Moderate Answer to Dr Bastick, Text
A Moderate Anſwer VNTOUNTO Dr. BASTVVICKS BOOK; CALLED, Jndependency not Gods Ordinance. WHEREIN, Is declared the manner how ſome CHVRCHES in this City were gathered, and upon what tearmes their Members were admitted; That ſo both the Dr. and the Reader may judge, how near ſome Beleevers who walk together in the Fellowſhip of the Goſpell, do come in their practice to theſe Apoſtolicall rules which are propounded by the Dr. as Gods method in gathering Churches and admitting MEMBERS.
By HANSERD KNOLLYS.
Printed and publiſhed according to Order.
Imprimatur,
JA: CRANFORD.
LONDON, Printed by IANE COE. 1645.
A Moderate ANSWER UNTO Dr. BASTWICKS Book; CALLED, Jndependencie not Gods Ordinance.
PAſſing by many things leſſe conſiderable, becauſe I intend brevity; In the 7th. page of the Doctors booke, There is a twofold Queſtion betweene them called PRESBYTERIANS and their Brethren who are termed INDEPENDENTS; The firſt is, concerning the Government of the Church, viz. Whether it be Presbyterian-Dependen, or Presbyterian-Independent? The ſecond Queſtion is, concerning the Gathering of CHURCHES.
Touching the former Queſtion concerning the Government of the Church, the Doctor acknowledgeth in the ſame 7th. page, that the Brethren on both ſides agree, that the Government of the church is a Preſbyterian-Government, both acknowledging a Preſbyterie. But whether it be Dependent, or Independent is the maine thing in the queſtion, which the Doctor doth determine, and ſaith in the Title page of his book he hath evidently Proved. 'That the Preſbyterian-Government-Dependent is Gods Ordinance, and not the byterian-Government-Independent.
I intend not to ſtrive with the Doctor about wordes, and therefore touching the two Termes, to wit, Dependent, and Independent; I ſhall onelyonly ſay this at preſent: That if by Independent the the Doctor indeede mean (as it doth appear ſo to my underſtanding by many paſſages in his booke, he doth intend) a Preſbyterian-Government, which hath not Dependencie upon any in matters meerly Eccleſiaſticall (but upon the Lord Jeſus Chriſt, Who is the Head of the Church) And if by Dependent hee alſo indendeth (as in many other paſſages in his booke ſeemeth to me to be his meaning)Pag. 8.10. Pag. 14.15.17.18. a Presbyterian-Government, which hath a Dependencie upon a ſupream Judicature of a Common-councell of Presbyters, and who muſt in matters Eccleſiaſticall be ſubiect unto the Decrees, Sentences, Conſtitutions, and Commandments of a Common-councell, Colledge or Conſiſtorie of Claſſicall, Provinciall, or Synodicall Presbyters; Then I do conceive the Doctor hath not proved, (nor will he ever be able to prove) That the Presbyterian-Government-Dependent is Gods Ordinance; And I hope to make the contrary plainly appear both from cleere Texts of Scripture, and the Doctors owne bookes. And ſeeing that the Doctor hath in the 6th. p. of his Book deſired all his Chriſtan Brethren in the Deciding of this Queſtion to take the Word of God into their Hands, and with the Noble Bereans to ſit downe and examine, whatſoever ſhall be ſaid on either ſide according to the Scriptures: I willingly make the ſame requeſt, as moſt deſirous, that this ſhort Anſwere may abide the like triall, and be weighed in the other ballance of the Sanctuary againſt the Doctors Booke.
Now that all things may be handled in good order, and in a Methodicall way, the Doctor hath reduced the whole diſputation concerning this firſt Queſtion into four Propoſitions, page. 11.
The firſt, that there were many Congregations and ſeverall aſſemblies of Beleevers in the church of Ieruſalem, in the which they enjoyed all acts of Worſhip, and all the Ordinances amongſt themſelves, and did partake of all acts of Church-fellowſhip, eſpecially of preaching, and in the Adminiſtration of the Sacraments, and prayer, and that before the Perſecution we reade of, Act. 8.2.
The ſecond, That all theſe congregations, and ſeverall aſſemblies made but one church.
The third, That the Apoſtles and Elders governed, ordered, and ruled this church joyntly, and by a Common-councell, and Prebſytery.
The fourth, that this church of Ieruſalem, and the government of the ſame is to be a patterne for all ſeverall congregations and aſſemblies in any City or Vicinity to unite into one Church, and for the Officers of thoſe congregations to governe that Church joyntly in a Colledge or Preſbyterie.
Theſe are his four Propoſitions.
But before hee comes to the proof of theſe particulars hee ſaith it will not bee amiſſe in generall to take notice, That all the Churches we read of in the New Teſtament, were Ariſtocratically and Preſtbyterially governed, and were all Dependent upon their ſeverall Presbyters, and produceth divers places of Scripture to prove the ſame, and two ſheets are ſpent wholly in proving thereof from the 12. page to the 29. All which (ſhould it bee granted) only proves. Firſt, That in every City or Church there was a Presbiterie, Acts. 14.23. foreign, cumque per ſuffragia ſtatuiſſent illis per ſingulas Eccleſias ſeniores, that is, When they had ordained them Elders in every Church by the Suffrage or ſtretching forth of Hands, alſo Titus 1.5. foreign, & conſtituas oppidatim ſeniores, that is, And thou mayeſt Ordaine Elders towne by towne, or city by city, or village by village.
