I Pray Sir, what doth the word Church import?

Church or Kirk is but an abrevia­tion of [...]; according to the proper idi­oms of Languages English and Scotch, it sig­nifies the House of God; and hence our pla­ces of publick assembling are called Church­es in Conformity to the Jews of old, who cal­led the Temple, the House of God, according to which Christ speaks, Mat. 21.13. there being a Levitical Holiness ascribed to it, which Holiness of places hath ceased with it, and the Gospel Church is made only of living stones, Heb. 3.8. 1 Pet. 2.4. though when we in England speak of a place for publick assembly, we call it a Church, not that any wise Protestants do take it so, in a proper sence, but Metonymically only; as for others they think and speak after the Papists.

What do the Greek and Hebrew words import?

They always signifie an Assembly or Congregation, there was two words used for it in the old Testament [...] and [...] [Page 20]both signifie Coetus or Congregatio, [...] is from [...] condixit, so that it's taken for the solemn assembly gathered together at Gods appointed time, or for the assembly at the appointed place, viz. the Tabernacle, and therefore the Tabernacle of the Congrega­tion, which Congregation was the Church of old, Act. 7.38. Ecclesia in the New Te­stament is taken for any assembly, though rude and riotous, Act. 19.32. [ [...] is not used, v. 37. where our Interpreters use our English word, [...] ought to be ren­dred robbers of Temples,] Heathenish and Jewish, but it is mostly used for, and appro­priated to a sacred assembly, as Mat 18.17. Act. 2.47. Ch. 8.1. Ch. 11.26. 1 Cor. 1.2. &c.

What do you say then is a Church of Christ in the most comprehensive sence?

A Church of Christ is a Congrega­tion of Saints associated in Christ Jesus our Lord, Eph. 3.21. In the Church in Christ Jesus.

Why do you say associated?

Because a Church is not a transient and occasional Congregation but fixed, and a joyned Society by Union and Communion with Christ and one another, 1 John 1.3. and because the Saints are the members of Christ, and he is the Head, they are said to be ga­thered together always in Christ Jesus real­ly, [Page 21]or professedly, they are gathered unto him by way of insertion, mystically, or Po­litically, they are gathered together in his Name or Authority.

Then a Church comes under various considerations?

Yes, Sir, it doth, but the Church of Christ is properly but one, as he is the one Head and only so, the Body is but one, 1 Cor. 12.12. For as the Body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of the one Body, be­ing many, are one body, so also is Christ, i. e. Mystical.

I pray be as distinct as you can upon the several considerations of this one Church of Christ?

I will, you know the most compre­hensive consideration of the Church of Christ is under the name of Catholick, and there are two Articles in the Creed called the Apo­stles, that express our Faith therein; 1. I be­lieve the Holy Catholick Church; 2. I be­lieve the Communion of. Saints, which two words Holy and Saints denote the Matter and Form of this Church, that it is Saints in Christ Jesus, it is a Holy Church made up of Saints; and then that it is comprehensive of all Saints. And lastly, That the formal nature of this Church consists in a certain U­nion and Communion, for the latter always implys the former.

But is there not particular Churches? do you not call every single Congregation a Church?

Yes, we do so; but that you may have the right and distinct notion of it, we must duly weigh the Catholick Church as to its Relation, to Christ its Head. The Catho­lick Church is to be considered as to its my­stical, and political standing in Christ. In re­spect of its mystical standing these things be­long unto it; 1. That it is the general assem­bly or collection of real Saints, Heb. 12.23. ye are come, [...] to the Catholick assembly and Church or Con­gregation of first born, whose names are written in Heaven. This is the Heavenly Church to which he saith Believers in the Gospel days are come, to which Church, Jesus the Medi­ator of the New Covenant is the Head of influence, and to which all Saints as such are spiritually knit, and with whom they have Communion, and in him one with another. 2. The Church in this sence is it, which Christ hath purchased, and are effectually partakers of all his benefits, Eph. 5.25, 26, 27. to it belongs, Election, Redemption, Effectual Vocation, Justification, Adoption, Sanctification, and Glorification, John 17.9, 10, 11. Rom. 8.29, 30. 3. Here in this respect the Church is said to be Catholick in relation to indivi­dual [Page 23]Saints only, it's not Catholick as a ge­nus comprehending many species of Church­es, but as a totum integrale comprizing many parts, and all have a coordinate standing in subordination only to Christ their Head; yea they all conduce to the making up of Christ Mystical one body, being members in parti­cular. 4. This Mystical Body is to be consi­dered according to its manner of existing (secundum modum existendi) and that two ways. 1. In its Militant State or Standing, or in its Triumphant, in Viâ or in Patriâ. In its Militant State it comprehends all the true be­lievers in the world existing at the same time, whether they are visible by professing or not, the complement whereof are all the Saints actually glorified, or the Spirits of just men made perfect. And this distinction is only of the Church, in respect of the different state in the enjoyment of Christ in the way of Communion, in Grace and Glory; the dif­ference is only gradual, and no more, the Union is the same. 2. It is to be considered in its Invisible and Visible standing. The Church's Invisible standing is wholly in re­spect of that inward spiritual Relation, which the Saints have to Christ, and one another. Its Visible standing is in professing Saints that are real members of Jesus Christ.

I Pray Sir, give a right understanding [Page 24]of the Church in its relation to Christ as a Political Head.

Thus Christ is to be considered as King and Law-giver to his Church and Peo­ple, and he governs his Church either imme­diately by his ruling Spirit in the heart of every Member of his Body, whereby they are influenced, Eph. 4.4. There is one Spirit, one Body, one Lord, &c. Or he governs mediate­ly as a Politick Head, and that is only so far as the Church is visible and professing, and as such he hath given Immunities, Laws, Offi­cers, Ordinances, for establishment of Visible Polities, Societies, or spiritual Corporations. And here we are to observe diligently these things; 1. That under this consideration the Catholick Church is most large and exten­sive, for it comprehends all credible Pro­fessors, though not real, and all actual Church-Members, though secret Hypocrites, Ephes. 3.15. Of him the whole family is named in Hea­ven and in Earth, i.e. real and professing. 2. That the Church, so far as it's capable of Visible Communion and Fellowship, is the subject of Christ's mediate Political Rule and Government, and that is only in particu­lar Congregations, to them he hath given his Word, Ordinances and Officers, and to no other, for he suited them to particular Societies, neither hath he substituted any [Page 25]Officers or Ordinances to the meer mystical standing of the Church. 3. All the Institu­ted External Worship, though it be given to the Church in its visible standing, which it hath in particular Churches, yet it is for the sake of the Mystical Body, for the edi­fying and building it up by the Means of Grace, Eph. 4.12, 13 and for the multiply­ing it by calling in the Elect. 4. In this sense and acceptation as the Catholick Church be­ing a Political Body of all Saints mystically and immediately under Christ their Head; so this Political Body shews it self, and be­comes visible in some particular parts there-only, which are called Visible Churches, and are under a mediate Rule and Government of Christ, and in this respect the Catholick Church comprehends particular Churches as some distinct parts and parcels thereof.

Then I suppose your apprehensions are, that there is a Catholick Visible Church, which is the next and immediate subject of all Officers and Ordinances.

Mistake me not, I have not said so as yet; I say the Catholick Church becomes in part visible in particular Congregation [...]s and they are the immediate subjects of vi­sible Ordinances and Officers, which are in­stituted and placed therein for the edifica­tion of the Mystical Body of Christ.

But is not the universality of Saints Militant the Catholick Visible Church of Christ on Earth?

The universality of Saints on Earth doth not constitute a Church in a visible standing; for many are Believers that as yet make not themselves visible by profession. 2. They are not, nor can be bound together in visible Union and Communion. That which makes a Catholick Church is a Ca­tholick Bond of Union and Catholick Com­munion, which is only mystical and invisible; but there is not, nor cannot be a Catholick visible Bond; for as they cannot appear in one visible Congregation, so they cannot be bound to walk together in Fellowship, nor can have visible Communion as one Church in the same individual Administration, if they profess the same Faith, preach the same Word, pray alike, &c. yet this makes not one particular Church. 3. If there be a Ca­tholick Visible Church, then it must have Catholick Visible Officers, every Officer must relate to the whole Church; every or­dinary Officer must be Officer to the whole Catholick Visible Church, and there had need be a Visible Pastor Pastorum over them all. 4. All Visible Members of the Catholick Church are not therefore Mem­bers of any Visible Church with Ordinances; [Page 27]for they must be supposed to be Members of the Catholick Church, before they can be made Members of a Visible Church with Ordinances. 5. A Visible Church is Orga­nized with Officers to the whole Church, and not to a part of it: A Pastor, Elder, Deacon, are Officers to the whole; and who will say a Deacon hath as much power in all the Churches on Earth, as in the Church to which he is constituted? he may as well say so, as say a Pastor hath. 6. If Christ institu­ted a Catholick Visible Church, it was under the Old Testament, or under the New, but he did neither, for there was but one Parti­cular Congregation under the Old, and Christ left but one when he ascended.

I Pray Sir come now to the main thing I aim at, viz. to the true na­ture and constitution of a Gospel Particular Church.

You mean such a Congregation as is the immediate subject of all the Ordinan­ces and Offices of Christ's Institution, where every Believer is bound to wait upon God in Gospel Faith and Order, for the glory of Christ, and his own edification.

Such a Church I mean; may not a National Church be it?

By no means; it's no Church but such whose Members may all meet together in one place for Communion in all Ordi­nances, for so the first Church at Jerusalem did, the greatest for ought I know that ever was since, and all other that we read of in Scripture since. If any comprized all the Saints in the Nation, Province or Territory, they all assembled for frequent Communion in one place under the same Officers. We read of no Particular Church in Scripture but what was Congregational; for the Na­tional Church of the Jews, which was the only one of that kind which ever was in the World of God's Institution, was Congrega­tional; for all the Males came to the Temple, and before, to the Tabernacle three times a year, to appear before God to wor­ship in acts of Communion, therefore it was called the Tabernacle of the Congregation.

I am pretty well satisfied now from the weighty arguments I formerly heard from you, though my thoughts through pre­judice passed lightly over them then, that all National, Diocesan and Parochial constitu­tion of Churches was merely from Man, if not from the Man of Sin, which latter I see cause enough to suspect. But I pray, give me [Page 29]a plain description of a particular Gospel Church.

With all my heart Sir, a Particu­ler Gospel Church is a separate company of Visi­ble Believers with their Seed (or Saints) as­sociated together in special bond of Union for the enjoyment of Communion with Christ and one another in all the Ordinances of Christs appointment for their edification.

You say the allowed matter of this Church is Visible Believers; what understand you by a visible Believer?

I mean one that makes a credible profession, such an one as I am bound by all the rules of Charity to believe he is a true believer on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ; and I do not say, 1. That it is ne­cessary that therefore he be no Hypocrite for so he may be and I not know it. 2. Nei­ther do I say that his meer professing makes him a Church member, for they in Act. 2. believed before they were Church Members and professed their Faith, which gave them right of claim. Yea there are many have right of claim, and do profess, but do not seek to joyn to a particular Church, and it cannot be without a voluntary offer, and subjection to the Order of the Gospel.

What is required to a credible pro­fession for the due satisfaction of a particular Church of Christ?

The Tree cannot be known to me but by the Fruits, see Mat. 7.17, 18, 19. chap. 12.33. Luk. 6.44. the credible fruits are therefore, Holiness of life, and professi­on of Faith. It's required there be visible holiness of life, Phil. 1.27. Let your conver­sation be as becometh the Gospel, i. e. both the Doctrine and Order of it: And this lies in negative and positive holiness appearing in the conversation. 1. Negative that it be without blame, Eph. 1.4. Phil. 2.15. 1 Th. 5.23. 2. A meer negative religion in re­spect of grosser and more observable sins is no more than what many a Carnal man may attain unto; there must be the practice of positive duties required, and not merely mo­ral in justice and mercy, but such by which a Christian is more peculiarly distinguished from Moral Heathens, such as family duties of reading the word, and daily prayer: those of a more publick nature, as constant at­tendance on the word Preached, sanctifying the Lords day, free distribution to the ne­cessities of the Saints, and a manifest readi­ness on all occasions, to follow Christ as his disciple in all things, Tit. 3.8. ch. 2.11, 12. yea in suffering.

But what more profession is need­full besides this visible practical walking? is not this enough of it self?

It is as the Church shall judge of it, for they may be so well acquainted with the Faith, as well as the visible holiness of some, that there may not be the least doubt that the person offering himself, is fit matter for the Spiritual building, but the Church will it may be for the edification of others desire to hear the dealings of God with such an one, rather than for satisfaction concerning his Spiritual state, which they doubt not of.

But I pray Sir, what is the nature of this verbal profession which you expect?

There are two things besides what hath been said requisite in an adult Church Member. 1. That he have a competent knowledge of God and Christ, Prov. 19.2. He that hath not the knowledge of Christ cannot believe, Rom. 10.14. ch. 3.11. Pro. 9.10. Hos. 4.6. 2 Pet. 1.3. 1 Tim. 2.4. therefore it's requisite that such as are admit­ed Church Members, do shew that they have a knowledge of God in his essence and sub­sistences, the person, natures and offices of Christ, the state of man by reason of the fall, the nature of Christs Mediatory Office in his Humiliation and Exaltation, and the great effects thereof in Justification, Sanctification and Glorification.

I think indeed it's very requisite, that Church Members should have knowledge of [Page 32]Divine Mysteries, so far as is necessary to Salvation, or else they will but prophane ho­ly things, and turn them into meer supersti­tion or Idolatry, as the Papists have done, who hugg Ignorance as the Mother of De­votion, but many a man that hath had good Christian education may give a great account in these matters and not have a Grain of Grace in his Heart.

So he may, nay many [...]n one that can discourse with much knowledge in all points of Divinity may be a very loose and wicked man in his life, Rom. 2.17, 18, 19, 20, &c. nay, he may do all externals in Religion, and have no power of Godliness. Wherefore, 2. We go as far as we can to be satisfied, and therefore inquire a rea­son of his Faith and Hope, which when he hath satisfied us in, we can go no further, but own him fit to become a visible Member of the Church. And these qualifications are ex­presly laid before us, Rom. 10.10. The rea­son of the Faith that is in us is to be given when required, 1 Pet. 3.15. be ready to give a reason of the hope that is in you, It is there­fore of the greatest weight to give this rea­son to a Church, for their satisfaction when asked by it, and we find that they that were added to the Church, Act. 2. gave good e­vidence of their Repentance and Faith in the [Page 33]Lord Jesus Christ, as the effects of Peter's Sermon.

But they were presently added to the Church, they allotted no time to make further inspection into their lives and conver­sations.

There may be great reason for it, for, 1. It's most probable these were all known to be very devout in the Jewish Re­ligion, such it may be for conversation, as Zechary and Elizabeth, and as Cornelius a Proselyte, for they were Jews that lived at a distance, in remoter Regions, that came up constantly to Worship at the Feasts, and now came to the Feast of [...]. 2. Pe­ter and the rest of the twelve, all presided in the Church, who were extraordinarily in­spired, and therefore had a more infalli­ble judgment, or more infallible dictates of the Spirit to direct them in Church admini­strations, than ordinary Church Officers since have, as appears by many instances in the matter of Simon Magus, Ananias and Sap­phira, &c. but we are acquainted by the Spi­rit of God how true steps they made in re­ceiving of Members, that they were still such as should be saved; we read not of any false-hearted of all that 3000, unless Ananias and Sapphira were of that number.

But is it absolutely necessary, that [Page 34]every adult person be admitted into Church Communion, and give credible evidence that he is a Member of Christ.

