A Defense of the Answer Made Unto Nine Questions, Chapter 5
CHAP. V.
A digreſſion tending to clear the ſtate of that controverſie concerning a Catholick viſible Church, in reſpect of the nature, unity, viſibility, and priority of the ſame.
THe world hath been long troubled with the equivocation of the word [Church:] and therefore (as it is needfull) we ſhall labor to ſet down our thoughts as diſtinctly and plainly as we can in certain Propoſitions that may be ſome ground of our diſcourſe.
Propoſition. 1 The true Church of God is the whole number of Elect and called ones out of the world to fellowſhip with Jeſus Chriſt their Head, with whom they make up one myſticall body, Epheſ. 1.23. This whole Church is of the ſame nature, and one in eſſence from the beginning of the world to the end; for this Church Chriſt laid down his life, Epheſ. 5.26. Joh. 10.15. and therefore he adds, verſ. 16. ſuch as are not yet of his fold (actually) ſhall be brought into the ſame, viz. by effectuall calling, that there may be one Shepheard and one ſheepfold: wherby it appears that the whole fold of Chriſt to which he ſtands as one Shepheard, contains all his members and ſheep to the end of the world, and it is one fold in relation to Chriſt that one Shepheard.
Propoſition. 2 This one entire body of Chriſt doth naturally fall under various notions and conſiderations, as (omitting others) when it is conſidered according to the adjuncts of viſibility and inviſibility, which are onelyonly adjuncts of the ſame Church, as is generally obſerved by Divines. In reſpect of the inward union which every ſuch member hath with Chriſt the Head, by the Spirit of Chriſt, and by Faith, whereby we are united to him; it is called inviſible, becauſe this union is not viſible to men. In reſpects of ſome viſible fruits and manifeſtations of faith to the judgment of men, it is called viſible; and hence though true beleevers be onelyonly univoce, and properly members of this body of Chriſt; yet to men that judge onelyonly by outward effects many hypocrites,Whit. de Eccle. equivoce and improperly are accounted of the Church; and hence the Scripture frequently ſpeaks of viſible Churches, as if they were all really Saints.
Propoſition. 3 As this Church comes to be viſible, ſo it becomes a fit and capable ſubject of viſible policy, and viſible communion with Chriſt their Head, and one with another in all the viſible ordinances of Chriſt, a capable ſubject we ſay, or matter fit for ſuch a ſtate; for by its viſibility it ſelf it is not ſo, having yet no more then a ſpirituall relation to Chriſt and one another: no viſible combination one with another; for viſible beleevers may be ſo ſcattered in ſeverall Countreys, that they cannot make up one Society.
Propoſition. 4 And therefore we add, That there is no way for this Church to enjoy actuall viſible communion under the viſible government of Chriſt, and in the viſible inſtituted ordinances of Chriſt, but in a Society. A thouſand uncombined perſons meeting occaſionally in one place, though their naturall relations were as near as brethren, yet have no power of government or actuall communion in any Civill priviledges, if they ſtand not in relation to one another as a combined Society; as after ſhall be ſhown; ſo here: And therefore, Acts 2.41, 42. firſt they were added to the Church, and then followed their fellowſhip in all the ordinances of the Church; as after will more fully appear. And hence it is ſaid, Acts 5.14. Beleevers were added; firſt they were beleevers, ſtanding in that ſpirituall relation to Chriſt and his whole body, and then added to the Church by viſible combination.
Propoſition. 5 There is no viſible ſociety of a Church who hath actuall and immediate right unto, and communion in the viſible government of Chriſt, and the diſpenſation of his inſtituted Worſhip and ordinances, but ſuch a Society as the Lord Jeſus hath in the Gopel inſtituted and ordained for that end. We ſay actuall and immediate right unto the ſame; for though a beleever, quâ beleever, have an immediate right, and actuall enjoyment of ſuch benefits of Chriſt as neceſſarily and immediately flow from his internall union with Chriſt, as juſtification, adoption, &c. and ſuch right to Chriſtian communion with all the Saints in their prayers, gifts, &c. as flow from his ſpirituall relation unto them; yea, and alſo he hath a true right to all benefits purchaſed by Chriſt in a due order and manner: yet we ſay inſtituted priviledges and ordinances doe not immediately flow from ſpirituall union and relation to Chriſt and his members, but are diſpenſed by Chriſt to his people mediately, and in ſuch an order as he hath in wiſdome ordained: and this the nature of viſible government and ordinances of Chriſt neceſſarily requires. And hence it is, that although the Church in its nature and eſſence, and in reſpect of its ſpirituall union and relation to Chriſt and one another, profeſſion of the ſame faith, &c. have been always one and the ſame in all ages, yet both the viſible government and ordinances of Worſhip, and alſo the inſtituted form and order of Church-ſocieties hath been various according to the wiſdome and will of Chriſt, whereby it appears, that the order, government, forms of viſible Church-ſocieties, to which actuall enjoyment of viſible ordinances doe belong, cannot juſtly be deduced from the common nature of the Church Cathoilck, or any reſpects of reaſon or logicall notions under which it may fall: but onelyonly this depends upon the will and pleaſure of Chriſt, who hath in all ages inſtituted the forms and orders of ſuch Societies to whom the actual enjoyment of inſtituted ordinances was given: And hence the argument for a nationall form of a Church to be in the New Teſtament as wel as in the Old, drawn from the common nature, eſſence, profeſſion of faith, &c. of the Church in all ages, falls flat to the ground, for by the ſame reaſon it muſt then be in families onelyonly now, as it was about Abrahams time.
Propoſition. 6 Hence it follows that the true ſtate of this great diſpute about a Catholick Church (ſo far as tends to clear up to what Church the actuall adminiſtration of Church-government, and all inſtituted Worſhip belongs) doth not lye in the conſideration of the common nature, eſſence, unity, viſibility, or any other notions under which it may fall; but the true ſtate lyes here concerning the nature, order, form of ſuch viſible Societies, as Chriſt Jeſus by Divine inſtitution in the Goſpel hath reduced his viſible members unto, for the actuall and immediate enjoyment of all his inſtituted ordinances.
And therefore (with due reſpect to the Godly-learned be it ſpoken) we conceive many large diſputes in this queſtion fall ſhort of the iſſue that is deſired and intended; for what if it be granted: 1 That there is a Catholick viſible Church, which in ſome reſpects of reaſon (as Mr. Ball ſaith) is one that having partes viſibiles, is a totum viſibile.
2 That the viſible Church is not onelyonly a totum genericum, in relation to all the particular Congregations, as ſpecies ſpecialiſſimae, of a viſible Church in generall, (which reſpect of reaſon in ſome ſenſe we freely conſent unto) but alſo that it may fall under the notion of a totum integrale, as ſome contend, (though we conceive in this notion, they are ſo intangled in their own logicall principles, as that they cannot get out without breaking them, and flying to theologicall conſiderations) yet we ſay, what if that alſo be attained?
3 Yea further, what if this Catholick Church be in ſome reſpects of reaſon and order of nature alſo the firſt Church, and particular Churches, ortae?
4 Yea further, what if it were gained alſo by ſuch diſputes, that the Keys and Officers, Ordinances, &c. be given firſtly to this Catholick Church as to the object and end? We confeſſe we do not ſee that what our Brethren contend for, is by all this obtained. For, firſt, if the univerſall number of viſible beleevers be one totum aggregatum; yet it will bee hard to prove that theſe are one inſtituted and politicall Society, that can enjoy viſible communion together in viſible Worſhip and government; and yet more hard to prove that by the inſtitution of Chriſt, theſe all are to be actually governed as one totum.
Secondly, what though the members of the Church Catholick be in order of time before particular Churches, as being fit matter for them, and conſtituting of them? yet this proves not one politicall body before they combine, but rather the contrary.
Thirdly, be it ſo that this Catholick Church is the firſt Church to which Chriſt hath firſtly given the Keys, Ordinances, Promiſes, &c. for which Chriſt firſtly performed the Offices of King, Prieſt, and Prophet, and what elſe ſoever can be ſaid in this kinde; yet all this may be in this reſpect that Chriſt looked at this Catholick Church firſtly as the chief object and end for whoſe ſake and good he ordained and gave all theſe things, and this will not carry the cauſe; for as the Church Catholick viſible in this ſenſe is the firſt Church in reſpect of the particulars, ſo the inviſible body of Chriſt is in nature and priority the firſt Church in reſpect of viſible, as viſible; for Chriſt no doubt firſtly intends and gives all theſe things to the inviſible Church, as to the object and end of the ſame for whoſe good they are all ordained; rather then for the Catholick viſible Church, which containes many hypocrites and reprobates within the verge of it. But now if we ſpeak of a ſubject of the Keys, to which the actuall exerciſe and diſpenſation of Keys and inſtituted Ordinances belong: who doe not ſee that in this ſenſe the inviſible Church quâ talis, cannot be that inſtituted Society to which the Keys, &c. belong; and by the ſame reaſon the Catholick viſible Church quâ totum, and quâ Catholick, cannot be this inſtituted Society to which they are given. It is a known rule in Reaſon, that, That which is firſt in intention, is laſt in execution; and ſo it is here, firſt, Chriſt propounds this end to himſelf to gather, edifie, perfect, ſanctifie, ſave his Catholick Church, Epheſ. 4.11, 12. & 5.26. and therefore inſtitutes all ordinances as means to farther and attain this great deſign; but in execution he may (for all this) give the Keys and ordinances in regard of the immediate exerciſe to any form of viſible Societies that he ſhall be pleaſed to inſtitute, and it may be that will prove the leaſt Society ſooner then a greater.
And ſeeing our Brethren otherwiſe minded make much uſe of ſimilies in this diſpute: we hope it will not be amiſſe for us to illuſtrate what we ſay by a ſimilitude, …tly to make our conceivings the more plain to all whoſe edification we ſeek; and partly, to diſcover the invalidity of many diſcourſes of this nature; and becauſe ſimilia arguunt fidem que faciunt, (as he ſaith) viz. ſo far as rightly applyed) we will therefore propound it in way of argument. The ſimilitude is this, genus humanum, or mankinde in generall is the ſubject of Civill government in generall, and of all the priviledges thereof, as the object and the end: and let the queſtion be, whether this Catholick number of all mankinde is the firſt ſubject of all power of Civill government, and the priviledges thereof; and if ſo, whether ſuch conſequences will follow as our Brethren deduce from the unity, viſibility, and priority of the Catholich Church. Now we reduce what we intend into an Argument, thus: If all that can be ſaid from Scripture and Reaſon concerning the unity, viſibility, and priority of the Catholick Church, may as truly be affirmed upon like grounds of the Catholick body of mankinde, then á pari it will follow that there is no more one Catholick viſible inſtituted totum, that is the firſt ſubject of Church power and priviledges in the actuall exerciſe and enjoyment of the ſame, then that there is ſuch a Catholick body of mankinde that is the firſt ſubject of Civill power, &c. and that actually doth or ought to govern and be governed as one Catholick body in communion: but it will appear from Scripture and Reaſon,1 Cor. 15.47▪ that the ſame things may be ſaid of mankind that can be ſaid of the other; Ergo.