Secondly, that as there were Apoſtles and Elders in the Church of Jeruſalem, Act. 15.2,4. So there were Elders in the Church of Epheſus, Act. 20.17,28. And in the Church of Corinth, and in the Church of Galatia, and in Philippie, &c.
Thirdly, that theſe ſeverall Churches were Dependent upon their ſeverall Presbyters, and were to obey them who had the rule over them, Heb. 13.7,17,24. Or who were their Guides, foreign, Obedite ducibus veſtris, that is Obey your Guides.
Fourthly, that this Presbyterian-Church-Government, God hath hath appointed as his Ordinance, to be continued to the end of the world, the which whoſoever reſiſteth, reſiſteth the Ordinance of God, but it doth not prove, That this Presbyterian-Church-Government is Dependent upon a ſupreame Judicature of a Common-counſell of Presbyters, or that they muſt ſubmit, and ſubject them themſelves and their churches unto the Decrees, Sentences, Conſtitutions, and Commandements, of a Common-councell, colledge, and court of claſſicall, or Synodall Presbyters, which the Doctor ſhould have proved, for ſuch a Presbyterian-Government he intends, as may appeare by the Doctors owne words, pag. 17.18. As for the Preſbyterian Government (in the ſence that I underſtand it) there is nothing more cleare to me in all the Scripture: Yea the very word and name of Preſbytery ſignifieth, a Magiſtracy, or Ariſtocracy, or Signory, or court. And as the word is taken in the civill Polity and Government, ſo in the Eccleſiaſticall, by a Preſbytery wee underſtand (ſaith the Doctor) page 18. A Religious, Grave, Sollid, Learned, and Wiſe Councell of Divines, Miniſters, &c. Without whoſe joynt and mutuall accord, or agreement and common-conſent nothing ought to be done or tranſacted of publicke concernment. And to make this good, to wit, That the Presbyters of particular congregations or aſſemblies of Beleevers, and their Churches ought to be ſubject to a Common-councell or Court of Presbyters. The Doctor urgeth that Scripture, the third Epiſtle of John, the 9.10,11. verſes, as an invincible Argument.
You ſhall finde it thus expounded by the Doctor pag. 15. 'And therefore when Diotrephes aſſumed to himſelf, and his particular congregation a power and authority to rule according to his will and pleaſure, without the conſent of the Presbyterie, and oppoſed Iohn the Presbyter, He ſharply reproves his proceedings, and ſignifies to the Church; That when he came he would rememberhis words, and teach him how to prate againſt the Presbytery with malicious words; Which is an evill thing in him ſaith St. Iohn. It was evill in him to aſſume unto himſelf, and his particular congregation, that power that belonged unto the colledge or councell of Presbyters, and was to be moderated and exerciſed onelyonly by the conjoynt, and common-conſent of the Presbytery. For God hath appointed, that the Church ſhould be governed by a Presbytery; and Diotrephes would have his congregation Independent, and have an abſolute jurisdiction within it ſelf, which ſaith St. Iohn is an evill thing.
Now let the Reader judge, whether the Dr. be not much miſtaken in his Commentary-expoſition and application of this place of Scripture. And let me give you to underſtand, that St. Iohn ſaith verſe 9. I wrote unto the Church. Or as Beza upon that verſe, foreign Scripſi nonnihil Eccleſiae, that is, I have written ſomething to the Church. But ſeeing no mention is made of any perticular Congregation, how can the Dr. ſo confidently affirm that it was his particular Congregation? Now the Reader may ſee plainly, That the Dr. can expound thoſe Brethren and their Elders or Presbyters, which the Scripture calles a Church, to be a particular Congregation. And what it was which St. Iohn had written to the Church is not in this Epiſtle, nor any other Scripture, declared, except it was, to receive thoſe Brethren, which he ſaith verſe 8. ought to be received, and verſe 10. whom Diotrephes would not receive, how then doth the Doctor ſay? That Diotrephes aſſumed that power to himſelf, which belonged unto the Colledge and councell of Presbyters; without whoſe joynt and mutuall agreement, and common-conſent nothing ought to be done or tranſacted of publike concernment. Is the receiving of Brethren, or caſting out of Brethren a power which belongs to a Colledge of Presbyters, and neither the one nor the other may be tranſacted by the Elders and Brethren of a particular congregation, unleſſe the court or common-councell of Presbyters conjoyntly conſent unto it? Let it be alſo conſidered, That Diotrephes oppoſed the Brethren and forbade them, that would have received thoſe, who St. Iohn ſaith verſe 8. we ought to receive, yea and caſt them ought, verſ. 10. foreign & volentes (admittere) prohibet& de Eccleſia dejicit. That is, and forbiddeth them, that would (or are willing to admit them) and caſteth them out of the church, to wit, excommunicates them. Doth it hereby appear that Diotrephes would have his congregation Independent? and have an abſolute jurisdiction within it ſelf. No, but Diotrephes would Lord it over the church, and have the pre-eminence above his brethren, whether fellow Elders or fellow Saints, verſe …. foreign, ſed amans primatum gerere in eos Diorephes, that is, But Diotrephes loving the primacie amongſt them. He would be the Primate and Metropolitan of the church, and have the Pre-eminence of all the Presbyters in it, and Brethren of it. The Doctor could have urged this Scripture againſt the domineering Prelates, and why ſhould he marvail, that his Brethren ſhould now urge it againſt the court of Presbyters. It is confeſſed Diotrephes did that which was evill in uſurping Authority over the church, and thoſe Brethren, whom he caſt out of the church; But that he was the firſt that oppoſed the Presbyterian Government, or that he did affront a Court and common-councell of Presbyters, is more then I know, or the Doctor can prove. For had Diotrephes done ſo, why was he not convented before them, ſurely the Apoſtle and Elder St. Iohn would rather have written to the colledge of Presbyters (if there were any ſuch) then to the Church, or in writing to the Church, would rather have ſent him a ſummons to appear at ſome conſiſtorie before the Court and common-councell of Presbyters, then to warne them to take heed of his evill, that they did not follow it: And doubtleſſe St. Iohn would have written thus, Diotrephes loves to be a Primate among