Christian Concord, Part 1
More particularly
1. Whereas in the first General Proposition we profess, not to addict our selves to parties, but to practice unanimously those known truths that the sober and godly of each Party are agreed in.] We mean only those Parties who acknowledge a Discipline, and are so [sober] as to disclaim those Principles which are utterly inconsistent with the healing of our breaches, and the Peace and Union of the Churches. Particularly we mean the Presbyterians, Independants, and Episcopall who are Moderate and Judicious. We mean not any Seekers that disclaim Discipline; nor Papists; nor Popish Episcopall Divines, who will have all the world come to the Romish Polity, or else they must have no peace. But it is only the Protestant Episcopall Divines, whose principles I take to be consistent with our Propositions: And if there be any other Party so sober as to depart no further from the waies of Peace, it is such that we mean. But if it had been our intent to have laid by all that any Party will controvert, we should have agreed on nothing.
2. Where in the same Proposition we say [at present only to practice] we intend not that every man of us is tied from practising any thing but what is so agreed on: But that we do Agree in and tye our selves [only] to so much; but may notwithstanding privately differ in our practice, so far as we have not restrained our selves in this Agreement, and are not restrained by Gods Word.
3. The eighth Proposition leaves many weighty Cases undetermined about excluding such haynous offendors, whose sinne is either notorious, or generally suspected, and yet for want of accusers and prosecutors are never brought to Justice? and also about persons who are under a long triall, &c. But we take these cases to be such as must be usually determined according to circumstances upon knowledge of the particular case: and therefore fittest to be determined at our Meetings, when it shall fall out: and not to trouble and puzzle our selves with such Cases before they fall; seeing we cannot well make any agreement before hand (except very generall) but what will be found defective in the application. Only thus much I should advise, that if it be known that any person is guilty of a capitall crime (as for example of Adultery) though we be not bound alway to accuse them openly, or to bring them to such a confession or self-acousation as may hazzard their lives; yet 1. The Pastor may suspend them and in some cases require the people to avoid them, when the fact is publiquely known (though the party not prosecuted;) and give but a generall intimation of the fault, as known already; though perhaps the Evidence will not hold in Law. (As I have known persons that openly confess Adultery at home, but denying it before the Judge, come off as if they were innocent; and yet confess it again when they come home.) And I should think that such persons should not be re-admitted to Communion, till they do manifest publique serious penitence in the Congregation: but only in Generall termes (seeing they are not bound to accuse themselves, so as to expose their lives to danger:) As thus [I confess before God and this Congregation that I am a haynous sinner, and unworthy of Communion with the Church: the particulars I need not express, seeing the Congregation may easily know my meaning. &c.] Whether it be meet that Ecclesiasticall censure, or the Magistrates censure go first, we do not go about to determine.
4. Concerning the tenth Proposition (which will be most questioned) I desire it may be observed: 1. That we meddle not with the term [Excommunication.] 2. And therefore they that say we meddle with the Thing, must define Excommunication, and shew that the work that we here agree on doth reach that definition. 3. Which if they do, then they will make Excommunication to be no more then this application of Christs doctrine to a particular person and case, which every Minister of the Gospel may perform: For we mention in our Agreement no more. 4. I am sure that delivering up to Satan, and the great Anathematizing Excommunication, is commonly taken to go much further and contain more, then we here conclude on. 5. Yet observe, that we here suppose the fact and faultiness proved beyond doubt: and when we speak of Ministers Applicatory requiring the Avoidance of such persons; if any think we wrongfully authorize him to do this without the Presbytery, Congregation, or Bishop; remember that we speak not here of examining Witnesses, much less giving them their Oathes, or the like preparation for discovery of the guilt. How farre people or any others may have a hand in this we do not determine. 6. Nor do we determine whether it must needs be more Ministers then one, that must agree in this, before the publique Application: yet afterward, we have limited our selves in this for Unity, Peace, and avoiding of rash applications. Though for my own part, I am very confident that it is their Errour, whoever they be, that deny the power of Excommunication it self to a single Pastor, at least, where he is the sole Overseer of that particular Church.
