A Survey of the Sum of Church Discipline, Chapter 7

A Survey of the Sum of Church Discipline · Chapter 7

p. 68CHAP. VII. An Answer to Arguments made against the Church covenant.

WE have thus positively set down, what yet we conceive to be the minde of God touching that which formally constitutes a Church. I perceive M R. his spirit carried with a marvellous distast against this way: we shall as we are able, labour to remove all mistakes and misconceiv…ngs, that the minde of the Reader, may not be misled with the multitude and throng of expressions, many whereof come not up to the point in hand.

To levell the path in our proceeding, we shall lay these considerations following, to fill the uneven ditches, that the devices of men have made in this high way of holinesse.

Con∣clusion. 1 1. Relation, As such, is not the foundation of a free covenant, (whereof we now speak) Because there be some relations founded in the acts of nature, in the putting forth whereof, there is neither the observation nor consideration of the parties required. As when twins are born together, or one within the distance of a twelve monethmonth one from another; those have the relation of brethren and sisters, and yet it is without the apprehension of either: the relative tye, and the duties issuing therefrom, have their rise and power from the impression of the rule of nature.

And hence when the Reader shall meet with the name of covenant, which proceeds from such a root, let him know it makes nothing to this cause.

And hence also it follows, that such relations and duties, proceeding therefrom, may be multiplied without any covenant at all, much lesse needs there the multiplication of any covenant, according to the specialties which attend upon them.

Con∣clusion. 2 2. Covenants are attended either in the rise of them, by such as are the first makers of them, or else in the communication of them, or the bonds they lay upon others, after th… entrance made. Thus the covenant once made by the mutuall and free agreement p. 69of the parties, it may be communicated to others without their consent, as namely to their children, because they are as the Scriptures speak in their loins, under their power and dispose, and therefore can make such an agreement and ingagement for them. So it was in Israel, Deut. 29.9.10. And the like course is commendable in the times of the Gospel, So that a Minister is Minister to the children born of the parents who have chosen him, and the children of covenanting parents are in covenant with the Church by vertue of their parents covenant.

Con∣clusion. 3 3. Amongst such who by no impression of nature, no rule of providence, or appointment from God, or reason, have power each over other, there must of necessity be a mutuall ingagement, each of the other, by their free consent, before by any rule of God they have any right or power, or can exercise either, each towards the other. This appears in all covenants betwixt Prince and People, Husband and Wife, Master and Servant, and most palpable is the expression of this in all confoederations and corporations: from mutuall acts of consenting and ingaging each of other, there is an impression of an ingagement results, as a relative bond, betwixt the contractours and confederatours, wherein the formalis ratio, or specificall nature of the covenant lieth, in all the former instances especially that of corporations. So that however it is true, the rule bindes …uch to the duties of their places and relations, yet it is certain, it requires that they should first freely ingage themselves in such covenants, and then be carefull to fullfill such duties. A man is allowed freely to make choice of his wife, and she of her husband, before they need or should perform the duties of husband and wife one towards another.

Con∣clusion. 4 4 This Covenant once made, if any relations be inferred, and so were vertually included in it, or do result from it, as there is none, so there needs no new covenant, to make up those, or to require the exercise of duties unto them. As he that bindes himself to be a covenant-servant, he bindes himself to walk with his fellow-servants in the family according to the order thereof: these follow from the first covenant, and are included in it, and inferred from it.

Con∣clusion. 5 5. If you take the covenant of the Gospel, in so full a breadth, as that it should include what ever is warranted by the Gospel, p. 70then this Church covenant, may be truly said to be included in it.

But if it be taken in the narrowest acceptation [Beleeve and live] Then it is not the Covenant of the Gospel. For that is inward and invisible in its own nature, betwixt God and the soul only: But this is visible betwixt those who do professe the Faith. That concerns all, and at all times, to do the duties of it, i. e. to believe and to live. But this concerns only those who are in this Church estate. So that in case the Churches are dissolved, and through persecution scattered, they are not then bound to the duties of this confederacy.

It is then an ordinance of the G…spel, and warranted by the Gospel, but it is not in propriety of speech the covenant of the Gospel.

And this also is here considerable, that we may discern things that differ: The making of the confederation belongs to the Gospel, but being made, it hath also a confirmation from the law. As the appointing of Baptisme and Eucharist, belongs to the Gospel, are ordinances thereof, but being instituted, they stand by vertue of the second Commandment, and must be observed by vertue thereof. A man may be within the covenant of the morall law, and yet not be bound to the duties of a husband, unlesse he make a particular covenant with such a woman to be her husband.

