Certain queries tending to accommodation and communion of Presbyterian & Congregationall churches by Mr John Cotton ... ; published by a friend to whom the author himselfe sent them over not long before his death.

CERTAIN QUERIES Tending to Accommodation and Communion of Presbyterian & Congregationall Churches.

BY Mr JOHN COTTON late Teacher of the Church at Boſton in New-England.

Publiſhed by a Friend to whom the Author himſelfe ſent them over not long before his Death.

LONDON Printed by M. S. for John Allen and Francis Egleſfield in Pauls Church-yard. 1654.

Certain Queries tending to the mutuall Accommodation & Communion of Presbyterian and Congregationall Churches; delivered in 11 Propoſitions, & humbly preſented both to the Conſideration and Examination of them according to God; BY Mr JOHN COTTON.

The 1. Querie.

Whether may it not be ſafely acknowledged, that the Congregations of Chriſtians ſubject to Presbyteriall Government, preaching and profeſſing the Truth of the Goſpel, and not over-growne with ignorant and ſcandalous Perſons, are true and holy Churches of Chriſt?

BEcauſe, ſuch Churches, (for the Matter of them) conſiſt of viſible Saints, (at leaſt a principall part of them) eſpecially when they preſent themſelves to ſit downe before the Lord at his Table. And for the Forme; they doe agree together in chooſing their owne Miniſter, in attending duely to the Miniſtry of the Word and Sacraments, and in ſubmitting to the Doctrine of the Goſpel: which implyeth a reall and viſible (though implicite) profeſſion of the Covenant of grace requiſite to Church-eſtate.

Object. The Pariſh-Churches in England were Antichriſtian, if not in their firſt Inſtitution, yet at leaſt for theſe many hundred yeares; and were never ſince unchurched, nor new moulded out of their Anchriſtian Apoſtacy.

Anſw. 1. The Goſpel of Chriſt was preached and received in England ten yeares before it was i • . Rome (as may appeare by Gildas, and may be inferred from Baronius alſo, Annal Anno Chriſti 35.5. & 45.1.) and that by the Miniſtry of Apoſtles and Apoſtolick men, who doubtleſſe did at firſt inſtitute Churches, not after the Pattern of Rome (which then was not a Church) but according to the Patterne of the Apoſtles. 2. Neither were they unchurched by the Antichriſtian Apoſtacy which afterwards grew upon them (as a Leproſie) but were onely corrupted and polluted, even in many fundamentalls, both in Doctrine, Worſhip, & Government, which made them like unto the Iſraelites under the Apoſtacy of Jezabel, the generallity being carryed away by the Corruption of the times, but a Remnant reſerved (through grace) which bowed not the knee to Baal. 3. Since the Beginning of the Reformation, many of the Church-members (by the power of the Goſpel) reformed to a new eſtate of viſible Saints, and the fundamentall corruptions in Doctrine and worſhip were purged away, and both of them ſo renued as that the preſence and power of Chriſt was diſcerned in the face of the Ordinances. And for the Government, though it give not being (but wel-being to Churches yet) it hath alſo been growing more and more into better order unto this day. In ſo much that Proteſtant Churches have renounced fellowſhip with Antichriſt and his Churches, and have ſeparated from them in Doctrine, Worſhip, and Government: which if it reach not to a new-churching, yet it is a renuall of their Church eſtate, and a new moulding of them into a more holy way of Adminiſtration of Church-Ordinances; ſo that now they ſtand as Churches gathered out of the world both of Antichriſtians and of Pagans. The Iſraelites after their Returne from under the Apoſtacy of Jezabel, did neither ſolemnely unchurch themſelves of their former corrupt eſtate, nor Inchurch themſelves into a better new eſtate; but being called to Repentance by the Kings Proclamation, and their hearts being bored of God to ſubmit themſelves thereto, though they fell ſhort of a full Purification, yet they were received to the Lords Supper (the Paſſeover) together with their Brethren of the purer Church of Judah. 2 Chro. 30.18, 19, 20.

The 2d. Querie.

Preſuppoſing then the Presbyterian Congregations to be true Churches, Whether hence It will not cleerely follow, that the Miniſters called by them (being otherwiſe men of Miniſteriall gifts) are true Miniſters; and the Sacraments adminiſtred by them are true Seales of the Covenant of Grace?

