Doctor Bastwicks Quarters Beaten Up, Treatise
Flagellum Flagelli: OR Doctor BASTWICKS Quarters Beaten up in two or three POMERIDIAN EXERCISES, by way of ANIMADVERSION upon his firſt Booke, intituled, Independency not Gods Ordinance.
By J. S. M. A.
Publiſhed by Authoritie.
LONDON, Printed by Matthew Simmons, dwelling in Alderſgate-ſtreete. 1645.
To Doctor Baſtwick.
SIR;
WHen I firſt tooke your book in hand, it was to read, not to write, but finding it eaſie, and advantage enough, I fell on: I had thought to have ſcand the particulars as I began, but the courſe I was in at the Wells for my health forbad me, and I preſume I ſhould have been no otherwiſe adviſed by your ſelfe, whoſe judgement in ſuch matters might be worthy of more account. I therefore quarterd your Book, and tooke hold of the pillars of your diſcourſe, which if I have ſhaken, how can your building ſtand? If ſome few hands more would doe but as much as this, to what parts (or paſſages rather) are omitted, you might perhaps come to know all the faults of your book in time, which is the worſt wiſh of
The truths friend and yours, J. S.
Flagellum Flagelli: OR, Dr. Baſtwicks quarters beaten up, &c.
PAge 1. It hath ever been obſerved, that diverſity of judgement and opinion bath made a difference in affection. Anſw. But you prove not that to be other then the fruit of Corruption; therefore throw the ſtone at Corruption, Solomon ſayes, only through pride (thereforeProv. 14. 10. not through difference) comes Contention. There is an Antipathy between the Hound and the Hare, but was it ſo from the beginning? Or, muſt one of them be deſtroyed?
2. We ſee many a husband and wife, neighbour and neighbour, friend and friend of ſeverall judgements, that yet live very amicably and friendly together, therefore the obſervation is not univerſally true: And if a few do, and may do ſo, all might, had they the ſame grace, and were there the like mortification of pride. And as for your inſtance, of the Diſciples animoſity againſt the Samaritans, Luke 9.whereby this grave Sentence is exemplyfied: Doth not Chriſt reprove his Diſciples inſtead of contriving the ruine or removall of the Samaritans, though it was not difference in Religion, but incivility and inhumanity againſt the very perſon of Chriſt himſelf, thatVerſ. 53. ſo ſtird the Diſciples choler? but whatſoever it was for, will you humour, juſtifie and make proviſion for ſuch a paſſion, whichVerſ. 55. Chriſt ſo ſharply condemnes in his Diſciples?
Pag. 2. Therefore ſhould all care and diligence among brethren be uſed to get a right underſtanding of one another.
Anſw. 1. If by a right underſtanding one of another, you mean properly, viz. a calling of every thing by its right name, aggravating nothing, nor looking through multiplying glaſſes upon the inconveniences of each others oppoſite opinion I am for you, and ſhal call you a man of peace: Or, if you ſpeak Metonymically, uſing the Cauſe for the Effect, and by right underſtanding, mean an incorporation into one opinion; yet if you carry this impartially, and beg not the Queſtion, but put them into an equall ballance, reſolving your ſelf, as well as deſiring others to imbrace whatſoever ſhall appeare to be the truth, you do well: But if you will anticipate and foreſtall the judgement of your Reader, and nothing will pleaſe you but a coming over to your opinion, what ſingular thing, or what new Invention towards an agreement do you offer more then the rigideſt Presbyterian confident of his own Way, and abounding in his own ſenſe, hath done before you? Certainly, if wee could turn Presbyterians, wee queſtion not but the ſtrife were ended: But here were a part worthy of a man of parts, in caſe we cannot be of one minde, to find out a Way of peace and love, and to move brethren to beare with one another, as you ſay, contiguouſly with the former, but have little endeavoured it yet, and not a little the contrary.
Pag. 3. The honour of the Church, for which you profeſſe you contend, is an unſavory expreſſion, too much ſymbolizing with the ſtile of the Papiſts, as doth the practice of ſome men with theirs alſo. And whereas you ſay [the honour of that Church] you ſpeak very ambiguouſly, and improperly, not determining where, or who that Church is, whether in England or Scotland, or elſewhere, or every where, whether Catholike or Nationall, tell us, that we may honour it with you.
Pag. ead. Some few lines below, where you undertake to reckon all the undeceiveable marks of the true Church, ſaying expreſsly, theſe are all thoſe undeceiveable marks, &c. Yet having named only three, you eeke them out with an [all other requiſites] not naming the reſt, like the Biſhops Et caetera; who juggles now?
And whereas you ſay contiguouſly, From ſuch a Church as hath the Goſpel purely preached and believed, the Sacraments rightly adminiſtred, and in the which there is the true invocation of God and all other requiſites, &c. there is no juſt ſeparation.
