<!DOCTYPE ETS PUBLIC "-//UMDLPS//DTD EEBOPROOF 2.0//EN">
<ETS>
<TEMPHEAD>
<REVDESCR>
<CHANGE>
<DATE>2014-10-03</DATE>
<RESPSTMT>
<NAME>Simon Charles</NAME>
<RESP>MURP</RESP>
</RESPSTMT>
<ITEM>Proofed and reviewed as part of batch Z140410.pdcc.</ITEM>
</CHANGE>
</REVDESCR>
</TEMPHEAD>
<EEBO>
<IDG S="marc" R="OX" ID="B25860">
<STC T="W">L1494A</STC>
<BIBNO T="oclc">[ocm]16144897</BIBNO>
<VID>206215</VID>
</IDG>
<TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="letter">
<PB REF="1">
<PB REF="1" MS="y">
<HEAD>A LETTER From One in the Country, Concerning &s;ome of the Pre&s;ent <HI>Differen<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">es.</HI></HEAD>
<P>WE in the <HI>Country</HI> have &s;een the late Books Printed about Church Di&s;cipline, and have had <HI>thoughts of Heart</HI> what it may come to if proceeded in Be &s;ure neither, the times nor our, Churches will bear any way or &s;ide contended for, if &s;tretched to the utmo&s;t Latitude. Some have been con&s;idering how to accommodate the Principles contended for, and to bring them together again. Among the re&s;t, I have made an E&s;&s;ay. <HI>As for the wild excre&s;cencies or hard Reflections</HI> I con|cern not my, &s;elf with them: <HI>Love and Humility and Self denyal ex|erci&s;ed will cure them. And when the heat is over, they that are mo&s;t active in Grace will bewail them fir&s;t.</HI></P>
<P>I find Seventeen Que&s;tions Debated, and by either &s;ide &s;trained through zeal of Spirit, if I may &s;o call it. My endeavour is to pick up the Truth granted by each, in which, I would have all <HI>Moderate Per&s;ons agree;</HI> and all &s;ee <HI>how little di&s;agreement there is, notwith&s;tand|ing the great noi&s;e of Contention.</HI></P>
<P>The Fir&s;t Que&s;tion propo&s;ed in <HI>Go&s;pel Order Vindicated,</HI> is, <HI>Whe|ther Particular Churches ought to con&s;i&s;t of Saints &amp; true Believers in Christ?</HI></P>
<P>Here we find a full agreement in the Words of the United Brethren in <HI>London. Go&s;pel Order Vindicated</HI> mentions the Article: <Q REND="inline">That none &s;hall be Admitted as Members in order to Communion in all the Special Ordinances of the Go&s;pel, but &s;uch per&s;ons as are knowing and &s;ound, in the Fundamental Doctrines of the Chri&s;tian Religi|on, without <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">candal in their lives, and to a Judgment regulated by the Word of God are per&s;ons of vi&s;ible Godline&s;s and Hone&s;ty, credibly profe&s;&s;ing cordial &s;ubjection to Je&s;us Chri&s;t.</Q></P>
<P>This <HI>Go&s;pel Order Revived</HI> profe&s;&s;es for, and acquie&s;ces in; here is good agreement, let us leave the re&s;t.</P>
<P>The Second Que&s;tion, <HI>Whether there ought not to be a tryal of pere &s;ons concerning their Qualifications of fitne&s;s for Church Communion before they are admitted thereunto?</HI></P>
<P>The Affirmative of this is pleaded for in <HI>Go&s;pel Order Vindicated,</HI> and fully con&s;ented to in <HI>Go&s;pel Order Revived.</HI> Here there is no dif|ference nor pretence for it.</P>
<P>The Third Que&s;tion. <HI>Whether are not the Brethren and not the El|ders of the Church only, to judge concerning the Qualifications and fitne&s;s of the&s;e who are admitted into their Communion?</HI></P>
<P>The Reverend Author of <HI>Go&s;pel Order Vindicated</HI> &s;uppo&s;es that there may be &s;ome difference of apprehen&s;ion here, and yet without
