A Defense of Sundry Positions of the Congregational Way, Position 6 – Position 8
POSITION VI.
The form of a Church, is the gathering together of theſe viſible Saints, and combining and uniting them into one body by the form of a holy Covenant, Deut. 29 1.10, 11, 12. by which is plainly ſhewed, that a company of people become. Gods people, that is, a Church, by entring into Covenant with God. If it be ſaid, they were a Church before; yet that was when the Church of the lewes was conſtituted in Abrahams Family by Covenant.
You intend not that this Covenant doth make a true Church, Anſwer. but a pure Congregationall Church, as it is refined according to the platform of the Goſpel.
We intend that the combination of Saints into one body by ſome kinde of Covenant, either expreſſe or implicite, Reply. or by ſome kinde of ſpeciall bond (as Dr. Ames calls it) doth make a true Church. The ſeed of Jacob, and the Sechemites could not make a Church together, Gen. 34.15, 16. but by becoming one, and they could not become one, but by coming into the ſame Covenant, therefore they ſay (though deceitfully, for they never meant it; yet therein they ſhew how ſuch a thing could only be done,) if you will be as we be, that every male be circumciſed, then we will become one people; and we would demand, had thoſe Sechemites been Believers, and had this buſineſſe been carried without guile, whether they had not by this doing become one Church?
We conceive relation or combination into one unto domeſtick ends and purpoſes is the form of a Family, and relation and combination into one unto politick and civill ends and purpoſes is the form of a Commonwealth, and relation and combination of one man and one woman unto conjugall ends and purpoſes is the form of matrimoniall ſtate; and that covenant alwayes makes this relation and combination into oneneſſe, where the perſons are free from each other, and no naturall tie amongſt them; and ſo relation and combination of ſo many Saints as do, or may well meet in one place, unto religious ends, … the enjoyment of Church-ordinances, doth make a church; and becauſe the perſons are free from one another, therefore covenant or agreement together (which is all one) muſt make the relation.
A ſolemne expreſſe and verball covenant or agreement (we aſſert) to be neceſſary unto the purity and ſtrength of a Church, and ſo conſequently unto the welbeing of a Church; for how Saints (and they alone) living promiſcuouſly in the world, ſhould yet be ſevered from the world, with which they be in habitation mingled; and how they (even they alone) ſhould have communion together in all holy ordinances, without expreſſe verball conſent, we cannot conceive; which yet we judge ought to be, if the rule be well attended, which ſaith, Nothing ſhall enter into the holy city which defileth, Rev. 21.27. & 22.14. And how ſuch looſeneſſe which is in our Pariſh-churches [from which any may depart to another Pariſh-church, without rendering any reaſon (removing their habitation, it may be but a ſtones caſt,)] which we conceive to be a great evill: (For the members in a naturall body are not ſo looſly joynted, nor ſtones in any houſe ſo looſly ſet, unto which yet a particular Church is compared, Eph. 2.22. and 1 Cor. 12.27.) How this evill may be prevented but by expreſſe agrement, we cannot apprehend; and therefore conceive ſuch a covenant to be neceſſary to ſuch purpoſes.
A Church-covenant s eſpecially in relation to Church-eſtate, Anſwer. and Church duties (as a marriage-covenant is with relation to the marriage ſtate and marriage duties) but the Covenant here enentioned, was not entered into in reference to Church eſtate, and Church duties, rather then to other duties of the morall Law, and may be taken by two or three, though they be too few to make a Church, or by perſons of ſeverall Churches, in a ſhip or a journey, and yet leave them in the ſame Church-ſtate they were before, and not make them members of a diſtinct Church.