The 3d. Querie.

Nevertheleſſe, Whether may it not be juſtly doubted, that the eſtate of both Churches is ſinfully defective; The Presbyterian, partly in their Materialls, in caſe the Members, diverſe of them, be (not profeſſed Saints, but) either ignorant or ſcandalous, and apparently carnall and worldly: partly in their Government, by the Presbyters of other Churches; which way of Government, though it had place (in ſundry Caſes) in the Nationall Church of the old Teſtament, yea, and in the New Teſtament, might be practiſed for a time by the Apoſtles themſelves (who were Oecumeniall Governours of all Chriſtian Churches:) yet the ſame was never delegated nor commended to the Paſtors and Teachers of particular Congregations? The Congregationall likewiſe how can they be excuſed, in caſe there be any ſuch as doe admit all manner of Sects into their Covenant and Communion; and will not allow the Civill Magiſtrates to proceed to the Cenſure of ſeducing Hereticks and prophane Blaſphemers?

The 4. Querie.

For the Healing of which defects; were it not much to be wiſhed that the Members of Presbyterian Churches, did once publickly profeſſe their Faith and Repentance before their partaking of the Lords Table? (as John Baptiſts Diſciples did before their Baptiſme, and as Members of Congregationall Churches doe before their Admiſſion:) that ſo None ſuch as were ignorant or ſcandalous might be admitted to the Lords Table till they were duely approved to be Men of knowledge, ſound in the Faith, and blameleſſe in converſation? And further alſo, whether would it not much conduce to a more full and cleere acceptance of their Adminiſtrations, If their Elders in the Claſſis did put forth no Authoritative Act, touching the Members of other Churches, but conſultative onely; nor touching their owne, but (upon hearing the advice of Fellow Elders in difficult caſes) to proceede each one with the Cognizance and Conſent of his owne Church at home reſpectively?

The 5. Querie.

For want or Neglect hereof, Though the Members of Presbyterian Churches ſhould diſcerne ſome Defects in the Order and Government of their Churches; yet whether may they ſuddenly breake off Communion with them till they have convinced them of their Defects, and duely and patiently waited for their Reformation?

It may ſeeme No: For if we muſt take a more delatory courſe for the healing of a private Brother, in a way of brotherly love, with much meekneſs and patience; how much more ought we ſo to walke towards an whole Church?

The 6. Querie.

Such a Brother, though as yet remaining a Member of a Presbyterian Church yet ſenſible of the Defects of his owne Church, and being otherwiſe knowne to be fit, why may be not lawfully and without ſcruple be received to partake at the Lords Table (as occaſion ſerveth) in a Congregationall Church?

For ſuch an one is both a Member of a true Church, and cleanſed from the defects of his owne Church.

The 7. Querie.

Yea, ſuppoſe a godly Chriſtian doe continue Presbyterian in his Judgement, and yet doe approve alſo of a Congregationall way, and is deſtrous to joyne in Covenant with a Congregationall Church, whether may be not in due order be lawfully admitted and continued a Member of a Congregationall Church? Yea further, Notwithſtanding the different ſtate and way of Presbyterian and Congregationall Churches, and the Defects which the one or the other may obſerve or ſurmize either in other; yet (even whileſt they ſo ſtand and walke) whether may not the Members of either without juſt offence, mutually Communicate one with another (as occaſion ſhall be offered) at the Lords Table?

The Affirmative ſeemeth probable; For as Error in Judgement about Diſcipline is not an Hereſie againſt the Foundation of Chriſtian Religion. And the Apoſtle inſtructeth Chriſtian Churches to receive the Chriſtian Jewes into their Church-fellowſhip, who yet diſſented from them about the obſetvation of Leviticall Rites, which were as much diſcrepant from the Truth of the Goſpel in the Order of worſhip, as theſe other be in Order of Government.

Beſides, God accepteth cleanneſs of heart in his faithfull ſervants in their approaches to his Table, though there be defects in full cleanſing, according to the Order of the Sanctuary. 2 Chron. 30.18, 19, 20.

The 8. Querie.

If a godly Miniſter called to Office by a People profeſſing Godlineſs (whether under Epiſcopacy, or Presbytery) and afterward repenting of any knowne ſinne in his way, ſhall be deſirous of a more pure Reformation; whether may not his godly people acknowledge his Miniſteriall Calling without ſinne?