And hence there is a broad difference betwixt duties and duties as the difference is large in the respects upon which they do arise. Many duties flow from the generall and necessary duties of morality, which reach a man as a creature, with reference to God as a Creatour, or else to his fellow-creatures. And hence this relation from a rule of nature, it hath nothing to do with a free covenant, that must come between the persons and their duties. But in that they are creatures they must do homage to their creatour, and duty to their fellow-creatures.: If a neighbour preserve their honours, lives, goods, good names, yea be mercifull to their beasts, because such a creature, But there must intervene a new covenant betwixt parties and parties by mutuall and free consent, before they either should or can take up another sort of duties, People must by mutuall consent grow up into ingagement one with another into a corporation, before they should do the duties of a corporation. A servant must covenant p. 71with his Master, before he need or ought to serve him as a Master.

And here these two things are apparently distinct. To Swear to do the duties of a servant, when he is one, doth not make him a servant. But to ingage himself and enter into covenant, that doth make him to be a servant. The like to this, we may say touching the choosing of Pastors, Teachers, Elders, Deacons, these are ordinances of the Gospel, and there is a peculiar covenant betwixt those that choose, and those that are chosen, which is not the covenant of the Gospel in precise consideration.

The substance of this was in the time of the Law, and that covenanting among them issued, as it seems, from the Gospel, They were a called and select people unto God, Amos. 3, You only have I known, of all the nations of all the nations of the world, and therfore received into visible covenant, to walk in the waies of God, and the truth of his worship: and God ingaged himself, that he would blesse those priviledges, and the use of them, to their good, and the good of their children, reserving secret things to himself.

These grounds being laid, we shall attend M.R. his reasons against this covenant. l. 2. p. 88.

Argument. 1.

All will-worship laying a bond upon the Conscience, where God laid none is damnable.

But to tye men to enter into Church estate by Covenant, so that without such an oath or Covenant, persons should have no right to the Seals of Gods grace: is will-worship, and binding where God hath not bound.

Assumption is proved thus.

That a Minister swear the oath of fid…l…y to his stock is lawfull, that a Father swear to perform the duties of a Father, a Master the duties of a Master is l…full, But to tye an oath or Covenant so to his Ministery, to lay a band of Covenant upon a Master, that he … in conscie… and before God no Minister, no Master, &c. except he swear to perform the seduties, is to lay a bond where Christ hath laid none.

p. 72Ans. That example of a Father, because it results upon a rule in nature, without any free consent required, it reacheth not our cause. vide supra conclus. 1.

The two other instances are either apparently misapplied, or else do undoubtedly confirm the cause that they would seem to confute. For I will ask any man living, that will not lay aside humane consideration, whether any man can charge another to be his servant, or he challenge another to be his master, unlesse there be a mutuall covenant and ingagement passed betwixt each to other, the one to pay and provide for him, during his time: The other ties himself to do him honest and faithfull service such a time for such wages, do not m…ns speeches proclaim as much? he is such a mans covenant servant.

It is so here in a Church way, The person ingageth himself, by solemn promise, to walk with this society in the waies and worship of Christ. The Society receives him, and ingage themselves so to walk with him and towards him. As it is in the covenant of any corporation civill. The like may be said touching a Minister and his people, That which makes him a Pastor to this people, is the choice of the people, as freely taking of the person to be their shepheard and guide, and the ingaging of themselves to submit unto him in the dispensation of his office according to God: The acceptation of the call and ingagement of himself to take that office and charge according to Gods appointment and their choice, makes them his flock. And without this covenanting there neither is, nor ever was, or will be, Pastor and Flock.

So that these instances brought in for proof, cut the throat of M. R. his cause. As Master and Servant, Minister and People, come to stand in such estates and relation one to another, so come the Church and a person that is received to be a member to stand in their respects.

But a Covenant gives formality of being to the former, and therefore so to the latter.

These phrases of M. R. to swear to perform such duties, p. 89. to tye by an Apostolike law and practice, the oath of God to such duties, either are misprinted, or else they misse the conclusion wholly, which they should prove, For we do not make the swearing to do a duty to be our covenant, for that is as far differing from our question almost, as heaven is from earth.

p. 73A witnesse comes into the court, ties himself by oath to swear the truth, here is no covenant betwixt man and man at all. So that these things are seriously to be distinguished and differenced.

1. An agreement of persons, one to, and with another to combine and consociate in the waies and worship of Christ.

2. The doing of these duties.

3. The swearng they will do them, when they are combined The fir…t of these is the form of a corporation. The other two, may be done when they are incorporated. Thus 1. Man and Woman ingage themselves each to other by way of contract. 2. Being contracted they do the duties. 3. They may swear and binde themselves to God, they will do them. I have sworn and will perform it, that I will keep thy righteous Judgements.

Argument. 2.

