Of Liturgies Power of the Keys, Chapter 9
CHAP. IX. Conſid. 4.
Reply. TO the fourth conſideration, firſt, Men are capable of Church cenſures, either as having power to diſpenſe them: or as being ſubject unto them, &c. In the ſecond ſenſe, many are capable of Church priviledges, who are not ſubject to Church cenſures: as the children of Chriſtian Parents are capable of baptiſme, and approved members of any true Church are capable of Seales in other Congregations amongſt you, who are not ſubject to the cenſures of the other Congregation, ſpiritual Communion in publike prayer, whereof viſible beleivers (not in Church order) are capable, but not ſubject to common cenſures in your ſenſe.
Anſw. This diſtinction is needleſſe: our meaning is plaine in the ſecond ſenſe, and therefore wee ſay nothing to what is objected againſt the firſt. To the inſtances objected againſt the propoſition in the ſecond ſenſe, wee anſwer firſt concerning the Infants of Church-members, they are ſubject to cenſures, whenſoever they offend the Church, as others are, though ſo long as they live innocently, they need them not.
Secondly, Members of any true viſible Church are ſubject, and ſo capable of cenſure, (though not in another Church) which is not in in the propoſition. 2▪ Alſo they are capable of cenſures mediately by and in that other Church, if they there offend: for that Church may admoniſh and proſecute the admonition in the Church to which they belong, and refuſe ſociety with them, if they repent not, which cannot bee ſaid of ſuch as are not members of any viſible Church, who cannot be proſecuted to excommunication in any place.
Thirdly, Publike prayers of the Church, though they bee an ordinance of Chriſt, and the Church have a ſpeciall Communion in them, in which reſpect others do not ſhare, yet they are not a priviledge or peculiar ordinance, wherein none but the Church may ſhare, for an Heathen or Infidel may hear the word and joyne in the prayers, being cultus naturalis, ſaying Amen unto the ſame; which cannot be ſaid of ſeales and cenſures, being cultus inſtitutus.
Reply. Secondly, A Perſon baptized, is not baptized into that particular Congregation onelyonly, but into all Churches, and in every particular▪ Church hath all the priviledges of a baptized perſon, and ſo to be eſteemed of them. Now the priviledge of the baptized perſon, walking in the truth, and able to examine himſelfe, is to bee admitted to the Lords Supper, as all circumciſed perſons had right thereby to eate the Paſſeover in any ſociety, where God ſhould chooſe to put his name there, Exod. 4. 47. Deut. 16. 1, 1.
Anſw. This ſeemeth to touch the queſtion it ſelfe, rather then the propoſition of this fourth conſideration: but wee ſhall anſwer to it as it ſtands. 1. Here you grant that a perſon baptized, is baptized unto a particular Congregation: which wee accept as a yeelding of the queſtion unawares. 2. If you meane, that ſuch hath a liberty of Communion in a way of brotherly love in all Churches where he comes, wee grant, (ſo farre as nothing in him juſtly hinder) but if you meane that hee is baptized into all Churches, ſo as to challenge a right of Memberſhip in them all, wee deny it, as a poſition that would take away all diſtinction of Churches, as wee have formerly ſhewed. 3. We deny that the Lords Supper is the priviledge of a baptized perſon, able to examine himſelf, & walking in the truth as a baptized perſon, for then a Papiſt converted to the truth, able to examine himſelfe, hath a right to the Lords Supper in every Church, before he make any profeſſion of his converſion, and faith in any particular Church, for hee may bee ſuch a baptized perſon. And we may ſay the like of an excommunicate penitent. 4. We grant that a baptized perſon is not onelyonly baptized in to that particular Church whereof hee was firſt a member: For if it bee a ſeale of his initiation into that particular Church onelyonly; then he muſt bee rebaptized as oft as hee enters into another, but hee is baptized (in the ſenſe formerly ſhewed) into the whole myſticall Body of Chriſt, and hence hath jus ad rem, or a remote right unto the priviledges of the Church every where, but that therefore he hath immediate right to the fruition of all, when he is ſevered from that particular church wherein he was baptized, that follows not: for as he had this latter right in the firſt Church wherein hee was baptized, ſo he muſt have it in any of the Churches of Chriſt afterward; now if in the firſt Church the fruition of ordinances came by orderly joyning▪ to it: ſo it muſt be afterward, for as wee ſaid before, ſuch as the communion is, ſuch ought to be the union, he that would have politicall communion with the politicall Churches of Chriſt, muſt be ſome where in politicall union with them, otherwiſe one may have communion in all Churches & yet never unite himſelf to any one, which looſe walking we are perſwaded Chriſt Jeſus will not allow. 5 The ſimilitude from a circumciſed perſon will not hold. Firſt, becauſe there is no parity between ſeverall families in the ſame Church, and ſeverall Churches in the New Teſtament, but rather ſeverall ſeats of communicants in the ſame Church anſwers, ſeverall families eating the paſſeover in the Church of the Jewes. Secondly, an Edomite circumciſed though he were converted, and acknowledged the true God in his owne country never ſo fully, yet might not eate the paſſeover till he joyned to the church of Iſrael as all other Proſelytes did: & ſo is it here.