Why not? For he had the Eſſence of a lawfull Calling before, in the free choice of his godly People, and in his owne free acceptance of them and of their Call. Nevertheleſs, if any of his godly People ſhould ſtumble at his former Calling, whether may not a more ſelect Company and body of the People renue their Call of him, and there to accept the Concurrence and Conſent of the reſt of the Congregation? And whether may not he alſo doe well (inſtead of ſtiff ſtanding upon the validiy of his former Calling) to condeſcend to renue his Acceptance of them yea, and to receive a New Ordination from them, with expreſs deſignation to the Office, either of a Paſtor or Teacher; and that without prejudice or diſhonour to his former Calling? For a renued Act doth not invalidate (much leſſe evacuate) the old, but cleare it and confirme it (ſo farre as there is any thing of God in it) as in Scripture all Ingeminations doe. Saul was thrice Ordained King over Iſrael, 1 Sam. 10.1. & ver. 24. & 11.14, 15. thrice to the ſame Calling, and with ſeverall ſolemnities. Neither is Ordination of the Eſſence of a Miniſteriall Calling, but a ſolemne Adjunct of it; which may be renued upon occaſion of any New ſpirituall Imployment, or Function, Place or People, Acts 13.2, 3.

The 9. Querie.

If the godly Members of a Congregation formerly ſubject to Epiſcopacy, but repenting of their ſinfull ſubordination thereunto, and (being ſtudious of Reformation) have ſolemnly Covenanted to endeavour the ſame, and have choſen their former godly Miniſters (one or more) into the Paſtors or Teachers Office; Whether may not thoſe Miniſters withhold their Ignorant and carnall Hearers from the Lords Table (though they had their conſent to their Election) untill they be able to diſcerne the Lords Body, and be fit to receive it without prophaning it? But yet, in the meane time, whether may they not diſpence ſome other Miniſteriall Acts unto them, as to Preach the Word, and alſo to Catechize them and their Families? And if hereby they ſhall attain unto ſo much knowledge of the Principles of the Doctrine of the Goſpel, as to profeſſe before the Church both their need of Chriſt and his Covenant to themſelves, and the Seale thereof unto their Seed, and alſo their owne Duty of ſubjection unto Chriſt in his Ordinances; and ſhall likewiſe be found free from any open ſcandall, or elſe openly judge themſelves for the ſame; Whether may it not be lawfull for the Miniſter to admit them to the Lords Table, and their Children to Baptiſme?

For it is not with ſuch as with Iſhmael and Eſau, who though they were borne in the Church, and ſealed under the Covenant of Circumciſion, yet when they grew up to yeares, the one mocked at the Heire of the Covenant, and the other deſpiſed the Birth-right of the Covenant; and ſo the one was caſt out, and the other withdrew himſelfe from the fellowſhip of the Church, and both of them deprived their children of Circumciſion. But ſuch is not the Caſe here of theſe we ſpeake of; but rather they are like the Seed of the Iſraelites, who though many of them were not ſincerely godly, yet whilſt they held forth the publick Profeſſion of Gods People (Deut. 26.3. to 11.) and continued under the wing of the Covenant and ſubjection to the Ordinances; They were ſtill accounted an holy Seed (Ezr. 9.2.) and ſo their children were Partakers of Circumciſion. Yea further though themſelves were ſometimes kept from the Lords Supper (the Paſſeover) for ſome or other uncleanneſs, yet that debarred not their children from Circumciſion.

Againſt this, may it not ſeeme vaine to ſtand upon a Difference between the Church of Iſrael and our Churches of the New Teſtament, in that theirs was a Nationall Church, and ours Congregationall? For the ſame Covenant which God made with the Nationall Church of Iſrael and their Seed, It is the very ſame (for ſubſtance) and none other which the Lord maketh with any Congregationall Church and our Seed. When the Jewes and their children were cut off from the fatneſs of the Olive, we and our children were engrafted into their roome and eſtate, Rom. 11.17, 19. ſo that we are now become 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , coheires, concorporate, and compartners with them of the ſame promiſe in Jeſus Chriſt, Eph. 3.6.

The 10. Querie.