That way members are to be inchurched, and enter into Church-fellowship, which way members were entered into the Apost. Churches. But members were not entered into an Apostolicall Church, by such a covenant but only they believed, professed belief, and were baptized. When the incestuous person is reentred, It is said only 2 Cor. 2. that he was grieved and testified it, and they did forgive him, and confirm their love to him. ver. 7.8.

There is here no Church covenant. Act. 8.12. Samaria received the word gladly, beleeved, and was baptized. Simon Magus baptized. Act. 8. Cornelius and his houshold. Act. 10. The Church of Ephesus planted. Act. 14. Of Corinth. Act. 18. Of Berea. 17.10. Philippi. Act. 16. Thessalonica. Act. 17. Rome. Act. 28. we have no expresse vocall covenant.

Ans. The proofs here alledged as precedentiall, are of three sorts.

1. Touching the receiving of the Incestuous Corinthian after his repentance. But that doth not overthrow the covenant, but confirm it, For their forgiving and confirming their love again to him, was crosse to his excommunication, and therefore an estating of the person into that corporation and communion which formerly he did enjoy, his subjecting himself in so solemn a manner to the rule of Christ in the Congregation and Church, and p. 74craving acceptance at their hands, and entertainment into the like priviledges of communion, of which he was deprived by reason of his sin, and their ready receiving and entertaining of him into that relation and state, and confirming their love to him in that behalf, is a full ingagement of the Church to him, and of him again to the Church.

Whereas had his profession at large made him a member, he had been a member whether the Church would have received him or no: or if his baptisme had made him a member, as long as his baptisme had remained, his membership had continued, for whiles the forma remains, the formatum must needs be also. This examample will appear most pregnant, if we do but parallel it with the like in a civil corporation. A person, a member of the corporation and in combination with them, through his ill carriage is disfranchised and put out of his place and priviledge; if he shall expresse that sorrow and reformation, that sutes the quality of his sin, and give satisfaction to the Company, his subjecting himself to the Company, and power of the combination, and their receiving and entertaining of him upon such terms, is an expresse recovery and renewall of the Covenant again, and by that an estating of the party in the same condition and relation in which he was.

The rest of the proofs carry no concluding force with them. For if there be any force in the Argument, it must lie here.

2. If no Church-covenant be there expressed, then there was none. The feeblenesse of which consequence appears at first sight. For to reason from one or some places against the expression in any place, is to conclude from an imperfect enumeration of some species, to deny the genus, which is a fallacy. It was not expressed in one or two Evangelists, therefore, in none. It is not said in three or four of the Prophets, therefore in none of them. We know it was the rule which the Apostle prescribed before baptisme, Repent and be baptized, Act. 2.38. So the Baptist trained up his disciples. To reason therefore this profession of repentance is not mentioned in these places, therefore either was not here done, or that it is not in other places required, carries no force of reason with it.

That lastly of Act. 2.41. As many as received the word gladly, were baptised, and there were added three thousand. But these were not gathered as you gather.

p. 75M. R. takes this place as wronged by us, and therefore he resolves to deliver it out of our hands: 1. Because these did not first meet frequently for praier and speciall conference, untill they were satisfied touching the good estate one of another. 2. They could not set apart and celebrate a day of fasting and prayer, and dispatch the confessions of thirty hundred within such a time.

Answ. If we cast an eye to the fore-going conclusions, it will appear that such fasting and praier is only required at the erecting and laying the foundation of a Church, and so also such frequent meeting, before they enter into so solemn engagement, and the setting up a holy Church unto Christ. But these solemnities are not expected in the taking in of severall members, nay the addition of all the ordinary members to the body. Besides, these were members of the Jewish Church before. The stroke that fell upon their spirits by the Ministery of the Apostles (for I doe not thinke that Peter only preached) was so extraordinary, and carried such an apparent discovery of the presence and power of Christ, that without any miraculous power of discerning, their expressions might make way for members of the Jewish Church no finde acceptance with this Apostolike, and Christian Church now beginning.

Its added by the APOLOGY of the Church-covenant.

1. That they professed their glad receiving of the word, and renouncing that froward generation.

2. Being baptised they continued in fellowship, that was Church fellowship, for it was not the exercise of the Sacrament, which the Syriack conceives.

To this M. R. answers, They could not continue in the Apostles fellowship and doctrine before they were added to the Church: for stedfastnesse in doctrine, and saving themselves from the froward generation, could not be but habituall holinesse, not perfected in six hours. Now the same day, vers. 41. in which they gladly heard the word, they were both baptised and added; and therefore their stedfast continuing in Church estate, can no waies make them members in Church state.

Answ. True; nor is the Argument urged in that manner, but the dispute lies from the effect to the cause in that particular of it: In that they gave constant attendance to the ordinances of Christ, and in that fellowship, as taking themselves bound thereto, it argues they took themselves ingaged thereunto by that subjection p. 76they did expresse in renouncing their former society, and desiring and receiving acceptance from the Apostles and the Church, so as such carriages carry the reality of a Covenant.