The Objections against this tenth Proposition, I will answer anon.
5. The 11th Proposition for Suspension, contains its own sufficient proof, as those that will well observe it, may discern.
6. Concerning the 12th Prop. I must tell you, that we cannot agree to the loose practice of those Ministers and Churches, who think it enough to keep people from the Sacrament, and never proceed further with them in way of Discipline: but let 500. or a 1000. live in a Parish without any more then such a Suspension: whenas Suspension is but in order to their Tryall, or their Reformation or Rejection thereupon. Yea they determin not, nor is it known, whether all these persons are members of their Churches, or not? Many Reasons we have against this course, besides what are mentioned in the Propositions.
7. We take it that the 15th Proposition containeth the true mean, between the Usurped Power of some Pastors, to binde the People by a known erring sentence, to go against Gods Word; and the Usurped Power which many pretend to, of Ruling the Church by their Major Vote. But how far the Congregation should first have Cognisance of the matter, or be heard in the debate; or how far the Ministers must endeavour their consent, or suspend their own actions, for want of their consent, we do not determin. And therefore all moderate Presbyterians and Independents may well agree with us in this; because its no Power that we deny the Pastors, but a Power of binding men to go against Gods word; and it is not any of their Liberty that we deny the People, but only Ruling Ministeriall Authority, which God never gave them, we must needs deny them.
8. Concerning the 17th Proposition (which many will stumble at) I desire you to observe these things.
1. That as we avoid the Titles of Lay-Elders and Preaching-Elders, so we do purposely avoid the determination of that Controversie, Whether Christ hath appointed Ecclesiasticall Elders, distinct in Office from Teaching-Elders, having no Authority to Preach, Baptize or Administer the Lords Supper, though they have Gifts? I confess my own private opinion is, that neither Scripture nor Antiquity did know any such Church-Officers: But as I so much reverence and value the contrary minded, as not to expect that my Judgment should stand in any competition with theirs, or in the least to sway any man to my opinion from theirs (though upon the concurrent Judgment of so many Learned men that are of the same opinion with me, I might reasonably expect, that other mens reputation should create no prejudice;) so it is nothing to my Brethren, nor the sense of our Agreement, what my private opinion is. We are not so unconscionably self-conceited or divisive, as to think we must or may reject all those from our Communion, that differ in this Point from us: or that it is a matter of so great moment, that may hinder our fraternall and peaceable Association.
2. We have therefore agreed of the work of Assisting-Elders, and leave the discussion of their further Authority, and distinction of their Office from Teaching-Elders, to others.
3. And that each party may well agree to this Proposition, without forsaking their Principles, is beyond doubt. For the Presbyterians and the Congregationall party, they both are for such Elders, as shall Rule, and not administer Sacraments; and though some of one sort, say, they may preach, 1. They say not that they must preach where the Teaching-Elders are well and present; 2. And perhaps it is because they would allow another gifted member to do the like. And for the Episcopall Divines, their practice and their writings prove what I say: For they have ever since the Reformation allowed great numbers of Readers in England, of far lower abilities then we express in our Propositions; such as never preached, and some that were sain to labour for their livings in secular employments, as this Countrey knows. And though they allowed them to Baptise and administer the Lords Supper, yet they never affirmed that they must do it, when there was an abler Minister of the same Church to do it. And in their writings they do maintain the lawfullness of placing such Reading Ministers in Chappels or Parish Churches under able Pastors. So that its past doubt, that we are all agreed, that there may be such Officers, or Elders chosen to do the work that is here expressed. And if any think it a matter of so great necessity, that we agree in our belief of these Elders further Power, as that we must not Associate with those that agree nor, I would intreat him to tell me, why it is not in our Creed? or why it never was in the Creed of any Church? or whether no Church had ever a sufficient Creed, so large as to contain all Points of absolute necessity to salvation, or without which, we must avoid mens society? or whether he dare yet put it in his Creed among fundamentals, or Points of such necessity [I Believe that Lay or meer-Ruling Elders are, or are not Jure divino?] Or whether he accuse not the Scripture it self of insufficiency, for speaking so darkly of fundamentals themselves, as that the most Godly and Learned are not able to understand it? And whether he lay not a (ground of separation from multitudes of eminent Learning and Piety, yea from whole Churches, which Christ himself owneth, and will not allow us to separate from?