When any Chriſtians deſire to be admitted into the Church, & the Covenant thereof, whether is it regular that the Elders ſhould take all the Tryall of them in a private Conſiſtory alone? unleſſe it be in way of preparation, that ſo they may more fitly and ſafely commend them to the publick Tryall of the whole Church? But were it not meete, that the laſt Tryall of Members, upon which they (being approved) are received either into the Church in a Congregationall way, or to the Lords Supper in a Presbyteriall way, ſhould be tranſacted before the Church?

For as no Members are to be caſt out of the Church-Communion, but by the Judgement and Conſent of the Church (as well the Brethren as the Elders) ſo none ſhould be received into the Communion of the Church, but with the approbation and Conſent of the Church.

The 11. Querie.

Whether is it juſt matter of Offence, If a Member of any Church, which lyeth under the Leaven of Corruption, after the uſe of all good meanes for the healing of the corruptions of his owne Church (be it Preſbyteriall or Congregationall) and after long waiting for the ſame in vaine, ſhall at the length (for the peace and Com • ort of his owne Conſcience, and out of conſcionable Deſire to walke before the Lord in all purity) quickly and orderly remove his Relation, and adjoyne himſelfe to a Church more reformed, yet not condemning the Church (as no Church) from which he removeth?

For if a man may remove his habitation for outward eaſments and conveniences, and then the removall of his Relation is eaſily granted without offence: Then why may he not, for the eaſe of his Conſcience, remove his Relation, though not his Habitation? unleſſe his Habitation were Jure divino, an inſeparable Adjunct to his Relation, or his relation to his Habitation? Chriſtians (as Brethren) are called of God to bear one anothers Burdens, Gal. 6.2. If it be a Burden to ſtay in Communion, let his Brethren eaſe his Burden with a Diſmiſſion.

Glory be to God in Chriſt Jeſus, and Peace to all his Iſrael.

UNto the aforeſaid Queries of the Reverend Author, this alſo may b •• efly be added, to make up the number round.

The 12. Querie.

Whether it be unlawfull, or may be truly accounted a neceſſary cauſe of Diſorder or Confuſion for godly Chriſtians, living in ſeverall Precincts or Pariſhes (not far diſtant, but ſo as they may ordainarily meet together in one place) to joyne in Church-fellowſhip together, for mutuall ſpirituall edification?

That 'tis a very convenient and defirable thing for the Members of a particular Congregation, to inhabit and dwell as neer together as they may, in regard of their meeting together upon all occaſions, and of mutuall watchfullneſſe over each other, and of ſpirituall helpfulneſſe unto one another, is eaſily granted by all: yet it will not therefore follow, that 'tis an unlawfull and diſorderly thing for them to have their Abiding and Reſidence in divers Precincts and Pariſhes.

Indeed 'tis true, that it hath been accounted by the Prelates and the Prelaticall party, a very diſorderly and unlawfull thing, and that which did expoſe to the greateſt of their ſpirituall cenſures, for people ordinarily to goe to the Aſſemblies of Chriſtians out of their owne Pariſh. But their Account doth not make or prove it to be ſo: neither doth it ſeem really and in truth to be ſo: For,

1 The Conſtitution of Parochiall or Pariſh Churches, is not of Divine, but of humane Inſtitution, and that too in the very darkeſt times of Popery and Superſtition, viz. about 700 years ago, as learned Mr. Selden (in his Book of Tythes, ch. 9.) ſeems to intimate. So that although it may ſeem a diſorder, (in regard of that limitation of Pariſhes) for the Pariſhioners of one place to joyne themſelves unto the Church Aſſemblies in another; yet not in regard of any thing appearing to the contrary from the Scripture, which is the rule for Chriſtians to walk by, eſpecially in matters belonging to Church-Adminiſtration, and Government. Neither will it (I ſuppoſe) be affirmed by any intelligent Chriſtian (who underſtanding in any meaſure the true Nature of a particular Church) that Pariſh-bounds are the conſtituting cauſe of a particular Church or Congregation; for it cannot be maintained that every individuall perſon living in ſuch a Pariſh bounds, is therefore a Member of that Church there, except it can be proved, that profeſſed Turks, or Jewes, or Indians (who through providence may be brought into the Land, and ſo neceſſarily reſide in ſome Pariſh or other, there being hardly any parcell of ground free in any part of England, from belonging to the bounds of ſome Pariſh or Towne) are as reall and true Members of the Church there, as any Chriſtian man or woman in the Pariſh. I conceive it neither any ſoleciſme or Paradox to affirm, that there may be a Pariſh where there is no true Church of Chriſt, and a true Chriſtian Church where there is no Pariſh.