Whereas it is said, If they had returned to Pontus again, they had returned added to the Church.

It is easily replied. Had they returned with a purpose not to have walked in that fellowship, it is sure, they had not been of that Church by their baptisme: for ALL Jerusalem then, and Iudaa, and the coast about Iordan had been members of the Church by the baptisme of Iohn.

Obj. 3. But here is no word of a Church-covenant, which was necessary to have been intimated, if there had been any such thing.

Answ. If it be not mentioned, therefore it was not, non sequitur. 1. If the thing be there, we need not trouble our selves for the word. And if Calvins judgement may be taken, who expounding [Libenter amplexos eorum sermonem,] he thus writes, Adjunctos Christi discipulis fuisse, vel in idem corpus insitos & perseverasse in doctrina. And I shall offer to M. R. his consideration, That when there is a solemn baptising into a Church, that ever implies that the person is made a disciple of Christ, Mat. 28.19. For upon that ground their commission warrants the administration of baptisme: and so to be a disciple of Christ, is to be ingraffed into the body of the Church, and to be as the Apostle hath it, Fellow-heirs, and of the same body, Ephes. 3.6. which is spoken of the visible Church: And therefore though many believed in Christ, Ioh. 12.40. Yet they would not confesse him, or become his disciples, because they feared they should be cast out of the Synagogue. And hence it is that this embracing the word, this being made a disciple, its expressed by the word foreign, added to or incorporated, as in Act. 2.41. & 5.14.

Whereas all the people were then said to magnifie them, and therefore to approve of their doctrine, and so confesse the truth and goodnesse of it; yet there was more required to this Church-work, and to become a disciple. And therefore its added, The beleevers were added, i. e. they confessed their sins, and became disciples and followers of that doctrine, and so ingaged themselves, and covenanted also for their children, to follow that truth of the Gospel. And if this being a disciple include not thus much, how can our Divines use this, as so strong a testimony against the Anabaptists, to make good the inference? If the converted p. 77father was baptized: Therefore their children also, unles they ingaged themselves in Church-covenant for their children also?

Follow this order of the Apostle, Let them be members of Congregations. Let them expresse the work of repentance with that power upon their souls, as these did, and receive the word with gladnes, Our principles formerly propounded, will make way for their admittance.

The place thus expounded, finds much liberty and content to be in our hands, and will not be delivered, by all the reasons alledged by M. R. to go away from us.

Argument 3.

If baptisme be the seal of our entry into the Church, 1 Cor. 12.13. as circumcision was the seal of the members of the Iews visible Church: then such a Covenant is not the formal reason of our Church-membership. But the former is true, as I shall prove hereafter: Ergo, so is the later.

The proposition stands, because all baptised are members of the visible Church before they can swear this Covenant, even when they are infants.

Answ. The Proposition fails, nay fights against it self. For if it seal up our membership, and Covenant with the visible Church, then is it after-membership, and therefore not the formall cause of it, for then it should be before it.

Again, If it seal up our membership, as circumcision sealed up membership in the Jewish visible Church, then certainly it presumes the Covenant, for so that did, Gen. 17.10, 13. He that is born shall be circumcised: so that he was in Covenant, and so called a holy seed, before in his own person he could make a Covenant, but was included in the Covenant of his parent.

And if M. R. be of another minde, we desire he would tell us, How children of believers are said to be holy, if not by a foederall holines? and if so, then by the visible Covenant of their Parents. For many children are SO holy that have parents not spiritually and invisibly within that Covenant. Ergo.

Lastly, The proof is also false, namely, children are members before they are in this Covenant, because though they doe not covenant personally by themselves, yet they are included virtually in the Covenant of their parents, Deuteronomy 29.10, 11.

p. 78Argument 4.

The Church-covenant either is all one with the Covenant of Grace, or it is a Covenant diverse from the Covenant of Grace. But neither waies can it be the essentiall form of a visible Church: Ergo. The Covenant of Grace cannot be the forme of a visible Churcb, because then all baptised should be in Covenant with God, which our brethren deny. If it be a Covenant diverse from it, it must be of another nature, and lay another obligatory tie, then either the Covenant of works, or the Covenant of Grace: and so must tie to other duties, then either the law or Gospel require of us, and so is beside that Gospel which Paul taught, and makes the teacher, though an Angel from heaven, accursed. lib. 2. pa. 93. Bona verba.

