OCR Text |
Show Ma~er John Cotrqns Anfwer ~ -chapter, he wouldno~<ngage himJ<IJe '" •hu Controv<rfie: - yec,here -he ~iveth a,double Arg4meBt again!! it. His fi rfl Argument is, from my tefHmony, which how much he weigheth, is b~t(e ~ knQwne to himfelfe then tq me. • , Mr. ,C~r.(ot(( faithrhe)hirnfi.lfeiJiaimai_neth; that the diffrwfi,ng •ftheword m a ChH>'C~;ftate, u ChriJit feedmg of bu fbck, CJnt. ' • 8. Cbriflt k,iJJingof hi< Spou[e, C&nt. J , 2 . Chr;j!t embracing of hi< Spoufe in the m.rriage bed, Cant. 1. t6. Chrij!s iJUrjing of hif Children at hi< wivet breaflt, .Cant. 4· ~nd ir tlnre no 1ommunion between _. t?e Shepheard and bir (beep? the H~'bt~<l am1 the wife '/,) <haj!e kJ.Ua and embracet? the Mother and the ch•lri at the bteajit l Anfwer. •· The difpen!ing of the word in a Churc h~Swc (that is by Church-Officers to Church~membm, united together in Church-State) it is indeed an expreffion of familiar and deare Communion between ChrHl and his Church , as between the husband and his fpoufe, between the nurfing mother and the ~hild, and between the !hepheard and his flock : But fuppofe Pagans and Indians !hould ordinarily freq~ent our Church-Affem· blies (as they are wont to doe in hearing the word) doth he think, I would maintaine, that there is the like fpirituall and familiar -Communion between Chrilt, and them, as between Chri!l, and his Church ? ' Anfw<r, 2. Bdides,theque!tion is not what communion Chri~ may have with a ~ranger in the hearing of the word in the Af· fembly of his Church : but what conmiunion there is between the -Officer of the Chur.ch , ~ho preacheth the 1 word and the !\ranger. Ch;i~ out ofhi~foveraigoe,gracemay difpenfe himfclfe to the flrangert? _what relation h,e pleafeth; hce may make the word ~oth as fpmtuall feed, and as food to him , and fo may de· clare htm~elfboth a f•ther, and a Pa~o.r, ,ard husband, and a me· th e~· to htm; and yet no fuch Church-relat ion paffe b•tw~cn the Church-Officer, and the !tronger. ' ·, ' A tftver. 'l· Soppofe_ there did grow fome fpiriruall relation be· ttveen t~e C•u1rch-Officer, and the flran~er , (as God mi~ ht fo bleffc h" Mtm!tery, as to make him a fpi rituallFathc r, and focd• r to the !t ran~cr: ) yet this Relation is nut between the Preacher and the !\ranger in refpctt of his Office, but in ref pea of his gif , as !declared above. · The The reafon of the difference ~is:-e:::v:;-id:;-c:n::-::t-:::---_:_ _ ___ _ __:_~~ 1. Ch~rch·r~lation,between fl Church-Officer, and Churchmember, IS con!tant, and permanent, and not to be diffolved b by confent of the Church :but this relation between the Pre;ch~~ an~ flran~er is tranfient, and the intercourfe of the exercife of thetr relanon eafily changeable, at the difcretion of the ftrang withcut the confenr, or cognizance of the Church. er, 2. Church relation between an Officer and a member carrieth on the duties of Church·worke between them unto fuit accomph! hment. If any offence grow between an Officer and a membe the one hath po~er to deale ":ith the other in a Church-way u~: to a rerfeEI: heahng : but there 18 not the like power or liberty' either m preacher, or It ranger, fo to proceed one with another, in cafe of any fuch offence. The Examiners fecond Argument is taken alfo from mine own confeffion, as if there were no waighty Argument to be found in this cafe, but what might be gathered up from the weakneffe, or . unw~rineffe of my expreffions. But thankes be to God, that hath fo gmded my words, that no fuch advantage can ju!tly be taken from them, as to countenance fo ungodly an error. UU'. Cot1on (faith he) confeffith, tbat the foOowjbip in the GoJl> el,.fPh!lo 1,5.) i<_a fello~(hip or Communion in the Apoftlu Jollrine, Com~Hm!J, breaking of bread? and prayer, in which the Jirjl Church cont~n~,d~ Ml:s 2, 46. AU wh~eb overthrOJI'etb the clollrine of law full . part~e•pauon of th<_ word_ and prt!Jer i11 a Church-ftate, where it it not lawfo/1 to commumcate, tn the hrea£ing of bread, or {tales. • '!-nfrr:· If this be all the Conclufiun thathellrivethfor,that partlctpanon of the word and prayer, is not lawful! in a Churcheltate, where it is not lawfull to communicate in the fea les I lhall never contend with him about it. I !hould never thinke it ia wfull there to enter into a Church-e!tate, where I thouaht it lawfnll , onely to partake in hearing, and prayer, and not in ~he feales alfo. J;lut this is chat I deny, A man 10 participate in a Church-eflate, where he partaketh onely in hearin(l and prayer, before and •fter Sermon; and joyneth not with them, neither in their Covenant norin the feales oft he Covenant. ' Kr To |