2 It may ſeem too great a bondage and ſl • very, both for any Church (whether Presbyter: or Congregationall) to be forced to receive all into fellowſhip in all the Ordinances, who have their habitation or reſidence in the ſame Pariſh bounds with them: and alſo for particular perſons to be neceſſitated to be of this or that particular Congregation, in fellowſhip with ſuch Members, and under the Miniſtry of ſuch a man, which they cannot find ſo ſuitable to their ſpirits, and ſo profitable for their ſpirituall edification, as ſome others, which may not be far off from them. And whereas it may fall out (which poſſibly may come in here as an Objection) that the Miniſter, under whom a man liveth, is taken away by death, and another one called into his place and Office by the generality of the Church, who may be as unſuitable unto the Spirit of this or that Brother, as the Miniſter of the Pariſh where he dwells, or as any other, ſhall not be bound to ſubmit to the choice of the Church, or muſt the Church ſuſpend their choice upon the Negative vote of any one Brother? In ſuch a caſe 'tis lawfull for that diſſenting Brother, who cannot call ſuch a man to be his Miniſter, nor owne him as his Paſtour or Teacher, to deſire a Letter of diſmiſſion to ſome other Church and Officer, whom he can more freely and comfortably cloſe in his ſpirit withall, and I ſuppoſe that Church, with whom he hath fellowſhip at the preſent, is bound to yield unto his equall and juſt deſire, that ſo they may part in a loving and brotherly manner. We doe generally allow every ſervant ſo much liberty for his outward comfort and advantage, as to chooſe his owne Maſter, in whoſe Family, and under whoſe Government and inſpection he is to live, and why ſhould not Chriſtians alſo (being made free-men by Chriſt) have as much liberty for their ſpirituall comfort and edification, to choſe the particular Church under whoſe teaching and inſpection they are to abide: And why elſe hath the Lord (out of his infinite goodneſſe and wiſedome) given out diverſity of gifts to divers of his Servants in the Miniſtry, but to ſuite the variety of ſpirits and diſpoſitions in his people? Every lock not agreeing with every key; as our Reverend Author was wont to expreſs himſelfe, ſpeaking of this very thing.

3 Experience doth alſo teſtifie, de facto, that ſuch a courſe is poſſible to be uſed and practiſed without making ſuch diſorder and confuſion, as is conceived by ſome: For notwithſtanding it be practiſed by ſome Churches (not onely Congregationall, but Presbyteriall alſo, and Claſſicall) to have their Members ſcattered up and down in ſeverall Precincts or Pariſhes, yet there have not any ſuch confuſion and diſorder followed thereupon: as we have ſeen by the conſtant practice of our Brethren in the Congregations both of the Dutch and French here amongſt us in England, as viz. in London, Norwich, Canterbury, C • lcheſter, and in ſuch other places where they doe inhabit; who although they be diſperſed throughout the Cities and Townes where they live, yet are not thought, nor ever were by any (except poſſibly by ſome of the Lordly Prelates, who out of their ſuperſtitious zeale did ſeek to undermine and diſſolve their Congregations) to be any occaſion of diſorder and confuſion by their Meeting together in their holy Aſſemblies, from all parts of the Cities and Townes where they dwell. And why might not the like liberty be allowed unto the Engliſh themſelves, without any juſt feare of diſorder thereby? There ſeems nothing but cuſtome againſt it, for had it been but the practice and courſe of the Engliſh, as it hath beene of the other, certainly it would not be accounted more diſorderly then theirs is.

Onely if (while the diviſion by Pariſhes doe continue) men doe allow and contribute, not onely toward the Poor, but alſo toward the Preaching of the word in their ſeverall Pariſhes, that the word may be diſpenſed all the Land over, I ſhould not gainſay it, as I ſuppoſe the brethren both of the French and Dutch have been wont to doe, in the ſeverall Pariſhes where they live.

Finally, Brethren be of one mind, live in Peace, and the God of Love and Peace ſhall be with you.

FINIS.