Answ. The Covenant of Grace is to be considered, either according to the benefits of saving grace given in it, or according to the means of grace offered. It is not the Covenant of the Gospel in the first sense; but it is within the verge, and contained within the compasse of the Covenant in the second sense. And hence the consequence upon which the stresse of the cause (as it is urged by him) lies, vanisheth wholly. If it be distinct from the Covenant of grace, then it doth oblige us to some other duties, then the Ordinances of the Gospel require. For it hath appeared before, That a man may be in the Covenant of grace, and share in the benefit thereof, who is not in a Church state; and a man may be in a Church state, who is not really in the Covenant of grace: And therefore a Church state, and the Covenant of the Gospel, in the former sense expressed, are different. Yea it hath been proved, That all are bound to come within the Covenant of the Gospel, who are not at that time bound to come into the Church estate, nor yet to doe the duties thereof.

M. R. when he is to answer to this difference, l. 2. p. 93. Ʋbi suprà, he grants, That an excommunicate person may be in the Covenant of grace, and yet cut off from the visible Church: and yet denies the consequence, but gives no reason of that denial, but only speaks of another thing, which toucheth not the pinch of the Question in hand.

A beleever (saies he) in the Covenant of grace, may not doe a duty to a father, brother, or master, and yet it is a weak consequence, p. 79that there is a covenant or oath betwixt these, brother and brother, Son and Father, Master and Servant, commanded by a divine law of perpetuall equity to make such to be in such relation.

We confesse this is a weak consequence, and is of his own making, and therefore may as easily be confuted as it is propounded, but this is our consequence.

A man may be within the covenant of grace, and not within the covenant of the Church, and therefore the one is not the other. For if two things be the same in themselves, so far they be the same in the third, and where the one is, the other will be. So that the Answer stands in the full vigour wholly untouched, only he speaks of other things, some not touching the cause in hand, some that will not stand by a rule of truth.

Those expressions touch not the cause in hand, namely when he thus writes.

The covenant of grace teacheth us to confesse Christ, to walk before God, to joyn my self to a visible Church. But none can conclude in right reason, that it is a divine law, that necessitates me to swear another covenant, then the covenant of grace in relation to these duties.

Ans. Its true, no law bindes to enter into another covenant, then the covenant of the Gospel: because these duties result out of relations, which arise from the nature of the creature in reference to God, but come not within the free and voluntary covenant which is made by the voluntary consent of the parties. But take the same expressions as looking at a covenant which issues from the willing consent betwixt man and man, as master and servant, man and wife, and it will be evident at the very first sight, that it is false.

For to say there is no divine law to necessitate a man to enter into another covenant for marriage, beside the covenant of grace, before he can do the duty of an husband, is to go against the experience of all ages, the common sense of all men. As though a person might adventure to take the place and do the duties of a husband to a woman, who never made a covenant of marriage, and tell her he hath been in the covenant of grace many years, and there needs no other, there is no law necessitates him or her to make a marriage covenant together, I suppose a person might suspect the man had not only lost his honesty, but his pru…ence also.

p. 80Should some Nimrod of the world come upon a poor solitary people, and tell them that the covenant of grace and the Gospel, teacheth the people to pay tribute to their Prince, and the Prince to exact it. They both professe this Gospel: There is no divine law to binde them to make another covenant of King and Subject, and therefore now they must pay, and he must exact tribute at their hand. I suppose the poor people, out of their own sense will tell him, that there is indeed a covenant required between God and man to make men Christians. But there must be another covenant betwixt Prince and people, to make them Rulers and Ruled: other wise he could expect no homage from them, nor they protection from him.

Hence the Authour of the Apology suggesting to M. R. that it is not the word only that giveth power to the husband over his wife, but the covenanting of the wife with the husband. He answers, "This is all which with colour of reason can be said, and therefore labours to decline the dint of the dispute, because it carried such a troop of inconveniences with it, affirms that those places of Scripture were not brought to prove the Pastors calling to the people, or their relative case of subjection to him: but only they proue that the covenant of grace and the Gospel layeth a tye of many duties upon us, which obligeth us without the comming under the tie of an expresse, vocall, publike oath.

And I wonder who ever denied this: let the man be brought forth, and bear his blame and shame, that should be so void of sense, only let it be here also remembred, that also this is wrested by strong hand, and confessed, that there be in some conditions a Covenant that comes between persons, as betwixt man and wife, Master and servant, before they can come under these relations, which was denied in the 93. pa. immediatly preceeding. Such is the brightnesse of the truth that it cannot be overborn.

That which is next added, is partly a craving the question, and the proof is yet insufficient to make it good, Because I professe the Faith, and am baptized. I am a member of the visible Church, without such an oath: Because the covenant of grace, doth tye me to joyn my self to some particular Congregation. &c.

Reply is.