<PB REF="2" MS="y"> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 span"> find al&s;o in the Defence of Evangelical Churches, (to which the &s;ame <HI>Reverend Author</HI> &s;ub&s;cribes) page 30, 31. <Q REND="inline"><HI>We readily grant, That the Elders of the Churches are to be the Rulers of them.</HI> And that it is a gro&s;s piece of <HI>Merellian</HI> and <HI>Brownistical Anarchy</HI> for the Votes of the Brethren to be valid without their Concurrence, <HI>and that the Brethren taking the work out of their hands is very offen&s;ive to the God of Order.</HI></Q> I find in <HI>Go&s;pel, Order Revived,</HI> that they plead not to have the Brethren excluded from <HI>all acting:</HI> But that the A|po&s;tle would have every one to keep his proper place and &s;phaere, and do his own <HI>Work,</HI> the <HI>Elder&s;hip</HI> theirs, and the <HI>Brethren</HI> theirs. And moreover I find that they think it fit to have Members propo&s;ed to the Congregation, that they may either con&s;ent or object. If each be candidly interpreted, either there is no difference, or the difference is very minute.</P>
<P>Qu. 4. <HI>Whether is it nece&s;&s;ary that per&s;ons at their Admi&s;&s;ion into the Church &s;hould make a publick Relation of the time and manner of their Conver&s;ion?</HI></P>
<P>This Que&s;tion in <HI>Go&s;pel Order Vindicated,</HI> is an&s;wered negatively: And in <HI>Go&s;pel Order Revived,</HI> the An&s;wer is a&s;&s;ented to and highly approved. In after di&s;cour&s;es there &s;eems to be &s;ome difference, but as far as I can under&s;tand, <HI>One part</HI> &s;tands for that, that it <HI>ought not to be impo&s;ed,</HI> and the <HI>other, that it may be practi&s;ed where it is u&s;eful and edifying;</HI> Both which may be con&s;i&s;tent.</P>
<P>Que&s;t. 5. <HI>Hath the Church Covenant as commonly practi&s;ed in the Churches of</HI> Now England, <HI>any Scripture Foundation?</HI></P>
<P>The An&s;wer to this Que&s;tion may at fir&s;t view &s;eem to contain great difference, <HI>it did &s;o to me.</HI> But after I had lookt into it, I quickly perceived the Reverend Authors might <HI>ea&s;ily be reconciled in this matter. Go&s;pel Order Vindicated</HI> pleads hard for a Church Cove|nant, but in the explication and pleas for it, I find it reduced to much &s;uch a Covenant as <HI>I&s;rael</HI> was in of old, and &s;ometimes to a publick profe&s;&s;ion of Faith, and a promi&s;e to walk according thereunto. And I find in that fore quoted Book, <HI>A Defence of Evangelical Churches,</HI> Sub&s;cribed by the Reverend Author and his Son. <HI>page</HI> 40. <Q REND="inline">For our Church Covenant is nothing el&s;e but an acknowledgment of our obligations unto tho&s;e duties which become incumbent on us, as rela|ting unto &s;uch or &s;uch a Church of His, <HI>No man that knows any thing ever took it for any other.</HI></Q> As much is owned and pleaded for in Go&s;pel Order <HI>Revived. Page</HI> 11.</P>
<P>Que&s;t. 6. <HI>Is Publick Reading of the Scriptures without any Explication or Exhortation therewith, part of the Work incumbent on a Mini&s;ter of the Go&s;pel?</HI> Give me leave to joyn to this the <HI>Sixteenth Que&s;tion,</HI> in that the &s;ame Comment may indifferently &s;erve either.</P>
<P>Que&s;t. 16. <HI>Is it the duty for Chri&s;tians in their Prayers, to make u&s;e of the words of that which is commonly called.</HI> The Lord's Prayer?</P>
<P>In an&s;wer to the fir&s;t, in <HI>Go&s;pel Order Vindicated,</HI> tis &s;aid the Que|&s;tion is not whether &s;uch Readings are lawful, for who <HI>doubts that?</HI>
<PB REF="2"> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 span"> it is lawful to make u&s;e of tho&s;e words in prayer. <HI>No man can roti|onally doubt but that the words in that, as well as the words of other Prayers in the Scripture may be made u&s;e of in our Addre&s;&s;es to Heaven.</HI> The Que&s;tions being not about their lawfulne&s;s or unlawfulne&s;s, it mu&s;t be about their expediency, when things lawful are expedient. And if this were the Que&s;tion, it is like there would be no di&s;agree|ment, or be&s;ure none that need make any difference in any of our Churches.</P>
