POSITION I.

GAthering of Churches in the Name of Chriſt,See almoſt the ſame Argument verbatim, in anſwer from New England to 32. q. p. 35. and ſetting up of Church-Ordinances, cannot be unlawfull for want of a Commandement from Man, as appeareth by the Doctrine and Practice of the Apoſtles, Acts 4.19. & 5.29.

THe Apoſtles never taught or practiſed to gather or ſeparate ſome Chriſtians from others, one part of this true Church, Anſwer. and another part of that, (eſpecially perſons which themſelves converted not) to make a purer Church, neither with nor without the Magiſtrates Authority.

THe Apoſtles both taught and practiſed the ſeparating of ſome Jewes from other Jewes, Reply. and gathering them into a Chriſtian Church, while yet the Jewiſh Church was not diſſolved: for they ceaſed not to be a Church of God, till the body of them pertinaciouſly and deſperatly rejected Chriſt: Therefore they preached to the Jewes firſt, and thought themſelves bound ſo to doe, becauſe they were the people of God, Acts 11.19. & 13.46. And yet they had commanded ſome to ſeparate from the reſt (as your ſelfe acknowledge) Acts 2.40. And their communion they had with them in Jewiſh worſhips, ſhews that they counted them a true Church. And ſome think, that their Church ſtate ceaſed not while their Temple ſtood. And yet before that time, many Jewes were gathered into many Chriſtian Churches, as both the Acts of the Apoſtles, and their Epiſtles doe declare. And if they might gather out of one Church, they might as lawfully have gathered out of twenty, or an hundred, had there been ſo many at that time.

Secondly, if the Apoſtles never taught nor practiſed ſuch a thing, what warrant then have our brethren for their Presbyterian Church, which is gathered out of many Churches? For they Interpret, Matth. 18.17. Tell the Church, of a Presbyterian Church, which conſiſts of the Elders of many Churches.

Thirdly, why may not one Church be gathered of the members of many Churches, as well as many Churches conſiſt of the members of one Church? For we read that the Church at Jeruſalem was ſcattered upon Stevens perſecution, and we read not that they returned again, but fell into memberſhip with other Churches, (as is probable) which were planted in ſeverall parts of the world.

Fourthly, ſuch a Church which conſiſts of the members of many other true Churches, hath formerly been without exception in the dayes of the Prelates; how comes it now to be queſtioned? For at leaſt fourteen yeares ſince, ſuch a Church was extant in Wi •• all in Cheſhire, (the vocall covenant being onely wanting) which conſiſted of the choyceſt Chriſtians of many Pariſhes, who met conſtantly together upon the Lords day, and enjoyed the Word, and Seales of the Covenant, and maintained a Paſtor to diſpenſe the ſame unto them, and never, or very rarely repaired to ſuch Pariſhes where their habitations were. And we think it cannot be denied, but Mr. John Angiers Church at Denton in Lancaſhire, hath of long time been ſuch, and many other ſuch there have been beſides. And it was accounted an high happineſſe to have liberty to make ſuch a Church; but was never accounted by the godly ſinfull before.

But if you ſhould anſwer, That the Church conſiſts of ſuch as lived within ſuch a Pariſh, or Chappell, and that the reſt were ſtrangers: We reply, If aſſembling conſtantly together, and participating in all the Ordinances that the reſt doe partake of, and contributing with the reſt in the maintenance of the Miniſter of ſuch a place, and an adhering rather to ſuch a Miniſter and people, then to any other in affection and action; if all theſe together make members of a Church, then theſe perſons of other Pariſhes were not ſtrangers, but members, and with the reſt made ſuch Churches; except it ſhall be ſaid, that habitation alone in other Pariſhes, when all the other are wanting, makes memberſhip, and conſtitutes Churches, which ſome of our brethren (who are Presbyterians) have and doe deny.

Fifthly, are not ſome Pariſh Churches conſtituted ſometimes of members of other Pariſh Churches, when many perſons have left their own places, and removed into other Pariſhes without any conſent? Yet this hath been judged pious, at leaſt honeſt, ſometimes upon one ground, and ſomtimes upon another, ſome to have liberty of conſcience in ſuch places whither they have removed; others to have better preaching; others to meet with better ſociety; and others for better worldly accommodation: What Chriſtian knoweth not well that this hath been common?

Sixthly, that a Church may conſiſt of perſons that have been members of other Churches, if ſuch perſons have been orderly diſmiſſed from ſuch Churches, and have come away with conſent, will be granted of all: For none hold Church-memberſhip to be undiſſolveable. The queſtion then will be, Whether the members of Churches may depart without conſent? 1. According to the preſent conſtitution of Churches, they may: For they come in without conſent, meerly by removing their habitations; therefore they may ſo depart. 2. If conſent muſt be had, from whom muſt it be ſought? From the people, or from the Miniſter? That the people have any power either to give or with-hold their conſent, hath not been granted heretofore: That the Miniſters conſent ſhould be neceſſary for the departing of every member, when yet himſelfe (it may be) hath had his entrance amongſt them, without their conſent, ſeemes to be unreaſonable. 3. Suppoſe conſent hath been ſought, and cannot be obtained, may not members withdraw their memberſhip in ſome caſes without conſent? Suppoſe ſome Ordinance be corruptly diſpenſed, without all hope of redreſſe, and that men muſt partake therein without having any power ſo much as to witneſſe againſt ſuch corruptions, unleſſe they will be accounted factious, and diſturbers of the Churches peace; or that by remaining where ſuch corruptions are, they be in danger to be leavened with the corrupt lump of ſuch a Church of which they be members;1 Cor. 5.6. what muſt they now doe? Doth not that Rule that bids a Church purge out one perſon that may endanger the leavening of the whole lump, (when there are no other means to prevent ſuch an evill) give warrant to every member that is endangered to be leavened by the lump, to withdraw from ſuch a lump, (becauſe power to purge out the lump they have none) when there is no other means to prevent the evill?2 Cor. 13.10. Church memberſhip is for edification of the members, not for deſtruction.

But you ſtumble at this, becauſe they converted them not. To which we reply, Perſons whom the Apoſtles converted, were ordinarily committed to others to be further edified, and the ordinary Paſtors and Elders of the primitive times, did almoſt perpetually build upon anothers foundation. The perſons that watered for the moſt part, were not the ſame that planted. In Acts 11.20, 21. we read of a great converſion wrought by the preaching of the ſcattered Diſciples, but we read not that they were gathered into Churchſtate, till Barnabas was ſent unto them; and both Barnabas and Paul aſſembled with that Church and taught it, which yet they converted not. And in Acts 19.1, 9. Paul found twelve Diſciples (converted to his hand, though not fully inſtructed) and gathered them into the Church which he planted at Epheſus. But (Brother) how comes this to be a ſtone to ſtumble at? If you hold a ſucceſſion of Paſtors in the ſame Church, the ſucceſſors may feed a flock which their predeceſſors converted, and not themſelves. And if you hold tranſplantation of members from one Church to another, then they may feed the members which were of other Churches, which themſelves converted not.

But you will ſay, This muſt be orderly done, and with conſent. Anſw. No ſuch order can be expected, where no ſuch order hath been wont to be exerciſed. If any godly perſon hath removed from one Countrey to another, and planted himſelfe in Mancheſter, have the Miniſters or people whom he left, ſent after him, or challenged him as theirs? Or have the Miniſters or people whom he hath come to, rejected him, as none of theirs, becauſe not orderly delivered into their hands? Suppoſe the end of his removall was communion with a better people, or better miniſtery, Doth this make it the worſe, or more unwarrantable? Is it lawfull to remove to a fatter ſoile, when the place a man lives in, is more barren? Is it lawfull to remove to a purer aire, when the aire one hath lived in, is worſe, and diſtempers the body? And is it not lawfull to remove to a purer Church? The purer any Church is, doth not Chriſt take the more delight in it? And doth he not deſire to be there moſt? And why may not perſons deſire to plant themſelves where Chriſt gives moſt of his preſence? And if one man may unite to ſuch a Church that is purer, may not many agree together to make ſuch a Church that may be purer? And this is all the gathering of Churches that we know of, that is either taught or practiſed.

But the exception is, That there is a removall of perſons to other Churches, without the removall of their habitations. But why ſhould this be blamed? 1. If diſtinction of Pariſhes by bounds and limits, be not Jure divino, where is then the fault? Selden of Tithes. 2. Was there not liberty within this very Kingdome fromerly, for perſons to pay their tythes to what Miniſter they pleaſed? And conſequently, they were not tied to the Pariſh they lived in, but might chuſe their own ſociety and Paſtor (and hence it is, that there are ſome pieces of Pariſhes in ſome places ſix or eight miles diſtant from other parts of it, and whole Pariſhes betwixt.) Why therefore now ſhould there be an abridgement? 3. There are many inconveniences both to Miniſter and people, ariſing hence: 1. The Paſtors of Pariſh Churches are onely at certainty what houſes they have under their Miniſtery, not what perſons: for they may goe which way they will leaving their houſes, but their houſes and lands are ſixed, and they ſhall alwayes find them there. 2. The members of theſe Churches, though they have been bred up under the wing of ſuch Churches and Paſtors thereof, and have taken a love and liking to the ſame, yet if they remove from their habitation but a ſtones caſt ſometimes, they muſt be broken off thereby from ſuch Churches in point of Memberſhip. 3. A mans habitation may be neerer to ſome Church that is out of that pariſh, and ſo far off from his own Pariſh Church that he cannot conveniently repaire thereunto, muſt he yet be bound to his own Pariſh Church by his habitation? 4. Suppoſe a man have many houſes in ſeverall Pariſhes, and would deſire ſometimes to live in one, and ſometimes in another, muſt he needs alter his Church memberſhip as oft as he changeth his habitation? Or can he be a member in all the Pariſhes where he hath houſes?

The Apoſtles (being not of men, Anſwer. nor by men, but by Jeſus Chriſt, Gal. 1.1.)This was proper to the Apoſtles, or Apoſtolick men Anſw. to 9. Poſ. p 76. T.W. to W.R. p. 67. did preach not onely without but againſt the peremptory command and Lawes of the Magigiſtrate, Acts 4.17, 18, 21. & 5.28.

So did the ordinary Paſtors and Teachers of thoſe times, as well as the Apoſtles, and many of them were martyred for their labour, which yet had not an immediate call from Chriſt, as the Apoſtles had. Reply. Therefore it was not an Apoſtolick buſineſſe as you would make it.

But you profeſſe not ſuch a latitude of oppoſition againſt Magiſtracy. Anſwer.

We profeſſe ſubjection to Jeſus Chriſt, Reply. without any oppoſition at all againſt Magiſtracie, though you would ſuggeſt the contrary: onely thus, If Magiſtrates command any thing contrary to Chriſt, we rather chuſe to deliver up our perſons into their hands, then our conſciences and practices unto their commands. And this we hope cannot be interpreted an oppoſing of Magiſtracy.

Nor doe you hold (I ſuppoſe) that our godly non-conformable Brethren ſuſpended by the Biſhops, Anſwer. or New-England Miniſters depoſed by their Churches, (to ſay nothing of Miniſters deprived by the Parliament for Malignancie) are bound by the Apoſtles example to execute their Miniſtery in the Churches, notwithſtanding ſuch ſuſpenſion or depoſition, &c.

We conceive you have not equally yoked the Biſhops, Reply. New-England Churches, and the Parliament together: For 1. The Parliament challengeth not the execution of Eccleſiaſtical cenſure, and yet can tell how to puniſh malignancie in Miniſters or any others. 2. The Biſhops have laid claim to it, and exerciſed it without any juſt or true title to it. Therefore though godly non-conformable Miniſters, might in prudence give place to violence (eſpecially when their people deſerted them, and Pulpit doores were ſhut againſt them,) yet in conſcience, and in obedience to ſuch ſuſpenſions and depoſitions, they neither did (neither ought to have done) deſiſt from the execution of their office. 3. Miniſters that are cenſured by a lawful power, where ever it lies (whether in their own Congregationall Churches, or in a Presbytery (for we will not diſpute that now in this place) whether the cenſure be inflicted juſtly or unjuſtly,) ought to ſubmit thereto, and forbeare the execution of their Miniſtery in that place, till they be reſtored again; elſe Eccleſiaſticall government, which is Chriſts ordinance in the Church, (as Civill government is in the Common-wealth,) might come to be undermined and ſubverted by pretence of unrighteouſneſſe in the managing of it, or the peace of the Church be diſturbed.

But wherein makes this againſt the Poſition? We conceive that thoſe very Paſtors and Teachers of the Primitive Churches, which continued to preach, though the expreſſe command of the Heathen Magiſtrate was againſt it, leſt they ſhould offend Chriſt by deſiſting, were yet taken off from preaching when ſilenced by their own Churches, and that upon the ſame ground, leſt they ſhould offend Chriſt in perſiſting. But you goe on to ſay:

Had you ſuch an immediate commiſſion ſealed from Heaven, Anſwer. and ſuch infallible direction of the Holy Ghoſt, as the Apoſtles had, you might more boldly imitate them therein; eſpecially if the caſe of living under a Chriſtian Magiſtrate intending, endeavouring and conſuſting with Divines, about the Reformation of the Church, and of living under a Heathen Magiſtrate, were not much different.

1. The warrantablenes ariſeth not from the immediatneſſe of the Commiſſion, Reply. but from the truth and reality of it. If a Commiſſion be as really ſealed by Chriſt, and from heaven, thought not ſo immediatly as the Apoſtles was, yet it binds as truly to the execution of the work of it, (till it be called in,) as the immediate doth.

2. We allow the caſe to be much different: For when we live under a Chriſtian Magiſtrate, inteuding and endeavouring Reformation, we are raiſed up unto an expectation of having all the wayes of Chriſt countenanced and confirmed by his authoritie, (which would be a very bleſſed thing) which we have no ſuch ground to look for living under a Heathen Magiſtrate. But how the caſe is different in your ſenſe, we underſtand not: For the Chriſtianity of the Magiſtrate, or his piety and ſedulity, in intending and endeavouring Reformation, cannot take any perſon or perſons off from their dutie, which they would be bound unto, if a Heathen Magiſtrate bore ſway. The Magiſtrate and the Miniſters, and the people, muſt each doe their part, becauſe each ſtands engaged for himſelfe to Jeſus Chriſt, unto the work of his own place. The impediments that come from any unto other, cannot be a diſcharge unto any.

Would our Brethren in New England allow a Presbyterian Church, Anſwer. or but a new Independent Church to be erected in New England, againſt the will and mind of the Magiſtrates and Churches there? T. W. to W.R. p. 31.

1. The queſtion is not what they would allow, Reply. but what a company of people planted there (which cannot without unfaithfulneſſe to their own light, be ſubject to any other government ſave the Presbyterian) ought to doe. Whether if their livelihood lie there, and that they cannot remove, they are not bound to keep Faith and a good Conſcience, what ever it be that they ſuffer for it?

2. Our beliefe of New England is this, that they would ſuffer the godly and peaceable to live amongſt them, though they diſſer in point of Church-government from them: Becauſe ſo farre as we could ever learn, they never baniſhed any, but unpeaceableneſſe together with deſperate erroneouſneſſe, was the cauſe of it.

Our Brethren at London (I heare) doe hold it (at leaſt) unſeaſonable, Anſwer. to gather Churches now: how their opinion and yours are reconcileable, I ſee not.

If you had ſaid, Reply. ſome of them did once think it unſeaſonable, you had not much miſſed it. But what croſſing is in this, which ſhould need a reconciliation? The Poſition ſaith, it cannot be unlawfull, the Brethren ſay it was unſeaſonable for that time. Many things may be unſeaſonable (at leaſt in opinion) and yet not unlawfull.

It may be the Browniſts, Anſwer. Anabaptiſts, Antinomians, Familiſts, and other groſſe Hereticks and Schiſmaticks in old or new England, doe alſo pretend the Doctrine and practice of the Apoſtles, for the ſetting up of their Churches; yet our godly and conſcientious Divines doe therein oppoſe them.

If groſſe Heretikes and Schiſmaticks doe ſo pretend, Reply. they muſt be found to be liers, and ſo their practice will be found to be unwarrantable, whether they have or have not the commandement of man; yet this will hinder nothing, but that thoſe which not in pretence, but in truth, have the Doctrine and practiſe of the Apoſtles with them, may lawfully practiſe according to it, though they want the commandement of man to warrant it. The falſe Apoſtles pretended to be true Apoſtles, but the Church of Epheſus tried them, and found them liers, and rejected them; and yet accepted of thoſe that were Apoſtles of Chriſt indeed.

POSITION II.

Seven, eight, or nine, may make a Church. In Adams and Noahs time there was not above ſeven or eight will you deny them the being of a Church? What will you make of Chriſt and of his Family, which were not above twelve beſides himſelfe, and of the firſt foundationals of the Church of Epheſus, which were about twelve? The number in the firſt beginning of the greateſt Church was ſmall enough in compariſon, Acts 1.15.

The caſe of Adam and Noah was extraordinary: Anſwer. there were no more in the world, and therefore could be no more in the Church.

You grant in an extraordinary caſe, ſeven, eight, Reply. or nine may make a Church: The Poſition ſaith not, that more may not make a Church, but if there be but ſo many, the truth and being of a Church cannot be denied them. We ſay further, that ſuch a number may but make a Church in the firſt foundation, or while there be no more perſons ſitted for memberſhip. For when more Saints by calling offer themſelves, they are to be received, and ſo the Church will be increaſed, Acts 19.7, 8, 9, 18.19, 20.

Adam and his wife, Anſwer. and firſt ſonnes, yea Adam himſelfe was the Church, if then there was any; yet you hold not that two or three, yea one may make a Church.

We conceive that the Church is Chriſts body, Reply. and that every body conſiſts of members; If all were one member, where were the body? How therefore one Adam could have been a Church, we underſtand not. Put this we hold, that look how few have ever made a Church ſince the beginning of the world, the ſame number may ſtill make a Church. And the reaſon is, becauſe God hath not preciſely determined what number doth make a Church.

Cain lawfully married his own ſiſter, may other men doe the like? Anſwer.

Have we not a manifeſt prohibition of ſuch marriages in the Scripture? Reply. ſo that though ſometimes they were lawfull, yet now they are not lawfull. But what Scripture have you againſt this, that what number of beleevers have formerly been a Church, ſuch a number may yet be a Church? And no greater number is required to the ſimple being of a Church.

Twelve are more then ſeven or eight, Anſwer. and an hundred and twenty are a competent number; yet it appeareth not that they were called or counted a Church, till they were more increaſed.

Firſt, Reply. though twelve be more then ſeven or eight, yet twelve is not more in the truth of conſtitution of a Church, then ſeven or eight; Is there more of the eſſence of a Church in twelve then in ſeven or eight? [Except you mean it ſo, you declare onely in ſaying ſo, that you can number twelve.] And if you ſo underſtand it, we ſhall demand proof of you for it.

Secondly, the Scripture determines not what number is competent, and what not competent to the being of a Church. How come you then ſo to paſſe your verdict about it; when further you adde, That it appeares not they were called or accounted a Church, till they were more increaſed? that is, till thoſe three thouſand perſons were added to them, Acts 2.41. If ſo, are you not then the more preſumptuous in ſaying, that an hundred and twenty are a competent number to make a Church? Notwithſtanding if you will, you may ſee them a Church before they were ſo increaſed: For they performed one great act of a Church, in electing an Officer to be over the Church, Acts 1.23. And when three thouſand were added to them, they came into their ſtate; and if their ſtate were not Church ſtate, then neither were they made a Church by this addition: for let three thouſand be added to no Church, and they are ſtill no Church; which to affirme, were ſlat againſt the Scripture, Acts 2.47.

If there were no more Beleevers in Epheſus then twelve (as there was, Anſwer. viz, Aquila and Priſcilla, which knew no more then Johns Baptiſme, Acts 18.26. with 24.25. if not others) yet there were more in feruſalem then an hundred and twenty, even five hundred brethren at once 1 Cor. 15.6..

Firſt, though Aquila and Priſcilla were at Epheſus, Reply. yet they were but ſojourners there, as they were alſo in many other places, ſometimes at Rome, ſometimes at Corinth, as appeares from Acts 18.2. Rom. 16.3. But to what place they did belong, is not certain.

Secondly, your five hundred brethren at Jeruſalem is as ſlightly collected from 1 Cor. 15.6. For, 1. doth the Apoſtle ſay, that he was ſeen of thoſe five hundred in Jeruſalem? He ſhewed himſelfe in Galilee, and ſome other places, as well as in Jeruſalem. 2. Though the place of manifeſting himſelfe might be Jeruſalem, muſt the perſons therefore be of Jeruſalem? Why not appertaining unto Judea? Or ſuppoſe of Jeruſalem, why might they not be diſperſed before Chriſts aſcenſion? For preſent afterwards, when they choſe an Apoſtle, they were not, which was yet a Church action: and without doubt, the major part of the Church would have been preſent at it.

Adam and Noah with their Families, Anſwer. (if they were Churches) they were but Domeſticall Churches, not Congregationall.

Domeſticall Churches enjoying Congregationall Ordinances, Reply. and congregationall Churches, are not divers ſpecies of Churches, neither doe they differ in their nature or kind, but in quantity, as one Congregation differeth from another, as one ſmall Countrey Chappell differeth from a numerous Towne Church.

What will ye make of Chriſt and his Diſciples, Anſwer. a Church diſtinct from the Jewiſh? You know Chriſt did not make a new Church, or gather men into it, but lived and died a member of the Jewiſh Church. Anſwer to to 32. q. p. 14. Had they been called a Church, as ſome houſholds are in the new Teſtament Phile. 2. witnes T.W. to W.R., you had had ſome more pretext, and yet they are but a Domeſticall Church, &c.

1. Whether Chriſt died a member of the Jewiſh Church, Reply. is queſtionable: But that he gathered certain perſons to him, and that he inſtituted Baptiſme and the Supper amongſt them, is moſt certain, which were Ordinances of the Goſpel Church, and he either thereby prepared them for, or laid the foundation of a Goſpel Church before his death. For immediatly after his aſcenſion they were a Goſpel Church, as appeareth from Acts 1.14, 15.

2. For the denomination of Church, we paſſe not much, whether we meet with it, or not; provided that we find the reality of a Church among any perſons.

3. Many Domeſticall Churches may be in one Congregationall in your ſenſe, but not in ours. We deny and put you to prove that two or three converted in a Family, enjoying ſome Chriſtian Ordinances, but no Church Ordinances, are called a Church.

It is an Argument you will not own; Anſwer. ſeven, eight, twelve, may make a Domeſticall Church, therefore they may make a Congregationall.

We acknowledge not any ſuch diſtinction of Congregationall Church, Reply. and Domeſticall, as you preſſe after: But ſay, That the foundation of a Congregationall Church may be laid in one Family, and may ſpread unto many. It may be laid in ſeven or eight, and may grow up to an hundred, or a thouſand, or to as many as can meet together conſtantly unto edification in one place. The Church in Abrahams Family, was the ſame which was in the Families of all his ſonnes, and in the Families of their children after them, & which afterwards grew up into a nation. And though the Goſpel Church is not now Nationall, as the Jewiſh was, yet a congregation of many Families may ſpring out of a Church of one Family, more eaſily then a Nation did formerly. And if ſeven, eight, or twelve may not make a congregationall Church in our apprehenſion, what have you been conſuting all this while?

If ſeven or eight may make a Church, Anſwer. then two hundred perſons in a Citie may well make twenty diſtinct Churches, and by conſequence ſo many Independent Judieatures.

Firſt, this collection is made to bring an Odium upon congregationall Churches; but it may be thus retorted, foure or five in a houſe may make a family, therefore three hundred in an houſe may make ſixtie diſtinct families. Foure or five in a family may make a Domeſtick Church (ſay you,) then three hundred in a family may make ſixty Domeſtick Churches; two thouſand in a Field may make an Army, therefore two hundred thouſand in a Field, may make ten diſtinct Armies under ſo many independent Generals.

Secondly, we have declared our ſelves before, that ſeven or eight may make a Church in the firſt foundation, and whilſt there are no more perſons fitted and that as more in that place ſhall be converted, the Church, of them, is to be increaſed. And we are utterly againſt the unneceſſary multiplication of Churches, as conceiving ſuch ſmall Churches inconſiſtent to Chriſts ends, which is edification by Paſtors, Teachers, Ruling Elders, Deacons, which he hath given to his Church. But that a Church of ſeven or eight ſhould require ſo many Officers, or be able to maintain them, we cannot underſtand. And we perceive from the patternes preſented in the New Teſtament, that Churches in cities which at firſt were ſmall, grew great by the daily addition of others to them, Acts 1.14.15. with Acts 2.41. & 19.7, 8, 9, with 18, 19, 20. Acts 20.17.28. So that we would not have beleevers of one citie, be of ſo many Churches, if one congregation will conveniently hold them, except there be ſome eminent reaſon for it. But though there ſhould be many Churches conſiſting of a few members: yet without Officers amongſt them, we doe not aſſert them to be Independent Judicatures.

POSITION III.

A viſible Church in the new Teſtament conſiſts of no more in number then may meet in one place, in one Congegation,The like you have, Anſwer to 32 q p. 9. 1 Corinth. 11.20. & 14.23.

If you ſeek for Congregations meeting for prayer, hearing the Word, Anſwer. Sacraments in one place, or that they were called by the name of Church, or that all Beleevers in ſome Cities and Countries (when they might) did meet in one place, I will not contend.

We plead for congregations meeting together, Reply. not for prayer, hearing the Word, Sacraments alone, but for the executing of cenſures alſo, 1 Cor. 5.4. which you leave out, as if Church cenſures belonged not to congregations, as thoſe Ordinances you mention do. And we ſay, that there is no ſacred Worſhip or Inſtitution, preſcribed in the Goſpel, which may not be obſerved to have been exerciſed in, or appertained unto the congregations. And theſe congregations are called Churches in the Scripture. And further we ſay, not onely that all beleevers in ſome cities did meet together in one place, but that there can no inſtance be given in all the new Teſtament, that Chriſtians ordinarily meeting together in divers places, are yet called one Church, except where Church is taken improperly, & in a diſtributive ſenſe. And therfore in cities, where they might and did meet together, they are called a Church, and in countries where they could not all meet in one, but in divers places, they are called Churches

Many ſuch Churches or Congregations we have in England. Anſwer.

We ſay ſo too, Reply. and add, that either we have ſuch in England, or none at all. For what other beſides ſuch, can you ſhew us?

And the Beleevers in every Chriſtian Church, Anſwer. even in the Church of England, and in the Jewiſh Church alſo, might and did at firſt meet.

1. Reply. Can you ſhew that the Beleevers of any Chriſtian church, met onely at firſt in one place, and then afterwards (being increaſed) they met not in one place, but many places, except at ſome time of hot perſecution?

2. If Beleevers in England ever met together in one place, it was when there was but one congregationall Church in England. As for the Jewiſh Church in it,Exo. 34.23.24 Deut. 16.2.16 both at firſt, and afterwards, all the males wore to meet by ſpeciall appointment in one place, at ſome ſeaſons, though not alwayes, and in ſome ordinances, though not all, to ſhew that they were but one Church.

To ſay nothing that all the people of the Jewes being about ſix hundred thouſand, Anſwer. are called one Congregation, and are frequently in the old Teſtament ſaid to come together, and that One Myriade is 10000. Myriads did come together, Act. 21.22.

They were one church, and therefore did, and ought to congregate together, and are therefore called one congregation; Reply. and yet neither they, nor thoſe Myriads ſpoken of, Acts 21.22. did then, nor can ſuch a number now, ordinarily come together. Now our Poſition is to be underſtood, that a Goſpel viſible church conſiſts of no more then can ordinarily come together into one place, nor of ſo many as ſometimes in an extraordinary way have met together.

How will you make out this Inference, The Church of Corinth did meet in one place, and ſo did Antioch, Jeruſalem, Anſwer. therefore no Church in the new Teſtament muſt conſiſt of more then can meet in one place?

You muſt take the Argument in the ſcope of it, Reply. ſuch and ſuch Churches did meet conſtantly in one place, and there is no mention of any Church which did not meet together in one place, therefore no Church in the new Teſtament doth conſiſt of more then can meet in one place; the Conſequent is now good: For we think that patterns that are uncontrolled, either by precepts or other patterns, have doctrine in them, and do teach how things ought to be carried.

To ſay there was a Church in Adams houſe, and in Noahs, Anſwer. and alſo in Philemons, Aquila's and Priſcilla's houſes, therefore the Church in the old and new Teſtament muſt be domeſticall, is an inconſequent illation, contrary to plain Scripture.

We confeſſe it, and for the reaſon you render; Reply. becauſe contrary to plain Scripture. Now if you could have ſhewed us the repugnancy to plain Scripture of the inference which you oppugne, wee ſhould have confeſſed a great overſight in it. It is one thing (and more warrantable) to derive an inference from patterns, when they all run one way, and be patterns of one kind, and another thing (and leſſe ſafe) to draw an inference from patterns, when there is diverſity of kinds of them about the ſame thing.

Is not the Argument as good, if it run thus? All the believing Corinthians were of the Church of Corinth, 1 Cor. 1.1. 2 Cor. 6.11. Anſwer. The Smyrnians and Laodiceans of the Church of Smyrna and Laodicea, Col. 2.1. & 4.16. Rev. 2.8. & 3.14. Whether they were more or fewer. (Hence in every city, and every church, ſeem to expound one another, Acts 14.21.23. with Tit. 1.5. Acts 16.4, 5.) And it cannot be ſhewed that any church, how numerous ſoever it grew, was divided into two, or more churches, therefore the believers in any one city or town, may be but one church, whether they can meet in one place or no.

No (brother) not ſo; Reply. becauſe as appeares to us, there is light of Scripture gain-ſaying it. For though all the believing Corinthians were of the church of Corinth (which yet you ſeem to contradict in the after part of your Anſwer, while you ſay that Gaius the Corinthian was the hoſt of another church, beſides that of Corinth, which if true, then all believing Corinthians were not of the church of Corinth) and though in all other cities all the believers of them, were of the church in each of them, yet ſuch an inference would be naught, becauſe it was ſo for a ſpeciall reaſon, and in regions and countries where that reaſon took not place, it was otherwiſe. All the Believers in Jeruſalem were of one church there, becauſe they were not ſo many, but that they might come conſtantly together into one place, and did ſo: But all the Believers in Judea were not of one church there, but of many churches, becauſe they could not meet conſtantly in one place. And if believers in cities, meeting in divers places, are yet but one church, for this reaſon, becauſe they were of one city (as you would ſeem to inferre,) then ſhew but any probable reaſon, why believers meeting in divers places in countries, may not be one church, becauſe they were of one countrey, eſpecially the believers of Judea being but a ſmall countrey, and under the ſame civil government. The reaſon why city and church expound one another was this, becauſe there was not more converted in a city then could meet together in a congregation or church. And when you can ſhew us out of the new Teſtament that believers were ſo multiplied in any city, as that they could not all meet in one place, then will we ſhew you, that ſuch churches were divided into more churches.