I anſwer, There is a whole Category of Amphibolies in your ſpeech; For neither by all the Requiſites, do you ſay whether you mean Eſſentialls or Integralls: Nor by ſeparation, whether you mean abſolute and totall ſeparation, or partiall; from Communion ordinary or from all communion; from internall or externall; therefore I might juſtly take no notice of this, till you ſpeak plainer; yet to undeceive the world, we give this account and anſwer: An internall communion there is, and ought to be acknowledged between all the members of the body myſticall, whether they be in bodies miniſteriall or no: an externall communion in all the common duties of Religion; as praying, hearing, conference, admonition, may not be denyed with all Chriſtians, and with all men occaſionally to edification: An externall communion in Church-ordinances, as ſacraments and cenſures, may not be ſubſtracted or withdrawn from a Church right for the eſſentialls, as if it were no Church, or under ſuch a notion, but as from an imperfect Church, if it want integralls; or a corrupt, if it be redundant with ſuperſtitions, &c. ſo it may: Laſtly, an occaſionall communion even in the Lords Supper, may be admitted with a Church that walks up to their light, with whom yet, perhaps, we cannot with comfort ſit down ordinarily.
As for your Apologie for the non-dedication of your Book, in regard of your ſufferings for your former, I ſay only this upon it: It was far better with you when you ſuffered for Presbyterie in oppoſition to Prelaticall tyranny, then now, if you would make others ſuffer by Presbytery, in oppoſition to the Congregationall government; only I doubt, in the ſequele of your Diſcourſe you will not be found to intitle the Lord Jeſus to your book, (as in terms you profeſſe.) If ſo, I hope there will be no quarrell between us; for all wee contend for, is that the Government may be left where it is laid by the FatherIſai. 9. 6. even upon his ſhoulders.
As for God and Faith, which you joyn together, pag. 5. ſaying, You have learned to believe God and Faith upon their word and bond: I know not what that Faith ſhould mean; we ordinarily take faith for that whereby we believe, and not that which we believe: or if you take it ſo (metonymically objectively) what is it other then God, or the will of God, which I ſuppoſe you mean the Word of God? For God, or his will in its Eſſence is not immediately objected to us, but hee reveales his will in his Word; but to the ſubſtance of this boaſt, and that that followes (if there be any ſubſtance in it) if you will believe God and the ſufficiency of his inſtitutions, without the ſureties of humane reaſon and authority, as you do here equivalently profeſſe, you will not be offended at the Congregationall Way for that inconſiſtency and deficiency that is carnally objected againſt it.
As for that you ſay, pag. 6. That this is no new opinion of yours, it is no more then the Papiſts may ſay for their Myſterie of Iniquity.
And as for your ſufferings for it, which you boaſt of; alas, ſufferings are ſubject to the ſame vanity and bondage of corruption as doings; yea, and the whole creation are (i.) to be applyed to ill things, and graffed with an ill cauſe, though I ſay not it was ill as oppoſing Prelacie, or as it was a graduall recidivation from that tyranny.
And as for the acceptance of your endeavours and ſufferings, in that cauſe, and your inference thereupon, That therefore you ſee no good Pag. eadem.reaſon why a truth then ſhould not be counted a truth now; You beg the Queſtion: Prove firſt it was a truth, otherwiſe 'tis no wonder if that which ſeemed to be a truth ſix or ſeven yeers ago, finde not the ſame acknowledgement now, as might be inſtanced in many particulars.
Next you come to ſtate the Queſtion, pag. 7. and immediately you give that which you call a ſimile of it, but if it be, it is 1. a carnall one, and I had rather heare, and it would better become a ſpirituall man to compare ſpirituall things with ſpirituall: for Chriſts inſtitutions1 Cor. 2. 13. muſt not be exacted by the Laſt and Rule of humane ordinances. God gave Moſes the pattern of the Tabernacle in the Mount, he doth not ſend him to take a pattern for it from anyExod 25. 40. 26. 30. earthly frame or fabrick, though there were far more coſtly and curious, but the Tabernacle was to have, and had a faſhion by it ſelf that differed from all: When we know the true nature of ſpirituall things, of the devices of God, as I may call them, wee may finde a reſemblance of them in things here below, which are made after them, but wee cannot fetch the knowledge of heavenly compoſures from theſe earthly things.
2. Yet neither is this bed of your ſimile large enough for the tall Iſai. 28. 20.and proper limbs of your Presbytery to ſtretch themſelves upon: For though the ſeverall Companies in each city, as you ſay, (though wee have not many ſuch cities in England, except you have more of them in Scotland, wherein there are ſuch ſeverall Companies that have all their ſeverall halls, (e. g.) Merchant Taylors, Groſſers, &c. for to yeeld the matter of this ſimile) are not independent, but aſſociate and combined in a common councell, &c. yet there are Corporations as ſmall as theſe Companies in the Kingdome, that are Independent, and doe not act in aſſociation or coordination. So that if the Churches in the Citie muſt, to hold correſpondence with the forme of Civill Government, be in aſſociation and act in a Presbytery, yet this Simile will not carry any ſuch thing to an ordinary underſtanding, that in the Countrey (where they live three or foure, or more miles aſunder, and act their Civill affaires independently) they muſt doe ſo. Nay then, we will argue from the Simile: If the Townes in the Countrey be independent in their Civill Government, that is, act ſingly and independently (in reſpect of any other Townes intermedling) their own buſineſſes and concernments, as they doe, why ſhould not the Churches in thoſe Townes doe ſo too? then at leaſt the Churches in the Countrey muſt be exampted from Presbytery.