<P>Que&s;t. 7. <HI>Is Bapti&s;m to be admini&s;tred to all Children whom any pro|fe&s;&s;ed Chri&s;tian &s;hall engage to &s;ee Educated in the Chri&s;tian Religion?</HI></P>
<P><HI>Go&s;pel Order Vindicated,</HI> or the Rd. <HI>Author</HI> of it &s;aith, if the Que&s;tion were only whether all Children adopted by Believing Parents might not be Baptized, we &s;hould not oppo&s;e. <HI>Go&s;pel Order Revived</HI> &s;aith, <HI>on this we declare our &s;elves &s;atisfied, and crave no more.</HI> There is un|der this head a large di&s;cour&s;e upon another Que&s;tion: <HI>Who are Pro|fe&s;&s;ed Christians?</HI> But I do not &s;ee but that one part takes it as nar|row as the other.</P>
<P>Que&s;t. 8. <HI>Is Bapti&s;m in a private hou&s;e where there is no Church A&s;&s;em|bly allowable?</HI></P>
<P><HI>Go&s;pel Order Revived</HI> &s;aith, <HI>We</HI> agree with the Reverend Author, That Bapti&s;m is a part of the Publick Mini&s;try, nor may it be admi|ni&s;tred by one who is not Called to the Publick Mini&s;try; neither &s;hould it <HI>u&s;ually or ordinarily be admini&s;tred but in a &s;ull Congregation, nor would we drop a word to di&s;courage &s;o pious a practice.</HI> I cannot &s;ee that the Reverend Author of <HI>Go&s;pel Order Vindicated,</HI> can by his Que&s;tion and An&s;wer drive at any more than what is yielded.</P>
<P>Que&s;t. 9. <HI>Ought all that contribute towards the Maintenance to have the priviledge of Voting to the Election of a Pa&s;tor?</HI></P>
<P>Here we find &s;ome good agreement: <HI>Go&s;pel Order Revived</HI> &s;peak|ing of the Reverend Author of the other Book, &s;aith, <HI>and under his fourth argument he tells us, that nothing is more evident than that in the Fir&s;t Ages of the Church, Pa&s;tors were Cho&s;en by all and only their Flocks,</HI> which we verily believe. Nor could he have expre&s;&s;ed the truth in more apt words. This &s;eems to be the &s;en&s;e of both; if there &s;hould ari&s;e difference about the latitude of <HI>the Flock,</HI> Churches mu&s;t exerci&s;e prudence to pre&s;erve peace.</P>
<P>Que&s;t. 10. <HI>Is it expedient that Churches &s;hould enter into a Con&s;ociation or Agreement that matters of more than ordinary importance, &s;uch as Gather|ing of a New Church, the Ordination, Depo&s;i ion or Tran&s;lation of a Pa&s;tor he done with Common con&s;ent?</HI></P>
<P>All the difference in An&s;wer to this as far as I can find is, that the one pleads, that it is <HI>Expedient</HI> to enter into a Conlociation and A|greement, and the other, that they are <HI>already bound by virtue of their profe&s;&s;ion and Chri&s;tian Covenant:</HI> And, what if it be yielded that they are already bound, and may &s;ometimes have occa&s;ion to renew their bonds?</P>
<P>Que&s;t. 11. <HI>May the Brethren in Churches and not the Pa&s;tors only be &s;ent <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 span"> their Voice in Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Councils?</HI></P>
<PB REF="3">
<P><GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 span"> the Pa&s;tors &s;hould be <HI>Principal or Principally concern'd.</HI> I do not <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 word"> that Go&s;pel Order <HI>Revived</HI> doth <HI>wholly exclude</HI> the Brethren from &s;uch Councils, but <HI>rather admits them</HI> for &s;ome ends or u&s;e or benefit, though not of equal Voice.</P>