Paul writes not only to them which might, Anſwer. and did meet in one place, but to all that in every place (not throughout the world, at appeares, 2 Cor. 1.1. written to the ſame perſons, 1 Cor. 5.1, 2. with 2 Cor. 2.1, 2. neither is this a Catholique Epiſtle, but that in all Achaia) call upon the Name of the Lord.

Paul writes and ſends this, Reply. and applieth it to the Corinthianss, and to them alone, as appears, almoſt in every chapter of the Epiſtle and in many of the verſes of each chapter. For all along, proper and peculiar things belonging to the Corinthians, and not to the Achaians, nor Saints in all the world, are ſpoken of in commendation and diſcommendation, and proper reproofes, directions, exhortations are given; yet he intended it for the uſe and benefit of all Achaia, and of the whole world alſo. And it may as properly be called, a Catholique Epiſtle, as an Achaian Epiſtle, for the uſe redounds to the world, as well as to Achaia. And if it be not ſo, how can it be ſaid to be Canonicall Scripture? And how comes it to be the foundation of our Sermons, that wee preach out of it?

Beſides, doth all in every place, and Saints in all Achaia expound one another? What Commentator hath ever ſaid ſo? And doth 1 Cor. 5.1. compared with 2 Cor. 2.1. inforce ſuch an expoſition? That which you would ſuggeſt, is that hee writes to the ſame Corinthians, in the ſecond Epiſtle, that he writes unto in the firſt, for more your Scriptures import not; and wee grant it. But the inference you draw is this, ergo, all in every place here, and Saints in all Achaia, are all one; a ſtrange conſequence. If the ſecond Epiſtle be written to the ſame perſons as the firſt, Why do you not expound the ſubject perſons of the ſecond, by the ſubject perſons of the firſt, and ſay, though the Saints in all Achaia be mentioned only, yet under them the Salnts every where in the world are meant, as in the firſt Epiſtle it is expreſſed. This would have been a more naturall expoſition.

But we ſhall declare the Apoſtles naked ſcope, as we underſtand it. The Corinthians (not the Achaians in generall, for the Cenchreans joyned not with them, that wee reade of) had written to Paul, Chapt. 7.1. and Paul had received ſundry reports concerning them (not concerning all the Saints in Achaia, for of the Cenchreans hee had heard nothing, that wee reade of) chap. 1.11. & 5.1. and hereupon he writes unto them; but becauſe this letter might be of common uſe and profit, and eſpecially to the Saints which bordered next upon them, therefore he would have the Achaians their neighbours to peruſe it; yea, the Saints every where to reade it for their edification. Therefore in both his Epiſtles hee mentioneth the Corinthians, as the proper ſubject thereof; but the Achaians he mentioneth but in one, and the Saints every where in another. And he brings them in collaterally, rather then directly; it is to the church of Corinth, but with the Saints in Achaia, and withall, that in every place call on the name of the Lord Jeſus, as it were on the bye. And this is Pareus his expoſition upon 1 Cor. 1.2. and he takes occaſion of confuting the vain conceit of Pighius and other Jeſuits, becauſe they would have Pauls Epiſtles to extend to the particular uſes of thoſe times, and not to Saints in all places and ages.

And therefore thoſe words, Anſwer. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , (beſides, that being but a ſuppoſition, they put nothing in being, and may fitly be tranſlated, in id ipſum, for the ſame, or, in one, which, though they met in an hundred places, they might do, Acts 4.26. with Pſal. 2.2. 1 Chron. 12.17.) prove no more that thoſe to whom Paul writ, were of one congregation, then James calling the twelve tribes ſeattered abroad, one Aſſembly, Synagogue, or Church, Jam. 1.1. with 2.2. & 5.14. or Pauls mentioning the Hebrewes aſſembling themſelves together, Heb. 10.25. doth prove that the ſcattered Hebrewes were no more then one particular congregation, which might, and did meet in one place.

1. Reply. You give us another expoſition of the words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and would referre them to an identity of things, and not of place, they were together in one thing, but not together in one place. But,

1. Theſe words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , are ſometimes conjoyned with the Verb, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as 1 Cor. 11.20. & 14.23. and then I hope it will not be denied, but that place is principally meant.

2. Except the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , do hold forth a coming together into one place, their meeting at all (any of them) together, though in an hundred places will come to be overthrown. For what gives more light to the coming together of any of them at all into one place, then theſe words? If the words do carry any reſpect to place, then ſeeing it is ſaid, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the whole church, they will be in force to prove, that the whole church came together into one place.

3. When theſe words are found without 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as Act. 2.44. is not the ſenſe darkned, if not overthrown by ſuch an interpetation? And all that believed were together, and had all things common; ſhall it be thus rendered, And all that believed were in one thing, or minde? So they might be, though every one were in his own houſe, and none of them together in the ſame place. But how doth it cohere with the next words, and had all things common, if they met not together in the ſame place?

Beſides, will thoſe words bear ſuch an expoſition in Acts 3.1. Now Peter and John went up together into the Temple, ſhall it be thus tranſlated, They went up to the Temple for the ſame thing? not together in company, but for one end? then they might go one after another, if they only met in an oneneſſe of buſineſſe, and not of place; but ſeverall paſſages in the ſtory do flatly contradict it, and do ſhew that they aſcended together in company one of another into the Temple.

But Acts 4 26. compared with Pſal. 2.2. is alledged to confirm the expoſition of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . To which wee anſwer, that wee ſee nothing, but that the conſpirators againſt Chriſt, met in one place: For, Pſal. 2. ſaith, They took counſell together; and how can that better be done, then by meeting in one place? Acts 4.27.5. ſaith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which without 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , ſignifies, they came together into one place; and they might do it eaſily, becauſe all the perſons mentioned were in one city; and the ſtory makes it plain, that the Rulers and the people of Iſrael, and Pontius Pilate and the Gentiles gathered together; and there is nothing repugnant, but that Herod might meet with them, eſpecially, ſeeing that we reade that Pilate and he were made friends.

4. Wee do not ſtand in need of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to prove that the churches of the Goſpel met in one congregation frequently; for there are other words that carry it cleerly, as may appear from Acts 2.46. & 5.12. & 14.27. & 15.22.30. & 1 Cor. 5.4. and 1 Cor. 11.17.

2. Though you yeeld the tranſlation of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that it reſpecteth place, yet you ſay, it proves no more, that thoſe that Paul writ to, were of one congregation, then James's calling the twelve Tribes ſcattered one Aſſembly; To which we reply, that there is a palpable difference, betwixt the places alledged by us, to prove a meeting in one place, and thoſe alledged by you againſt it from James, and from the Hebrewes: For,

1. Your places are not ſo full for a meeting in one place; and,

2. James 1.1. contradicts and makes impoſſible ſuch a meeting of all the Hebrewes in one place: And therefore we muſt take it in a diſtributive ſenſe, If there come into your Aſſemblie, that is, into any of your Aſſemblies; ſend for the Elders of the Church, that is, of the church he is of. Not forſaking the aſſembling of your ſelves together, that is, no one with his own church that he is of, or each church with it ſelf.

But there is no need of any ſuch figure in the Texts which wee alledge, but the literall ſenſe may paſſe; and in ſome places muſt paſſe, or there will be no ſenſe: For,

1. The perſons which wee ſay came together, they might do it, they were neither ſo many, nor ſo remote, but they might. And if the Holy Ghoſt ſay they did, wee muſt believe it, and not ſeek a figure, when wee are not enforced to it.

2. The Text, in 1 Cor. 14.23. ſaith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , when the whole church comes together; Now let the Reader judge, whether any of your Texts have any ſuch fulneſs of words in them to ſway to a meeting in one place, as this one Text hath, which we have brought. Some of your own ſide have been convinced with the evidence of this Text, that the church of Corinth was but one congregation, and came together into one place.

Eſpecially, Anſwer. ſeeing the Apoſtle writes to the Achaians, 2 Cor. 1.1. 1 Cor. 16.1 with 2 Cor. 9.2. & 11.10. Now there were other churches in that Region, at leaſt two, Corinth and Cenchrea, Rom. 16.1. To ſay nothing of the church whereof Gaius the Corinthian was the Hoſt.

1. Reply. Paul writes to the Achaians no otherwiſe then hee doth to the Saints which call on the name of the Lord Jeſus every where, 1 Cor. 1.1. with 2 Cor. 1.1.

2. Hee writes not to them as making one church with the Corinthians, for hee mentioneth them with a note of diſtinction from the Corinthians, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c.

The places which you would have compared, will not enforce any ſuch thing. For, hee might have a ſcope that the other churches in Achaia, from the Epiſtle hee ſent to Corinth, (which they were to peruſe, as the Laodicean church was to reade the Epiſtle written to the Coloſſians) ſhould be ſtirred up to the ſame duty of contribution, &c. So that the oneneſſe of the Congregation of the church of Corinth is not yet infringed.

4. Doth the Apoſtle write to the Achaians, and were there in that Region two churches at leaſt, Corinth and Cenchrea; why then doth not the Apoſtle ſay, To the Churches of Achaia? as in all other ſuch caſes he doth, To the churches of Galatia, The churches of Judea, Macedonia, Aſia? Why is the church of Corinth mentioned, and the church at Genchrea wholly ſilenced in the firſt Epiſtle, and not mentioned directly and by name in the ſecond?

Hence there is mention of churches to which the women hee writes to (for, he ſaith, Your women, not women, or all women) did reſort. Anſwer. Or how elſe could they keep ſelence in the churches? 1 Cor. 14.34.

1. Theſe Epiſtles were written for the uſe and direction of all churches, and therefore the Apoſtle nameth churches, Reply. becauſe this was to be a ſtanding rule for all churches; and by your women, the Corinthian women, were primarily meant, to whom the Epiſtle was ſent; yet in regard of uſe, not they alone, but they with the women of Achaia, and all that call on the name of the Lord Jeſus in every place. It was a command intended for univerſall direction for the women of all other churches.

2. Women were wont to go from one church to another upon occaſion, as Rom. 16.1. Phebe from Cenchrea went to Rome, ſo might the Corinthian women go to other churches, and in all churches muſt keep ſilence.

3. Though it he ſaid your women, yet it is not ſaid your churches, but in the churches; that is, churches every where; and the verſe before gives ſome light hereto: For hee had ſaid, As in all the churches of the Saints. And he addes, Let your women keep ſilence in the churches; What churches? The churches of the Saints every where.

POSITION IV.

The viſible Church in the new Teſtament is not Nationall, as the Iewes was; hence we reade of the Churches of Galatia, Macedonia, ludea, not Church of Galatia, 1 Cor. 16.1. 2 Cor. 8.1.

We ſay not, that the Chriſtian Church is Nationall, Anſwer. as was the Jewiſh church, viz. that it hath a nationall Tabernacle, Temple, or Houſe of God, and ſolemne worſhip peculiar to it, to which all the members, or all the males muſt ſometimes reſort, towards which the abſent are to pray, and in which the Prieſts in their courſes do miniſter unto God.

1. Why do you yet find fault with the Poſition, Reply. when you agree with us in the ſame?

2. Why do you not lay down in what ſenſe the Chriſtian church is nationall, and in what ſenſe not nationall?

3. If in any proper manner of ſpeaking you will have the Chriſtian church nationall, meaning by nationall, the Saints that live within ſuch a nation, as diſtinguiſhed from the Saints of another nation, in countrey and place of habitation, without any othertie amongſt them, being all of them parts only of the Myſticall or Catholique church (as wee know the Sea that waſheth the Britiſh ſhores is called the Britiſh Sea, and that which waſheth the Belgick ſhores, is called the Belgick Sea, though they be not diſtinct Seas, but parts of the great Ocean; yet in reference to an adjunct of place they run by, they receive diſtinct denominations, and by a Synecdoche, the parts carry the names of the whole:) in this ſenſe we do yeeld the expoſition or phraſe of nationall church. But if you mean by nationall church, an inſtituted church of nationall extent in point of power and juriſdiction, upon which particular congregations within that nation do depend; wee want light, that there is, or ought to be any ſuch church in the times of the Goſpel.

For, if there ought to be ſuch a nationall church, (for patterns we have none, as your ſelf do confeſſe) then in this church there muſt be ſome nationall combination, nationall place for convention, nationall Paſtor upon which it muſt depend, and nationall Ordinances.

For, ſeeing there was no ſuch church extant, when the Goſpel was written, nor rules left (for you would have alledg'd them (we ſuppoſe) had there been any) how all things muſt be carried in ſuch a nationall church, what reaſon can be ſhewed (if ſuch a church muſt be) why there ſhould be a departing from the pattern of the nationall church among the Jewes, in which they had all theſe things? Therefore thoſe ſeem to do beſt, that in thir moulding of their nationall church come neereſt to the example of the Jewiſh church.

Or, if you will have another modell of this nationall church of your owne framing, viz. a nation of Aſſemblies combined together, and repreſented in their officers, meeting in one place, and conſulting the good of the whole, and executing authority over the whole, then theſe perſons muſt ſtand in relation to all and each one of the Aſſemblies of the Nation under their juriſdiction; and ſo they are Nationall Officers every one of them, and the whole is the flock of each amongſt them, and each of them hath as full power over the aſſemblies that he never ſaw, as over that from which he came, and which ſent him; (as in the repreſentative civill body every Knight and Buegeſſe hath the care of the kingdome upon him, and each hath equall authority of inſpection and deciſion of matters concerning cities and countries, which hee knowes not, as of thoſe whence hee came.) Now if it be ſo, the Queſtion is, whether each be not a Paſſor to every purpoſe, as well as unto one? And whether hee be not to feed by doctrine, as well as by the rod of diſcipline, all ſuch aſſemblies which are under his charge? (Which thing is yet impoſſible to be done.) And what warrant there is of non-reſidencie with the flock unto purpoſes that do moſt concern the flock, ſeeing themſelves are Chriſts Miniſters and ſubſtitutes, and have not power of appointing Miniſters and ſubſtitutes under them; and what ground there is, why they muſt joyntly rule all the aſſemblies, but ſeverally teach each man the congregation to which he is deſigned, without care of the reſt?

Or, if there be any ſuch combination of aſſemblies in a Nation, what is there to warrant it more, then the combination of all Chriſtian aſſemblies in the world, repreſented in an oecumenicall councell, the members of which muſt be univerſall Paſtors, having power over, and care of all churches under them? For, if a Congregationall church muſt depend upon a Nationall church, as the leſſer upon the greater, then a Nationall church muſt depend upon the univerſall, as the leſſer upon the greater. For, look what a Nation is to a Congregation, that the univerſall is to a Nation; and if Nations may be independent of the univerſall, Congregations may be independent of the Nationall.

And if an univerſall viſible inſtituted church be acknowledged, why are there not univerſall repreſentative conventions? What a defect is this in Chriſtendome? And what a fault, that all Chriſtian nations do not endeavour it? But we conceive that they are ſo farre from the endeavouring it, that if there were any ſuch, though they might make uſe of them for advice, yet they would be loth to ſubject themſelves to the binding decrees of them.

Nor ſay wee, that the Scriptures do mention a Nationall church, Anſwer. for the ſupreme Magiſtrate was an enemy to Chriſtian Religion, and Regis ad exemplum, &c. Believers (it is like) were not ſo many as to beare the name of a Land or Nation, nor could they have liberty ſafely to meet in Nationall Synods. Shew mee a Nation of Magiſtrates and people converted, and I will ſhew you a Nationall church. Ultra poſſe, non eſt eſſe, whether Nationall churches be lawfull or unlawfull.

1. Reply. You might have ſaid, Shew me a Nation of Magiſtrates and people converted, and I will ſhew you a Nationall Chriſtian church, framed like the Jewiſh church, with one Nationall Biſhop over it, one Nationall Cathedrall in it, &c. for ſo would Prelaticall men and the Pope himſelf argue. No one Nation was converted then, and therefore there could be no Nationall Paſtor. Many nations were not converted then, therefore there could be no univerſall Paſtor. But what hinders but that there might be afterwards, when a Nation and when the world ſhould come to be converted?

2. Though there was no Nation converted wholly, and therefore (as you ſay) no nationall church could be; yet Chriſts will and minde in that matter, might eaſily have been dictated in the Scriptures, had he intended any ſuch Church afterwards; as Moſes tells the Jewes, Deut. 12.8, 9, 10. That they ſhould not do (when they ſhould come to Canaan) every man what he liſteth, as they did in the Wilderneſſe, but there ſhould be a place appointed, and thither ſhould they bring their offerings and tythes; and though there were not Nations converted, yet there were ſo many in a Nation converted, as made many Aſſemblies; In little Judea there were Congregations, and why (together with the Church at Jeruſalem) might there not have been a Dioceſan or Claſſicall Church? There were enough converted for ſuch a purpoſe. But ſhew the ſootſleps of a Dioceſan or Claſſicall Church, and it ſhall ſerve the turn; then wee will yeeld there might in time be a Nationall.

Arguments taken from the appellation of the word Church, Anſwer. or Churches, are very unſatisfactory, becauſe of the various acceptations of the words Kahal, Gnedah, Eccleſia, Synagoga, which we ſometimes tranſlate Church, but ſhould alwayes tranſlate Convocation, or Congregation, a company called out, or gathered together.

In this anſwer you labour to overthrow our Argument; Reply. for Congregationall churches, ſetched from the appellation of the Apoſtle (when he ſpeaks of Countries and Provinces, where more Congregations were, he calls them perpetually churches, in the plurall number, and not church) by theſe ſuggeſtions rather then arguments:

1. That the words, Kahal, Gnedah, Eccleſia, Synagoga, ſhould alwayes be tranſlated Convocation, a company called out, or gathered together; if this be yeelded, wherein it will advantage you we know not. A nationall Convocation or Congregation, or gathering together, will ſound harſher then a nationall Church; for every one knows that we have no Nationall Congregation in England: But,

2. You ſuggeſt;

The Engliſh word church, Saxon, Cyrick, and Scots Kirk; Anſwer. are derived from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as Cambd. Rem. or, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as Sr. Hen. Spelm. which (as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) ſignifieth the place of meeting. Hence we reade of robbers of Churches or Temples, Acts 19.37. Kahal (whence our Engliſh word, call) is ſometimes Metonymically underſtood of the place. The Heathen enter into the Sanctuary, which God hath forbidden to enter into the Church, Lam. 1.10. with Deut. 23.3. Nehem. 13.1. To come together, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . is (if it be rightly tranſlated) to come together in one place, and ſo Eccleſia is oppoſed to the buildings, or houſes in which they did eat and drink, 1 Cor. 11.19, 20, 21, 22. Synagoga is evidently taken for the place of meeting, Luke 7.5. Acts 18.7.

1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in the proper ſignification, Reply. is appertaining to the Lord, and may more properly relate to people appertaining to the Lord, then to place; becauſe the people do more appertain to the Lord, then the place.

2. Though Kahal once, perhaps, and Synagoga oftener, may be underſtood of the place, yet Eccleſia never. That place in Acts 19.37. is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 robbers of Temples, not Churches: That place in 1 Cor. 11.18. When yee come together, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is not to be rendered, in one place. Pareus upon thoſe words utterly denies it. And there is good reaſon, why they ſhould rather be referred to the people as a church, then to the place: For the meaning is, (when yee meet in the church) when yee meet as the church, that is, to perform Church-work. For they might meet in the place, even thoſe very perſons, and yet not meet as a Church; as it might be ſaid, when ſuch meet in a Synod, it's meant, as a Synod, to act ſome thing as a Synod. As convenire in Senatum, is to meet as a Senate; not ſo much referring to the place, as to the perſons: ſo meeting 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , miſacrum conventum, Beza, ibid. i. for a holy meeting, & Muſculus in coetu ſacro, quē li • vocat Eccleſiam. i. in a holy Aſſembly, which he calleth the Church. Item Pet. Mart. bid. It referres not to the place, nor to the perſons barely meeting, but to the perſons meeting as a Synod to act Synodically.

Beſides, though Kahal and Synogoga may by a Metonymy be referred to place, becauſe there were places built and ſet apart for Church-ſervices, yet 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the new Teſtament cannot be ſo taken, becauſe they had no ſet ſtated appointed places for the Chriſtian churches to meet in; your ſelf aſſert ſo much, p. 26. Nor is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 oppoſed to the buildings and houſes in which they did eat and drink in 1 Cor. 11.19, 20, 21. The words are, or deſpiſe yee the Church of God? which reſpects the people, the godly amongſt them, which told them of their fault, and other Churches alſo, as Pareus upon that place obſerves; Unleſſe you will ſay, there muſt be a reverent obſervance of the place where the Church meets, more then of all other places. They met in Woods, Dens, Caves, many times in times of perſecution; and muſt thoſe places be more reſpected then mens houſes, where they did eat and drink in? But what would you inferre, if 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or Church were taken for the place? Would it profit you? Yes; for you ſay afterwards,

The Scripture calls them Church or Congregation often, Anſwer. and ſometimes in reſpect of their ſeverall Synagogues, Pſal. 74.4.8. No wonder therefore if that Chriſtians of one countrey meeting in ſeverall Synagogues, James 2.2. Heb. 10.25. Acts 19.8, 9. & 22.19. Acts 13.15, 16, 43. and houſes, Acts 12.12. Rom. 16.5. do receive the denomination of Churches, which in Scripture phraſe is all one with Aſſemblies, many whereof we confeſſe were in Galatia, Macedonia.

The place you bring from Pſal. 74.4.8. is impertinently alledged: Reply. for the Church of the Jewes which was one, is not called Congregations in verſ. 4. in reference to divers Synagogues they met in, verſ. 8. But Congregations there, is Metonymically uſed, and is all one with Synagogues, and ſignifieth the place, and not the people at all; They roare in the midst of the Congregations, that is, in the midſt of thoſe places where the Congregation met, which places were many, but the Congregation but one, having one high Prieſt, for their chief Paſtor; though meeting in its parts in many places. So that the Church of the Jewes is not called Congregations, as Mollerus ſhewes upon that place. Neither can you ſhew (as wee ſuppoſe) that ever any one Church was called churches in the plurall number, either in the old or new Teſtament, in reference to plurality of places they met in.

For, if it were ſo; how comes it, that a Church in a city, ſuch as Jeruſalem, Corinth, Epheſus, and Rome, which met and aſſembled in many places (as our Brethren of the Presbyterie ſay) are never called Churches, but alwayes Church? And yet a Church in the countrey, meeting and aſſembling in many places are called Churches, and not Church. And you ſay, there is no wonder of it, for this reaſon, becauſe the Houſes and Synagogues in the countrey were many, in which they met. See (brother) whether you do not in this aſſertion, croſſe your ſelf? In the city you can finde many meeting houſes, and but one Church, but in the countrey you can finde ſo many Churches, as meeting houſes.

But the truth is, it is not place, but the combination of a Chriſtian people to meet together for Ordinances, that makes a Church: For the ſame Church may meet ſometimes together in one place for Church worſhip, and ſometimes aſunder in many places, for Chriſtian worſhip; but they are not therefore divided into ſundry Churches. And many diſtinct Churches, or parts of them may meet occaſionally in one place, yet they become not one Church hereby; but combination to enjoy Church ordinances together in a conſtant way, makes a Church; and all in a city were in this combination to enjoy ordinances together, therefore they were a Church. But all in a countrey could not be in ſuch a combination to meet together conſtantly; therefore they were not a Church, but churches. But you go on, and ſay,

The word Kahal and Gnedah, do ſignifie a diſperſed multitude, Anſwer. that never met together; that the people of Iſrael, though divided into ſeverall domeſticall aſſemblies to keep the Paſſeover, are called one Church; That an Aſſembly is all one with Kahal, Eccleſia, whether it be good or bad, leſſe or greater; that when the Iſraelitiſh men, women and children were together, they were but one Congregation: And when all did not meet, (though ſearce half, or a third part met) yet they were called all the Congregation. And when there was a great Aſſembly, then the Scripture tells us, there was a great Church; accounting no more perſons of the Church, but thoſe that were then aſſembled; Yea, Simeon and Levi's aſſembly is called a Church; and thoſe many which were gathered to pray in the houſe of Maty, are called the Church, though many were abſent. Yea, four or ſive in a Family joyning in the worſhip of God, are called a Church.

But (ſuppoſe there be truth in all that is ſaid) what are all theſe acceptions of the words Kahal and Eccleſia to the purpoſe? Reply. Among all theſe, can you finde that ever any one Church is called two, or more Churches? For, except there can be brought inſtances of this nature, the air is but beaten all the while, and our aſſertion ſtands immovable. We find many churches in little Judea; in which of the ennumerations of acceptions of thoſe words, Kahal, Eccleſia, doth it appeare, that a Church that is really but one, multiplies into many, and is called churches, and yet is but one? If you finde not this, we cannot believe that a whole Nation or Province of Believers are but one Church in the dayes of the Goſpel.

Beſides, is your ſcope to confound and loſe your Readers in the various acceptions of the word Aſſembly, or Church; ſo that when they reade the word Church, or Churches, they ſhall not be able to know what to make of it? How then will they underſtand your Nationall Church, at which your Diſcourſe drives? It had been your part to have taken your Reader by the hand, and to have ſhewed him when the word Church is taken properly, and when improperly.

Both you in your Nationall, and wee in our Congregationall, underſtand a people combined together into one body to worſhip God. And in the old Teſtament (let the words, Kahal, Gnedah, be taken as they may) there was but one kinde of Church ſo combined, which was Nationall: And in the new Teſtament we ſay; there is no other combination, to enjoy all ordinances and worſhips inſtituted in the Goſpel but Congregationall; and we produce the ſmall countrey of Judea, containing a plurality of Churches; and thence collect, that they muſt be Congregations, and that Congregations are therefore Churches. And this is not weakened by what variety of acceptions is brought.

Furthermore, wee do not know, that Church, or Flock, or Lump, or Body, when referred to God and Chriſt, and is properly taken, is uſed otherwiſe then in two or three ſenſes: either for the myſticall Church, Ephe. 5.25, 26. or the2 Cor. 8.1.19. Congregationall, 1 Cor. 1.1. (ſometimes indeed,Rev. 1.4. we reade of it in a ſigurative ſenſe, as in 1 Cor. 12.28. Gal. 5.9. James 2.2. 1 Pet. 5.2. and many more places)

For though you ſay, That four or five in a Family joyning in the worſhip of God, are the Domeſticall Church ſpaken of by Paul, many times in his Epiſtles, yet we conceive otherwiſe; for ſeeing uſually when there were any heads of Families converted, ſome of the houſhold were converted with them, as we can give many inſtances, wee think that many, or the moſt that Paul ſaluted, had in that ſenſe churches in their Families; and therefore, Paul would not have ſingled out, and with a note of diſtinction, have ſpoken of ſome perſons, and the churches in their Families, for that reaſon, if ſome other reaſon had not moved him; either then theſe Families were large and great Families, and might be as numerous as ſome Congregationall Churches; or the foundation of a Church might be laid in the perſons of a Family, but not ſo to continue, but to grow to a Congregation; or elſe ſome Congregationall Church might meet in ſuch houſes, which was ordinary in thoſe dayes. And for the word Church in Acts 12. either it is to be taken for the myſticall church, or elſe for that particular viſible ſociety of Believers, which was at Jeruſalem, though ſome of them were abſent. But you proceed to give more particular anſwers, and incounter with a part of the forementioned Poſition, viz. There were Churches in Galatia, therefore they were Congregationall.

Galatia was a large countrey; in England a far leſſe countrey, Anſwer. ſeverall Churches have been heretofore and yet not meerly Congregationall.

And why are Galatia and Macedonia taken hold of, Reply. and made uſe of, and Judea left out, which in the Poſition was mentioned as well as they? Surely the reaſon was, becauſe in both thoſe countries there was more room for your Nationall Church, then in Judea. You could not find breadth enough to make a plutality of Dioceſan Churches, and therefore durſt not contend for Nationall.

But grant wee the largeneſs of thoſe countries: (according as you ſpeak) were either of them too large to make one Nationall Church? (wee know you think not ſo.) Why then doth not the Apoſtle knit them all up into one Nationall Church, if hee had ſo intended them? But you add,

The Churches of Galatia might he combined one to another, Anſwer. as the Churches of England, Scotland, Holland, France, are reſpectively combined; for the Apoſtle ſpeaks of them as one lump, 1 Cor. 5.6. with Gal. 5.9, &c.

Such a combination wee eaſily grant to be among the Churches of Galatia, as is among the Churches of England, Scotland, Reply. &c. and that is, none at all: or at the moſt a combination without juriſdiction. But, if by reſpectively you mean a combination, which each of theſe Churches hath in it ſelf, in all the Congregations of and belonging to it; ſuch a combination wee deny to have been in the Churches of Galatia. For all our Congregations have been united under one Metropolitane Archbiſhop, of all England, and as yet there is none other eſtabliſhed; and for other combinations, ſuch as in Scotland, Holland, &c. without proofe we cannot grant them in Galatia. And if Paul had intended by ſaying, A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump, that we ſhould gather thence, that they were all one Church, hee would never have called them churches in the Preface of his Epiſtle; but in a diſtributive ſenſe it is to be underſtood: For ſuppoſe one ſpeak in a literall ſenſe, and ſay, a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump, doth he thereby make all the dough in a countrey one lump? No, but of every lump (how many ſoever they be) it is to be underſtood, a little leaven leaveneth each of them; ſo of churches, a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump, that is, the whole Church, every Church in which it is, this maketh not all the Churches in a countrey to be one.

And the Churches of Macedonia were not ſo ſeverall, Anſwer. but they joyned in one to chooſe a Brother (which I conceive was an authoritative act) to go with Paul for the managing of the Churches contributions, 2 Cor. 8.18, 19.

1. Reply. Then to chooſe an Officer is much more an authoritative act; which you grant to appertain unto the people; then the people may act authoritatively, which is none of our aſſertion, but yours, and the people are beholden to you for it.

2. A combination of churches without juriſdiction, will enable them to ſuch an act; nay, if there were no combination at all, yet when many churches are alike intereſſed in a buſineſſe, reaſon ſhews they ought to joyn alike to promove it.

3. They did not make him an Officer by this act of chooſing him, but they deputed him thereby to a particular work, which when accompliſhed, all was ended.

The churches of Judea, Anſwer. conſiſting of Myriads of people, did come together, Acts 21.20, 21, 22. to be ſatisfied of Paul, concerning an accuſation that they had received againſt him, and are called a Church, Gal. 1.13. Acts 12.1. and an Houſe, Heb. 3.4.

Not the Jewes of Judea alone did gather together, Reply. but the Jews of all other parts; as appeareth from Acts 21.27. But be it that they gathered alone, yet are they called one Church? the place alledged is, Gal. 1.13. I perſecuted the Church of God. What Church? Churches in Judea? No, Paul ſaith, hee perſecuted them unto ſtrange cities, and Damaſcus was one of them. The meaning is, them that were of Jeruſalem he perſecuted to ſtrange cities, or, he perſecuted the Saints in generall. Who, as they are parts of the myſticall Church, may be called by a Synecdoche, the Church. And Herod ſtretched out his hands to vex certain of the Church. What church? Either the myſticall, or that at Jeruſalem, or any Church within his reach. And his houſe, Heb. 3.4. to be underſtood of the churches of Judea? What ſtrange miſ-interpreting of Scripture is this? houſe in that place, is all the churches that were then, or ever were to be in the world; Chriſt is the builder of them all.