A Church-covenant is eſpecially in relation to Church duties, Reply. but not only ſo; for Chriſtian duties are comprehended under it; and the Covenant in Deut. 29.1.10, 11, 12. reſpects principally Church-duties, more then other duties of the morall Law, as appeares from verſ. 16, 17, 18. for he warns them of Heatheniſh worſhips, ſuch which they had ſeen in Egypt, and among the Nations, and would ingage them by holy covenant to all Gods holy worſhips, which were of his own inſtitution, of which were the worſhip and ſervice of the Paſſeover, and all the offerings of Gods preſcription, which were to be brought to the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation; and the covenant of two or three to perform ſuch duties might not be taken, becauſe ſome of them did ſeal their union and communion with that body, and were to be celebrated when the whole body was aſſembled. And though a covenant binding to the performance of ſome of the duties of the morall Law, may be made by two or three, and by perſons of ſeverall Churches, and yet leave them in the ſame Church-ſtate, and not make them members of a diſtinct Church from what they were of before, yet not ſo a covenant that binds to Church-duties, as if a company of perſons of divers churches ſhould covenant to meet together, to pray one with another, this would not make them a Church, nor change their ſtate; but if they covenant to walk together in the conſtant enjoyment of all Church-ordinances, which God requires of a Church; this would make them a Church, and change their ſtate, that afterwards they could not be of divers Churches, but of the ſame Church and Body.
A Covenant in generall doth not make a Church (nor a marriage, Anſwer. a Covenant betwixt this man and that woman makes it) but a Covenant with appropriation and application to this, or that Paſtor or people, but the Scripture covenants are not with appropriation and application to this Paſtor or people (viz.) that they would ſerve God with this people or Paſtor, rather then with that; therefore they are not Church-covenants.
Who ever read or heard of any Covenant in generall of duties to be done, Reply. without application to perſons mutually ingaged to perform ſuch duties? As a covenant of duties in a marriage would be ridiculous without application to perſons, this man, or that woman to be ingaged to perform ſuch duties, ſo is any covenant. The covenants in Scripture were no ſuch covenants; they were applied to Iſrael, and to the Gentiles that ſhould joyn to Iſrael, and appropriated to them alſo: So that they were a ſeparated people from other Nations by covenant, Exod. 12.47, 48. the Paſſeover was a ſervice which all the houſe of Iſrael was ingaged to perform together, and all that would joyn to them, and by circumciſion they became one people with them; but no ſtranger might partake with them, ſo that the Jewes by the Covenant of God, were to ſerve God, rather with this people, then with that.
That a covenant makes a Church with appropriation to this or that Paſtor, is denied: for we hold it a conſequent priviledge of a Church (whether conſtituted by verball covenant or not) to chooſe their own Paſtor; therefore the Church is firſt, before it hath a Paſtor: this is confeſſed by your ſelf, page 13. if it were not ſo, the Church would be diſſolved at the death of the Paſtor; there is a covenant between the Paſtor and people, but it is emergent, and groweth out, and proceeds from the Covenant among the people; the people muſt firſt be one before they can agree in one, to chooſe their Paſtor, with whom they afterwards enter into covenant: There was a covenant with Abraham and his houſe, by vertue of which, Iſrael was the Lords people in Egypt, before there were any Paſtors to be over them; therefore Church-covenant there was in Scripture, without application to Paſtors. And it was ſo in the Wilderneſſe alſo at the firſt before Aaron and his ſons were choſen.
To be Gods people, Anſwer. and Gods Church, is not all one in your ſenſe. Forty Believers of no Church, or of forty ſeverall Churches, are the Lords people, but they are not an inſtituted Church.
To be one people unto God, Reply. in a profeſſed ſolemn way, (which is done by entring into covenant with God) and to be a Church, is all one. Now this is that which is aſſerted from Deut. 29.12, 13. That thou ſhouldeſt enter into covenant with the Lord thy God, that be may eſtabliſh thee this day for a people, (or one people) to himſelf, in a profeſſed way: So by the Covenant of circumciſion, (for ſo it was called, becauſe it was the ſeal of it) the Seehemites were to become one people to God, and to the ſeed of Jacob, Gen. 34.15, 16.