But 3. I anſwer to your ſimile, That as it is ſhorter then that Presbytery, as you would be willing to extend it in the praxis, may ſtretch it ſelfe upon, ſo it is abs re, farre from illuſtrating the ſenſe you intend. For your ſimile in the true reſolution of it propoſes no other then whether Inferiors may act independent of their Superiors. For all thoſe appeales, whereof you ſpeake, are ſtill reſolved into a higher notion, power, and authoritie, (e. g.) The Lord Major, Court of Aldermen, and Common Councell, are ſuperior to any Company or Companies of the Citie, in degree as their rulers, or amount to a ſuperioritie in value and ſumme, as the repreſentative of the Citie, the whole, which is better then any part: therefore your ſimile is not fit for this purpoſe. But now if you would propoſe a proper ſimile, it ſhould be thus; Whether Companies or Corporations, equall and coordinate, may not and doe not act their owne proper affaires and concernments independently in reſpect of one another? (i.) Whether if a Citizen of Merchant-taylors Company, be aggrieved by the carriage of any thing in that Company, he can ſo appeale to the Company of the Stationers, and the Company of the Vintners, and two or three more, or the Heads of theſe, as to ſubject the Company of Merchant-taylors to the juriſdiction and arbitrament of thoſe Companies? for this is the caſe here.
As ſuppoſe there be no imparity (i.) ſuperioritie or inferioritie in the Churches, but all are coordinate, all are one Spouſe to Jeſus Chriſt, and he intruſts one Congregation as well and as much as another, and gives them as large a ſhare of common intereſt in ſpirituall government, or managing the matters of his Kingdome, one Church as another, and hath made no Common Councell, no Court of Aldermen, no Lord Major in his Church, nor no Officers or diſtinctions anſwering to theſe. And ſuppoſe further, that as neither male nor female, bond nor free, ſo ſuch a diſtinction of whole and part, have no place in this matter, but Chriſt Jeſus the quickening Spirit be, as in all, ſo all in all, and each of theſe particular bodies; and as a whole Chriſt went for the ranſome of each particular Beleever, and a whole Chriſt is in every beleever, (as the ſoule tota in toto) ſo the whole and intire glory of Jeſus Chriſt be intruſted with every particular Congregation, (i.) an intire and perfect adminiſtration of all government be committed to them, and the intire *Rev. 1. 4.ſpirit of government be in each ſuch Congregation. Suppoſe, I ſay, it be thus (as I conceive it will be found to be,) that each part be to Chriſt as the whole; Chriſt being indiviſible, and recollecting his whole ſelfe in himſelfe, and in every part of himſelfe (which the ſpirit of humane power, order, and authority cannot doe) and ſo we cannot weigh Chriſt againſt1 Cor. 1. 13. Chriſt, Chriſts power againſt Chriſts power, nor many Congregations againſt one. I ſay, Suppoſe theſe things be ſo, then is it any Queſtion, whether ſuch Congregations may act independently? When as wee know that Companies doe act independent of their fellow-Companies, and Corporations in the Countries doe act independent of other neighbour-Corporations: indeed they act not independently incontroulably of the higher names above them; but a Company is not indicted by a Company, a Corporation by a Corporation. Untill therefore you ſhall prove that Churches are not coordinate, or that there are higher names then Churches and Church-Presbyters, or that the ſame perſons are in higher place and office in a Claſſis, then in their owne particular ſpheares and Congregations, (which if it were ſo, then why ſhould they not have ſuteable names, that might import the ſuperiority of the Relation (even as the Common-Councell-Men, though they be Maſters and Members of the ſeverall Companies, yet when joyned in a Common Councell, they are not called the Maſters of the Companies of the Citie, but by a diſtinct name of intereſt and honour, the Court of Aldermen, and Common Councell) untill, I ſay, you prove theſe, your ſimile will lye in the dirt. I know wee have ſuch names, as Claſſes and Synods, adapted and adopted to this Eccleſiaſticall Hierarchy, but they being onelyonly jure humano, will not paſſe with us for grounds of Authority or ſuperiority in the things that are called by them.
Next after your Simile you come to your Queſtion, and to divide your poſition into foure Branches, which yet you fall off from again by a digreſſion of ſixteen or ſeventeen pages long, to prove, viz. That all the Churches we read of in the New Teſtament, were pregnant Churches, or accumulated of many, govern'd by a Common Presbytery: Which labour you might have ſaved, if you had hopes to make good the foure Branches propounded, (two of which are, That the Mother-Church was ſuch a Church, and ſo govern'd; and ſecondly, That all other Churches are to be govern'd as that was:) at leaſt you might have kept this for a reſerve, if they had failed. But beſides that, you prove neither part of your Aſſertion, viz. Either that they were aggregated Churches, or that the Presbytery to which they were committed, was a joynt Presbytery, and not each Church to its particular, (for thoſe many Scriptures you quote, do neither of themſelves ſound ſo, nor for ought I ſee, doe you put ſuch a twang into them:) you commit theſe errors by the way.
1. You impoſe upon your Reader, without any authoritie or reaſon, that Diotrephes was an Independent, and that was the quarrell3 Epiſt. Joh. John had againſt him; and that his Church was in the faction with him, when as wee have no mention of his Church at all, nor of his prating againſt the Presbytery. And for the crime objected, of ſeeking the preheminence, if the Lord keepe us that the world be never able to charge us with a likelier fault, we ſhall not be afraid to make our Accuſers our Judges; Alas, our offence is, that we are againſt preheminence.
2. You confidently exclude the people from having any hand in the Government, (in which you account the ſolving of difficulties in doctrine, as well as other matters to be a part) when yet in the places quoted, eſpecially and moſt expreſly, Act. 15. 22. the intereſt of the Brethren and the whole Church is ſpoken of, not in actu ſignato onelyonly, but in actu exercito.