4. And observe further, that the Elders that we here speak of, are only Assistants to able Preachers: we do not say, that such may be allowed of alone, where there is no other to preach (though what might be done in case of necessity, I will not determin.) But if a great Church have one or two able men to Preach publikely, and will moreover appoint some sober, godly, orthodox men to help them in Private oversight, Instruction, admonition and reproof; and if one call these Lay-Elders or Ruling-Elders, and another take them to be inferior Ministers, as some sober Chappell Readers were, I would not quarrell about the notions or Titles while we agree about the work to be done. Nor would I dare to reproach them with the name of Dumbe doggs on one side, or Lay-Eldeers (as dumbe) on the other.
5. I thought meet also to tell you thus much of my own opinion; that it seems to me the best way, (at our first ordering of our Churches according to these Propositions) to take in none but Schoolmasters, Physicians, or other Learned men to be Elders (where such are to be had that are meet:) and for those of our Abler hearers that are unlearned, that it will be fittest first to try them in the Office of Deacons: both because the Office of Deacons is most unquestionable to all sorts and parties; and so it will avoid the reproaches of dissenters: and because the Apostles made Deacons before they ordained any fixed Elders of particular Churches; and they made abler men Deacons then any of us are; and therefore none may think the Office to be below him; and because it is orderly to ascend by degrees: and the Apostles words 1 Tim. 4. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. together with the constant expressions and practice of Antiquity, do shew that this is a degree to the Eldership; and that Deacons have more power about Word and Sacraments, then is commonly allowed to meer-Ruling Elders; and therefore may be more helpfull to us; yea that they joyned with the Presbyters in Consistory, is the common opinion. And the danger of misguiding and dividing our Congregations by men of weak Judgments, is so great; that I think it much fitter to try them first in an Office of known Inferiority (for all confess that Deacons should be Guided by the Elders,) wherein they may be as serviceable to the Church; then to begin them in an Office of meer Power, wherein they will think their Votes to be of equall Authority with the most Judicious Teachers, and so may breed contentions, or foment Errors or factions in the Church; and yet be less capable of doing service, then the Deacons are (See Mr Noyes Temple Measured, of the Office of Deacons and Elders.) This course therefore I have propounded to my Brethren of this Association; and they think as I do: But for other Brethren that Joyn with us some living neer 30 miles from us, (so that we have more seldome opportunities to meet,) we could not yet propound it to them. If any shall refuse the Office of Deacons, as too mean for them, they shall thereby discover that Pride that will prove them unfit to be either Elders or Deacons; and you will have cause to thank God, that thereby a mischief to the Church is prevented, which might have followed, if such unhumbled men had crept into Authority.
6. But the great Objection against this Proposition will be (by some) That we allow none to be Elders but those that are ordained, and so overthrow meer-Ruling Elders. To which I answer: 1. These Brethren must consider, that we are forced for unity to speak indistinctly of all that are meer Assisting Elders and do not actually preach and administer Sacraments, whether they take themselves to have Authority to do more (as other Ministers) or not: now they will confess that such inferior or Assisting Ministers must be Ordained: and we cannot now distinguish. 2. I never could learn that it is the Judgment of Presbyterians or Congregationall men, that it is unlawfull to Ordain meer-Ruling Elders. And if they may do it why should they not yield to it for peace, though they think not that they must do it? 3. I confess I know of no Elders mentioned in Scribture, without Ordination; and do despair of ever seeing it proved that the Apostles did appoint two sorts of Elders, one Ordained and the other not Ordained. The contrary I doubt not to prove by sufficient Induction. 4. Deacons must be Ordained that are inferior to Elders; why then should not Elders be Ordained? 5. Let our Brethren take heed lest they loose all their hold of that shew they have in Scripture for meer-Ruling Elders (I mean quoad potestatem, not quoad exercitium ordinarium,) if they once disclaim all those as no such Ruling Elders, who were Ordained. It seems then that when the Apostles Ordained Elders in every Church, and when Titus was left to Ordain Elders in every City, it was no meer-Ruling Elders that they Ordained, or were appointed to Ordain! 6. I confess I am loath (without more Reasons then I yet know) to give the Intruders of the Ministry so much encouragement, as to tell them, men may ordinarily be Ruling Elders without Ordination? For doubtless a man may much more Preach up and down in publike occasionally without Ordination: I mean, more may be said for it. Even some of the most Learned Episcopall Divines think, that by the Bishops allowance private men may preach, and that it belongs more to the Pastor to take care what Doctrine is taught his people, then that himself be the Teacher. And most allow the preaching of Probationers. And if you add to this that there is no need of Ordination to the Office of Church-Governing, I know partly what will follow.