POSITION V.

When a viſible Church is to be erected,This is not unlike the Anſwer to 32. q. p. 8, 9. the matter of it ſhould be viſible Saints and Believers, 1 Cor. 1.2.

True, ſo it ſhould; when an Army is to be raiſed, a City begun, Anſwer. a Family ſet up, much more when a Church is to be erected or continued, the matter of them ſhould be viſible; yea, reall Saints, beloved of God, elect, bleſſed, Deut. 38.14. Iſai. 1.21.26. Acts 16.34. Rom. 1.7. Epheſ. 1.1.2, 3.4. And we heartily wiſh they were all ſuch.

1. The meaning of the Poſition is this: Reply. Viſibility of Saintſhip is requiſite to warrant the ſetting upon ſuch an action as erecting of a Church; elſe the action for the nature of it is naught, might not be performed; Better no Church erected, then not of viſible Saints: The rule is broken, ſin committed. Is this granted by you? If ſo, why is the poſition quarrelled at, ſeeing it is all that is aſſerted?

2. But why do you jumble theſe actions together? The raiſing of an Army, the erecting of a City, the ſetting up of a Family, and the erecting of a Church? As if they were actions of a like nature? As if viſibility of Saintſhip to them all, were of like neceſſity? Do you conceive that the matter of an Army, muſt either be viſible Saints, or there muſt be no Army raiſed? The matter of a city, viſible Saints, or no city erected? Doth the nature of thoſe actions neceſſarily require any ſuch qualification in the ſubject perſons performing them, that without ſuch qualifications the ſubject perſons are in a ſtate of incapacity, according to Gods true ſcope and intention to ſet upon ſuch actions? Wee know you hold it not. Heathens may raiſe Armies, and wage war, and not ſin becauſe they do ſo, if the cauſe be juſt. They may erect cities, (and remain Heathens ſtill) and not ſin becauſe they do ſo, for it may be their duty ſo to do; but may they erect a Church to God, and remain Heathens, and not ſin in doing ſo? An Atheiſt and prophane wicked perſon may buy and ſell, and labour in his Calling, and not ſin becauſe he doth ſo, becauſe it is his duty; but may he be one to erect a Church of, and to partake in the ſeal of the Lords Supper, and be an Atheiſt and viſible perſon ſtill, without ſin? Men need not be Believers and Saints to warrant them to perform civill actions, or ſome religious actions, for irreligious wicked perſons, while in that ſtate, are called to them; but to do them with acceptation, and ſo as to be accounted righteous in the doing of them, they muſt be Believers and Saints. But to erect a Church, which is Chriſts body, and is called to have communion with Chriſt in his body, and blood in that Supper which he inſtituted, is an action of another nature, and requires faith and holineſſe in the perſons that conſtitute it, to warrant the conſtitution of it. For Church ſtate being holy, and the Ordinance of it holy, either the ſubject perſons muſt be holy alſo, or all will be grievouſly prophaned, and God foully diſhonoured.

But why do you ſay, They ſhould not only be viſible, but reall Saints; except it be to caſt another miſt before the eyes of the ignorant? For, if an Army were to be raiſed to fight on the Purliament ſide againſt the Cavaliers, you would ſay, it muſt conſiſt of viſible friends which ſeem ſincere and cordiall, elſe let it not be raiſed at all; but you would not ſay it muſt conſiſt of reall friends, for then it would not be raiſed at all: For, if it muſt conſiſt of reall friends, God muſt be the raiſer of it, and not man, who alone knoweth who are reall friends: So of a Church, if it muſt conſiſt only of reall friends, God alone muſt erect it, and man muſt not meddle with it.

And though we reade theſe phraſes, Beloved of God, Elect, bleſſed, yet either they received theſe denominations from the judgement of Charity, becauſe they ſeemed to be ſuch, as Phil. 1.7. or if there were infallibility, it was applicable only to a party within the Churches whom the Apoſtle diſcerned to be ſuch, and not to the whole Church.

Yet we dare not uſe unſcripturall wayes and means for the procuring and preſerving of Church-members ſanctity; Anſwer. To be wiſe and holy above the rule, is to be fooliſh, prophane, preſumptuous, ſuperſtitious. Could you ſhew us out of Scripture, that the Church muſt examine perſons that come to be admitted, and that they muſt make any other declaration then profeſſing of faith and repentance: and that the Congregation ought to reject ſuch, of whoſe ſincerity and ſanctity they are not ſatisfied? and that the want of this care in the firſt conſtitution of a Church, doth nullifie it or make it unlawfull for men to joyn to it, or continue in it, and that it is neceſſary to know, that a Church was conſtituted of viſible Saints, before he can in faith joyn to it, we ſhould not differ about the ſanctity of the members.

Here is a deep charge of ſome things practiſed by us, Reply. to preſerve the Churches ſanctity and purity, to be fooliſh, prophane, ſuperſtitious and preſumptuous; And there are inſtances given, in examination of perſons, whether there be the works of Grace wrought in their hearts, or no, &c.

We anſwer for our ſelves:

Firſt, there are ſome things fathered upon us, which we hold not: as,

1. That there muſt be ſome further declaration beſides profeſſion of faith and repentance. We contend for no ſuch thing, but conceive profeſſion of faith and repentance, if in the judgement of charity it may be accounted reall, if there be any thing that may ſerve to give witneſſe unto it, that it is not meerly verball, may be judged ſufficient.

2. That the want of care to try the ſincerity and ſanctity of men, doth nullifie the Church; This is an opinion which we renounce as none of ours.

3. That we muſt know that a Church was conſtituted of viſible Saints before we can in faith joyn to it. We hold flatly againſt ſuch an aſſertion, and do believe a judgement may be made from the preſent faith and order which any Church holds forth, whether it be ſafe or unſafe to joyn to it, or to continue in it.

Secondly, there are other things which ſome Churches hold and practiſe, which we think cannot be condemned: As that a Church muſt examine perſons that come to be admitted, whether the work of grace be wrought within them or not. Your ſelf will now admit none (of whom you doubt) to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, till you have firſt examined them of their knowledge; and why may not we examine them of their grace? Is the Lords body diſcerned by knowledge moſt, or by grace? Faith is a grace, and faith is the beſt diſcerner of the Lords body; and if we can but finde grace, we ſhall be ſure to finde knowledge: The Scripture ſaith, Let a man examine himſelf; yet you think not that ſufficient, unleſſe you examine him; if it be no Scripturall way to examine others, why will you be ſo ſooliſh, prophane, preſumptuous, ſuperſtitious? A ſtranger comes to the gate of a Garriſon town, profeſſeth to be a friend, yet except there be ſomething to witneſſe the truth of that profeſſion, he is examined over and over again; and it is ſtrictneſſe that ſhewes faithfulneſſe to the State: And ſhall we be more remiſſe and careleſſe when we receive perſons into the Church, then we are when we receive them into a town? Our too much credulity may ſhew too little fidelity in the matters of Chriſt, as well as in the buſineſſe of men.

Beſides, if the Church be not a common receptacle of all perſons, but that it conſiſt of a ſelected number, and ſome are received, and others rejected, then there are certain rules of reception and rejection. And then there muſt be a triall made by ſome, whether perſons be qualified according to thoſe rules; and this the light of nature teacheth, and the rules of Reaſon lead to it; though there ſhould be nothing in the Scripture expreſly mentioning it. The moſt ſutable means ſerving moſt fitly to atchieve ſuch ends, are alwayes enjoyned in the ends, though they be not particularly expreſſed. But what think you? Is it not as lawfull to try perſons that would be Churchmembers, and make ſome profeſſion in words of ſaith and repentance, but hold forth nothing which may probably give witneſſe to the reality thereof, as it was lawfull and commendable in the Epheſians to try falſe Apoſtles, which profeſſed in words to be true Apoſtles? Rev. 2.2. And is it not as reaſonable for a Church to ſeek ſatisfaction, concerning the reality and ſincerity of ſanctity from perſons of whom they doubt, as it was juſt and equall for the Church at Jeruſalem to ſeek ſatisfaction concerning Saul, whether he were a Diſciple in truth or in pretence only? Acts 9.26, 27.

But you will ſay, there was cauſe of ſuſpicion and jealouſie in them, concerning him, becauſe they knew him formerly to be a deſtroyer of the Church.

And may not we ſay, there is cauſe of jealouſie, when we know externall profeſſion of faith and repentance to be ſo common, and the fruits which are worthy of it, Mat. 3.8. to be ſo rare and ſcarce to be found?

If the Goſpel and Chriſtian Religion was brought into England in the Apoſtles times, then it was like it was conſtituted of Saints, Anſwer. Church-covenant p. 37. as well as the Church of Corinth, &c.

Becauſe it is uncertain what Congregation was at firſt conſtituted of Saints within this kingdome, and what was not, Reply. we neither juſtifie nor condemn the conſtitution of any; but judge according to the preſent ſtate of them. And if we ſee any viſible Saints (as doubtleſſe there are many in ſome Congregations, and united alſo amongſt themſelves,) we could wiſh they were all ſuch; and in the mean time, for the ſake of thoſe few whom we ſee, ſo united, we acknowledge them a Church, and in all things ſo farre as they carry the ordinances uncorruptly we deſire to have fellowſhip with them.

The Text in 1 Cor. 1. rather ſhewes what the members of the Church of Corinth were at the time of Pauls writing to them, Anſwer. then that they were on ought to have been viſible Saints, at the firſt erection of that Church; yet it ſhewes not, that all the Church-members he writes to, were viſible Saints; for many known evill livers were known Members; The denomination of Saints, is a parce meliore, that is, from the better part, &c.

The Text ſhewes what they either were at firſt, Reply. or ought to have been, or what ſome of them were at that time, and ought all of them to have been, viz. ſanctified in Chriſt, called to be Saints, as Hemingius, Gualter, Pareus upon that place do note, for they ſay, a definition of a Church may thence be fetched. And what rule ſoever there is in Scripture requiring that any be Saints, the ſame rule requires that all be Saints. And there may many Arguments be brought to hold it forth:

1. The end of Church-fellowſhip is not converſion, but edification, Epheſ. 4.11, 12. Acts 9.31. For if it were converſion, then all uncoverted ones, whether they make profeſſion of faith and repentance or no, might enter in, that thereby they might attain one end for which they enter; as we know. Becauſe one end of the preaching of the Word is converſion, therefore all may partake of it, Jewes, Turks, Heathens, becauſe they may attain one end whereto it ſerves. It is ſuppoſed then that the perſons that enter into the Church are converted already.

2. Excommunication is an ordinance in the Church, and one end of it is, to recover perſons that are deſperately ſick, and ready to die; it is in the uſe of it as phyſick, 1 Cor. 5.5. and therefore ſuppoſeth the perſons to whom applied to be alive, therefore all Churchmembers are to be reputed in the judgement of charity, to be living ſtones, 1 Pet. 2.5.

3. If excommunication be an ordinance to throw forth viſible ſinners, of all ſorts, then the Church ſhould conſiſt of viſible Saints. 1. It appeareth that all ſcandalous groſſe ſinners ought to be caſt out from 1 Cor. 5. and that all other ſinners which are not ſeandalous, if they will not be healed of their leſſer faults, and brought to repentance, ought to be duly proceeded againſt untill at laſt it come to an excommunication, Matth. 18.15, 16, &c.

He writes to the Church called to be Saints, Anſwer. or called Saints, not to the Saints called to be a Church, or to the Church conſtituted of Saints: which expreſſion rather of the two proves there was a Church, before they were Saints (See verſ. 1. Paul called to be an Apoſtle,) then that they were Saints before they were a Church.

He writes to the Church of God; Reply. and can there be a Church of God, before there be Saints? What a Church of God is that, which had no viſible Saints in it when it was firſt conſtituted? Surely, except you will ſay, they were a Church of God while they were Heathens, you muſt confeſſe, that profeſſing to be turned by the power of the Goſpel in a time of perſecution from the ſervice of Idols, to imbrace the living God in Chriſt, they muſt be judged viſible Saints at the firſt when they were a Church of God. And theſe words (Paul called to be an Apoſtle) will not avail you; for Paul was a man, and a Chriſtian too, before an Apoſtle; but what would you have the Church of God to be before they were viſible Saints?

But how appeareth it that all the honourable Titles and Epithets given Paul, Anſwer. are given with relation to Church-members? The Corinthians were enriched by God in all utterance, &c. Will you thence conclude, that all Church-members muſt be ſo, &c.

There are ſome names which ſhew the intrinſecall nature of the things to which they are given, Reply. and they do agree to all of that kinde. As if one ſhould write to the Army of ſuch a Generall, called to be ſouldiers, this name ſhewes the intrinſecall nature of the thing to which applied. Such is the name Saint, when applied to the Church of God; but there are other names which are extrinſecall, and ſuperadditionall to the nature of the things given to, and ſeparable, and may be in ſome, and not in other of that kinde: As if one ſhould write, to the Army of ſuch a one enriched with gold and ſilver, apparell, this is extrinſecall and caſuall, and may agree to ſome Armies, and not to others; ſuch are the Epithets, 1 Cor. 5. inriched with wiſdome, utterance, &c. Concerning the names, Elect, &c. we have anſwered them before.

POSITION VI.

The form of a Church, is the gathering together of theſe viſible Saints, and combining and uniting them into one body by the form of a holy Covenant, Deut. 29 1.10, 11, 12. by which is plainly ſhewed, that a company of people become. Gods people, that is, a Church, by entring into Covenant with God. If it be ſaid, they were a Church before; yet that was when the Church of the lewes was conſtituted in Abrahams Family by Covenant.

You intend not that this Covenant doth make a true Church, Anſwer. but a pure Congregationall Church, as it is refined according to the platform of the Goſpel.

We intend that the combination of Saints into one body by ſome kinde of Covenant, either expreſſe or implicite, Reply. or by ſome kinde of ſpeciall bond (as Dr. Ames calls it) doth make a true Church. The ſeed of Jacob, and the Sechemites could not make a Church together, Gen. 34.15, 16. but by becoming one, and they could not become one, but by coming into the ſame Covenant, therefore they ſay (though deceitfully, for they never meant it; yet therein they ſhew how ſuch a thing could only be done,) if you will be as we be, that every male be circumciſed, then we will become one people; and we would demand, had thoſe Sechemites been Believers, and had this buſineſſe been carried without guile, whether they had not by this doing become one Church?

We conceive relation or combination into one unto domeſtick ends and purpoſes is the form of a Family, and relation and combination into one unto politick and civill ends and purpoſes is the form of a Commonwealth, and relation and combination of one man and one woman unto conjugall ends and purpoſes is the form of matrimoniall ſtate; and that covenant alwayes makes this relation and combination into oneneſſe, where the perſons are free from each other, and no naturall tie amongſt them; and ſo relation and combination of ſo many Saints as do, or may well meet in one place, unto religious ends, 〈◊〉 the enjoyment of Church-ordinances, doth make a church; and becauſe the perſons are free from one another, therefore covenant or agreement together (which is all one) muſt make the relation.

A ſolemne expreſſe and verball covenant or agreement (we aſſert) to be neceſſary unto the purity and ſtrength of a Church, and ſo conſequently unto the welbeing of a Church; for how Saints (and they alone) living promiſcuouſly in the world, ſhould yet be ſevered from the world, with which they be in habitation mingled; and how they (even they alone) ſhould have communion together in all holy ordinances, without expreſſe verball conſent, we cannot conceive; which yet we judge ought to be, if the rule be well attended, which ſaith, Nothing ſhall enter into the holy city which defileth, Rev. 21.27. & 22.14. And how ſuch looſeneſſe which is in our Pariſh-churches [from which any may depart to another Pariſh-church, without rendering any reaſon (removing their habitation, it may be but a ſtones caſt,)] which we conceive to be a great evill: (For the members in a naturall body are not ſo looſly joynted, nor ſtones in any houſe ſo looſly ſet, unto which yet a particular Church is compared, Eph. 2.22. and 1 Cor. 12.27.) How this evill may be prevented but by expreſſe agrement, we cannot apprehend; and therefore conceive ſuch a covenant to be neceſſary to ſuch purpoſes.

A Church-covenant s eſpecially in relation to Church-eſtate, Anſwer. and Church duties (as a marriage-covenant is with relation to the marriage ſtate and marriage duties) but the Covenant here enentioned, was not entered into in reference to Church eſtate, and Church duties, rather then to other duties of the morall Law, and may be taken by two or three, though they be too few to make a Church, or by perſons of ſeverall Churches, in a ſhip or a journey, and yet leave them in the ſame Church-ſtate they were before, and not make them members of a diſtinct Church.

A Church-covenant is eſpecially in relation to Church duties, Reply. but not only ſo; for Chriſtian duties are comprehended under it; and the Covenant in Deut. 29.1.10, 11, 12. reſpects principally Church-duties, more then other duties of the morall Law, as appeares from verſ. 16, 17, 18. for he warns them of Heatheniſh worſhips, ſuch which they had ſeen in Egypt, and among the Nations, and would ingage them by holy covenant to all Gods holy worſhips, which were of his own inſtitution, of which were the worſhip and ſervice of the Paſſeover, and all the offerings of Gods preſcription, which were to be brought to the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation; and the covenant of two or three to perform ſuch duties might not be taken, becauſe ſome of them did ſeal their union and communion with that body, and were to be celebrated when the whole body was aſſembled. And though a covenant binding to the performance of ſome of the duties of the morall Law, may be made by two or three, and by perſons of ſeverall Churches, and yet leave them in the ſame Church-ſtate, and not make them members of a diſtinct Church from what they were of before, yet not ſo a covenant that binds to Church-duties, as if a company of perſons of divers churches ſhould covenant to meet together, to pray one with another, this would not make them a Church, nor change their ſtate; but if they covenant to walk together in the conſtant enjoyment of all Church-ordinances, which God requires of a Church; this would make them a Church, and change their ſtate, that afterwards they could not be of divers Churches, but of the ſame Church and Body.

A Covenant in generall doth not make a Church (nor a marriage, Anſwer. a Covenant betwixt this man and that woman makes it) but a Covenant with appropriation and application to this, or that Paſtor or people, but the Scripture covenants are not with appropriation and application to this Paſtor or people (viz.) that they would ſerve God with this people or Paſtor, rather then with that; therefore they are not Church-covenants.

Who ever read or heard of any Covenant in generall of duties to be done, Reply. without application to perſons mutually ingaged to perform ſuch duties? As a covenant of duties in a marriage would be ridiculous without application to perſons, this man, or that woman to be ingaged to perform ſuch duties, ſo is any covenant. The covenants in Scripture were no ſuch covenants; they were applied to Iſrael, and to the Gentiles that ſhould joyn to Iſrael, and appropriated to them alſo: So that they were a ſeparated people from other Nations by covenant, Exod. 12.47, 48. the Paſſeover was a ſervice which all the houſe of Iſrael was ingaged to perform together, and all that would joyn to them, and by circumciſion they became one people with them; but no ſtranger might partake with them, ſo that the Jewes by the Covenant of God, were to ſerve God, rather with this people, then with that.

That a covenant makes a Church with appropriation to this or that Paſtor, is denied: for we hold it a conſequent priviledge of a Church (whether conſtituted by verball covenant or not) to chooſe their own Paſtor; therefore the Church is firſt, before it hath a Paſtor: this is confeſſed by your ſelf, page 13. if it were not ſo, the Church would be diſſolved at the death of the Paſtor; there is a covenant between the Paſtor and people, but it is emergent, and groweth out, and proceeds from the Covenant among the people; the people muſt firſt be one before they can agree in one, to chooſe their Paſtor, with whom they afterwards enter into covenant: There was a covenant with Abraham and his houſe, by vertue of which, Iſrael was the Lords people in Egypt, before there were any Paſtors to be over them; therefore Church-covenant there was in Scripture, without application to Paſtors. And it was ſo in the Wilderneſſe alſo at the firſt before Aaron and his ſons were choſen.

To be Gods people, Anſwer. and Gods Church, is not all one in your ſenſe. Forty Believers of no Church, or of forty ſeverall Churches, are the Lords people, but they are not an inſtituted Church.

To be one people unto God, Reply. in a profeſſed ſolemn way, (which is done by entring into covenant with God) and to be a Church, is all one. Now this is that which is aſſerted from Deut. 29.12, 13. That thou ſhouldeſt enter into covenant with the Lord thy God, that be may eſtabliſh thee this day for a people, (or one people) to himſelf, in a profeſſed way: So by the Covenant of circumciſion, (for ſo it was called, becauſe it was the ſeal of it) the Seehemites were to become one people to God, and to the ſeed of Jacob, Gen. 34.15, 16.

No Covenant in Scripture was at the founding of the Jewiſh Church, Anſwer. nor of the Chriſtian Church, nor at the adding any members to them: neither did they make a Church more truly a Church, or politique Society, or more truly members, but did make them or ſhew them to be more pure and holy ſervants of God; even as when ſingle perſons or families do covenant with God.

1. If there were no covenant at the founding of the Jewiſh church, Reply. how comes it that all that entred into the Iewiſh Church of the proſelyted Gentiles, entred by the Seal of the Covenant, which was Circumciſion? doth not the way of augmentation of the Church ſhew the way of the firſt conſtitution thereof? So it may be ſpoken of Chriſtian Churches: why are converted Heathens, and the Infants of Church-members, brought into the Church by baptiſme? which is a Church-ordinance, and the ſeal of the Covenant of grace, and of that part of it principally which reſpects Church-ſociety.

2. How do thoſe which were many, become one among themſelves, and diſtinct from all other bodies of the ſame kinde, (as Corinth was one in it ſelf, and diſtinct from Cenchrea: (for pariſhbounds were not then on foot) ſo that the members of one were not the members of the other; nor the Officers of one the officers of the other) if there be nothing that knits them together among themſelves, and divides them aſunder from others? and if any thing combine them, what can it be but ſome agreement or covenant expreſſe or implicit? Why muſt circumciſion the ſeal of the Covenant be uſed to make the Sechemites one people with Jacobs family, if Jacobs family, or Iſaak's, or Abrabam's before that, were one unto all holy Church-worſhips among themſelves without covenant?

3. Did the joyning of the believing Gentiles to the family of Abraham by circumciſion, make them no more truly members of the church of Iſrael, then they were before, only make them, and ſhew them to be more pure and holy ſervants of God? were they not accounted after circumciſion of the Jewes Common-wealth, and were inveſted into all the Jewes ſpirituall priviledges? which they had no right to before, though they were converted perſons, and Gods ſervants.

4. We conceive that Abraham and his family were not in Church ſtate, and profeſſedly and openly ſeparated from the world till the Covenant in Gen. 17. at which time, by a mark in his fleſh, he was diſtinguiſhed from all the nations, and became Gods houſhold; if this be ſo then, Church ſtate is founded in Covenant, if it be otherwiſe, let it appear that he was in Church ſtate before that time, and we ſhall look out for a Covenant before that time: That which induceth us thus to thinke, is, 1. Becauſe we reade nothing of Abrahams family, that they were a profeſſed people unto God before that time. 2. We reade not of any Symbole of Church ſtate by which Abrabam and his family were ſeparated from the reſt of the world, before circumciſion, which was a token in their fleſh to diſtinguiſh them from the nations round about them. 3. This diſtinguiſhed him and his family not from the world alone, but from other believers of his time, Melchiſedeck and Lot, which though holy men, yet not in his ſtate, nor had his priviledges. But this Argument from circumciſion is encountred with in your anſwer that followes.

The Covenant in Gen. 17. is taken only for Gods part of the Covenant, Anſwer. or his promiſe to Abraham, Gal. 3.16, 17. not for mans part to God.

While you charge us of miſ-interpreting the Scriptures, Reply. it ſtands you upon to be wary that your ſelf run not into that error. Paul, Gal. 3.16. with verſ. 8. (as Peter, Acts 3.25. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , rendered well there, and in thy ſeed) ſeems to make uſe of the promiſe of God made to Abraham and his ſeed in the Covenant, Gen. 12.3. and 22.16.18. The Apoſtle there had no occaſion to ſpeak of the reſtipulation on Abrahams part, and in Gen. 17.1.9. 'tis manifeſt, that that Covenant was reciprocall, as Junius and Pareus do obſerve upon that place; but you check your ſelf, as if overbold, and therefore ſay,

Indeed, Anſwer. receiving of circumciſion doth import a Covenant on Abrahams part, or conſent to the Covenant, as baptiſme alſo doth: but it is held they were in Church ſtate before they had right to circumciſion; therefore you ſhould ſhew they made a Covenant before circumciſion.

Circumciſion (being but the ſign and ſeal of the covenant betwixt God and Abraham) doth argue neceſſarily that there was a covenant before, Reply. of which it was the ſign and ſeal: and we would demand, whether Iſaac were not in covenant before he was circumciſed? and whether his circumciſion did not ſeal ſo much? and alwayes this order is ſuppoſed: Firſt, Gods promiſe: Secondly, mans faith: Thirdly, the ſign and ſeal of both in ſome Symbole of Gods inſtitution, ſo in Baptiſme.

How prove you that Melchiſedeck a Prieſt, and Lot, Anſwer. which were not of his ſeed nor family, were out of Church-ſtate? That a believer is not a ſon of Abraham, if he be not in Church ſtate by covenant? which things you ſeem to imply, when you ſay, the Jewiſh Church was conſtituted in Abrahams family by Church-covenant; the family of Sem was the Church of God long before this.

1. We aſſert not that they were out of Church-ſtate; Reply. but this we ſay, if they were not circumciſed, (as we read not that they were) they were not of Abrahams Church, nor had the Paſſeover been on foot, could they have partaked of it, any more then Believers could afterward, who joyned not to Abrahams family. Cornelius may be an example.

2. It is one thing to be a ſon of Abraham as a Believer, and heire of promiſe, for ſo all Believers are, and an Heathen is, when converted, before joyned to any inſtituted Church; and another thing to be the ſon of Abraham as a profeſſed Covenanter with God, and bearing the Symbole of it in his fleſh: in the former ſenſe, Abraham was the father of all Believers, though uncircumciſed, and in the latter a father of the circumciſed, which were alſo of his faith; as the Apoſtle ſhewes, Rom 4.11.12.

3. Though it be probable that there was a Church in the famimily of Sem, yet that place, Gen. 9.26, 27. proves it not: for, firſt, it is propheticall of the poſterity of Sem and Japhet, and reſpects not (ſo far as we can diſcern) the perſons of Sem and Japhet (at leaſt not at that time) being both (as is probable) in the family of their father Noah: Secondly, there might be a Church in Sems family, and yet of another conſtitution then this in Abrahams family; this hinders not, but that the church in Abrahams family might be conſtituted by covenant.

POSITION VII.

Every Member at his admiſſion,See the like allegation in Anſwer to Poſ. 9. p. 73. doth promiſe to give himſelf as to the Lord, to be guided by him; ſo to the Church, to be guided by them; which is no more then the Members of the Church of Macedonia did in a parallel caſe, 2 Cor. 8.5.

The givers are not the Members of the Church of Macedonia, Anſwer. (as you for your advantage phraſe it) but the Churches of Macedonia; and therefore, if this do prove Union or Covenant, it is of the members of ſeverall churches, and not of one only.

1. The allegation in anſwer to the 9th Poſition, Reply. pag. 73. runs in theſe words, As to the Lord to be guided by him, ſo to the Church (according to God) to be guided by them; theſe words (according to God) are leſt out; whether wilfully to make the practice of our Churches the more odious, or by overſight we conclude not.

2. There was no intent to prove Ʋnion or Covenant of a Church, but ſubjection of each member to the Church to which he is joyned himſelf, and the officers thereof; and the practice of the Churches of Macedonia (by way of alluſion) is made uſe of: it is ſaid, it is no more, then the members of the Church of Macedonia did in a parallel caſe: The Argument is fetcht à comparatis: the members of the Church of Macedonia did as much in a like caſe,; they gave themſelves to the Lord, and to the Apoſtle and Timothy, according to Gods will, to be guided by the Lord, and directed by them; a whole Church, or Churches to one or two perſons gave themſelves; and an Argument is fetcht thence, thus, then may one perſon that is to joyn to a Church, as fitly give himſelf to the Lord, to be guided by him, and to the whole Church and the Officers thereof to be directed by them, according to the will of God; and it is urged, that a member ſhould therefore promiſeit; and to call it Church of Macedonia, or churches, is neither advantagious nor diſadvantagious; for though many Churches gave themſelves to be guided by one Paul, becauſe he was Officer to them all, yet a members ſubjection will be only required to his own Church, and the Officers thereof, becauſe there is no ſuperiority of juriſdiction of one Church over another, and the members thereof. We believe you would be ready enough to make uſe of this pattern, to prove that the members of a Congregation muſt ſubmit to the guidance of their Paſtors; and why do you except againſt it, becauſe ſubjection of each member to the Church, is endevoured to be proved thence, ſeeing that the Church compriſeth the Officers thereof?

POSITION VIII.

This particular Congregation is a Church before it have Officers, Acts 2.47.

In a generall ſenſe, a few private men without Officers; yea, Anſwer. a few women without men; yea, twenty members of ſeverall Churches may be called a Church; but a governing Church they are not; the Church hath not received an office of rule without her Officers, Cottons Keyes, p. 16. Reply.

We take Churches for ſuch churches, Reply. as the Apoſtles planted in all places, when they had converted any conſiderable number of perſons, into which Saints were wont to be gathered, that they might be built up and edified by the Ordinances, Acts 9.31. and unto which Paſtors were given to reſide with them, and to overſee them, Acts 20.28. and theſe muſt be Congregationall Churches; for Paſtors cannot conſtantly feed any other. Or, we take Church as Ameſius defines it,A company of faithfull ones by ſpeciall bond betwixt themſelves joyned together, to exerciſe the communion of Saints conſtantly amongſt themſelves. Coetus ſidelium ſpeciali vinculo inter ſe conjunctorum ad communionem ſanctor um inter ſe conſtanter exercendam, ſuch an united company is the Church, before it have Officers, for it is their priviledge to chooſe their Officers, (as you confeſſe in your Anſwer to the next Poſition) in which ſenſe (if in any ſenſe at all) a few private men, or a few women, or twenty members of ſeverall churches, have never been called a Church.

Now whether this Congregationall church be a Governing church or not, becauſe it is not aſſerted in the Poſition, we have no occaſion here of diſcuſſing it.

The Church in Acts 2. had Officers, Anſwer. and better Officers then any Church now hath, even the Apoſtles which were the Elders of all Churches, 1 Pet. 5.1. 2 Cor. 11.28.The Apoſtles were as Elders and Rulers of all Churches, Cotton Keys p. 48 and particularly of the Church of Jeruſalem; and did act therein as Elders; it is not all one to want Elders now they are inſtituted, as before; ordinary Elders were not appointed at that time.

There is a conceſſion that the Church, Reply. Acts 2. bad no ordinary Officers, for none were then appointed; and yet they were a church, and Acts 14.23. ſhewes ſo much they were churches before the Apoſtles ordained Elders in them, and this is all that the Poſition drives at.