3. Pag. 18. You make the names of Paſtors and Shepheards, when applyed to Church-Officers, to import that Authoritie, power, and government, as they doe when applyed to Magiſtrates: at leaſt you make the ſymbolizing of Church-Officers with Civill Magiſtrates in thoſe Names an Argument of communicating with them in ſuch a kinde of power as they have, though not the ſame degree; but how weakly, let all men judge.
4. Pag. 19. You exact the wayes of God by the line and rule of humane reaſon, and will give no more to an Inſtitution, then it will goe for in that Market.
5. In the ſame page you put ſuch an Objection upon the Independents about requiring Miracles, as the condition and qualification of Elders now adayes, els not to be acknowledged Elders, as I am confident the Congregationall judgement will not, nor ever did they owne, what ever ſome other Independents (for it is a genericall name, appliable to whomſoever the inventers of it pleaſe, and more properly to ſome others, then they that are commonly called by it) may doe; but that it might be a ſcandall to all of the Name, you doe very wiſely, and take the right courſe, not to name the booke or Author, where you finde that Objection.
Pag. 29. You lure after your reader (who might very well be turning his back upon your diſcourſe) that now you come in order to prove the foure propoſitions, but you keepe not this order long. The firſt propoſition is; That there were many Congregations and ſeverall Aſſemblies in the Church of Jeruſalem, &c. For the proofe whereof you bring the multitudes of Converts to Johns Baptiſme; The people of Jeruſalem, all of them, and all Judea, &c. Whereby (ſay you,) they all became Chriſtians, or Members of the Chriſtian Church: For (ſay you,) Johns Baptiſme was into Jeſus Chriſt, and the very ſame with that of the Apoſtles.
Wee anſwer to your Reaſon;
1. Johns Baptiſme was into Chriſt, but it was in Chriſtum moriturum, not in Chriſtum mortuum.
2. To ſay it was the ſame with Chriſts and the Apoſtles, is flatMat. 21. 25. Act. 18. 25. contrary to the Aſſertion of John himſelfe, and the Apoſtles; I baptize you with water (ſayes he) but there comes one after me, who ſhall baptize with the Holy Ghoſt, and with fire.
3. Therefore now by Johns Baptiſme they were not all made Chriſtians, no more then the body of the Jewes before John were turn'd Chriſtians by being baptized in the red Sea, &c. for they were baptized into Chriſt by their Baptiſmes. I deny not but this baptiſme1 Cor. 10. 3. of John was to prepare men for Chriſt, and did beare a more immediate relation to ſuch a worke, then any Ordinance before, but it did not make them abſolute Chriſtians; It did not abſolve and perfect the new Church, I meane not ſo farre as that Ordinance of Baptiſme was to doe afterwards.
4. The learned and judicious know, that John was but the Meſſenger before Chriſts face, and his Baptiſme was but as theMal. 3. 1. ſtreamings of light in the Heavens before the day, and he did onelyonly bring and reſtore all things to their legall perfection by water, the Element of the Law; but Chriſt Jeſus he comes and baptizes with fire, Conſummates all things with this transforming powerfull Element, even his Spirit.
5. So farre was it that all that were baptized by John, were made Chriſtians, that even Johns owne Diſciples (who had the beſt and frequenteſt inſtruction,) not onelyonly heſitated, but were downright *Joh. 3. 26.ſcandalized at the true Meſſias; and others did under that forme of Johns baptiſme, fight againſt the true Baptiſme and baptizer the Lord Jeſus: ſo that I conceive this Argument (were it granted that all the people received Johns Baptiſme) will ſtand in little ſtead to prove the Concluſion, viz. That they were made Chriſtians, much leſſe caſt into a Church-mould, according to the New Teſtament forme, and leaſt of all that they were all members of one Chriſtian Church at Jeruſalem.
But note an abſurdity in the ſequell of the diſcourſe, where the Doctor having got a multiplying glaſſe in his hand, goes on to make ſtrange diſcoveries of the increaſe of Chriſtian Beleevers, Pag. 36. he tells us, That Chriſt made many more Diſciples and beleevers then John, and added daily to the Church that was then in Jeruſalem, ſuch as ſhould be ſaved. Here's two Paradoxes. Firſt, That Chriſt made more Diſciples then John: Out of whom ſhould he make them, when as John had ſwept all along with him, as you affirme before, pag. 32. med. not taking it ſynecdochically, (whatever you determine of it here.) Secondly, That Chriſt ſhould adde daily to the Church that was then in Jeruſalem, is not this a marvailous anticipation and miſtake, to apply that which was done by the Diſciples after Chriſts aſcenſion, Act. 2. laſt, unto the Miniſtry of Chriſt himſelfe, and yet in the ſequell you reckon this to the Apoſtles alſo expreſly, pag. 56. Judge if here be not falſe Muſters. And let me tell you, you give us occaſion ſhrewdly to ſuſpect your ignorance (to ſay no worſe) to talke of a Church in Jeruſalem, beſides the Nationall Church of the Jewes in the life-time of our Saviour.
