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 (being not of men, nor by man, but by Jesus Christ, Gal. 1.1.)This was proper to the Apostles or Apostolike men. Answ. to 9 pas. p. 76. T.W. to W.R. p. 67. did preach not onely without, but against the peremptory Com­mand and Laws of the Magistrate, Acts 4.17, 18, 21. & 5.28. But you professe not such a Latitude of opposition against Ma­gistracie; nor do you hold (I suppose) that our godly non­conformable Brethren, suspended by the Bishops, 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: or that Master Ward, deposed by the Church at Roterdam, was bound to execute his Ministery there, before his Restaura­tion. [Page 2]Had you such an immediate Commission, sealed from heaven, 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 consulting with Divines, about the Reformation of the Church; and of living under a hea­then Magistrate, and professed publike enemy of the Church, were not much different. Would our Brethren in New-Eng­land allow a Presbyterian Church, or but a New-Independant Church, to be erected in New-England, against the will and minde of the Magistrates and Churches thereT.W. to W.R. p. 31.? Our Bre­thren at London (I hear) do hold it (at least) unreasonable, to gather Churches now: how their opinion and yours are reconcileable, I see not. It may be the Brownists, Anaba­ptists, Antinomians, Familists, and other grosse Heretikes and Schismatikes, in old or new-England, do also pretend the Do­ctrine and Practice of the Apostles for the setting up of their Churches; yet our godly and conscientious Divines do there­in oppose them.

The case of Adam and Noah was extraordinary; there were no more in the world, and therefore could be no more in the Church. Adam and his wife, and first sons, yea Adam himself was the Church, if then there was any: yet you hold not that two or three, yea one, may make a Church. Cain lawfully married his own sister, May other men now do the like? Twelve are more then seven or eight, and an hundred and twenty a competent number; yet it appears not that they were called or counted a Church, till they were more encrea­sed. [Page 3]If there were no more Believers in Ephesus then twelve (as there was, viz. Aquila and Priscilla, which knew more then Johns Baptism, Acts 18.26. cum 24.25. if not others) yet there were more in Jerusalem then one hundred and twen­ty, even five hundred Brethren at once 1 Cor. 15.6. Adam and Noah, with their Families, if they were Churches, they were but Domesticall Churches, not Congregationall. What will you make of Christ and his Disciples? 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 Answ. to 32. q. p. 14.. Had they been called a Church, as some housholds are in the New Testament,Phile. 2. witnesse T.W. to W.R. you had some more pretexts; and yet they had been but a Domesticall Church, many whereof may be within a Congregationall, and especially within a Nation­all Church. It is an Argument you will not own: Seven, eight, twelve, may make a domesticall Church, ergo, they may make a congregationall. If seven or eight may make a Church, then two hundred persons in a city may well make twenty distinct Churches, and, by consequence, so many Independent Judicatures.