And though there were generall Elders which had inſpection over all Churches; yet neither theſe, nor any other Elders doCome into the eſſence of Churches. ingredi eſſentiam Eccleſiarum; nor is it any formall reaſon why a Company of Believers are a Church, becauſe they have Elders, whether extraordinary or ordinary; for were it ſo, then their priviledge to chooſe their Officers, would be when they have Officers, for then they are a Church; and it would follow, that they cannot chooſe Officers when they want them, and have moſt need of them, for then they are not a Church, and ſo can have no ſuch power; and it is very uncomfortable; for the death of an Officer, might be the unchurching of a people.

But that which may give more ſatisfaction in this matter is the conſideration of ſuch Scriptures where the members mentioned apart from the Officers, are called the Church of God, Acts 20.28. the Elders are the perſons ſpoken to, feed the flock over which the holy Ghoſt hath made you over-ſeers, the believing Epheſians are the flock, who are alſo called the Church of God, purchaſed with his blood. Acts 20. verſ. 28. So Phil. 1.1. So that a Chriſtian people, united together with an intent of conſtant congregating to enjoy Ordinances for their edification, are a church without officers; or if they have them, yet without conſideration of them.

POSITION IX.

She hath alſo full and free power to chooſe her own Officers without the help of Synod, This, though not ſo fully, is aſſerted by R.M. & W.T. to C. H. Claſsis or Presbyterie, Act. 1.15. Acts. 6.3. & 14.23.

In Church-affairs, Anſwer. of weighty and difficult common concernment, as election and ordination of Elders, excommunication of an Elder, it is ſafe and wholeſome and an boly Ordinance to proceed with conſultation and conſent of the churches, Prov. 11.14.Cottons Keys, p. 55. Reply.

This Poſition ſaith not that a particular Congregation or Church of Brethren have full and free power to chooſe her own Officers without asking or ſeeking the help of advice and direction from Synod, Claſſis, or Presbyterie: nor do we think that there is any ſuch meaning in it; but without authoritative help of a Synod, Claſſis, or Presbyterie; for in all thoſe places of the Acts, the churches had the help of direction: but they were not ſtrengthened by the interpoſition of the authority of the Apoſtles, or of any other.

You will not take upon you haſtily to cenſure the many notable precedents of ancient and latter Synods, Anſwer. who have put forth the Acts of power in ordination and excommunication. Cottons Keys, p. 28. Reply.

1. The grave Author of this ſpeech meddles not with election in that place quoted, but this Poſition runs of election. 2. He keeps himſelf from an haſty and peremptory cenſuring of ancient precedents, who have put forth acts of power in ordination and excommunication; but he declares his opinion againſt it, and we approve as well of his modeſty, as we do agree with him in his judgement.

We hold it a priviledge of the people (eſpecially if they proceed wiſely and piouſly) to elect their Officers, Anſwer. and an injury to obtrude any on them without their conſent.

1. What people are theſe that have this priviledge? Reply. Cottons Keys, pag. 12. the Author whom you make uſe of ſo oft, calls them Church of Brethren; is it a people-priviledge, or a church-priviledge to chooſe Eccleſiaſticall Officers?

2. What if they do not proceed wiſely and piouſly? is their priviledge loſt? muſt it be taken from them? and then it would be no injury to obtrude an Officer on them. It is an Officers priviledge to rule the Church; but what if he do it not wiſely and piouſly? is the privilege then loſt? it is a Maſter of a Families priviledge to rule his own houſe: but what if he do it not wiſely and piouſly, muſt it now be taken from him? or rather muſt he not be directed and exhorted to do it rightly? and the priviledge remain ſtil with him? ſo of the people; we have Junius of our minde herein. Junius Eccleſ. p. 1963 Anſwer.

But let us view your Scriptures.

Seeing that you agree with us in the ſubſtance of the Poſition, Reply. and yet immediatly bring all the Scriptures brought by us to ſtrengthen the ſame into queſtion, and none of them will paſſe for currant with you, it had been convenient, that you ſhould have produced the Scriptures which do ſway you unto the aſſerting of the ſame thing, that it might have appeared to the world, that you have found out ſome better bottome to ſet ſuch a tenet on, then we have produced: For we conceive, that if the Scriptures you oppugn are not pertinent to prove the Poſition, there will be none found in all the new Teſtament, but they will be more liable to exception then theſe; and it is to be noted, that all our modern Writers (that we know of) that grant any liberty to the people of chooſing their own Officers, they do it upon the evidence of theſe Scriptures which are excepted againſt; in ſo much that we know not what ſhould be the reaſon why you grant the thing alledged, and bring no proofes of your own to confirm it; and yet allow not of ours which we bring, except you be reſolved to contradict all that comes from us. But what are your exceptions? let us prove what weight is in them; you ſay,

The Aſſembly, Anſwer. Acts 1. it is likely was not a body politick, but occaſionall only, no part of Church-government being as yet ſet on foot: here were not all, but ſome of the ſounder members of the Jewiſh Church; and they had no commiſſion to ſeparate from the Jewes, before Acts 2.40. the Company was not without Elders: all the Churches and Elder at that time in the world were preſent: if there had been any more Elders they muſt have conveened upon that occaſion; the choice was limited by the Apoſtle Peter; Firſt, to the perſons preſent: Secondly, to thoſe that accompanied the Apoſtles all the time, &c. and was determined by God whoſe it was to chooſe an Apoſtle, by his directing of the lot.

The meaning is, Reply. they were not a Chriſtian Church, but ſome of the ſounder members of the Jewiſh Church; and not yet ſeparated from the Jewiſh Church; and then,

1. There is a contradiction unto ſome other of the exceptions which follow: If they were no Chriſtian Church, how were the Apoſtles Elders of it? and how was it an Oecumenicall councell, all the Churches and Elders in the world being at it?

2. Is there not ſome miſtake in point of truth? For thoſe perſons who were commanded to ſeparate, Acts 2.40. were they added unto ſuch which were not ſeparated? The Text ſaith, there were added to them, three thouſand fouls: (to them) to whom? to thoſe who are yet members of the Jewiſh church? then theſe ſeparated ones, who were added, were members of the Jewiſh church by their addition; for they came into their ſtate to whom they were added; and ſo they were ſeparated, and not ſeparated; which yet agrees not to verſ. 47. where they are all together called a Church.

3. It is impertinently alledged that the company was not without Elders, the Apoſtles were preſent: For was the company ſtraitned in their liberty by the preſence of theſe Elders? or rather were they not acquainted with their priviledge in this matter by theſe Elders? When as elſe they might not have known it: but you ſay a little after they were limited; but what is this limiting? nothing elſe but neceſſary direction: and the limitation is but in one thing, though you would have it in two; the words are theſe, Wherefore of theſe that have accompanied us, &c. For ought that appears, all that had accompanied them were preſent; and who could be ſo ſit to be an Apoſtle, as one of thoſe who had accompanied them, 1 Joh. 1.1.

4. If the election of an Apoſtle did belong to God, in reference to the particular perſon; yet they proceeded as far as they could therein, and agreed in the denomination of two, and when the lot determined whether of the two ſhould be the man, the Text ſaith, verſ. 26. by the common ſuffrage of them all, Matthias was numbred among the eleven Apoſtles.

5. If all Elders and Churches muſt conveen upon occaſion of electing of an Apoſtle, becauſe he is Paſtor of all Churches, why muſt they not be gathered together upon occaſion of ordaining an Apoſtle? But we reade but of one Church and the Elders thereof preſent at the onlaining of Paul, Acts 13.2.3.23. whereupon Paul calls himſelf, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Rom. 1.1.

As for the Deacons and Overſeers for the power, Anſwer. though people may better diſcern of mens ſitneſſe and ability for that Office then for the Miniſtry.

Why are Deacons and Overſeers for the poor made Synonymies and confounded? Reply. is this the reaſon, to make the world believe that we have had Deacons amongſt us, becauſe we have had Over-ſeers for the poor? but if we have had Deacons, when were they ordained? who ever put their hands upon them according to the pattern, Acts 6.6. or are they called ſo, becauſe their work is only to overſee the poor? we conceive their office extends further: But of that in its own place.

It is added, Anſwer. The people can better diſcern, &c.

1. They had direction to inable them to diſcern aright in chooſing Deacons, Reply. and by direction they will be able to diſcern aright in chooſing other Officers. 2. A godly people or church rightly conſtituted for the matter, will be able to diſcern of wholeſome and powerfull Doctrine: and if they want skill to judge of humane learning, they may with little ado be informed. 3. If your meaning be, that upon this ground the people may chooſe Deacons, but not other Officers; you might have done well to have limited what you before granted, and in ſtead of ſaying, We hold it the priviledge of the people, to chooſe their own Officers, you would have ſaid; We hold it the priviledge of the people to choaſe their own Deacons, but no Officers elſe.

And their liberty of chooſing was a good means at that time to abate their diſcontentments becauſe of former neglect. Anſwer.

1. Then it was granted to them of courteſie, Reply. and out of policie, and it did no way belong unto them; why then did you ſay before, We hold it the priviledge of the people? 2. Doth any thing appear to make this a reaſon that this liberty was granted to them? Would not they have been as well pleaſed, if the Apoſtles had done it, if it belonged to the Apoſtles and not to them? they all knew the Apoſtles were more able to chooſe then they, and what the Apoſtles did, gave better content; for all magnified the Apoſtles; beſides, is it likely that the Apoſtles would nouriſh a ſinfull humor of diſcontent in the people, by giving them a priviledge that belonged not to them? Good brother, take heed how you attempt to evade the ſtrength of plain Scripturall proofes, by ſuch dangerous gloſſes as theſe.

Yet at their election, Anſwer. there were all the Churches and Elders in the world.

The meaning is, Reply. there was but one Church, and the Elders thereof, at that time in the world, and they were there. It is true, the members were there, for the Brethren were they that elected, and the Apoſtles were there, which were extraordinary Elders, for they were the perſons that directed; but what did they act further? Did they interpoſe their authority in election? Did they take it out of the Brethrens hards? Did they not manifeſtly put it into their hands? in commanding them to look out ſeven men, &c. Acts 6.3.

Anſwer. Your ſelves acknowledge Synods an Ordinance of Chriſt in ſundry caſes.

Reply. Not the Authority of Synods by way of juriſdiction in any caſe;

Anſwer. Paul and Barnabas ordained Eders by ſuffrages given by lifting up and ſtretching out of hands, (for ſo the Greek word ſignifies) but that the people did ordain Elders by election, without the Apoſtles, it ſaith not, but rather the contrary, (viz.) that they ſtayed from election and ordination of Elders, till the Apoſtles came to adviſe and aſſiſt them therein; the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ſignifieth rather to give, then to gather ſaffrages; as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth imply the election of more Churches then one, and yet it imports the election of no more Churches then thoſe there ſpoken of; ſo the phraſe (Paul and Barnabas, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) doth not imply that any Church, or other perſon, beſides Paul and Barnabas, did elect theſe Presbyters.

1. We do not affirm that the people did it without the Apoſtles: Reply. For we conceive the Apoſtles guided them, as at other times they had done other Churches.

2. Concerning their ſtaying from election and ordination, we reade not of it, and therefore dare conclude nothing about it: concerning their adviſing, we grant it; but what other aſſiſtance they aſſorded we underſtand not, unleſſe it be ſaid, that they led the people by their own ſuffrage, and ſo they might give their ſuffrage, as you ſay the word ſignifies, and yet gather the peoples alſo. But that they ſhould give their own ſuffrage, by lifting up their own hands, without the peoples, ſeems unreaſonable: For when hath it ever been known, that two perſons alone, in the preſence of many others have gone to voting, by lifting up of hands? the one muſt gather the vote, and the other muſt give it; that is, the one muſt ſay to the other, Paul to Barnabas, If thou be for ſuch a man to be Elder in this Church, manifeſt it by lifting up thy hand; and Barnabas muſt ſay to Paul, If thou be for him, or for any other, dielare it by lifting up thy hand; a moſt ridiculous courſe: was ever ſuffrages ſo gathered and given, when but one man to gather, and another to give? might not two perſons better have gone apart, and concluded the buſineſſe by counſell betwixt themſelves, then to have gone to it by ſuffrage and ſtretching out of hands, in the preſence of ſo many, except there had been ſome greater plurality of perſons? There is roome enough without abſurdity for Churches, though but two or three to go to voting in a buſineſſe, that is common to them; and therefore 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is applicative to them; but there is no place with any colour of reaſon, why two perſons ſhould go to voting: when any thing is put to vote, or lifting up of hands, the end of it is, that the buſineſſe may that way be caſt; but two perſons may end it by agreement, when as by vote they cannot, if they be oppoſite to one another.

POSITION X.

The particular Congregation, This Scripture is alledged by R. M. and W. T. to C. H. & anſw. to 32. q. p. 69. though they want Officers, have power and authority to ordain Officers, as the children of Iſrael did put their hands upon the Lovites, Numb. 8.9, 10.

That Congregation had Officers, Anſwer. Aaron the High Prieſt, and many other Prieſts, Numb. 3.4. But you hold not that people may ordain in the preſence and plenty of Officers.

1. Though they had Officers, Reply. viz. Aaron and his Sons, yet thoſe Officers could not lay their hands upon them for a ſpeciall reaſon; and therfore they were as without Officers: the reaſon was this, the Levites were given to God, and they were given to Aaron and his ſons, they were given to Gods ſervice, & they were given to Aarons ſervice, and therefore they muſt be preſented not by Aaron and his ſons, but before them, Numb. 8.13. Aaron and his ſons muſt be the perſon that muſt (as it were) receive them, therefore not lay their bands on them, for that was the work of thoſe that offered them, and gave them, and not the work of thoſe that muſt receive them; this appeares from Numb. 3.6, 7. and Numb 8.13. with 19.2. Will it not hold, à majore, from the greater, that if in the old Teſtament the people did ordain in the preſence of Officers, then they may in the new much more in the want of Officers?

All the children of Iſrael being about 600000, Anſwer. did not probably lay hands on the Levites, but ſome in ſtead of the reſt, which were more likely to be the Elders then any other.

You might have ſaid, could not poſſibly at once do it; Reply. therefore of neceſſity ſome in ſtead of the reſt did it, and probably the Elders. But what Elders? Eccleſiaſticall Elders? there were none but Aaron and his ſans; and they did it not, as is manifeſt from the Text, and for the reaſon rendred; they were therefore Civill Elders: but not as Elders: For you hold not that it belongs to Civill Elders (as Civill Elders) to lay on hands in ordination: but as they were the chief and principall men of the Congregation: and we hold the graveſt and wiſeſt, and primeſt of the Congregation ought to do it, on the behalf of the reſt, when there is a want of Eccleſiaſticall Officers.

All the Congregation, Anſwer. and all the Elders of the Congregation are all one, Exod. 12.3. with verſ. 21.

1. It doth not appear from the Text alledged, Reply. that they are all one, but diſtinguiſhed (though they all are one body, yet theſe as Officers, thoſe as Members:) For, when God ſaith, ſpeak ye unto the Congregation of the children of Iſrael; he meant really that the Congregation of Iſrael ſhould be ſpoken to, and not the Elders only; for the ordinance was as well appertaining to the Congregation, as to the Elders; and when Moſes, verſ. 21. ſpake to the Elders only, yet it was with reference to Gods command, in verſ. 3. that all the Congregation might be ſpoken to; they fulfill Gods commandement, ſpeak to the Congregation, but not immediatly, but by the Elders. Doth this confound Congregations and Elders? For, if God had meant Elders by the Congregation, then the Elders killing the Paſſeover, though the people had not done it, yet Gods command had been fulfilled; which is untrue.

2. Though the Congregation and the Elders ſhould be all one; yet is the Congregation and the Eccleſiaſticall Elders all one? if the Text you alledge prove not that, it is nothing to your purpoſe.

3. If the Congregation and the Elders ſhould be all one in ſome places, yet in Numb. 8.9, 10. they are not all one: For Aaron and his ſons were the only Eccleſiaſticall Elders; and they are mentioned diſtinctly from the Congregation of Iſrael.

The Levites were ſeparated to their work, Anſwer. ant taken from amongst the children of Iſrael, cleanſed and offered before the Lord by Moſes and Aaron reſpectively, according to Gods expreſſe appointment, verſ. 6.7.8.11.13.14. therefore this laying on of hands was either only obedientiall for approbation of Gods election, or for oblation of the Levites to God in ſtead of their firſt born, verſ. 16.17, 18. as they laid hands on ſacrifices, verſ. 12. which was a ſpeciall reaſon, and peculiar to thoſe times.

Obedientiall certainly it was, Reply. but principally for another reaſon (as we conceive) which you omit; the ſervice of the Levites was the ſervice of the children of Iſrael; which formerly the firſt born were wont to perform; now God had choſen the Levites in ſtead of the firſt born, to do that ſervice, which Iſrael ſhould have done by their firſt born; therefore Iſrael muſt lay their hands upon them, that is, put that work upon them which was theirs: For as the laying on of the hands on the ſacrifice, did put the ſins on the ſacrifice, and ſo upon Chriſt; ſo the laying on of hands, did put the ſervice upon the Levites, ſee Numb. 3.7. & Numb. 8.18, 19. and herein there is a parity: for the ſervice of the Miniſtery is the ſervice of the Church; and the Officers which the Church hath, performs it for the Church; and the Church when ſhe puts her hands upon the Officers, puts the ſervice upon the Officers; and yet this reaſon would neither have been good then in the preſence of the Officers (had there not been a ſpeciall reaſon for it,) nor is it good now, when the Church hath Officers; becauſe the Officers are to tranſact her affaires for her.

If the people did ordain the Levites, Anſwer. I am ſure they did not chooſe them: If this be a binding pattern, you will looſe Election while you contend for popular ordination.

Such a ſleight concluſion will not ſo ſoon wring away election from the people. Reply. We have examples enough in the new Teſtament for ſuch a priviledge, to ſettle it upon them more firmly then ſo. We need not fly to the old Teſtament for patterns for it; if you can but produce one inſtance from the new Teſtament that ever Elders of one Church ordained Officers in another, or any good reaſon for it grounded thence; the controverſie about ordination ſhall be ended betwixt us; and the pattern of Numb. 8. ſhall be waved.

You tell us that it is a pillar of Popery to proportion the Church now, Anſwer. to the outward policy of Iſrael.

It is notoriouſly known, Reply. that the foundation of the Antichriſtian Hierarchy is laid in the proportion which ſome would have betwixt the Jewiſh policy, and the policie of the Chriſtian Church; yet this debarres not, but that uſe may be made of the old Teſtament, where the new is ſilent. Do not you reſt upon the new Teſtament for the change of the Seal of the Covenant, and conclude Baptiſme is to be imbraced in ſtead of Circumciſion, becauſe the new is cleer in that matter? and yet run to the old, to finde out the latitude and extent in the application of it to the ſubject; and conclude, Infants muſt be baptized, not becauſe the new expreſsly ſaith ſo, but becauſe you finde it in the old: The Jewes children were circumciſed, therefore Chriſtians children muſt be baptized.

You tell us, that Chriſts faithfulneſſe above Moſes, Anſwer. conſiſts in as full determination of Gods worſhip in the new Teſtament; and that we are as ſtrictly tied to the Goſpel-pattern, as the Jewes were to the old Teſtament. Why then ſhould we in ordination of Officers, be guided by the old Teſtament, and not by the new?

It is our Argument againſt thoſe that hold that there is no platform of diſcipline laid down in the new Teſtament, Reply. but that any is lawfull that the State will authorize: but it was never aſſerted by us, that all things without limitation are directly determined; for we have alwayes reſtrained it to ſubſtantialls; neither have we ever ſaid, that we have had a perfect knowledge of all things that are revealed.

And why ſhould we follow the ordination of Levites rather then of Prieſts for a pattern, for the ordination of Elders; Anſwer. except to gratifie you?

You cannot gratifie us by following the one or the other, Reply. becauſe ye cannot advantage your ſelves, whether of them ſoever ye betake your ſelves unto: For, 1. If the people laid their hands upon the Levites, there were no hands at all laid upon the Prieſts: they were anointed and conſecrated, and holy veſtments put upon them, but ordained by the impoſition of hands, they were not: but you would not have ordination of Elders turn'd into a conſecration after the manner of the Prieſts. 2. What was done to the Prieſts, was not performed by any Eccleſiaſticall perſon, but by Moſes the chief Magiſtrate of the people: but you are not ſo weary of ordination, as to transferre it from the Presbyterie to the Magiſtracie. 3. The Elders of the new Teſtament are rather the ſucceſſors of the Levites, then of the Prieſts; becauſe there is no Hierarchie amongſt them; and therefore the pattern of their ordination, is rather to be followed then the ordination of the Prieſts, and yet not to gratifie us. Conſult better the next time with Scripture, before you proceed to ſuch triumphing.

POSITION XI.

When the Apoſtles were ſent out by Chriſt, The words of the Anſwer to 32. q. p. 71. there was no mention of Ordination in that Commiſsion of theirs, but only of teaching and baptizing, Mark. 16.15. Matth. 18.19, 20. If Ordination of Miniſters had been ſuch a ſpeciall work, there would be like have been ſome mention of it in their Commiſsion.

Neither is there mention of the celebration of the Euchariſt. Anſwer.

The Euchariſt is an ordinance, Reply. ſealing the ſame Covenant that Baptiſme ſealeth; therefore the Apoſtles having Commiſſion for the one, could not want it for the other, though it be not mentioned.

Preaching and Baptizing were firſt to be done to the Nations, Anſwer. therefore they are there mentioned.

That is not the ſole reaſon: Reply. but becauſe they were principall works, and in reference to the ſubject perſons about which they were exerciſed more Apoſtolicall; for they might preach and baptize in all the world: whereas ordinary Officers, in an ordinary way, may not do ſuch works in all the world, but only in the Church.

We find the Apoſtles did practiſe ordination, Anſwer. and yet we ſuppoſe they went not beyond their Commiſſion, Acts 6. & c. 13. & 14. and a Commiſſion to Elders we reade, 1 Tim. 5.

The Poſition ſaith not, Reply. that ordination was not within their Commiſſion, but ſaith, That there is no mention thereof, when they firſt received their Commiſsion, and the page out of which the Poſition is exerted, makes mention of ſome other works, within their Commiſſion, not mentioned, viz. Prayer; and Acts 6.4. is quoted for it.

But indeed, Brother, you are injurious to the Authors of thoſe words of the Anſwer to 32. q. p. 71. for Ordination is not denied to be within the Commiſſion of the Apoſtles, but thoſe Reverend men do grapple with Hierarchicall perſons, in that place; and we ſee no reaſon why you ſhould take offence thereat, if you would not have your ſelf judged to be one of them; their words are theſe: Some, indeed, have ſo highly advanced ordination, that they have preferred it above preaching, miniſtring of Sacraments, Prayer; making it, and the power of excommunication, the two incommunicable prerogatieves of a Biſhop, above an ordinary Miniſter; who are theſe ſons? Prelaticall mens: againſt them, the Authors of the Poſition fight: And firſt would beat them with the words of the Apoſtles firſt Commiſſion, which was to preach and to baptize; and afterwards they do ſhew, that preaching was the great work that they were to attend upon; and do alledge 1 Cor. 1.17. for it; and next after preaching they mention prayer, and alledge Acts 6.4. and then they ſpeak of the Sacraments, not of Baptiſme alone, but of the Lords Supper; So that Brother, you had no reaſon to take ſuch offence becauſe of the Euchariſt, for they gave it its due place in the Apoſtles Commiſſion; after this, they render another reaſon, why preaching was a greater work then ordaining, becauſe Paul went about the work of preaching, and left Titus (an inferiour Officer to himſelf) to the work of ordaining.

Indeed afterwards, when thoſe Reverend men had proved that ordination was not ſuperiour to Preaching, Baptiſme, &c. they then indevour to ſhew, that it is not equall to thoſe works, ſo as that none but thoſe which may perform thoſe works, may ordain; and they bring this Argument: Ordination being nothing elſe but the accompliſhment of Election, it may be performed by the people of God, (who yet have no office,) even as Election may upon whom it depends: and they bring the teſtimonies of many Proteſtant Writers, among the reſt, D. Whitakers Anſwer to Bellarmine, If Bellarmine grant the calling of thoſe Biſhops to be lawfull, there is leſſe cauſe why we ſhould doubt of Ordination: For thoſe who have the authority of calling, they have alſo the authority of ordaining, if a right ordination cannot be obtained; for Ordination follows Vocation: he that is called (by calling he means election) is, as it were, ſent into the poſſeſſion of his function.

You intimate that ſpeciall works which the people might not do, Anſwer. are mentioned in that Commiſſion, which if you ſtand to, you muſt deny the people power, either to baptize or to preach; if theſe words be not a Commiſſion to the Apoſtles and Elders to ordain, I am ſure they are no commiſſion to un-officed men to preach or to ordain.

We conceive we differ not much from you in this matter, Reply. we are utterly againſt un-officed mens baptizing, and againſt their preaching in ordinary, except when they have been trained up to learning, and to the knowledge of the Scriptures, and are expectants of a call to execute the Miniſtery; and your ſelves in this caſe grant it; and you put difference betwixt preaching and baptizing, though they be joyned together in the Apoſtles Commiſſion, for in no caſe will you let an un-officed man baptize, and yet for triall of gifts you think it fit to ſuffer an un-officed man to preach, from 1 Tim. 3.10.

POSITION XII.If that need ſo require, ſhe may admoniſh her Officers, and excomunicate. &c. T. W. to W. R. p. 39.

The Church hath power to cenſure her Officers if ſhe ſee juſt occaſion, Col. 4.17.

The Church at Coloſs had other Elders beſides Archippus, Anſwer. which might joyn with the people in admonition.

1. Reply. What Officers there were in that Church, or with that Church at that time, appeares not.

2. The command is directed to the Church without expreſſe conſideration of any Officers amongſt them, and though there ſhould be Officers, yet the Brethren are not thereby excluded from joyning with the Officers in that which is commanded, Col. 4.17.

Paul bids Timothy fulfill his Miniſtery, Anſwer. 2 Tim. 4.5. this doth not ſuppoſe Timothy to be faulty, or to be under cenſure: And it may be Archippus, Pauls fellow-labourer, (Philemon, verſ. 2.) was not faulty, and then this admonition was no cenſure; and therefore it is alledged to no purpoſe.

1. Reply. Expoſitors do judge him faulty; ſee Zanchy upon that place.

2. The Apoſtle ſaith to Timothy, make full proof of thy miniſtery, but bids them ſay to Archippus, fulfill it. Now there is difference betwixt theſe two; the former reſpects perſons, himſelf and others, whom he ſhould aſſure of it; the latter reſpects the work it ſelf in duties of it; and the one of theſe may alſo be without the other.

3. It is one thing when the Apoſtle a ſuperior, writing to a perſo and inferiour, and one who did depend upon him, gives him much good counſell, and amongſt other things, injoynes him to make full proof of his miniſtery, and another thing, when the Apoſtle writing to a people, without any occaſion of ſuch an exhortation, and without mingling the injunction of this duty with other exhortations of like nature, doth excite them in an abrupt manner, to ſay to Archippus, ſee to the Miniſtery, &c. For the former we have many patterns, which yet imply not faultineſſe, 1 Pet. 5.1, 2, 3. Tit. 2. ult. For the latter, where is there any parallel place? Though therefore Timothy, whom the Apoſtle exhorts, may be without fault; yet there is ſtrong preſumption that Archippus (whom the people ordinarily muſt heare in ſilence, but now are put upon it to admoniſh him) was not.

Neither doth admonition alwayes ſuppoſe authority, Anſwer. for this may be an act of charity as well as of authority.

Church-admonition is ſome degree of cenſure; Reply. for it is a leading ſtep to higher cenſure, till at laſt it come to excommunication; call it what you will, liberty, power, or authority, yet cenſure it is, and that is all the Poſition doth aſſert.

Private members cannot cenſure judiciouſly, Anſwer. or unchurch the Congregation, though they be hidden; Plead with their mother, plead, Hoſea 2.2.

If they may plead, then they may withdraw when the Congregation is obſtinate; and ſo from their Officers, Reply. when they will no be reclaimed; which though it be not judiciall and poſitive cenſure, yet muſt be granted to be negative.

The Coloſſians were as well to cauſe that Epiſtle to be read in the Church of Laodicea, as to ſay to Archippus, &c. yea, Anſwer. the word cauſe ſeems more authoritative, then ſay ye, yet our Brethren hold not that one Church hath power to cauſe any thing to be done in another Church; if it had been ſaid, Cauſe Archippus, &c. and ſay to Laodicea, you could have made notable uſe of it.

Cauſe, in the originall is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , not command yee, but work yee; Reply. effect yee, indeavour yee, that it be read; and ſo interpreted, it is not ſo authoritative as ſay yee; for ſay ye, take heed, ſeems to be more imperative: if it had been ſaid, Say yee to Laodicea, ſee that you read this Epiſtle, and of Archippus, indeavour yee, that Archippus fulfill his miniſtery (for the Greek word tranſlated cauſe, imports no more) we could have made leſſe uſe of it.

Finally, Anſwer. the Church cannot excommunicate their whole Presbyterie, no more then the Presbytery excommunicate the whole Church, Cottons Keys, pag. 16. only ſhe may withdraw from them, &c.

This withdrawing is a negative excommunication, Reply. which is ſome kinde of cenſure, though not ſo authoritative as the poſitive; and more then this we plead not for.

POSITION XIII.This Text is much inſiſted on, and weekly contributions for the Miniſter, grounded upon it.

Theſe Officers are to be maintained by contribution every Lords day, 1 Cor. 16.1.

You do not maintain all your Officers, Anſwer. not your Ruling Elders, though the Text, 1 Tim. 5.17. doth as cleerly hold out the maintenance, as the lawfulneſſe: The Apoſtles rule was not generall, but only in the Churches of Galatia and Achaia verſ. 1. nor perpetuall, for thoſe gatherings were to ceaſe when Paul came; nor for any Officers, qua Officers, but for the poor; not their own Church neither, but of the church of Jeruſalem, which was a ſingular and extraordinary caſe, &c.

We conceive you meet not with this Poſition (as you do not with ſome other) in ſcriptis, Reply. in our writings; for we ſhould then have been ſent to the Author in the margent; but in ſtead thereof, you ſalute us with theſe words, This text is much inſiſted on, &c. in diſcourſe we ſuppoſe betwixt ſome one and your ſelf; you ſhould have done well to have named the perſon, becauſe ſome of us have had conference with you about this matter, and it may be thought you intend us, but then you deal not fairly: for that Text hath been alledged by us, and more Texts with it, to prove another thing, viz. the raiſing and maintaining of a ſtock of money in the Church, out of which may be taken proportions for every good purpoſe; and ſo for the Miniſters maintenance, as need ſhall require; and our practice is ſutable hereto.

Now to give better ſatisfaction, both of our opinion and practice, we ſhall diſcover our preſent apprehenſions: thus,

1. We do apprehend tythes to be Jewiſh maintenance, See Jo. Selden of Tythes. becauſe they were ſettled upon the Levites, upon conſideration of having no inheritance amongſt their brethren, and were appointed together with offerings, Mal. 3.8. and had a particular reſpect to the Prieſthood; for the tythe of the Levites was to be tythed and given to the Prieſts, Nehem. 10.38.