And thus farre I have taken notice of moſt of the Materiall Excipienda in your Booke: I had thought to have beſtowed as much time on the reſt, but that other Conſiderations forbad me, therefore I ſhall onelyonly briefly examine the maine Propoſitions that follow, omitting the Amplifications and Collaterall Notions that fall in the handling thereof. And ſo I ſhall leave this Propoſition, without taking any further Exceptions to it, or any more paſſages in the aſſerting of it, and the rather, becauſe there are, and thoſe ſo able, already ingaged in the diſpute thereof; and come to the ſecond Propoſition, viz. That all theſe Congregations and ſeverall Aſſemblies To the ſecond Propoſition.made up but one Church: Which Propoſition, except the former ſtand good, is to little purpoſe, as the Doctor foreſeeing is therefore very briefe in the manifeſtation of it, I ſhall not therefore be long in the Examination of it, though in that little compaſſe of lines he gives cauſe of manifold Exceptions. For firſt whereas you ſay, The Brethren themſelves acknowledge, that all the Beleevers in Jeruſalem were all members of that Church: If you meane the Church ſpoken of Act. 15. 4. I deny, and ſay, it is a groſſe preſumption, and begging of the Queſtion, to ſay, that wee acknowledge all the Beleevers in Jeruſalem to be Members of that one miniſtring Church, eſpecially if you reckon all Johns Diſciples and Converts to theſe Beleevers: For as there was a good ſpace of time after there were multitudes of Beleevers, ere there was ſuch a Church, ſo for any thing hath yet been brought to the contrary, it is probable enough that the true Beleevers, (which were not ſo many after you have cut off Johns Converts, I meane thoſe that did ſtick in Johns Baptiſme, which were multitudes, and temporary Beleevers, which ceaſed to walke with Chriſt, which were not a few, and ſtrangers, which did afterwards diſperſe themſelves into ſeverall Countries) thoſe that did remaine at Jeruſalem, did gradually grow up unto Church-fellowſhip. And it amounts to no leſſe then the former begging and preſumption, that which followes, viz. That this Propoſition is manifeſt out of the Scripture, viz. that they that were convented, are ſaid to be added to the Church. For what if that be to be underſtood of the Church Catholick, and not a particular Church? It may not be denyed, that the word Church, is often ſo uſed in the New Teſtament, and it is ſuſpicious that the three thouſand converted at once, were not ſo ſoone inſtructed in Church-followſhip as converted. As for that which followes, that they continued in the Churches Communion, and the Apoſtles doctrine: The Doctor hath moulded the Text for his own advantage, and indeed hath falſified it; for 'twas in the Apoſtles Act. 2. 42.doctrine and fellowſhip, not in the Churches fellowſhip, except you are content it ſhould be underſtood in the communion of the Church Catholicke, which is no more then in Chriſtian Communion in generall: and for ought I know, that is all that is meant there: And tell me any act wherein the multitude of beleevers did communicate, that can beſpeake it neceſſarily to be any more then a Chriſtian Communion in generall, or what Chriſtians may have together, though not of the ſame Church; and the Doctor himſelfe ſays before, The chiefe publique Ordinance they communicated in was preaching.
To the third Aſſertion or Branch, Pag. 82. which is, That the Apoſtles and Presbyters, governed, ordered, and ruled this Church of Jeruſalem, conſiſting of many Congregations and Aſſemblies, by a Common Councell and Presbytery.
I anſwer; Firſt, I am not ſatisfied by any thing hath been alledged, that that Church conſiſted of many Congregations and Aſſemblies, and that upon the ſcruples before inſtanced.
Secondly, In aſſerting that the Presbyters did rule that Church, and ordinarily other Churches, whom doe you hit? Sure not the Independents, as you call them; We grant, 'tis their part to rule: but we diſtinguiſh between Authority and juriſdiction on the one hand, and power and intereſt on the other: this latter belongs to the people; the other is proper to the Officers, which yet they exerciſe in the name of the Church: So they, (i.) the Officers ordaine, they excommunicate, (i.) pronounce Excommunication, they lead and direct in all Government and diſputes, they have the executive power, as you demand pag. 93. But the people have a power and intereſt too, as thoſe places alledged by your ſelfe ſhew expreſly, Act. 15. For tho ver. 2. Paul and Barnabas are ſaid to be ſent to the Apoſtles and Elders only, yet ver. 4. they are ſaid to be received of the Church, and Apoſtles, and Elders, therefore they were ſent to the Church alſo; and that word foreign with one accord, ver. 25. imports a multitude met together; and this to be the reſult of that multitude, els it were no great commendation of the reſolution that it was convened about and iſſued forth foreign. And though onelyonly the Apoſtles and Elders are mentioned, as coming together to conſider of the Queſtion, ver. 6. yet it is ſaid, ver. 22. that it pleaſed (not onelyonly the Apoſtles and Elders) but the whole Church alſo, therefore the Church alſo came together to conſult; or the Apoſtles and Elders▪ as a Committee, firſt prepared the diſpute, as not counting it ſo ſafe perhaps to admit the weake to the ſame, while it was intricate, and then reported it, and had their aſſiſtance and concurrence; and the Letters of reſolution run in the name of the Brethren (i.) the Church as well as the Apoſtles and Elders, ver. 23. And ſo in Ordination foreign, (i.) Election by lifting up of the hand, belongs to the Brethren, Act. 6. 5, 6.though foreign, (i.) Impoſition of hands, be proper to the Officers, where there are Officers, as in a Church conſtituted and compleat.