No Covenant in Scripture was at the founding of the Jewiſh Church, Anſwer. nor of the Chriſtian Church, nor at the adding any members to them: neither did they make a Church more truly a Church, or politique Society, or more truly members, but did make them or ſhew them to be more pure and holy ſervants of God; even as when ſingle perſons or families do covenant with God.
1. If there were no covenant at the founding of the Jewiſh church, Reply. how comes it that all that entred into the Iewiſh Church of the proſelyted Gentiles, entred by the Seal of the Covenant, which was Circumciſion? doth not the way of augmentation of the Church ſhew the way of the firſt conſtitution thereof? So it may be ſpoken of Chriſtian Churches: why are converted Heathens, and the Infants of Church-members, brought into the Church by baptiſme? which is a Church-ordinance, and the ſeal of the Covenant of grace, and of that part of it principally which reſpects Church-ſociety.
2. How do thoſe which were many, become one among themſelves, and diſtinct from all other bodies of the ſame kinde, (as Corinth was one in it ſelf, and diſtinct from Cenchrea: (for pariſhbounds were not then on foot) ſo that the members of one were not the members of the other; nor the Officers of one the officers of the other) if there be nothing that knits them together among themſelves, and divides them aſunder from others? and if any thing combine them, what can it be but ſome agreement or covenant expreſſe or implicit? Why muſt circumciſion the ſeal of the Covenant be uſed to make the Sechemites one people with Jacobs family, if Jacobs family, or Iſaak's, or Abrabam's before that, were one unto all holy Church-worſhips among themſelves without covenant?
3. Did the joyning of the believing Gentiles to the family of Abraham by circumciſion, make them no more truly members of the church of Iſrael, then they were before, only make them, and ſhew them to be more pure and holy ſervants of God? were they not accounted after circumciſion of the Jewes Common-wealth, and were inveſted into all the Jewes ſpirituall priviledges? which they had no right to before, though they were converted perſons, and Gods ſervants.
4. We conceive that Abraham and his family were not in Church ſtate, and profeſſedly and openly ſeparated from the world till the Covenant in Gen. 17. at which time, by a mark in his fleſh, he was diſtinguiſhed from all the nations, and became Gods houſhold; if this be ſo then, Church ſtate is founded in Covenant, if it be otherwiſe, let it appear that he was in Church ſtate before that time, and we ſhall look out for a Covenant before that time: That which induceth us thus to thinke, is,
1. Becauſe we reade nothing of Abrahams family, that they were a profeſſed people unto God before that time.
2. We reade not of any Symbole of Church ſtate by which Abrabam and his family were ſeparated from the reſt of the world, before circumciſion, which was a token in their fleſh to diſtinguiſh them from the nations round about them.
3. This diſtinguiſhed him and his family not from the world alone, but from other believers of his time, Melchiſedeck and Lot, which though holy men, yet not in his ſtate, nor had his priviledges. But this Argument from circumciſion is encountred with in your anſwer that followes.
The Covenant in Gen. 17. is taken only for Gods part of the Covenant, Anſwer. or his promiſe to Abraham, Gal. 3.16, 17. not for mans part to God.
While you charge us of miſ-interpreting the Scriptures, Reply. it ſtands you upon to be wary that your ſelf run not into that error. Paul, Gal. 3.16. with verſ. 8. (as Peter, Acts 3.25. foreign, rendered well there, and in thy ſeed) ſeems to make uſe of the promiſe of God made to Abraham and his ſeed in the Covenant, Gen. 12.3. and 22.16.18. The Apoſtle there had no occaſion to ſpeak of the reſtipulation on Abrahams part, and in Gen. 17.1.9. 'tis manifeſt, that that Covenant was reciprocall, as Junius and Pareus do obſerve upon that place; but you check your ſelf, as if overbold, and therefore ſay,
Indeed, Anſwer. receiving of circumciſion doth import a Covenant on Abrahams part, or conſent to the Covenant, as baptiſme alſo doth: but it is held they were in Church ſtate before they had right to circumciſion; therefore you ſhould ſhew they made a Covenant before circumciſion.