And it is proved per partes, thus: 1 For the unity; are not all mankinde oft in Scripture called the world? Joh. 3.16. So God loved the world, that is, mankinde in the world; which is one. So, frequently all mankinde is called man, Gen. 6.5, 6, 7. I will not ſtrive with man, &c. yea, it is one kingdom, Pſal. 145.11, 12, 13. which (if we view the whole Pſalm) muſt be underſtood of the generall government of Gods providence over all the world, and eſpecially mankinde therein, 1 Chron. 29.11, 12. &c. ſo that all is one kingdom, Acts 17.26. God hath made of one blood all Nations; all are one blood, all have their bounds ſet by God, &c. that they might ſeek him, and feel after him; and as it is ſaid for one Catholick Church, becauſe it hath one Lord, one Faith, one Baptiſm, one Spirit, and are bound to love and pray one for the other, &c. ſo there is a like unity here, for the whole number of mankinde hath one Lord and King over all, God who is King over all the earth called an head over all, 1 Chron. 29.11. yea, Jeſus Chriſt is Lord of Lords, and King of Kings, and head over all to the Church, Epheſ. 1.22. All have one Law, the Morall Law, the common rule of equity and righteouſneſs whereby they are bound to walk towards God and one another, and this writ in the hearts of all; they have all one ſpirit of reaſon diſpoſing them to ſociety and mutuall offices of love, one faculty of ſpeaking to fit them for communion, one end to feel after God, Act. 17. and ſeek ye good of the whole kinde; all ought to love one another, deſire and ſeek the welfare of the whole, and of one another, Eſay 58.7. yea, the Lord as a common head by the working of his common Providence, and out of his love of mankinde, hath a common and conſtant influence into all, giving not onelyonly life and breath, and all good things, Acts 17. but alſo all gifts of wiſdom, art, skill, for Government, &c. to Kings, Judges, Fathers, Maſters, and all Officers of Civill government, for the good of the whole; and what ever elſe may be ſaid to prove the Catholick Church One, may here be applyed.
And as for principles of reaſon, it is eaſie to conceive that all mankinde will fall either under the notion of one genus homo, whereof the individua are ſpecies ſpecialiſſimae, or in another reſpect all perſons, all Families, Cities, Kingdomes may (in a ſenſe) make one totum integrale, or aggregatum.
Secondly, it is as evident that all this number of mankinde are one viſibile totum, by the arguments uſed for the viſible Catholick Church, for that which hath viſible parts, is a viſible totum, it holds here as well as in the other caſe. Yea, if the Catholick Church be one viſible Body, becauſe it hath organs and viſible Officers in it, it will hold here, for all mankinde is but one Army of the Lord of Hoſts, who hath Armies of heaven, and Armies on earth, and in this Body God by his Providence hath ſet, and by his ordinance hath ordained Fathers, Maſters, Husbands, Judges, Kings, &c. to govern in this Body of mankinde for the good of the whole. Ruling and ſubjection by the fifth Commandement of the Morall Law, which is in all mens hearts, is ordained of God for the order, peace, and welfare of all mankind, and therefore why is not this by the ſame reaſon a totum viſibile?
Thirdly, for Priority, it is clear, that as God hath firſtly in nature and intention given Chriſt to the whole Church, then to this and that particular beleever, and the power of feeding and being fed and governed by ſhepheards. Firſt, to the whole race of ſheep. Secondly, to this or that flock. So in nature and Gods intention he hath firſtly given to the race of mankind power of being governed with Government and Governors, before they are given to this or that Family, City, Kingdom, &c. So likewiſe what is ſaid of Promiſes, given to the Church Catholick firſtly; is it not as true here? Thoſe promiſes and bleſſings increaſe and multiply, Subdue the earth and inhabite it. The feare and dread of you ſhall be on all beaſts: and all like promiſes and priviledges of marriage, of liberty to eat fleſh, &c. mentioned, Gen. 2. & 9. and all over the Scripture, are they not in nature firſt given to mankinde? and then to this or that perſon, family, City? So if Church power, and all Officers and Offices be firſtly given to the Catholick Church, not to this or that particular Church: So it's here, when the Scripture ſaith, Submit to the higher Powers, for all Powers are of God, Rom. 13. By me, ſaith God, Kings reign, and Princes decree judgment, and ſuch like Scriptures; doth this firſtly belong to this or that Kingdome, City, &c. and not rather that God hath firſtly ſet up and ordained Civil Powers for mankind, to be obeyed of all mankinde firſtly, and then in this or that ſtate. Is foederall holineſſe firſt the priviledge of the Catholick Church? (which in a ſenſe we will not now contradict) ſo is legitimation, firſt the priviledge of married ſociety in generall in all mankinde, and then of this or that family. Are the members of particular Churches firſtly of the Catholick Church; and is it not ſo here? the members of every family, city, &c. firſt and laſt of the number of mankinde; and ſo when the Societies are diſſolved, they are ſtill of mankinde: and doe not all Societies ſpring of mankinde, and are an additament and increaſe to it? the one is true as well as the other.
It would be over tedious to follow this parallel ſo farre as wee might, theſe may be ſufficient inſtances to guide the Reader to apply whatever elſe is, or can be ſaid in this kinde from the common nature and logicall notions under which the Catholick Church viſible may be conſidered: What is ſaid that may more properly concern the caſe under the notion of an inſtituted Society, we ſhall conſider in due place.
Now from that which hath been ſaid, the Concluſion, as we conceive, doth eaſily and naturally follow, That as notwithſtanding all that is ſaid, there is no Catholick viſible Body of mankinde, to which, or to the Officers wherof is given the power and priviledges of Civill government to rule this Catholick Body, either as one totum politicum; or the parts of it, Families, Cities, Kingdoms in communi, by ſubordination of all Societies with reference to the whole; or ſo as every King, Major, &c. ſhould be an Officer of the whole. So theſe, and like conſequences will not follow in reſpect of the guides, government, priviledges, &c. of the Catholick Church, notwithſtanding all that is ſaid from theſe conſiderations of unity, viſibility, priority of nature, &c.
Object. 1 If any ſhall Object, the caſe is not alike, becauſe in this Catholick Church were univerſall Officers ſet up, as the Apoſtles; not ſo in the world of mankinde.
Anſ. We ſay, theſe were but for a time in the firſt beginning for the ſetting up of the firſt order in all the Churches; who being dead, there is none to ſucceed them in that reſpect of Catholick power.
Secondly, we ſay likewiſe, at the firſt for a time Adam, and after Noah, had a generall power over mankinde, though after them none had the like, as it is here. And therefore the compariſon ſtil runs clear.
Object. 2 If any object, as ſome doe, in anſwer to an argument ſomewhat like this, that this ſimilitude holds not, becauſe there is not that externall union of viſible communion in the Common-wealths of the world, as in the Church; if one ſay, God hath placed Kings, Dukes in the Common-wealths, as in one organicall Body who have one head, who giveth influence to ſo many organs of head, feet, &c. as the Apoſtle ſpeaketh of the Body the Church, 1 Cor. 12. then indeed all the Common-wealths of the world would make but one body.
Anſw. To the Scripture alledged we ſhall ſpeak after, here onelyonly let us clear our parallel. And firſt take the ſimilitude as it is ſtated by us, and it will be clear. Firſt, compare the Catholick number of mankinde, with the Catholick Church, which is the number of called ones, and then there is as much externall union of viſible communion in one, as in the other. For, firſt, all mankinde may and ought to maintain Civill communion one with another, in all Offices of humanity, for the common good of the whole, as the members of the Catholick Church doe, or ought to doe; and common humanity, and the command of the Morall Law binds thereto, as well as Chriſtianity and rules of the Goſpel bind here.
Secondly, if we compare Civill ſocieties, as Families, Cities, Common-wealths with inſtituted Churches, it is as poſſible, and as well the duty of all Common-wealths in the world, by principles of humanity, and the Morall Law in all mens hearts, to maintain externall union of leagues of friendſhip, and communion in all Offices of Civill ſociety, as it is poſſible, and the duty of all Church ſocieties, by the principles of Chriſtianity, and rule of the Goſpel to maintain externall union of viſible communion in the duties of Church ſociety.
Thirdly, (not to diſpute here whether there be ſuch an externall union of viſible communion amongſt all the viſible Churches, as parts of the Church Catholick) if the reaſon alledged be ſufficient to prove the ſame, viz. becauſe there is one head in the Church, who giveth influence to ſo many organs of head, feet, eyes, &c. in the Church.
Then ſtill our parallel will hold; for as this Head is no other then Chriſt Jeſus in his ſpirituall Kingdom, the Church giving that influence named; ſo the ſame Lord that is King and Head over all, 1 Chron. 29.11. Epheſ. 1.22. doth give influence to many organs in this Body of Mankinde, even to all Kings, Judges, Fathers of Families.
And Chriſt is the ſame in reſpect of all authority, power, gifts, adminiſtrations Civill, &c. to this Kingdome of Men, as he is to the Kingdom of his Church of all power ſpiritual: And although the Church be a Body of nearer relation to Chriſt, then the Body of mankinde; yet in regard of a common relation between a Head and Body there is a ſimilitude, which is ſufficient in this caſe.
There is one thing more we meet withall that here we ſhall remove, viz. when it is objected that the Catholick viſible Church cannot be one, becauſe it cannot convent together in one Society; it is anſwered uſually, that ſuch comming together in one ſociety is not needfull, becauſe as a Kingdom may be one, though all parts of it never meet together, having the ſame King, Laws, &c. And as an Army may be one, having the ſame Generall, the ſame Laws of Diſcipline, the ſame cauſe, &c. though the ſeverall Brigades ſhould never be drawn up into one body: So the Catholick Church having the ſame King, Laws, Cauſe, Enemies, is but one though it never meet.
To this we ſhall here Reply ſo far as it lyes in our way: 1 As all union is for communion, and all communion flows from union; ſo look of what nature the union is, ſuch, and no other is the communion; and look of what nature the communion ought to be, of like nature ought the union to be, elſe it will not reach the end. And therefore here as the myſticall ſpirituall union of the Catholick Church to Chriſt the head by faith, and to one another by love, is ſufficient to afford ſpirituall communion with the ſame: So unto Politicall communion there muſt bee a Politicall union into one policy. And as the nature of Politicall communion is, ſuch muſt the nature of the union be, that it may reach the end.
To apply this, a Politicall Church is inſtituted of Chriſt for communion in all the Worſhip and Ordinances of Chriſt inſtituted in the Goſpel, as the Miniſtery of the Word, the Seales and Diſcipline; now no Church as One can have communion with Chriſt and one another in theſe things, but it muſt have a Politicall union ſuitable thereunto, that is, they muſt be one Society that can at leaſt meet to combine together.
And therefore if all Churches make one Politicall Body, for Politicall communion, it muſt be ſuch an union as will reach that end, which cannot be imagined in ſuch a Catholick totum politicum as the Catholick Church. 'Tis true, diſtinct Churches (as diſtinct Kingdoms) may have communion in ſome politicall priviledges anſwerable to their union, conſiſting in a fraternall relation one unto another, yet not make up one Body Politicall; of which we ſpeak.