3. That where the whole Church is written to and exhorted to a part of diſcipline, that the Officers onelyonly ſhould be intended, as in confirmation of your Aſſertion you afterwards affirme by the inſtance of the Church of Corinth, we can no way admit. Rather on the other hand, Chriſt many times writes and directs his Commands to the Officers, when they appertaine to the whole Church, and are ſo to be underſtood, onelyonly written and ſent to them, as being principall parts of the Churches, by and from whom they are ex Officio, to be communicated to the whole. And for your Simile of Kings directing their Mandats to a Citie or Corporations, which are to be executed by the Majors, Sheriffes, &c. I conceive it doth ire in contrarium, it is contrariouſly framed to the manner, which is rather to direct to the Sheriffe or Major, what doth concerne the Corporation, and is required of the whole: and ſo we finde Chriſt to doe in the Epiſtles to the ſeven Churches.
For that anticipating aſſertion, That the Apoſtles ruled this Church▪ aggregate, not by vertue of their Apoſtleſhip, but by vertue of its union. I ſhall referre it to the next head, viz. 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 Presbyterie, which is your fourth and laſt branch of your firſt Queſtion, pag. 97.
Anſw. 1. They are not an example of uniting or aggregation, except it be found that there were many churches aggregated, which a very facile and ſwaſible reader may well doubt of, for any thing that hath yet been ſaid to make it good.
2. If this were granted that many Churches did aggregate and unite in the beginning, yet would not this example be bindingly preſidentiall: For as many things were done out of that ordinary courſe that was after ſetled, in the creation, and in a ſingular way by themſelves, as the enlightening of the world without a Sun, the watering of the earth with a miſt before it rained, the producing of fruits ex tempore; which things afterwards ceaſed, being digeſted into orderly rules and courſes; ſo might it be in the firſt plantation of churches: Many things might pro tempore be taken up, which might not afterwards be continued. (e. g.) The Apoſtles did *Act. 6. 2.ſerve Tables at firſt, but afterwards an office was inſtituted for that on purpoſe: So ſuppoſe there were in the Church of Jeruſalem a greater multitude then could meet in one place, and yet all one church, and ruled joyntly by the Apoſtles and Elders thereof, (which yet wee do not admit) yet could not this from hence be drawne into preſident, becauſe, that howſoever the Acts of government which the Apoſtles exerciſed, together with the Elders, in and over this Church, were common and ordinary and done after the ordinary manner (as the Doctor contends) yet I ſhall make bold to remember him again of that which it ſeemes hee remembers very well to have been anſwered in this caſe formerly (though he make not ſo good an uſe of it) viz. That the extent of their power in the exerciſing of theſe Acts there and elſewhere was extraordinary as was their perſons and calling to Apoſtleſhip. And we do not ſo foreign by this diſtinction, that hee ſhould not know where to have us, for 'tis eaſily apprehended what we ſay is imitable, and what not imitable in theſe Apoſtles.
And now for that cavill; That the Apoſtles did not this by vertue of their Apoſtleſhip, but by vertue of the union of thoſe aſſemblies.
I anſwer, that in aſſerting it thus excluſively of their Apoſtleſhip, you ſuppoſe the Apoſtles to have been the officers ordinary, or at leaſtwiſe extraordinary of this Church of Jeruſalem only, and ſo that they could not elſewhere exerciſe the like power, or not otherwiſe then by vertue of an union of churches, which is no greater prerogative then you will grant to ordinary officers now; and ſo the Apoſtles ſhall have no greater a Commiſſion then we, which is as to ſay, their perſons were no more extraordinary, nor their office, then common Presbyters now adayes.
But thirdly, to abound in the anſwer of this ſame matter, if that many churches in Jeruſalem did unite and tranſact their affaires, or ſome of them joyntly, and that therefore we may do ſo, yet it followes not that wee muſt, whether we will or no, for this is to urge us beyond the pattern. The churches in Jeruſalem (admit) voluntarily, ſpontaneouſly through the opportunity and advantage of the Apoſtles help, and through the ſtrength of the ſpirit of love and confidence which they had one to, and towards another, and for other good cauſes and conſiderations, did act many things (that concern'd the churches) in an aſſociated way, therefore all churches, will they nill they, have they the ſame grounds, reaſons and incouragements, yea or no, muſt do ſo: Is this good Logick? And that you may not think here is prevarication or jugling in this buſineſſe, I for mine owne part muſt ingenuouſly grant and confeſſe, that I am not very ſolicitous concerning the anſwer of this matter; for whether it were ſo, or it were not ſo then, that they did, or did not aſſociate, I think it might be ſo now; I mean, ſome kinde of aggregation and union might be, though wee might tread more confidently, having the ſteps of the Primitive Churches before us, that is, to ſpeak more plainly, The Churches of Chriſt now, though poſſeſſed of an entire independent Church-power in each body; yet may, when, and where, and with whom, and in what caſes or things God ſhall perſwade them, tranſact ſuch affaires as they ſhall think fit joyntly and ſociouſly; provided, that hereby they deveſt not themſelves of, nor prejudice themſelves in any priviledge of an entire, ſole, and and ſingle adminiſtration, or the like, which Chriſt hath given them, but retain that power of reſuming and recollecting themſelves to themſelves, when they ſhall ſee o…caſion. And if the churches in Jeruſalem did ſo, wee have cauſe to think this was all they did; and if the Brethren of Antioch did appeale (Asts 15.) we have cauſe to judge it was a free and voluntary appeal, and they were not call'd and compell'd thereto. And that they, and wee in imitation of them, might do this, is no wave of the ſea, but ſtands upon this bottome and foundation, viz. That no priviledge is a hinderance in that thing wherein it is ordained for a priviledge: and ſo the intireneſſe of a Congregation whereby it is able to recollect it ſelf, as having the whole ſpirit of government in it, is not to be made a barre to a church or churches, that ſhall finde it convenient, and for edification to joyn with other churches (where God ſhall knit their hearts reciprocally) in the common tranſaction of ſuch affaires as they ſhall think fit and conſent unto: But this cannot be preſcribed and injoyn'd upon them by man, but is to be done electively by them, as flowing indeed, from a ſpeciall love and pleaſure, which thoſe churches take in one another, and beare to one another.