7. Yet a greater doubt is behind, and that is, How we would have these men Ordained? I answer, 1. We have not determined of that: We purposely avoid the point of Ordination; because the distance between the Episcopall Divines and others is well known in that point: and we resolve not to put such controverted Points into our Agreement; lest thereby we necessarily exclude the dissenters. Our business is not now (as is said) to Reconcile differences in judgment: much less to divide from those that differ from us: but to practice unanimously so much as we are agreed in. 2. We leave therefore every man in this to his own Judgment. Those that are for Bishops, may be Ordained by them with a Presbytery, if they can obtain it. Those that are against them, may be Ordained by the Associated Pastors of that Association, the President performing the Action. Those that fear danger from the Law of the Land, if they Ordain without Authority, may send men to some neighbour County that hath Authority. Those that will not use the Name of Ordination, may yet use the Thing: which is nothing but the solemne Designation or Appointment of a fit Person to the Office, by Competent men: which is most fitly accompanied with Prayer and Imposition of hands, where they may be had. 3, To avoid some of these contests, if Deacons only be first Ordained, as I before mentioned, it will prevent the quarrels that some may else be drawn to by difference of Judgment. For many moderate Episcopall men will allow Presbyters to Ordain Deacons, that will not allow them to Ordain Presbyters. As for those that will say, These are no true Officers, nor to be acknowledged (whether Deacons or Presbyters) who were not Ordained by a Bishop; and thereupon will take occasion for a schisme in our Congregations; I shall speak more fully to their satisfaction anon.
9. Though I think few will question the Lawfullness of what is in the 18th Proposition, yet I suppose many will question the Conveniency of it: Some will say, It looks like Independency to call our People to such Professions, which are reall Covenants. Some will say, We shall occasion Divisions in our Congregations, upon our Peoples scrupling and refusing it. But I doubt some will have a worse Objection in their mindes; That they shall hereby diminish their Congregations, or lose the Peoples affections, and thereby lose part of their Maintenance. To this point, I shall first premise some explication of our meaning, and then give you those Reasons of our Resolution herein, which were propounded and debated at our meetings.
1. Understand that we are all agreed among our selves, that our present Parishes (I mean not all in England, but all ours that joyned in these debates) are true particular organized Churches of Christ: and therefore that we require not this Profession as a Church-making Covenant, but for Reformation of those that are Churches already; and as a means for our more facile and successfull exercise of some Discipline and Government of our Congregations.
2. Yet we thought not meet to put these our Principles down in our Agreements: but retain them as our own private thoughts: because being no Fundamentals, nor neer the Foundation, we can agree with those that differ from us in this point of Judgment, so they agree in practice: And therefore we have left it so open, that any man may subscribe to it, who yet thinketh that we are no true Churches, for want of a Church-Covenant, or for want of a solemn Call of our Ministers; sobeit these persons, will but acknowledge us to be Churches and Ministers, after our publike Profession, Consent and Association; though they will not acknowledge it before.