Yes, for 1. Visible Membership of the Catholick Church, gives right of claim to Communion with a particular Visible Church, a supposal of a persons mystical uni­on to Christ, is the true ground of claim of Communion with Christ and his People, in instituted Ordinances. 2. We have no other sort of Members but visible Saints spoken of, as admitted, in the primitive Apostolick state of the Churches, Rom. 1.7. 1 Cor. 1.2. Phil. 1.1. Eph. 1.1. Co [...] 1.2. Saints and faithful Bre­thren in [...] Thes. 1.1. Eph. 2.1, 2. those of the Church of Thessalonica were in God the Father and in Christ Jesus. In Solo­mon's Temple, all the Stones were to be squared and fitted, before laid, a Type of Christ Mystical and Politick in visible Church-state; the Apostle Peter alludes to it, 1 Pet. 2.2.3, 5. he shews the first effects of the Word of God's grace on Converts, and then they come to Christ the corner-stone, as living stones to be built a spiritual house in visible Communion of the Saints. 2. That a Church-Member who ought to be cast out when in, is not to be received in; but if any surreptitiously crope in, & be made manifest not to have the fear of God before his eyes, [Page 35]he is to be cast out; therefore, he that doth not appear to have the fear of God, is not to be admitted a Church-Member. See 1 Cor. 5.11, 12.

Your strictness in this kind keeps off many that would otherwise joyn themselves.

And doth not the holiness of Gos­pel-Truths as much or more keep off carnal and wicked men from embracing them, as they will say? but the true reason is their re­bellious hearts bigotted to their beloved sins. Besides, it's very necessary there should be a bar to keep off unworthy persons from sa­cred things; It is not meet to give holy things (i. e. such as are peculiar to God's Children) unto Dogs, and such are Church-Priviledges. 3. We would not willingly debar one, even the least Babe in Christ, from the appointed ways and means of Communion with Christ, and therefore do willingly condescend to the modesty and weakness of any Age or Sex manifesting a spiritual hunger and thirst af­ter the Lord Jesus Christ; if there be a ground to judge there is truth of grace in the heart, it is accepted, and this is ordinari­ly perceived by them that are spiritual.

But you will ask hard Questions in the points of Knowledge.

No harder than are asked in our ordinary Catechisms which we teach our [Page 36]Children, trying only whether a grown Per­son understands in any competent measure what he saith, according as Philip dealt with the Eunuch.

But this giving a reason of the hope that is in us, is that which most are against, and are loath to comply with.

They that have it not cannot do it, unless some glozing Hypocrite, that by his Education and Parts hath got much brain­knowledge, and can counterfeit any exter­nal part of Religion. But where this hope is you usually see how ready men are to speak of the Grace of God to Friend and Neigh­bour, why not to a Church or its Officers, that may bring their Relation to the Church? You see how naturally in our discourse, but now, you fell into this; when I took but oc­casion to ask how you came so suddenly in love with the Lord Jesus Christ, you gave me a very full account of the Grace of God towards your Soul.

Why is it no more than such a poor account as I gave you but now? alas I could have said a great deal more concerning Gods wonderful gracious dealings with me, but that I hasted to this discourse with you about Gospel Church and Order, which I have long wished for. I had thought your members must have prepared some set speech in such exact [Page 37]form and manner as some men can do. But alas how many good honest Christians cannot express themselves? but they can tell you in their plain way of speaking, what they were, Drunkards, Lyars, Scoffers, Debauched A­dulterers, Blasphemers, &c. And one will say, God cast me down under the sence of sin, by awakening my Conscience, by such a Word or such a Providence, and I began to think how I was in hastning to eternal destru­ction, he will tell of the great struglings he had with Satan, the World, and his Com­pany, to hold him fast in his sinful ways, he will tell you what good tidings to him the Revelation of the Free Grace and Love of God to Sinners was. And how thereby his Heart was drawn forth to Faith in his blood and obedience to all his commands, he will tell you the Sermon, and places of Scripture, some at least of the most remarkable, which were made most effectual for his Souls bene­fit and advantage. If this be all you stand up­on, I think none that hath tasted that the Lord is gracious, will make any scruple of it. As for my own part I could be willing to make it my frequent discourse to any faithful Friend in Christ, to declare to him, what God hath done for my Soul, and should look upon it as the best entertainment he could give me to hear the like from him. And I [Page 38]know not why any one should question the doing it to a Church of Christ, where so ma­ny faithful ones labour under the sence of their own sins and weaknesses, as well as a mans self.

I find bashfulness is a great hin­drance to many, in some, especially Women, it is from their Sex, and the natural temper of many of both Sex; there is no remedy for them but to pray against it: and for Church Officers to deal with them in all Tenderness and Condescention, supposing still that there is much of the Grace of God, and sence of Sin in them, which is not expressed by what shews it self. Again, others are ashamed, some upon this account, viz. to tell the World how wicked and vile they have been, others afraid they shall be rejected, and that would be a great disgrace to them. As to the first sort, I say, Churches do not stand upon this, that every one should particularize the indi­vidual Sin, that he hath committed, it may be some of an heinous and enormous nature; it is enough that he specifies the sence of the greatness of the sins he lived in, in General, unless he finds it for the honour of God, and the good of others, to declare what a wick­ed wretch in this or that kind he hath been, which the world and his acquaintance knows as well as he; and in that respect it is neces­sary [Page 39]for the honour of God, and Paul did so, that great Apostle, I was a Persecutor, &c. And how often doth he aggravate his sin, and magnifie the rich Grace of God that called and saved him? That great notorious sin of his known to all, he declares often to the Church­es and others. Then as to the declaring our Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, and in his great and precious Promises, there is no rea­son any should be ashamed of it, unless a man be ashamed the World should know he is willing to be saved, and not eternally perish. Rom. 10.10, 11. The Apostle anticipates this Objection, when he saith with the Heart man Believes, and with the Tongue Confession, (i. e. of that Faith) is made unto Salvation, it immediately follows, for the Scripture saith, He that believeth on him shall not be a­shamed, i. e. To confess with his Mouth what he believeth in his Heart. As for Confession of particular secret sins, it is not expected by the Churches, they have no such custom to re­quire it, but leave it to the wicked practice of the Romish Priests in Auricular Confessi­on.

You have given very good satisfacti­on in this point, for I have heard many that are not acquainted with the way of your Churches object this very strenuously; as if your Ministers took upon them the practice [Page 40]of those Wicked Varlots, who make Con­fession a stratagem to creep into acquaintance with mens secrets, for their own advantage. But I would have you answer the other ob­jection that many are afraid they shall be re­jected, and I will tell you too many are loath to bewray their own ignorance and unac­quaintedness with the things of God.

As for such, who fear they shall be rejected, they are of two sorts. 1. Such as are lifted up in themselves, and put on Re­ligion more for the applause of it than for the love of it; these have not learned Christ, for they know not how to deny themselves; and therefore it's better they stay off than of­fer themselves, till their Hearts be enclined to love Christ, and his commands more than the applause of men. And these have usually one of these reasons for their fears; first, Ei­ther that they have lived in some known scandalous sins, that they cannot give any suf­ficient grounds to others, to believe, they have thorowly repented of by a manifest Re­formation, and such had better forbear of­fering themselves, till their Friends and Ac­quaintance observe some evident change in them. Or it is by reason they fear, as you say, they shall bewray their Ignorance in the things of God; if that be the reason, it is much better for them to discover their Ig­norance [Page 41]than to remain in it, being the en­quiries upon this account into mens Know­ledge, it is only in the great and weighty points of the Gospel, without acquaintance with which a man cannot believe unto Sal­vation by Jesus Christ. Besides what danger is there of publick disgrace? If the way of the Churches be known, no unprejudiced Christian can think there is any, for if a man offer himself to joyn to a particular Congre­gation, he goeth to the Pastor or Elder, and acquaints him with his desire, who will, if he think there be reason, first enquire of his knowledge in some great fundamental points, wherein finding him grosly defective, he gives him Information, and desires him fre­quently to repair to him for the more che­rishing all good desires and affections in him, till he arrive at a competency of knowledg; but all this while doth not make him known to the Church, so that his infirmities are not blazoned abroad in the World in the least by this way of proceeding.

My Friend, I pray inform me what you intend by a separate Society; and can you justifie separation? you know how it's cryed out against by most learned Divines.

Therefore I put in that word, because I am sure Separation is a necessary adjunct that doth belong to every true Constituted [Page 42]Church of Christ, nay is there any that doth pretend to be a Church of Christ, that doth not separate more or less? doth not the pre­tended Church of Rome separate from Turks and mere Pagans? doth not our Church of England separate from Rome? and why? Ei­ther because some say it's no true Church; o­thers because it's corrupted in Doctrine and Worship, though a true Church, and there­by justifie their separation from it. And may not other Churches upon the same ground separate from the Church of England, either because, as some will say, it's not a true con­stituted Gospel Church, but Antichristian. or because, as others will say, they allow it to be a Church of Christ, but polluted in Doctrine, Worship, Manners, both as to the Ministry and People, and therefore to be se­parated from, for the enjoyment of a purer Church State and Communion? Again, the Church of England in her Catechism teach­eth separation, and solemnly vows it, Infants in Baptism, Promise by the Sureties or Van­gers, to forsake the World, the Flesh, and the Devil. What is this but separation? And if this were practised as it is promised, the mem­bers of the Church of England would be a separate people. Lastly there is nothing clear­er than that a visible Church of Christ ought to be separate, 1 Pet. 2.9. What is a choice [Page 43] peculiar people, a holy Nation, to shew forth the praises of him that hath called us out of darkness into his marvellous light, but a separate people? a Holy Nation in a world lying in wickedness? a people called out of a dark world into mar­vellous light, as the Church of old in Goshen had marvellous light while Egypt was in dark­ness, and the praises of Christ thus separating themselves, they shew forth in the Churches. And what can be opposed with any evi­dence against that plain and full place to this purpose? 2 Cor. 6.14. be not unequally-yoak­ed together with unbelievers, ver. 15. what part hath he that believeth with an unbeliever? i. e. a visible unbeliever; it ought not to be rendered an Infidel, as if one sort of unbelie­ver only was meant, for it's the same Word every where else, and v. 14. rendred unbe­liever; but our English Divines render the word Infidel, insinuating that none but Turks and Pagans were to be understood by this Text, that we are required to separate from. But the Text is most express that it is from all visible Unbelievers. The Temple of God is the Gospel Church, the fellowship is Church fellowship, therefore he bids us come out from among Unbelievers, and from all false worship, and be separate, v. 17. and then God Promiseth to be their God, to dwell with them, &c. I shall add no more at present on [Page 44]this point though much more might be said.

You have fully confirmed me in this point, I pray tell me whether there be any that are not actual believers that are Church-members.

All Church members come in up­on the right of a Visible Profession, but it follows not thence that all Church-members are actual believers; for many Hypocrites come in upon the right of Profession, but are not actual believers. Again, Infants and Chil­dren of believing Parents come into Church­es, and are justly made and called members upon the right of Profession; but it is of their Parents, not of their own Personal Professi­on, neither are they actual Believers; their Profession is in the Parents, their Covenant Obligation is in the Parents, the Priviledges they are capable of is belonging to them by virtue of a Promise, wherein they are concerned with their Parents, and primarily for the Confirmation of the Parents Faith, and secondarily in order to the Salvation of their Children. But a little more of this when I come to Baptism.

I pray Sir, proceed then to speak to the Visible bond whereby this Church So­ciety is bound together.

I hinted before that Churches are de­nominated from their bond of Union, as from [Page 45]their Communion; from Mystical Union and Communion, the Church is called Invisible, from Visible Union and Communion it is that Churches are called Visible. It's thus in any civil Corporation and Society, every man doth not come and partake of the Priviledges of it at his pleasure, and leave it when he please, no not every one of such a Profession qualified according to the Laws of the Socie­ty, none but such as being qualified comes and lays claim to his admission on his quali­fications wherein to be approved he puts him­self upon the Test, being approved he im­mediately enters into a mutual bond or ob­ligation, he promiseth by Oath or otherwise to submit to the Laws of the Society, they admit him a member to partake of all the Priviledges. So it is in Visible Churches which are so many particular Societies that have giv­en up themselves to Christ, and bound them­selves to walk together in a visible submissi­onto, & constant waiting upon Jesus Christ in all his Gospel Institutions and Appointments, and it's requisite this obligation be explicite; because, first, The Church Society is visible and explicite, such therefore must the bond be. 2. The Profession of his Faith is expli­cite, such therefore should his obligation be to future walking. 3. As no man can be a member of any Society constituted by vo­luntary [Page 46]consent, without he voluntarily of­fer himself, so none is governable there by the Laws of it, without such an obligation, and otherwise the Government of it would be wholly precarious; for a man cannot be a subject duely (unless a man be a slave and under compulsion) to any society but by na­tural (as a Child to a Family) or voluntary submission and obligation, as here. 1. All so­cieties of this nature do justly expect and demand that a Man be true to them, and submit to their Laws, if he will have pro­tection, and partake of their Priviledges.

But they say you have no Scripture grounds for this Bond or Church Covenant as some call it.

It might be enough to say, that a society must be encreased the same way, as it is made at first, and that after Members must be joyned upon the same terms, on which the first embodied and associated to­gether, but there is no incorporate society but joyn together at first by mutual agree­ments, under some Charter, for enjoyment of some priviledges, and submit to the pre­scribed Laws thereof, and on these terms are Members, and capable of being judged by it; so it is here, Christians meet and agree together, to walk in Church fellowship, and what do they promise solemnly to God [Page 47]and one another, to give up themselves to the Lord and one another, to walk in all the ways, ordinances and appointments of Christ. Now I find this is that which is cal­led adding to the Lord, when a people first joyn themselves to Christ in Church fellow­ship; and so the first gathering the Church at Antioch is expressed, for Act. 11.19. some scattered upon the persecution by Saul, men of Cyprus and Cyrene, I doubt not but Pro­phets inspired at Pentecost, Preached to the Grecian Jews the Lord Jesus Christ, v. 20. and the hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number turned unto the Lord, v. 21. Upon the tidings of this success Barnabas was sent from Jerusalem, who was a good man and full of the Holy Ghost, and of Faith. And much People were added to the Lord, i.e. they by mutual consent, gave up themselves unto the Lord Jesus Christ, they turned to the the Lord by Repentance, by the Preaching of these first comers. But now the Spirit tells us the success of Barnabas his coming, and it was upon his exhortation of them thereto, v. 23. and when he was come and saw the Grace of God, (which had prevail'd unto con­version) he rejoyced, and exhorts them all with full purpose of Heart [i. e. with sincerity and resolution] [...], to joyn themselves for constancy unto the Lord, in Church fellow­ship, [Page 48]afterward when Paul comes, v. 26. he finds them a Church, and as such abides a­mong them for an whole year, for it's said Paul and Barnabas assembled themselves with the Church, [...] Preaching to a great multitude, many of which were not yet of the Church, and that this adding or joyning to the Lord is entring into the Church obliga­tion, is manifest also from Act. 5. where it appears upon the signal Judgments, that A­nanias and Sapphira fell under, v. 13. of the rest such Hypocrites as they, none durst joyn themselves; the word is [...] signifying to cement and unite into a Body, it's used for joyning to the Church of Jerusalem, Act. 9.26. and 1 Cor. 6.17. in the same sence. And it's said here, v. 14. Believers were the more added to the Lord, which must be by some visible overt act, whereby they became Members of the Church after believing, for it cannot be meant of their mystical joyning to Christ by believing; for then the Anti­thesis would not hold between them that durst not and them that did. In the same sence is the adding a Member to a Church, which is joyned to the Lord, Act. 2.41, 47. there they were first visible Believers, then added to a society by some overt so­lemn act, and therefore said to be added to the Church. It would be too long in this [Page 49]way of conference between you and me, to evince this Truth particularly from the me­thod that God used, in the constituting and maintaining a visible Church, from the be­ginning: to look back but as far as Abraham, how he, and his family, and his seed became a Visible Church, it was by explicite obliga­tions, and overt acts in binding them by Sa­crifice. I might mention the several express obligations that Church came under from time to time, in Moses time at Horeb, Joshua's, the Judges, Samuel's, especially, David's, and the rest of the Reforming Kings, remarkably by Josiah, and after the Captivity in Ezra's and Nehemiah's days. And that this was not a dispensation peculiar only to the Old Testa­ment State, and standing of the Church is manifest from Isa. 56.3, 4, 5, 6. for there God speaks of the priviledges of the Gospel Salvation, which was near, meaning the Gen­tile, by the Son of the stranger, and by the Eunuch, any other excluded from the privi­ledges of the Church of the Jews, and inca­pacitated by Levitical uncleanness; these, saith the Lord, being Believers, and joyning themselves to the Lord (the words used in the acts) and taking hold of his Covenant, shall have a place and a name in my house, i. e. to be Church Members, and have right to all Church Priviledges. And this is that bond of [Page 50]the Covenant which the Prophet Ezekiel foretells, that the Great and Gospel restau­ration of the Jews should bring them under, Ezek. 20.37. of which the Prophet Jeremi­ah, chap. 50.4, 5, 6. and Zech. 2.10, 11. I refer you in this matter to that clear dis­course that the Learned Mr. J. Cotton, hath up­on this subject in his way of the Churches of N.E. Pag. 59, 60, 61, &c. where you may re­ceive full satisfaction in this point, if what I have briefly spoken be not enough. You may read also Mr. J. Davenport's power of Con­gregational Churches his answer to Mr. J. Pa­get, where he shews pag. 27. that this Cove­nant obligation, is the formal cause of a Church, and sheweth the nature, and evin­ceth the necessity of it to a Churches being; as likewise Mr. Hookers survey, chap. 4. page 45.