you, wherefore when the Presbyterie that is to ſay, the Magiſtracy or Signory of grave, ſolid, learned, religious, and wiſe Divines and Miniſters come to keep order, and met together in a Court and common-councell, I will remember his deeds, and inform, or complain to the Court and common-councell of Presbyters, that he prates againſt us (the Presbyters) with malicious words. But the Apoſtle St. Iohn (did not know any Court or common-councell of Presbyters, neither Claſſicall, nor Synod call, to appeal unto) [Nor can the Doctor make good thoſe Appeales he mentioneth pag. 10. to be according to the Scripture of Truth, to wit; That every particular man, as well as any Aſſembly or Congregation, may have their appeal to the Presbyterie of their Precinct, hundred, or deviſion under whoſe jurisdictions they were; And if they finde themſelves wronged there, then they have appeales to ſome other higher Presbytery or Councell of Divines for relief and juſtice. I onelyonly ask the Doctor how he can prove theſe appeales by Scripture; and if he could, whether that higher Presbytery or Councell of Divines, (eſpecially if they may ſay the Holy Ghoſt and we) be not as Independent as theſe Brethren and their Churches, againſt whom the Doctor hath written: And if ſo, then ſuch a high Presbytery or Councell of Divines, is not Gods Ordintnce, by the Doctors own confeſſion and Affirmation.] Therefore the Apoſtle writes to the Church or perticular Congregation whereof Diotrephes was a Member and an Elder, whom he knew had power to judge him, as well as the Church or perticular Congregation of Corinth had power to judge them that were Members therein. 1 Cor. 5.12.13. And therefore might as warrantably admoniſh Diotrephes, as the Church of Coloſſe might Arckippus: Coloſſ. 4.17. 'And if nothing of publike concernment ought to bee done or tranſacted without the joynt and mutuall accord or agreement, and common conſent of the Presbytery; Iohn the Presbyter would not have tranſgreſſed ſo farre, as to take upon himſelf this Authority over Diotrephes to tell the Church of his faults, and to ſay he would remember him and ſharply reprove him, and teach him to prate againſt the Presbyterie with malicious words, which belonged to the Court and Common Councell of Presbyters: But I ſhall have a juſt occaſion to ſay more touching this matter in the anſwer unto the third Queſtion, and therefore paſsing by the objection with its anſwer mentioned page 19. to the 29. unto its due place. I ſhall deſire ſeriouſly to conſider the Doctors proof of his firſt propoſition, which he laboureth firſt by producing ſuch Scriptures, as he conceiveth make for the manifeſtation of the Truth, and from thence frames and formeth his Arguments. 'His Scriptures are theſe, viz. Matth. 3. verſ. 1.2.5.6. Mark. 6.20.21. Matth. 14.5. and Luk. 20.4.6. And divers other Scriptures, which you have at large ſet down in the Doctors Book with his Arguments framed from thence, pag. 29. to 82. where this firſt propoſition endeth. The ſumme of all which, I ſhall give the Reader to underſtand as briefly as I can, to wit; 'Where there was an infinitemultitude of Beleevers, or a very City of Beleevers, ſo that they kept a tyrannicall King in awe, and all the Magiſtrates and Elders in whoſe hands was all the power and Authority, even a world of Beleevers, with many Rulers and men of great place and and Office, with ſuch an increaſe of multitudes of Beleevers, 8000 new Converts beſides women and children, yea many 10000, of Beleevers, and where there were almoſt an hundred Preachers and Miniſters, beſides the 12. Apoſtles, and all theſe continually taken up in Prayer and Preaching, There muſt of neceſſitie be many Congregations and Aſſemblies. But in the Church of Jeruſalem there was an infinite multitude of Beleevers, and a very City of Beleevers (which kept Herod himſelf, the tyrant in awe, and all the Magiſtrates and Elders) even a world of Beleevers, with many Rulers and men of great place and Office, with an increaſe of multitudes of Beleevers, and 8000. new Converts beſides women and children, yea and many 10000. after all the perſecutions, and almoſt an hundred Preachers and Miniſters beſides the 12 Apoſtles, and all theſe were continually taken up in Prayer and Preaching; Ergo, they muſt of neceſſitie be diſpierſed into many Congregations and ſeverall Aſſemblies. I do deny the Minor propoſition of this Argument. Neither hath the Doctor proved, That there was an infinite number of Beleevers, nor a very City of Beleevers in the Church of Jeruſalem. The Scriptures quoted by the Doctor ſpeakes no ſuch thing; thoſe places in Matthew, Mark and Luke, tell us of very many who were baptized by Iohn, and by Chriſts Diſciples, but do not declare how many of theſe baptized perſons were of the Church in Jeruſalem; and the Scripture witneſſeth Acts 9.31. that there were Churches throughout all Judaea, as well as in Jeruſalem, and for ought I know, or the Doctor either, many of thoſe baptized perſons might be in theſe Churches, yea the moſt of them, and but a few, it may be no more but thoſe 120. mentioned Acts 1.13,14,15. To whom were added about 3000. ſouls, who continued in the Apoſtles Doctrine, and fellowſhip, and in breaking of bread and in prayers. Acts 2.41.42.44.46. And as for the world of Beleevers mentioned in another argument drawn from Joh. 12.19. behold the world is gone after him.Pag. 37 and 40. That Scripture doth not ſay they beleeved in him, much leſſe that there was a world of Beleevers in the Church in Ieruſalem. Neither is there mention in any Scripture quoted by the Doctor of 8000. new Converts beſides women and children. Neither doth that Scripture produced Acts 4.4 prove any ſuch thing: For the Reader may conſider that the number of them there mentioned are but 5000. And albeit the Doctor make them up 8000. by ſaying thoſe 5000. men were added to the Church, and joyned to the formers Beleevers pag. 57. Yet there is a twofold miſtake in the Doctors Addition, to wit; Firſt, that ſome of the 3000. (may be) were women, and how then can the Doctor ſay, there were 8000. new converts beſides women. Secondly, theſe 5000. are onelyonly called men and not converts, not beleevers. For howbeit many of them hearing the Word beleeved, yet it is not ſaid the 5000. men beleeved: And the truth is the Text well conſidered only holds forth, that, the number of men was made up five thouſand.