This we ſay in their ordinary affaires they may do, we ſpeak not of caſes extraordinary for difficulty and moment; wherein, if their own means ſuffice not, they are bound to ſeek the help of other Churches.
Briefly, to ſhut up all, Had we a Collegde of Apoſtles, or Apoſtolicall men, wee ſhould make as much uſe of them, and reference to them as they did; and were there more churches of ſuch a temper and quality as they ought, (that might be the foundation of ſuch a mutuall dearneſſe, pleaſure and confidence) wee might do more in this Way of aſſociating then we do; but wee hold it our right, liberty, and priviledge, to do what wee do in this kinde freely, and not to be compelled thereto; nor indeed would it be any other then a meere formall aſſociation did it ariſe otherwiſe. Win us therefore to an aſſociation by the beauty of your fellowſhips, and you ſhall not need to compell us.
THe ſecond Queſtion which takes up full one third part of his Book, is of the manner of gathering Churches, and of admitting Members and Officers propoſed by him: 1. In the Chaos it ſeemes: 2. Orderly, (as he ſuppoſes) drawn forth into ſix Queries, though I dare not ſay there is not interfering tautologie and great confuſion. The nature in which the things are, viz. of Quere, incourages mee the rather to do ſomething in them, for that I hope the Doctor wil not be great of his own ſenſe, but take an anſwer of theſe things from thoſe that know the way better then himſelf, who it ſeems, is but a Caetechumenos therein. I ſhall here therefore indeavour to inſtruct him in ſtead of refuting him, for as much as to me it ſeemes unmeet, that a man ſhould be polemically exerciſed before hee be poſitively principled.
The firſt Quere which muſt go but for one, though it be Legion, I muſt anſwer to, part by part, as followes: Whether for the gathering of Churches, there be either precept or preſident in the Word of God? A. Yes; Is not the word a gathering ordinance? are not the people thereby invited, yea, compelled to come in, and called toLuk. 14. 23. 1 Ep. Joh. 1. fellowſhip with the Saints as well as with the Father and the Son? is not man a ſociable creature? doth not nature teach us for politique advantages to fall into ſocieties? is there not heat where two lie together? Eccleſ. 4. 11.and is it not forepropheſied they ſhall ſerve the Lord with one Zeph. 3. 9. Mat. 18.ſhoulder? And laſtly, Doth not Chriſt ſay, Where two or three are gathered together in my name, &c. But all this hitherto you would be as ſorry it ſhould once come into queſtion as I: for who or what ſhould be ſaddled for the Presbytery, but ſuch a like thing as they call a church at leaſt? (only by this I perceive what churches you would have foreign, not foreign ▪ (i.) All together, tag & rag, no ſelection, this is the way indeed to imbaſe the kind and make them carry gentle.) I demand therefore further: ought not Church-ſocieties to be particular, certain, and definite, for as much as that which is every ones work, is done by no body; and to profeſſe to owe equall and immediate duty to all, is both the way to perform it to none, and a ſigne that a man intends ſo?
But if that that followes muſt be taken for the meaning of this Quere, viz. Whether Preachers and Miniſters of the Goſpel did ever leave their own ordinary charges (to which they are called, and whereto they are fixed with a command not to leave them) and under pretence of a new way, &c. did run about, and alienate the mindes of the people well-affected formerly to their ſeverall Miniſters, &c. I anſwer, by no means is this warrantable: But I count a vaſt difference between a Miniſter or Miniſters, going abroad of their own heads, and meerly under pretences in a ſecret clandeſtine way to get the hearts of men from their ſound and orthodox Teachers, for this was the practice of the falſe *Gal. 17.Apoſtles; and on the other hand, a Miniſter or Miniſters going forth with the conſent and approbation of a Church or churches, when, or where Chriſt ſhall make an opportunity, and open a doore for the peaceable, comely and orderly doing thereof, either to vindicate ſome Truthes under reproach and diſgrace through a cloud of ignorance and prejudice hanging over the eyes of men; or to diſcover and lay open certain errours or uſurpations wherein Chriſt is injured, and the Saints liberties infringed; and this in a free ingenuous way of preaching and diſpute, offering and commending their Doctrine and Way to the impartiall ſearch and examination of all, both Paſtors and people, (that heare or will heare them) by the Word, and all this not to ſuch an end to breed any diſaffection or alienation between people and their Miniſters, but to make them both free by the truth, that they may both of them know and practice their ſeverall duties, and Chriſt may reap the fruit of it in the honouring of his Name, and themſelves in the comfort of their own ſoules, through obedience and faith. The former is diſhoneſt and abominable, but this is honourable, and a duty for which wee have Pauls example, not only by a publique Epiſtle, undeceiving the Galatians of that errour they had ſuckt in from men, perhaps, of a worſe quality, but even withſtanding Peter (an Apoſtle) to his face, for haking in the matter of circumciſion.
