The Bloody Tenant Washed and Made White in the Blood of the Lamb, Part 2 · Chapter 26
TO CHAP. XXVI.
IN this Chapter the Examiner falleth upon the ſecond part of diſcourſe, about Engliſh Preachers, to wit, about the lawfulneſſe of hearing of them, and though he ſaid before in the former chapter, he would not engage himſelfe in this Controverſie: yet here he giveth a double Argument againſt it.
His firſt Argument is, from my teſtimony, which how much he weighteth, is better knowne to himſelfe then to me.
Mr. Cotton (ſaith he) himſelfe maintaineth, that the diſpenſing of the word in a Church-ſtate, is Chriſts feeding of his flock, Cant. 1.8. Chriſts kiſſing of his Spouſe, Cant. 1.2. Chriſts embracing of his Spouſe in the marriage bed, Cant. 1.16. Chriſts nurſing of his Children at his wives breaſts, Cant. 4. And is there no communion between the Shepheard and his ſheep? the Husband and the wife in chaſte kiſſes and embraces? the Mother and the child at the breaſts?
Anſwer. 1. The diſpenſing of the word in a Church-State (that is by Church-Officers to Church-members, united together in Church-State) it is indeed an expreſſion of familiar and deare Communion between Chriſt and his Church, as between the husband and his ſpouſe, between the nurſing mother and the child, and between the ſhepheard and his flock: But ſuppoſe Pagans and Indians ſhould ordinarily frequent our Church Aſſemblies (as they are wont to doe in hearing the word) doth he think, I would maintaine, that there is the like ſpirituall and familiar Communion between Chriſt, and them, as between Chriſt, and his Church?
Anſwer, 2. Beſides, the queſtion is not what communion Chriſt may have with a ſtranger in the hearing of the word in the Aſſembly of his Church: but what communion there is between the Officer of the Church, who preacheth the word and the ſtranger. Chriſt out of his ſoveraigne grace may diſpenſe himſelfe to the ſtranger in what relation he pleaſeth; hee may make the word both as ſpirituall ſeed, and as food to him, and ſo may declare himſelf both a father, and a Paſtor, and husband, and a mother to him; and yet no ſuch Church-relation paſſe between the Church-Officer, and the ſtranger.
A…ſwer. 3. Suppoſe there did grow ſome ſpirituall relation between the Church-Officer, and the ſtranger, (as God might ſo bleſſe his Miniſtery, as to make him a ſpirituall Father, and feeder to the ſtranger:) yet this Relation is not between the Preacher and the ſtranger in reſpect of his Office, but in reſpect of his gif, as I declared above.
The reaſon of the difference is evident:
1. Church-relation, between a Church-Officer, and Churchmember, is conſtant, and permanent, and not to be diſſolved, but by conſent of the Church: but this relation between the Preacher and ſtranger is tranſient, and the intercourſe of the exerciſe of their relation eaſily changeable, at the diſcretion of the ſtranger, without the conſent, or cognizance of the Church.
2. Church relation between an Officer and a member, carrieth on the duties of Church-worke between them unto full accompliſhment. If any offence grow between an Officer, and a member, the one hath power to deale with the other in a Church-way unto a perfect healing: but there is not the like power or liberty, either in preacher, or ſtranger, ſo to proceed one with another, in caſe of any ſuch offence.
The Examiners ſecond Argument is taken alſo from mine own confeſſion, as if there were no waighty Argument to be found in this caſe, but what might be gathered up from the weakneſſe, or unwarineſſe of my expreſſions. But thankes be to God, that hath ſo guided my words, that no ſuch advantage can juſtly be taken from them, as to countenance ſo ungodly an error.
Mr. Cotton (ſaith he) confeſſeth, that the fellowſhip in the Goſpel, (Phil. 1.5.) is a fellowſhip or Communion in the Apoſtles doctrine, Community, breaking of bread, and prayer, in which the firſt Church continued, Acts 2.46. All which overthroweth the doctrine of lawfull participation of the word and prayer in a Church-ſtate, where it is not lawfull to communicate, in the breaking of bread, or ſeales.
Anſw. If this be all the Concluſion that he ſtriveth for, that participation of the word and prayer, is not lawfull in a Churcheſtate, where it is not lawfull to communicate in the ſeales, I ſhall never contend with him about it. I ſhould never thinke it lawfull there to enter into a Church-eſtate, where I thought it lawfull onelyonly to partake in hearing, and prayer, and not in the ſeales alſo. But this is that I deny, A man to participate in a Church-eſtate, where he partaketh onelyonly in hearing and prayer, before and after Sermon; and joyneth not with them, neither in their Covenant, nor in the ſeales of the Covenant.