foreign, & factus eſt numerus virorum, quaſi millia quinque, and the number of men was made about five thouſand, not 8000. And as for the many 10000s. mentioned Acts 21.20. foreign comes of foreign infinitus (and though the word foreign do ſometimes ſignifie numerum decem millium, yet not alwayes, but for ſome great number which cannot ſuddenly be told) as Luke 12 1. And Beza both according to the old and new verſion of the Greek into Latine, reads it millia 1000s. not decem millia 10000s. and ſo we have it in our Engliſh Bibles tranſlated thouſands. And the following verſe 22. will make it probable that there were not many 10000s. for there we thus read; The multitude muſt needs come together, ſo that I ſay its probable, that they were not ſo many 1000s. but they could, yea muſt aſſemble together. Neither can the Dr. make good from thoſe Scriptures he produceth 'pag. 62. to wit, Acts 1. verſ. 21.22. cap. 6. verſ. 2.4. and cap. 8. verſ. 1. That there was almoſt a hundred Preachers and Miniſters beſides the 12. Apoſtles in the Church of Jeruſalem. The 12. are named indeed in Act. 6.2.4. but not 100. beſides, no nor any one Preacher but them 12. And as for the other two places Acts 1.21.22. and Acts 8.1. there is not any word concerning Preachers or Miniſters, onelyonly ſome directions touching the choiſe of Matthias, who was one of the 12. mentioned Act. 6.2. And although they who were ſcattered preached the Word Acts 8.4. yet the Scripture doth not declare that they were Preachers or Miniſters of the Church in Jeruſalem.
But the Doctor hath one Argument, which is more to the purpoſe then all the other, which I deſire the Reader ſeriouſly to conſider, pag. 64. he thus further argueth.
That, which the Holy Scripture in expreſſe wordes, and in divers places hath declalred unto us, that every Chriſtian is bound to beleeve. But the Scripture in expreſſe words, and in diverſe, places hath declared unto us, that there were divers aſſemblies, and Congregations of Beleevers in the Church of Ieruſalem, and that the Apoſtles, and all the Beleevers in Ieruſalem, did continue daily with one accord in the Temple, and that they brake bread from houſe to houſe: and that daily in the Temple, and in every houſe, they ceaſad not to teach and preach Ieſus Chriſt.
Ergo, There was diverſe congregations, and ſeverall aſſemblies, of Beleevers in the CHURCH of Ieruſalem, where they did duly pertake in all the Ordinances, and injoyed all the acts of Worſhip.
Now I doe deſire the Reader to conſider how the Doctor Proves his Minor, which he ſaith is manifeſt from Acts 2.46. and chap. 5.12,42. and chap. 3.11.12. and many more places, that might be produced, pag. 64.65.66. In all which diſcourſe, the Dr. gives you nothing, but his own ſuppoſitions, and concluſions, for the proof of his Minor propoſition which is his manner of diſcour-throughout his booke.
This argument I anſwer; Firſt, by denying the Aſſumption, or Minor propoſition, and the reaſon of my denying all, is becauſe the Scriptures produced by the Doctor, doe not in expreſſe words declare, that there were diverſe aſſemblies, and Congregations of beleevers in the Church of Jeruſalem, The Scriptures quoted do in expreſſe words declare the contrary to what the Doctor would prove; For, Acts 2.44,46. All that beleeved were together, and they continued daily with one accord in the Temple. and Acts. 3.11,12. It is expreſſely ſaid; That all the people ranne together to them, in the porch, which is called Solomons. Act. 5.12. And they were all with one accord in Solomons Porch. So that theſe Scriptures produced by the Doctor to prove, that there were divers aſſemblies and Congregations of Beleevers in the Church of Jeruſalem, who met together in ſeverall places, at one and the ſame time, to wit, upon the firſt day of the week, where they did partake daily in all Ordinances, doth expreſly proove the contray, to wit, that the Apoſtles, and all the Beleevers in the Church of Jeruſalem, met together with one accord, in one place, to wit,the Temple, and in Solomons Porch, and brake bread from houſe to houſe, foreign, Domatius, not foreign per ſingulas domos, and thus they did foreign, quotidie, day by day, and they continued ſtedfaſtly in the Apoſtles doctrine, and fellowſhip, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers, and all that beleeved were together, Acts. 2.42,44,46. Yea, the Doctor himſelfe ſaith in his Minor Propoſition, the latter part of it. That the Apoſtles and all the Beleevers in Ieruſalem did continue daily with one accord in the Temple, and that they brake bread from houſe to huſe: And this ſhall ſuffice for refutation of What the Docter hath Written touching the firſt Propoſition.