If you seek for Congregations meeting for Prayer,Answer. hearing the Word, Sacraments, in one place, or that they were called by the name of Church, or that all Believers in some cities and countreys, when they might, did meet in one place, I will not contend: many such Churches or Congregations we have in England; and the Believers in every Christian Church, even in the Church of England, and in the Jewish Church al­so, might and did, at first, meet in one place. To say nothing that all the people of the Jews (being about six hundred thou­sand) are called one Congregation, and are frequently in the old Testament said to come together; and thatOne Myriad is ten thou­sand. Myriads did come together. Acts 21.22. How will you make out this Inference? The Church of Corinth did meet in one place, [Page 4]and so did Antioch, Jerusalem; therefore no Church in the New Testament must consist of more then can meet in one place. To say there was a Church in Adams house, and in Noahs, 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. Is not the Argument as good if it run thus? All the believing Corinthians were of the Church of Corinth, 1 Cor. 1.1. cum 2 Cor. 6.11. The Smyrnaeans and Laodiceans, of the Church of Smyrna and Laodicea, Coloss. 2.1. & 4.16. Revel. 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. cum 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, or that there were more Churches, then one in any citie or town; therefore the Belie­vers in any one citie or town may be but one Church, whe­ther they can meet in one place or no. Paul writes not onely to them which might and did meet in one place, but to all that in every place (not thorowout the world, as appears, 2 Cor. 1.1. written to the same persons, 1 Cor. 5.1, 2. cum 2 Cor. 2.1, 2. neither is this a Catholike Epistle) but in all Achaia, call upon the Name of the Lord; and therefore these words, [...] (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. cum Psal. 2.2. 1 Chro. 12.17.) prove no more that those to whom Paul writ were of one Congregation, then James calling the twelve tribes scat­tered abroad one Assembly, Synagogue, or Church, James 1.1. cum 2.2. & 5.34. or Pauls mentioning the Hebrews assem­bling themselves together, Heb. 10.25. doth prove that the scattered Hebrews were no more then one particular Congre­gation, which might and did meet in one place; especially seeing the Apostle writes to the Achaians, 2 Cor. 1.1. 1 Cor. 16.1. cum 2 Cor. 9.2. & 11.10. Now there were other Churches in that RegionCotton Keyes, p. 46. at least two, Corinth and Cenchrea, Rom 16.1. which I read was the Port of Corinth, R. M. and W. T. to C. H. p. 32. yea oppidum Corin­thiorum [Page 5]navium statione celeberrimum, & ideo frequens valde & populosum Gual [...] in Rom. 1.: To say nothing of the Church whereof Gaius the Corinthian was the Host, 1 Cor. 1.18. Rom. 16.23. 3 Joh.) Hence there is mention of Churches to which the wo­men he writes to (for he saith, Your women, not Women, or all women) did resort; or how else could they keep silence in the Churches? 1 Cor. 14.34. yet you hold not that two or three Churches in the New Testament must consist of no more then may meet in one place.

We say not that the Christian Church is Nationall, as was the Jewish Church, viz. that it hath a Nationall Tabernacle, Temple or House of God, and solemn 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: not say we that the Scriptures do mention a Nationall Church; for the Supreme Magistrate was an enemy to Christian Religion, & Regis ad exemplum, &c.M-to H. teacheth us thus to answer. many of the people were of the same minde, as it is this day in France and Spain, and was in England in Queen Maries days: Believers (it is like) were not so many as to bear the name of a Land or Nation, nor could they have liberty safely and freely to meet in such great Assem­blies as Nationall Synods. Shew me a Nation of Magistrates and people converted, and I will shew you a Nationall Church; but if there could not then be a Nationall Church, as in Queen Maries times our Church was not Nationall, it is no wonder if there were none, (Ʋltra posse, non est esse) whether Nationall Churches be lawfull or unlawfull.

Arguments taken from the naked appellation of the word Church or Churches, are very unsatisfactory, because of the va­rious acceptations of the words Kahal, Gnedah, Ecclesia, Sy­nagoga, which we sometimes translate Church, but should al­ways [Page 6]translate, Convocation or Congregation, a company called out, or gathered together.