3. We have not tyed our selves or any Brother, to the use of any one particular signe to be required of the People in making this Profession? Whether by subscribing their Names, or lifting up the hand, or speaking their Consent. For we doubt not but this is an Indifferent thing; That which we require is some Expression of Assent and Consent: but how to express it, we leave to the prudence of particular Pastors who are to guide their own Congregations. For my part I intend to have the Names of all the Members in a Church-Book (the Adult in one Colume and the Infants in another) and that the Members shall either write their own Names in it, or consent that I write them, this Profession being prefixed to be subscribed.
4. We have left it undetermined, Whether the Consent shall be expressed particularly man by man, or many together? and whether they shall repeat each man themselves the words of the Profession, or only Consent to it on the Ministers recitall? We judge that lesser Congregations may be more punctually dealt with then great ones can be: But yet I should advise in the greatest, that it be not so hudled up as to elude the Intent and frustrate all: and therefore that some time be taken in doing it; some families coming in one day, and some another. And for those that we have sufficient cause to suspect of gross Ignorance, we have agreed that the Officers first try their Knowledge in private (because many cannot express themselves openly,) and when they are satisfied in it, that we take the Profession of their Consent only in publike; acquainting the Congregation of our satisfaction; who are bound to acquiesce so far in the judgment of their Pastors, when themselves hear the person profess his Consent though he do not express (himself) the Articles that he consenteth to.
2. Our Reasons debated on for this Practice, were thus given in:
Conclus. We have Reason to require (as things now stand) a more express signification of our Peoples Consent to our Ministry and Ministeriall Actions, and their Membership of their particular Churches.
Reason 1. We have now by reason of the Licentiousness and Apostasie of the times, more reason to question concerning many of our Members, whether their hearing signifie their Consent, 1. Because many profess the contrary. 2. We know some Infidels and others little better, that come to Church sometimes, meerly to avoid the censure of the people, or to please their ears (and this they have acknowledged.) 3. Multitudes in many Parishes will not receive the Lords Supper with us.
Reason 2. The Liberty given in these times hath taken away some other bonds, which formerly were laid on men, to constrain them to acknowledge and submit to the Ministry and Ordinances: and to obey the Church-government that was then in force. We are therefore necessitated to make use of the bond of their own Consent, and to require that it be more express, then formerly it hath been.
Reas. 3. Ministers that were studious of the good of the Flock, did (very many of them) heretofore discern the need of an express consent, that they might have more certainty of the extent of their Charge then the Bounds of a Parish can give them. Only they (truly) maintained that our Churches were true Churches, without a more express Consent then we then had; and that it tended but to the Wellbeing of a Church, and not to the Being, that the Consent be more express then formerly: But now the Impediments of those times are so farre removed, as that we have full liberty to choose what way of expressing our Consent we shall judge best; it beseems us to choose the most clear, full and satisfactory.
Reas. 4. Multitudes will be uncapable of those publique, personall admonitions, which are in severall cases our duties, and we have agreed to perform, except they first know that we resolve on this course and in the generall do consent to it. They will take it for an unsufferable injury, to be so dealt with, meerly because they live in our Parishes, when they never consented to such a course. Nay it seems to me, that (at least as things now stand) we cannot without their express Consent effectually use any further Discipline with them as Church-members, then meerly to keep them from the Lords Supper, which is now so common, that it seems to them as no disgrace or penalty. As long as they are continued as Members of our Churches, and have their children baptized, and themselves joyn with us in Gods solemn Praises and all other Ordinances, and have freedom from all publique particular Reproofs and Censures, being never noted by the Minister to be avoided, they little care for forbearing the Sacrament; we see thousands will keep away themselves without our exclusion. If any can (now) exercise any more Discipline without their peoples known fore-consent, let the practice of the Congregations in England witness. If it can be done, Why is it not? They will refuse to come near us, answer us, or regard any thing we say or do.
Reas. 5. Let those that better know the Law of the Land consider, whether it be not necessary to our own peace to free us from Lawsuits, that we have first the peoples express Consent? and whether they may have no Action against a Minister else for naming any man in the Congregation by Reproof, and pronouncing him a person to be avoided? and so no Discipline will be exercised.