Sir, I thank you for discovering these authors to me; I have heard of them that they were Reverend, Pious & Learned Men, who suffered much for the Testimony they bore against our corruptions, prejudice for a long time hath kept me off from reading the works of such men; but I pray Sir, give the heads of the Arguments they insist on for it.

1. Believers are under Church power this way, or quatenus Believers; If quatenus pro­fessing Believers, then where ever they come, [Page 51]the Church and Officers there, may challenge power over them as Members; this will be denied by most till they voluntarily submit themselves, it may be some will come for Church priviledges, but will not admit of any Church power for their Reformation to be administred towards them. 2. They argue from all Civil Societies of that nature, and Marriage it self cannot have a formal being without mutual compact and agreement; so there is a mutual relation that all Church Members stand in one to another, and all of them to their Officers, and their Officers to them, and reciprocal duties to be performed; these cannot be performed, or will not with­out mutual consent and obligation. 3. They argue from all the Metaphors whereby a Church is described a House and Temple, is bound and pin'd together, a natural body hath all the Members knit together by joints and bands, it's represented as a City compact, Rev. 11.2. Eph. 2.19. and what City can be­come enfranchised, but this way and man­ner. 4. It's no reason any should challenge priviledges of a Society without they be sub­ject to the orders and rules of walking. 5. If this be not, but Members may come in and out as they please, without obligation, Churches have no power to keep themselves pure by Admission or Excommunication, [Page 52]for as a Member can come at pleasure, so he may depart. 6. Lastly the practice of the Primitive Churches seems very clear, as hath been touched, but suppose it had not been so clearly expressed I know not out if God institutes a Society or other thing, what ever is necessarily required to the very nature & essence of the thing without which it would inevitably be destroyed, ought to be done, the general rule in such-cases ought to lead us to the practice of duty in all those parti­culars, that must necessarily attend obedi­ence thereunto.

But if this bond of visible obligation be the formal Cause of a Church, then there is no true Churches but such where it is; which seems to be hard.

How far the Lord Jesus Christ will own a people professing themselves a Church, and how far he will dispense with their failures and defects in matter of order, especially while it hath been in the Antichri­stian Wilderness, he himself only knows. Much hath been done by Christ undoubted­ly in the latter times of that great Apostacy in the days of Reformation, and that he hath had his true Churches all along, it's not to be questioned, but that for the most part was in a mystical, not a visible organical standing; and in many congregations, where the Word [Page 53]and Sacraments have in some measure of pu­rity been administred, in respect of the mat­ter of the Congregation, visible Saints, and the manner of administration freed from Romish Pollutions and humane Inventions, we will not deny but there may have been a true, though not right regulated Church of Christ, without this express and solemn obligation, it is implicit, and such as is to be supposed as intended by their practice, in attending, and constant waiting upon God in all the Ordi­nances of his appointment, in one assembly or congregation, especially in that great Or­dinance of Communion in the Lords Supper, wherein they seal their union in one body. 1 Cor. 10 17. And undoubtedly a people that is congregated having explicitely chosen their Pastor, or implicitely subjected to him, and received this Sacred Ordinance from his hands, are bound to abide, as a society mutual­ly related one to another, in constant and fre­quent Communion by the nature of the Ordi­nance it self. But the coming of a Church thus together, 1. Is far short of the order of the Gospel. 2. The generality of communicants of this sort, do not apprehend themselves hereby bound to one Congregation more than another, and their Ministers look not upon themselves bound to one People more than another: any more than for external [Page 54]emolument, taking themselves to be Mini­sters to the Catholick Church, and so may administer the Sacrament to as many people as they Preach to, here or there, without de­signing a peculiar flock to take charge of. So that their Churches are occasional most times, and but for a while, during their pleasure to administer to them. 3. Such a Congregation is not at all governable, though as to priviledges, so called, they take and leave as they please; yet for their disorders, miscarriages and sins, they think themselves not accountable to any. And so liable to no censure, and therefore though we would go as far as possible in allowing the Right Hand of fellowship, to professing Protestant Congregations; yet we cannot do to all pro­miscuously, but may undoubtedly use the judgment of discretion therein, so as we be careful we do not by our practices in this and other cases, nullify the appointed order of our Lord Jesus Christ, and pollute our Com­munions.

I pray what is the manner of a Peo­ples first entring into a Church State?

I will tell you the usual manner of them in N. E. and other places, who have chosen to practise most agreeably to Gospel order, when a competent number of profess­ing Believers living within a vicinity, desire to [Page 55]joyn together in a Church State, having good knowledge one of another, and having so­lemnly sought God together for help and di­rection in this weighty matter, they appoint a day for it, and acquaint Churches with it, that their Pastors or Messengers, or as many of other Churches as please may be present at the time. After spending some part of the day in such solemn duties, as concern the matter in Hand, they do declare the dealings of God with their Souls one after another, then or before, one being chosen by the con­sent of all to preside for order sake this day, it may be some Brother upon whom they have their Eye for a Pastor, he then declares in the name of all there now intending to as­sociate, naming each of them, (at which they are standing) the speaker addressing him­self to the Pastors and Messengers of other Churches present, after this or the like man­ner. Brethren, you are Witnesses of that great and solemn obligation that we are entring into; that we may have a name and a place within the Walls of the House of God to­gether with you, and may have but the Ho­nour to be reckoned one of the least of the Tribes of Israel. We therefore here upon mature consideration, and chearfully, do give up our selves (with Children) to the Lord Jesus and one another, promising in the strength of the Lord, [Page 56]to subject our selves to all the Commands and In­stitutions of Christ in the Gospel, and continue sted­fastly in fellowship one with another, to the Glory of him that hath called us, and our mutual comfort and edification, and do accordingly receive each other in the Lord, and cleave to each other in Brotherly love and mutual subjection according to God. These words, whether more or less to the same purpose, may be used only to declare their professed subjection to the Go­spel of Christ in Faith and Order. Accord­ingly one of the Pastors or Brethren of other Churches, stands up in the name of the rest of the Brethren of other Churches there pre­sent, and declares their joyfulness and glad­ness of Heart to see their Faith and Order, and accordingly doth reach out unto them the Right Hand of Fellowship, with holy wishes and desires that as their Foundation is laid in Christ Jesus, so they may be Edified in him, walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the com­forts of the Holy Ghost, and be multiplied. See Cotton's way to the same purpose.

Sure this practice looks very much as becomes the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. But what is the next thing to be done?

Now the next thing is to Orga­nize this Body with Officers, in order to due administration of Ordinances.

HAVE they power within them­selves to choose their Officers?

They must undoubtedly have, the nature of the society is such that they must have it, for they associate not themselves by the Command or Power of Man, but of the Lord Jesus. If none hath power over them but the Lord Jesus alone, none but himself by their own free act, can constitute a Pastor over them. 2. The power of chu­sing their Officers, is one of the subordinate ends for which they do associate, because they will not be imposed upon in this kind. 3. This power naturally grows up with, and is inseparable from all free societies gathered by mutual consent, unless they be limited by their Charter in this kind, or be so false to themselves and successors, to give away their Priviledges, as many have done to Anti­christian and Usurping Powers. 4. Thus you see Officers were chosen by common suf­frage Act. 1.23. ch. 6. Act. 14.23. it should be read, that when they had constituted Eld­ers by common suffrage, or lifting up of Hands in every Church, so that it was the [Page 58]usual way. The Apostles or their substitutes one or more might be present to encourage or direct, but the People ordained by choice.

Doth their Power reach to call whom they will into Office?

1. So as he be qualified for them, and the Office they call him to, as the Holy Ghost requires, they are to be very obser­vant of the rule of the Gospel, for that is their Charter, by which they associate, and by which they do act. 2. They are hereby limited to chuse men out from among them­selves, Act. 6.

But what if as yet they have none duly qualified among themselves.

They may then invite qualified men, that can be spared from other Churches, with the leave of the Church or Churches, from whence they invite or call them.

Doth such an invitation or call of one that is a Member of another Church, or Non-Member to any Church make an Offi­cer?

No, it is but in order to the mak­ing such an one an Officer, for he must be in­corporated as a Member before he can be chosen and constituted an Officer. It is so in all civil societies of the like nature, an Office is Power and Priviledge which none can en­joy in any society but the Members there­of, [Page 59]unless he come to it by force or usurpati­on.

How many may be a sufficient num­ber to begin a Church Society? some say two or three agreeing in this kind is a suf­ficient number, from Mat. 18.19, 20.

They misunderstand the place who say so, for the two or three there may be understood of Women as well as Men, and are capable of performing the Duties which our Saviour there intends. But the Holy Ghost allows them no Office, unless of Dea­conesses, no ruling Office or Power of suf­frage in Election; and therefore if all of them be such, or but two or one, they can­not constitute a Church for the ends Christ hath appointed it. It's plain the words of our Saviour they are only to encourage a Church Duty, and the regular gradual proceeding therein, in case of private offences arising between Brother and Brother. And promi­seth his Presence with. And Blessing upon, the smallest number that are found, to exercise themselves in agreement to perform any du­ty required of them in their capacities for the Honour of Christ, and in this case for the Restoration of a fallen Brother. See Cot­tons Way. As for the exact number that may begin a particular Church, the Holy. Ghost hath left it indefinite, only it is easily to be [Page 60]supposed that spiritual reason, and Christi­an discretion must be our guide, that there be such a number as is consistent with the Nature of the thing, the greater, the better. And that we begin not a Church with so small a number as may render the instituti­on of Christ absurd, and his Obedience un­to his commands therein impracticable.

I perceive then you allow not wo­men any power in the Church, they are members and incorporated in the same body by mutual obligation to Communion with the Brethren, why have they not equal pow­er with them?

Women are members, and very useful and profitable many ways, in their Graces and Gifts; and capable of performing any admonition between one another accor­ding to Mat. 18. for it belongs to mutual watch required of all members indefinitely. But our Lord Jesus Christ hath excluded them from all acts that are not suitable to their Sex in respect of Modesty, and the state of Sub­jection that they placed in to the man. 1. They are not Ministerially to teach nor speak au­thoritatively, 1 Cor. 14.34. Let your Women keep silence, for its not permitted to them to speak, but to be under obedience. Not but there may be occasion for a Woman to speak in way of obedience, as to speak in answer to Questi­ons [Page 61]asked her, as at admission to answer in giving a reason of her Faith when asked, in case of offence to answer for her self, if accu­sed, or to witness for or against another. But to do any ministerial act in teaching, or to speak in the management of any act of power or judicial proceeding, it belongs to the men, and not the women. 2. They may not exert any power of the keys, so much as by publick giving their suffrage or vote, for this reason, 1 Tim. 2.12. I suffer not a Wo­man to teach, or usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence, viz. In the Church, it's plain by the Text and Context, that the A­postle treats of the Womans carriage in the Church, and that it ought always to be in a way of Submission and Subjection, not with Rule and Power, for such a carriage is Usur­pation of that which belongs not to her, the Words [...], is no where else used in the New Testament, and seldom in other authors; a thing is said to be authentick when it's legal, true, and right, it's used of writings when approved, and so of witnesses and au­thority, that there is no ground to contradict the one, or question the legality and just right of the other; therefore this kind of Power is denied to the Woman, the Translators render it well by usurping Authority, where any assume Power or Authority to them­selves [Page 62]that belongs not to them, there they u­surp it, the Apostle saith they have no au­thentick Power, i. e. Just and belonging to them, neither shall exercise any regularly in the Church of Christ.

I am satisfied that God never intend­ed any ruling Power to Women in any So­cieties, but in Families over Children and Servants, and there not over their Husbands, therefore not a decisive supream Power, un­less Providence remove their Husbands. But if they should have an equal suffrage with men in civil or ecclesiastick Societies, they must certainly then have exercise of Power over the men so far as they carry their share in the Majority. But I confess it seems odd that members of the same Body each chal­lenging an equal membership, should not have all the same power?

There is nothing absurd in it at all, because Christ hath so appointed, and if we look but into natural Bodies, to which the Church is compared, for there are some members that are ruling as the Head, so the faculties of the Brain and Soul, and others are ruled, as Tongue, Hands, Feet, and the whole Body consents to it, and each of them consents that the ruling Power be in the Head; so it is in Bodies Politick.

I pray Sir where do you place Church Power?

The Power that is in a Church is Christs, but it is acted in and by the Church, in ecclesiâ, & mediante ecclesiâ. The Church is entrusted with it, as an associated or em­bodied company of Believers, for the Key of Government was given to Peter and the rest, primarily, as believing Disciples, and associated followers of Jesus Christ. Secon­darily as Ministers, and lastly, as Apostles extraordinary Ministers. And that the Power of binding or loosing is primarily in the So­ciety, as such without the consideration of Officers appears; 1. Because the Church hath the essence, that is the matter and form of a Church without Officers, and therefore the power of it; for it admits the definition of a Church, and can act as a Church. 2. That body which by mutual agreement of it's members gives it self a being, will not deny it self that power and priviledge which con­duce to it's well being, or integral perfection, such is a Body Politick, especially a Church of Christ. 3. A Church considered only in it's membership is the first subject of Christs power for the exercise of it; because they can immediately after they are associated, (before they have chosen an Officer) admit more members, they can also admonish and excommunicate a corrupt member out of their body, for all such societies have an in­nate [Page 64]power of increasing themselves, and of purging themselves. 4. An associated or in­corporate Body not yet organized, hath pow­er to consult it's bene esse and make it self an integrum Organizatum, a Body furnished with Officers as well as Members, and therefore can confer Office Power, where there was none before; now there is Power in that bo­dy whatever it is that doth confer Office, Power. 5. If there were not a Power in the Church as a Body Politick, it would be wholly devested of it, whenever it were de­prived of it's Officers by Death as it often is, but it is not because it can proceed to a­nother choice.

I pray Sir, what kind of Power is this? is it legislative or executive, and where doth it lye, that I may know what you un­derstand by the Keys?