The English word, Church; Saxon, Cyric, and Scots, Kirk, are derived from [...], as Cambd. Rem. or [...] as Sir Hen. Spelm. which (as [...]) signifies the place of meeting. Hence we read of Robbers of Churches or Temples, Acts 19.37. Kahal (whence our English word call) is sometimes Meta­nymically understood of the place. The Heathen enter into the Sanctuary, which God had forbidden to enter into the Church, Lam. 1.10. cum Deut. 23.3. Nehem. 13.1. To come together [...], 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, ult. Synagoga is evidently taken for the place of meeting, Luke 7.5. Acts 18.7. Neverthelesse the words Kahal and Gnedah, do sometimes signifie a dispersed multitude or compa­ny (that (possibly) never did or could meet together) hence we read of a church of Nations, Gen. 35.11. church of evil­doers, Psal. 26.5. church of the dead, Prov. 21.16. church of the Righteous, Psal. 1.5. And the people of Israel, though divided into severall domesticall Assemblies to keep the Passeover, are called one Church, Exod. 12.46.47. But usually an Assembly or Concio, is all one with Kahal or Ecclesia, whether that Assembly was orderly or disorderly, good or bad, lesse or greater, Jer. 50.9. a church of the Nations, Ezek. 32.22. Asshur and his church, Acts 19.39, 40. lawfull church dismissed the church. When all the Israelitish men, women and children were toge­ther, they were but one congregation, which, in the Dialect of the Translatours of the New Testament, is all one with one church, Acts 7.38. When all the Israelites did not meet (for all the members of the Jewish Church did never meet after their setling in the Land of Canaan, nor all the males, save thrice every yeer) they that met, though scarce the half or third part of them that were of the Jewish Faith and Com­munion, were notwithstanding called all the church, the whole church, Josh. 9.18, 19. & 22.12. Ezra 2.64. And when there was a great Assembly, then the Scripture tells us, There was a great church. I set a great church, a very great church. [Page 7]Nehem. 5.7. 2 Chron. 7.8. & 30.13. Ezra 10.1. accounting no more persons of the Church, but those that were then as­sembled, yea Simeon and Levies assembly is called a Church unto which Jacobs honour should not be united, Gen. 49.6. and those many that were gathered together, praying in the house of Mary, are called the Church (though James and his Brethren were not there, not (it may be) the tenth part of those, which (in our sense) were of the Jewish Church.) Acts 12.12. cum 5; Yea 4 or 5. in a family, joyning in the worship of God, are called a Church, Rom. 16.5. 1 Cor. 16.19. Philem. v. 2. In this sence there were many Churches among the Jews. The Scripture calls them Church, or con­gregation often, and sometimes in respect of their severall Synagogues, Tribes, and Families, Congregations, Psal. 74.4.8. The phrase, Churches of Judaea which were in Christ, seems to imply that some Churches in Judaea were not in Christ, 1 Thess. 2.14. Gal. 1.22. No wonder therefore if that Christians of one Country meeting in severall Syna­gogues, Jam 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,See Answ. to 2. many whereof we confesse were in Galatia, Macedonia, &c.

But more particularly, you say there were Churches in Ga­latia, Ergo, they were Congregationall.

Answ. Galatia was a large Country, as is intimated Acts 18.23. The Galaetians in Saint Pauls time, held all Paphlago­nia, a part of Phrygia, Cappadocia, and of all the neighbouring Countries round about, which after their names were called Gallograetia, or Gallatia, containing in them the Cities and Churches of Antioch and Laodicea, (as Macedonia also did in­clude Philippi, Thessalonica, Berhaea &c.) In England (a far lesse Country then either of them) in former times have been se­verall Churches at once, and yet those Churches not meerly Congregationall, but Nationall rather.

The Churches of Galatia might (for ought you alleadge to the contrary) be combined one to another, as the Churches of England, Scotland, Holland, France, are respectively com­bined: [Page 8]For the Apostle speaks of them as one lump, 1 Cor. 5.6. cum Gal. 5.9. and wisheth the anathematizing or excommu­nicating of him that troubleth them, Gal. 1.8, 9. & 5.10.12. and the restoring with the spirit of meeknesse (both which I take to be Acts of Discipline)Cott. keyes v 8.9. doth so take them. of a fallen brother, Gal. 6.1. And the Churches of Macedonia were not so severall, but they joyned in one to choose a brother (which I conceive was an Authoritive act) to go with Paul for the managing of the Churches contributions, 2 Cor. 8.18, 19. and the Churches of Judaea, consisting of Myriads of people, did come together, Acts 21.20, 21, 22. to be satisfied of Paul concerning an ac­cusation they had received against him; and are called a Church, Gal. 1.13. Acts 12.1. and an house, Heb. 3.4. which title you say is not given to loose stones and timber, but imports knit­ting and joynting one to another.