Reas. 6. We have found by long and sad experience, that the people understand not generally the nature of Implicit Professions, and do indeed use them often as no Professions at all; and that their meer Implicit Covenanting with God, and obscure Professions of Faith, not understood, and dark worshippings of God, have tended much to destroy the life and being of Christianity, with many that content themselves with the name; and that nothing is more easie, then to turn all Professions, Engagements and Acts of Worship, into meer formall shews, and deny the power, and destroy it thereby: Why then should we resolvedly choose that way, that hath produced such evils, and is like to continue them?
Reas. 7. It is evident that the end of a publique Profession and Engagement is a satisfactory discovery of mens mindes, and a firmer obliging them to God and their Superiours, and to each other: that so their duties, as to all these, may be the surelier performed; and they may more easily be convinced of their sin in case of non-performance. Now who knoweth not that the more express and solemn such Professions and Engagements be, the fitter they are for the attainment of their ends? And that which is best fitted to the end, is the best means.
Reas. 8. It is agreeable to the excellent nature of the Truths and Duties of Christianity, and the great importance of such businesses (as to the Church and the souls of men) to be as open and full as is possible in the owning and acknowledging them. Truth suffers most by being obscured; and Duty, by being but superficially, ignorantly and reservedly owned and performed: And how much must the Church and mens souls hereby suffer! God loves the most open Confessions.
Reas. 9. Many of the Separation do (on this ground especially) deny that our Parishes are true Churches, because they are not tied by Covenant or any express Consent into a Body Politick. On the same ground also they deny our Pastors to be true Ministers, because they have not the express Call or Consent of the people. Though I doubt not but this is their Errour, yet the satisfying of so many exceptions Brethren, and the removing of that which may still occasion their offence and hurt, and the continuance of Separation and the Churches divisions, is surely a work well worth our performing, and which we should endeavour as far as possibly we may.
Reas. 10. The same want of express Consent is an offence to our Brethren of the Congregationall way, and hindreth our closure with them. And though some think that this is rather a disswasive, and that we should the rather shun it, lest we should seem to approve of their Church making Covenant, and so to recede from our former principles, yet I think this conclusion is much contrary to the Scripture, and the practice of Paul, in Circumcising Timothy, in Preaching privately to them of reputation, Gal. 2. 2. and becoming all things to all men; a Jew to the Jews, and a Greek to the Greeks. The love of our Brethren, and of the Churches Unity and Peace, should make godly men condescend in a greater matter then this, as long as we all acknowledge it a thing lawfull.
Reas. 11. We require nothing but what hath been the Ancient practice of the Church: that the People were used Expresly to Consent to their Chosen appointed Teachers, if not to Choose them, (yea even the Bishops themselves;) (yea that they might Reject unworthy Bishops when established,) and that Discipline was exercised before them, expresly and more rigorously then we pretend to, is well known to all that are acquainted with Antiquity. See for one Cyprian Epist. 68. p. 200, 201, 202. (Edit. Goulartij:) and see more in Blondell. de Jure plebis in Regim. Eccles. And for solemn profession of the Faith, it hath been of long and constant use, as in all parts of the Christian world, so in our own Congregations in England, where the People were every Lords day to Profess their Faith, by standing up at the Recitall of the Creed. And the Sacraments are Seals of the Covenant: and therefore all that receive the Sacraments must enter or renew their Covenant.
Reas. 12. Those (moderate men) that are most against Church-Covenantings, speak only against the Necessity of them; but the Lawfullness they deny not, no nor the Convenience in case of liberty; no nor the Necessity of the Thing, but only of the Circumstantials, and manner of expression, and ends by some affixed. They require that the People expresly Consent to the Choice of their Minister, and that they be examined before the Sacrament of their knowledge in the Fundamentals. This differs from what we propound, but in circumstances. And I should think it more seasonable and convenient, to be satisfied of our Peoples spirituall sufficiency, and capacity for Church-Communion, at our first Reformation of a disordered Church, or in a well-ordered Church, at their first transition out of the state of Imperfect Infant Members, and admission into the number of Adult members, (and after this, to suppose their Right good to Communion and Church priviledges, till it be on sufficient grounds disproved, excepted against or questioned by any,) then to try them as only for admission to the Lords Supper, suffering them to live quietly in the Reputation of Members, so they will not come to the Table of the Lord.