The ſecond now followes page 81. viz. That all the Congregations and ſeverall Aſſemblies made but one Church. And to this the Doctor ſaith, the Brethren themſelves acknowledge, that all Beleevers in Jeruſalem were all members of that Church, and they accord further, that it was but one Church. And it is manifeſt out of the Holy Scripture, Acts 2.3.45.46. chapters. To which I alſo conſent; But the Brethren have not acknowledged, neither hath the Doctor by Scripture proved, that in this one Church of Jeruſalem there were averſe Congregations and ſeverall Aſſemblies of Beleevers; and therein I muſt mnnifeſt my diſſent from the Doctors opinion, promiſing him, that whenſoever he ſhall ſoundly prove it by expreſſe Words of Scripture (which he hath undertaken) I will acknowledge it.
The third propoſition, which the Doctor comes next to prove, is, That thee Apoſtles and Elders, or Preſbyters governed, and ordered, and ruled this Church joyntly and by a common councell and Preſbytery, pag. 82. Which the Doctor ſaith is evident by theſe places following: Acts 11.27. to the end. The words of this Sccripture which the Doctor makes uſe of, to prove his Aſſertion, are theſe, Verſe 30. And ſent it to the Elders by the hands of Barnabas, and Saul. Here in theſe laſt words (ſaith the Doctor) We ſee, that the Presbyters, and none but the Presbyters received the Almes, which ſufficiently proveth, that the Presbyters in all Churches were, the men of Government: pag. 82. It is not denied by the Brethren, that the Presbyters in all Churches were the men in the Government of the Churches in which they are Elders. But this I conceive (by the Doctors favour) doth not prove it, to wit; Becauſe the Almes was ſent to the Elders. Much leſſe doth that Scriptureprove, that the Apoſtles and Presbyters governed and ruled the Church in Jeruſalem by a Common-councell and Presbyterie, which is the Aſſertion that the Doctor undertakes to prove. But in the 15. Chapter verſe 2.4.6.22. and in chap. 16.4. And in Acts 21.17,18. The Preſbyters of Ieruſalem by name (ſaith the Doctor pag.) 83. are expreſſed. Out of which places of Scripture before the Doctor frame his Arguments, he pleaſeth to make a digreſſion from page 48. to 90. Wherein he highly extols the Preſbyters, making them equall with the Apoſtles in all the Acts of Church-Governement, (as appeares by the Doctors owne words, pag. 88. I doe verily beleeve (ſaith the Doctor) that the Presbyters did act as authoritively as the Apoſtles: and that the Preſbyters might as well conclude, It ſeemed good to the Holy Ghoſt and to us, as well as the Apoſtles, and not onelyonly the preſbyters, who ſate in Counſell with the Apoſtles, and other preſbyters, who were Ordained Elders by the Apoſtles; And the Aſſemblie now of Divines, or any other, may congregate and meet together in ſome one place, for the deciding of controverſies, and differences of opinions in Religion, to ſtate the Queſtions, and debate them from Scripture, or warrantable authority and evidence of reaſon deduced from thence, and may determine the qeſtion by joynt conſent, or by the moſt voyces, and may ſay it ſeemed good to the Holy Ghoſt, and us. pag. 87.88.Pag. 88. And that Preſbiters have their authoritie as well grounded in the Word of God, as Kings and States have theirs, page. 89. And the Doctor doth more eſpecially extoll the Presbyters of this kingdom in theſe our dais, telling what they have deſerved from the Church, Parliament, and Kingdome more then any of their Predeceſſors, having ended his Digreſſion, hee gives you his Argument, pag. 90. To wit: 'They that in the holy Scripture are called Presbyters, and acted and ordered things in a joynt body, and Common-counſell with the Presbyters, and exerciſed that ordinary power committed to them in the 18. of Mattew, they acted as Presbyters. But the Apoſtles in governing the Church of Jeruſalem, conſiſting of many Congregations and Aſſemblies, acted and ordered things in a joynt body and Common councell with the Presbytery of that Church, as Presbyters. Ergo, the Church of Jeruſalem was Presbyterianly governed, and by a Common councell of Presbyters. The Major, and Minor of this Sillogiſme being proved (ſaith the Doctor) the concluſion will neceſſarily enſue. I know not that the Brethrenever denied, That the Church of Jeruſalem was Presbyterianly governed; And although the Dr. be pleaſed to make that his concluſion, yet (under Reformation be it ſpoke) that concluſion doth not follow upon the premiſes. For if the Dr. pleaſe to review his Argument, He ſhall finde, Firſt; that the ſubject of his Major propoſition is left out both in his Minor, and in his Concluſion: The firſt part of the Doctors Minor ſhould have beene this, to witt, But the Apoſtles in the holy Scripture are called Presbyters, and who ever denyed this; Alſo the firſt part of the Doctors concluſion ſhould have been this, from theſe two premiſes, to witt; Ergo, The Apoſtles acted as Presbyters which Concluſion is not the thing in Queſtion. Secondly, that from the ſecond part of the Doctors two propoſitions (to wit, They that acted and Ordered things in a joynt body and Common-councell, which the Presbyters, acted as Presbyters; But the Apoſtles in governing the Church of Ieruſalem acted and Ordered things in a joynt body, and Common-councell with the Presbytery, (or Presbyters either) of that Church: Ergo, the Apoſtles acted as Presbyters.) This ſhould have been the Doctors concluſion.