That of Baptisme is answered. 2. The ground of that which is p. 81added is a mistake, to wit, If the Covenant of the Gospel tye me to joyn my self to a visible Congregation, Therefore there is not a covenant required to do that.

If this be a good consequence, take the like, If the Gospel require me to seek for the help of a godly Pastour, that may rule and teach me. If it require me to marry and not to burn. Therefore there is no Covenant required to make me a husband to a woman, that I must marry; nor a sheep of that Shepheard who must guide and rule me in the Lord. If these be false, then the former is as feeble and weak, for they both carry the same parity and proportion of reason.

Some expressions which here fall from the pen of M.R. are to my apprehensions, new Paradoxes. As, A called Pastor who hath gifts, and a calling from the Church, is a member of the visible Church, before he be called to be their Pastor, though he be a member of no particular Congregation.

The difficulties are these.

1. That a Pastor may have a calling from the Church, before he is elected by a particular Congregation, and so be an Individuum vagum, a Pastor of all people, and yet of no particular people.

2. That a person may be a member of the visible Church, and yet be no member of it, and that I will infer from his own words, Thus,

He that is no member of a particular Congregation, he is no member of a visible Church. But a Pastor may be a member of a visible Church, and yet no member of a particular Congregation. Therefore he may be a member of the visible Church, and yet no member The second part M.R. affirms. I prove the proposition.

If all particular Congregations are all the members that the visible Church hath, Then he that is not a member of a particular Congregation is no member of a visible Church: for that which comes not within the numqer and compasse of members is not a member.

But all particular Congregations are all the members that the visible Church hath, Therefore he that is not a member of a particular Congregation is no member of a visible Church.

But of these, thus much by the way occasionally we shall intreat more fully of them, when we come to the place of the p. 82calling of Ministers.

In the end of the 95. pag. lib. He plainly professeth, That when one doth enter a member to such a Congregation, under the Ministery of A. B. he cometh under a new relative estate by an implicite and vertuall Covenant, which is crosse to what was affirmed before, p. 92. The rest of the examples either confute his own assertion, or else do not reach the Question in hand. For we have shewed before, that excommunicates when they come to be restored, they renew the Covenant with the Church, and the Church with them.

That which is added, touching a Church newly erected, she then becomes a sister-church with others, yet she needs not a new Covenant to accomplish it.

Ans. No certainly, the reason is from the third conclusion, supra. Our Covenant once entered upon, all the relations, that depend upon that, or may be inferred from that, are included in that Covenant, and therefore needs no more. As a woman being in Covenant with her husband, all the duties to his kindred are required by that, and flow from that Covenant, there needs no other.

Especially that inference is a wide mistake. If I must have a new Covenant to bring me into an estate, which issues only from free and voluntary consent; Then I must not honour men in several relations, as Physitians, Lawyers, learned Philosophers, unlesse I take up a particular Covenant. I say, such a consequence hath no shadow of reason in it, nor the least appearance of any approach to the cause, because the honour we owe to each man, as a neighbour, in his place and condition, is founded in a naturall relation we have, as fellow-fervants to the great God and Creatour of all man-kinde. And therefore we must love God, and all things of God, in our neighbour, which concerns us: and therefore we must preserve the honour, life, goods, good name, of all, whether Lawyers, or Philosophers, or Physitians. Let me infer from hence.

That I should therefore doe the duty of a servant to him that is not my master: of a husband to her that is not my wife, is a very weak inference, and carries no proportion of reason withit.

He adds, pag. 97.

Though there be a tacit Covenant betwixt a new member of a Congregation, and A. B. Pastor, and they come under a new relation, p. 83Covenant-wise (which I grant) this is not the point in question. But this new Covenant is that which by necessity of a divine Commandment, of perpetuall equity maketh the new adjoyner a member.

Answ. We are now then at the last, almost come to our selves, for we are come to this, That there must be a new relation Covenant-wise betwixt parties in estates and conditions, which issue from free consent betwixt them, before they can be tied to the duties of that estate, by being in the Covenant of the Gospel, the contrary whereof was affirmed, p. 93. juxta finem, and 94. lin. 1. to the ninth.

Hence therefore that which the Apology expressed, to wit, That its not the rules of the Word touching man and wife, Magistrate and subject, that makes people in such an estate, but the Covenant that is made betwixt them to those ends. I say, this was by him to be answered, pag. 94. but yet stands in its full force, and not weakned, nay not touched, nay in truth confirmed by this grant.

Lastly, That is made the great hinge of our debate, that I thinke never came into our thoughts, neither waking, nor sleeping, namely, That this new Covenant betwixt a person, and A. B. Pastor, did make such the new Adjoiner, a member of a new Congregation.