These are the Reasons, for substance, that were given in; on consideration whereof we resolved on this Practice: which I have therefore repeated, that others may consider of them, who else might through misunderstanding us, question our way.
Lastly, Let me add this: Our first Conclusion was only, of the Necessity (in these times) of the Peoples acknowledging us to be their Pastors, without which 1. We cannot know our Charge. 2. Nor our Duty. 3. Nor therefore will discharge our Duty. 4. And especially cannot exercise any considerable Discipline. But for the Publike Profession and Covenant with God, we take in it, only as very fit to go along with the former; that men might be engaged to God before they be engaged to their Overseers; and might first be clearly discovered Members of the Universall Church, before they profess themselves Members of a particular Church.
We did at the same time answer two great Objections. 1. Of those that say, The Apostles required no such express Consent.
Ans. 1. That Negative cannot be proved, though it were not written that they required it. 2. The Christians of those times gave a most full expression of their Consent to their particular Ministers, and to be Members of their particular Churches.
1. In that before the Church the Apostles appointed them Elders in every Church, whom they openly Accepted and Reverenced.
2. For Deacons, they bid the Church choose seven men whom they might Ordain.
3. The People voluntarily (when no Magistrate did constrain them) did continue in the Apostles Doctrine and Fellowship, and breaking of Bread and Prayer, and submitted to their Pastors as those that were over them and Governed them in the Lord: and without the Peoples express Consent, none could then have Ruled them, by meer Ecclesiasticall Rule.
4. Remember that all this was done in times of persecution, when it hazarded their lives to acknowledge the Ministry, and to frequent Church Assemblies; which made the Apostle Heb. 10. 25. exhort them not to forsake the Assembling of themselves together, as some (for fear) did. Now this is a fuller signification of Consent to the Ministry and to Church membership, then dwelling in a Parish is; or the meeting to hear a Sermon is, when either Law or Custom brings them, and they discover by many wayes, that they either know not what a Church is, or what the Ministers Power is, or submit not, and Consent not to it. Further peruse the Scriptures that we have cited in the Profession.
5. Remember yet, that I maintain that God doth in Scripture require only [Consent signified;] but hath not tied us to this or that particular signe for [signifying it:] but having given us generall Rules that all things be done to Edification, Decently, &c. he hath left it to humane Prudence to determin of the particular signe (whether voice, subscription, &c.) according to these Rules: And herein, the Pastors are to consult with their People about the Convenience; but the People to obey the determination of their Guides. So that if the Apostles had required no other signe of Consent but Actuall Meeting, yet it followeth not that therefore we must require no more.
2. The other great Objection was from the many Inconveniences that may follow; in that it will seem so new and strange to our People. To which I answer: Practice but the Rules which we have agreed on in the manner of doing it, and all the Inconveniences will be avoided, except those that must needs be expected by all that will be faithfull in the Ministry, and will not do the work of the Lord deceitfully.
Yet observe that we have left those Brethren at Liberty to neglect this, who will manifest to the Associated Ministers, that they can better order their Congregations and exercise Discipline, without requiring this express Consent, then with it. Also that we resolve not that those must do it immediatly, whose People are not yet ready or capable, either through prejudice, ignorance or other impediments. Ignatius Ep. ad Polycarp. bids, hold frequent Assemblies, and enquire after all by Name: servants and maids, &c. must not be disclaimed.
10. Concerning the 20th Proposition about Constant Meetings, and the Rules of Association agreed on therein; observe that we meddle not with that great Question, Whether the Ministers of one Church are to exercise a proper Government over another? But laying aside the Question of Classicall Regiment, we only determin of what all neighbour Ministers and Churches are bound to, either in common duty to one another as Christians (as to give a Reason of our Hope to those that ask it: to satisfie an offended Brother, to Love one another, &c.) or else as Ministers; and especially for the Unity and Peace of the Churches; which every man ought to use his utmost skill, industry and power, to attain and maintain.
So much for the explication of the Propositions.