Now the truth is, though the Apoſtles were called Presbyters in the Scripture, yet it followeth not, that they acted as Presbyters, but as Apoſtles Acts 15. And they cannot therein be a pattern and preſident for Presbyters; Firſt, becauſe the Apoſtles had the care and charge of and over all Churches. 2 Cor. 11.28. But the Preſbyters had the care and overſight of ſome one Church onelyonly, as Epheſus Acts 20.28. or Philippi, Phil. 1.1. and this the Dr. often inſerts in his Book. That all the Churches we read of in the new Teſtament (though they were Presbyterially governed) were dependent upon their ſeverall Presbyters, pag. 12.Pag. 12. And ſecondly, becauſe this would make the Presbyters Independents indeed, for ſo the Apoſtles were in the Government of all the Churches; The Presbyters of Jeruſalem, of Epheſus, and of all the Churches were dependent upon the Apoſtles, and the Apoſtles onelyonly depended on Chriſt, by whoſe holy ſpirit, they were all alwayes guided in the government of their Churches, and therefore they ſaid Acts 15.28. It ſeemed good to the Holy Ghoſt and us. And though the Doctor ſay the Presbyters might ſay ſo, as well as the Apoſtles becauſe the Elders or Presbyters are mentioned there: The Dr. might have alſo conſidered that the Brethren, even the whole church, the multitude (how many ſoever the D. can make of them) were preſent as wel asthe Presbyters. Acts 15.4.12.22.23.25.27.28. And ſo have made the Brethren, the multitude, even the whole Church Independent alſo; and the Dr. might as well have affirmed, that the Brethren even the whole Church might ſay, It ſeemed good to the Holy Ghoſt and to us.
To the fourth propoſition; 'That the Church of Jeruſalem and the Government of the ſame, is to be a pattern for all Congregations and Aſſemblies in any City or vicinity to unite into one Church, and for the Officers and Presbyters of thoſe congregations to govern that Church joyntly in a Colledge or Presbytery. pag. 97. And for the proof of this fourth Propoſition, the Doctor ſaith; 'That all men acknowledge, that the mother Church muſt give an example of Government to all the Daughter Churches. Neither do the Brethren deny (ſaith the Dr.) but the Government of the Church of Jeruſalem muſt be the pattern of Government to all Churches. But the Dr. knowes, that the Brethren deny that the Church of Ieruſalem conſiſted of divers Congregations and ſeverall aſſemblies under a Common-councell, Conſiſtory, Colledge, or Court of Presbyters. And this they have not granted, neither hath the Doctor proved. And this may be ſufficient to be ſaid in anſwer to the four Propoſitions touching the firſt queſtion.
And now I come to the ſecond Queſtion, which is concerning the manner of gathering of Churches, and admitting of Members and Officers pag. 98. which Queſtion the Dr. thus ſtates, viz. 'Whether Miniſters of the Goſpell may, out of already gathered aſſemblies of Beleevers, ſelect and chuſe the moſt principle of them into a Church-fellowſhip peculiar unto themſelves, and admit of none into their ſociety, but ſuch as ſhall enter in by a private Covenant, and are allowed by the conſent, and approbation of all the Congregation? And this Queſtion the Doctor brancheth into ſixe Queries pag. 98.99. Wherein the judicious Reader may perceive the Doctor (through miſ-information I conceive) hath miſtaken the ſtateing of the Queſtion, which he partly acknowledgeth pag. 100.
'But now I ſhall ſet down (ſaith the Dr. pag. 100) Gods method and the Apoſtles practice in gathering of Churches, and the manner they uſed in making Members in every Church, and compare it with the method our Brethren (the Independents) uſe, &c. And to this purpoſe the Doctor begins with Chriſts commiſsion, Matth. 28.19,20. and Mark. 16.15,16. and Acts 26.15,16.17,18,19,20.
Out of theſe ſeverall Scriptures the Doctor obſerves theſe three things, pag. 101. and 102. To wit, Firſt, 'That they ſhould teach no other things but what Chriſt commanded them, and appeared to them in, and for which thy had his Word and warrant. Secondly, the condition, which they were to propound unto all nations and people, upon which they were admitted into the Church, was Faith, Repentance, and Baptiſme. And thirdly, that this commiſſion was delivered onelyonly to the Apoſtles and Miniſters of the Goſpel, that they ſhould admit whoſoever beleeved, and were baptized; And they that beleeved not would not be baptized, were not to be admitted. Theſe are the Doctors owne words, page 102. and page. 103. The Doctor for proofe quotes the third Chapter of Matthew, and Luke 3.7. And the ſum of Iohns preaching (ſaith the Dr.) is mentioned, verſe 3. It was the baptiſme of Repentance for the Remiſſion of ſinnes. Alſo he there cites Luke 7.29. That all the people that heard him, and the Publicans juſtified God, being Baptized with the Baptiſme of Iohn; But the Phariſees and the Lawyers rejected the councell of God againſt themſelves, being no Baptized of him. page 103.104. But now to go on (ſaith the Dr. pag 104.) after the Reſurrection and Aſſenſion of Chriſt, &c. Where he quotes, Acts 2.37,38. Then they that gladly received the Word were Baptized, and the ſame day were added unto them about three thouſand ſoules.