2. Neither do we ſee ground for ſettled, ſlinted maintenance to laſt from yeere to yeer, if it muſt ariſe from the Church, and not come from the ſtate, as in ſome countries it doth; becauſe, if the Church muſt maintain the Miniſtery among them, as God bleſſed them (and a more equall rule then that, there can none be found;) then except they could ſettle Gods bleſſing, and make it to abide with men in an equall manner, without increaſe or decreaſe the maintenance may not be ſettled; and this alſo is an argument againſt tythes: There is a great inequality in tythes, and in all ſettled maintenance, if not unrighteouſneſſe; perſons whoſe eſtates ariſe from trading, and conſiſt in goods (not having any lands) in ſome places pay nothing to the Miniſtery out of duty, and ſo the countrey maintains the Miniſtery of the town, though many Chappels, perhaps, be robbed thereby, (we give inſtance in Mancheſter) whereas the towne is far more able to maintain their own Miniſtery, and the countries alſo round about them; and perſons who are much poorer in eſtate then others, but have larger lands then they, though others (leſſe in lands) can buy them twice or thrice over; yet pay more, becauſe of their lands then they: and if houſes be rated, or mens preſent eſtate valued, and maintenance ſetled in the juſt proportion; yet becauſe mens eſtates are like the Moon, in the increaſe ſome of them, and others of them like it in the decreaſe, it will ſoon grow unto an inequality again; Beſides, mens eſtates lie many times where their perſons inhabite not, neither can inhabite; and then their eſtates go to maintain a Miniſtery to which they do belong not, and they are ſo much the more diſabled in ſupporing the Miniſtery to which they do belong. And this ſetled viſible maintenance can be the maintenance but of peaceable times, when the Magiſtrate is a Chriſtian, and countenanceth Religion; for in the Apoſtles dayes, and afterwards for three hundred yeers together, while the ten Perſecutions laſted, there neither was, nor could be on foot any ſuch maintenance. But the Church treaſury duly kept up by contributions, according as God bleſſeth every man, will afford maintenance while the Church hath any thing, at all times; whether peaceable or troubleſome; whether the Magiſtatre be a Chriſtian or a Heathen.

3. This maintenance out of the ſtock of the Church, we think we ſee moſt warrant for from the new Teſtament, and as moſt probable we once diſputed it with you, and ſome other Brethren: but neither then, nor now, are we peremptory in it.

1. We conſidered how Chriſt and the Apoſtles were maintained in the work of the Miniſtery, and we finde that they had a Stock of monies, which came (partly at leaſt) by contribution, Luke 8.2, 3. and out of this ſtock was taken for the poor alſo, as from Joh. 13.29. appeares: ſee Junius Junius Eccleſiaſt. pag. 1954.

2. We conſider what was done in the Apoſtles times, after Chriſt was taken from them, in the dayes of the firſt Chriſtian Church, Acts 2.45. & 4.35. there was a ſtock then, but raiſed after an extraordinary way, and yet by free contribution; they brought their whole eſtates, and put them into a common ſtock; which was but a temporary buſineſſe, and not aſtrictive unto all times. Now out of this common ſtock, the Apoſtles themſelves, and all others that had need were maintained; and the Apoſtles had at firſt the overſight of this ſtock.

3. After this, upon the occaſion mentioned, Acts 6.1. there were Deacons choſen, which had the overſight of the treaſure of this Church; for the Apoſtles gave themſelves to the Miniſtery of the Word, and to Prayer, Acts 6.4. and neither meddled with receiving, nor with diſpoſing of what was contributed: The Deacons took that burden from off them; ſo that now they received all, and diſpoſed of all: Junius Eccleſ. p. 1954 if any brought their eſtate, they laid it down at the Deacons feet; and if any diſtribution was made, the Deacons made it; the Apoſtles meddled with nothing. So then the work was the ſame, which the Deacons managed, with that which the Apoſtles had before managed, only it was in other hands, the Deacons came into the Apoſtles place; hence it followes, that if the diſtribution was made as every one had need, when the Apoſtles had the overſight, and if themſelves had a ſhare, as their need required, and other labourers with them; then it was ſo afterwards, when the Deacons were intruſted in it; ſo then the Deacons Office was to receive into ſtock, and to take out, and diſpoſe as either the labourers, or poore Saints had need; and their Office was not to overſee the poor alone, as our Brother would ſuggeſt. Junius Eccleſ. p. 1954 Deacons do diſtribute to the neceſſary uſes of the Church, viz. the ſuſtenance of the Miniſters of the Church.

4. This Office of the Deacon is not temporary, but perpetuall in the Church, as from 1 Tim. 3.8. appeares, and our Brethren do acknowledge it; therefore the work of receiving, and diſpoſing the treaſure of the Church is perpetuall, therefore there muſt be a conſtant ſtock, unto which the contributions muſt be brought, and out of which diſtribution muſt be made; therefore though contributing of whole eſtates laſted not, yet ſome other manner of contributing came in the room thereof; elſe the Deacons Office would fall to the ground for want of work; for they could not diſtribute out of nothing: Hence it is that a commandement comes forth from the Apoſtle, Rom. 12.13. to diſtribute to the neceſſity of the Saints; and Hebr. 13.16. to do good, and to communicate; and another commandement which reſpects the neceſſity of the Miniſters, Gal. 6.6. Let him that is taught in the Word, communicate to him that taught him in all good things; the word (though diverſly tranſlated in the Engliſh) is yet but one in the Greek, and ſignifieth to communicate.

5. But this comunicating or contributing, or diſtributing (for all theſe are one) to the neceſſity of Saints, and to the neceſſity of the Miniſters, which will be granted to be a perpetuall duty in all ages, doth not uphold the Deacons Office, except the Deacons do receive it; that ſo out of it they may diſpoſe portions of it, as need ſhal require; therefore to the Deacons this contribution muſt be brought: and we are induced the rather to think ſo, becauſe it is commanded under a word, which often ſignifies Church-communion; and the Apoſtles meaning may well be, that it ſhould be upon dayes when the Church meets in communion; and giving and receiving are actions of communion, Phil. 4.15. and therefore ſutable to ſuch meetings in communion; (in the interim, we would not be underſtood as though we meant to exclude all private diſtributing, or communicating to the neceſſities either of Saints or Miniſters, though we conceive publike contributions to be principally intended.) Hence it is, that Deacons are called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 1 Cor. 12.28. which being interpreted, may import a perſon that receives ſome thing for another; and it may beare receiving of a juſt reward for another, and ſo a receiving not for the poor Saints alone, but a reward for the labourers alſo. See Scap. Lex.

6. But how muſt the Deacons receive the Churches contribution? muſt they gather it from houſe to houſe? that would be an endleſſe toil, and diſhonourable alſo. Contribution or communication is called a ſacrifice, Heb. 13.16. Now ſacrifice was wont to be brought to the door of the Tabernacle, and it comes moſt freely, when it is thus brought; but when muſt it be brought? when the Church meets; and when meets the Church? conſtantly upon the Lords Day; therefore, theſe contributions muſt be brought upon the Lords Day; but upon which Lords days muſt this be done? upon thoſe only upon which there is occaſion of diſtributing ſomething? or at other times? ſurely at other times; elſe it might come to paſſe, that they might have nothing in depoſito, nothing in the ſtock: then many a perſon that needs can many times have nothing; for the caſe may be ſuch, that the need cannot tarry till the Lords Day come, and the perſon may be gone, that needs, before that time come; now there ought alwayes to be ſomething in readineſſe to ſupply needs in caſes of ſuch urgencie; therefore this contribution ought to be every Sabbath day: that as there may be daily occaſions of diſtributing, there may be conſtant ſupply in contributing. To prove this, we have alledged 1 Cor. 16.1, 2. and ſo far as we have made uſe of this Text, we conceive we have not wreſted it.

1. We confeſſe, that the occaſion of this inſtitution was collection for the poor Saints; and not their own poor Saints neither, but the poor Saints at Jeruſalem.

2. We confeſſe, that there are no other Churches mentioned upon whom this inſtitution was injoyned, but the Church at Corinth, and the Churches of Galatia, which our brother ſaith, was larger then England. Notwithſtanding, if we conſider ſeverall particulars of the Injunction, we may probably conjecture, that he had a further ſcope in the commandement, then the occaſion doth import.

1. He brings a great many of Churches, not to the doing of the duty alone, but to the ſame way of doing it; the Churches of Galatia, which were many; and that at Corinth; and there cannot be a reaſon rendered why all other Churches that were called to the duty, ſhould not be bound to the ſame manner of doing alſo, and ſo the Churches of Macedonia, and that at Rome will be brought under this Injunction; for they were called to the ſame work of relieving the Saints at Jeruſalem, as well as the Churches of Galatia and Corinth. Rom. 15.26.27.

2. The Apoſtle bindes the performance of this contribution to the Lords Day in all theſe Churches, if he had had no ſcope to make this an Ordinance in all the Churches, he might have pitcht it upon ſome other day.

3. He ſaith, every firſt day of the week (that is, every Lords Day,) ſo it is tranſlated in the Geneva Bible, and ſo the Prepoſition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is often rendered, as Scapula obſerves, and give inſtances abundantly, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is in every yeer, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is every moneth, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is every word, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is every perſon, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is vicatim, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is domeſticatim, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is viritim, ſtreet by ſtreet, houſe by houſe, man by man; we have twice together the Prepoſition ſo taken, Acts 2. ult. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , day by day, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , houſe by houſe; now what reaſon can be rendered, why this contribution muſt be every Lords Day, in reference to the Church of Jeruſalem alone? for they might have given what they could have ſpared at once; or if it were a great deal that they were to give, they might have had the longer time allotted them, and yet have given it at once; or the richer and the abler might have given it at once, and the reſt at twice, or thrice, or four times; but they muſt give it Lords Day by Lords Day, without miſſing one Lords Day; this ſeems to hold forth, that Paul meant it for a ſtanding Ordinance, and that his ſcope was by weekly contributions, to raiſe a ſtock in the Churches, out of which might be taken, without gathering.

4. They are bound under this Injunction of firſt dayes contributions, without any time ſet them of ceaſing the ſame; for though our Brother ſay, thoſe gatherings were to ceaſe when Paul ſhould come, and alledge verſ. 2. for it, yet we finde no ſuch thing there; he ſaith, verſ. 2. That there may be no gatherings when I come, our Brother gives this interpretation, that collections may ceaſe when I come, but is not he guilty herein of corrupting the Text, more then we? for the true meaning is, that it may be in readineſſe when I come, and that there may not be need to gather for it when I come; for when it is in the ſtock already, there will be no need of gathering for it; and the Greek words are againſt his expoſition, but agree well with ours, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which words are truly thus tranſlated, that not when I come, then gatherings be made, he is diverſe (I think) from Paul, in his expoſition of Pauls words, he would have gatherings then to ceaſe, Paul would not have them then to begin; for ſhould they then begin, there would be nothing in ſtock, and ſo nothing in readineſſe, when uſe ſhould be made thereof.

5. Conſider the manner of performing this act: every one muſt put apart ſomewhat, or lay by him; What? to keep it with him, and not part with it? not ſo: for he muſt treaſure it up, as the Greek carries it; or put it into the treaſury; What treaſurie? his own private treaſury? no; for then it needed not to have been upon the Lords Day, for any other day would have ſerved for ſuch a private act; and then there would have been gathering together what every man had put into his own private treaſury when Paul came; and this would have been unreadineſſe, which Paul labours to prevent; it was then the common treaſury which the Church had when they met, into which every one did put what he provided for ſuch a buſineſſe; thus a ſtock was raiſed in all theſe Churches by an every Sabbaths contribution.

But it will be ſaid ſtill, that this reſpecteth the poor Saints at Jeruſalem only.

But every Church hath, or may have poor Saints of her own; which way muſt they be relieved? muſt not they be provided for the ſame way, as the poor Saints of other Churches? What reaſon can be ſhewed that the poor of other Churches muſt be provided for by one way or rule, and the poor of their own Church by another way or rule? or, if there be any difference; do not a Churches own poor, rather require a weekly contribution for their reliefe, then the poor abroad of other Churches? therefore we ſaid, at the beginning, that we conceived the Apoſtle to have a further meaning then the occaſion did import.

Beſides, ſeeing there are Lords Dayes contributions throughout the yeer, in all the Belgick churches for the poor; upon what Scriptures do they bottome them, if not upon this? there is par ratio, like reaſon without all doubt, that look how the Apoſtle would have reliefe come in, to the Saints of Jeruſalem; ſo he would have it come in to the Saints of every Church that wants it; and that is by raiſing a ſtock in the Church for all good uſes by firſt dayes contributions.

But wherein doth this Stock or Treaſury of the Church reſpect Miniſters?

The ſtock raiſed by ſelling of eſtates, and laying them down at the Apoſtles feet, reſpecteth not the Saints alone, but the very Apoſtles; why then ſhould not the ſtock raiſed by an every Sabbaths contribution reſpect Miniſters? If we will take Chemnitius his opinion, (whoſe harmony upon the Goſpel is not a litle ſet by)Chem. har. p. 182 period. hiſt. de anno Chriſt. 12. he tells us, the Doctors in Chriſts time, that preached, were maintained by contribution: he ſaith the treaſury into which Chriſt beheld many rich ones caſting in much, and the poor widow all her ſubſtance, was to maintain the Doctors; he alſo joynes the poor with the Doctors, and ſaith, that the Treaſury was for both uſes, ſee John 8.20. and compare it with Mark. 12.41.

Having given an account of our tenent and grounds whereupon built, and our conceptions upon 1 Cor. 16.1, 2. we need not frame any other Reply unto your Anſwer (Brother,) for the intelligent Reader will diſcern, what little truth in ſome things, and little ſubſtance in other things there is in what you have preſented in that matter; only, becauſe you charge us with unrighteouſneſſe, and partiality in point of our not maintaining our Ruling Elders, we ſhall clear our ſelves in a few words.

1. We conceive all Officers are to have ſome maintenance; the labourer is worthy of his hire; provided that he either require it, or the Church be able to give it.

2. We conceive that there is a difference in the works of Officers; ſome are greater, taking up the whole time and ſtrength of the Officers double work being put upon them, ruling and labouring in the Word and Doctrine; ſo there ſhould be difference in the maintenance of Officers, ſome ought to have more then others.

3. When the Church is not able to maintain her teaching Officers with an honourable maintenance; then if the ruling Officers and the Deacons will remit what ever reward from the Church their work calls for; 'tis no unrighteouſneſſe nor partiality in the Church to maintain the teaching Officers, and not the reſt; becauſe their works do not ſo require the whole man, but that they may have other Callings to help themſelves, by which means they may ſpare the Church in her poverty, in point of maintenance.

4. Your ſelf may do well to conſider whether the ruling Elders and the Deacons be maintained in the Presbyterian Churches; and if it be an error not to do it, it is good to pull out that beam out of your own eye, and then you may ſee the better to take it out of your brothers eye.

POSITION XIV.

The great Mountain burning with fire caſt into the Sea, upon the ſounding of the ſecond Trumpet, Rev. 8.8, 9. is applied by ſome good Writers to thoſe times in which Conſtantine brought ſettled endowments into the Church.

If it be ſo applyed by ſome good Writers, Anſwer. who poſſibly bad in their eyes the Lordly, and almoſt regall riches and pomp of Prelates; it is by as many, and as good writers applyed otherwiſe.

Our brethren ſpeak modeſtly and moderately: Reply. they tell us, it is applied ſo by ſome good Writers; It is not therefore their own novell expoſition; they preſent it as probable, they force the interpretation upon no man. But what are your exceptions againſt it?

For my part, Anſwer. as I ſinde that Conſtantines donation, the foundation of this expoſition, is but a fiction, accounted by Gratian himſelf to be but palea (and what is the chaffe to the wheat?) So I finde in the Prophecies, that Kings and States are called Mountains, Zach. 4.7. Caſting of Mountains into the Sea, implyeth great commotions, Pſal. 46.2. Their burning with ſire, ſignifieth their oppoſition and fierceneſſe, whereby they become deſtroying Mountains, Jer. 51.25.

1. Reply. We are not at a little want of books; and therefore are not able to make an exact ſearch either after the truth or falſhood of this matter; But let Conſtantines donation of the Popes patrimony, be a Fiction and Palea; yet we ſuppoſe it may be cleerly evidenced from credible Authors, that Conſtantine brought in great riches and pomp, ſetled endowments to the Clergie of the Church, and that is all that is affirmed in the Poſition.

2. If Kings and States be called Mountains, ſo is proſperity in riches and honours, Pſal. 30. Thou haſt made my Mountain ſo ſtrong, (that is) my condition ſo proſperous: And Sea in Scripture is the Church ſometimes, or the Religion of the Church, Rev. 13.1. & 15.2. therefore caſting of a Mountain into the ſea, may be bringing proſperity, and caſting riches and honours upon the Church: and though Mountains ſhould be taken in your ſenſe for Kings, when almoſt regall riches and honours were caſt upon Prelates of the Church, may it not be ſaid, a mountain was caſt into the Sea? And may it not well be ſaid to be a burning Mountain, when the ambition of Prelates after Church indowments and honours, almoſt ſet the Chriſtian world on fire? and the hot conteſtations of Eccleſiaſticall perſons for Church-livings do teſtifie, that if proſperity in wealth and honour be a mountain, then it was a burning mountain; and had ſuch effects following it, as the Prophecies in the Revelations ſpeak of: But you go on and ſay,

I finde not that it is unlawfull, either for a yeer, as in New-England, Anſwer. 〈◊〉 . to • . R. p. 19. Reply. or for certain yeers, or for term of life; much leſſe do I finde that it is lawfull for one, and not for a yeer & a quarter, or two, or three, or four yeers.

Though T. W. ſpeak of maintenance from yeer to yeer, yet it is not to be underſtood that there is any compact betwixt Miniſters and the Church, how much the Miniſters muſt have before the work be begun; but it is the conſultation of the Church after the work hath been performed, or a conſideration for the yeer paſt, when they all agree; that if there be not enough in the ſlock of the Church to raiſe it up to an honourable allowance, by the voluntary gift of each; yet, according as God hath bleſſed them, Otherwiſe were it an agreement aforehand it would be as lawfull for two or three yeers as for one. But how you will anſwer your miſ-interpreting and miſ-reporting of T. W. in the page you cite wherein he doth expreſſe himſelf as we have ſhewed, we underſtand not.

POSITION XV.

There muſt be in the Church Teachers, This for ſubſtance is alledged by Anſw to 32. q. p. 75. and many others. diſtinct from Paſtors, as Apoſtles are diſtinct from Euangeliſts, Epheſ. 4.11.

That Text proves not the ſame diſtinction between them; for he ſaith, Anſwer. Some Apoſtles, and ſome Prophets, &c. but not ſome Paſtors, and ſome Teachers; but ſome Paſtors and Teachers; or rather, theſe Apoſtles, theſe Prophets, theſe Euangeliſts, theſe Shepheards and Teachers, which words ſeeme but to explicate one another; as Shepheard and Biſhop do, 1 Pet. 2.25. 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉

You croſſe the opinion of many Orthodox modern Writers, Reply. while you ſpeak contradictorily to us; for it is not our tenent alone, but the judgement of many learned ones, that they are diſtinct Offices. Whether you tranſlate ſome Apoſtles, or theſe Apoſtles, the matter is not weighty, nor are you advantaged by it.

The greater queſtion is, who theſe Teachers be, and what their work is; whether they be School Doctors, as Junius Jun. Eccleſ. lib. 2. cap. 5. p 1955 thinks, and ſo their work to train up the youth of the Church in the knowledge of Arts and Sciences, eſpecially of Divinity for the ſervice of the Church; or whether they be Teachers of the whole Church, and their work to doctrinate the Church by words of knowledge. The latter ſeems to be more conſonant to the Scripture then the former, Rom. 12.7, 8. 1 Cor. 12.8. And Zanchy, Pareus, Bucer, and many others, are of this judgement. Zanchy's words are theſe: There are only five orders of Miniſters in the Church, Zanc. de Feel. milit. gubernatione, tom. 8. p. • 4 • . inſtituted by Chriſt; and then under this Poſition are theſe words, We acknowledge not more kindes of Miniſters then the Apoſtle expreſſeth in Epheſ. 4.11. Apoſtles, Euangeliſts, Prophets, Paſtors, Teachers. The three firſt were not tied to places, but were ſometimes here, and ſometimes there, either to gather Churches, or to govern them, to plant, or to water them: The two latter, viz. Paſtors and Teachers, he would have to be ſet apart for the conſervation and government of particular Churches: as alſo for the augmentation and propagation of them. Pareus upon Rom. 12.7. hath theſe words: Now he under puts two kindes of prophecies; the gift of teaching, which is proper to the Doctor or Teacher; the gift of exhorting, which is proper to the Paſtor of the Church: for Paul, in Epheſ. 4. diſtinguiſheth Paſtors and Teachers, and the gifts of the Spirit were diſtinct; for to ſome were given a moſt cleere revelation and underſtanding of doctrine; theſe did attend to the explication of the heads of Religion, and did form the faith of the Church: to others was given a faculty of exhorting. Bucer alſo upon Rom. 12.7. ſaith thus: One man hath the gift of propecie, another hath the gift of miniſtring; ſo the perſon that teacheth, having the gift of teaching, in doctrine, ſo the perſon that exhorteth (the perſon that teacheth, he makes diſtinct from the perſon that exhorteth) endued with the gift of exhortation; and then he mentions the Deacon and Ruling Elder, as diſtinct with their gift from the reſt. So that if we do put any falſe gloſſe upon the Scriptures, by miſ-interpreting of Epheſ. 4.11. yet more modeſt language had becomed you, (brother) ſeeing ſuch Reverend, Learned men, whom your ſelf ſo much honour, have gone before us in the expoſition.

POSITION XVI.

This particular Congregation is Sion, This Text is frequently alledged in anſw. to 32. q. and others. which God loveth, and he hath promiſed to be preſent, Matth. 18.20.

No Sir, it is not Sion, but one of the aſſemblies of Sion, Iſai. 4.5. Anſwer. The Hebrewes which were divided in many Congregations, are not ſaid to be come into many mount Sions, but to Mount Sion, Heb. 12. The Scripture warrants not the expreſſion of an hundred, or a thouſand Sions.

Sion was a mountain contiguous unto Moriah, Reply. upon which the Temple was built, in which God vouchſafed a ſpeciall preſence, and unto which the Tribes went up; and by a Metonymie, it is frequently put for the Temple that was built neer to it; and by another Metonymie, it is put for the people that repaired thither, and aſſembled there; and ſo for the Church of the Jewes, which Church, in the times of the old Teſtament, conſiſted of many aſſemblies, and yet it ſelf was but one Church; and the Temple alſo was but one, which was called Sion; and ſo Sion, while the Temple was to ſtand, and the Church of the Jewes was to continue, was but one. But in the times of the Goſpel, there were to be no viſible Temples where God would dwell, but the viſible Church, 2 Cor. 6.16. and the viſible Church is Congregationall, and not Nationall, much leſſe univerſall, as hath been proved; therefore the Congregationall church is Sion, therefore the ſpeciall place of Gods preſence.

Yet this hinders not, but that the language of the old Teſtament, when it ſpeaks of things of the new Teſtament, may be uſed in the old Teſtament; yea, in the new alſo: as in Zach. 14.19. Iſai. 66.20, 21. So when Sion in the new Teſtament is ſpoken of in Iſaiah 4.5. there may be an alluſion in phraſe and manner of ſpeaking to Sion in the old Teſtament. We may as well reade of the aſſemblies of Sion, though there be no ſuch thing, but each aſſemblie is Sion, as of the Feaſt of Tabernacles, when yet in the dayes of the Goſpel there is no ſuch thing as a feaſt of Tabernacles, but it is ſpoken by way of alluſion; the things of the new Teſtament are ſet forth to us under the ſhadowes of the old; therefore, becauſe Sion was then but one, it is ſpoken of as one ſtill, and yet it is more then one.

Now that there are many mounts Sions, your ſelf doth really confeſſe, though in words you contradict it.

1. We know you hold that the Church of the Jews in the dayes of the old Yeſtament, was called Sion.

2. We know you hold, that the viſible Church in the dayes of the Goſpel is Sion.

3. Is it not manifeſt therefore, that you hold, that look how many viſible churches there are in the times of the Goſpel, ſo many Sions there are? Your own words are, that the Hebrews, which were divided in many Congregations, are ſaid to be come to one mount Sion. If ſo, then the Congregations of the Chriſtian Gentiles may well be another mount Sion; And if the Nationall church of the Jewes, with the aſſemblies thereof were mount Sion: why may not every Nationall-church of Chriſtians with the aſſemblies thereof (we ſpeak now in your language) be Sion alſo? and then there being many Nationall churches, (as you ſay) there are many Sions.

And what greater abſurdity is it to ſay, there are an hundred, or a thouſand; Sions, then to ſay, there are an hundred, or a thouſand Churches? Seeing Sion and Church are all one. Now you know there were many viſible churches in Judea, Galatia, Macedonia, Aſia, and many other places, and if (then) ſo many, how many more now? therefore many Sions; and becauſe thoſe many churches then, and theſe now, we believe to have been, and ſtill to be Congregationall; therefore every Congregationall Church we hold to be Sion.

But you ask an odde ſtrange needleſſe (to ſay no worſe of it) queſtion with a great deal of vehemency, Anſwer. viz.

Have you not found God preſent in our Aſſemblies? Have you not by faith cloſed with the promiſes in the uſe of the Ordinances among us? Speak out: I know you dare not belie your ſelves, us, and God himſelf, &c. Reply.

Your queſtion is bottomed upon a miſtake; when we ſay, that God hath promiſed to be preſent in Sion; you give this gloſſe upon it, that we deny all your Aſſemblies to be Sion, and will not grant Gods preſence at all to be with you: and that we appropriate Sion and Gods preſence to our ſelves; which is a great injury to us.

You alſo put this ſenſe upon our words, that God is ſo preſent in Sion, that he is preſent no where elſe, and ſo not preſent with holy men and women which are out of Church-fellowſhip, nor preſent with members of many churches meeting together, which either is a foul miſtake, or a ſlander: For we think God to be preſent with his people, when they meet in his feare, whether they be Church-members, or not Church-members; whether they be of one, or many churches; whether they be in our aſſemblies or yours, provided that his Ordinances be carried according to his minde: yea, though there ſhould be ſome error, yet he might give his preſenceRev. 2.1. with Rev. 2.14.20.. Much rather do we think God will be preſent with perſons whom he ſets on work to exalt him in the execution of ſome office, as he did the Apoſtles; and now doth ordinary Elders. Nevertheleſſe, we conceive God to be moſt preſent with his people gathered into a body, and compacted together in an inſtituted Church, which we hold to be Congregationall; and the reaſon is, becauſe the more any people do fall into the order of the Goſpel, and come into the way of Chriſt, which he hath appointed for Saints to walk in; the more Chriſt is ingaged to be preſent with them. Now to joyn to ſome inſtituted Church of Chriſt is that way and order which Chriſt hath directed to; therefore with them in ſuch a way (as ſo united and joyned) Chriſt will more eſpecially be preſent: for he vouchſafeth a ſpeciall preſence amongſt ſuch Churches, Rev. 2.1. he ſtyles himſelf one that walketh in the midst of the ſeven golden candleſticks; he walks in other places and people, but he would intimate thus much, that his eſpeciall delightſome walk is among them, and the more golden the candleſticks are, the more pure they be, the more delight he takes to walke in the midst of them.

But Matth. 18. you ſay is miſ-interpeted; Your words are theſe: Anſwer.

Chriſt, in Matth. 18. promiſeth his preſence to thoſe that are not a Church; for two or three will not make a Church; they (verſ. 17) were to give the ſecond admonition, the Church the third.

There is a figure in the number, Reply. there is a certain number put for an uncertain; two or three are put for a few; the paucity that may be in a Church, ſhall be no obſtacle of Chriſts preſence. Pareus upon this Text, hath theſe words: It is an argument that the judgement of the Church ſhall be ratified, becauſe Chriſt himſelf will be preſent in the Church as ſupreme Judge to ratifie it: it is alſo a generall promiſe of the preſence of the grace of Chriſt in his Church, be it great or ſmall. Now ſurely we ſhall leſſe doubt our expoſition having ſo learned a Commentator ſo well approved of, to ſtand by us in the ſame.

POSITION XVII.

So long as a Believer doth not joyn himſelf to ſome particular Congregation, he is without in the Apoſtles ſenſe, 1 Cor. 5.12.

Thoſe without, Anſwer. of whom the Apoſtle ſpeaketh, were unbelievers, Pagans, and Heathen; without Chriſt, as well as without the viſible Church.

Let it be granted that thoſe whom the Apoſtle ſpeaks of were both without Chriſt, Reply. and without the viſible Church, yet it may be ſecurely affirmed that the Apoſtle ſpeaks of them under the notion of ſuch as were without the viſible church, and not of thoſe that were without Chriſt.

1.Singuli de ſuâ familia judicant, non immittunt conſuram in alienam ſamiliam. Ergo, in Eccleſia ſimilis ſervetur ratio ut ſingulae deſuit membris judicent, Aretius in 1 Cor. 5. Becauſe thoſe (without) whom the Apoſtle had not to do to judge, ſtand in oppoſition to thoſe within, verſ. 12. the latter part, whom the Church of Corinth had to do to judge, and conſequently (if this expoſition of yours be true) the judgement of the Church of Corinth extended as far as the ultima Thule, the lands end of Chriſtianity; and only ceaſed when it came to the conſines of Paganiſme; and conſequently any one Church hath power to judge any one Believer in all the world, becauſe (ſay you) he is not without in the Apoſtles ſenſe; that is to ſay, he is not a Pagan, Heathen, or unbeliever.

2. Suppoſe the Apoſtle had known a member of the Church of Corinth (what ever he appeared outwardly in the frame of his converſation) to be indeed without Chriſt, and in a ſtate of enmity with God; if this man had committed a groſſe ſin, might not the Apoſtle have judged ſuch a one to be excommunicated? We ſuppoſe you will ſay, he might, and if ſo, we demand, why ſhould a Church-unbeliever be ſubject to the Apoſtles judgement, and an Heatheniſh unbeliever be exempted from the Apoſtles judgement? If Church-memberſhip did not make the one obnoxious to that ſpirituall judgement more then the other? For in the notion of unbelievers, and without Chriſt they both agree; and therefore if a Heathen were exempted from judgement, becauſe without Chriſt, and not for this reaſon, becauſe without the viſible Church; why ſhould not a Church-unbeliever be exempted as well as a Heathen?

2. If we miſtake not, a Believer not joyned to any particular congregation, is without, in reference to Church-judgement (and we ſuppoſe by vertue of this Text) in your Presbyterian calculation of Eccleſiaſticall power. For Claſſicall, Provinciall, and Nationall Synods, have a power of judging, or excommunicating thoſe only, that are within the combination. Now theſe being repreſentative Churches, he that is of no particular Congregation, is without the verge of Presbyteriall power; or elſe it will follow, that the Presbyteriall Church hath power to excommunicate a perſon that is not within their combination; and if one, by the ſame reaſon a thouſand, ten thouſand, in every quarter and corner of the world. But, ſay you,

The Apoſtle oppoſeth Fornicators of the World, Anſwer. and Fornicators that are Brethren.