Secondly, to the ſimilitudes brought, we anſwer, This whole Kingdom or Army is properly and clearly one Politicall Body under one Politicall head the King or General, as ſtands by Covenant as members of that one Policy; and thoſe who have right to chooſe their King or Generall, may and doe ſome time or other convene. Let the like be ſhewed in the Catholick Church, that all Politicall Churches are moulded up into one Politicall Body, either de jure, or de facto, or that it is poſſible (as the caſe ſtands) ſo to be, and then the ſimilitudes would be of ſome uſe.
Thirdly, in a Kingdom or Army, ſuppoſe they never meet, yet there is ſuch politicall union as fully reaches the politicall communion for which end it was combined, viz. that they ſhould enjoy peace and juſtice in and by a juſt Government, or by the protection of the Army. But if ſuch a politicall Body were combined to have ſuch communion as a Church-communion is, then it would require conventing together, as elſwhere we ſhall more fully manifeſt: For our parts, we do not ſee that Chriſt hath ordained the whole Catholick church as One, to have politicall communion together, which is impoſſible.
And therefore we ſee no need of ſuch a Politicall combination, but as he hath ordained a Brotherly communion of counſell and helpfulneſſe one to another, as need requires; ſo a ſpirituall relation and brotherly conſociation of Churches together is union ſufficient for ſuch a communion.
And thus far we have endevored to take away all thoſe arguments which are built upon the generall conſiderations of the unity, viſibility and priority of the Catholick church, which we leave to the conſideration and examination of the judicious.
We ſhall now, (as the Lord ſhall helpe us) come to cleare the ſtate of this knotty controverſie, as we think it ought to be ſtated and carryed. Viz.
What is that form of a Politicall Church which Jeſus Chriſt in the Goſpel hath inſtituted and appointed as the ſubject of Church power of government, and adminiſtration of all the ordinances of the Goſpel for actuall communion with Chriſt, and one with another therein? And here give us leave before we enter into the queſtion it ſelf, to make a little further uſe of our former ſimilitude for illuſtration; and then we will ſhew where the ne plus ultra, as we conceive muſt ſtand. It hath been ſhewed in reſpect of the body of mankinde, that although much may be ſaid for the unity, viſibility, and priority thereof before any parts of it, yet no reaſon will inforce that it is the firſt ſubject of Civill power, &c. in reſpect of actuall adminiſtration, and immediate enjoyment thereof, and ſo here in reſpect of the Church. We will now add but this one thing more, that notwithſtanding all ſuch reaſons, yet in execution for the good of the whole, the leaſt civill ſociety, yea, a family may be, and is the firſt ſubject of civill power, and priviledges of civill government; ſo the leaſt politicall Church ſociety may be the firſt ſubject of theſe Keys of Church power in the exerciſe thereof, and of immediate communion in all viſible ordinances, and we think that there by Divine inſtitution it is ſeated, and the edification and perfection of the Catholick Church may beſt be attained thereby.
Concerning Families, we ſee no footſteps in the propagation of mankinde from Adam and Noah, of any ſoveraign or univerſall government, further then in the firſt Fathers of mankinde, after whom as they increaſed, families went out, and combining made cities, and ſo Common-wealths by mutuall conſent, as in Gen. 10. and other Stories appear, except by the tyrannous uſurpations of ſome as Nimrod, the reſt were brought under; and this no doubt amongſt any free people is ſtill the moſt orderly, juſt and ſafe way of erecting all forms of civill government; Families to combine into Townes, Cities, Kingdomes, or Ariſtocraticall States. But here ſome will ſay; If ſo, that according to this ſimilitude, a particular congregation may be the firſt Church that have the Keys of Church power, and Church communion; then as families ſhould combine into Towns and Cities, and they into greater Common-wealths, for the good of all mankinde; ſo here theſe firſt Churches may not ſtand independently, but ought to combine into greater Bodies, till they come to be one whole Church; to this we ſay, this will not follow upon this evident reaſon, becauſe civill ſocieties and government thereof, is herein left to rules of humane prudence by the Lord and governor of the whole world; and therefore may admit various forms of Government, various Laws and Conſtitutions, various priviledges, &c. according as men ſhall conceive beſt for themſelves, ſo they be not againſt the common morall rules of equity, and the good of thoſe Societies: but here in the Kingdom of Chriſt as wee muſt attend what kinde of Church he hath inſtituted, ſo we muſt cleave to ſuch rules, priviledges, and forms of government and adminiſtrations as he hath ordained, not preſuming to goe one ſtep beyond the ſame. And hence it is not in the power of any Church to alienate the power, rights, or priviledges Chriſt have ſet in the ſame, or to mould up any other politicall Churches then he hath appointed; and here we conceive ſtands immovably the ne plus ultra of this ſimilitude between the viſible Church, and the eſtate of mankinde in reference to power and government, &c. All which things well weighed, to us ſeems to overthrow all ſuch intermediate forms of Churches, or the uſuall Churches, as Mr. Ball calls the ſame; as, Claſſicall, Provinciall, Dioceſan, Nationall, Patriarchicall, &c. which we ſee not how according to the rule of Chriſt they can be conſtituted either deſcendendo, from the common nature of the Catholick Church; or aſcendendo; from the combination of particulars, except inſtitution can bee found for the ſame. We find indeed, that ſome endevor to build ſuch forms upon the foundation of Morall principles, and the Law of nature; as, That God hath given government to be over a multitude, and that of many Societies, as well as perſons, that one Society may not ſuffer as well as one perſon; and that therefore muſt be given of the God of grace to a ſociety and multitude of little Churches power of externall government.
To which we anſwer; 1 That there is no ſuch principle in nature that generally binds free Societies to ſubmit to one common government; muſt many Kingdoms, &c. by conſequence all kingdoms combine in government, leſt one kingdome bee hurt, i. muſt Moab, Ammon, Edom, Tyre, Sydon, Judea, &c. being ſo contiguous in near vicinity to each other, combine in one government? 2 Is it not as ſuitable to morality and reaſon, in ſuch combinations, that they ſet up One to rule over them, when many grow ignorant, evill, or heady, to preſerve peace, and prevent wrong, as to ſet up many? 3 Did Abraham, Lot, Melchiſedeck, and ſuch family Churches, walk againſt grounds of morality and nature, that did not ſo combine? We might add more, but forbear; but we could deſire our dear Brethren to be wary of ſcattering ſuch principles; for though in the matters of the Church, and Worſhip, and Government of Chriſt, grace doth not deſtroy nature, yet look as a particular Church conſtitution and government was never erected by the Law of nature; but Divine inſtitution, ſo for the governing of many over one, why ſhould there not be the like inſtitution?
But to come more near to the caſe it ſelf, we ſhall endeavour to clear two things:
1. That there is no Catholick politicall Church ſociety inſtituted by Chriſt, to which the actuall adminiſtration and participation of Church government and communion in the inſtituted ordinances of Chriſt, is given as to the firſt ſubject thereof.
2. That the true form of all Church ſocieties inſtituted by Chriſt, to which he hath given the actuall adminiſtration and immediate participation of Church government, and all other inſtituted ordinances, as the ſubject thereof, is onelyonly Congregationall.
Firſt, concerning the firſt, to make our diſcourſe more diſtinct and plain, we ſhall premiſe here, that we doe not here at all take in, or reſpect that queſtion about the power of the Keys, whether it be in the fraternity or guides, (we ſhall God willing have a fit place to ſpeak ſomething of it) but here (that we may not intermingle things) we look onelyonly at the true ſubject, in which, and unto which the actuall and immediate diſpenſation and participation of Church government and outward ordinances is given by the inſtitution of the Goſpel. And here we firſt reaſon thus, Such a Church ſociety as Chriſt inſtituted, the Apoſtles of Chriſt conſtituted and governed in: But the Apoſtles never conſtituted ſuch a Catholick church ſociety, or governed it in ſuch a manner as is ſaid: Ergo. The Propoſition is evident, becauſe the Apoſtles were to do whatſoever Chriſt commanded in Matth. 28.20. and were ſufficiently furniſhed with power and wiſdome ſo to doe: Beſides, the Apoſtles having all power from Chriſt as hee received from the Father, John 20. and the whole number of beleevers being then at the feweſt, there was never ſince ſuch an opportunity or poſſibility to conſtitute ſuch a Church, if Chriſt Jeſus had inſtituted ſuch a thing. The aſſumption or ſecond part of the reaſon is proved thus, If the Apoſtles ever conſtituted and adminiſtred in ſuch a Church catholick, it was either that at Jeruſalem mentioned Acts 1, & 2. &c. or that aſſembly that met, Acts 15. (for we meet with no other that can with any colour of reaſon bee ſuppoſed) But neither of theſe were ſuch a conſtituted Church; Ergo. 1 Concerning the Church named, Acts 1. carryed on, Acts 2. &c. we freely grant it was a conſtituted Church, wherein the Apoſtles with Elders and Deacons afterward choſen did govern, for as it is called a Church, Acts 2.47. ſo likewiſe we ſee there were in it elections, Act. 1. & 6 and adminiſtrations of inſtituted ordinances of worſhip, Acts 2.41, 42. admiſſion of members, Chap. 2.41, 47. and by the ſame reaſon there might have been excommunication alſo: But that this Church was not the Catholick Church, we prove thus: If it were the Catholick church, then it was ſuch either in reſpect of the whole eſſence of the Catholick church, or in reſpect of repreſentation; but neither ways: Ergo. The firſt it could not be, becauſe it conſiſted at the firſt but of 120. which was a very ſmall part of the Catholick number of viſible beleevers; for, 1 Cor. 15.6. there were above 500 Brethren to whom Chriſt appeared at once, which was but ſome few weeks before, beſides all that in the Jewiſh Church were converted and baptized by John, which were very many; yea, if we ſpeak of the Catholick church, properly all the Jewiſh Church, not yet diſſolved, were part of the Catholick church of that age viſible. Laſtly, if it had been the Catholick church, beleevers being already of it, could not be ſaid to be added to this; as, Acts 5.13, 14. Secondly, it was not Catholick in reſpect of repreſentation, for if ſo, then in reſpect of the Apoſtles onelyonly as the Catholick guides, or in reſpect of the whole aſſembly with them, Acts 1. not the firſt, for then the Apoſtles onelyonly ſhould have had power to ſet apart Barnabas and Ma…thias, but it is evident that that election was by Peter himſelf committed to, and acted by the whole company called the Brethren and Diſciples, Acts 1.15, 16, 26. where it appears that as he ſpake to all, ſo it was concluded with the common ſuffrages of all.
Secondly, if ſo, becauſe the Apoſtles were Catholick guides, then where-ever they met was a Catholick church, yea, where two or three, or any one of them was, there was the Catholick repreſentative church, and ſo many ſuch churches, for any two or one had the catholick power as well as all; Paul ordains, rules, and orders of diſcipline in all the churches, as well as if all the Apoſtles had met, 1 Cor. 7.17. 1 Cor. 16.1. 2 That aſſembly was not the repreſentative catholick church, becauſe, firſt, there were the women in the ſame, now women are no way capable of being meſſengers to repreſent churches: ſecondly, beſides, theſe could not be repreſentative meſſengers from other churches, becauſe this was the firſt conſtituted church; we ſee no colour of reaſon that there were any other conſtituted viſible churches before this. Laſtly, all the actions of that Church mentioned, eſpecially thoſe in Acts 2.41, 42. of admiſſion of members, baptiſm, word, ſeales, fellowſhip day by day in ſuch ordinances, choice of Deacons, &c. ſpeak aloud againſt a repreſentative Church, we ſhould rather have heard of conſtitutions, cenſures, &c. from ſuch a repreſentative Catholick church of generall counſell.