Christ is the only Legislator, and in that respect his revealed Will is the Key of David, who openeth and no man shuts, and shuts and no man opens. And in this re­spect he doth not communicate his power, but in respect of execution he doth deligate his Power to Churches and Officers to act in his Name. And this is no other than a deci­sive Power exerted in the Church, accord­ing to the rule that Christ hath given. This decisive power passeth always upon matter [Page 65]of fact committed by a particular member, or to be done by the Church in admission or rejection of members, or in choosing of Of­ficers. This decisive power consists in open­ing and shutting the doors of this spiritual house; and I call it the key of Government, for such is the nature of a Key to open and shut a door; now this key of decisive pow­er is the unanimous suffrage of the brother­hood, or where that cannot be had, it must be the Majority, or else there could be no end of some differences in such Societies.

Then the keys being this decisive power, and lying in the fraternity, there needs no Officers at all.

It is one thing to be a key, and a­nother to have the management of a Key. Christ gave Peter the key, but did not make him the key as a Church Officer, any other­wise than as an Apostle, and as other Apo­stles were, who had all decisive Church­power in themselves, to exert as occasion re­quired, but for the most part they acted by the management of the Church Key; as Pe­ter in the choice of Matthias, Act. 1. and of Deacons, Act. 6. and Paul in casting out of the incestuous Person.

A key is a dead thing, and cannot open or shut without a hand to manage it.

In a Politick body where the mem­bers [Page 66]are intelligent Agents, it is not a dead thing, the Subjects of it being rational crea­tures, voluntary free agents, and living stones, and the indispensible Law of self preservati­on is a justifiable reason of acting in this kind, though they do not act in so orderly a man­ner as they desire, being as yet uncapable for it. But Christ having instituted Officers in his Church for the more orderly and come­ly management of the keys, they are upon the Terms of congregating bound also to choose them Officers of his appointment, to whose prudent care and watch, the manage­ment of the decisive power is committed by Jesus Christ, [through the hands of the peo­ple,] and to them Parents, Officers, the Church doth subject themselves in the Lord.

That is, they now give up their pow­er to the Pastor they choose, and the deci­sive power remains no longer in them; but they are divested of it.

It is one thing what a people do de facto, and another what they may do de jure. It is too true that through Ignorance or being imposed upon by men of name, many Churches do give away their Power, or suf­fer it to be wrested from them by usurping Officers, such as Diotrephes, who will be the Keys as well as have the management of them; but this is not to be de jure; for. 1. The [Page 67]decisive power being the Key, and this the suffrage of the majority, they break the key, or change it by putting the decisive power into the breast of the minority, which is a sin­gle persons or a few at most. 2. They cannot devest themselves without destroying the ve­ry formal nature of the Society; for as their first being ariseth by common consent, so their continued acting must be. 3. If they give up this power, they part with their freedom, and are at the mercy of one man, and they set up an Arbitrary Government. 4. They cannot exercise that power which they have given up; and then in case of Male-admini­stration, who shall say to Archippus take heed to thy Ministry that thou fulfil it, &c. for it may so fall out that a Church may see reason to deal with an Officer, and to ex­communicate him from his Office Relation and Membership too. 5. What a condition is such a Church in that doth so? For if a Pa­stor or ruling Elder will be corrupt, how many ill members, at least such as are offen­sive to the Church may he take in, and how many good may he cast out, as Diotrephes did? 3 John 9. 6. What Christ hath j [...]ned toge­ther none should separate; but Christ hath conjoyned Office Power and the Church Power. The Officers are for the due, orderly, honourable and solemn management of the [Page 68]Church Power, not for the taking of it away. Officers are no addition of Power, to a Church, but for the better administration to edification and advantage, and in obedience unto the Lord Jesus Christ, and subordination unto him. And so far as they are entrusted and authorized by the Lord Jesus Christ, the Members are to obey and submit themselves unto them, Heb. 13.17.

You seem to give away all the pow­er from the Officers to the People, and make the Officers insignificant.

I say the power is wholly in the People before there is Officers, and when there is Officers they have not given away their power, but retain it in conjunction with their Officers, I mean as to the decisive pow­er, or key for letting in and out, it is the Of­ficers and Brethren. Though the authorita­tive management of Church rule, as to de­claration of the mind of Christ, the pruden­tial ordering matters, and presiding in all cases belongs to Officers. The management of our civil rights in England, is a great illu­stration in this case. We chuse to be judged by our Peers in matters of Life and Estate, & as to matter of fact the Jury adjudges, the decisive power is committed to them, and the Judge doth but preside in the Court, and see that all things be legally and orderly ma­naged, [Page 69]declares the mind of the Law unto the Jury, and then delivers the Sentence of the Law as the Jury finds the fact. So it is in Churches, the Officers for rule have as much power in a Church according to the nature of that Constitution, as a Judge or a Mayor hath that sits on the Bench to hear and de­termine civil concerns.

You have greatly satisfied me now, that as our Constitution is the best in the World (were it not abused) for judging ci­vil concerns, so I believe such a Constitution of a Church, must needs be the freest from exception. For 1. A people cannot be offen­ded at such a judgment as is passed by them­selves, for who would a Member of any Society be freer to be tryed by, than his Peers? And the Apostle blames the Corin­thians for seeking a decision in doubtful cases of civil matters, out of the Church, 1 Cor. 6.2. 2. And as for Church Officers, I think the most judicious would not desire an absolute power in themselves, to lye liable to the many censures of men, and the odium that would be cast by reproachful Tongues upon their most righteous and upright proceedings.

If the matters of the greatest con­cern in civil affairs, as to Life and Estate be tryed by twelve honest neighbours of ordi­nary Morality, scarce so much many times, [Page 70]and all men usually acquiesce in it; how much more ought we to be satisfied, that all Ec­clesiastical debates should come to decision, as to matter of Fact, by the judgment of so choice a community, as a Church of Christ is, or should be?

But ordinary Christians are to seek in many great and weighty matters of Faith & Order, and cannot determine where the Truth lies, it is fitter for Divines to judge.

I distinguish between matter of Fact, and matter of Law, The Churches de­cision is of matter of Fact, as to matter of the Law, or the mind and will of Christ, it's the Pastor, or Elders place to inform them, and if they are not satisfied therewith, it may be carried as a case to advise upon with other Churches or Elders.

I have little farther to object against the principles of Order which you have laid down; only one thing, which is, I confess, of no great weight to me. I have heard some Church-Members say, they joyn to this or that Church only, because of the present Pa­stor, yea, that they joyned to the Pastor only, not to the Church and when the Pastor dieth, they are at liberty to go whither they please.

This proceeds from the Ignorance & Corruption of many Members, who are not, or will not be rightly informed in the Prin­ciples [Page 71]which they would seem to profess. This is so absurd a thing that the asserters thereof would be ashamed of it in civil Societies of such a Nature. Doth any Man joyn himself to the Master or Wardens of the Company on­ly, or to the Company it self, when he is made a Member? Officers are changeable, either by the fundamental Constitution of the Society, or by Death; and if this were so, then all Churches were dissolved upon the Death of their Pastor. Besides, the terms of admission into Congregational Societies, speaks plain­ly otherwise, that they give up themselves to Christ, and the Congregation: put them­selves under the Office watch, and the watch of each Member, are admitted by the com­mon suffrage of the Church, therefore such things as these are but some of the Wiles and Subterfuges of Satan, which loose-spirit­ed and Principled Members make use of, for the shaking off the Yoak of Christ.

But when a case falls out to be de­termined by the decisive power of the Church after due debate, as supposing the choosing of an Officer, or in the Key of rule, in admissi­on or exclusion of a Member; and the Fra­ternity, or the Elders and Fraternity divide into a Major and Minor part, what should the Minor do?

It is by the known Laws of the [Page 72]Society to acquiesce in what is done by the major part, as that which is the Churches act, or else it's not possible to maintain any Societies of that Nature, yea they must fall. Butif a particular Member or more will not acquiesce in the Churches Act, as he is not fit to continue for the Peace and Order of the Church, so he may peaceably depart at the same door he came in at, to another Church by an express dismission.

What if he will not ask such a dis­mission, but withdraw from Communion, and reject it in a kind of defiance, and con­tinue incorrigible therein?

Such an one ought to be dealt with in form and manner as in some scandalous sin of another nature, for such an one is herein scandalous. Besides, he is incorrigible, where­upon the Church is to proceed against him as such an one, he appearing to others but a man of Belial which is an ungovernable person, for so the Spirit speaks, 2 Cor. 6.15. What fel­lowship hath Christ with Belial? viz. a lawless person that is not fit for any Society, especi­ally of the Church, he will not bear the yoke of Christs Government.

I Desire you will now acquaint me what are the Offices and Ordinances which Christ hath Instituted in his Church.

The Officers Instituted by Christ are Pastoral and Diaconal; viz. Bishops and Deacons, Phil. 1.1.

Are not Presbyters and Bishops distinct Orders? Our Church makes them so.

Nay, the Scripture make Pres­byters and Bishops the same; there's no dif­ference between them. For a Bishop is but an Overseer of the Church, so is every Pres­byter or Elder; see Acts 20.28. and there he is no more than an Elder to a Particular Congregation.

How comes it to pass that our Bi­shops are exalted so far above Presbyters in Office and Benefice?

From the corruptions of the pre­tended Church and Ministry; viz. through Ambition, Covetousness, and Human Inven­tions, whereby also all Antichristian Abo­minations over-spread the whole face of the Christian World.

But did not Christ give other Mi­nisterial Officers to his Church?

The Officers which Christ placed in his Church for Edification were Extraor­dinary or Ordinary, but both Pastoral; for they that are called Elders, and set for Do­ctrine and Administration in seals and Go­vernment, I call justly Pastoral; for feeding the Flock comprehends both in the true sence of the Spirit of God.

Who were the Extraordinary Of­ficers?

They were Apostolick, and such who were not succeeded after the first Churches were planted, but by ordinary Pa­storal Officers, and these were Apostles, and Apostolick helps in the perfor­mance of their Office-charge, Eph. 4.11. and were Prophets and Evangelists, and were extraordinarily furnished with the gifts of the Holy Ghost, and Power, for the pro­pagation of the Gospel, and plantation of Churches, but at the disposition and dire­ction, for the most part, of the Apostles, as all other Church-Officers, as well as Churches were during their lives.

And our Bishops say they succeed the Apostles, and all other Ministers are sub­ordinate and subject to them.

They may as well say, the Pope succeeds Peter; for it's plain, they were ex­traordinarily sent and inspired, and therefore [Page 75]could not be succeeded but by such as were extraordinarily assisted, as they were, which hath been none: or ordinarily, and such are Presbyters, and no others.

The Charasteristick Notes of the A­postles were, 1. That they were to be such who were ear and eye-witnesses of Christ, from the Baptism of John, to the time of his taking up, Acts 1.22. viz. of his Ministry, Miracles, Resurrection and Ascension. 2. That they should be extraordinarily inspired by the Holy Ghost for the revelation of the mind and will of Christ, since which none ever were. 3. To have the gifts of Tongues, and working Miracles. 4. That they should have the charge of the Churches for the planta­tion, direction and government of them, every Apostle having the charge of all Churches, & in every Church, whatever pow­er was afterward ordinarily in each Church. And though a Bishop now in an Apish imita­tion by a pretended plea of Succession would lay claim to power over many particular Congregations, yet each Bishop is not allow­ed power in another mans Diocess. And as to the former characters where's the Bishop can with a shew of any just pretence lay claim unto them.

What were the Prophets that ac­companied and assisted the Apostles in their Ministry?

Of this sort it's said, Acts 13.1. there were certain Prophets and Teachers, I suppose not much differing one from ano­ther in respect of the extraordinary Mission and Qualification, being Church-Members of the Church of Jerusalem, on which the Holy Ghost fell in the appearance of fiery Tongues, whereby they were furnished with Preaching, Gifts, and those of Tongues, in order to the propagation of the Gospel in all Nations, and to whatsoever People they came, Jew or Gentile, and went forth for this end, in subordination to, and by direction of the Apostles. And the first time we read of the Travels, is Acts 11.19. occasioned by Saul's persecution; some of them men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who when they had pas­sed through other places Preaching, came at last unto Antioch, and spake unto the Gre­cian Jews, Preaching the Lord Jesus Christ, the effect of which was the believing and turning of many unto the Lord. These, by the command of the Holy Ghost laid hands on Paul and Barnabas, but we read not that they baptized, or did perform any other Ministerial Act, if that were one. Probably they might convey the Gifts of the Holy Ghost on others by imposition of hands too.

What were the Evangelists?

They were extraordinarily called to assist the Apostles also in Preaching the Lord Jesus, Baptism, and planting Churches, with Ordination of Officers in them. Philip Preached and Baptized, and wrought Mi­racles, Acts 8.5, 12, 39. But did not convey the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost; they were bestowed by the prayers of Peter and John, as the laying on of hands, verse 15, 16. and Philip is called an Evangelist, Acts 21.8. Timothy was an Evangelist, 1 Tim. 4.5. and Assistant to Paul in his Apo­stolick Function, and he did lay on hands. Now as to this, that Philip did not, and Ti­mothy did, I judge these secondary Aposto­lick men acted not as the Apostles, by a ge­neral Commission, but by the immediate particular dictates of the Holy Ghost: or by the mediate Commands from time to time given to them by the Apostles to whom they were assistant and subordinate in their Actings; there were some which we call Evangelists, from their writing the History of the Gospel, two of which were primarily Apostles; viz. Matthew and John. Mark and Luke might be Evangelists in the other sense.

Who were left the Pastoral Officers in the Church at Jerusalem upon Christ's Ascension?

The whole Ministerial Office in that Church was left and placed at first in the Apostles, both Pastoral and Diaconal, and either of the Apostles might have presi­ded, but that by consent (it may be) groun­ded on the words of our Saviour, Mat. 16.19. Peter took the Chair, viz. the order­ly management of the Keys. That the diaco­nal Office was in the said Apostles at first, is manifest from the account we have, Act. 2.4, 5. of the Members bringing their pos­sessions, and laying them at their feet to dis­pose of, as a Church stock, and from the reason given by the twelve to the multitude, for the choice of Deacons they finding the serving tables to be to great a Burthen to them upon such increase of the Church Afterwards also, as the necessity and state of the Church required, there were Elders or Presbyters chosen distinct from the Apostles, which appears from Act. 15.23. And it's most plain the increasing and multiplying Officers, in the Church was according as the ne­cessary reasons thereof did arise from the increase or otherwise, which necessities by the Holy Ghost breathing through the Apo­stles were provided for and supplied.

WHat Officers do compleatly Organize a particular Con­gregation?

Pastoral and Diaconal, so that Pa­stor and Deacon do make a Church compleat­ly Organiz'd, but through multiplication of a Church, or for other reasons there may be good ground to chuse coadjutors in each Office aforesaid, for the encreasing the Offi­cers of one kind or another, that the Church may be edified.

What is the Pastors Office?

The Pastors Office is to feed the Church as the flock of Christ, over which the Holy Ghost hath made him an overseer or Bishop. Which Pastoral feeding consists in Gospel Preaching, administration of Sacra­ments, and Government. In the last respect more especially he is called a Bishop or Over­seer, Act. 20.

What do you mean by Gospel Preaching?

I mean a right dividing of the Word of God, according to the revealed Will of God, and it stands in Doctrine, exhor­tation, and reproof, &c. to bring home the [Page 80]Scripture for the instruction of the Hearts and Minds of Men, by exposition, applica­tion, catechism, and defending the Truth against gain-sayers.

You give the whole Preaching Of­fice unto the Pastor.

It is in him, and may ordinarily be performed by him, providing his strength and ability can reach to it, and other parts of his Office, lye not too hard upon him, or can be performed to the Churches full edification.

But what if it cannot be performed to the Church's full edification?

Then it is requisite that a Coadju­tor, or assistant to him, be chosen in this part of his Office, to wit a Teacher or Teaching Elder, who is to wait mostly on doctrinal, expository, and catechumenal teaching.