Perſecution in the Primitive times (as it is at this day) was chiefly (if not only) levied againſt thoſe who did joyn themſelves to the Churches, to the enjoyment of Ordinances, Reply. or at leaſt otherwiſe viſibly (as Paul at his firſt converſion, by preaching) declared themſelves to be Chriſts Diſciples. Hence thoſe to whom God had given ſo much faith and conſtancy, as to be willing to expoſe themſelves to perſecution; theſe did inliſt themſelves in the Churches, frequented their meetings, (which were obſervable by the Perſecutors) and profeſſed themſelves of the fraternity of the Church, the Church looked on them as her members, and accordingly diſpenſed ordinances and cenſures to them, as they had need. Others there were, who, like Nicodemus, came to Chriſt by night; or like thoſe chief Rulers, ſpoken of, Joh. 12.42. who, though they believe in Chriſt, yet they dare not confeſſe him, by publike joyning of themſelves, to run all hazards with the Church. Hence it is, that no politick viſible Church doth look upon theſe as of her fraternity; or doth diſpence all ordinances and cenſures to them. Now the Brother that is oppoſed to the fornicators of the world, is not he, that by the internall and inviſible grace of faith is a Brother, and of the myſticall body of Chriſt, though peradventure he dare not openly profeſſe Chriſt. But ſuch a one is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in the Church of Corinth, who is a named and profeſſed Brother; ſo looked upon, not only by the motherly eye of the Church, but oft times by the malitious eye of the world; though peradventure they be not truly brethren, united with the reſt of the faithfull people of God, as members of the myſticall body of Chriſt. 2. With ſuch a one not to eat, preſuppoſeth in an orderly way, a forbearing of voluntary civil and ſpirituall communion with the party upon this ground, that he is under cenſure in the Church. Now the power of Church-cenſures is not to be executed by the church-myſticall, but by the church-viſible, as ſuch; neither is it to be executed upon the members of the Church-myſticall, as ſuch, but upon the members of the viſible church, whether they be in truth or only in appearance members of the myſticall church. So then Fornicators of the world, are to be underſtood of the world as it ſtands in oppoſition to the viſible church, and ſo thoſe that are of the myſticall church may be fornicators of the world in that ſenſe. And though by the lawes of Chriſt, concerning Church-diſcipline, every man be forbidden to eat with thoſe that are known Fornicators, under church-cenſure in their own church; and by vertue of church-communion, with thoſe that are fornicators, under cenſure in any other church: yet if one that is a member of the myſticall, but dares not profeſſe his ſubjection to Chriſt in that particular, of joyning himſelf to ſome viſible church, ſhall be a fornicator, we know no law of Chriſt preciſely concerning church-diſcipline, that interdicts a man to eat, in point of voluntary civill communion, with ſuch a man, any more then if he were a Pagan, or Heathen.

But, Anſwer. ſay you, without are Dogs, and Sorcerers; ſuch as the Apoſtle had not to do with: What have I to do, &c. verſ. 12. (and yet he had to do with all Chriſtians, by his illimited apoſtolike power, whether they belong to that, or any other Congregation or no;) ſuch as God judgeth, or are left to the immediate judgement of God: But this is not the caſe of Believers not joyned (eſpecially in your ſenſe of joyning) to a particular Congregation; nor do you (I hope) judge it to be the caſe of Believers in England and Scotland.

1. Reply. There might be Dogs, in the Apoſtolike Churches, as well as without, Phil. 3.2. and with ſuch dogs Paul had to do with; Nay, he had to do with the dogs of the Gentiles; he received a key of knowledge, by which he was to open the Kingdome of heaven to them in caſe they would repent and believe, and to binde them under the guilt of impenitencie and infidelity, in caſe they would not repent and believe, Matth. 28.19. with Mark. 16.16. But thoſe that Paul had not to do to judge, who are ſaid to be without in this place, are all ſuch as are contradiſtinguiſhed to thoſe that are within, with whom the Church had to do, by way of Eccleſiaſticall judgement. Now the church of Corinth had power of Eccleſiaſticall judgement, over all, and only thoſe which were within the combination of that church; and therefore Paul had nothing to do to judge them (that is to ſay, with the judgement mentioned in this place) which were out of this combination. Now what was this judgement? Anſw. The judgement whereby the Apoſtle decrees, that the church of Corinth ſhall excommunicate fornicators, and conſequently ſhall not eat with them. Now the Apoſtle had received no ſuch power to judge thoſe perſons to excommunication, and that by the miniſtery of a church, that were never in fellowſhip with the church: But ſuch perſons (though for their crimes they may be ſubject to the judgement of the civill Magiſtrate,) yet in reſpect of Eccleſiaſticall judgement they are left to the immediate judgement of God. And if this be not the caſe of Believers not joyned to a particular congregation, by whom ſhall thoſe Believers be judged? Why ſhall this Congregationall, Claſſicall, Provinciall, National-church judge them, rather then that? May they be judged by all, or any one? Certainly they ſtand no more related to one then to another, which are members of none at all. Where ſhall the fault be charged, if judgement be not paſſed? We ſaid before, if a church may judge one out the combination, why not a thouſand, why not ten thouſand? &c. yet we are far from judging thoſe Believers in England and Scotland which are not joyned in our Way of joyning to a particular Congregation, therefore to be altogether out of Church-combination, not capable of the Eccleſiaſticall judgement of their Churches, and conſequently ſubject to the immediate judgement of Chriſt.

POSITION XVIII.

The Elders are not Lords over Gods heritage, 1 Pet. 5.3. nor do exerciſe authority, as the Kings and Princes of the earth do; remembring our Saviours leſſon, Matth. 20.25, 26 Luke 22.25, 26.

They are not ſo many Biſhops ſtriving for preeminence, Anſwer. as Diotrephes did, 3 Joh. verſ. 9, 10.Theſe Scriptures are alledged to 32 q p. 59. & 76. though not with ſuch tartneſſe againſt Presbyteriall government.

We will not ſay to you as Geta in the Comoedian Teren. in Phor. Reply. Nihil eſt Antipho quin male narrando poſſit depravarier; tu id quod boni eſt excerpis, dicis quod mali. For you do not only leave out (in reciting) that which is good, but for want of an evill uſe made of theſe Scriptures by the Elders of New-England in the 32. Queſt. you firſt inſinuate, that ſuch an ill uſe is made of the Text, and then confute your own fiction; for you ſay,

To ſay nothing that the title 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is ſometime tranſlated Sir, Anſwer. and ſometimes Lord, Joh. 12.21, &c.

You take up the Title 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Reply. and tell us that it ſignifies Sir, and Lord, and that it is ſometimes given to Elders amongſt others, as if you had a minde to ſpeak a good word for ſome kinde of Lordly power in Church-officers; but you lay it down again, and tell us,

Though Elders be not Lords over Gods heritage, Anſwer. yet they are Leaders and Guides; yea, Shepheards, Rulers, Overſeers, Biſhops, Governoure, and not only Preſidents of the Congregation, Moderators of her actions, or, as the fore-men of the Jury.

And is not this to inſinuate, Reply. that the Elders of New-England ſay, that the Elders are only Preſidents of the Congregation, (I ſuppoſe you mean meerly for orders ſake) Moderators of her actions, or as the fore-men of the Jury? Now there is not the leaſt expreſſion in either of the places, that ſo much as ſeems to ſmile upon ſuch an aſſertion as you would father upon the Elders of New-England. Nay, do they not expreſsly ſay, that the Elders rule as Stewards, as Shepheards, as Captains, as Guides, as Leaders? and doth this amount to no more (in your Arithmetick, then a bare preſidency Moderatorſhip, or Fore-manſhip of a Jury, which doth not advance the perſon that carries the ſtamp of it one haires breadth above his Brethren in point of authority; But only one ſtep before them in point of order. Whereas the Elders do not only ſtate a Miniſteriall authoritative power in them, but alſo lay an obligation of duty upon the people towards their Officers, by vertue of 1 Theſ. 5.12, 13. This is that that we judge to be your own fiction.

The other Text (ſay you, Anſwer. viz. Mat. 20.25, 26.) forbids Kingly or Lordly power in the Miniſters of the Goſpel: for the two Apoſtles ſtill dreaming of a temporall kingdome, and being kinſmen to Chriſt, did expect ſome temporall honour and advanaement. Chriſt ſaith not, there was inequality amongst the Prieſts of the Jews, and amongst the Prieſts of the Gentiles, or between the Prieſts and the people; but, it ſhall not be ſo among you: but very aptly and pertinently to their Petition anſwereth, The Princes of Gentiles, &c.

And would you indeed make the world believe by all this, Reply. that you are all this while, beating up the quarters of the Independents; when as in truth, this Text is urged by the Elders to no other purpoſe, but to deny a kingly, or Lordly power in Elders over their Brethren; but not to deny an authoritative miniſteriall power in reference to their Congregations? Therefore, they ſay, the Elders are forbidden to exerciſe authority as the Kings and Princes of the earth do, and they quote Mr. Baynes his Dioceſan triall, Q. 2. p. 74. where he diſtinguiſheth power into naturall, and morall; morall into Civill, and Eccleſiaſticall; both into Kingly and miniſteriall: aſſerting Kingly Eccleſiaſticall power to be in Chriſt; miniſteriall in the Elders of the Churches; who, though they be Governours to the Church in the deſcending line of power, yet are they but ſervile or miniſteriall Governours in the aſcending line that leads to Chriſt, from whom they receive the Commiſſion; becauſe they do all ex mero alterius obſequio, by the meer will and command of another.

I, but by this Text they deny a kingly ſpirituall power, Object. whereas the Text ſpeaks nothing of ſpirituall; but only of kingly ſecular power.

Admit that not only the two ſons of Zebedee, Anſwer. but even all the Apoſtles that had been converſant with Chriſt, and heard his doctrine, from the beginning, were ſuch babes, as to imagine that Chriſt would lay down his ſpirituall Kingdome over the ſouls and conſciences of his people, and for their ſakes over Angels, wicked men and devills in a way of ſoveraign power, and would take up a temporall kingdome, to divide inheritances, rule over the perſons and eſtates of men. Nay, admit that the ſons of Zebedee, or any, or all of the reſt of the Apoſtles had their eyes ſo dazled with the luſtre of this imaginary temporall kingdome, that they deſired an eminencie one above another herein, nothing regarding an eminencie above others in the ſpirituall Kingdome: yet it will not follow, that Chriſt ſpeaks nothing by way of reproofe of ambitious aſpirings in the ſpirituall, but only in the temporall kingdome of Chriſt. Neither needed Chriſt, by expreſſing the inequality among the Prieſts, whether of Jewes or Gentiles, &c. amplifie and expreſſe the equality which he would have amongſt the Miniſters of the Church. For expreſſing the diſparity betwixt civill polities of the world, and the ſpirituall polity of the Church, he doth that abundantly: ſaith he, It ſhall not be ſo amongst you as it is in the civill polities of the world: There one, or more, rule with Lordly power, the reſt are in ſubjection; but in the diſcharge of your Apoſtolicall Commiſſion, there ſhall be no ſuch thing; but you ſhall be all of equall power; but if any will aſpire to greatneſs in point of authority, above his brethren, let him be your miniſter, &c. as the Apoſtle taught afterwards, 1 Cor. 12.5. There are diverſities of adminiſtrations, but the ſame Lord; Chriſt only rules with Lordly power over the Church, one Apoſtle, or Miniſter, hath no ſuch power, nor any authority at all one over another: but are all fellow-ſervants, having a miniſteriall authority in reference to the houſhold of the Church.

2. It holds true in this caſe, optimi corruptio fit peſſima; though Church-officers, and offices are excellent things, whileſt they retain their genuine vigor, and vertue according to the inſtitution of Chriſt; yet are they moſt dangerous, when they grow degenerate and corrupt, and no corruption ſo dangerous as that which is Symbolicall in the common nature of Church-power, with that from which it doth degenerate. Hence it is, that corruption of Church-governours, in an uſurpation of exorbitant Eccleſiaſticall domination is of more dangerous influence to the Church, then if they ſhould uſurp ſome parts, or branches of civill power. For as in naturall things we ſay, Elementa ſymbolica facilius tranſmutantur, ſo in morall things, corruptions do more eaſily change things in ſome thing ſymbolicall with themſelves, into their own degenerate property; like a diſeaſe that it moſt contagious to perſons of the ſame blood. Aud therefore if inequality of civill power be forbidden, how much more inequality in power Eccleſiaſticall, which is the ſpawn; and riſe of Antichriſtian tyrannie? Paſtor, & Prel. p. 23. Anſwer to Mr. Down. See pag. 81. 82. Mr. Pagets Defence. part 2. p. 29 The learned Clergie in the dayes of Hen. 8. confeſſed, there was no diſparity of Miniſters inſtituted by Chriſt, Act. & Mon.

Diotrophes being but one, was liker to a Prelate then a Prsbyterie, &c.

Theſe words are brought to vindicate, 3 Joh. verſ. 9, Reply. 10. from a ſuppoſed abuſe by theſe words, They (viz. the Elders) are not ſo many Biſhops, ſtriving for preeminence, as Diotrephes did.

We muſt confeſſe, we had almoſt ſaid; we wonder that your ink did not bluſh, to blot and blur ſuch ſweet, humble-ſpirited, holy and pertinent expreſſions, as you do in this place. Let your ſelf once more, and the Reader, take a judgement of the paſſage, as it lies in its perfect luſter, in the Anſwer to the 32 Queſt. The Queſtion propounded by the Brethren of Old-Engand is this:

What authority or eminency have your Preaching-Elders above your Ruling-Elders?

To which the Elders of New-England frame this Anſwer.

It is not the manner of Elders amongſt us, whether ruling only, or ruling and teaching alſo, to ſtrive for preeminence one above another; as remembring what leſſon our Saviour taught his Diſciples, when they were at ſtrife among themſelves, which of them ſhould be the greateſt, Luke 22.24, 25. If Diotrephes ſtrive for preeminence, verily we abhor ſuch ſtriving; and by the grace of God, reſpect one another as Brethren.

Brother, where lies the fault, for which they lie under cenſure? Is it a fault that the Elders in New-England ſtrive not for preeminence? If ſo, we ſuppoſe it lies in this, that their humble and brother-like walking, each towards other, condemnes the pride of thoſe that will needs be ſtriving for ſome kinde of preeminence, and Prelacy above their Brethren.

Juvtual. Satyr. — Patriam tamen obruit olim Gloria paucorum, & laudis tituli que cupido. — This formerly the countrey overthrew; The luſt for praiſe and titles, and the glory of a few.

Or, are they to blame to inſinuate, that the Apoſtles cenſure upon Diotrephes, doth ſo frown upon thoſe (whether Prelates or Presbyters) that ſtrive for preeminence, that it is a matter of abhorrency to them ſo to ſtrive? Hinc illae lacrymae; hence it is that you ſay, Diotrephes being but one, is liker to be a Prelate then a Presbyterie.

Brother, Reply. a horſe in the abſtracted notion of unity, being but one, is liker a Prelate then a Presbytrie that are many. But what of that? Prelacy doth not conſiſt in unity, but in the uſurpation of undue (that is to ſay, unſcripturall) ſpirituall power over their Brethren; and in this capacity it is poſſible, that a Claſſicall Presbyterie may be as like Diotrephes, as a Prelate; that is to ſay, if they take upon them a preeminence over their Brethren, as he did. 'Tis as truly Prelaticall when fourteen or fifteen exerciſe a juriſdictionall power over all their Brethren in a County; as when one man ſhall take upon him to exerciſe the power aforeſaid in two or three ſeverall counties. Perhaps the fourteen or fifteen (being better principled then the other) may do it with more gentleneſſe and leſſe offence, butMore and leſſe do not alter the kind. magis & minus, non variant ſpeciem; and they may be bothAlike, if not equally. aequè, if not aequaliter, Prelaticall.

Yet John dod not blame him ſimply for acceping or having preeminence; Anſwer. or for taking upon him to anſwer in the behalf of the Church to which St John writ; or for taking to him the power of commanding, forbidding, excommunicating; but for loving preeminence, (as Mat. 23.6, 7.) for not receiving the Apoſtles and Brethren; and prohibiting what he ſhould have required, and incouraged; and excommunicating ſuch as were the beſt members of the Church.

Reply. You might more properly have ſaid, uſurping, or exerciſing preeminence: for accepting preſuppoſeth an offer made of the thing accepted: Now it is more then probable, that the Church never offered him preeminence, both over the Apoſtle John, and over her ſelf, that he ſhould over-rule the Church, and caſt out her beſt members at his pleaſure; neither if ſhe would, had ſhe any ſuch power.

Let it be granted that Diotrephes was an Elder of the Church of Corinth, Reply. Rom. 16.25. 1 Cor. 1.14. and ſo had a preeminence by vertue of Office over the Body of the Church, yet this is not the preeminence here ſpoken of, but an exorbitant preeminence, uſurped over the whole; both the Elders his equalls, in power, and the fraternity (who though his inferiours, yet have a ſhare and intereſt in the paſſing of excommunication, and other weighty affaires of the Church) expreſſed (as your ſelf ſtate it) in taking upon him to anſwer in the behalfe of the Church, commanding, forbidding, excommunicating. Now ſay you, he is not ſimply blamed for accepting or having, but for loving preembrence, and exerciſing it corruptly, in regard of the things done and performed by him. It is ſaid of corrupt Princes, Iſaiah 1.23. Every one loveth gifts: by the ſame reaſon, that Diotrephes is excuſed from the guilt of ſolitary excommunication in regard of the materiality of the action; by the ſame reaſon may theſe Princes be excuſed from their bribery and corruption: And it may be ſaid, the Prophet doth not reprove them for the receiving, but for the loving of gifts. When the thing is evill, there love, how moderate ſoever, is faulty, in this regard, that it is placed upon a wrong object. But where the thing is lawfull, a moderate and well tempered love of it is lawfull alſo: As for the Scribes and Phariſees, ſo far as they were men of chief rank and place,Mat. 23.6. for them to poſſeſſe and love to poſſeſſe with a well bounded love, the uppermoſt rooms at feaſts, and the chief ſeats in Synagogues, would not be unlawfull, but perhaps their ambition put them upon affectation of places undue to them; and then their poſſeſſing them, and their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as Mark, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as Matthew and Luke; or, as Chriſt ſpeaks, Luke 24 7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , they chooſe the chief rooms, and this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to be ſeen of men, being added to their poſſeſſing:

—Digito monſtrari, & dicier hic eſtTo be ſhewed by the ſinger, and to have it ſaid, This is ſuch One. is that which may juſtly be condemned by our Saviour: But the caſe which reſpecteth Diotrephes may be this; it is probable that John writ about ſomething that did concern Diſcipline, as the receiving of certain Brethren either to conſtant memberſhip, or by vertue of church communion; now this was a buſineſſe in which the fraternity had ſome intereſt, as well as Diotrephes and the reſt of the Elders; and therefore the Apoſtle writes not to Diotrephes, or the Elders alone, but to the whole Church: alſo, becauſe Quod omnes tangit, ab omnibus tractari debet; that which concerns all, muſt be handled by all. But Diotrephes riſeth up, and he alone commands, forbids, excommunicates, and what can be more deſtructive of the power of the Presbyterie and liberty of the people, then ſuch a courſe? and yet, ſay you, (or elſe you ſay nothing to the purpoſe) he is not blamed for it. If Diotrephes were not to blame, being but a particular Elder, to take upon him the power of the whole Elderſhip, yea, and the whole Church, why may not a particular brother take upon him the power to elect an Officer which belonge to the fraternity, or one Elder to ordain an Officer which pertains to the whole Presbyterie? Or in your Claſſick Way, why may not a particular Elder, a member of the Claſſis, exerciſe the juriſdiction of the whole Claſſis? why may not a Claſſis exerciſe the power of a Provinciall Synod? that of a Nationall; and the Nationall of the Oecumenicall Synod; and yet be blameleſſe? the reaſon is, the ſame proportion that an Elder hath to the whole Elderſhip, the ſame, or far greater, have a brother to the whole fraternity, an Elder to the Claſſick, a Claſſick to the Provinciall, a Provinciall to the Nationall, and that to the Oecumenicall Synod.

But peradventure it was not unwittingly done by you, to put in the word ſimply for a retreat, in caſe you ſhould be hotly charged for pleading the cauſe of Prelacie, under the notion of Presbyterie; and ſo you will ſay, you affirm not, that John doth not blame Diotrephes for having preeminence, but he doth not ſimply blame him for having preeminence. Now, if this be your meaning, and that you indeed grant that Diotrephes was blamed for ſtriving for preeminence; why do you blame the Elders of New-England, for ſaying, that the Elders are not (i. ought not to be) ſo many Biſhops ſtriving for preeminence, as Diotrephes did?

But if it be ſaid, that the force that is offered to the Text, lies not in this; that the Elders of New-England ſay, that if Diotrephes ſtrive for preeminence, verely they abhor ſuch ſtriving, (for theſe are their words) but in this, that it is ſaid, The Elders are not ſo many Biſhops ſtriving for preeminence, as Diotrephes did; which, peradventure may have an oblique inſinuation, that Claſſick Presbyters are ſo many Biſhops, ſtriving for preeminence; and it may be ſaid, the text affords no ſuch concluſion.

We anſwer; thoſe words, ſo many Biſhops, are no expreſſion of the Elders of New-England, neither is the Text applied by them, to prove that Claſſick Presbyters are ſo many Biſhops ſtriving for preeminence.

I, but M. D. ſaith, a Claſſick Presbyterie ſets up many Biſhops in ſtead of one.

Peccat Aemilius, plectitur Rutilius. M. D. offends (if it be an offence,) and the Elders of New-England are beaten. Or, ſuppoſe that reverend, learned, and holy man, M. D. have let fall words which reflect with ſome blemiſh upon the Presbyterie, from the ſenſe of what himſelf had ſuffered, yet your profeſſed buſineſſe is not to vindicate Presbyterie, but the Text. Now M. D. (we conceive, for we have not his book) doth not urge 3 John verſ. 9, 10. to prove, that the Claſſicall Presbyterie ſets up many Biſhops in ſtead of one, and therefore what thing ſoever he hath ſaid, which offends in reference to the Presbyterie; yet he is not guilty of wrong-doing in reference to the Text.

I will not tell you who ſaid, All the Church is holy; Anſwer. ye take too much upon you, &c.

Our conſciences are unto us a thouſand witneſſes, Reply. that we have (and by the aſſiſtance of grace) hope ever to carry it with all gentleneſſe and meekneſſe toward our godly Brethren, that are guided by a different light in point of Government from us; and therefore it is leſſe grievous to us to be parallel'd with Corah, Dathan and Abiram, thoſe grand incendiaries of the Congregation of Iſrael; yet it is not unworthy your ſerious conſideration, whether it might not be with good cauſe ſaid to you, as ſometimes Chriſt ſaid to one of the twelve, when he asked, Maſter, is it I? and he anſwered, Thou haſt ſaid.

POSITION XIX.

The Power of Government is expreſsly given to the Church, where we are bidden Heare the Church, which is a particular Congregation, Matth. 18.

Brother, we could wiſh you had ſignified the Author by whom, Reply. and the place where this wrong (at leaſt as you ſuppoſe) is done to the Text, as you have done in other Sections, who thoſe be that preſume that Chriſt did no more reſpect the Jewiſh, then they do the Church of England; As your margent doth not inform us, ſo in ſearching thoſe few books we have, we cannot finde among all the Congregationall men, therefore we take it as an unjuſt aſperſion thrown upon them.

The Church, in the firſt and primary intent of theſe words, Anſwer. was a Church then in being, which did abominate the Gentiles, (for Heathens and Gentiles were all one) viz. the Jewiſh church, which was not aparticular Congregation, but a Nationall-church; having graduall judicatories and appeales; of which the Apoſtles were at that time, and Chriſt lived and died an actuall member, &c.

Whileſt you your ſelf ſay, Reply. that the Church in the primarie intent of theſe words, was a Nationall church, then in being, do you not imply, that theſe words, tell the Church, have reference to a Church, or churches, that were not yet in being, which ſhould afterward be inveſted with power of judging? and therefore giving it for granted, that Chriſt ſaying, Tell the Church, ſends them to the Jewiſh Synagogues or Sanhedrin, whileſt their authority did continue, (and ſo Peter needs not ſtay three yeeres, before he can acquaint the Church with his offence) yet ſtill the Congregationall church may be competitreſſe with Claſſicall, Provinciall, Nationall, and Oecumenicall churches for the power of judging; and if ſhe ſhould come off victricious, then the guilt of wreſting this place (for you urge it to prove the power of your judging church) would reſt among your ſelves, and the Congregationall men, and their Way be guiltleſſe. Now, for our parts we cannot ſee the title of Congregationall churches any way invalidated, by what hath been hitherto ſaid by your ſelf or others.

2. Whileſt you ſay, that the Church in the firſt and primarie, &c. I ſuppoſe your inference muſt be this; Ergo, thoſe words, Matth. 18. Tell the Church, cannot be rightly applied to a Congregationall Church, which hath no ſuch graduall judicatories and appeals; but Claſſicall, Provinciall, and Nationall Churches; for amongst theſe are found ſuch graduall judicatories and appeals. The ſinew and ſtrength of this reaſon is this: It is neceſſary that the judging Church in the times of the Goſpel, ſhould anſwer in the manner of its judicature the judging Church in the time of the Law: and ergo, if that Church which was to judge then had graduall judicatories and appeals, ſuch ought to have the judging Church in the dayes of the Goſpel: This main hypotheſis upon which the ſtrength of all depends, is unſound: For,

1. It is neceſſary that the judging Church in the times of the Goſpel ſhould be conformed to ſpirituall precepts and patterns left us by Chriſt and his Apoſtles: but Chriſt hath not appointed the Jewiſh church in matter of government to be a pattern to Goſpel Churches: For if ſo, then are not the Churches that are of Presbyterian complexion to be underſtood in this place, for there is a vaſt difference betwixt your Churches and the Jewiſh Church: For,

Firſt, there is diſparity in the manner of the calling of perſons; for Synods are made up of men, choſen and ſent forth by particular Churches, but the Sanhedrin did not conſiſt of choſen men ſent out by the Synagogues, but of Prieſts and Levites, which the Synagogues did neither chooſe nor ſend forth.

Secondly, there is diſparity in matter of power: In the Jewiſh Sanhedrin the chief Prieſt was chief, by vertue of Office, 2 Chron. 19.11. but in the Claſſicall Way all are equall in point of Office.

Thirdly, in reſpect of the cauſes judged: the Sanhedrin dealt with matters of civill nature, Deut. 21.5. but Synods only with Eccleſiaſticall.

Fourthly, in reſpect of the time of judicature. The Sanhedrin was a ſtanding, conſtant court; but Claſſicall, Provinciall, Nationall and Oecumenicall Synods, meet but once in a moneth, once in half a yeer, once in twelve moneths; or it may be, not once in many ages is an Oecumenicall Synod gathered, and ſo thoſe appeals that are made from a Nationall, are in little hope to finde relief from an Oecumenicall Synod.

2. If it were neceſſary that Church-government in the times of the Goſpel ſhould beare conformity with the Jewiſh Government, then they muſt not only have graduall judicatories and appeals, but they muſt have,

Firſt, a ſtated Oecumenicall judicature, conſtantly to judge all hard controverſies between blood and blood, plea and plea, ſtroke and ſtroke, into all Churches in the world.

Secondly, that this ſtated Oecumenicall judicature muſt have ſome ſtated place which God ſhould chooſe, Deut. 17.8. that ſo appellants might know whither to repaire for redreſſe of their grievances.

Thirdly, that there muſt be one chief by vertue of office over all met in this univerſall court, 2 Chron. 19.4. That he that ſhall do preſumptuouſly, and will not hearken to that Catholike councell, that man muſt die, Deut. 17.12.

3. There may be good reaſon rendered, why the Synagogues ſhould be under a Juperiour judicatory; and the ſame cauſe there is why Congregationall-churches ſhould be under a Superiour judicatory. The Synagogues were parts of a church that had not power to diſpence all Gods Ordinances amongſt themſelves, and were branches of a politick Nationall-church, endued with power of government as Nationall: The Promiſe and Covenant of God extended to the whole Nation. But there is no ſuch power of government left to every or to any Nation in the world; neither are particular Congregations parts of a Church, as the Synagogues of the Jewes were, but they are entire, and compleat Churches; and may tranſact all Gods Ordinances, walking in truth, and peace amongſt themſelves, otherwiſe all Gods Ordinances could not be tranſacted, unleſſe a whole Nation were converted and brought into Church-ſociety.

This Goſpel was writ principally for the Jews ſome ſay in Hebrew, Anſwer. &c.

Admitting the Propoſition were true, Reply. (which yet we have much cauſe to doubt of;) may not Congregationall men that are Chriſtians, uſe this place aright in applying it to Congregationall churches, becauſe the whole Goſpel was writ principally for the Jews? Certainly the undiſcernible ſtrength of this reaſon (at leaſt by us,) will levie war againſt the Presbyterians (except they will profeſſe themſelves Jews,) for applying this place to Presbyterian Churches. The Epiſtles to the Hebrews and James, were writ principally for the Jewes; and yet Chriſtians that are Gentiles, may make a right uſe of them.

In it the ſpirit of God uſeth much the language and dialect of the old Teſtament, Anſwer. in which Kahal (and Eccleſia with the Seventy) do ſometimes ſignifie the company of Elders, as well as the body of the people; a Nationall Church with graduall judicatories and appeals, as well as a particular aſſembly.

We cannot but deſpaire of ever ſeeing the premiſes delivered of the concluſion. Reply. Let it be granted, that Kahal, &c. ſignifies in the old Teſtament, ſometimes a company of Elders, ſometimes the People; ſometimes a Nationall, ſometimes a Congregationall Church; yet it will not follow, that the Congregationall men, in applying Mat. 18.17. to the Congregationall Church, have offered any violence to the Text. For it will not follow, Kahal ſometimes ſignifies a Nationall Church in the old Teſtament, (no, though to make it more ſtrong, you adde; that the Spirit uſeth much the language and dialect of the old Teſtament) I ſay, it will not follow therefore it ſignifies a Nationall Church in Matth. 18.17. for the Spirit may uſe (by your own confeſſion) the language and dialoct of the old Teſtament, and yet it may be underſtood of a particular Aſſembly. Neither will it follow, Kahal ſometime in the old Teſtament, Ergo Eccleſia ſignifies a company of Elders, Ergo, it ſignifies a company of Elders in Matth. 18.17.

Now there is not a word in the Text, Anſwer. to ſhew either that the Church is not here taken for the Presbyterie, but for the People (ſeeing when Chriſt ſaith, whatſoever ye ſhall binde, &c. he ſpeaks to the Diſciples, verſ. 1. or Apoſtles, which are elſewhere ſaid, to have the power of binding and looſing, Matth. 16.19. Joh. 20.23. and were not ordinary Believers but Elders? 1 Pet. 5.1.) or, that it is meant of a parcular Congregation, without graduall judicatories and appeals, &c.

