation, as you teach.
Their second and third reason is, Baptism and all ordinances are privileges given to the Church, so it maketh not the Church, but the Church is before baptism and all ordinances; the use also of baptism is to be a seal of the Covenant, now a seal is not to make a thing which was not, but to confirm a thing which was.
Answ. 1. The Church is indeed the Church mystical and the invisible body of Christ before baptism, but this proveth not but baptism is a seal of our entry in the visible Church, for if this be a good argument, your Church-covenant, which to you is an ordinance of God, falleth to the grrund; for persons are the true Churches of Christ before all the ordinances of Christ; Ergo, by your Church-covenant men do not become Christ's visible Church. 2. The argument hath no feet, for the ordinance of preaching the Word is a privilege of the Church and ordinance of God, yet is not the Church before the preaching of the Word; for birth is not before the seed, but the seed before the birth; the preaching of the Word is the seed of the Church, 1 Pet. 1. 23. and a mean of gathering the Church, Rom. 10. 14. and it is also a privilege of the Church, for he dealeth not so with every nation to send his Gospel to them, Psal. 147. 19, 20. 3. When you say that a Seal doth not make a thing that was not, but confirm a thing that was; while you would seem to refute Papists, who vainly teach that Sacraments do confe • re grace ex opere op • rato, by the deed done; yet do you make the Sacrament but a naked sign, and take part with Arminians and Socinians, whose very arguments in express words you use; for Socinius goeth before you in this argument, and so doth Smalcius follow him. 〈◊〉 and sealing there is required the trying of the thing, and some ••• hing or document; but that ceremony (a baptisime) and that rite, though it be •• lie, doth nothing to the remission of sins, but it doth only shadow out, and as it 〈◊〉 deline • ue and point forth remission of sins by the washing of water • xp • ned in the Word of God. You say, Sacraments 〈◊〉 make a thing that was not, but confirm a thing that was before; you can have no other meaning then to deny all cansalitie and all real exhibition of grace in the Sacraments: for if a Sacrament make not a thing that was not before, or if God give n • t, and really produce, confer and exhibit grace, and a stronger measure of faith, and assurance of remission of sins, at the due and right use of the Sacrament, the Sacrament is a naked sign, and not an exhibitive Seal. But if Christ give and in the present exhibit as surely remission of sins, as the infant is washen with water, as our Divines, and the Palatinate Catechize teacheth, yea and the confession thereof, and the Synod of Dort teacheth, then by the Sacrament of Baptism, a thing is made that which it was not. It is true a civil seal, as I said before, addeth no new lands to the owner of the Charter, but if Christ by his Seals rightly and in faith used, do not only confirm grace and pardon, but also really exhibit and give grace and pardon in a further degree, and a new measure of assurance to the conscience which there was not before, you go not a streas breadth from Arminians and Socinians, especially seeing Episcopius, Henricus Welsingius saith that remission of sins is not sealed by baptism, but signified only, and the Remonstrants in their Apology while they expone our Communion with Christ in the Lord's Supper, and will reject a Physical union of our souls with the Physical substance of Christ's body, which we also reject, they say that communion signifieth only a profession of one and the same worship, whereby Christians sol • mnly testify that they adhere to Christ as to •• partaker of the Table of devils and of devils themselves, 1 Cor. 10. 18 20. is a testimony of a communion with the Devils: but the Word of God saith more, Gal. 3. 17. As many of you as are baptized, have put on Christ, So Rom. 6. 3. Therefore we are buried with • im by baptism unto his death, that like as Christ was raised up from the dead, by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life, Ephes. 5. 26. That he might sanctify and cleanse his Church with the washing of water by the word, T it. 3. 5. and 1 Pet. 3. 21. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us, &c. all this is more then a naked signification, otherwise Manna saved Israel, and the water of the rock did wash them from their sins, and the sacrifice of bulls and goats did cleanse from sin, and open heaven to sinners. Therefore by baptism and the Lord's Supper something is made what it was not before, as by partaking of the Table of Devils, the partaker is really made a partaker with the devil, and an Idolater; and his Idolatry that he committed before was not only confirmed and signified to be what it was before. And in this civil Seals and Sacraments differ, as I observed before.