But this seems not a distinct Officer.

Though he come into part of the Pastoral or Episcopal Office, yet he becomes a distinct Officer, for he comes in as a go­verning, feeding Officer, attending more particularly on the part of the Office, to which he is appointed and chosen, for he is to feed the Flock so far as the Holy Ghost hath made him overseer, by the call of the Church for their necessary supply. Neither doth his Office power curtalize at all the power of the Pastor, only acting in con­junction [Page 81]with his Office is an [...], opitu­latio, a help, or assistance, taking off part of the burthen from him; and such Teachers were set in the Church, 1 Cor. 12.28. and such an one is to wait on his teaching, Rom. 12.7. Where teaching seems plainly to be spe­cified as a distinct office-work in one called thereto; as exhorting in him that is more especially called to exhortation. And Teach­ers are plainly enough named in distinction from Pastors, as Officers set by Christ in his Churches, Eph. 4.11, 12. For the perfe­cting of the Saints, for the work of the Mini­stry, i. e. Officers for the filling up the mini­sterial office, and edifying the body of Christ. Therefore when this Officer is necessary for full edification of the Church in the work of the Ministry then he is to be added.

Is there no Officer appointed to take up, as a help to the Pastor in ruling and go­verning the Church? For where a Church is large, the oversight of the flock in way of rule, according to the order of the Gospel will require much labour, diligence, and wis­dom.

There are ruling Elders, or Presby­ters, called to attend and wait upon that part of the Pastoral Office, to take up with him, and be helps in Governments, I conceive they are to be understood by [...], 1 Cor. [Page 82]12.28. which should not be rendred mira­cles, but ruling Officers, or Powers, as the same word is rendred, Rom. 8.38. Persons in Power, the abstract put for the concrete, and the gifts for the edifying of the Church, first and last are specified under the name of [...], Gifts graciously bestowed, among which are [...], gubernationes, governing or ruling Gifts.

You make then a Ruling Elder a di­stinct Officer of the Church?

I do not say that the Pastor or Teacher are not ruling Elders, but that when one or both are not able to manage the ru­ling part for the sufficient edification of the Church: there ought one or more to be cal­led into that part of the Ministry, and to at­tend thereto with Diligence. And according­ly the Apostle, Rom. 12.7, 8, 9. calls the whole Ministry of the Church Episcopal and Diaconal by the Name of [...], or Ministry, and gives us an account of the several Offices to be attended to, the Teacher that attends on Teaching, the Exhorter that attends on Exhortation, the Deacon that distributes with simplicity, the ruling Elder, [...], he that presides in governing, let him do it with Industry or Diligence.

But is there any Presbyter or Elder that is not teaching? You seem to be for Lay-Elders.

The distinction between Clergy and Laity comes from Rome, we own it not in the sence it's used by no means, for the peo­ple are the Clergy in the sence of the Spi­rit of God. The Apostle Peter shewing the Duty of Presbyters, 1 Pet. 5.3. he saith, [...], not Lording it, as Lord-Bishops over Gods heritage. 2. They are no more Laymen than the Pastor and Teacher, yea I may affirm if they that are ordained Officers of Christ in the Church are made thereby the Clergy, then all the Ministers, even Deacons as well as Pastors, for there's but one kind of Ordination to all the Officers, Presbyters and Deacons. 3. We deny not Pastors and Teachers to be ruling Elders, neither do we deny that a ruling El­der may speak and teach, as occasion requires to the edification of the Church, especially in matters that concern his Office in Publick or Private. And therefore it's one qualifica­tion requisite to all Presbyters or ruling El­ders preaching or not, that they be apt to teach, 1 Tim. 3.2. and 2 Tim. 2.24. The El­der must be [...], for a Bishop (i. e. a ru­ling Elder or Presbyter) must be apt to teach, i. e. so far at least as to be able to give a Word of Exhortation, as he is called there­to. 4. But the Apostle doth speak very clear­ly in distributing the Elders into them whose [Page 84]ordinary and chief work is to labour in the Word and Doctrine. And such whose more peculiar work is to attend Government, though there never wants those that will en­deavour to darken and baffle the expressions of Scripture that are clearest to common sence, 1 Tim. 5.17. The Presbyters that rule well [for [...] are Presiders or Presidents in rule and Government, as all the Presbyters or Bishops are in the Church] shall be wor­thy, or let them be counted worthy of double honour; [i. e. by virtue of their Office and well management thereof. Let such have greater honour than any aged person that is but an ordinary Brother, for he had spoken before of our carriage to aged Brethren and Sisters: But such as these we should esteem them for their work sake] but especially they that labour in the Word and Doctrine, the Preaching Presbyters, let them in an especial manner be honoured or esteemed.

How many ruling Elders ought there to be?

Christ hath not limited Churches here, but left them to walk by the rule of e­dification. The Church may be such as that it may be fully edified by a Pastor or Teach­er as the sole Presbyter. And there may be little or no use of a distinct ruling Elder, till the Church encrease to a greater bigness, [Page 85]and when it is encreased the Church may choose one or more according as is judged necessary to it's edification.

What if the Church have not a man or men duly qualified for that Office?

They may pitch upon a Brother (not in Office) of another Congregation, and call him to it. And why not as well as to call one to be a preaching Elder, that is a Brother of another Congregation? for all Church Officers should be taken out of Churches, and first made Members of that Church, wherein they are to serve Christ in Office before they are solemnly set apart thereto.

What reasons may a Church be mo­ved by, to choose a ruling Elder or more?

If there be a Brother aptly qualifi­ed, and can attend it, there need be no dispute about it, though the Church be but small, it may be much Comfort and help to the Pastor and tend to much Edification of the Church. 2. The Church may see reason to chuse ruling Elders, from the great encrease and largeness of the Church, that the management of this part of the Pastoral Office lye not too heavi­ly upon their Pastor. 3. The Church may see reason for it, because their Pastor qualified it may be with much of Grace, Preaching Gifts and Learning, may not be qualified with [Page 86]a Spirit of Government; and it is very seldom that men of retired studious lives have so great an insight into the right ordering of Po­litick Affairs. A man may be a great Mathe­matician, but yet an ill Seaman, not know how to work or stear a Ship so well as a Ma­sters Mate or a Boatswain. There is in spi­rituals, as well as temporals, a skill in practice to have the senses exercised by reason of use, as well as a Knowledge and Understanding of the rule.

What is the Office-work of a ruling Elder?

To have a special regard to admis­sions, to make good enquiry after the Faith, and Holy Conversations of such, who offer themselves to Church Communion, to pro­pound them, and bring them to the Church. 2. To make inspection into the lives and conversations of actual members, frequently to visit them, to rebuke any seemingly walk­ing as not becoming the Gospel, to enquire after the reason of members absentments from Communion, to exhort them to fre­quent assembling together for mutual edifi­cation, to comfort the afflicted, to support the weak, to visit the sick, to inform the ig­norant, &c. 3. In all matters of admonition and censure to hear and prepare matters for the Church before hand, that there be no­thing [Page 87]done in Confusion, and in Disquietment of Mind in the Church, but with all meek­ness, unanimity and authority in the Name of the Lord Jesus.

You have shewed that the Ministe­rial Offices of the Church are Pastoral, or Diaconal, and have shewed that the Pasto­ral or such as belong to the Pastoral care are Exhortation, Teaching, Administration of the Seals, Rule and Government; according to all which parts of a Pastors Office, the Holy Ghost hath provided affisting Officers and helps, such as Teachers and ruling Elders to the full edification of the Church; I pray speak now something of the Deacons Office.

The English word Deacon is deri­ved from the Greek [...], which signifies a Minister or one that serves Christ and his Church in Office, it is used for any Mini­ster at large, [...], or Deaconship is apply­ed to the Apostleship it self, Act. 1.17, 25. or to a part of their Ministry as it was at first, Act. 6.4. It is applyed to any particular ser­vice of the Church, Act. 11.29. ch. 12.25. And Paul applyeth it to his whole Ministry as an Apostle, Act. 20.24. Rom. 11.13. ch. 15.31. 2. Cor. 6.3.

But it hath it's peculiar application to that Ministry which tends to the supply of the Churches and Saints necessities, by way of [Page 88]distribution of Collections made to this end and purpose, to whosesoever care it is com­mitted; and such a service Paul saith he un­dertook on the behalf of other Churches, 2 Cor. 8.4. which is called the Deaconship of this Liturgy, 2 Cor. 9.12. rendred the admi­nistration of this service. Now we find as Of­fice titles of large significancy, are brought down by the Holy Ghost to denote a single particular Office in the Church as Apostle, Pastor, Bishop, Presbyter, &c. So here the word Deacon is often used for all sacred Mi­nistry, Liturgy or Service, is a Title put by the Spirit of God upon this Officer in the Church, who is called and set apart to the Liturgy (or service) of the Church in this way of Administration, by distribution.

When was the first Institution of Deacons?

It was Act. 6. an Apostolick (i. e. as much as to say) a Divine Institution, and it's not amiss to observe the reason & ground of it, it was to ease the Apostles in that great burden that lay upon them; when those that were converted sold their possessions, and brought the Mony and laid it down at their feet; and it was to be given forth again for an equal and necessary support to every one, as need required. This was too great a charge, and burthen to the Apostles, and likely af­terward [Page 89]to be unto ordinary Pastors; and hence they institute this Office of Deacon­ship, and therefore is also a more remote Of­fice of Assistance unto the ruling Episcopa­cy, but being very distinct in nature and kind from that sort of Ministry; wherefore the Apostles speak after that manner. Act. 6.1, 4. That the Church should choose them fit men for this daily care and trust, and they would betake themselves to the Ministry of the Word and Prayer.

What ground have you for this Of­ficer in the Church?

The very nature of such a Society, as a Church requireth it, and I take it to be a very good ground for an Office, when it's founded upon the well being of a Socie­ty, and it's ordinary necessities do require it. But the Holy Ghost is most express upon this account, that the Church of Jerusalem by the appointment of the Apostles, chose such Officers for the necessary service of the Church. And that they were afterward sta­ted Officers in other Churches appears from Phil. 1.1. And the Apostle Paul doth ex­presly call their Ministry, an Office. 1 Tim. 3.10, 13. As the Word is rendred and ought to be by our Interpreters. Their Qualifica­tions and Encouragements are also very par­ticular, v. 8.9, 10, 13. See Rom. 12.8. He [Page 90]it to be grave, sober, exemplary in Faith and Holiness, &c.

What is the Office of a Deacon?

The Holy Ghost calls it serving of Tables, the Lords Table and the Tables of the Saints, in a faithful collection and distri­bution of the stock of the Church which is given for the maintenance of Ordinances, Ministry, and relief of the Poor, which ought to be done with Simplicity, Prudence and Chearfu [...]ness. And of which they are accounta­ble to the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Church, let that word Chearfulness be observed, be­cause many are apt to murmur at this Office as a burden to them.

How many Deacons are there to be?

There were seven in the first Church of the Gospel, but there have seldom Church­es arrived to the bigness of that since, nei­ther doth the Spirit seem to limit to a cer­tain number. The Church is to Judge how many are requisite to perform the duties re­quired in that Office, according to their pre­sent stare and standing, yea they may increase their number if they see need requires.

Is there any help in this Ministration speciffied by the Holy Ghost?

Yes, and it seems to be pretty plain, that there were Widdows, or Deaconesses, or [Page 91]Matrons, who were to do that part of the Office, which was not so convenient for men, such as to visit the Sick, especially Sisters, and enquire into their necessities, and bring an account to the Deacons, if any be with­out necessary supply for food, raiment, phy­sick, attendance and the like; see 1 Tim. 5.5, 9, 10. And Phabe seems to have been a Dea­coness to the Church of Cenchrea, Rom. 16.1.

You have spoken to all the fixed Offi­cers in a particular Congregation, & although there are some who would deny some of these to be distinct Officers; yet seeing here is in every Church, these Office services to be performed, and the Holy Ghost speaks of them distinctly under these two Heads, Bishops and Deacons, & that the Pastor, Teach­er, and ruling Elder all concur to the fulfil­ling the Pastoral or Episcopal Office for the Churches Edification; and Men, and Women Deacons make up the Liturgical or Diaconal Office. I have received much satisfaction up­on this account, but methinks I am much to seek about one great concern of Christ and his Kingdom, viz. The propagation of the Gospel to the unconverted, for which work and service I cannot see how Christ hath pro­vided since the Apostles times, for all the Of­ficers you have mentioned are Officers only in and to the Church, and so far as men are [Page 92]capable of hearing the Word preached in the Churches, they have a converting Ministry, but they that are remote must be without a Ministry, because there is no Churches.

Christ hath constituted no stated Officers, but in and to a particular Congre­gation. He hath not called and sent any to the work of the Ministry for Conversion in the purest state and standing of the first Churches, but from the Churches the first Apostles themselves went out from the Church of Je­rusalem, Paul and Barnabas from the Church at Antioch, so that it is according to the pro­phesie of the latter days. The Law shall go out from Zion, and the Word of the Lord from Je­rusalem. And Christ hath provided a way to send the Gospel to Infidels and unconverted ones, for Rom. 10.14, 15. How shall they preach except they be sent. And though I doubt not but God hath had his way in a pro­vidential manner of sending the Gospel into the blind parts of the Earth, when visible Churches were hardly to be found, through Antichristian Darkness that overspread the Earth, yet Christ hath an instituted way of sending the Gospel to the unconverted world. For men may have a Call and Dedication to some peculiar work and service to be done for Christ out of the Church, viz. To be an Ambassador for Christ to beseech men to be [Page 93]reconciled unto God. The Word of the Lord hath providentially been sent to many places, as the scattering the Church by Persecution was the occasion, Act. 11.19. Of preaching the Gospel at Phoenice, Cyprus, and Antioch, &c. and when tidings of these things that were done came to the Church at Jerusalem, they sent forth Barnabas that he should go as far as Antioch, and afterward he was sent forth again from the Church at Antioch.

I shall not enlarge now on this point, I may meet with it again elsewhere; the due and orderly way of going forth to the exercise of the Ministry is by the mission of a particular Congregation by the suffrage and Prayers thereof, and he may be called a Teacher, such as were in the Church of Antioch; and so I distinguish of Teachers: 1. Such as are stated Teachers to the Church wherein they are. 2. Such that are sent forth to open blind eyes, &c. To preach to the World, men lying in their infidelity.

You having given me a distinct ac­count of the several Officers of a Gospel Church, I desire to understand how they are made and constituted in an orderly regular manner.

It can be but by Ordination.

What, all of them by Ordination, Elders and Deacons, the Lay-Officers?

I told you before we own no such Officers, but them that are Ecclesiastically so, and therefore not Lay-Officers; the way of Ordination of ruling Elders and Deacons is the same with that of Pastor and Teacher.

What by laying on of the hands of the Presbytery, it seems to be a mighty pro­phanation of that Sacred ordinance to apply it to men that are illiterate, and have not been at the University.

Christ did not limit any Ordinan­ces to Literate men, and to University men, his practice was quite contrary, but I pray Sir, tell me. 1. Where imposition of hands is called Ordination? 2. Whether the Dea­cons had not imposition of hands, Act. 6.3. Where any other ordinary Church Offi­cers had imposition of hands? And therefore if there had not been some more reason of the Holy Ghost than ordinary for applying it to Deacons, whether they should have had it? If it was in an ordinary way of Admini­stration, and therefore all Church Officers to have it, then they have eminent right to it still. And then what prophanation is it to apply an Ordinance according to it's first in­stitution?

You suggest strange notions about Ordination, I must get you to clear them up to me.