Object. We are not ignorant what is ſaid to the contrary, viz. That it was the Catholick Church, becauſe they elected a Catholick officer for the whole Church, viz. an Apoſtle.
Anſ. To which we anſwer; 1 All the Catholick church and guides thereof had no power ſo to do, no more then a particular church, being a caſe reſerved to Chriſt himſelf, elſe Pauls argument to prove his Apoſtleſhip had not been ſtrong; becauſe he was not called by man, but by Chriſt himſelf, and had ſeen the Lord, &c. Gal. 1.1. 1 Cor. 9.1. 2 The act of the Church was onelyonly a preparatory act thereunto with an after conſent: the election was properly done immediately by a lot, and what was done might as well be done in the firſt particular Church guided by the infallible ſpirit of the Apoſtles, as by the Catholick Church it ſelf.
Object. Secondly, it is objected, Many of theſe were men of Galilee, which by their habitation could not pertain to the Church in Jeruſalem.
Anſw. True, the Apoſtles and others were of Galilee, but they had forſaken all to follow Chriſt, and were commanded by Chriſt to remain a time at Jeruſalem, and then to goe forth to Samaria, Judea, and the utmoſt parts of the earth, Acts 1.4, 8. and therfore no Church relation in Galilee could hinder them from joyning in this firſt conſtituted Church, or give any colour that they came as members repreſentative from any Churches in Galilee. And ſo much for the plea for a Catholick church from Acts 1. &c. Now concerning that which is ſuppoſed of a Catholick church repreſentative in Act. 15. If it were ſuch, then in reſpect of the Apoſtles (the catholick Officers) onelyonly, or in reſpect of the body of the Aſſembly alſo, but in neither reſpects: Ergo.
1 Not the firſt, for then as was ſaid, any one Apoſtle may make a repreſentative Catholick church, having the whole power, as much as all of them together; for though they would meet oft to conſult and aſſiſt one another; yet not for defect of power in any one; and we think our brethren here will not ſay it was in reſpect of the Apoſtles alone, ſuppoſing here they acted rather as Elders with the reſt, then out of their Apoſtolicall power.
2 Not in reſpect of the whole Aſſembly, for then that aſſembly muſt conſiſt of the meſſengers of all the particular Churches, and the decrees ſhould have been directed to all the Churches; but neither of theſe can appear; For, firſt, wee read of no other meſſengers but thoſe from Antioch, and how to evince more then the Scriptures reveal, is hard. Secondly, if we look back and conſider how far the Goſpel was ſpread before this aſſembly, it will appear very ſtrange and abſurd to ſuppoſe ſuch a thing; for Paul had been in Arabia before ever he came to Ieruſalem, Gal. 1.17. and when he and Barnabas went ſent out from Antioch, Acts 13. they went to ſeverall Iſlands and Countreys, as Cyprus, Paphos, Salamis, &c. beſides what other places ſcattered Chriſtians and Apoſtles had preached in: now there is no probability of meſſengers ſent from all theſe places.
Secondly, the decrees were expreſly directed to the Gentiles beleeving, in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia, where it ſeems this queſtion had troubled the minds of the Diſciples, Acts 15.23, 24. which was far ſhort of the Catholick church; neither is it proved that the Churches of Syria and Cilicia had any meſſengers there, much leſſe that all the Churches had their meſſengers.
Object. But it is ſaid, they might have had their meſſengers there, if they would, and therefore they were bound to the decrees as of a generall Councell.
Anſw. It muſt firſt be proved, that all Churches had lawfull ſummons to ſend their meſſengers to that Aſſembly, before there can be laid any blame on them for neglecting the ſame, or they be all tyed to the decrees of ſuch an Aſſembly as a generall Councell, which ſeems to us not ſo much as probable, much leſſe to be proved by any where the Scripture is ſo ſilent.
Argument. 2 Every politicall Body is conſtituted by the combination of all the members into a Society.
But Chriſt hath not inſtituted that the Catholick church ſhould combine into a Society. Ergo.
Propoſ. Proved, becauſe there can be no inſtances given of any free Society, civill or ſacred, that was under policy, but that it aroſe from combination.
How came Iſrael to be one Nationall church, but by a National covenant? and that before it had Officers; or how comes any nationall, provinciall, claſſicall Church that are pleaded for to be ſuch, but by ſome ſuch combination? Why is this Church of this Claſſis not of another but by combination? Secondly, in a politicall body, the whole hath power to order every part, but this power among perſons that are free, is onelyonly by combination.
Aſſump. Proved: firſt, becauſe Chriſt never inſtituted that which is impoſſible, as this is, for the Catholick viſible Church in every age ſo to doe.
Secondly, Chriſt ordained combination for communion in his Worſhip, but this communion alſo is impoſſible to the Catholick church as one: Ergo.
Thirdly, corrupt Churches are viſible Churches, but it is hard for us to beleeve, or any to prove that Chriſt hath inſtituted ſuch combination of all Churches, Aſian, African, European, American, corrupt and uncorrupt, for prudent men may eaſily foreſee the heavy conſequents thereof.
Argument. 3 Every Politicall Church by the inſtitution of Chriſt hath power to elect her own Paſtor or Paſtors over it.
But the Catholick viſible Church hath not ſuch power: Ergo.
Propoſit. Proved. This all Scripture examples ſhew, that every Church or flock of beleevers had her Paſtor, Act. 14. Tit. 1.
Secondly, (according to our Brethrens principles) if a particular Church may chooſe a Paſtor, much more the Catholick, becauſe all priviledges are primarily given to the Catholick church, and what belongs to the part of a ſimilar Body, (as a part) that much more belongs to the whole.
Aſſump. Proved firſt, If the Catholick church may chooſe Paſtors over it, then they may make Apoſtles, becauſe Catholick Paſtors over the Catholick Church.
Secondly, the Reaſons againſt an univerſall Biſhop are ſtrong here, as that their office is not deſcribed in the Word, nor their power able to reach all Churches.
If it be ſaid, that the Catholick church can chooſe her Paſtors in the parts or particular Societies, which are Paſtors of the Catholick church, though not Catholick Paſtors of the Catholick church.
Anſw. If this be meant of the particular Churches chooſing Paſtors over themſelves, who are in ſome reſpects for the good of the whole, (as being partes partium, and ſo partes totius) then they come to our hand, for thus it appears that there is no Catholick t…tum, that is the ſubject of officers but in its parts.
But the queſtion is, Whether all particular Churches having the officers in them, do make one political Body or Catholick church, and ſo have power to chooſe Catholick Paſtors.
Argument. 4 Chriſt Jeſus inſtituted no ſuch politicall Body as deſtroys Church policy.
But ſuch a Catholick church politicall deſtroys policy: Ergo.
Aſſump. Proved: becauſe it ſwallows up the power not onelyonly of all Churches congregationall, but all other forms of Churches, by taking the power of excommunication from them; for the power of excommunication is ſeated by Chriſt in that Church, from which there can be juſtly no appeal, for Matth. 18. the power of excommunication is ſeated in ſuch a Church, as whatſoever it binds on earth, is bound in heaven by the higheſt Judge, in the higheſt Court; and from the ſentence of this higheſt court and Judge, how can there be any appeal?
But now ſuppoſing ſuch a Catholick church having power of excommunication, and that as the higheſt Church, hence no inferior Church can binde on earth, ſo as that the ſame is bound in heaven, ſeeing appeales may be made from them to an higher power on earth.
Object. If it be ſaid that the ſentence of an inferior Judge, proceeding rightly (as in an inferior Sanhedrin) is ratified in heaven, yet may we appeale from him.
Anſw. We deny that the ſentence of every civill Court doth binde in heaven (in the ſenſe of our Saviour:) for every civil Court hath not this promiſe of binding and loo…ing, the power of the Keys not belonging to the civill Magiſtrate.
Secondly, ſuppoſe there were ſuch a binding in civill Courts, and appeals may be yet made from them, yet this is becauſe there is ſuppoſed a ſupreme Court in being, to which the appeale may be proſecuted and there determined, (as in the higheſt Sanhedrin of Iſrael.) But there is not in the Church, nor like to be, ſuch a ſupreme Court where ſuch appeals may be ended: Ergo.
Objection. 2 If it be ſaid, that what a particular Church binds on earth is bound in heaven, except they erre, but then appeals may be made, and their power is gone.
Anſw. On this ground the univerſall Church ſhould not have power to bind on earth ſo as in heaven without appeales, for they may erre; and that not onelyonly rarely but frequently; witneſſe the complaint of Nazianzen and others of the time paſſed; yea, they may be as much inclined to erre, conſidering the greateſt part of Churches in the world are for the moſt part corrupt, yea, though they may have better eyes, yet they are further from the mark; if particular Churches have no power of excommunication, becauſe they may erre, be corrupt, be partiall, or be divided; upon the ſame conſideration, neither Claſſicall, Nationall, or oecumeniall Councells have any ſuch power; for they may erre, grow corrupt, be partiall, and be miſerably divided, as well as a congregationall Church; other Churches may admoniſh in caſe of ſcandall, and counſell, when a particular congregation wants light; and moderate (if deſired) in caſe of difference; but ſtill the power is in the particular Church.
Other arguments might be added, but ſeeing this controverſie, as we hope, will be more fully and purpoſely diſputed by a farre better hand, therefore we ſhall fall to the conſideration of ſuch Scriptures, and ſome few generall Arguments which we meet withall in Mr. Ball briefly propounded, and in divers other Authors more largely inſiſted upon; which if the Lord be pleaſed to helpe us to vindicate and clear up, we think other reaſons and Scriptures of leſſe force will fall of themſelves.
And firſt we finde, Cant. 6.4. &c. to prove the whole Catholick church viſible to be one Miniſteriall Body, becauſe it is called One, compared to an Army terrible with Banners, in reſpect of the order of Diſcipline, and deſcribed as being an organicall Body having eyes, hair, teeth, &c.
Anſw. 1 Theologia Symbolica non eſt argumentativa, except it can be made clear that the parable is applyed according to the true ſcope of it, and no further, which here is very hard to evince: we know the whole Book of the Canticles is variouſly applyed by good Interpreters,Vid. Brightm. An. in Loc. Brightman (none of the meaneſt in this kinde of Scriptures) applyes this place to the church of Geneva, and the times of purer Churches to ariſe after it, which are ſaid to be terrible as an Army with Banners; not in reſpect of Diſcipline, but in reſpect of warlike power, whereby that ſtate of the church ſhall defend it ſelf.