Argu. 4. God (say they) had a Church when there was neither baptism nor circumcision, yea baptism hath been administrated and no Church-members made thereby, and men have been made members of Christ and not then baptized; and John and Christ's Disciples baptized, Matth. 3. 6. John 4. 1. but neither Christ nor John made new Churches, they all living and dying members of the Jewish Church of which they were before, and if any of them after became members of Christian Churches, they were not then baptized when they were so admitted, having been baptized before.
Answ. We teach not that baptism constituteth the Church simply, as the Church, but that it is a seal of a visible membership, and all baptized by John the Baptist, and the Disciples of Christ, were thereby entered in a visible profession that they believed in Christ already come, and so were made members and citizens by that public symbol and seal, that they were members of the Christian Church, though as yet it received not that name of a Christian Church, and they were members both of the Jewish and Christian Church: For these are not contrary incorporations, and they needed not to be baptized again when they were added to the Christian Church, for they were never added to the visible Christian Church; nor needed they to be added, seeing they were members of that Church before.
Argu. 5. These inconveniences (say they) should follow. 1. Baptism should be administrate by such as are not ministers at all; for who should baptize them who are converted without the Church? extraordinary officers are ceased and ordinary are limited only to their own f •• ks: also the Church is before the ministers, for the Church hath power to choose ministers; now if baptism make the Church, then must •• n be baptized before there be ministers to baptize them.
Answ. You see to what absurdities your own grounds drive you, for if none can baptize but these of a fixed Congregation, and if they can baptize none but their own Congregation, none as a sent Pastor whose feet is pleasant on the mountains, can preach and beget faith in a company of unbelievers, not in a Church-state, which is a limiting of the wise God, who by Pastors as Pastors can beget faith in men without a parishional Church, which is contrary to God's Word, Rom. 10. 14. 2. It is false that the Church ministerial, which only can baptize, is before the officers, for they should then be before themselves, which is absurd, nor is there such necessity of baptism, as that those who are no ministers should baptize.
2. Inconvenient. It should follow that Papists should be members of the Church, for they have baptism so far right, as that it cannot be repeated.
Answ. If your Church-covenant be that which essentially constituteth a Church-member, then Papists, Atheists, and Hypocrites may be Church-members also by this reason, because they may swear your Church-oath. Hypocrites doubtless do it. And this argument is as much for the Anabaptists as against us, for it should prove that none should be baptized but members of the true Church and sound believers: now by baptism none a • e made members of the true Church except where baptism is received by true faith, which is more, nor can be done by a Papist; nor is it inconvenient to say that Papists as baptized & under that reduplication are members of the visible Church, though as baptized thus and thus, they be not members of the true visible Church, professing the sound faith.
Also (say they) baptism may remain where as Church-membership is dissolved, as in the case of excommunication, Matth. 18. 17. or of voluntary and unjust departure, 1 Job. 2. 19. Jude 19. Heb. 10. 25. in which case such Schismatics are no members of the visible Church, as Am • sius saith: and if the Church be dissolved, the Church membership ceaseth, for, Relata se mutuo ponunt & tollunt.
Answ. This is against yourselves, and doth as well prove that baptism is not a seal of the covenant of grace, for an excommunicate person may remain externally without the covenant to the visible Church, when baptism remaineth a seal, and may be a seal of a grace or privilege, which is interrupted or removed in act, but remaineth in habit: as to be the eldest son of a King, may be a seal of the sons hei • eship, and yet he may for a fault be disherited and cast out of his place. The Church and Church-membership are Relata secundum es • , not secundum dici only, or relata 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : but baptism and Church-membership are not so perfect relatives, but baptism doth remain and the Church-membership may be dissolved: as the Burgess ticket whereby a man hath right to all the city privileges may remain, when the man for some crime committed against the city hath lost all his city privileges and is not now a free citizen, in which case his Burgess ticket sealeth nothing to him: so baptism sealeth not actual membership in case of excommunication, yet remaineth baptism valid in the acts of sealing other things. As for Schismatics who only for Schism are out of the Church, and do hold no erroneous point of doctrine, and are not yet convinced, they are yet members of the visible Church, as