Sir, you shall excuse me for the present, I shall do it another time; I only tell you now, that all Church Officers are made by Ordination, and ordained alike, and that imposition of hands is not Ordination; and if the most be made of it, it's but a Ce­remony annexed which now is obsolete. And that all Ordination belongs to the Church of whom the Person ordained is a member, yea if imposition of hands be a necessary Cere­mony therein, it's not to be performed by the Elders of other Churches; but by the Presbytery or delegated Brethren of the said same Church. These things shall be demon­strated to you according to that measure of light which Christ hath given.

These things look not only Hetero­dox in respect of the common sentiments of ordinary Professors of the reformed Religi­on, but contrary to what many, yea most of our Learned Divines have wrote and pra­ctised, but I shall wait till you give me fur­ther light into them, and demonstration for the assertions you have laid down. In the mean time give a brief account of Gospel or­dinances instituted by Christ for a Churches Edification.

THe instituted Ordinances of the Lord Jesus Christ, are, 1. Preach­ing the Word. 2. Prayer and Praises. 3. The Seals of the New Testament. 4. The Keys, which are the Churches exercise of it's pow­er. 1. In Election of Officers. 2. Admission of Members. 3. Translating Members to o­ther Churches, Admonition, and Censures. 5. Contribution for the support of Ordinan­ces, Ministry, and necessity of the Saints. 6. I may add unto this, Holy Conference for mutual Edification. These are given either as peculiar Priviledges to the Churches, such as the Seals and Keys of Discipline, or pri­marily (though for the Conversion and in order to the Salvation of others) but for the sake of the Churches, for their Multiplica­tion, growth and Confirmation in Grace.

Speak to these Gospel Ordinances par­ticularly, as to the distinct Nature, End and Use of them.

1. The Preaching of the Word com­prehends, 1. The reading of it frequently in the Church. 2. The opening and expounding of it. 3. The applying it unto the Conscien­ces [Page 97]of Saints and unbelieving Sinners, accord­ing to the true intent thereof, by Instruction, Reprehension, Exhortation, Direction, Con­solation, in the evidence and demonstration of the Spirit. 4. By the instilling, and promoting the knowledge of God in the Mysteries of the Gospel, by Catechizing Children & Youth, in such a way and manner as may conduce most to the enlightning their understandings in, and bringing over their affections to, the things of God in their tender years.

Sir, I doubt in the last thing menti­oned, many if not most of your Churches have been too defective.

I grant it, and fear the next Gene­ration will have great cause to complain of us, for the Children of Church Members do manifestly grow up in Ignorance, carnality, and looseness, little care is taken of most re­ligious Parents, and less by the Churches, to educate them in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, all, or the chief of Parents care, is how to provide well for them in the World. Besides, every way of Catechizing will not answer the end, to learn a Catechism meerly by rote, and a preaching upon it, will make no more impression on their Ages, than other preaching, there must be care to instill in to their understandings by little and little, in a plain and familiar way of discourse [Page 98]with them, as they are able to receive: if a great deal of Water be flusht on upon a nar­row-mouth'd Bottle very little or none will go in, but you may by a small stream, and gradually, fill it. Ignorance in Religion, is destruction of Religion, it hath been the mother of all false Worship and Error in Doctrine, and it's evident it is the cause for the most part of the disorders in, and among Churches.

To what Officers doth the ministra­tion of the word in Churches belong?

To the Pastor, and Teacher, if there be any, they being the Preaching Elders that labour in the Word and Doctrine. The Pastors work in Preaching seems to lye most in dealing with the Consciences and Affecti­ons of the hearers, whether for Conversion or Edification. The Teacher insists most on the enlightning the understanding by doctri­nal Truths, Catechising, Argumentation and Conviction of gainsayers. Rom. 12.7, 8. If one Officer according to the present circum­stances, can perform his Office to the full edification of the Church in all these things, it's well: if not then both are requisite, as hath been spoken. And the word is to be so preached as hath been said, 2 Tim. 4.2, 3. Eph. 4.12. Act. 2.42. the Apostles do­ctrine is the word that is to be Preached, and to be attended on by us.

I look upon prayer and praises ab- be great Church Ordinances, as well as duties of a Universal nature to all and in­dividual persons in private and secret.

It is a solemn Church Ordinance, expressed either way in publick prayers or in praises, not only in the Prayers of a sin­gle person, the mouth of the Congregation: but in Psalms and Hymns. That prayer is a Church ordinance, and a duty to be perform­ed frequently in the Church service, see Act. 1.14. These continued with one accord in Prayer and Supplication, so Act. 2.42. no other Or­dinance can be duly administred without it.

I think there is no Christians but hold that Prayer is a Church Ordinance: but I have heard some except against singing of Psalm in Metre as we do.

That singing Psalms is an Ordi­nance of the Church, I think is plain. 1. That singing Praises to God, with an au­dible voice, was practised in the Apostles times by the Apostles, Act. 16.25. 2. That they are to be sung in the Church, at the most solemn Ordinance of the Lords Supper is without dispute, Mat. 26.30. Mark 14.26. 3. That singing with words of Psalms and Hymns, at the same time making me­lody in the Heart is recommended to us, Eph. 5.19. so Col. 3.16. teaching and admo­nishing [Page 100]your selves [so [...] should be ren­dred, and not one another, for thus Interpre­ters have rendred the same word your selves, Eph. 5.19.] in Psalms and Hymns and Spi­ritual Odes in Grace, singing in your Heart to the Lord. From both which places sing­ing Spiritual Psalms and Hymns, for instruct­ing and quickning a gracious Heart sweetly and affectionately carried forth in them, is highly recommended to us by the Spirit of God. And that it's a duty to sing in conjuncti­on with others, appears by what was practi­sed by our Saviour and his Disciples at the institution of the Lords Supper, that they Sang an Hymn. And by Paul and Silas in Pri­son, but what the Holy Ghost sayeth ex­presly he expects of us, Rom. 15.6. that you may with one Mind and one Mouth, i.e. with sameness of Words and Heart glorifie God.

Some may say this is to use forms.

A. 1. Tho' it be to use a form in Singing, it's not an imposed form, but freely taken and chosen, no more than the Ministers Text is imposed. 2. A form allowed or en­joyned by the Spirit of God may and ought to be used as the words of institution in ad­ministration of the Seal of Baptism, or of the Elements in the Lords Supper. 3. The na­ture of the thing requireth that it be preme­ditated that the Singing be melodious, i. e. [Page 101]orderly, not with confusion, and not in ab­surd dissonies.

But some are against singing in mixt Congregations.

They may as well be against publick Praying in mixt Congregations. Doth not he that Prayeth endeavour to use such expressi­ons, as most may joyn with him in? So he that propounds a Psalm or Hymn, endea­vours to suit it to the Congregation, where, and the time and occasion when, it is to be sung. It's due to God from all his creatures to praise him; it's his Saints only bless him, but it's not in our power to judge the heart of him that joyns in a publick duty, and if it be to be performed publickly, as Praying and Preaching, we are not to hinder any that will joyn with us; if they are not upright in one, or profited by the other, the sin lyes on them­selves to answer for it.

Which be the Seals of the New Te­stament, and why called so?

They are Baptism and the Lords Supper. And they are called Sacraments be­cause sacred and solemn ratifications of Gods Promise to us, and ours to him, they are signs, being significant of Invisible Grace and Blessing. They are called Seals, as Circumci­sion and the Passover were, being for con­firmation of the Covenant relation between God and Us.

I pray speak of Baptism; it hath been much controverted upon many accounts.

I shall not detain you upon the most controverted points of it, but tell you now briefly what we believe and practise about it. 1. That it is an instituted ordi­nance by the Lord Jesus Christ, to remain in the Gospel Churches to the end of the world, as appears by Mat. 28.19. 2. That the Ele­ment or significant sign is Water. 3. That it being blessed by Prayer is to be applyed in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. 4. That the thing signified is the washing in regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost, wherein the Lord Jesus Christ his precious Blood is applied for Justification and Sanctification, and the person Baptized dedicated unto the Lord, remission of Sin is eminently signified thereby, Act. 2.38. chap. 10.43.

Then you think a person to be rege­nerated in Baptism.

It is but a sign of that which is, or should be, in adult persons it's requisite there be credible signs or grounds to think they are regenerated, but many such who are Baptized are not; and therefore it is evident none are regenerated meerly by partaking of that Ordinance, unless we allow falling away from effectual grace, and when it is [Page 103]administred to the Infant Seed of a Believer, it is a sign of what is or may be, and is both desired and prayed for.

I see you are for the Baptism of In­fants.

We are for it, and do practise it. We doubt not of it, and upon good grounds, for we look upon Baptism to be the right of every Child of a Church Member. 1. As the Infant is a Church Member in the Pa­rents right, the Parent having given him­self and Children to be the Lords in Church Relation. 2. That it is a Priviledge the Pa­rents challenge by vertue of the Pro­mise which the Spirit of God saith, Act. 2. belongs to them and to their Children; the Promise made to Abraham, is transferred to all the Faithful, who are said, Gal. 4.28. chap. 3.29. to be the Children of the Pro­mise, as Isaac was, and therefore have the Covenant and Seal of the Covenant belong­ing to them for themselves and Children, as Isaac had. And in the administration it is of use to the Parents. 1. For confirmation of their Faith in that extensive Promise. 2. For a Solemn dedication of the Child unto the Lord. 3. For an obligation to bring it up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.

May not a professed Believers Child be Baptized that is not actually a Member of any Church?

He that is a Believer ought to claim his right to all Church Priviledges, and therefore to joyn himself to some particular Congregation, where he may enjoy all Or­dinances according to the rule of the Gospel. And whilst he doth not, he evidently lives in a Sin of great Omission, if Providence hath given him opportunity so to do. And I know not but a credible Believer, may as well desire the Lords Supper without add­ing himself to a particular Congregation, as to desire the Baptism of his Child without it: and therefore it renders his profession ve­ry hardly credible, whilst he lives in this great Sin of Omission.

Is there any just ground to believe that an Infant Baptized and Dying in his In­fancy, is certainly Saved.

By no means, if you understand all Infants of good and bad, as they are usually now promiscuously Baptized, for the Salvati­on of Infants is a Divine Secret.

But what comfort hath a Believing Parent in this case, any more than a professed Unbeliever or Infidel? Is there no promise that he can take comfort from, upon this ac­count? If not, then it's possible such an af­fliction may befall a Child of God for which he hath no promise from the Word of God to support him in, for without a promise [Page 105]Faith can take no hold of God, for Comfort.

In case a Believers Child dieth in Infancy, and his trouble be about the Eter­nal state of his Child: I know no Promise in the Word of God will reach forth Comfort to him, but this, I will be thy God, and the God of thy Seed. Seeing his Child lived not to make a personal and professed Rejection of his Covenant Relation in adult years as Ish­mael and Esau did. And thus a Believer by Faith in that Promise can take such Comfort to himself in that Condition which no Unbe­liever can. For there's not one Word in Scripture that speaks of the Salvation of an Unbelievers Child dying in Non-age. What God hath reserved in his secret Counsel is not for us to determine.

Is not Baptism a converting Ordi­nance?

If it be true as your Church saith, that he that is Baptized is certainly saved, it must needs be so most times. But although it's a sign that referrs to Regeneration and Initiation thereby in the Covenant, yet it is a confirming Sacrament as the other is, it is al­ways for Confirmation of Faith in the Pro­mise, both in Parents and Children, neither is it improved by the baptized till he believe.

Now I pray speak something of that other great Seal the Lords Supper.

It is called, breaking of bread by a Synech. Act. 2.42. ch 20.7, 11. It is the Sup­per, John 13.2. ch. 21.20. The Lords Supper, 1 Cor. 11.20. Because of peculiar Relation to the Remembrance of our Lords death, as the ob­servation of the first day of the Week hath to his Resurrection, therefore called the Lords day. Christ instituted this Ordinance for a so­lemn remembrance of his Death in the Churches till he come the second time. And he did it the Night he was betrayed, after he had eat the Passover with his Disciples, Mat. 26.26. The Elements Bread and Wine, the Sacramen­tal Actions are Blessing the Elements di­stinctly. 2. Breaking the Bread and pouring out the Wine. 3. The delivery of each to the people with the words of Command ap­propriated by the appointment of Christ. 4. The Order. 1. The Bread blessed, then broken, then distributed. 2. The Wine pour­ed out, blessed, delivered forth; after this a Psalm or Hymn is Sung, as our Lord Jesus Christ did, and that Ordinance is ended. Tho' most Churches conclude with a short Prayer, wherein Gods name is further blessed, & par­ticular Cases of the Assembly spread before the Lord, before which Prayer is usual a li­beral Collection for the Poor, and support of Ordinances.

What is the great Use and Improve­ment [Page 107]a Communicant may and should make of his participation of this Ordinance?

1. That as the Bread broken and Wine poured out signifie the Body and Soul sufferings of the Lord Christ: they are ex­hibited in this Ordinance in a lively manner, to our thankful remembrance of Gods and Christs love to us; therefore by the ancients called the Eucharist. 2. Hereby our acts of Faith are renewed, and our Faith greatly strengthned in the love of God to us, in the Redemption wrought by Jesus Christ for us in his Death and Suffering, for our present Justification and Sanctification, and Future Glory. 3. It is a sign and Seal of our Union to, and Communion with the Lord Jesus Christ, and to one another; our Communion together by a common participation of Christ our Head in his personal Excellencies and mystical Communications; as also our Com­munion in him one with another as a mysti­cal and visible Politick Body. 4. It is a visi­ble Testimony and Profession of our mutual love, and Obligations therein as members one of another. 5. There is a sweet Com­munion in each others Gifts and Graces, in order to edification and growth in Grace.

To what Church Officer doth the administration of this Ordinance appertain?

It appertains to the Pastoral teach­ing [Page 108]Office, for the Seals are teaching Cere­monies, by way of Instruction unto us, for increase in Faith and Love, and by way of Consolation and Confirmation in our right to Covenant Benefits and Priviledges. And hence it belongs primarily to the Pastor that is principally called to the whole Office of feeding the flock, for Christ the great Pa­stor first administred it. And secondarily to the Teacher who is called to bear a share with him in his Teaching work, which is feed­ing the flock with wholesome Doctrine, and administring such instituted signs and seals as tends to the Confirmation thereof unto their Souls and Consciences, and therefore where there is actually Pastor and Teacher, it may for the ease of the Pastor [that part of this Labour may be born by the Teacher] as well as that of teaching. And in case of the Death of the Pastor the whole pastoral charge as to Teaching and Administring falls upon the Teacher, unless the Church think meet to choose another Pastor.

But I pray what do you think of the practice of our Minister, and if I mistake not some Non-conformists use it still, viz. for the Administrator or Administrators (for I have known several at the same time in one Congregation) to go about from Person to Person, and deliver the Bread and Wine in­to [Page 109]the hand of each, repeating as oft the Words of institution, Take, eat, &c. Take, drink, &c.

I take it to be an unscriptural usage, for Luke 22.17. Christ said, Take this and di­vide it among your selves. And if it be said that is spoken of the Passover Cup, it makes not against us, for in the same manner as that Cup went about, did also the Bread and Wine that followed. And we have no ground to suppose that he delivered the Bread with the Words, This is my Body, take eat, nor the Wine, &c. any more than once. Again it's plain, that this practice came from Rome, from that blasphemous Heresie of theirs, that the Bread is the very Body of Christ after Consecrati­on of the Priest; and therefore not to be touched by the Communicant, but put into his Mouth by the supposed sacred Hands of the Priest. Therefore it hath the same Ido­latrous Original as Kneeling in receiving hath, nourisheth much vain Superstition in the peo­ple, makes the Ordinance most tedious and troublesome, if not too Comical.

You mention Kneeling; methinks that seems to be a comely gesture enough in so solemn and sacred an Ordinance, though I confess I am not for imposing of it.