2 But ſuppoſe that it is a deſcription of the catholick church viſible, yet it cannot be a ſufficient argument that it is one Miniſteriall church: For, firſt, the catholick church is the ſame in all ages, and therefore by this reaſon it was a catholick Miniſteriall body, as well in the days from Adam to Abraham, &c. as in the New Teſtament. Secondly, by this argument we may prove Chriſt the head and husband of the church to be an organicall body, as he is the Head of the Church, for Cant. 5.10, 11. &c. the Church doth allegorically deſcribe the beauty and excellency of Chriſt, in ſeverall organs and parts: but we ſuppoſe though Chriſt Jeſus in his humane nature hath members, yet the ſcope of the Church is not at all to ſet forth the members of his humane body, but the glorious excellencies, and ſpirituall perfections of Chriſt as the Redeemer and Saviour of his Church, according to the manner of Lovers, who are taken with the beauty of their ſpouſes in all their members; When the ſpouſe ſaith, Cant. 1.1. Let him kiſſe me with the kiſſes of his mouth; it were too groſſe to apply it to the humanity of Chriſt, or to argue from thence that Chriſt the husband of his Church is an organicall body.
Thirdly and laſtly, when the Church is called One, the onelyonly one of her Mother; though it's true ſhe is one, it ſeems rather to ſet out her excellency as rare, and but one, then her unity: and ſo the other deſcriptions all tend to ſet forth her beauty in the eye and eſteem of Chriſt; neither is it any thing that the Church is compared to an Army terrible with banners, for in the ſame Chap. verſ. the laſt, ſhe is compared to the company of Mahanaim, or two Armies, (which is all one) for the company of Mahanaim conſiſted of two Armies, Gen. 32.1, 2, 3. where Jacobs hoſt meeting an hoſt of Angels, he calls the place Mahanaim, or, two Hoſts; and therefore we may as well ſay the Catholick church is terrible, with two Armies of Banners, as one.
Anſw. A ſecond and chief Scripture we meet withall in divers Authors is 1 Cor. 12.12, 13. &c. Whence the reaſon ſtands thus▪ That church wherein Apoſtles, Prophets, Teachers, &c. are ſet, is an organicall Church.
But thoſe are ſet in the Catholick viſible Church; Ergo.
For the better clearing of this Scripture, it is needfull, that we attend the ſcope of the Apoſtle, who comming now to another branch of the things this Church had written unto him about, Chap. 7.1. & 8.1. & 12.1. and this about ſpirituall gifts, wherein they abounded, Chap. 1.7. being the occaſion of all their contentions and diſorders, Chap. 1.12, 13. hence he is ſtudious the more to re-unite them again, Chap. 12.13. and to direct them how to improve their gifts orderly to edification, Chap. 14. and in this Chapter he perſwades their minds to unity who were divided, partly through pride in their own gifts; partly, by diſdain of others not ſo gifted; hence he puts them in minde; 1 What once they were following dumb idols. 2 That all gifts are from the free diſpenſation of God, and that one God, one Lord, one Spirit. 3 That God in his wiſdom hath diſpenſed great variety of gifts, operations and adminiſtrations. 4 That all are given to profit withal, and theſe things he illuſtrates by a ſimile taken from a naturall body, which having largely preſented and applyed to this Church, verſ. 27. he concludes with the variety of adminiſtrations in ſuch things wherein they ſo much differed, Chap. 1.12, 13. God hath ſet, ſaith he, in the Church not onelyonly Apoſtles, or Prophets, or tongues, &c. but all theſe; are all Apoſtles? are all Prophets, &c? no, but the wiſdom of God hath given you variety of theſe gifts and adminiſtrations; and therefore, Chap. 3. to quiet them, he ſaith, Paul an Apoſtle, Apollos an Evangeliſt, &c. all are yours; and as this is the ſcope of the Apoſtle, ſo we ſee nothing in the Chapter but is appliable to Corinth in particular, yea, applyed unto them by the Apoſtle, as what he ſpake verſ. 22. of one body, he applyes to them, verſ. 27. what he ſpake, verſ. 28. of Apoſtles, and other gifts ſet in the Church, he applyes alſo to them, Chap. 14. whereas he ſpeaks of the exerciſe of divers gifts in that Church, when the whole Church came together, verſ. 23, ſo he ſpeaks the ſame of himſelf an Apoſtle, verſ. 6. When I come, &c. We take notice of divers reaſons alledged from the Chapter, that he ſpake of the Catholick church, but they doe not inforce it; for grant ſuch things are true of the Catholick church in a ſenſe, viz. that in it God works all in all, in it are diverſities of gifts, &c. yet the Apoſtles ſcope is to ſpeak to this Church, as hath been ſhewed, and all are truly applyable unto it, this Church came behinde in no good gift, Chap. 1.7. this Church was one body, verſ. 27. and baptized into one body, whether Jews or Gentiles, bond or free, the members of this Church needed the helpe one of another, muſt not make ſchiſmes in the Body, muſt care one for another, &c. yea, Apoſtles as well as other gifts were in the church, 1 Cor. 3.1. 1 Cor. 14.6. So that from the ſcope and drift of the Apoſtle, all theſe Offices and gifts might be, and were ſet in Corinth, and therefore this place will not evince a Catholick organicall body; yet we mean not that Apoſtles were wedged in here, but they were ſet alſo in every church, as alſo Teachers are in every church, but each according to the nature of the Office, the one limited, the other not.
Secondly, we deny not but in this diſcourſe the Apoſtle alſo, verſ. 12, 13. intendeth the whole myſticall body of Chriſt, which is one Chriſt, neither doe we deny that theſe gifts of Apoſtles, Prophets, &c. are given to this Church, but this will not prove it to be an organicall Church. For what is this body of Chriſt, this one Chriſt into whom all are baptized, &c. It is properly the whole company of true beleevers in all ages, and ſo containes the inviſible body of Chriſt; which Catholick body of all ages, cannot properly make an organicall body: and be it ſo, that this body is viſible, having viſible ordinances, baptized and drunk into one body, yet the Apoſtle reſpects the …eall union of all the members to Chriſt; and therefore I … underſtand ſpirituall and effectuall baptiſm, containing the inward vertue with the outward ſign.
Again, the Apoſtles were … for the gathering … of the elect amongſt all the heathen and …, but that proves not all thoſe elect (who alſo are a part of Chriſts ſheep, John in ….) were an organicall Church, or a part of it, till called and added to the Church.
In a word, Apoſtles, Prophets, &c. were given to, and ſet in the myſticall body of Chriſt, as the chief object had and for whoſe ſake and good they were intentionally ordained of Chriſt, but not ſet in it as one organicall body, for the actuall and immediate adminiſtration of the viſible ordinances of Chriſt to it, but thus …, as gathered into ſuch Church ſocieties as the Lord hath … for that end, and in this ſenſe we agree with … Mr. … of the right … pag. 2…1.
A… (ſaith he) to what …nd, and to what firſt principall ſubject hath the Lord given reaſon, and the fa…ulty to diſco… as it is Peter, John, &c. as to the firſt ſubject, and to them as for their good▪ No, no, it is …, and for the race of mankind. The caſe is juſt ſo here, 1. Cor. 12.…8. God hath ſet Apoſtles, &c.
We ſay alſo it is juſt ſo here, as God hath given reaſon in reſpect of the end to mankinde firſt, and then to the individu… ; ſo God hath ſet in the myſticall Church for the good of it, as chiefly intended by Chriſt, Apoſtles, Prophets, &c. but now as in the … all diſpenſing of this gift of reaſon for the good of mankinde, Reaſon is not given to any ſuch body, as the whole race of mankinde, to deſcend to John, Peter, &c. but firſt to John, Peter, and all the individualls, that ſo by induction of all particulars, the whole kinde of reaſonable man may be made up, and the end attained, and ſo it is here: God in giving Officers and gifts for the good of the myſticall body of Chriſt firſtly, yet in execution gives theſe Officers, and ſets them in particular Churches, that by the edification and perfection of all particulars, the whole may be attained.
Thirdly, Apoſtles, Prophets, and all gifts and offices in generall and indefinitely, are given to the Church indefinitely conſidered, but particular officers, Paul, Cephas, Apollo, Titus, Arabippus, &c. are given or ſet in particular Churches; we mean, according to the ſeverall natures and extents of their offices; As unto Bees in generall ingi… a power to gather honey, and order themſelves in their hives; but in their exerciſe of this power it is given to the ſeverall ſwarms in the hives, who have their Queens, &c. to order themſelves. But as this power in generall makes not a univerſall organicall body of Bees; no more here an univerſall organicall Church.
Laſtly, to ſpeak more particularly, we conceive that the place in the utmoſt latitude of it is meant of the myſticall body, that one body into which all are baptized; verſ. 13. And that the fundamentall miſtake of our Brethren is this, that becauſe the Church here mentioned hath Organs and politicall Officers in it, that therefore it muſt needs make one politicall Church, where ſome Organs are to rule in common, and every part is to be ſubject to the whole. For although the myſticall Church hath Organs and politicall Officers in it; yet it follows not therefore that it is one politicall body. For the inviſible Church conjoyned with the viſible, hath politicall Officers ſet in it, and given to it as inviſible, as well as viſible, in reſpect of Gods generall deſignation and particular application of them to this whole Church; yet it follows not that they are one politicall body by actuall combination thereunto; actuall combination, we ſay, for although Chriſts inſtitution muſt warrant and preſcribe all forms of politicall bodies, yet it will not be found that ever there was any politicall Society without actuall combination, whether civill or ſacred, whether nationall or more particular. The myſticall Church may be ſaid to be organicall in reſpect of the Officers amongſt them in the ſeverall parts thereof; every part being a part of the whole ſpiritually, though not politically. But it doth not thence follow that the whole is one politicall body, but myſticall. Politicall Officers may, and muſt ſuppoſe ſome part of the Church to be viſible, but not that the whole ſhould be Politicall. For the Apoſtles (by extraordinary Commiſſion for their time were officers of viſible beleevers, fit matter for a combination, as well as of particular combinations: yet it follows not that viſible beleevers exiſting out of combinations were a politicall Society that would never meet to combine; but they were onelyonly a viſible number of Saints.
We have been thus large in clearing this Scripture, becauſe we conceive the chief ſtrength of the contrary opinion to lye in it. And this being anſwered, the light of it we hope will ſcatter the darkneſſe that is brought upon divers other Scriptures which are drawn to prove ſuch a kinde of Catholick Church, as Rom. 12.4. &c. Col. 1.25. 1 Tim. 3.1…. Epheſ. 4.11. In which laſt Scripture we never doubted but that the Officers were given, not for that particular Church of Epheſus onelyonly, much leſſe to ſuch a diminutive Congregation conſiſting of 40, 60, or 100 onelyonly, as if we intended to i…pawn all power in this or that Congregational body; but to a congregationall Church conſidered as the genus of all particular Congregations of the world. Neither to this congregationall Church onelyonly, but to all that are to be gathered to the unity of the faith. But doth this argue one politicall body conſiſting of all theſe? For though, ve…ſ. 16. the whole body be ſaid to be compacted; yet that this ſhould be underſtood of a politicall, not ſpirituall way of compacting, we confeſſe (with ſubmiſſion) our weakneſſe cannot apprehend.
The laſt Scripture which we find cited that ſeemeth to look this way, is 1 Pet. 5.1. Feed the flock which is among you.