Theſe are the Premiſes; Reply. but how ſhall we do to get the concluſion willingly to follow theſe Premiſes? which muſt be this: Ergo, when the Congregationall men affirm, that the particular Congregation is the Church, to which God hath given the power of government, and urge Matth. 18. to prove the exerciſe of ſuch power by the Church aforeſaid, they abuſe that Text. For the Congregationall men may very ſecurely affirm, that thoſe words, Tell the Church, ſend the offended Brother to the Congregationall Church in the time of the Goſpel (even as they ſent the Jewés to the Sanhedrin whileſt that was in force) and yet not ſend him to the people, as they ſtand in oppoſition to the Presbyterie, which are the moſt noble organicall parts of the integrally perfect Church: For we do not ſeat the power of the Keys in the people, as they are contradiſtinguiſhed to their Elders; but in the whole Church, by a moſt wiſe and divine diſperſion of power unto the diſſimilar parts of the Church, according to their ſeverall capacities: For, as the Elders have an authoritative power, ſo the people have a power of liberty in point of cenſures: So that reclamante Eccleſiâ, there can be no excommunication. So then, though it be not underſtood of the people only, no nor chiefly, as they ſtand in oppoſition to their Guides; yet this place may lawfully be underſtood of the Congregationall Church as it is contradiſtinct to Claſſicall, Provinciall. Nationall, and Oecumenicall Churches. The reaſon is, we have preſidents in the Word of God for the one, as in the Churches of Jeruſalem, Corinth, Cenchrea, &c. and rules preſcribed to ſuch a Church, Acts 6.3. 1 Cor. 5.4. chap. 11. chap. 12. chap. 1.4. chap. 16. but of any ſtated Claſſicall, Provinciall, Nationall, Oecumenicall Churches, there is a deep ſilence in the Scriptures of the new Teſtament; no precept for the erecting of ſuch, and no lawes nor Officers provided for ſuch Churches. Now Chriſt, Matth. 18. ſends the people of God to ſuch a Church, as ſhould be in ſtrength, by vertue of a Charter from heaven to redreſſe grievances, and heal offences, and therefore he ſends us to the Congregationall Church, as it oppoſeth thoſe churches I ſpoke of before, for theſe can ſhew no ſuch charter.

I read that the promiſe of binding and looſing is not given to a particular Congregation when leavened with error and variance. Anſwer. But then a Synod of Churches, or of their Meſſengers may judicially convince and condemn errors, ſearch out truth, &c.

All that we have to ſay to that, Reply. is this; If you will acknowledge the power of binding and looſing to be ſeated in the particular Congregation, we ſhall not contend againſt it, (though we cannot ſay that the Scriptures and reaſons brought, are convincing to each of us to inforce our grant) but that in eaſe of error or ſcandall that cannot be healed in the Congregation; A Synod of neighbour churches, or their Meſſengers may judicially condemn thoſe errours and ſchiſmes, &c. and impoſe wayes of peace and truth; but yet not aſſume authority of cenſuring the delinquents, but leave that to particular Churches to be performed.Cotton Keys, pag. 28.

POSITION XX.

Matth. 16.19. Chriſt directeth his Speech not to Peter alone,This ſeems to be taken out of Anſwer to 32 q p 44. but to all the Diſciples alſo; for to them all was the Queſtion propounded by Chriſt, verſ. 15. Nor to them as generall Officers of the Churches, for that Commiſſion was not yet given them, but as Diſciples and Believers.

In laying down this Poſition, Reply. and making your battery upon it, as you do fall ſhort of that ingenuity you profeſſe in your Preface, when you ſay, If any of the Brethren (amongſt whom Mr. Cotton is deſervedly the chief) ſeem in my apprehenſion to come neerer the truth then other, Cotton Keys, pag. 4. I willingly take notice of it, &c. Now Mr. Cotton muſt needs (in your judgement) come neerer the truth then the Elders: for he doth acknowledge that Peter was conſidered in the ſeverall capacitles of an Apoſtle, an Elder, a Brother; and ſo the power of the Keys was promiſed in him to Apoſtles, Elders, and Brethren, according to their ſeverall proportions of that diſperſed ſpirituall power. Now had you dealt with this doctrine (with which we concurre) and told us your thoughts of it in reference to the place; we ſhould have acknowledged your anſwerableneſſe therein to your profeſſion. Now, though you cite Mr. Cotton in the margent, yet ſo, as that the ordinary ſort of readers can hardly gueſſe what his judgement is: and the whole frame of your Diſcourſe is ſuch, that may well leave the Reader in this apprehenſion, That the Elders of New-England place all power of the Keys in Believers as ſuch, which is contrary to the very expreſſions of the Elders of New-England and to the judgement of the Congregationall men in generall: For the Elders ſay, The miniſteriall power of government is given to the Church, and conſequently not to Believers, unleſſe they become a Church; yea, they ſay expreſly, That the Keys are committed to all Believers that ſhall joyn together in the ſame confeſſion, according to the order and ordinance of Chriſt, and conſequently, except Believers joyn into Church-ſocieties (which is the Ordinance of Chriſt) they have no ſhare of the power of the Keys, much-leſſe do they aſſert any ſuch power in women, who (though Believers, yet) are excluded from any ſhare in Church-government, by a poſitive law, 1 Cor. 14.34, 35.

Peter was an Apoſtle, in Office and Commiſſion, Anſwer. though not yet ſent out into all the world: and an Elder, Matth. 10.1, 2, &c. and doubtleſſe the Key of Authority, and Rule when it was promiſed to Peter, and given to him with the reſt of the Apoſtles, Joh. 20.23. is the ſame authority which is given to their ſucceſſors, whereby they are called to feed and rule the Church of God; as the Apoſtles had done before, &c.

Let it be granted that the twelve Diſciples (ſo called, Mat. 10.1.) are not called Apoſtles (verſ. 2.) by way of anticipation, Reply. Mar. 3.13, 14. but in reference to their preſent ſtate and condition: yet it will be neceſſary ſtill to diſtinguiſh the equivocall term of Apoſtle; as noting,

1. One authorized to diſpence doctrine and diſcipline amongſt all nations, Matth. 28.19. and in this ſenſe Peter was no Apoſtle in Office and Commiſſion, as your ſelf confeſſe: And what the Elders affirm is true, That the Keys were not given to Peter in this capacity; i.e. not as to one that was actually in that eſtate and condition; or was hereby put into that eſtate and condition.

2. As one ſent forth by a temporary Commiſſion to preach and work miracles amongſt the Jews only.Mat. 10.23. Now the Promiſe of the Keys, was not made to Peter under this capacity, neither was he an Elder inveſted with authoritative power of government at this time; he could neither vote in Synagogues, nor in the Sanhedrin, but only preach authoritatively, and work miracles to confirm his Doctrine: and in caſe that they did not receive him, he could not excommunicate them by himſelf, or with all the reſt of the twelve with him; but muſt ſhakeMat. 10 14, 15. off the duſt of his feet againſt them, and leave them to the great day of Gods immediate judgement; for ſo runs the tenour of his Commiſſion, and there is deep ſilence of any other, then meerly a doctrinall power of the Keyes. So that the iſſue is this; that though what you ſay be true, in the ſenſe expreſſed, yet it is nothing to the purpoſe for which it is brought; for ſtill the aſſertion of the Elders may be true, that Chriſt ſpeake not to them as Apoſtles in Office and Commiſſion, whether limited to the Jewes (as you would inſinuate) or extended to all Nations; but as Diſciples or Believers.

2. Neither will it follow, the Key of authority promiſed to Peter, and given to him with the reſt of the Apoſtles, Joh. 20.23. is the ſame which is given to their ſucceſſors; therefore Chriſt directeth his Speech to Peter, not as a Believer, but as an Apoſtle in Office and Commiſſion; for what ever the import of the thing promiſed may be, yet that hinders not but the promiſe may be made to Peter under the reſpect and conſideration of a Believer. For the thing promiſed in this place may be conſidered two wayes: Firſt, as a reward in generall of grace and mercy. Secondly, as ſuch a reward which importeth a power of opening and ſhutting the Kingdome of heaven.

Now the Power of the Keys conſidered as a reward of grace and mercy, is promiſed to Peter as making ſuch a glorious confeſſion 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and I ſay unto thee, q. d. thou haſt made ſuch a holy confeſſion of me, that I ſay unto thee, I will not ſuffer thee to go unrewarded: but I do promiſe that I will give thee the Keys of the Kingdome of heaven, &c. Now Peter did not confeſſe Chriſt as a generall Officer, but as a Believer; and therefore the reward which is the promiſe, is made to him, not as a generall Officer, but as a Believer.

2. As importing a power of opening and ſhutting, and ſo though it be promiſed to Peter as a Believer, and in him to all thoſe that ſhall make the ſame holy confeſſion of Chriſt that he did; yet is it not to be executed either by Peter himſelf, or any other, under the notion and conſideration of a Believer only; but imports alſo an Office, or State under the capacity and conſideration of which it is to be executed. Thus, when Chriſt ſaith to Peter, I will give to thee Keys, &c. he doth thereby promiſe, that Peter ſhall be as a Member, as an Elder, as an Apoſtle in the Goſpel-churches; and in all theſe capacities ſhou'd have ſome ſhare in the diſpenſation of the power of the Keys. The conſequent whereof is this; No Believer at this day, meerly as a Believer; nay, nor yet as a Believer externally confeſſing Chriſt with the mouth, may have any ſhare in executing the power of the Keys, unleſſe he be a Brother, joyned to ſome Church, or an Elder ſet over ſome Church; (for children for their weakneſſe, and women for their ſex, are excluded by a poſitive law) For as the power of the Keys is promiſed; ſo the State under the conſideration of which they ſhall exerciſe ſuch power, yea, and a Commiſſion from Chriſt, by which they ſhall exerciſe that power, is alſo promiſed. And thus Mr. Cotton may ſay, that Peter may he conſidered as an Apoſtle, an Elder, a Brother; becauſe together with the power of the Keys, the ſtate of an Apoſtle, of an Elder, of a Brother is promiſed; and yet not claſh with the Elders of New-England, who affirm, that the power of the Keys is promiſed to Peter (i. e. as a reward of grace and mercy) as a Believer. Neither need the Elders of New-England dread your three-fold conſequence, viz.

Firſt, That the Keys are not given to any viſible Church: And,

Secondly, That they are given to all Believers, in covenant or no; whether males or females.

Thirdly, That Apoſtles and Paſtors have no more power of the Keys, then ordinary Believers: which, as they are falſe and abſurd; ſo it may eaſily appear by that which hath been ſaid, that they cannot ſhelter themſelves under any thing in the Poſition of the Elders of New-England. Neither will that Axiom, à quatenus ad omnevalet conſequentia, (i. from as ſuch, to all ſuch, a conſequence is of force: how?) beare you out in ſo unjuſt a charge. For though it be true in ſuch Propoſitions, where the ſpecificall difference is predicated of the Species, or proper Accident of the Subject, the proper effect of the immediate cauſe; yet it will not hold when you ſpeak of a Soveraign Lord, acting in a tranſcendent way of liberty; no, nor of a rationall creature moving according to choyce and election Suppoſe you ſhould have a ſervant that ſhould prove faithfull in his place (though one of the meaneſt places;) and therefore you ſhould promiſe to give into his hand all the Keys of the houſe, that he ſhould open and ſhut to all the reſt; and this you ſhould do, looking upon him as faithfull; A quatenus ad omne non valet conſequentia, in ſuch a caſe; it will not follow, that every faithfull ſervant in your houſe, hath the power of the Keys; neither will it follow, that the faithfull ſervant, to whom the promiſe of the Keys, much leſſe every other faithfull ſervant, as ſuch, may execute the power of the Keys: For though the promiſe be made to that ſervant under the capacity of a faithfull ſervant; yet the promiſe it ſelf carries an Office by implication, viz. the office of Steward; under which conſideration, and not under the conſideration of a faithfull ſervant, he is to manage the power of the Keys. Phineas the ſon of Eleazar, the ſon of Aaron was zealous for God, Numb. 25. and God gives him the covenant of an everlaſting Prieſthood, becauſe he was zealous; will you ſay, that A quatenus ad omnia valebat conſequentia, in this caſe, i. e. becauſe an everlaſting Prieſthood was promiſed to Phineas, becauſe he was zealous, therefore every zealous perſon hath an everlaſting Prieſthood?

Laſtly, that it was far from the purpoſe of the Elders of New-England to aſſert any ſuch Doctrine as you would draw from their words, may appeare in this Anſwer, and elſewhere in this booke, wherein they place the power of the Keys, not in the body as contradiſtinct to the guides; but in the whole, conſiſting of Rulers, and ruled; giving to the Rulers an authoritative power, which they give not to the ruled.

POSITION XXI. 1 Cor. 5. Paul himſelf though an extraordinary Officer, yet would not take upon him to excommunicate the inceſtuous perſon, without the Church; but ſends to them, exhorting them to do it,See alſo anſw. to 23. q. pag. 49. and reproves the Brethren of the Church of Coriuth as well as the Elders, that they did no ſooner put him away, Cotton Keys, pag. 13.

To prove that this Doctrine is injurious to the Text, you thus reaſon:

He blames all women as well as men, Anſwer. that notwithſtanding the notorious fornication which was amongst them, they were puffed up, and gloried, &c.

1. We ſuppoſe this battery is raiſed againſt thoſe words, Reply. and reproves the Brethren as well as the Elders, &c. Now, if it might be any gratification of ſtrength to your Argument, we will grant, that the Apoſtle blames all in generall, and yet the Elders may without any ſhew of wrong to the Text, affirm, that he blames the Brethren as well as the Elders; for it will not follow, Paul reproves the whole Church, Ergo, he reproves not the Brethren which are a part of the Church.

2. If it be ſaid, that the wrong lies in the ſcope of the words: For hence we go above to prove, that the Brethren have aſhare in the power of Church-cenſures; Now the ſame argument will prove from this text, that women have a power in Church-cenſures, becauſe women are reproved in this place, as being part of the Church. We anſwer, when an Epiſtle is writ to a whole Church, it doth reſpect particular perſons, according to their ſeverall capacities: 1 Cor. 14.34, 35. Now women are not in a capacity of diſpenſing Church-cenſures; therefore the reproof is not extended unto them. If things indefinitly ſpoken to a whole Church, becauſe they cannot be verified of one who is not in a capacity to receive them, may not therefore be affirmed of another; then becauſe a liberty in cutting off offenders, by vertue of Gal. 5.9.12.13. doth not belong to women, neither doth it belong to Elders or Brethren; for the Apoſtle ſpeaketh to all. Likewiſe becauſe the Holy Ghoſt writes to the whole Church of Pergamus, females as well as males, and blames them for not caſting out the Balaamites and the Nicolaitans; which women have no power to do; therefore neither doth the reproof import any ſuch power, either in Elders or Brethren.

This it may be you intended but as a light velitation with theſe luſorious expreſſions, Sed remove iſta luforia, decretoriis opus eſt, i. remove theſe Toyes, there is need of Decrees.

Paul himſelf (ſay you) did excommunicate Alexander, Anſwer. and Hymeneus, 1 Tim. 1.20. and it is not mentioned that he took the conſent of the Church or Presbyterie.

That Paul alone did excommunicate Alexander and Hymeneus is not ſo cleare, Reply. but if we ſhould deny it, we could argue probably for the Negative. Paul ſaith to Timothy, 2 Tim. 1.6. Stir up the gift of God which is in thee, by the putting on of my hands; and yet Paul did but lay on hands with the Presbyterie, 1 Tim. 4.14. Now if the Apoſtle did not act in ordination, how much leſſe in excommunication without the concurrence of the Church? the rather becauſe Apoſtles concurrence with the Church, ſeems to make more,

1. For Gods glory in the univerſall humiliation of the whole Church.

2. For the Churches peace, who are more likely to ſubſcribe to the equity of thoſe proceedings of which themſelves have the cognizance, then if they were carried on by a tranſcendent and ſuperiour motion of Apoſtolicall power.

3. For the edification of the Church in ſeeing, and hearing, and concurring in the whole buſineſſe.

4. For the attainment of the end of excommunication, both the more immediate, viz. Non-communion with the party; and the more nemote & noble end, viz. the healing of the party, and of the offence.

2. Let what is aſſumed be granted; yet we ſuppoſe you will make no gain of it: For,

1. It will not neceſſarily follow, Paul did excommunicate Hymeneus and Alexander himſelf; therefore Paul did without the conſent of the Church of Corinth excommunicate the inceſtuous perſon: For it was but ſutable to the holy, and ſelf denying frame of the Apoſtles ſpirit, Jure ſuo cedere, to remit ſomething of his own right.

2. Neither is it ſo much as probablely convincing, if we conſider, that the Holy Ghoſt makes the ſubject excommunicating, to be the Church of Corinth, 1 Cor. 5.4, 5. 'Tis the Church of Corinth whom the Apoſtle requires to purge out the old leaven, verſ. 7. 'Tis the Church of Corinth in which the Apoſtle ſtates the power of judging, verſ. 12. do not ye judge them that are within.

The Apoſtle, ſaith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Anſwer. I have judged as though I were, &c. which imports rather, that Paul himſelf would deliver him to Satan, then that he exhorts them to do it. Indeed he commands them to put him away, as he writes to them to reſtore him again, to ſee if they would be obedient in all things, 2 Cor. 2.9.

Brother, we cannot but obſerve, Reply. that you manage this argument ſomething tenderly, as if you did ſuſpect the ground you tread on; for you ſay not, that the words import that Paul would deliver him to Satan himſelf, and not that he exhorts the Corinthians to do it; but you ſay, that they import rather the one then the other; and this amounts to as much as nothing to the purpoſe: For in regard of the affinity the words may have with the one importment more then the other, they may be ſaid to import the one rather then the other, and yet in their proper ſenſe import neither. Luke 18.14. The Publican is ſaid to go away juſtified rather then the Phariſee, and yet the words do not poſitively import that either of them were juſtified.

And yet you have a good minde to make your Reader believe that Paul himſelf delivers him to Satan, and not the Corinthian Church, by their authority, and this you prove,

From the Gammaticall Syntax of the words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

Anſw. Doubtleſſe there muſt be an Accuſative caſe importing the ſubject delivering, underſtood; and this muſt be either 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , with reference to the Apoſtle, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , with relation to the Church. Not the firſt, as we conceive:

1. For if ſo, it is probable the Apoſtle would have ſaid, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , I have delivered him that hath ſo done this thing to Satan; and have commanded the Church only to take notice of it, and to abſtain from communion with him.

2. The Apoſtles judgment was ſuch a judgement as was paſſed at the writing of the Epiſtle; and therefore the Apoſtle ſaith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , I have judged, or I have judged already him that hath done this thing, and therefore his judgement of the man was not the actuall caſting out of him, but only a judgement, that the Church ſhould paſſe the judgement of Excommunication againſt him, aſſuring them that not only his ſpirit, but the power of Chriſt ſhould go along with them.

3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , To deliver to Satan, notes ſuch a publike and ſolemn tranſaction of an Ordinance, as Paul was in no poſſible capacity to do (for he did nothing by proxie) being abſent. For it notes; 1. A publike binding of the perſon under the guilt of ſin by the Key of Faith. 2. An obſervable exemplary ejection of the perſon out of the fraternity of the Church, and a ſhutting of the door of communion againſt him, untill he repent by the Key of Church order.

Now muſt the whole come together, and look one upon another in ſilence, and upon the inceſtuous perſon, imagining him to be thus excommunicate, becauſe Paul had judged to have him excommunicate, and ſo after this dumb ſhew, depart one from another: Therefore we conceive 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 muſt be underſtood as going before the Infinitive 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and to relate to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , according to the rule of Grammarians, Si infinitivus, & Participium praecedens pertinent ad eandem perſmam, non additur accuſativus perſonae, ſed ſubintelligitur.

But it may be you will ſay, Objection. that you affirm that the Church is commanded to do it, and therefore Paul alone did not do it.

Doth Paul command the Church to deliver the inceſtuous perſon to Satan, Anſwer. and yet reſerve the whole power to himſelf? as he muſt needs do, if 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , have reference to himſelf. Theſe things being ſpoken by you in reference to one individuall act under one and the ſame conſideration expreſſed in the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , muſt needs be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , altogether inconſiſtent one with another, or with the truth.

2. If the Elders abuſe the Text by ſaying that Paul exhorts the Church of Corinth to excommunicate the inceſtuous perſon; how will you waſh your hands from all wrong offered to the Text, whilſt you affirm that Paul commanded them to excommunicate him? Yes, ſay you, Paul writes to them to ſee if they would be obedient in all things. Is this your meaning, that Paul writes not to them, requiring them to put forth a power given unto them (and all other Churches) by Jeſus Chriſt, but only to exerciſe an act of power, which did not of right belong unto them, but to his Apoſtolicall Function. And why by the ſame reaſon might not the Apoſtle then, and the Miniſters now in their Churches, call out one, or more, and command them to preach, or adminiſter Baptiſme, or the Supper, meerly to try their obedience? Now this muſt be your meaning, or elſe your argument will never conclude the thing you profeſſe to conclude: For we willingly grant that Paul writ unto them to try their obedience, but the very Text imports that there were other grounds of his writing as well as this; for he ſaith not, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , therefore, for this I write, much leſſe, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , for this therefore only writ, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , for this therfore alſo I writ unto you, to try your obedience; intimating that there were other grounds. And therefore, that Paul writ unto them to try their obedience, will never afford ſuch a concluſion; therfore he writ not to them to exerciſe an ordinary power purchaſed for them by the blood of Chriſt: for obedience may be tried by that which is both a priviledge and a duty.

Paul bids the Coloſſians cauſe an Epiſtle to be read in Laodicea, Anſwer. they (its like) did it in obedience to Apoſtolicall authority; yet it will not bence follow, that a Church hath ordinarily the ſame power over another Church.

There is a twofold cauſing; by way of authority, Reply. or by way of morall ſwaſion, or endeavour: this latter, the Apoſtle ſpeaks of, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , (ſaith he) work, or uſe your endeavour; and the ſame power hath every Church over other at this day for their good.

2. Suppoſe you could obtain what you deſire in all theſe, that Paul did excommunicate, not the Church; or if the Church did, yet it is a wrong to the text, to plead for the like power at this day: Do you not all this while fight againſt the Presbyterians (whoſe Cauſe you pretend to advocate) as well as againſt the Congregationall men whom you profeſſedly oppoſe? For, if it will not follow, The Church of Corinth (whether particular, or repreſentative) is commanded to deliver the inceſtuous perſon to Satan, therefore every true Courch hath the ſame power; then whileſt the Presbyterian Brethren urge this place to prove the power of a Claſſicall Presbyterie, they wrong the Text: For though it may be a queſtion, whether this Text gratifie the fraternity of the Church, with ſo much power as we would ſtate upon them by vertue of this Text; yet Presbyterians, and Congregationall men all, (except your ſelf, that we know) agree; That whatſoever power the Fraternity and Presbyterie of the Church of Corinth had, that the Fraternity and Presbyterie of all true Churches have to the end of the world.

He bids them purge out the leaven, Anſwer. and put away from them the wicked perſon, &c. which muſt not be underſtood, as if Elders and People were equally authorized thereunto, &c.

1. Reply. Is not this to inſinuate, that the Elders of New-England and Mr. Cotton affirm, that the Elders and People are equally authorized to caſt out the inceſtuous perſon, and not only quilibet in ſuo gradu, every one in their degree? There is nothing in the place by you alledged, that doth import thus much. They ſay, the Apoſtle reproves the one as well as the other: The King for a miſcarriage in a Cauſe, may reprove the Jury as well as the Judge, and yet there is no ſuch implication, that Elders and People, Judge and Jury, are equally authorized to the reſpective acts of Judicature. The Elders of New-England infer from hence, that all Church-power is not in the Officers alone; do they therefore affirm that there is as much in the people, as in the Elders? Whereas in anſwer to Q. 15. p. 60. they ſhew certain acts of power in the Elderſhip, which are not in the people; and Mr. Cotton Cotton Keys, cap. 4. and 5. expreſly gives all authority properly ſo called, to the Elderſhip, allotting only a popular power of intereſt and liberty to the people.

2. And laſtly, (for the reſt of your expreſſions about this matter, I take to be but of the train and retinue of this grand miſpriſion, and ſo paſſe them over;) laſtly (I ſay) when you ſay, that he bids them purge out the old leaven, and put away the wicked perſon, which muſt not be underſtood, as if Elders and People were equally authorized thereunto, but quilibet in ſuo gradu; a man would think you did acknowledge, that the People in ſuo gradu are authorized to purge out the old leaven, and put away the wicked perſon (which queſtionleſſe are acts of ſome kinde of governing power) and yet in the Cataſtrophe of all this Diſcourſe you wipe the Fraternity of the Church cleerly of all acts of governing power, when you ſay — So when he ſpeaks of acts of gouerning power, it is to be underſtood of Elders, and not of Believers. Are not theſe 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ? Are purging out the old leaven, and putting away the wicked perſon, acts of governing power? And are Believers authorized in ſuo gradu to perform theſe acts? and yet doth no act of governing power belong to the Believers of the church? Let him aſſoyle this Riddle that is an Oedipus, able to do it; for our parts we cannot. Thus much of your 21. Section.

POSITION XXII.

The Lord Jeſus reproving the Angel of Pergamus, for ſuffering Balaamites, ſends his Epiſtle, This is alledged by Anſw. to 32. q. 45. and 49. not only to the Angel, but to the Church. The Spirit ſaith not only to the Angel, but to the Churches, Rev. 2.11. And the Church members are ſeen by Iohn in a viſion, ſitting on Thrones, clothed with white raiment, having on their heads Crownes of gold, Rev. 4.14. Now Thrones and Crownes are enſignes of Authority and governing power.

To make good your charge againſt the Elderss of wrong offered to theſe Texts alledged, you ſay,

The Lord Jeſus reproving the Angel of Pergamus, Anſwer. ſends his Epiſtle (ſay you) not to the Angel, but to the Church: I adde, not to the Church but to the Churches. As you gather that the ſuffering of corrupt perſons and practices was the ſin of the Church and not of the Angel only; ſo I may gather that it was the ſin, not of the Church only, but the neighbouring Churches alſo.

It is like you intended a conſutation; Reply. but it hath befalne you as it did the Potter in the Poet: Horat. de Art. Poet.—amphora coepit. Inſtitui currente rota, cur urcens exit? qui amphoram inſtituens currente rota effingit urcoum. For in ſtead of a conſutation you have brought forth an addition otwo other inferences. Now, if you ſhould unto this inference of the Elders adde a hundred more of your owne; yet this will not prove that the inference of the Elders is injurious to the Text; For ſtill it may be doubted, whether theirs, or yours, any of them, all of them, or none of them be true, true inferences from the Text, yea or no; eſpecially conſidering that the inferences you bring, are of friendly compliance with that that you pretend to confute. For you ſay,—not to the Church (I ſuppoſe you mean — the Church only, for elſe you harp upon a harſh ſtring in the ears of rationall men, to ſay, John writ to all the ſeven Churches of Aſia; Ergo, he writ not to Perganus, one of the ſeven) but to the churches. Now can you ſay the Lord Jeſus, writing to the Angel of the Church of Perganus, ſends his Epiſtle to all the ſeven Churches, and not abuſe the Text? and yet muſt we believe it, when you tell us, that the Elders of New-England, in ſaying Chriſt writ not to the Angel of the Church of Pergamus only, but to the whole Church of Pergamus alſo, do abuſe the Text? Again, if the ſuffering of Balaamites in the Church of Pergamus was the ſin of all the neighbouring Churches, and that this may be affirmed by you without wrong to the Text; then the ſuffering of them in the Church of Pergamus it ſelf was the ſin of that Church; and this may be affirmed by the Elders of New-England without wrong to the Text.

2. But let us look upon the words, not as they may afford matter of an argument ad hominem, but as they are in themſelves: Two things you affirm, 1. That Chriſt reproving the Angel of the Church of Pergamus, ſends the Epiſtle to the Churches. We ſuppoſe you mean the other ſix Churches of Aſia. 2. That ſuffering Balaamites (which is reproved in the Church of Pergamus) was the ſin of the neighbouring Churches alſo. For the firſt:

1. The book of the Revlation contains ſeven Epiſtles, which were of immediate concernment in a diſtributive ſenſe, to ſeven ſeverall Churches; and many other glorrious myſteries that were of equall concernment to all the people of God. Theſe all being molded into one book (as we ſaid) are ſent to the ſeven Churches of Aſia. Now the Elders of New-England affirm, that the Epiſtles ſent to the Angels of Pergamus and Thyatira, are ſent by way of immediate appropriation and concernment (for that is their meaning) to the whole Churches of Pergamus and Thyatira. Now if in this ſenſe you affirm, that Chriſt reproving the Angel of the Church of Pergamus, ſends his Epiſtle to all the Churches, you ſpeak to the purpoſe, but not according to truth: For,

1. What a Pleonaſme and redundancy, if not a groſſe Soloeciſme in diſcourſe, and abſudity it is, in a book ſent as an Epiſtle to ſeven Churches, two ſeverall times to mention them together, verſ. 4. John to the ſeven Churches of Aſia, verſ. 11. What thou ſeeſt, Rev. 1.4.11. write it in a book, and ſend it to the ſeven Churches of Aſia, and afterwards to write ſeverall things of a Heterogeneall nature to thoſe ſeven ſeverall Churches diſtributively. To the Church of Epheſus write thus, to the Church of Pergamus thus, &c. commend one, condemn another; admoniſh a third, extoll a fourth, threaten a fifth, &c. and yet, that theſe ſeverall Epiſtles ſhould be of as immediate a concernment to all the reſt, as to thoſe to which they are particularly directed.

2. It will follow, that Philadelphia was lukewarm with Laodicea, dead with Sardis; and of theſe two lukewarm, dead Churches, may be verified the Encomiaſticks of Epheſus, Pergamus and Philadelphia, with many ſuch conſequences. But if your meaning be, that the Epiſtle ſent to the Church of Pergamus, in reſpect of that remore, and generall concernment, whereby it may be of uſe to all Chriſtians, is ſent together with the reſt of the Book of the Revelations to the ſeven Churches; This (though a truth) will afford no contribution towards the making good of your charge againſt the Elders of New-England, being that which they deny not.

2. For the ſecond, it is undeniably manifeſt, that the aſſertion of the Elders, viz. that the Church of Pergamus was guilty of ſuffering Balaamites, and other wicked perſons, is true; yea, the truth of this Text. But to have ſo much faith as to believe, that all the reſt of the ſix Churches of Aſia (if that be the utmoſt extent of neighbouring Churches in your account) were guilty of ſuffering Balaamites and Nicolaitans (yea, even Epheſus and Philadelphia, that are commended for not ſuffering thoſe that are evill, hating the deeds of the Nicolaitans, and keeping the Word of Gods patience,) would require ſome further proof then 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , your bare aſſertion for the manifeſtation of it. For if the reſt were guilty, why are they not blamed? Why is the burthen laid only (though it might be laid chiefly) upon one Church, when as the reſt are guilty? I ſuppoſe the building upon which you lay the weight of this roof, is this: Theſe ſeven Churches were a combined Presbyterie, and therefore as the government, ſo the neglect thereof concernes all.