I need not tell you the reason and ground of that Innovation, viz. From the [Page 110]Idolatrous worshiping the Bread. And I need not tell you that the posture in receiving was not so from the beginning, but after the ea­stern manner of sitting at a Feast. It is not pro­per or comely to kneel at a Feast which is for a sociable rejoycing. Kneeling is a posture of prostration in Prayer, but this is a distinct Ordinance from Prayer, though it be bles­sed by Prayer. The Prayer is over when the Element is distributed and then our business is not to pray, but to feed in a Feasting Sa­cramental and Spiritual manner. Neither is the practice of some Communicants to be commended, who after the Element is bles­sed by the Prayers of the Congregation be­take themselves to their particular private prayers before they eat or drink; it's a new Consecration, as if the Element were not sufficiently consecrated. Or as if they were to receive in an act of Prayer. Whereas now they are to receive their spiritual food to the satisfaction of their hungring and thirst­ing Souls, with rejoycing and gladness of Heart, making it the Bread of Consolation and cup of Salvation; praising the Name of the Lord. The Nature of receiving clearly appears from this, that it is a Feast of Re­membrance, and therein for spiritual Repast, Nourishment and Consolation, and it appears in that the distribution of the last Element [Page 111]ends with a Psalm or Hymn of praise before we arise from the Table, and therefore to be performed in the same posture we were in, when we received the Cup, and we use not a kneeling posture in singing.

I have read many considerable Ar­guments indeed against this posture in recei­ving, which gives ground to suspect there is too much of Superstition in it; and that it was derived from Rome, but I have not be­fore considered what you say of its great dis­agreement to the very Nature of the Ordi­nance, the Act of receiving being a distinct duty from praying, and therefore I believe many that profess to more Knowledge in these things than I do, do they know not what, in betaking themselves to private Pray­ers, when they should be exercised after ano­ther manner, and so do unduly mix one Or­dinance with another, or thrust out one spiri­tual duty by another. I am glad you mention it to me. I hope it will be matter of good in­struction to me in my practice for the future.

I am glad to find your Heart so moulded, by the Grace of God that you are ready to receive the impression of Truth. It was otherwise not long ago.

I think the next Head of Church Ordinances, which you mentioned, were the Keys; I pray speak to them.

By Keys I mean Church power of opening and shutting. It is a Scripture Word, but Metaphorical. A Key is used in respect of spiritual Knowledge, or in respect of Pow­er. In respect of Knowledge, Luke 11.52. In this respect Peter had the Key of the King­dom of Heaven committed to him as an A­postle, as is spoken by our Saviour, Mat. 16.19. Being the first Apostle instructed by God to open the door for preaching the Gospel unto the Gentiles, Act. 10. But this Key, tho' first turned in exercise by Peter, was given to the rest of the Apostles at the same time, and with them to all faithful Ministers. There is another Key of the Kingdom of Heaven, which is in the Church of the Gospel, viz. The Key of Power, which is either of Supream Church-power, and is the Power of the Lord Jesus Christ which is Soveraign, Absolute, Legislative, and therefore called the Key of David, which he alone hath, Rev. 3.7. And there is the Key of subordinate Power which is delegated by Christ unto his Church, and therefore given by Christ unto Peter, and the rest of the Disciples, as his associated Church on Earth; to which he himself was Pastor, and to which he administred as such the Lords Supper. The twelve Apostles had this Key given them as such, in that for their time they had all Church Power committed un­to [Page 113]to them, did exercise it as occasion required, as to Constitution of Officers, receiving, dis­missing or excommunicating members. But there being none in Succession unto them, this Key of Power can be found no where lodged but in a particular Congregation built on the Faith which Peter in the Name of the rest professed, Mat. 16.19.

But the great Question is where the Power of the Keys lyes in a particular Con­gregation, whether in the Fraternity, or in the Eldership.

I call the decisive Church Power the Key, and say it lyes in the Majority, as in all Societies that arise by mutual Consent or Agreement. But I distinguish between the Keys and the management of them, for a Key is dead, and opens no door if there be not a hand to make use of it. So that in an Organized Church, the orderly managing and making use of the Churches Power lyeth in the Elders. But if the Church be not Or­ganized, they are guided by a common rule of self-preservation, and using all means to procure their well being, they act by com­mon consent, as they came together in the Name of Christ, till they be duely Organi­zed with Officers. And therefore they ad­mit members or excommunicate, if necessity require, as they may before they have Offi­cers. [Page 114]But having chosen Officers the orderly way of proceeding is, by the authoritative Power of the Officers in management of this Key, which is the decisive Power. Hence I distinguish between a Churches acting pro ne­cessitate, and pro regula ordinis.

What part have the ruling Elders, viz. the Pastor if there be no more, or if there be, the ruling Presbyters that take part with him, as assistants in admitting of a Member.

The Elder or Elders work is, 1. To speak with the party that desires admission, propound him to the Church, and upon ma­ture deliberation cause the decisive Vote of the Church to pass upon him. Whereby he is received or rejected. If received, the Elder declares the sence of the Church, and doth solemnly in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Church, enter into a mutu­al obligation with the said Member, saying; You are here now to give up your self, and Chil­dren, (if he hath any,) to the Lord, and this Congregation, promising (as Christ shall help you) to walk and abide in, and with this Church in all Gospel Conversation, according to the rules of Faith and order of the Gospel, submitting your self to the watch of the same, and promise to bring your Children to the Ordinances of the Church, educating them in the nurture and admonition [Page 115]of the Lord. Likewise adds, I do in the Name of Christ and this Congregation, give you the right hand of fellowship, and receive you in the Lord, promising to perform all the duties toward you that are required of us in order to your Edifica­tion, as Christ shall enable us.

Hath an Elder no more part in the decisive Power by Vote than an ordinary Brother?

Though the Elders Judgment is usually hearkened to, and sways many times much with the Congregation, giving light un­to them from the Word, yet when a matter comes by Vote to be determined, his Vote is but single as another Brothers, and there­fore we say this Key of decisive power is in the Fraternity, though the orderly manage­ment thereof, and authoritative declaration thereof in the Name of Christ belongeth to the Elder.

In what other Cases is this Key made use of?

In letting, shutting out, and turn­ing out of Members. 1. In Letting out, or translating Members from one Church to a­nother, when upon good reasons a Church Member desires to change his or her Com­munion, and asketh a Dismission, it is grant­ed by the suffrage of the Church approving his reasons for it.

Is there any Scripture ground for a Dismission? may not a Church Member not chargeable with any scandalous Sin go away to another Church without a Dismission?

No! For it will cause Confusion in the Churches, and God is the God of Order, and not Confusion, as in all the Churches of the Saints. Besides, it's contrary to the Nature of such Societies, and the obligation by which the Members stand mutually bound toge­ther in one Body. And Christ hath provided as well the orderly departure as stay of Church Members. The word [...] used, Rom. 16.1. should be rendred statuo, constituo in coetu vobiscum, I dismiss to you, for tho' our translators render it, I recommend, yet it should more rightly be rendred, I dismiss or place in Church fellowship with you; and so all the Apostle speaks afterward, are terms of a dismission. These Paul needs not he being an Apostle, and having had a Seal of his Apostleship among them, [...], are commendatory Letters with Dismission, 2 Cor. 3.2.

What then are your Letters of Re­commendation?

A Letter of Recommendation is but a Certificate under the hand of an Offi­cer, that this or that Brother or Sister is a Member of such a Congregation, walking [Page 117]blamelesly, and as becomes the Gospel, that when any Brother or Sister comes to other Churches in their travels, they may make no scruple to receive them to occasional or transient Communion, but transfers not any as Members to another Congregation.

How is the Key used for Exclusion of a Member?

A Church Member is excluded or put out of Communion by Himself or by the Church, and either amounts to Excommuni­cation, for Excommunication is the putting one out of the Communion of a particular Congrega­tion; which is done when a Member doth disorderly withdraw and divide himself from the Church Communion, obstinately refu­sing to be reduced to his place and duty in the said Church. This is an usurpation of the Key of Power, and separating of himself; and I call it Indirect Excommunication, because he divides himself violently and schismati­cally; upon which the Church is to reassume the Key and shut the door of Communion upon him, either by a direct Excommunicati­on which is the regular way, and may be ju­stified from express places of Scripture, such as Rom. 16.17, 18. Or else if this way of Discipline will not be born, Judicially to re­mark by the decisive Power of the Church, and declare that such an one hath sinfully or [Page 118]disorderly withdrawn and divided himself from the Communion of the Church, where­by he must immediately be looked upon as Ecclesiastically felo de se, and one cut off from the Communion of the Churches of Christ; being separated from that Congregation to which he did belong. For he that challeng­eth Communion with other Churches, can do it but as a Member of one particular Church, from which being divided by his act, having disclaimed it, and secluded, there­upon by the act of the Church, he is doubly excommunicate, and hath no ground to claim right of Communion any where: but is as a dead branch cut off, a Tree twice dead (in respect of his visible Church-standing) and plucked up by the roots.

I am glad to understand that in the way of Church discipline you do profess to, there is a regular way of proceeding to curb such kind of disturbers of Churches, for it's easier to correct those who are chargeable with scandal. For such make parties, divide Church­es, and depart from their Communion bid­ding defiance to all Rule and Government, and that out of a pretence of Conscience. Now the way you speak of, would tend much to the humbling such proud and prejudiced professors, who under pretence of serving Christ, serve not the Lord Jesus, but their [Page 119]own Lusts, which to gratifie, they regard not the defaming and breaking the best Churches on Earth. But other Churches and Elders will countenance, abett and receive them, as I have known some do.

I must acknowledge it, to our great sorrow and shame, that is, of some El­ders and Churches, that will be still taking part with the offenders, and censured Mem­bers of other Churches, and have no Con­science of the violation of the Communion of Churches, but there is not many of them. It cannot be expected, but as among a great many Churches some will be disorderly and unruly; so among many Churches some will be of that nature, and become Common­shores for Mammon sake, to all lawless un­governable Members of other Congrega­tions. But a little more of this when we come to speak of the Communion of Churches.

What is that which you call direct Excommunication?

It is when the Church by its deci­sive power adjudgeth a person an impenitent obstinate offender, or grosly scandalous, layeth him under a sentence of Excommu­nication.

What Rules are there to proceed by, in that case?

There are two sorts of Offences to be proceeded upon, and accordingly are the Rules of proceeding. 1. Cases of less hainous nature, and privately committed, as one Brother's sinning against another in ly­ing, defrauding, purloining, &c. and so sins not publickly known, not being so criminal and hainous. In this kind of offences Christ hath laid us down the degrees of proceed­ing, and if at last he is not convinced of his sin, when the Church adjudgeth there is abundant ground of conviction laid before him, it is to proceed to censure, and he is to be looked upon as a Heathen or Pub­lican, that hath no right to Church-privi­ledges. 2. There are some sins hainous, more criminal, publickly committed and known to the World, such as Blasphemy, Drunkenness, Whoredom, Perjury, &c. These sins are not to be dallied with in a gradual way of proceeding, for they go before the sinner to Judgment, and such are immediately to be proceeded against to Excommunication. 1. Because it was so practised in the case of the incestuous person by the command of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 5.2. It is requisite it should be so for the vindication of the honour of Christ and his Church before the World. 3. That whatever pretences there are of present re­morse, [Page 121]it is not meet such a person should be permitted to abide an actual Church Member under the reproach of such a Sin, without suffering the utmost censure, so long time as is requisite to satisfie the Church of the dueness of his remorse and truth of his repentance. The dealing with the incestuous person after Excommunication, is a rule to Churches to walk by in the like cases.

The receiving in, of an Excommuni­cated person upon due Repentance, is also by the decisive power of the Church.

It is so, for it is the same Key that opens to cast out and shut the Door, and therefore must open it again, to let in the Penitent Sinner upon his Repentance.

For what Sins is a person to be Ex­communicated? Some of your persuasion say not for any but hainous crimes, such as the light of Nature condemns, as Murther, Adul­tery, Theft, Blasphemy. And the Acts of those sins must be clearly proved too, any scandalous actions leading to these sins, will not bear the dreadful sentence of Excom­munication: As for example, words of threatning and revenge, and actions mani­festly such, lascivious carriages, keeping ill and wicked company, purloyning, over­reaching, cheating, equivocating, lying; these [Page 122]are not sins with them to be excommuni­cated for, nor any sins of omission. As for example, never to pray in a family, or read the Word, &c. nor for great errours.

I must confess I have much won­dred upon what grounds some men speak and write in this case. But I find it mostly was those that prudentially made this plea an evasion to excuse themselves from the exercising of any censure upon any Church-Member, especially from questioning and dealing with any rich and honourable for any sin. For Pastors are hereby pretty well secured upon this account from this trouble, so long as there is none to be excommuni­cated, but such as are burnt in the Hand at the Old Baily, or whipt at the Carts Tail, or condemn'd to be Hang'd at Tiburn. But we have not this limitation from the Spirit of God, but from corrupt man, for there is no sin specified, Mat. 18. yea any manifest sin is supposed by that text to be cause e­nough of Excommunication, if a manifest impenitency be found in the offender, and he be not by any due means to be reduced and brought to a sight and sense of the sin he is charged with, and there is sufficient proof of it. As for sins of ordinary infirmi­ty they are watched against to be corrected by the brotherly admonitions of others and [Page 123]frequently bewail'd by our selves, but not made the causes of Church censures.

In case one come under the censure of Excommunication, in what form and manner is it usually denounced in your Churches?

In the very Words, which the A­postle Paul commanded the Corinthians to Excommunicate the Incestuous Person, 1 Cor. 5.

Is not that a dreadful curse to deli­ver one to Satan for the Destruction of the flesh, &c. I pray what doth these words im­port?

The Sentence is very terrible and awful, but it's for a good and desirable end, viz. The recovery of a Sinner from Sin, and saving his Soul, the words which you men­tion are of marvellous spiritual signification. To deliver over to Satan is as much as our Saviour (by whose Spirit the Apostle enjoyns the use of this word) expresseth, Mat. 18. that such an one should be accounted as an ex­communicate Person was by the Church of the Jews, or as one out of that Churches Communion, viz. An Heathen, or Publican, for such the Jews would not eat with, and condemned our Saviour for so doing. There are but two Kingdoms in the World; Christs, and Satans, who is called the Prince of the [Page 124]World, that ruleth in the Children of disobe­dience, i. e. the Sons of Belial, men that will not come under the yoke of Christs Govern­ment; and with such Christ can have no concord in his Church, 2 Cor. 6.15. And therefore to be put out of the Visible Church as a Child of Disobedience, an incorrigible per­son, hardened in sin, and to be returned into the World as one that hath no right to the Childrens Bread: And this is to be a means to humble him, and bring him to shame and godly sorrow, so that his flesh (a Gospel ex­pression for sin, which is corrupt affections and lusts) may be destroyed, and that his Soul may be saved in the day of Christ. And the consequent behaviour required towards such an one abundantly shews it, that inti­macy of familiarity is not to be kept with him, 1 Cor. 5.11. And that such a Person is to be put away from Communion in this manner, as to all sacred things peculiar to the Church, ver. 13. And what doth the Apostle intend, 2 Thes. 3.14. but the Ex­communication of one that is unruly, that he may be ashamed; for it is setting a mark upon him that others may withdraw from him to his great shame, but yet ver. 15. to take all opportunities to admonish him in order to his recovery.

What rules are to be observed in [Page 125]the Denunciation of this solemn Sentence?

All the rules of Christ according to the Nature of the offence being private, or publick, ought to be observed, that all due deliberation be used, and tenderness to­wards the offending Brother, before the case be put to the suffrage of the Church. That being passed, and the Offender convict as guilty, and ripe for censure, the sin is to be laid open with all the aggravations thereof. Then the nature of the Sentence, and the true end and intent thereof shewed. So­lemn Prayer is to be made by way of Hu­miliation to the Church, and Supplication, for the Conviction, Repentance, and Hu­miliation of the Sinner, that the Ordinance may obtain it's true and best effect upon him. Lastly, The Sentence is to be denounced solemnly in the Name of Christ, by a ruling Elder, if any, if none, by the Pastor; and then the Ordinance is to be concluded with Prayer of Gods blessing of it unto the Sin­ner, for his return, and for the Church, that God would preserve it from Impurities, A­postacies and Decays in Grace, and that the fall of this Brother may be a warning Ex­ample, that He that stands do take heed lest he fall.