Circumciſion (being but the ſign and ſeal of the covenant betwixt God and Abraham) doth argue neceſſarily that there was a covenant before, Reply. of which it was the ſign and ſeal: and we would demand, whether Iſaac were not in covenant before he was circumciſed? and whether his circumciſion did not ſeal ſo much? and alwayes this order is ſuppoſed: Firſt, Gods promiſe: Secondly, mans faith: Thirdly, the ſign and ſeal of both in ſome Symbole of Gods inſtitution, ſo in Baptiſme.
How prove you that Melchiſedeck a Prieſt, and Lot, Anſwer. which were not of his ſeed nor family, were out of Church-ſtate? That a believer is not a ſon of Abraham, if he be not in Church ſtate by covenant? which things you ſeem to imply, when you ſay, the Jewiſh Church was conſtituted in Abrahams family by Church-covenant; the family of Sem was the Church of God long before this.
1. We aſſert not that they were out of Church-ſtate; Reply. but this we ſay, if they were not circumciſed, (as we read not that they were) they were not of Abrahams Church, nor had the Paſſeover been on foot, could they have partaked of it, any more then Believers could afterward, who joyned not to Abrahams family. Cornelius may be an example.
2. It is one thing to be a ſon of Abraham as a Believer, and heire of promiſe, for ſo all Believers are, and an Heathen is, when converted, before joyned to any inſtituted Church; and another thing to be the ſon of Abraham as a profeſſed Covenanter with God, and bearing the Symbole of it in his fleſh: in the former ſenſe, Abraham was the father of all Believers, though uncircumciſed, and in the latter a father of the circumciſed, which were alſo of his faith; as the Apoſtle ſhewes, Rom 4.11.12.
3. Though it be probable that there was a Church in the famimily of Sem, yet that place, Gen. 9.26, 27. proves it not: for, firſt, it is propheticall of the poſterity of Sem and Japhet, and reſpects not (ſo far as we can diſcern) the perſons of Sem and Japhet (at leaſt not at that time) being both (as is probable) in the family of their father Noah: Secondly, there might be a Church in Sems family, and yet of another conſtitution then this in Abrahams family; this hinders not, but that the church in Abrahams family might be conſtituted by covenant.
POSITION VII.
Every Member at his admiſſion,See the like allegation in Anſwer to Poſ. 9. p. 73. doth promiſe to give himſelf as to the Lord, to be guided by him; ſo to the Church, to be guided by them; which is no more then the Members of the Church of Macedonia did in a parallel caſe, 2 Cor. 8.5.
The givers are not the Members of the Church of Macedonia, Anſwer. (as you for your advantage phraſe it) but the Churches of Macedonia; and therefore, if this do prove Union or Covenant, it is of the members of ſeverall churches, and not of one only.
1. The allegation in anſwer to the 9th Poſition, Reply. pag. 73. runs in theſe words, As to the Lord to be guided by him, ſo to the Church (according to God) to be guided by them; theſe words (according to God) are leſt out; whether wilfully to make the practice of our Churches the more odious, or by overſight we conclude not.
2. There was no intent to prove Ʋnion or Covenant of a Church, but ſubjection of each member to the Church to which he is joyned himſelf, and the officers thereof; and the practice of the Churches of Macedonia (by way of alluſion) is made uſe of: it is ſaid, it is no more, then the members of the Church of Macedonia did in a parallel caſe: The Argument is fetcht à comparatis: the members of the Church of Macedonia did as much in a like caſe,; they gave themſelves to the Lord, and to the Apoſtle and Timothy, according to Gods will, to be guided by the Lord, and directed by them; a whole Church, or Churches to one or two perſons gave themſelves; and an Argument is fetcht thence, thus, then may one perſon that is to joyn to a Church, as fitly give himſelf to the Lord, to be guided by him, and to the whole Church and the Officers thereof to be directed by them, according to the will of God; and it is urged, that a member ſhould therefore promiſeit; and to call it Church of Macedonia, or churches, is neither advantagious nor diſadvantagious; for though many Churches gave themſelves to be guided by one Paul, becauſe he was Officer to them all, yet a members ſubjection will be only required to his own Church, and the Officers thereof, becauſe there is no ſuperiority of juriſdiction of one Church over another, and the members thereof. We believe you would be ready enough to make uſe of this pattern, to prove that the members of a Congregation muſt ſubmit to the guidance of their Paſtors; and why do you except againſt it, becauſe ſubjection of each member to the Church, is endevoured to be proved thence, ſeeing that the Church compriſeth the Officers thereof?