I answer, I would fain have one of ours produced, that either in writing or printing ever said any such thing, or any thing that carries a shadow of any such conceit; when its well known to all, that know our principles and practice, we professe the Church is a true Church, as Totum essentiale, before her officers, and the choice of them. The particular persons are members before this choice, and therefore are not made such by this choice or new Covenant.

Argument 5.

If this Church-covenant be the essence and forme of a visible Church, which differenceth between the visible and invisible; Then there have been no visible Churches since the Apostl…s daie…, nor are there any in the Christian world this day, save only in N. E. and some other places.

The Answer is open, and hath been formerly intimated, in the opening of the nature of the Covenant, and the manner of the expressing p. 84thereof, to wit, It is either implicite or explicite. The Covenant is preserved for the substance of it, whether of the waies it comes to be acted. And all the Churches that ever were, or now are, true Churches, either in England, Holland, France, &c. have, at least, in them an implicite Covenant, which is abundantly evidenced by the constant practice, which is performed, and is also required at the hands of all that are members therein.

Argument 6. and last.

A multitude of unwarrantable waies, partly go before, partly convey this Church-covenant.

Answ. If the waies were unwarrantable that conveyed the Covenant, or went before it: if yet they doe not touch the nature of the Covenant, that may yet be lawfull, when they are unlawfull. As it is in the Covenant of marriage. A man may upon wrong grounds, upon wrong ends, undertake such a work, proceeding also in a disorderly manner, and yet if the substance of the Covenant be right and good, the marriage is lawfull in it self and substance of it. But let us hear the waies that are so unwarrantable.

1. It is a dream, that all are converted by the means of private Christians, without the ministery of sent Pastors. l. 2. p. 120.

Answ. I confesse it is a dream to say so, or think so. And if any do dream of such a device in the night, let him own it, and defend it in the day, we own it not. Is it likely that any man is so forsaken of reason, as to say, that the Apostles when they came to plant Churches, that private Christians, not they, converted the people? And if they converted all those first Churches, where is the man that will affirm, that All [All,] are converted by private Christians? Though its possible that private Christians may convert some, Act. 11.19. Beside, materials of new gathered Churches with us, are such, as have been converted by Ministers in their severall Congregations.

2. Its an unwarrantable way, to say that Pastors, as Pastors, are not sent to Indians.

Answ. There is warrant enough to affirm that, and evidence enough to prove it; As shall appear in the handling of the ordination and power of a Pastor.

3. Absurdity. That men must be satisfied in their consciences, touching one anothers conversion.

p. 85Answ. That the members of Churches should be visible Saints, and that to reasonable charity, we have formerly proved: and that such should so professe, as that the soundnesse and truth of their faith may be notified to the Church, is granted by M. R. and this is as much as we desire, and so we doubt not, but Ananias, Simon Magus, &c. did appear such to the judgement of charity, which alwaies judgeth the best, unlesse it can prove the contrary.

4. Unwarrantable way. By what warrant of the word are private Christians, not in office, made the ordinary and only converters of souls?

Answ. There is no word that warrants it; and I know none of us that affirm it, that all are converted by private Christians. The sound of such an absurity is so continually in the ear and minde of M. R, (but from whence it comes, I know not) that I see it findes such welcome, that he is willing to repeat it twice, rather then to misse the remembrance and mentioning of it, and therefore he repeats it as a double absurdity, this fourth being the same with the first, and by this way he may fill the number of unwarrantable waies easily.

If by ordinary, he understand that which is frequent in a course of common providence, which is neither miraculum, nor yet mirandum, for the extraordinarinesse thereof, I suppose each mans experience will evidence this truth, That the endeavour of persons out of office, hath been blessed, and is blessed to the conversion of divers, and that without prejudice to the office and ordinance of Christ. But were all this granted to be unwarrantable, what is such a conceit to overthrow the Covenant? That may be yet a truth, though such apprehensions may be false, but the Proverb is true, He that counts a man his enemy, he is content to go much out of his way, that he may lend him a blow: If there may be any blemish cast upon the Covenant, it skils not from what coast it comes.

5. What warrant have the sister-churches to give the right-hand of fellowship to a new erected Church? For to give the right-hand of fellowship is an Authoritative and Pastorall act, as Galat. 2. When James, and Cephas, and John perceived the grace that was given me, they gave unto me and Barnabas the right-hand of fellowship.

Answ. Suppose the sister-churches had no warrant to give the right-hand of fellowship, yet the Covenant for all that may be p. 86warrantable. And yet the quarrel must hence be maintained against the innocent Covenant. As the lion quarrelled with the lamb for mudding the water, when she dranke many miles below his watering.

But let us see the hainous unwarrantablenesse of this course of giving the right-hand of fellowship to sister-churches. The first cause is, because it is an Authoritative act, as Pareus, Beza. &c.