Is there not a lesser Excommunica­tion, which an offending Brother may be try­ed [Page 126]with before you proceed to this great and tremendous one?

There is with some, that which they call Suspension, but I know no ground for it from the word, for a man that is an adult Member hath right to all Ordinan­ces, or not, and right he hath still, till he be duely convict, and sentence passed upon him. And I know no Power that any Church or Officer hath to debar him from any Ordi­nance of Church Communion, till he be ex­cluded judicially in the Name of Christ.

You are ready to receive an Excom­municate Person again upon credible mani­festation of his Repentance.

There ought to be great readiness to receive a repenting and returning Sinner with all Tenderness, Compassion, and Com­miseration, but with a due regard to the Ho­nour of Christ, his Church and Ordinance, to endeavour to get as much satisfaction as may be, concerning the Truth and Sincerity of his professed Repentance, not only by manifested remorse, but in some Cases by experienced Reformation.

You were saying that one that is an unjust divider from the Communion of the Church, ought to be excommunicated by a direct Excommunication.

I do verily believe it's the mind [Page 127]and will of Christ, and though our Church­es, that are now but in a declining state as to matters of Order, will not receive it, yet Churches have practised it; and whenever the Churches flourish they will practise it. My Reasons are briefly, 1. That it is Schism of the highest nature, being the actual divi­ding of a particular Congregation; and there is no other Schism spoken of in Scripture; that in the Church of Corinth was but Facti­ons tending to this Division, else the Apo­stle would have given command to excom­municate the causers thereof, as well as the incestuous Person. For the contentions and factions that had a tendency thereto they were highly rebuked, 1 Cor. 1.11, 12. ch. 3.3. 1 Cor. 11.18. 2. What way is for mar­king and withdrawing from a Person, but the Sentence of Excommunication? Rom. 16.17. 1 Thes. 5.14. 2 Thes. 3.14. 3. It's a most scandalous Sin to Jew, Gentile, and Church of Christ; nothing stains the Honour of Christ more in the Congregation. 4. It's a root of bitterness that infects many, and ought to be plucked up by censure, if it cannot be cured, Heb. 12.15. 5. To excommunicate such a person is no wrong, because he hath excom­municated himself, he hath but what he sought after, and hath done. 6. It's fit such an one should be excommunicated judicially, [Page 128]because he hath by usurpation excommuni­cated himself and the Church. 7. It's plain it's a sin and such an one wherein he heareth not the Church, and therefore to be made as an Heathen and Publican. 8. It's a gross breach of his Covenant at entrance into Church Communion.

Speak something now of the fifth Head of Ordinances, which is Contribution to the support of Ordinances, Ministry, and the necessity of the Saints.

Contribution on these accounts are manifestly the Office charge of the Dea­cons, to call the Church to it's Duty in this kind, and to take care for the faithful distri­bution of all Collections of this Nature, and to give account thereof to the Church. They are herein the Churches Stewards, it's fully manifest from the first institution of that Of­fice, Acts 6. and by their necessary qualifi­cations spoken of, 1 Tim. 3.8. Now the rea­son of this Office and Ordinance, is not on­ly the Gospel Institution, which from the places forementioned are without dispute, but from the Nature of the Church Society it self No Societies, if but civil, can be sup­ported according to their Nature without charge, and there are many charges necessa­rily required to support a Church Society, for a Ministry must be maintained, 1 Cor. 9.9, [Page 129]10, 11, 12. 1 Tim. 5.17, 18. Gal. 6.6. Luke 10.4. Likewise there is charges as to places for the Church to assemble and meet in. The Primitive Churches assembled in upper rooms of ordinary Houses, Act. 1.13. [...], they went up into an upper room. And Paul preached in his own hired house, Act. 28.30, 31. The Churches were at the charge of hiring places to meet in, and so have been ever since the Profession of Christian Reli­gion, they are built, or hired. There are E­lements for the Lords Table, which are mat­ter of charge. There are the Poor to be sup­ported and relieved. And that it was the pra­ctice of the Churches to have frequent Col­lections, for these ends and purposes is be­yond all dispute, 2 Cor. 9.1. 1 Cor. 16.1, 2. The time and manner for making these Col­lections seems to be left to the prudent Con­sideration of each Church, as may be most a­greeable to it's circumstances, though Paul seems to intimate to the Corinthians that the first day of the week, when the Church as­sembleth, is a suitable and meet time for it. As for the administration of other Ordinan­ces of Christ, and the proportion that every one is bound in Conscience to give to all such occasions of Contribution, is from time to time, as God hath prospered him, and the manner specified: He that giveth, with sim­plicity, [Page 130]he that sheweth Mercy with chearful­ness, Rom. 12.8.

You seem to add one thing more to be observed and practised in Churches, as an Ordinance of Christ for Edification, the frequent assembling of the Church for Pray­er, and Conference.

Whatever may have a manifest tendency to Edification is undoubtedly re­quired, and is to be practised in a Church of Christ. This assembling of the Church all to­gether, or in parts, or neighbourhoods doth undoubtedly do so; and if there were no other place of Scripture to be pleaded for it, that is enough to encourage it, Mal. 3.16, 17. But the Apostle seems, Heb. 10.24, 25. to lay frequent assemblings in this kind, as a great charge upon the Churches of Christ. And we find that there was a practice of this nature frequent in the Primitive Churches, when Brethren spake by way of Exhortation in Conference one with another, and it was called prophesying, 1 Cor. 14.3, 4, 5. And it's plain that it was but speaking and pray­ing in this manner of the Brethren, for the edifying of the Church; and to this practice doth the Apostles discourse, 1 Cor. 11.2, 3, 4, &c. seem plainly to look.

How were those meetings for Con­ference or mutual Edification managed?

It was by Brethrens speaking one af­ter another (not several talking of spiritual matters in the same roomin divers Companies, as it was before that the Apostle corrected that disorder, 1 Cor. 14.29.) But the regular way of carrying it on is that one speak at once, and the rest judge, viz. That a practical questi­on be propounded, and two or three or more speak briefly in answer thereto one after ano­ther; & if that an Officer should be there, or one appointed in chief to Judge, & to review the Consonancy to Truth of what is spoken then. Let others submit thereto according to the light brought, 1 Cor. 14.30.

IS the Supream Jurisdiction Ecclesia­stical in every particular Congrega­tion? Is there none Superiour to appeal to, Episcopal or Classical?

None but Christ himself. For all Churches are coordinate in Power one with another, nextly and immediately under Christ; neither hath Christ constituted any Officers with Apostolick Power over many Churches.

But what if matter of difficulty arise; ought not Elders of neighbouring Churches to assemble and decide it?

There are two sorts of things wherein matters of Controversie do usu­ally lye, 1. There may be a case in Thesi, which to understand the Mind of God clear­ly in, is of great concernment to the Church; and if the Pastor and other Officers cannot sufficiently satisfie the Mind of the Brethren, then it's requisite to consult other Churches and Elders; who when they give their Judgment in the Case, it is no further bind­ing, than it carries the light of Truth with it; for no Elders can impose any rule of practice upon the Churches: and their Judgment hath no more force than Ministerial; so far as carrying the Authority of Christ in his de­clared Mind and Will. Here then it's very ne­cessary and requisite, that in matters of great­er and weightier concern other Churches should be acquainted and consulted. Other things are referrible all to matter of fact in elections, admissions, translations, and ex­clusions And here the Church is the supream Judge, and none to be appealed to. Why should not a Church of Christ be as able to judge in any case of this Nature, as well as a Jury in Civil Affairs to whose Judgment, as to matter of fact our Lives and Estates are left daily. Therefore if we hold the distin­ction de jure & de facto, this matter of the Jurisdiction of Churches will be clear. In [Page 133]cases de jure, a Church can be led only by the best light they can have; and the more the better, and knowing this they have a foun­dation to proceed upon in matter of fact, whereupon the binding and loosing lyes in themselves.

What if a Member or Minor part of a Church think themselves wronged up­on the supposed irregular proceedings of the Majority?

He or they may complain to ano­ther Church. That Church is to hear what the Sister Church saith in vindication. If it satisfie not, nor is convinced of it's error, then another Church (i. e. the Elders with Messengers thereof) to deal with the offend­ing Church. And if it hear not, then the case is to be brought before the vicinity of Churches. All which finding this Church justly chargeable with sin, and incorrigible therein, agree to declare Non-communion with it, which is virtually an Excommuni­cation, for the rule of Churches dealing with each others is of the same nature, as that, Mat. 18. where a rule is laid down by our Saviour for the orderly proceeding of one Church Member with another.

What if an Elder fall under of­fence in a Church; is it in the power of that Church to deal with him, as with an ordi­nary Brother?

There is no doubt of it, the Jurisdi­ction is in the Church as to Officers, who are Brethren, as well as to others, and the manner of proceeding is the same; but an accusation against an Elder is not presently to be recei­ved, it must be clearly evidenced by two or three Witnesses. Again, in such cases it's good for the Church to proceed with the advice and approbation (if possible) of other Neigh­bouring Churches and Elders.

Wherein consists the practical part of Communion of Churches?

1. A concurrence in principles of Faith and Order. 2. In giving each other the Right Hand of Fellowship. As, 1. In receiving each others Members unto transi­ent Communion, as due occasion requires. 2. In dismissing Members to each others, or receiving Members orderly dismissed. 3. In refusal to admit such to Communion, which are under the censure of another Church or disorderly withdrawn from it, signification being made thereof. 3. There is Com­munion of Churches in mutual advice and counsel, which should be maintained by Elders frequent assembling and meeting together for this end and purpose. 4. By sympathizing with each others Poverty and Afflictions, by relieving and supporting as much as possible such as labour in this kind. [Page 135]And this is a Communion in giving and re­ceiving, as the Apostle calls it.

Is there not a Communion of Church­es in the office power of the Elders, v. gr. for one Pastor to administer the Lords Supper in another, and for the Elders of one or more Congregations to ordain Elders in another.

Officers have a peculiar relation to the Society that hath called them, and there only they are such, and that society only can constitute and ordain them, and there only they can exercise their particular Office charge. As a Pastor can administer the Lords Supper only in the Church to which he is overseer; neither the ruling Elder can go­vern, nor the Deacon hath power to distri­bute any where but where he is a Deacon, or hath that Office charge committed to him, for if the Officer of one Church were thereby made an indefinite Officer to all, it would soon bring confusion to all, and the Elders of one Church might excommunicate in another.

I thank you Sir, for this brief account you have given me of your Church Order. As for the Ordinances of Christs institution I think all reformed Churches own them more or less, and the Romanists themselves in their way, though with innumerable Super­stitions and Idolatrous additions. And for the Church Officers you insist on, methinks [Page 136]I see there is something analogous to them remaining in our parochial Churches, which hath been handed down from the primitive practice through Antichristian Darkness. As in some of our Parishes we have the Parson as Pastor, the Assistant in Preaching, as the Teacher, the Church Wardens as ruling El­ders, the overseers of the Poor as Deacons. and though these labour under many abuses now, and irregularities by Popish corruptions, yet it shews that these are the Officers that do fully answer the necessity of a Christi­an Congregation, and that if it be large none of them can well be spared.

BEfore we break up this conference, I pray inform me of the manner of translating of a Church Member from one Church to another. I have heard some say there is no difference between Letters of re­commendation and of dismission.

I have told you a Letter of recom­mendation is but a Certificate under an El­ders Hand, that such an one is a Church Member, and orderly walker, in order to his free admission, to occasional Communi­on with other Churches; it need not be a [Page 137]Church Act. 2. It's not in order to the part­ing with a Member. 3. It need not be di­rected to any particular Congregation. 4. When Members of each Congregation are well known to one another, they are needless, as the Apostle saith of himself, 2 Cor. 3.1, 2. we need not [ [...]] Let­ters of Commendation to you?

I pray in what form doth a Letter of Commendation run?

It may be in these or such like words.

Is not this sufficient for to translate a Member to another Church, and make him an actual Member there?

No, this makes him not a Mem­ber of any one Church more than another. 2. Here the Church to which he belongs, gives up no right in him. Neither doth any Church act pass to that purpose, or is desired by him. The end of this, is but to be a Testimonial to other Churches, that they may know him to be a Church Member, and one under no censure but approved, and there­fore that no other Churches may scruple to admit him to their Communion as occasion shall require.

I pray then how do you write a dis­mission, some dismiss Members but to no Church.

It may be wrote with these or such like expressions, as the matter requires, for in some cases variation is required.

What are those cases?

I will tell you. Some dismissions cannot be wrote with so great commendati­on, as others may, some departing Members giving considerable cause of offence in their carriages, toward the Church and Ministry before, and in their asking dismission.

How do you write a dismission wit [...] commendation?

A dismission with commendation may be after this manner, and it must be di­rected to a particular Church.

But what kind of dismission can you give without commendation?

There must be some in every one, and charity allows us to give some commen­dation to a Member that stands under very dissatisfactory circumstances, which we hope proceed from his infirmity only, and there­fore can say thus much, That we hope he par­takes of the free Grace of God in Christ, though at present labours under these or those infirmities. And though his reasons for his departure do no way satisfie us, yet seeing he cannot be otherwise perswaded, we have granted his dismission in or­der to his contentment and our peace. But in­deed small or no commendation does in these cases, for there is seldom any such departer but the Pastor of some other Church, is pre­pared for the receiving him right or wrong, with commendation or without, yea with dismission or without, for all is Fish that comes to Net with some men.

Yea they say there are some Pastors will receive Members that run away from other Churches, although they be actually certified that they be under censure. Do you [...] to send Letters of discommendation to [Page 141]Churches concerning offending Members?

Yes, there is as much or more rea­son for it, than for a letter of commendation. For as it concerns a Church to know who it admits to Communion, or rejects, so it's re­quisite that a due Character be given by the Church, to which the Member belongs. And there is no particular Congregation, will offer to receive a person into stated Com­munion, at least, without consulting the Church to which he belongs, unless it be such a Church as savours too much of an Al­gerine Spirit in Ecclesiastick affairs.

Have you seen ever any Letters Dis­commendatory sent from one Church to ano­ther? Shew me if you have.

Yes I can shew you one. And such a Letter need not be a Church act no more than a bare Letter of Commendation. It may be done by an Elder only, and he is bound by his Office to certifie unto other Churches, what capacity a Member is in, whether under censure or no. For when an offending Member is brought under the cen­sure of a Church, other Churches ought to be acquainted with it, that they may not be imposed upon, and that he may be ashamed, being rejected by the unanimous concurrence of all Churches.

I thank you for your readiness to sa­tisfie me in these points, wherein I am now made sensible through Grace, the honour of God and a Christians fixed comfort, is most exceedingly concerned. I shall exercise your Patience at this time no longer, but wait an­other opportunity, when we may further discourse some points of this nature.

Sir, you shall always find me (God assisting) most ready and chearful in any ser­vice of this nature. And though these things seem most strange to most men, and of an abstruse nature, yet the time is coming when all the great truths of the Gospel shall b [...] cleared up before the World. For when [...] Lord shall build up Zion, he will appear [...] Glory. Expect we must, yet that, th [...] retick and Doctrinal part of these [...] [Page 144]Gospel order, will be ridiculed by many, and the practice thereof brow-beaten and scorned, not only by the World, but by car­nal and ignorant Church Members, that are biassed and led away by their own lusts, and seductions of others, but through Grace none of these things shall move me. Vale.