For the third and laſt diviſion of this Quere, Whether it was ever heard of in the Apoſtles and Primitive times, that any believing Chriſtians were in great numbers congregated from among other believing Chriſtians? I anſwer;
1. That 'tis well known there hath been, and may be, great defects, even in believers themſelves; and ſuch, as that they may need even to be caſt into a new mould, as witneſſe the Galatians, of whom the Apoſtle did travell in birth again, till Chriſt were formed Gal. 4. 19.in them.
2. It will be granted, that believing Chriſtians ſhould deſire and indeavour to be inſtructed in the whole will of God, that they may touch no unclean thing; and as they know, to be ſtill true to their2 Cor. 6. 17. Principles; and if in any thing their Principles exceed or go beyond others, they muſt not come down to them, although they carry the Odium and prejudice of a ſeparation for it, but it is the duty of the others to come to them, which if they will not, liking rather to correſpond with the world, how can it be helpt, or whoſe fault is it?
The ſecond Queſtion is, Whether for the making any man or woman a member of the Church, it be requiſite and neceſſary (to their believing and being baptized) that they ſhould walke ſome dayes, weeks, moneths, perhaps yeers with them, &c.
Anſw. Who holds it ſo? but only that they appeare to the Church that receives them to be believers, let the means of the churches knowlege, or diſcovery, be what it will, (as it is various) ſo that it be not extraordinary and miraculous, we dare not truſt Enthuſiaſmes nor blind charity. And to the other part of this Quere, Whether confeſſion are required, &c.
I anſwer, confeſſions are good, and may be to edification, but are not abſolutely neceſſary, therefore not inſiſted upon as the condition of admiſſion.
Theſe things being of fact and practice, let a briefe account ſuffice.
For the third Queſtion, Whether to the admiſſion of any to memberſhip or office-bearing in a church, the conſent of the congregation or the major part thereof, as well as officers, be requiſite.
Wee hold it yea, and that as well in regard every one takes a charge upon him, as in reſpect of intereſt.
For the fourth Quere of an Explicit Covenant, whether neceſſary to admiſſion.
Anſ. I know not why it ſhould be more inconvenient then a publique Nationall Covenant, which the Doctor by Nation is bred to approve highly of. But neceſſary we hold it not, therefore not as the condition of admiſſion, ſo that wee ſee cauſe to judge it not to be ſcrupled in a way of proviſion for an arbitrary libertie of a roving and unſetled minde to ſlip the knot, when they diſlike and diſpenſe from dutie and obligation when they pleaſe, but that it be meerly a conſcientious ſcruple, becauſe they ſee not ſufficient ground for it out of the Word to make it neceſſary, yet will owne a particular tye and relation for ſpirituall edification, in ſuch caſe who will deny theſe admiſſion?
For the fifth Queſtion, Of womens votes whether they are admitted in Elections, &c. I remember a Queſtion once in the Schooles, An Doctoris uxor eodem gaudeat privilegio quo Maritus; but as for this, of Womens voting in the Church, wee have no ſuch cuſtome, nor any of the Churches of God that I know of.
For the laſt Queſtion or Quarrelſome captious Quere rather, Whether the practice and preaching of all theſe things, &c. be to ſet up Chriſt as King upon his throne?
I anſwer, No Queſtion but the purging and purifying of Church-Ordinances and fellowſhip, which ſome contend for, is to ſet Chriſt upon a higher throne viſible to the world, then by ſome other wayes he is; though wee deny not he may have a throne in many Congregations not of this mould, and may be very highly advanced in the hearts of many of our Brethren, who never yet gave their names to the Congregationall way. In relation to whom my prayer is, That if they be in the right, the Lord would make them joyfull inſtruments of inſtructing us with meekneſſe; Or if wee, that the Lord would by us ſhew them his will, who would doe it, and have already received hearts from him to ſubmit to truth, from whomſoever miniſtred to them.
FINIS.
The Poſtſcript.
AS for your Poſtſcript, I finde it ſo foule, that I have adjudged it to lie in the STONE-BASON at Tunbridge wells, there to be waſhed till it be clean and fit to finger, and then I doubt it will be waſhed all away.
Only, leſt the frenzie thereof ſhould have prevented me, and ere this have derived it ſelfe up and down, it may be needfull to adde, That whereas *Pag. 61. of your Poſtſcript.you wonder at the lenity and humanity of this Nation, towards thoſe men, whom you nickname Independents, we conceive there will rather be cauſe to wonder at the clemency of the Parliament if they ſhall take no notice of this and other your ſeditious inſtigations, (though I had rather ſee you repent then ſuffer.) In the mean time, it ſufficeth us, that you never wrote, nor could write ſuch lines by thoſe NEW LIGHTS you jeare, with ſuch unchriſtian, yea, unmanly levity: for a man may ſafely ſay, ſuch ſtuffe was written in the dark, not by any light, either Old or New.
End of the text · John Sadler, Doctor Bastwicks Quarters Beaten Up (1645)