Anſw. 1 We anſwer: It muſt neceſſarily be underſtood diſtributively, for the ſeverall flocks in all thoſe Countreys to be fed by their particular Elders; not collectively, to be fed as one flock in common: For the Countreys are ſo many and large, as it was impoſſible. Yea, we have a clear parallel, James 2.2. where writing to the Jews of the twelve Tribes ſcattered abroad, yet he ſpeaks of a man comming into their Aſſembly; which cannot be meant collectively, as if they had one aſſembly amongſt them all, but diſtributively of any aſſembly.
2 Though they bee called a flock, not flocks, yet this, as R…imes obſerves, was not becauſe it was one flock really in themſelves, but in ſome reſpect of reaſon; which alſo he expounds to be per internam (we had rather ſay, ſpiritualem) unionem, but not per externam combinationem; in reſpect of which ſpirituall union, that is true which Mr. Ball citeth out of Cyprian, Cypr. lib. 3. Epiſt. 13. Cypr. lib. 4. Epiſt. 7.Etſi Paſtores multi ſumus, unam tamen greg…m paſcimus. As alſo that there is Epiſcopatus unus & Eccleſia una in …oto mundo.
Hence alſo may appear an anſwer to divers arguments, the chief whereof we ſhall run through.
Objection. 1 If by baptiſm we are not admitted into one particular Church, but into the whole Catholick viſible Church, 1 Cor. 12.13. then there is ſuch a Catholick Church.
Anſw. Baptiſm admitteth us into the whole myſticall body of Chriſt, whether viſible or inviſible of all ages: But this is not a Catholick Politicall body, of which we ſpeak; for then every baptized perſon ſhould be a member of every particular Church, and have an Oare in every boat, in electing Officers, admitting members, cenſuring offenders, &c. which Mr. Ball will not grant, and indeed would bring in endleſſe confuſion into the Churches of Chriſt. Beſides, no man can be a member of any combined ſociety without their conſent, for otherwiſe ſo many may croud into the Church becauſe baptized, as ſhall overthrow the edification thereof, and that againſt the conſent of the Church, and all the Officers thereof.
Objection. 2 When any ſcandalous perſon is delivered to Satan, he is caſt out of the whole Catholick church, Ergo, he was a member of the whole Catholick Church, for he cannot be caſt out who was never within.
Anſw. 1 Some anſwer that he is caſt out of all onelyonly conſequenter, by reaſon of communion of Churches; neither doe we ſee that this is taken away by ſaying, that, As when the left hand cutteth off a finger of the right hand, it is not the left hand onelyonly that cuts it off, but the whole man, deliberate reaſon and will conſenting: For if this ſimilitude would ſuit, then the whole Catholick church muſt be called to conſult and conſent antecedenter, before a particular Church can cut off any member, which ordinarily is impoſſible to be attain'd.
2 But further according to our former principles laid down, we ſay he that is juſtly caſt out of one Church, he is morally excommunicated out of all, but not politically and formally: For to excommunicate politically and formally, is by vertue of a ſuperior authority next under Chriſt; ſo that what is bound by them, is bound in heaven. In which act the Miniſter doth not onelyonly bind the perſon, but alſo by vertue of his Office chargeth the Church not to have communion with him. But we doe not think that our Brethren will ſay that one Church putteth forth ſuch an act of ſuperior authority binding or charging all Churches politicè and judicialit…r not to have communion with him; for ſo one Church ſhould exerciſe juriſdiction over all Churches, and that without their actuall approbation, for, quod ſpectat ad …, debat ob … approbari.
If it be ſaid, That a particular Church doth excommunicate by an intrinſecall power not onelyonly in it ſelf, but intrinſicall in the whole body; the queſtion will be, What is that intrinſicall power? Is it naturall or voluntary?
To ſay it is naturall, were too abſurd; it voluntary, then neither Congregations, Claſſes, Provinces, Nations, have power to excommunicate without the previous conſent of the whole Catholick church, which muſt voluntarily concurr thereunto. And if the Catholick Presbytery (as … ſaid) have no next, but a a remote power of excommunication, and this remote power bee extraordinary, or rare contingens, or almoſt never, then the ordinary power of excommunication, (which is enough for us) is not from an intrinſ…call power of the Church catholick. On the other ſide (if it be ſaid) this power is in the whole, but not derived from the whole to the parts, as the power of ſeeing is firſt in the man, then in the eye, yet not derived from hands, leggs, ſhoulders, &c. and as the great body of the Sunn hath intrinſecall light in every part, not by derivation from one part to another; ſo this power of the Keys is from Chriſt the Head to all the integral parts in points that ſeverally concern the ſame.
Firſt, if this be ſo, then every particular Congregation receives its power of the Keys immediately from Chriſt, not by derivation from any Preſbytery, or the Catholick Church, and is in that reſpect Independent. Neither alſo can Congregations derive the power ſeated in them to Preſbyteries, nor any greater bodies take it from them.
Secondly, though we acknowledge this intrinſecall power of excommunication in particular Congregations, as being there properly ſeated by Chriſt; yet that there are any ſuch politicall Churches, Claſſicall, Provinciall, Nationall, or Catholick, that have any ſuch intrinſecall power as is in the Sunn, this is not yet proved to our underſtanding▪ We deny …ot the uſe of leſſer and greater Synod…, nor of ſuch Doctrinall power o… the pa…ern Acts 15. holdeth forth, and which is all that Learned *Right of Presbyt. pag. 482.M…. Rutherford conceives to belong to a generall Councell; for thus he ſaith, Verily, I profeſſe I cannot ſee wh… power of juriſdiction t… cenſure ſcandalls can be in a generall Councell, there ma…ke ſome … Doctrinall power in ſuch a C…uncell, if ſuch could be had and that is all. And how a Nationall, Provinciall, or Claſſicall Synod being leſſer parts of the whole, can put forth ſuch acts as the whole cannot do, ipſi vid…rint. 'Tis t…ue, a particular Church may formally caſt out a ſcandalous member according to the rule, Matth. 18. yet the argument from proportion will not hold in … of the power of excommunication in greater aſſemblies againſt any particular Church offending, (though other means appointed by Chriſt we deny not) for if excommunication caſteth out an offender out of all Churches, then ſuch a particular Church cannot be excommunicated, except it could be caſt out of it ſelf, though it may be deprived of the communion of other Churches.
Laſtly, if it be no ſin, (as is ſaid) but a croſſe, that the Catholick Church cannot meet to put forth its ſuppoſed int…inſecall power, then let the particular Churches enjoy that power till the Catholick Church can meet. a It ſeems to us very ſtrange that the Lord Jeſus ſhould inſtitute ſuch a ſupreme power in a Catholick Body, which (a… is ſaid) de jure, ſhould be till the comming of Chriſt, and yet ſhould be interrupted by the ſin of man ſo many ages, and which (for ought appeares) never orderly met to this day.
Objection. 3 If all Paſtors be Paſtors of the Catholick Church, then there is ſuch a Catholick Church; but all Paſtors are Paſtors of the Catholick Church: Ergo.
Anſw. If it be meant thus, that they are Paſtors of ſome particular part of the Church, and in that reſpect in the whole, and for the good of the whole, the good of every part redo…nding to the good of the whole; yea, if ſome Paſtorall care alſo be intended towards other Churches, and to fetch in ſuch as are yet not of the Church; we grant all this according to the meaning of that pl…ce, 1 Cor. 12.28. formerly opened by us.
But if this Argument intend that they are Paſtors of the Catholick Body as of One Politicall Church, then we deny the Aſſumption upon this ground; becauſe a Paſtorall Office conſi…ts properly i… having a charge and power over thoſe to whom he is a Paſtor, Act. 20.…8. but he hath no charge of the whole; for if ſo, he muſt give account to Chriſt of the whole; neither hath he power over ſuch a Catholick church, being never choſen by it, …or it ſubjecting to him. If it be ſaid, ſuch are made Paſtors by Ordina…ion of the Presby… ▪ not the election of the people who onelyonly appropriate him to themſelves▪ who is a Paſtor of the whole Church then he is either a Catholick Paſtor that hath power to int… … in all Churches, as the Apoſtles had, which we think none will ye…l… them▪ or elſe they are Paſtors onelyonly in name, without power which is abſurd▪ Nor doth the ſimilitude of a … made Doctor of Phyſick at large by a Colledge of Phyſitians, helpe in this caſe. For it ſuppoſeth him to be made ſuch … Doctor before he be elected by any people to exerciſe this faculty; which apply…d to this caſe of a Paſtor, …s having Ordination to make him a Paſtor at large, before election to th… or that people is utterly againſt all examples of Scri…ure, … Act… 1. & …. & 14,
Objection. 4 That whi… belongeth to a little part of a ſimilar body (and t…lis) belonge to a greater part much more, and therefore if the imm…di…te exerciſe of the Keys b…long to a ſingle congregation, then much more to the whole, and to … of the whole.
Anſw. 1 Such as ſay that the Catholick Church is a ſimilar Body, had need explicate the…ſelves. For to ſpeak properly and ſtrictly, by this …ile every particular viſible beleever being a part of the whole as a …, muſt have nomen & naturam totius, and ſo every beleever is a Church; or if they ſo divide this Catholick ſimilar body, as to make a particular Congr…gation that can joyn in Gods ordi…anc…, the … quod ſt… then particular viſible beleever… conſidered as exiſting out of theſe Congregations cannot be m…mbers formally of the Catholick viſible Church.
2 We a… knowledge the Catholick church conſidered as viſible and inviſ…, i… one ſpirituall or myſticall body, yet this Catholick body is under …o Catholick policy; but onelyonly in the ſeverall parts of it, (… hath been proved before) and in this reſpect the Church, which is ſpiritually one body, is politicè many bodies: ſo that the parts of this ſpirituall totum are not diſtinct bodies …, (for then every company of women are a Church body) but …; and hence though the Catholick church … body ſpiritually, (due cautions and interpretations obſerved) yet it is not one ſimilar Body politically; and hence every ſociety of beleevers is not a Church. Hence though it be true, that what belongs to a part of a ſimilar body, as a part, belongeth much more to the whole; and that therefore what belongs to a particular Church, belongs much more to the whole: It is true in this ſenſe, viz. what belongs to the part of the whole as ſpirituall, and ſo participates the nature of the whole, belongs much more to the whole, becauſe the whole is ſpirituall: yet what belongs to the part as politicall, doth not much more belong to the whole, becauſe the whole is not politicall: Exempli gradi…, conſider a particular Congregation, as a number redeemed, called to Chriſt, … to him, this much more belongs to the whole; and ſo if any priviledge belong to them as ſuch, much more to the whole. Ye… conſider a Church as a combined Body, ſo what belongs to this part, belongs not to the whole. For it belongs to the part to elect and enjoy conſtantly Paſtors over it, but this doth not belong to the whole as a totum. The Catholick myſticall Church is indeed the prima materia, out of which politicall Churches by their combination are formed, but it is no firſt formed politicall ſimilar Church, whence every particular Church immediately participates of the nature of that whole; having … tem talis materiae & partem form….