Answ. The Authours give in no evidence this way. For the words of Pareus in the margin, lib. 2. p. 161. shew the contrary. It is made Intimae conjunctionis symbolum, but not authoritatis. Intimate love, friendship and familiarity doth not inferre authority. But Beza his words put it beyond question, Porrexerunt manum, quod symbolum esset nostrae in Evangelij doctrinâ summae consensionis. Why M.R. should construe, symbolum consensionis to be symbolum authoritatis, is beyond my understanding. But if Interpreters help not, yet his Argument it may be will settle the cause, therefore he repeats this again, and adds this reason. By no authority can they receive them as members of the Catholike Church, for this receiving is a Church act, and they have no Church power. The frame stands thus,

Argument 1.

They who have no Church-power, they can put forth no Church-act.

Answ. The Proposition is apparently weak. The Church can put forth an act of counsel, of approbation, of love, of conjunction, as well as an act of power.

M. R. grants that one single Congregation hath no power over another, one Classis over another, one Provinciall Synod over another: Yet I suppose he will not deny, but these may counsel, reprove, approve, reject or convince one the other.

One Church, or many Congregations, may meet with the Heathen, may teach them occasionally, convince them, encourage them, and yet have no power over them. Many Churches being sent to the Parliament to declare their judgement, touching any thing in agitation, may approve of their counsel and determinations, if holy, or disallow them, confute them, if other, and yet I doe beleeve, he will not say, they have authority over them.

p. 87Argument 2.

They cannot upon two or three hours sight, hearing none of them speak, be satisfied in their consciences of their regeneration.

Answ. If they shall hear positive testimony of experienced and approved witnesses of their constant and conscientious walking without all scandall: If they shall hear the expressions and professions of repentance towards God, and faith in our Lord Jesus: This is Argument sufficient to the judgement of charity to hope they are visible Saints, when nothing upon knowledge or proof to the contrary is given in.

Argument 3.

And that wherein the greatest weight lies, is this, What a meeting is this, of divers sister-churches to receive a new sister-church? It is a Church, I beleeve, meeting together (and yet it is not a Congregation) and it is an ordinary visible Church. For at the admitting of all converts to the Church order, this meeting must be. Surely here our brethren acknowledge, that there is a Church in the N. T. made up of many congregations, which hath power to receive in whole Churches. This is a Visible, Provincial or National Church, which they otherwise deny. If many Churches meet together to approve of the way and proceeding of a Church gathering by our judgement, then we acknowledge a Church Provincial and National.

Answ. The consequence hath no colour of truth in it. Did ever any of us deny the consociation of Churches in way of counsel and advice? and yet consociation is one thing, and the constitution of a new species or kinde of a Church is another.

Suppose two Congregations now newly erected and gathered, which have no power over one another, should meet together to consider and consult touching the sin and offence of some classical Church; Is this then a Provincial or National Church? Suppose two Congregations of two severall and distinct Classis should be sent by either of the Classis to concur with a Church in an Island, now to be gathered, to see and consider of their way, and to lend them direction and approbation, and this done ordinarily. Here is a Church-meeting: A Classis it cannot be, because they are two only Congregations of the Classis: and Provincial it is not, nor yet National: Therefore there is now a new Church made up of many Churches, which is neither Classical nor Provincial. When will there be an end of such inferences?

p. 886. We see no warrant, why one, not yet a Pastor or Elder, should take upon him to speak to a Congregation, though they all consent that he speak.

Answ. If M. R. will look into the practice of the Church of Scotland, or to his first Book. He shall finde, that there be such, who must have their gifts of teaching tried; and therefore may and doe teach, before they be chosen: here is preaching and Church preaching and praying, and yet there is no Pastor. And yet this will abide the measure of the golden reed.

7. He adds, We desire to see such a Church action, as Act. 2. where 3000 were added in one day.

Answ. We also joyn our desires with his, and should be glad to see such a day, for we see no unwarrantablenes then, nor would be now, if all circumstances did concur.

The 8^th is answered in the 3^d.

The 9^th which tels us of an Incouragement to be good stewards of the manifold graces of God, we see it warrantable to provoke each man to traffique with his talent.

But that all, who enter, are sworne to attend publick prophecy, it happily may be found in M. Rathbones curranto, which he pickt out of some mans letter, who writ he could not tell what: nor could he reade happily aright what he wrote. For I know no such custome of the Churches of Christ amongst us.

10. Here are Church acts, and the power of the keys exercised, in preaching, praying and discipline, and yet no stewards nor officers of the house who have received the keys.

Answ. That of preaching and praying hath been answered in the sixth. And if by an act of discipline, any act of the power of the keys be meant, its then plain, there may, an act of that power be put forth without any officer. For an officer, and so other members may be admitted, and in case rejected and excommunicated by the Church.