<P>Que&s;t. 12. <HI>Does the E&s;&s;ence of a Mini&s;ters Call con&s;i&s;t in his being Ordained with the Impo&s;ition of hands by other Mini&s;ters?</HI></P>
<P>In Go&s;pel Order <HI>Revived,</HI> this is joyned with the next, &amp; for brevity &s;ake, I &s;hall follow the &s;ame method.</P>
<P>Que&s;t. 13. <HI>May a man be Ordained a Pa&s;tor except to a Particular Church, and in the pre&s;ence of that Church?</HI></P>
<P>I find the greate&s;t difficulty to &s;hew the plain &amp; di&s;tinct Agreement in the An&s;wers to the&s;e Que&s;tions of any, But I &s;hall E&s;&s;ay it. As it is mo&s;t certain that a Mini&s;ter may be con&s;idered under a double Relation, the <HI>One</HI> referring <HI>to Chri&s;t</HI> and him whereby he is Chri&s;ts Mini&s;ter, and the <HI>other</HI> referring <HI>to the particular Flock</HI> to which he is Ordinarily appropriated, and &s;o is theirs; as this double relation is true, &s;o I find it owned of both &s;ides. The Reverend Author of Go&s;pel Order <HI>Vindicated,</HI> though he &s;peaks mo&s;tly of that relation to the Church, yet he doth in &s;ome mea&s;ure own <HI>the other here, and in his other writings more fully.</HI> So Go&s;pel order <HI>Revived</HI> though it &s;peaks mo&s;tly re&s;pecting the Relation betwixt Chri&s;t and the Mini&s;ter, yet they own <HI>the other Relation al&s;o.</HI> Now, <HI>let what is &s;poken one way or other</HI> be given to the <HI>re&s;pective Relations only,</HI> and the difference will pre&s;ently cea&s;e.</P>
<P>Que&s;t. 14. <HI>Is the practice of the Churches of</HI> New England <HI>in grant|ing Letters of Recommendation, or Di&s;mi&s;&s;ion from one Church to another according to Scripture, and the examples of other Churches?</HI></P>
<P>I take notice of a pa&s;&s;age that the Reverend Author of Go&s;pel Order <HI>Vindica|ted</HI> lays down in his An&s;wer hereunto towards the latter end. By the Letters in Controver&s;y nothing el&s;e is intended but <HI>Letters Te&s;timonial from &s;ome Church of Christ, or the Elders thereof concerning &s;ome of their Communion Removing from them to another People, be it for le&s;ser or longer time.</HI> I find it &s;aid in Go&s;pel Or|der <HI>Revived.</HI> Indeed <HI>there may be a good u&s;e</HI> of Letters of Recommendation &amp; <HI>e&s;pecially among Strangers:</HI> And this I think agrees well with the other.</P>
<P>Que&s;t. 15 <HI>Is not the a&s;serting that a Pa&s;tor may Admini&s;ter the Sacrament to another Church be&s;ides his own particular Flock, at the de&s;ire of that other Church, a declen&s;ion from the first Principles of</HI> New-England, <HI>&amp; of the Congregational way?</HI></P>
<P>The Reverend Author An&s;wers <HI>not at all.</HI> Go&s;pel Order <HI>Revived</HI> &s;aith it is no declen&s;ion from <HI>Truth,</HI> but agreeable to it. And why not both agree, it is no declen&s;ion from either.</P>
<P>Que&s;t. 17. <HI>May the Churches under the Presbyterian and Congregational Di&s;ci|pline maintain Communion with one another notwithstanding their differing Sentiments as to Church Government?</HI></P>
<P>The Reverend Author An&s;wers, <HI>They may and ought to do &s;o.</HI> Go&s;pel Or|der <HI>Revived</HI> highly approves of the An&s;wer, and doctrine of it.</P>
<P>And now it appears there is a <HI>very Tolerable and Comfortable</HI> Agreement in Principles: And why then &s;hould <HI>height or heat of Spirit hinder our walking to|gether, and good Agreement?</HI> It is de&s;ired that all that love ZION would put in and forward our Peace and Concord, and Fellow&s;hip in the Go&s;pel.</P>
<CLOSER><SIGNED>IRENEUS ALETHEIAN</SIGNED></CLOSER>
<PB REF="3">
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT>
</EEBO>
</ETS>