Anſw. Objection. 5 If there be Church communion between all Churches, then there is one Catholick Church: but there is Church communion of all Churches in hearing, receiving Sacraments, exhorting one another, praying one for another, &c. Ergo.
We deny the conſequence; for there may be a …ra…nall, Eccleſiaſticall communion, not onelyonly internally, but externally, without ſuch an union as makes one politicall combined Body, ſuch as here we diſpute of; as, two or three Congregations may have communion together, and yet not be one politicall body: Twenty ſynagogues might have communion together in the Jewiſh policy, and yet were not one politicall Body: ſo the Churches of Galatia might have communion together, yet were diſtinct Churches, not one Church, a… alſo, the Churches of New England have ſweet and bleſſed comm…nion, yet are diſtinct. And though the Churches of Gala…ia were called a whole l…mp, (as is objected) yet were they thus by politicall combination, or as Dr. Downam (to mould up a Dioceſan Church) compares the firſt Church to a great lump of dough, or batch of bread, out of which particular Churches were formed into many loaves; or not rather called a lump by ſpirituall union and relation, common profeſſion, and fraternall communion, being all the ſame Countrey-men; ſo alſo the Apoſtles had Church communion, yet were not a politicall body. Kingdoms ſo may have civil communion and commerce, yet not be one Kingdom.
Objection. 6 If the Keys be given to a particular Church under the notion of the Spouſe of Chriſt, a flock of redeemed ones, &c. and then much more to the Catholick viſible Church, which is the Spouſe of Chriſt, and flock of redeemed ones primarily, and to a particular Church onelyonly ſecondarily; but the firſt is affirmed by ſuch as deny ſuch a Catholick Church: Ergo.
Anſw. 1 It is true, the notion of a flock of redeemed ones of the Body, and Spouſe of Chriſt, Kingdom, Houſe, &c. doe agree primarily to the Church, not of this, but of all ages, and ſecondarily to the Church of this age, Coloſ. 1.18. Epheſ. 5.25, 26. and 2.19.
2 The Church which is the Body of Chriſt exiſting in this age, the Keys are given to it primarily, in compariſon of particular Churches coexiſting with it, as to the chief object and end; but not to it as a politicall Body, in reſpect of actuall and immediate diſpenſation thereof: for (as we have oft ſaid) if in reſpect of Politicall diſpenſation the Keys belong firſtly to the Body of Chriſt as his Spouſe and redeemed ones; then the Church inviſible as inviſible, rather then viſible, muſt have the diſpenſation of the Keys primarily.
3 It is not ſaid, that the Keys are immediately given to a particular Church abſtractly, as a number of redeemed, but as conſociated and politically combined: And in this reſpect that may be attributed to the part, a particular Congregation of redeemed ones, which cannot be attributed to the whole. Ex. gr. ſuch a Congregation is combined, ſo is not the whole, nor can be; ſuch a Church may chooſe a Paſtor over it, but ſo cannot the whole; ſo a man may tell the particular Church, who may convene together, not ſo the whole.
Thus far (through the helpe of Chriſt) we have endevoured to clear the firſt Point propounded concerning a Catholick inſtituted Church. We come now to prove the ſecond Point, viz. That Jeſus Chriſt hath inſtituted in the Goſpel a particular Church of one Congregation, in which, and unto which the actuall and immediate diſpenſation and participation of all inſtituted Worſhip doe regularly and ordinarily belong.
And here we ſhall ſhew: 1 What ſuch a particular Church is. 2 How the diſpenſation of Church power and priviledge do belong unto it. For the firſt, we ſhall declare our ſelves in theſe Five Propoſitions.
1 It muſt be a viſible Society, for One man cannot make a Church, nor can many viſible beleevers living ſeverally, without ſociety in ſeverall Nations make One Church.
2 It's not every Society of viſible Profeſſors that doe make a Church, for then every family of ſuch Profeſſors are a Church: Then two or three (which our Brethren ſo much condemn) are a Church; and then a Society of Women profeſſing the truth may be a Politicall Church; then many members of ſeverall Churches met to hear a Sermon, or any like occaſion, make a Church; then a number of Profeſſors may conſtitute a Dioceſan Church, or any like form; for out of this block, That any number of beleevers made a Church, Dr. Downam hewed out his Dioceſan Church, and ſo made a fit ſeat for his Dioceſan Mercury. Laſtly, then particular Churches ſhould have no more any ſet Form preſcribed, then Civill government, which is as variable as humane wiſdome ſees meet, for hence a particular Church may be melted into any form or mould of civil Society; for imagine a number of profeſſing beleevers, cohabiting either in a City, Hundred, Wapentake, Shire, Province, Nation, Empire, &c. there ſhall then be ſo many forms of Churches contrary to the principles and unanſwerable arguments of our beſt Reformers, who accounted it a great abſurdity that the heavenly Kingdome of Chriſt ſhould be moulded and framed according to the weakneſſe of humane wiſdome and policy.
3 It muſt therefore be a Society combined, and that by a Covenant explicite or implicite, for it muſt be ſuch a combined Society where the whole have power over its members; now whatever power one hath over another, if it be not by way of conqueſt or naturall relation, (as the father over the childe) it is by covenant, as husband and wife, Maſter and ſervant, Prince and people; other powers are but uſurpations: it is noted as a prophane ſpeech in Bronnus, who profeſſed he knew no other rule of Juſtice, then for the greater to ſubdue the leſſe. Again, it is ſuch a Society as hath an ordinate power, to ſubject it ſelf to Officers, by electing of them to adminiſter ordinances amongſt them; but this is onelyonly a federall Society.
Again, it is ſuch a Society, to the making up of which is required ſomething more then faith, Acts 5.14. Beleevers were added to the Lord, or to his Church; ſo that they were firſt beleevers, before they were added to the Church; for there may be a number of beleevers converted at one Sermon, and immediately ſcattered into many Towns or Countreys: Now, if faith profeſſed alone, makes not a Church, but ſomewhat more is required, what can that be but foederall combination?
Laſtly, that, the diſſolution whereof doth unchurch a people, doth conſtitute a Church: but breaking the combination diſſolves the Church, whether by conſent, ſchiſm, or when God himſelf removes the candleſtick: Ergo.
4 Though a Church be ſuch by combining, and ſo ſubjecting themſelves to the power of others, yet it muſt not be herein illimited, but according to the form and mould expreſſed in the Word; for if they have this power to combine as many, and as largely as they will, then a Dioceſe, Province, Nation, may combine, and ſo put themſelves under the power of a Dioceſan, Provinciall▪ Nationall ſociety, which is unlawfull; for the Church muſt be ſuch a form as a man may ordinarily bring offences unto it, according to Matth. 18. Tell the Church; but that cannot be in a Dioceſe, much leſſe in a Province or Nation, where the Members can neither take notice of the offence, nor ordinarily ſo much as conſent unto any cenſure acted by any Officers in ſuch a Church; nay, further, if their power be unlimited, they may chooſe a Dioceſan Paſtor, one, or many to feed all, or one to rule (like Beza his Epiſcopus humanus) with ſubjection in caſe of error to the cenſure of all; nay, hence we ſee not, but they may chooſe an univerſall Paſtor, and ſo give away the power to one, if all will agree.
In a word, they onelyonly may combine into a Politicall Body, where the whole may excommunicate any part; but this cannot be in a combination of many Churches into one whole, becauſe no particular Church is capable of excommunication, for it is impoſſible to be caſt out of it ſelf, as was ſaid before.
5 A particular Church therefore muſt be ſuch a Society as is ſo combined together, that it may ordinarily enjoy Church communion, to exerciſe Church power, to be fed by her Officers, and led by them; hence Titus was to ſet Elders in every Church, and theſe Elders were ſuch as could ordinarily feed them, by preaching the Word, as well as rule and govern them.
Now that ſuch a Congregationall Church is the inſtitution of the Goſpel, appears firſt by thoſe many Scriptures that ſpeak of the Churches of one Countrey, and in ſmall compaſſe, as ſeverall Churches, not as one, as the Churches of Judea, Samaria, and Galilee, Acts 9. the Churches of Galatia, Gal. 1.1. yea, not only in one ſmall Countrey, but in Cities, or near unto them; we read of diſtinct Churches, as Corinth, though God had much people▪ there, yet it was one Congregation, 1 Cor. 14.33. and had another Church near to it, viz. Cenchrea: Alſo Rome, whom the Apoſtle ſaluting, ſends alſo ſalutations by them to Aquila and Priſcilla, with the Church in their houſhold, which ſhew they were not far from that Church of Rome. To theſe add, that Jeruſalem the firſt Church that was conſtituted by the Apoſtles, and whoſe number was the greateſt of any that we read of, yet it was but one Congregation, as is evident by Acts 1. and Chap. 2.41, 42. What is objected againſt this to prove it the Catholick Church, was anſwered before; other objections againſt this, and like examples, ſhall be conſidered in their due place, as we meet with them.
But we ſhall not need to ſay much, that a Congregation furniſhed with its Officers is a Church according to the inſtitution of the Goſpel, but there are more objections againſt the compleatneſſe thereof, which yet is proved thus, That Church which hath power of all the Keys given unto it for actuall adminiſtration within it ſelf, is a compleat Church: But ſo hath a particular Congregation, Ergo. The firſt part is evident; becauſe where all the Keys are with full power to adminiſter the ſame, there nothing is wanting; the Aſſumption is proved thus, If all thoſe Officers to whom is given the authoritative power of exerciſing the Keys, be given to a Congregation; then all the Keys are ſo given to it, but ſo it is; for ſince Apoſtles and extraordinary Officers ceaſed, there are no other Officers but Paſtors, Teachers, and Rulers, called ſometimes Biſhops, ſometimes Elders: but theſe Officers are given to ſuch a Church, as is proved Acts 14. Tit. 1.4. and is acknowledged in all Reformed Churches, who ordain ſuch Officers in particular Churches of one Congregation: Ergo.
Objection. 1 If it be ſaid, that though a Congregation hath ſuch Officers as have the power of the Keys, yet that ſuch muſt combine with others in way of co-ordination to govern in common, and ſo to be helped and compleated by them.
Anſw. We grant much help may be had by ſiſter Churches, and conſultative Presbyteries, but that which takes away the exerciſe of the Keys in point of government from the church to whom Chriſt hath given it, doth not compleat it, but take away and deſtroy the power and liberty of it; for though the Paſtor of a congregation may oft conſent, yet the major part of the Presbytery muſt carry it, whether he conſent or no, and therefore his power is ſwallowed up. Beſides, it ſeems to us a myſtery, that every Paſtor, even ſuch as have no flock, ſhould be Paſtors of the Catholick church, and yet a Paſtor ſhould not have power to rule in his own flock over which Chriſt hath made him a Biſhop, and for which flock he muſt give account unto God.
Objection. 2 It cannot have a Synod, which is one ordinance of God, therefore it is not a compleat Church.
Anſw. By this reaſon a Claſſicall church is not compleat, becauſe it cannot have a Nationall councell; nor a Nationall church, becauſe it cannot have a generall councell; if it be ſaid a claſſis have all ordinary meanes to a compleat church, we ſay the like of a congregation.