POSITION VIII.
This particular Congregation is a Church before it have Officers, Acts 2.47.
In a generall ſenſe, a few private men without Officers; yea, Anſwer. a few women without men; yea, twenty members of ſeverall Churches may be called a Church; but a governing Church they are not; the Church hath not received an office of rule without her Officers,(b)Cottons Keyes, p. 16. Reply.
We take Churches for ſuch churches, Reply. as the Apoſtles planted in all places, when they had converted any conſiderable number of perſons, into which Saints were wont to be gathered, that they might be built up and edified by the Ordinances, Acts 9.31. and unto which Paſtors were given to reſide with them, and to overſee them, Acts 20.28. and theſe muſt be Congregationall Churches; for Paſtors cannot conſtantly feed any other. Or, we take Church as Ameſius defines it,*A company of faithfull ones by ſpeciall bond betwixt themſelves joyned together, to exerciſe the communion of Saints conſtantly amongſt themſelves. Coetus ſidelium ſpeciali vinculo inter ſe conjunctorum ad communionem ſanctor um inter ſe conſtanter exercendam, ſuch an united company is the Church, before it have Officers, for it is their priviledge to chooſe their Officers, (as you confeſſe in your Anſwer to the next Poſition) in which ſenſe (if in any ſenſe at all) a few private men, or a few women, or twenty members of ſeverall churches, have never been called a Church.
Now whether this Congregationall church be a Governing church or not, becauſe it is not aſſerted in the Poſition, we have no occaſion here of diſcuſſing it.
The Church in Acts 2. had Officers, Anſwer. and better Officers then any Church now hath, even the Apoſtles which were the Elders of all Churches, 1 Pet. 5.1. 2 Cor. 11.28.(d)The Apoſtles were as Elders and Rulers of all Churches, Cotton Keys p. 48 and particularly of the Church of Jeruſalem; and did act therein as Elders; it is not all one to want Elders now they are inſtituted, as before; ordinary Elders were not appointed at that time.
There is a conceſſion that the Church, Reply. Acts 2. bad no ordinary Officers, for none were then appointed; and yet they were a church, and Acts 14.23. ſhewes ſo much they were churches before the Apoſtles ordained Elders in them, and this is all that the Poſition drives at.
And though there were generall Elders which had inſpection over all Churches; yet neither theſe, nor any other Elders do*Come into the eſſence of Churches. ingredi eſſentiam Eccleſiarum; nor is it any formall reaſon why a Company of Believers are a Church, becauſe they have Elders, whether extraordinary or ordinary; for were it ſo, then their priviledge to chooſe their Officers, would be when they have Officers, for then they are a Church; and it would follow, that they cannot chooſe Officers when they want them, and have moſt need of them, for then they are not a Church, and ſo can have no ſuch power; and it is very uncomfortable; for the death of an Officer, might be the unchurching of a people.
But that which may give more ſatisfaction in this matter is the conſideration of ſuch Scriptures where the members mentioned apart from the Officers, are called the Church of God, Acts 20.28. the Elders are the perſons ſpoken to, feed the flock over which the holy Ghoſt hath made you over-ſeers, the believing Epheſians are the flock, who are alſo called the Church of God, purchaſed with his blood. *Acts 20. verſ. 28.So Phil. 1.1. So that a Chriſtian people, united together with an intent of conſtant congregating to enjoy Ordinances for their edification, are a church without officers; or if they have them, yet without conſideration of them.