Reply. Thirdly, there is not the ſame reaſon of every Church priviledge; one may have right to ſome who may not meddle with others, as members of one Church may joyne in hearing and prayer with another Church: but not meddle in election and ordination of their Teachers, and therefore the propoſition is not ſo evident to bee taken without proofe, that they have no power to admit a beleever into communion in any Church priviledge, who have no power to excommunicate.
Anſw. What is here objected from the liberty or reſtriction of Church members in another Congregation, is anſwered before in the firſt objection, and therefore the propoſition may ſtand good for all that is here ſaid. 2 That which is ſet down as the propoſition, is neither the ſame with that in our reaſon, nor any way allowed by us; for wee ſpeake not here of power to admit, but of the right to bee partakers: neither doe wee deny a power in officers to admit members of other Churches to the ſeales, though they have no power to excommunicate them. 3 If our propoſition ſeeme to need proofe: the reaſon of it is at hand, becauſe thoſe that are the peculiar priviledges or proper priviledges or proprieties of the Church, as ſeales and cenſures being of the ſame nature, viz. outward ordinances of Chriſt ordained by him for the edification of his Church and joyntly given to his Church: and therefore looke to what Church hee hath given the one, hee hath given the other alſo: if the one, viz. cenſures, bee given to the Church of a viſible Congregation, then the other: they are all (both ſeales and cenſures) contained in the keys which are given to the viſible inſtituted Churches of the New Teſtament: not to the Catholick (as ſuch:) for a godly man juſtly caſt out of the particular Church, yet cannot bee caſt out of the Catholick.
Reply. That viſible beleevers baptized into a true Church, profeſſing the true faith, and walking in holy obedience, and their ſeed ſhould be judged ſuch as are without in the Apoſtles ſenſe, becauſe they are not externally joyned as ſet members to ſome peculiar Congregation in Church Covenant, is affirmed, not proved.
Anſw. Comming to the aſſumption of our argument it is expreſſed (according to the frequent manner in this Reply) in ſuch termes as it is not affirmed by us, and therefore if it want proof, blame not us our aſſumption is; Such as are not in Church Covenant are not capable of Church cenſures: where by being in Church covenant wee meane either implicitly or explicitly, memberſhip in any true Church, as in our anſwer wee expreſſe to prevent miſtakes: and this is proved from 1 Cor. 5. 12. and in applying hereof wee doe not affirme that ſuch are ſimply without in the Apoſtles ſenſe, but in ſome reſpect onelyonly, viz. in regard of viſible church Communion.
Reply. Firſt, It doth oft fall out that the true members of the Catholick Church and beſt members of the orthodox Church, by a prevailing faction in the Church, may bee no members of any diſtinct ſociety, and ſhall their poſterity be counted aliens from the Covenant, and debarred from the Sacraments, becauſe their parents are unjuſtly ſeparated from the inheritance of the Lord?
Anſw. This objection is before anſwered in the firſt conſideration, where was given the inſtance of Athanaſius, and it is anſwered by the Reply it ſelfe in the next words; Surely as parents unjuſtly excommunicated, doe continue ſtill viſible members of the flock of Chriſt (underſtand that particular Church out of which they are caſt,) ſo the right of Baptiſm belongs to their Infants: which being ſo, they are not without that Church, though debarred unjuſtly of the preſent communion with it, unleſſe he renounce that Church, or other.
Reply. Secondly, If ſuch Churches renounce it as are no members of a politick ſpirituall fellowſhip be without, then the members of one Church are without unto another, &c.
Anſw. This objection wee have had and anſwered oft before. In a word, there cannot bee the like reaſon, no not in reſpect of that other Church, who may in a due order of Chriſt perſecute the cenſures againſt them, though not compleatly amongſt themſelves; which cannot bee ſaid of ſuch as have not joyned themſelves to any Church, and therefore wee deny that the Apoſtles reaſon was becauſe they were without to Corinth, but without to all Churches.
Reply. Thirdly, (The fornicators of this world) doe they not explaine whom the Apoſtle pointeth unto by the title of being without Verſe the 10. 11. ſuch as had not received the Covenant of grace?