Objection. 3 Though a Town or family being caſt alone, may govern as a compleat body; yet when it ſtands in a common-wealth, as in England, it may not be ſo independent, but ſubmit to combinations: ſo here when a particular Congregation is alone, it may govern as compleat; not ſo when amongſt other Churches.
Anſw. If ſuch a Town or family have compleat power, and all civill Officers within it ſelf, it is not bound to ſubmit to ſuch combinations in a common-wealth, except it be under a ſuperior power that can command the ſame. As Abraham having a compleat government in his family was not bound to combine with the governments he came amongſt, neither did he; in prudence he joyned in a league of amity and for mutual help with Aner, &c. but not to ſubmit to their government: ſo here a Church having compleat Officers is not bound to ſubmit to ſuch combinations, except it be proved that any ſuperior power of other churches can command the ſame.
Secondly, though a family not having compleat civill government in it ſelf muſt combine where it ſtands in a commonwealth, yet never to yeeld up its family-government over wife, children and ſervants to rule them in common with other Maſters of families, no civill prudence or morall rule taught men ever ſo to practiſe; and therefore why in ſuch a caſe ſhould a Church give up the government of it ſelf to Paſtors of many Churches to rule it in common, and not rather as a Claſſis is over-awed by the Provinciall onelyonly in common things; ſo in congregations Paſtors ſhould govern their flocks, and onelyonly in things common be under a Presbytery. If it be ſaid, That the Claſſis do act in ſuch things only; for in excommunication of an offender, the offence is common to all. We anſwer, if ſo, then why ſhould not the Provinciall and Nationall Churches by this reaſon aſſume all to themſelves from the Claſſis? for the offence of one is common to all: As alſo upon this ground, why ſhould not the Claſſis admit all the members of every Congregation under them? for this alſo may concern them all.
Thirdly, here is a great difference, for civill Societies are left to civill prudence; and may give up themſelves to many forms of government: but Churches are bound to uſe and maintain ſuch order of government as Chriſt hath ſet in the church, and not to give it up to many, no more then to one▪ If teſtimonies were needfull, we might produce Zanchi, Zwinglius, Parker, Baines, and others, who are fully with us in this doctrine of a particular church; yea, Dr. Downam himſelf confeſſeth; that the moſt of the churches in the time of the Apoſtle Paul did not exceed the proportion of a populous congregation; and this confeſſion puts us in minde of a witty paſſage of his Refuter, or his Epiſtoler, who againſt the Biſhops maintains the doctrine of congregationall churches with us; with whoſe expreſſions, (for the recreation of our ſelves and the Reader) we will conclude: The Papiſt, (ſaith he) he tels us (juſt as the Organs goe at Rome) that the extent of a Biſhops juriſdiction is not limited but by the Popes appointment, his power of it ſelf indifferently reaching over all the world. Our Prelatiſts would perſwade us (to the tune of Canterbury) that neither church nor Biſhop hath his bounds determined by the Pope, nor yet by Chriſt in the Scriptures, but left to the pleaſure of Princes, to be caſt into one mould with the Civill State. Now the plain Chriſtian finding nothing but humane uncertainties in either of theſe deviſes, he contenteth himſelf with plain ſong, and knowing that Christ hath appointed Chriſtians to gather themſelves into ſuch Societies as may aſſemble themſelves together for the worſhip of God, and that unto ſuch he hath given their peculiar Paſtors; he, I ſay, in his ſimplicity calleth theſe Aſſemblies, the Churches of Chriſt, and theſe Paſtors, his Biſhops.
Thus much concerning the nature of a particular church, and that it is inſtituted in the Goſpel.
Now in the ſecond place wee are to ſhew how church government and Ordinances are given to it as to the proper ſubject of the ſame. Where we ſhall propound theſe Theſes for explication of our ſelves.
Firſt, Though Paſtourſhip conſidered as an office in relation to a people to feed them authoritatively, be one of theſe Ordinances given to a particular church: Yet Chriſt hath given it for the gathering in of his elect unto the church, and therfore wee grant ſome acts of the Miniſtery, viz. the preaching of the Word, is to be extended beyond the bounds of the church.
Secondly, Seales and other Priviledges although de jure, and remotely they belong to the catholique church, or the number of beleevers: yet de facto and nextly they belong properly to this Subject which wee ſpeake of, (as wee hope to make good.)
Thirdly, They are not ſo appropriated to ſuch congregations onelyonly as to exclude the members of thoſe congregations which are under the government of a common Presbytery or other formes of government, for wee have a brotherly eſteeme of ſuch congregations, notwithſtanding that tertium quoddam ſeparabile of government, (as Mr. Baines cals it) being a thing that commeth to a church now conſtituted, and may be abſent, the church remaining a Church.
Fourthly, although it be ſaid by ſome Divines, that as faith is the internall form of the church, ſo profeſſion of faith is the outward form, and that therefore bare profeſſion of faith makes a member of the viſible church, yet this muſt be underſtood according to the interpretations of ſome of them who ſo ſpeak, for there is a double profeſſion of faith; Perſonall, which is acted ſeverally by particular perſons; and common, which is acted conjointly in, and with a Society: The firſt makes a man of the catholick number of viſible Saints, and ſo fit matter for politicall church-ſociety: the other makes a man of the politicall church formally and compleatly; and in this latter ſenſe profeſſion of faith is the externall form of a viſible church, but not in the other.
Now that in and to this ſubject ſo profeſſing, the ſeals and other ordinances belong may, be proved thus:
Argument. 1 Firſt, the ſeals and other Church-ordinances muſt either belong to the Catholick church as ſuch, or to the particular Church: but theſe cannot belong to the Catholick in actuall diſpenſation whereof we now ſpeak: Ergo. For that Church which is uncapable of actuall diſpenſation of ſeales, cenſures, &c. is uncapable of the participation thereof in an orderly and ordinary way; But the Catholick number of viſible beleevers as Catholick, and out of particular Societies, are not capable of diſpenſing the ſame; Ergo.
The Propoſition is evident, for it cannot be ſhewed that any Church in the New Teſtament was ever capable of participating in ſeals, that was not capable of diſpenſing them, at leaſt not having a next power to elect Officers to do it.
The Aſſumption is evident from what hath been proved, that it is no politicall Body (the ſole ſubject of Church adminiſtrations) neither in the whole, nor in the parts as exiſting out of Congregations.
Argument. 2 If the members of the Catholick church be bound to joyn into particular Societies, that they may partake of ſeals, &c. then the ſeals are not to be adminiſtred immediatly to them, for then they ſhould have the end without the means.
But they are bound to joyn in ſuch Societies for that end, for otherwiſe there is no neceſſity of erecting any particular Churches in the world; and ſo all the glory of Chriſt in this reſpect ſhould be laid in the duſt, and theſe particular temples deſtroyed, and thus a door of liberty is opened to many to live looſely without the care and watch, and communion of any particular Church in the world.
Argument. 3 If the ſeals are to be adminiſtred immediately to beleevers, or profeſſing beleevers as ſuch, then they may be adminiſtred privately to any one where-ever he be found; but that were very irregular and againſt the common doctrine of Proteſtant Divines, who give large teſtimony againſt private Baptiſm, or of the Lords-ſupper, neither doe we ſee any weight in the arguments of the Papiſts or Anabaptiſts alledged for the contrary.
Argument. 4 Leſt we ſeem to ſtand alone in this controverſies, let the arguments produced by Didoclavius, and him that writes concerning Perth Aſſembly againſt private Baptiſms, be conſidered, and it will be found that moſt of them doe ſtrongly conclude againſt adminiſtration thereof to any but Church-members.
Argument. 5 The learned Author Mr. Ball in this his diſpute againſt our Concluſion: yet in his Diſcourſe let fall ſundry things that confirm it;Page 22. as when he deſcribes the Catholick Church to be the Society of men profeſſing the faith of Chriſt, divided into many particular Churches. Whence we argue, if the Catholick church exiſteth onelyonly in theſe particular Churches, the ſeales muſt onelyonly be given to them and the members thereof; alſo,Page 68. That Baptiſm is a ſolemn admiſſion into the Church of Chriſt, and muſt of neceſſity be adminiſtred in a particular Society: Whence three things will follow; Firſt, that Baptiſm ſometimes adminiſtred privately by the Apoſtles is not an ordinary pattern. Secondly, that Baptiſm is not to be adminiſtred to beleevers (as ſuch) immediatly, if of neceſſity it muſt be adminiſtred in a particular Society. Thirdly, joyning to ſome particular Society being an Ordinance of God of ſo great concernment; & if Baptiſm muſt be adminiſtred in it, why ought not, why may not ſuch joyn to that Society? (at leaſt as members for a time.) Alſo when he ſaith divers times, That men are made members of the Church by Baptiſm, (ſpeaking of ſuch Churches as chooſe Officers over them;) yea, that the Apoſtles conſtituted Chrches by Baptiſm, and the like, (which we ſhall note in the anſwer;) Now what doe theſe argue but a yeelding of the cauſe? for if the Apoſtles made members, and conſtituted Churches by Baptiſm, this was onelyonly ſacramentally, and if ſo, then of neceſſity they muſt be really members of ſuch Churches before Baptiſm.
Thus we have run through this large field of the Catholick and particular Church, which hath detained us longer then we intended; yet, to prevent miſtakes from any thing that have been ſaid concerning the union, communion, and combination of the Churches; we ſhall add theſe two things.
1 We obſerve that the Scripture ſpeaks of the Church, ſometimes as One body, ſometimes as many, and therefore called Churches; and hence our care is to preſerve not onelyonly the diſtinction of Churches, (as many by particular combinations) but alſo their unity, as being one by ſpirituall relation.
2 Aſſociation of divers particular Churches we hold needfull, as well as the combination of members into one; yet ſo as there be no ſchiſm of one from another, nor uſurpation of one over another, that either one ſhould deprive the reſt of peace by ſchiſm; or many ſhould deprive any one of its power by uſurpation; hence a fraternall conſociation we acknowledge; conſociation we ſay, for mutuall counſell and helpe, to prevent or remove ſinne and ſchiſm; yet fraternall onelyonly, to preſerve each others power; conſociation of Churches we would have cumulative, (not in words, but in deed) to ſtrengthen the power of particular Churches, not privative, to take away any power which they had from the gift of Chriſt before.
For as on the one ſide it may ſeem ſtrange that One Church offending ſhould have no means of cure by the conceived power of many; ſo on the other ſide the danger may appear as great, and frequently falls out, that when many Churches are ſcandalous, one innocent Church may be hurt by the uſurpation of all. And hence we ſee not, but that fraternall conſociation is the beſt medicine to heal the wounds of both.
We utterly diſlike ſuch Independency as that which is maintained by contempt, or careleſſe neglect of ſiſter Churches; Faciunt favos & veſpae, Tertul. lib. 4. Com. Mar.faciunt Eccleſias & Marcionitae, ſaith Tertullian.
We utterly diſlike ſuch dependency of Churches upon others, as is built upon uſurpations and ſpoils of particular Churches.
Having thus largely digreſſed for the clearing of the foundation of the diſpute in hand, we deſire to be excuſed if we be the more brief in our anſwers to particulars, which now we ſhall attend unto as they lye in order.