Hence the Doctor obſerves, that the Apoſtles propounded no other condition or termes for the making all and every one of them members of the Church, but Repentance and Baptiſme, The which, when the people had accepted of (ſaith the Doctor) They were forthwith admitted, &c. page. 104. For another proofe the Doctor produceth, Acts 10.44,47,48. Where the Doctor affirmeth, page 106. That thoſe Brethren who came with Peter did not intermeddle in that buſineſſe, to wit, of their admittance (by Baptiſme) into the Church. Now I conceive the reaſon, why thoſe Brethren did not intermeddle to hinder their admittance to that Ordinanceof Jeſus Chriſt, (to wit, Baptiſme in water) and ſo to an entrance into the Church; was, not becauſe they had not ſuch Libertie, but becauſe the Brethren had no juſt objections or kindrance to declare to Peter.
That the Brethren had a liberty to have declared any thing, which might juſtly have hindred the adminiſtration of that Ordinance of Baptiſme unto them, doth appeare by the Queſtion which the Apoſtle expounded. verſe 47. Can any man forbid water that theſe ſhould not be baptized? 'And the Dr. himſelfe acknowledged, pag. 102. That the Brethren or Diſciples of the Church of Jeruſalem (who muſt be a patterne (ſaith the Dr.) of all churches) had this libertie to except againſt ſome ſorts of perſons, and hinder their admittance into the church, though baptized according to Chriſts Commiſſion, and Preachers choſen and ſent by Chriſt himſelfe. And that in caſe ſuch perſons have been formerly known to be open Enemies, and perſecuters of the church, and then they are juſtly to bee ſuſpected (ſaith the Dr. page. 102.) untill they have given publike Evidence by witneſſe to the Miniſters of their true Converſion, and there produceth a plaine inſtance to prove this page 102. Acts. 9.26,27,28. And when Saul was come to Ieruſalem (foreign tentabat jungi) he aſſayed to joyne himſelfe to the Diſciples, but they were all afraid of him, and beleeved not that hee was a Diſciple, &c.
Now this liberty have all the diſciples in the like caſe, becauſe Ieruſalem the Mother church is the pattern of all other the Daughter Churches, as the Doctor confeſſeth, yea affirmeth, page 97. And ſaith, all men acknowledge, That the Mother Church muſt give an example of government to all the Daughter churches. And this is alſo by the Doctor acknowledged, page 102. to be a part of the power of the Keyes, to open and ſhut the doores of the Church; that is, to admit ſuch as are for their Faith, Knowledge and Repentance ſufficiently qualified, and fitted to be made members, and to refuſe ſuch, as are not fit to be recived into the fellowſhip of the church; either for their Ignorance or other ſins and offences, &c. Now, then when it doth evidently appear. That the Diſciples or Brethren (not to ſay Siſters, though they are Diſciples alſo) of the Church in Jeruſalem (in her moſt flouriſhing condition) had this libertie to declaretheir feares, and the ground thereof againſt Paul, who was at that time a Beleever, a Baptized perſon, & a Preacher, or miniſter of the Goſpell, ſo that although, hee came, and aſſayed, to be joyned to the Diſciples, and be admitted a member among them, that he might have fellowſhip with them in the worſhip, and ordinances of the Goſpell: Yet was thereby hindered from admittance untill Barnabas witneſſed his condition and converſation to the Apoſtle, and then he was with them coming in & going out at Jeruſalem. How can the Doctor make good, that 'The Presbyters alone without the conſent of Brethren may admit members, and caſt out members, and that the Brethren or the congregation hath nothing to doe to hinder any ſuch thing, page 102.106.
For further proof hereof: 'The Doctor urgeth Act. 8.35. to 40. The example of the Eunuch, to whom Philip being ſent preached Jeſus, and Baptiſme in his Name, and it is related, That when they came to a certaine water the Eunuch ſaid unto him; See here is Water? What doth hinder me to be Baptized? And Philip ſaid, If thou beleeveſt with all thy heart thou mayeſt, foreign licet, And he anſwered and ſaid, I beleeve that Jeſus Chriſt is the Son of God: And he commanded the Charet to ſtand ſtill; And they went downe both into the water, both Philip and the Eunuch, and he Baptized him. Here we ſet (ſaith the Doctor) that PHILIP admits him into the number of beleevers, and makes him a member of the Church. But the Doctor ſaith, this was without conſulting with the Congregation, by his owne authority, and upon the Eunuch his own teſtimonie, pag. 106.
I anſwer, that PHILIP had a ſpeciall command from God for what he did herein, and ſo had Ananias, Act. 9.15. touching Saul, which is the next Inſtance which the Doctor brings in this ſame 106. pag. And albeit the Doctor affirme; 'That ANANIAS did not ſay to SAUL, I will conſult with the Church to ſee whither they will admit thee to be a member, for thou haſt greatly waſted the Church, and made havock of the Saints, and therefore I will have their approbation, and conſent, and thou ſhalt give in evidences of thy true Converſion, &c. And ſo be received and admitted.