Anſw. If you may aſſume the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the thing in queſtion, as if it were the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a thing out of queſtion, you may in time perſwade the world, that the Elders of New-England have forced this, and many other Texts. But to prove that the ſeven Aſian Churches were governed by a joynt and common Presbyterie, hic labor, hoc opus eſt, this is the buſineſſe.

But ſuppoſe that ſuch a common Presbyterie there were, and that the Presbyters of all the other ſix Churches did endeavour the caſting out of theſe Balaamites, &c. why were they then not caſt out? Could the Elders of Pergamus over-vote the Elders of all the neighbouring churches in a Synod? And if all, or at leaſt the major part of the Elders of theſe ſeven Churches neglect, why are the Elders of Pergamus only reproved?

Laſtly, we cannot chooſe upon this conſideration, but condole the ſad condition of Presbyterian Churches which is ſuch, if wicked men be ſuffered in any particular Congregation in the world, all the Churches in the world are guilty of it. The reaſon is, the ſame obligation that lies upon a Claſſicall Church to reform the ſeverall Congregations in the Claſſis, the ſame lies upon a Provinciall Church to reform the ſeverall Claſſis in the Province; and the ſame lies upon a Nationall Church to reform the ſeverall Provinciall Churches in the Nation; and the ſame lies upon the Oecumenicall Church to reform the ſeverall Nationall Churches in the world: and therefore, though all the inferiour Churches ſhould fail, yet the Oecumenicall is bound to ſee it reformed; and if the Oecumenicall fail, all in the line of Oecumenicall communion, that is to ſay, all Churches in any Nation in the world are guilty.

POSITION XXIII.

The particular Congregation takes Chriſt for her only ſpirituall Prophet, Prieſt and King, Deut. 18.15. Acts 737. Pſal. 110.4. Heb. 5.4. Iſai. 9.6, 7. Rev. 15.3.

To make good this charge, you ſay, Anſwer.

Seven or eight (you ſay) are the feweſt will make a Church; but five or ſix, yea, any one particular Saint, though out of Church-fellowſhip by excommunication, may take Chriſt for his only ſpirituall Prieſt, Prophet and King, &c.

How comes it to paſſe (Brother) that your margent that hath in moſt places born witneſſe to your Text, reſerves it ſelf in deep ſilence, Reply. as if it were afraid to be acceſſary to this wrong offered to the Brethren of the Congregationall Way? That the Congregationall Way, eatenus, in that it is Congregationall, is conformed to the will and lawes of Chriſt appoined by him, as King of the Church, delivered by him in his Word, as Prophet of the Church, we conſtantly affirm, and ſhall be ready to juſtifie before all the word, till we be convinced of our errour in that particular. That the ſtated Claſſicall, Provinciall, Nationall, and Oecumenicall Way of Church-government importing a power of juriſdiction in point of Ordination, Excommunication, &c. over particular Congregations, is not ſutable to the Will of God delivered by Chriſt as Prophet, nor to the Laws of God delivered by Chriſt as King of the Church, as it is ſutable to our light: So we ſhall endeavour pro virili noſtro according to our power, with all meekneſſe and brotherlike affection to defend, as God ſhall give opportunity. But that ever we have read in the writings of any Congregationall man, truly ſo called, as they ſtand in oppoſition to others of a different judgement, both upon the right hand, and on the left (with whom alone you profeſſe in your Preface to have to do;) I ſay, that ever we have read in the writings of any Congregationall man, theſe places applyed to prove the Poſition, as it is by you controverted, that is to ſay, that the particular Congregationall Church takes Chriſt for her only Prophet, Prieſt and King, (as if in theſe his Offices he were ſo only hers) that no five or ſix, or one particular Saint, though out of Church-fellowſhip; no Claſſicall, Presbyteriall, or Nationall Church, no not the Nationall Church of the Jewes it ſelf, doth (or notwithſtanding ſome failings in government may) take Chriſt as their only ſpirituall Prieſt, Prophet, and King, as we do not remember; ſo in whoſe Sack ſoever this cup of abomination be found, yea, though it be in Benjamins, let him ſuffer according to his demerits. But if any of us have thus expreſſed our ſelves, whereby we have made all particular Believers, not joyned to ſome Congregationall Church, the renowned Scotiſh and Belgick Churches, and all other reformed Churches not Congregationall, yea, the Nationall Church of the Jews it ſelf, (at leaſt as you would inſinuate) ſtrangers from the Commonwealth of Iſrael; yet are we unjuſtly condemned by you, we mean, in that ſenſe, in which Salvian, ſaithL. 7. de Gub. Dec. p. 282. Socrates, when he writ a book, perſwading that all mens wives ſhould be common, was unjuſtly condemned by the Judges: Injuſtè damnatus dicitur, à judicibus, & verum eſt; Rectius vuim haec talia praedicantem genus damnaret humanum. In like manner we ſay, we ſhould be unjuſtly condemned by you, for all the Churches of God, yea, all the people of God might deſervedly condemne us.

2. But ſuppoſe it cannot be made out by you, that ever any Congregationall man, truly ſo called, held the Poſition you ſpeak of in the ſenſe inſinuated in your examination: where then is your ingenuity that you profeſſe in your Preface? viz. If any of the Brethren ſeem in my apprehenſion to come neerer the truth then others, I willingly take notice of it? Is this your willing taking notice of our neereſt approaches to the truth, to faſten upon us an imputation of wreſting ſo many Scriptures to the maintenance of an opinion that never entered (as we verely believe) into the hearts; and we are confident, is not to be found in the works of any Congregationall man? which if it be ſaid, and that you cannot make out the contrary, it is well for you that you lived not in that over rigorous age ſpoken of by Ludovicus Vives in Commentary upon Auguſtine, Lud. Vives in Auguſt. de Civit. Dei, l. 2. c. 9. de Civitate Dei, in which it was a capitall fault, and puniſhable with death, to write or act any thing derogatory to the good name of any man. For you have indeavoured to caſt the odium of the moſt deteſtable pride and cenſoriouſneſſe upon many thouſands, Miniſters and People, that are of a precious anointing for learning, or piety, or both, and in particular, of a ſingular eminency for that rich grace of humility; yea, ſuch a blot have you laid upon them, whileſt you ſay, that we cleerly him, that Chriſt doth exerciſe his Kingly, Prieſtly, and Propheticall Office only in Churches meerly Congregationall; yea, that Chriſt did offer himſelf a ſacrifice for all the members of a Congregationall Church, and only for ſuch, (a thing of the greateſt abhorrency to our thoughts, if it fall on this ſide blaſphemy againſt the Holy Ghoſt) ſuch a blot I ſay you have laid upon them, that you will not eaſily wipe off; for Machiavels rule is too true, Calumniate fortiter, ſaltem aliquid adhaerebit, Slander boldly; at leaſt ſomewhat will cleave.

POSITION XXIV.

Chriſt left but one way of Diſcipline for all Churches; This is found in Anſw. to 32. q. p. 72.73. and the like is in R. M. and W. T. to C. H. pag. 8. which in the eſſentialls of it is unchangeable, and to be kept till the appearing of Chriſt, 1 Tim. 6.13, 14.

To prove that theſe words are injurious to the Text alledged, you ſay,

It ſeems by the words, Thou, O man of God, I give thee in charge, Anſwer. that thou keep this Commandement (viz. which immediatly precedes) concerning faith, and holineſſe in the Miniſtery of the Word, to be directed to Timothy himſelf: or, if to his, ſucceſſours, then it muſt be to the ordinary Elders; (for Euangeliſts that ſucceeded him wee know none) not to the Churches; for example, not to the Church of Epheſus, to whom Paul writes nothingDo theſe words, Eph. 4.11, 12. nothing concern government. of government; though in his Epiſtles to Timothy he writ almoſt concerning nothing elſe; and chargeth the Elders to take heed to the flock, and look to Wolves, Acts 20.28. But if you will need have the words this commandment extended to this whole Epiſtle, you had need of good warrant for this expoſition.

If you will acknowledge that the things written to Timothy concern Elders, Reply. Deacons and Believers out of Office according to their ſeverall capacities reſpectively: We ſhall eaſily grant, that all the things contained in the whole Epiſtle, are directed to Timothy himſelf, but not for his own perſonall uſe, but for the uſe of the Church alſo. Now in this ſenſe it will nothing befriend you in making good your charge: For ſtill the many rules contained in this Epiſtle in reference to the Church in generall, to Biſhops, Deacons, Widows, and Members in particular, may be in force, yea by vertue of this Text, to the appearing of Chriſt.

2. If by theſe words, — to be directed to Timothy himſelf, you mean that the Commandment immediatly preceding, concerns none by way of obligation, but only Timothy, you heat upon a harſh ſtring: For muſt none flee theſe things, fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternall life (by vertue of this Text) but only Timothy? Yea, your ſelf ſeem to be jealous of this interpretation, when you ſay, or if to his ſucceſſours, then it muſt be the ordinary Elders, not the Church; and yet you have not mended the matter: For will you reſtrain theſe words, That thou keep this Commandment, verſ. 14. to thoſe, verſ. 11, 12. Flee theſe things, follow after righteouſneſſe, &c. and when you have done, determine it to Elders only? Then it will follow, that only Elders muſt flee envie, ſtrifes, railings, evill ſurmiſings, perverſe diſputings, covetouſneſſe: That Elders only, and not Believers (at leaſt by vertue of this Text) muſt follow after godlineſſe, righteouſneſſe, faith, love, patience, meekneſſe: That Elders only, and not ordinary Church-members, muſt fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternall life. Now, leſt this (as well it may) ſhould ſeem incredible, to make it Teſtimonium ſide dignum, you tell us, that theſe words, This Commandment, relate only to that which immediately precedes, and that which immediately precedes, relates only to faith and holineſſe in the miniſtery of the Word. I anſwer,

1. If you make theſe words, Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternall life, the commandment immediately preceding, yet it is not neceſſary they ſhould be underſtood only of faith and holineſſe in the miniſtery of the Word, which is but one part of the good fight of faith, whereas the good fight of faith is fought in the univerſall conflict of an Euangeliſts converſation againſt the world, the fleſh and the devill, as well as in the diſpenſation of his Euangelicall function.

2. But with what good reaſon can theſe words, Fight the good fight of faith, &c. be conceived to drink up the whole meaning, and utmoſt extent of thoſe words, That thou keep this commandment without ſpot, &c. For though I do believe that your thoughts are ready to gratifie you with all pleaſing accommodations, for overthrow of one only ſtated diſcipline out of the word, yet I cannot but think it would ſeem too groſſe in your thoughts, to teare by piecemeale the continued exhortation of the Apoſtle, verſ. 11, 12. but thou, O man of God, flee theſe things, follow after righteouſneſſe, godlineſſe, faith, love, patience, meekneſſe: Fight the good fight of faith, &c. and to apply only this latter part of the exhortaion to thoſe words, That thou keep this commandment. And therefore cannot but wonder, that you ſhould affirm that the Commandment Timothy is commanded to keep, ſhould concern only faith and holineſſe in the miniſtery of the Word.

Therefore, notwithſtanding what hath been ſaid, we ſtill affirm that theſe words relate to the rules concerning Church-government in the former part of the Epiſtle; and this will further appear,

1. If you conſider the coherence of theſe words with the former: The Apoſtle having in the former part of the Epiſtle inſiſted upon the ſeverall duties of the Officers of the Church, he commands them in the latter end of the ſecond verſe of this Chapter, to teach and exhort theſe things.

2. He arms him with inſtructions, how he ſhould carry himſelf toward thoſe that ſhould teach and exhort the contrary, giving at once the character and cenſure of ſuch men, verſ. 3, 4, 5. and having made a digreſſion, verſ. 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10th. he falls on again to reſume the former Argument, and to exhort Timothy to flee the courſes of theſe corrupt teachers, and both as a Chriſtian and Euangeliſt, to approve himſelf to God in all holineſſe of converſation, verſ. 11, 12. But thou, O man of God, flee theſe things, &c. q. d. Though ſome others may prove corrupt in doctrine, and vicious in life, yet do thou walk with God in the power of a holy converſation, and particularly, though others will ſpot this doctrine, Biſhops, Deacons, &c. yet do thou keep it without ſpot and unrebukeable, and cauſe it to be kept ſo by others; for an Apoſtle, Euangeliſt, or Biſhop never keeps the faith as an Apoſtle, Euangeliſt, or Biſhop aright, unleſſe he cauſe it as much as in him lies, to be kept ſo by others; and ſo much is the import of the Apoſtles words, 2 Tim. 4.7. I have kept the faith.

Now, leſt the Euangeliſt, Demonſtration of Diſcipline, p. 5.7. or others to whom this Word of God might come, ſhould conceive that theſe things given in charge to Timothy, were of a temporary nature, and to ceaſe with the Primitive times, therefore he ſaith, verſ. 13, 14. I give thee charge in the ſight of God, who quickeneth all things, &c.—that thou keep this commandment unrehukeable, and without ſpot, to the coming of Chriſt, i. e. keep them thy ſelf, and deliver them in charge to the Church, and principally to the Elders to be kept till Chriſt his ſecond coming.

2. That which Dr Whitakers againſt Du • aeus urgeth, is not without ſtrength, That the Apoſtles have writ theſe Lawes (ſpeaking of Diſcipline) not for a day, or for the firſt age, but to endure for all times to come, and therefore hath ratified them with a moſt earneſt obteſtation (ſaith he) 1 Tim. 6.14. that theſe commandments ſhould be kept unto the day of the Lord.

That the Eſſentials of Diſcipline ſet down in Scripture, are unchangeable, Anſwer. I grant; but whether any Eſſentials be in controverſie, or how many, and which they are, you tell us not, &c.

By Diſcipline (Brother) we mean the whole Syſtem, Reply. and comprehenſion of divine Rules, Precepts or Precedents, for the externall Eutaxie order of the Church, which are not of a temporary, but of a perpetuall uſe, and equity, till the appearing of Chriſt, and by Eſſentials, we mean ſuch particulars included in this Syſtem or Comprehenſion, as if any of which be wanting, ſomething is detracted from the perfect and compleat order of the Goſpel. In this ſenſe we ſay, that there are certain Eſſentials in controverſie. That only perſons righly qualified, ſhould be admitted to ſociety in the Church, is an Eſſentall. Iſai. 5.6.6.7. 1 Cor 1.1. Phil. 1.1. Now, though this in the generall be not in controverſie, yet whether this or that be a right qualification is in controverſie, and ſo an error in an Eſſentiall is contended for, and made by the erring party; either by taking in viſibly falſe, or excluding viſibly true matter. That the members of the Church, be united by a right medium, is Eſſentiall Acts 2.41. Acts 5.13. 1 Cor. 12. to Diſcipline, but whether this right medium be I know not what implicit covenant, or whether it be an expreſſe covenant, or the legall bounds of the Pariſh, is no ſmall Queſtion at this day. That ordination, excommunication, &c. be done by the right Subjectum capax1 Tim. 4.14. Titus 1.5. Acts 14.23. of theſe ordinances, is certainly an Eſſentiall part or diſcipline. But whether the Churches in ſome caſes may ordain by Deputies no Church-Elders; or whether in an ordinary way this power be in the Elderſhip of the particular Congregation, or in a compound Claſſick Elderſhip, is a great controverſie. But that the holy kiſſe, oyle, waſhing of feet, are Eſſentials, we hold not.

The remainder of your examination, though drawn out into ſeven particulars, ſeems to us to be like the hornes of the Beaſt, called Bonaſſus, Ariſtot. de Nat. Animal. which are big enough; but yet they are ad pugnam inutilia unuſefull to fight withall. For though we cannot aſſent to every thing in your ſeven particulars, yet ſhall paſſe them over, becauſe they are all peaceably conditioned to the Doctrine of the Elders of New-England. For though they were all granted, yet it may be cleerly deduced from 1 Tim. 6.13, 14. that Chriſt hath left but one way of Diſcipline for all Churches, &c. the reaſon is, becauſe theſe are no parts of the diſcipline left by Chriſt to the Church, which in the Eſſentials of it is unchangeable: ſpoken by Paul in the Epiſtle to Timothy. Horat. de Art. Poet. Non ſemper feriet, quodeun que minabitur Areus.

Laſtly, whereas you call for a Narrative of our Church-way, eſpecially of what we count Eſſentials, we had thought to have taken ſome pains to have ſatisfied you herein, but that in the nick of time that work is done to our hands, by Reverend Mr. Cotton: And further we hear, that a work of the ſame nature, by the Brethren of the the Congregationall-way, members of the Aſſembly, is upon the Anvile, and that by the requeſt of the Aſſembly of Divines at London, and we make no doubt, but the gleaning of the grapes of Ephraim, are, and wil be better then would be the vintage of Abiezer. Yet we know not by what obligation we ſtand bound to give forth a Narrative of our Way, more then the Brethren of the Presbyterian judgement do of theirs, who though to this day they call earneſtly for a Narrative from us, yet have not gratified us with any Narrative of what themſelves hold. And therefore vouchſafe to touch at leaſt with one of your fingers, that which you are pleaſed to lay (though we count it not ſo) as a burden upon us.

POSITION XXV.

The Church or the Miniſters thereof,The like words are found, anſw. to 32. q. p. 11.15. anſw. to 9. Poſ. p. 76.77, 28. muſt not be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 1 Pet. 4. and therefore the Miniſter muſt not perform a Miniſteriall act to another Congregation, Acts 20.28. 1 Pet. 5.1, 2.

The Text in Peter ſpeaketh not of the Church, or of the Elders, Anſwer. more then of any other men, nor of meddling with the affairs of other churches, but with other mens matters; nor yet every meddling with them, but ſuch a meddling, as for which they ſuffered from the Heathens in thoſe dayes, Let no man ſuffer as a buſie-body in other mens matters, &c.

Neither do the Elders ſay that the Apoſtle ſpeaks of the Church, Reply. or the Elders thereof, when he doth dehort them from ſuffering as buſie-bodies in other mens matters; nor is the Text in Peter ſo much as mentioned in any of the quotations preſented in the margent, nor once intended to be made uſe of, to prove the thing they were ſpoken of; therefore is it not a groſſe wrong, to make the world believe that they made uſe of 1 Pet. 4. to any ſuch purpoſe? Only in p. 11. they make uſe of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which Peter makes uſe of in 1 Pet. 4. but of that Text they make not uſe, when their ſcope was to appear againſt diſpenſing cenſures & Church-priviledges to Chriſtians, joyned to no particular Church, they ſay they muſt not be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , alluding to that place of 1 Pet. 4. where that word is uſed, but not intending to give the meaning of the place.

Now they might well apply the word to Miniſters intermedling without the bounds of their calling, becauſe the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , though it ſignifie an Over-ſeer, yet uſually it is applied by the Holy Ghoſt, to a perſon over-ſeeing in ſpirituall matters, and ſo to a Miniſter of the Goſpel, and is tranſlated Biſhop; therefore 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is a perſon that playes the Biſhop in anothers Dioces, out of his own bounds moſt properly; therefore might be made uſe of in a way of application to Miniſters, though the Apoſtle ſpeak not of Miniſters in that place.

But what inference do you inferre after you have reſuted your own fiction?

It is of no more ſtrength (meaning 1 Pet. 4. Anſwer. ) againſt a Presbyterie over particular Congregations then againſt the power of Parliament over other Courts of Judicature.

You ſay true; Reply. the place which neither meddles with the one nor the other, nor was produced unto any ſuch purpoſe; may have no more ſtrength againſt the one then againſt the other; but there are other Scriptures brought, which deny to Miniſters that power over other Congregations which the Parliament hath over other Courts of Judicature, within their own territories.

The inference ſuppoſeth that the flocks mentioned in theſe two Texts, Anſwer. (viz. Acts 20.28. 1 Pet. 5.1, 2.) were two particular Congregations, which is impoſſible to be proved.

The inference ſuppoſeth no ſuch thing, Reply. only implieth that there is ſomething in thoſe Texts againſt Miniſters their performing miniſteriall acts to other Congregations, the truth of which we ſhall make to appear:

The Texts in Acts 20.28. gives this charge: Take heed to your ſelves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghoſt hath made you overſeers to feed the Church of God, i. their charge extends to none of them beyond the flock over which they were made over-ſeers in the work of feeding; now whether there were more Congregations in Epheſus, or but one, yet no Elder could then, or can now, feed any more then one Congregation, therefore they are Overſeers only, each of them, to one Congregation. Your ſelves will grant that they cannot feed in a conſtant way by word and doctrine, and the Sacraments, (which are the principall works of feeding) any more then one Congregation; therefore one Congregation bounds their Commiſſion; and conſequently, if they feed miniſterially other Congregations, they go beyond their Commiſſion, and are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

2. It is more then probable, that the flock at Epheſus was but one Congregation: Firſt, Epheſus was a City, and we do not reade of more Congregations of Saints conſtantly meeting for the worſhip of God in any City, then one: Secondly, we cannot think, but that the Church of Jeruſalem, Corinth and Antioch, were as numerous as Epheſus, and yet none of them were more then one Congregation, if we be bound to reſt upon the Holy Ghoſts own teſtimony, who witneſſeth that they ordinarily met in one place, as before was ſhewed.

3. They are called one flock, one Church; now we have declared before, that one inſtituted Church, and a Congregation are all one, when Church is properly taken, and without a figure; and in this place there is no neceſſity of a figure, for there is no improbability but that they might meet in one place; therefore the charge runs to the Elders at Epheſus to feed the Church, viz. the Congregation at Epheſus, and to that they are ſo limited.

The Text in 1 Pet. 5.1, 2. gives this charge: Feed the flock that is among you. Now, neither the Elders to whom he writes were together, nor the Saints whom they were to feed, but both the one and the other, ſcattered abroad through many countries, Pontus, Galatia, Aſia, &c. therefore flock in this Text, is to be taken in a figurative ſenſe, and diſtributively of neceſſity; and the charge of feeding the flock is to be limited by the words (among you.) And thus it muſt be underſtood, you Elders in Pontus, feed the flock among you; and you Elders in Galatia, feed the flock among you, and you Elders in Aſia, feed the flock among you; and each of you in every place, feed the flock where you be, in each place. And more diſtributively yet, becauſe neither all the Elders, nor all the Saints in Galatia, Aſia, &c. were together, therefore it is thus to be interpreted; ye Elders in this City of Aſia, feed the flock among you; and ye Elders in that City, feed the flock among you; and ſo of all the reſt; ſo that the reſtriction in the Commiſſion is in theſe words (among you.) Now the Saints in Galatia were not with the Elders of Aſia, nor the Saints of one City of Aſia, with the Elders of another City of Aſia; therefore the Elders were by Commiſſion to look to the Saints in every City and place where themſelves were, and not to others where themſelves were not: So that if the Elders in Aſia ſhould take authoritative inſpection over the Saints in Galatia, and in other countries, they ſhould be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Biſhops medling in others Dioces not belonging to them, becauſe all Elders are bounded to the Saints among themſelves.

Peter bids the Elders of Pontus, Anſwer. Galatia, &c. to feed the flock of God that is amongst them; therefore you ſay the Elders of one Church of Galatia, muſt not feed the people of another Church of Galatia. A communicant muſt examine himſelf; will you thence inferre, that none elſe muſt examine himſelf? The Theſſalonians were to know them that were over them, and laboured among them, and eſteem them very high in love for their works ſake; therefore muſt they not heare at all, or at leaſt not eſteem highly for their works ſake the Paſtors of other Congregations? 2 Theſ. 5.12, 13.

Your reaſoning is not good, Reply. (nor candid) by comparing things diſparate, you would caſt an abſurditie upon us, but it will light upon your ſelf. You argue from works of common Chriſtian duty unto works of Office very improperly: As ſuppoſe the matter were thus laid down; The Parliament writes to the Colonels of Lancaſhire, to look well to, and rule and govern the ſouldiers and people that is amongſt them; an inference is drawn hence, the Colonels of Lancaſhire are not to govern and rule the ſouldiery and people of Cheſhire, for their charge is over the ſouldiery and people amongſt themſelves; this inference is good. But you to overthrow it, would bring ſuch an argument as this: The Colonels of Lancaſhire muſt agree amongſt themſelves, muſt they not therefore agree with the Colonels of Cheſhire? The ſouldiers and people of Lancaſhire muſt reſpect and honour their own Commanders, muſt they not therefore reſpect and honour the Commanders in other counties alſo? This is a weak argumentation to overthrow the former inference; the fallacy lieth in this, you would extend duties of authority and office in ſuch manner as duties of love and reverence, and honour (which reſpect all men, all ſuperiours) are to be extended. Therefore, ſeeing that it is a feeding of office, and an authoritative feeding, that is enjoyned in thoſe Texts alledged, it is limited to the people over whom they are Officers, and may not be extended further. And yet the people of ſuch Congregations muſt love their own members, ſo as withall they muſt love the members of other Congregations; and they muſt reverence their own Officers, ſo, as withall they muſt reverence the Officers of other Congregations; yet their own moſt, becauſe relation there is ſtrongeſt: And the reaſon is, becauſe love and reverence are not actions annexed to Office, but of a common nature appertaining to men and Chriſtians.

Take heed to the flock, and feeding it, Anſwer. doth include adminiſtration of the Word, and Prayer, as well as of Sacraments; yet you hold, he may, notwithſtanding this Text, preach and pray in another Congregation.

Taking heed to the flock, and feeding it, Reply. doth include the adminiſtration of the Word and Prayer, of the Sacraments, and the exerciſe of Diſcipline; and yet your ſelf doth not place a parity in all theſe. For you are apprehenſive of a further liberty in preaching and praying, then in performing the other actions. You will preach to the Heathens as Heathens, but not give Sacraments to them; you may preach before Ordination for approbation, but not diſpence the Sacraments before Ordination; You may preach to a Congregation in Scotland, and yet not act authoritatively in their Synods among them. And now, what the reaſon of this ſhould be, we cannot imagine, unleſſe you grant with us, a difference betwixt ſome acts of feeding, and other acts of feeding, and ſay, ſome acts are ſo annexed to Office, and are ſo authoritative, that they cannot be performed but where Office is, and authority is; and other acts of feeding, though they they be authoritative to that people over whom the perſons performing them are Officers, yet they may be performed by a gift without Office, to another people, and are not authoritative to them. To this purpoſe ſpeak the Elders in anſwer to the 8th Poſition; and the reaſon will be good to us, till you yeeld a better.

The relation of Miniſters and People is mutuall; Anſwer. if the people my receive the Sacrament from another that is not their Miniſter, then the Miniſter may adminiſter it to them that are not of his flock.

In one ſenſe, all that you ſay is true; Reply. people may receive the Sacrament from one that is not their Miniſter, being recommended to him; and the Miniſter may adminiſter the Sacrament to ſuch as are ſo recommended to him; but then this recommendation is, as it were, a diſmiſſion, differing not really, but only in time: recommendation commends them for a time to fellowſhip with that Church, and diſmiſſion commends them for continuance without returning: See Cottons Keys Cottons Keys, pag. 17, 18., which you make ſo much uſe of againſt us. When perſons of another Church do orderly intermingle themſelves with this or that Church, then they are as members, and the Paſtor is as their Paſtor, and ſo he may diſpence the Sacraments to them. But it will not follow, that therefore he may act Miniſterially out of his own Church and People in and maong another Church and People; nor will relation of Miniſters and People being mutuall, bring ſuch a concluſion about. Magiſtrates and Subjects are Relatives; and if any Subjects of one county come to another county, and be wronged in the county whither he is come, he may requeſt juſtice from the Magiſtrate of the county where the wrong is done him, and receive it. But yet this will not draw on another thing, that hereupon, becauſe a Magiſtrate may diſpence juſtice to a ſtranger coming among his people, he may therefore go from among his people to another county, and diſpence juſtice among them: ſo of Miniſters, it may be ſaid, They are Paſtors to their own people, and perform Paſtorall acts to their own, and to thoſe that orderly are recommended to them as theirs; but when they leave their own, they are not Paſtors to other Congregations, to diſpence Paſtorall acts to them.

By vertue of communion of Churches you may, Anſwer. and do receive known approved recommended members of another Church, to the holy Communion. If you may receive one, why not two, three, ſix, ſeven, eight, which it may be, are the whole Congregation? Where doth the Scripture allow the one, and not the other?

We grant all you ſay, Reply. in this alſo, that if one, two, ſeven, eight, do come by recommendation, they muſt be received by vertue of communion of Churches; yet we demand, if theſe ſeven, or eight be the whole Congregation, who ſhall recommend them? For without recommendation, they cannot orderly be received. Or ſuppoſe they commend themſelves to the Communion of another Church, they are now ſallowed up in the fellowſhip of the other Church, and counted (pro tempore) as members thereof, and have not the conſideration of a diſtinct Church. And though it be lawfull for a Miniſter to diſpence the Sacrament to them with his own people; yet not lawfull to go forth from his own people, and to give it to them alone: If a whole town ſhould come to live in another town, they might have the juſtice of that town, and yet the Magiſtrate, though he might do juſtice to them in the town, being mingled with his own people, cannnt notwithſtanding diſpence it unto them, abiding in their own place. But you ask, Where the Scripture alloweth the one, and not the other? We anſwer, the Scripture alloweth the recommendation of the members of one Church to another, Rom. 16.1. 2 Cor. 3.1. But can you produce any place where the Miniſter of one Church hath acted miniſterially in another Church?

You grant that Elders have a calling to ordain Elders in other Churches whereof themſelves are neither Elders nor Members, Anſwer. by requeſt of that Church where the Elders are to be ordained. R. M. & W. T. to C.H. p. 48. Reply.

While Mr. Mather ſaith they may intreat help, he holds by conſequence, that the Elders of other Congregations have no proper right of their own to ordain in other Congregations, and that their power is derived to them from thoſe Congregations that intreat them; and then it wil follow, that the help that ſuch Elders do afford, is not as they are Elders in reference to their Office; but as better gifted, and in reference to greater ability which ſuch Elders have to carry on ſuch a buſineſſe. The reaſon is, becauſe if ſuch Elders acted in Ordination as Officers in another Congregation, then they would have proper power ſo to act without intreaty; for intreaty makes not them Officers which were none before; and if they were Officers before, intreaty is not needfull to inable them. And if they act as Officers in another Congregation, then they may in all Congregations; for they are Elders alike in all as in any, ſave only where they are fixed. Now this is againſt Mr. Mathers principles; his meaning therefore was, that as if in caſe a Church want Elders to preach to them, they may intreat Elders of other Churches to preach to them, not becauſe they conceive that an Elder only may preach, but becauſe they judge an Elder to be more able to do it; ſo it muſt be underſtood in the buſineſſe of Ordination. In this ſenſe we wholly concurre with Mr. Mather, but in your ſenſe cannot grant it.

Whereras the 26. and 27th Sections concerne one and the ſame head of controverſie, we ſhall make one defence for both.