Anſw. Wee never thought otherwiſe but that the fornicators of this world and the heathen are moſt properly without in the Apoſtles ſenſe; but if our words bee obſerved, that in a certain reſpect, or as our words are, in regard of viſible Church communion, ſuch as are in no Church ſociety are ſaid to bee without, what great offence have wee given? For firſt, is not a godly man (if juſtly excommunicate) without in this ſenſe. Secondly, doth not the Apoſtle Iohn expreſly call them without that forſooke the fellowſhip of the Church, 1 Iohn 2. 19. ſaying they went out? Thirdly, were not the Catechumeni of old in this reſpect without, and the lapſed in times of perſecution, and the like, who (in thoſe zealous and ſevere times of Church diſcipline) were not onelyonly ſaid to bee without, but ſtood without, though weeping and praying as penitents at the Church doores, ſometimes for two or three yeeres? and after this degree of preparation for entrance into the Church which they called foreign, there were three more before they were received to the Lords Supper: which ſeverity though wee approve not, yet it may mollifie the mindes of the godly learned that are apt to bee offended at ſuch a word from us. Fourthly, our Saviour himſelfe expreſly ſaith (and that not onelyonly of thoſe of no Church) but ſuch as were even of the viſible Church, and his ordinary hearers, that many of them were foreign or men without: and therefore this application of 1 Cor. 5. 12. need not bee called inſolent, or raiſe ſuch an hubbub abroad, as wee perceive it doth.
Reply. Fourthly, Church order is neceſſary wee deny not, but that a man ſhould bee a conſtant ſet member of a particular ſociety by Covenant to make him a member of the viſible Church, or to give him title or intereſt to the publike order, this is not taught of God.
This is but a bare denyall of the poſition it ſelfe, but what is meant by publike order wee know not: or where the order of Chriſt (which is granted to bee neceſſary) can bee found but in particular Churches, wee are yet to learne, neither is it any where taught in this Reply, and wee would gladly learne how that Church ſhould orderly deale with ſuch a man in caſe of offence that is of no particular Church.
Reply. Fiftly, Paul divides all men into two rankes, the firſt and greater without, the laſt and leſſer within, but that beleevers, &c. and their children ſhould be reckoned without, we read not in any Scripture, but in Scripture phraſe hereticks themſelves are within. 1 John 2 19. 1 Cor. 11. 19.
Anſw. All that is ſaid in this objection except the laſt clauſe, is but a repeated deniall of the concluſion in other words: to the objection about Hereticks within, wee grant they are within till caſt out or gone out of the Church, 1 John 2. 19. and if gone out, how are they within? and ſo if an orthodox profeſſor will frowardly forſake all Churches and live alone, or among the heathen, how is hee within? we ſpeake onelyonly in generall.
Reply. Sixtly, This hath not beene beleeved in the Church?
Anſw. Wee are not bound in every thing to be of the Churches faith, and what wee have ſaid before may ſatisfie here.
Reply. Seventhly, Without are Dogs, &c. Rev. 22. 15. not ſuch as are faithfull, holy, &c.
Anſw. True, properly ſuch are without, not theſe, yet in ſome reſpects (as hath been ſaid) others alſo may be without, as ſuch as forſake the Church, &c. as was before ſaid more fully.
Reply. Eighthly, They that are without in the Apoſtles ſenſe are Aliens from the commonwealth of Iſrael, ſtrangers from the Covenant of promiſe, having no hope, and without God in the world; but we hope you will not paſſe ſuch raſh cenſure upon the brethren who bee not gathered into the ſociety as ſet members.
Anſw. To ſay ſome beleevers may bee without in ſome reſpect, is farre from ſuch a cenſure: the Scripture ſaith of Iſrael in their corrupt eſtate, and defect of the Ordinances of God, that they were a long time without God, without Law, without a teaching Prieſt, yet that hard expreſſion doth not equall them with the heathen; much leſſe to ſay ſome beleevers are without the viſible Church in regard of viſible Church communion, and wee judge no otherwiſe of ſuch then of our ſelves when wee were in the like caſe.
Reply. Ninthly, Let this interpretation ſtand, and hee ſhall bee without alſo that is not ſubject to the cenſures of the community of the particular combination, few or many, without, or with Officers, and ſo all the reformed Churches that aſcribe the Keyes to the Presbytery, or Claſſis, and not to the community, and ſome amongst your ſelves (if not moſt) ſhall bee without alſo.
And therefore wee cannot thinke that approved Chriſtians deſiring ſeales are either without or not capable of Church cenſures: if they offend, though no ſet members, for deſiring ſeales, they put themſelves under the ordinances for a time, and may be proceeded withall as offending members.