'But without all this ado (ſaith the Dr. pag. 107.) he baptized Paul, and admitteth him into the number of Beleevers, and makes him a Member of the Church. Yet if the Reader look back into the 102. page of his Book, The Dr. there makes an exception from the power which he a little before had affirmed the Presbyters have to admit Members, by vertue of Chriſt his commiſſion, upon the profeſſion of their faith and repentance, and receiving baptiſme, without any further Teſtimony; 'Unleſſe (ſaith the Dr.) they had been formerly known to be open enemies, and perſecutors of the Church, and then they were juſtly to be ſuſpected, till they had given publike evidence by witneſſe of their true converſion: And gives an inſtance in Paul, who for a time the Diſciples feared Acts 9.26.27. till they had better information, and proof, that he now preached the faith, that he had once perſecuted, and had ſuffered for it, pag. 102. To rehearſe all the Scriptures alledged to prove this method of God and practiſe of the Apoſtles were needleſſe. But paſſing by ſuch as are not ſo plain and clear for the proof thereof, and alſo omitting, what the Doctor hath ſaid touching the Brethren, in comparing their practiſe with the Apoſtles: Becauſe the Dr. is miſtaken in ſtateing the Queſtion, and alſo in his Queries, as before I mentioned in the 14 page of this my anſwer, and the Reader may ſee pag. 98 99. and 100. of the Doctors Book. I ſhall give the Reader the reſult of all, that the Dr. hath written from pag. 100. to the end of his Book, touching Gods method, and the Apoſtles practice in gathering of Churches and admitting Members, viz. 'Firſt, That Chriſt having given a Commiſſion to his Apoſtles to teach all Nations, and baptize them, Matth. 28.19.20. Mark. 16 15 16. the Apoſtles practiſed accordingly. Acts 2.37.38. Acts 10.44.45.46.47.48. and ſo did Philip Acts 8.35.36.37.38. and Ananias Acts 9.10.18. Secondly, That the condition or tearmes, which they were to propound unto all Nations and people upon which, they were to be admitted into the Church, were Faith, Repentance, and Baptiſme. Mark. 16.15,16. For the commiſſion was delivered to the Apoſtles, that they ſhould admit whoſoever beleeved, and would be baptized, and they, that beleeved not, and would not be baptized, were not to be admitted, pag. 102. and pag. 104. The Apoſtles(ſaith the Dr.) propounded no other condition or tearmes for making all and every one Members of the Church but Repentance, and Baptiſme, Acts 2.37.38. Thirdly, that the Apoſtles and all ſucceeding Miniſters of the Goſpell ſhould admit whoſoever beleeved, and were baptized, to be Members of the Church, and teach them to obſerve no other things but what Chriſt commanded them, and for which they had his Word and warrant: pag. 101. and 102. Matth. 28.19.20. And this (ſaith the Dr.) the Apoſtles did practice, without requiring them to take a private covenant, or enter into the Church by way of a particular covenant, pag. 105. Acts 2.37.38. This being the ſumme and reſult of that method and practice, which the Dr. conceives ſhould be done in gathering Churches and admitting Members, which the Scriptures will warrant, and Chriſt Jeſus approve of as his fathers will, I ſhall now take liberty to declare, what I know by mine own experience to be the practice of ſome Churches of God in this City. That ſo both the Dr. and the Reader may judge how near the Saints, who walk together in the Fellowſhip of the Goſpell do come in their practice, to theſe Apoſtolicall rules and practice propounded by the Dr. as Gods method in gathering Churches, and admitting Members. I ſay, that I know by mine own experience (having walked with them) That they were thus gathered; viz. Some godly and learned men of approved guifts and abilities for the Miniſterie, being driven out of the Countries, where they lived by the perſecution of the Prelates, came to ſojourn in this great City, and preached the Word of God both publikely, and from houſe to houſe, and daily in the Temples and in every houſe, they ceaſed not to teach and preach Jeſus Chriſt: and ſome of them have dwelt in their own hired houſes, and received all that came in unto them, preaching the Kingdome of God, and teaching thoſe things, which concern the Lord Jeſus Chriſt. Matth. 28.18.19.20. Mark. 16.15. Act. 8.4. …ap. 1….19 20.21.22. Act. 10.20.21. Act. 5.42. Act. 28.23.30.31. Acts 17.1.2,3,4,5. Acts 17.5.11,12. Acts 2.38.40,41,42.And when many ſinners were converted by their preaching of the Goſpell, ſome of them that beleeved, conſorted with them, and of profeſſors a great many, and of the chief women not a few. And the condition which thoſe Preachers both publikely and privately propounded to the people, unto whom they Preached, upon which they were to be admitted into the Church was Faith, Repentance, and Baptiſme;and none other. And whoſoever (poor as well as rich, bond as well as free, ſervants as well as Maſters) did make a profeſſion of their Faith in Chriſt Jeſus, and would be baptized with water into the Name of the Father, Sonne, and Holy Spirit, were admitted Members of the Church; but ſuch as did nor beleeve, and would not be baptized they would not admit into Church-communion. Act. 16.30,31,32,33. Acts 8.35.37.38,39. Acts 8.12. Acts 18.8.This hath been the practice of ſome Churches of God in this City, without urging or making any particular covenant with Members upon admittance, which I deſire may be examined by the Scriptures cited in the Margent, and then compared with the Doctors three concluſions from the ſame Scriptures, whereby it may appear to the judicious Reader, how near the Churches ſome of them come to the practice of the Apoſtles rule, and practice of the primitive Churches, both in gathering, and admitting Members. And my humble requeſt to the Doctor is; That he will uſe all meanes, that the method of God, and practice of the Apoſtles in gathering of Churches, and admitting Members, may be conſcionably practiſed by his Brethren of both ſides according to the revealed Word and Will of the Father.
FJNJS.
End of the text · Hanserd Knollys, Moderate Answer to Dr Bastick (1645)