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. [Page 2]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 [Page 3]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 [Page 4]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 [Page 5]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 [Page]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 [Page 8]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 [Page 10](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, [Page 11]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 [Page 12]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 [Page 13]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 [...], 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 [Page 14]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 [Page 15]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 [Page 16]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 [Page 17] 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 [Page 18]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 [Page 19]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, [Page 20]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 [Page 21]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, [Page 22]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.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this EEBO-TCP Phase II text, in whole or in part.