Anſw. This objection hath no colour without extreame ſtraining of our application of 1 Cor. 5. 12. ſeeing wee never limited the poſition to Churches of the ſame judgement, or in like degree of order to ours; it is onelyonly a forced odium which is caſt upon us, but wee can beare more at our brethrens hands, neither doe we know any Church or elder that aſcribes the power of the Keys to the Presbytery or Claſſis, excluding the community amongſt us.
Secondly, for that objection that ſuch put themſelves under the ordinances of Chriſt for the time; if with profeſſion of faith and ſubjection to the government of Chriſt, they deſire ſeales, it is ſomething; but that the very deſiring of ſeales doth include ſuch a ſubjection in it ſelfe, being but for this or that act of adminiſtration, wee cannot underſtand: but let this bee really made good, that deſiring ſeales it being a way, that ſubjects themſelves to the Church as members, and the caſe will bee iſſued, being underſtood of ſuch approved Chriſtians as the poſition ſpeakes of.
Laſtly, to proceed againſt ſuch as are not members, or of another Church, as with an offending member of our owne, is not much unlike the proceedings of Victor in his contentious time or may ſow the ſeeds of ſuch uſurpations, which wee leave to the godly wiſe to conſider of.
Reply. Tenthly, If upon good reaſon a paſſage of Scripture can bee cleared to prove that for which it was never alleadged by any writer, wee are not to except againſt it for want of mans teſtimony, onelyonly in ſuch caſes our reaſons muſt bee convincing, but for the expoſition of this Text wee have not obſerved one ſubſtantiall ground or approved author to bee alledged. Dr. Ames ſhewing the neceſſitie of Chriſtians joyning themſelves to ſome peculiar Church giveth this reaſon; Quoniam alias fieri non poteſt quin conturbentur ſigna illa quibus fideles ab infidelibus diſcerni poſſunt, 1 Cor. 5. 12. But herein Dr. Ames manifeſtly ſheweth that by them without, heathens and unbeleevers muſt be underſtood, and not beleevers, though of no ſetled ſociety for the time; for thus wee conceive hee argueth. The ſignes whereby the faithfull are to bee diſcerned from unbeleevers muſt not bee confounded: but unleſſe Chriſtians make themſelves actuall members of a Church, the ſignes whereby the faithfull are diſcerned from unbeleevers, will bee obſcured and darkned: and if this be his reaſon, how can that Text bee alledged unleſſe by men without, infidels bee underſtood?
Anſw. Firſt, That we have reaſons to alledge it in that ſenſe and reſpect declared, may appeare by our anſwers to your objections.
Secondly, That wee have one approved authour ſo alleadging it, viz. Doctor Ames, ſhall appeare in cleering his meaning from your objections. 1. Grant that by men without (according to Doctor Ames his reaſon) Infidels be underſtood by the Apoſtle, yet how ſhall the ſignes diſcerning beleevers from unbeleevers, bee confounded by ſuch as joyne not to ſome particular Church, if thoſe beleevers doe not in ſome reſpect ſtand without amongſt unbeleevers? and the conſequence is ſo plaine that the owne Syllogiſme whereinto you caſt his argument would have concluded ſo much, if it had been ſuffered to ſpeake out in the concluſion. For in ſtead of ſaying, except ſuch joyne to ſome Church, the ſignes will be darkned and obſcured; the reaſon rightly concluded would have ſaid (fieri non poteſt) it cannot bee but the ſignes will bee confounded: and therefore in his judgement it is unavoidable that ſuch mix themſelves with unbeleevers, that are without indeed properly in the Apoſtles ſenſe.
Reply. Againe, Doctor Ames, lib. 4. cap. 17. ſpeaking of Infants to be received, ſaith it is required, firſt, that they be in the Covenant of Grace by outward profeſſion, &c.
Anſw. What you alledge here out of Doctor Ames, wee confeſſe ſheweth that hee was very large in his charity about the baptizing of Infants, extending the ſame to the child of a Papiſt, &c. but it may ſeeme by ſome paſſages that hee underſtood by profeſſion of faith, ſuch as live in the viſible Churches, and lookes at the child of a Papiſt as one of a viſible Church for ſubſtance, though ſo exceedingly corrupt: but all this do not diſprove that he underſtood 1 Cor. 5. 12. otherwiſe then hath been ſaid.
What you alledge out of his ſecond Manuduction concerning the Churches of England we conſent unto, neither doe wee deny ſeales to any, if they demand them as members of any true Church in England, and in an orderly way.