True, so it should; when an Army is to be raised, a city be­gun, 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, &c. Deut. 83.14. Isa. 1.21.26. Acts 16.34. Rom. 1.7. Eph. 1.1, 2, 3, 4. and we heartily wish thy were all such, yet we dare not use un­scripturall wayes, and meanes for the procuring or preser­ving of Church-members-sanctity: To be wise or holy above the rule, is to be foolish, prophane, presumptuous, superstiti­ous; could you shew us out of Scripture that the Church should examine persons that come to be admitted, whether the work of Grace be wrought in their hearts or no; and that they must make any other Declaration (then profession 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 (which none [Page 9]but they that were present can know) before he can in faith joyn to it, or continue in it, we should not differ about the sanctity of the Members. If the Gospell and Christian Reli­gion was brought into England in the Apostles times,Church cov. p. 37. then it was like it was constituted of Saints, as well as the Church of Corinth. If we look upon the latter constitution in Queen Elizabeths time, many congregations of London and M: for example) had visible, yea doubtlesse reall Saints, which were sufferers all Queen Maries time, to be the foundationalls thereof.

The Text in the 1 Cor. 1. shews rather what the members of the Church of Corinth were, at the time of Pauls writing to them, then that they were or ought to have been visible Saints, at the first erection of that Church; yet it shews not that all the Church-members he writes to, were visible Saints; for many known evill livers, as the Incestuous person, Drunken com­municants, Hereticks, Schismatickes, Fornicators, were known members; but the denomination of Saints, is a parte meliore, as we call a wheat-field a corn-field, though we see weeds and tares in it: much lesse doth it prove, that all they to whom he writes, and the others also, were visible Saints at the first con­stitution of that Church, and that it was necessary they should be such: He writes to the Church called to be Saints, 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 v. 1. Paul called to be an Apostle) then that they were Saints before they were a Church, though I maintain not the validity of ei­ther inference. But how appeares it that all the Honourable titles and Epithets given by Paul, are given with relation to Church membership? The Corinthians were enriched by God in all utterance and all knowledge, and did come behind in no gift, will you thence conclude that all Church-mem­bers are or ought to be enriched by God, &c? So when he called others Saints, beloved of God, elect, blessed, &c. or saith, their life is hid with Christ in God; if these things be spoken of them as Church-members, then they are true of all Church-members, which you know they are not.

Answ. You intend not that this Covenant doth make a true Church, but a pure congregationall Church, as it is refined according to the platform of the Gospell.T.W. to W.R. p. 24. so in­terprets you. A Church Co­venant is of such duties as the Gospell requires of e­very Church, and the mem­bers thereof: Apol. for Church cov. p. 3. & p. 25. The substance of this is a­greed to by Answ. to 32. Q. p. 15. A Church Covenant is especially in relation to Church estate, and Church duties; (as a marriage Covenant is with relation to the married state and marriage duties.) But the Covenant here mentioned was not entred into in reference to Church estate and Church du­ties, rather than 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 let leave them in the same Church-state they were before, and not make them members of a distinct Church. A Covenant in Generall doth not make a Church (nor a marriage, a Covenant between 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.

To be Gods people, and Gods Church, is not alone in your sence. To be the Kings Subjects, and to be of a Corporation, is not all one; 40 Beleevers of no Church, or if 40. severall Churches are the Lords people, but they are not an instituted Church: no Cove­nant in Scripture was at the founding of the Jewish Church, nor of the Christian Churches, though many be mentioned in the New Testament, to be founded, nor at the adding of any members to them, neither did they make a Church, more truly a [Page 11]Church, or politicke society, or more truely 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.

The Covenant in Gen. 17. is taken onely for Gods part of the Covenant, or his promise to Abraham, Gal. 3.16, 17. not for mans part to God, whereof we now speak: Gods Co­venanting with Abraham did not impose nor suppose an ex­presse vocall Covenant on Abrahams part (although when God appeared visibly and spake vocally, there was more co­lour for an expresse Covenant, then now he doth not) not al­wayes an implicite Covenant, Gen. 9.9, 10. The Birds, the Beasts, the children not then born, could not give so much as an implicite assent.

Indeed 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, but how prove you that Abraham was not in Church-state before? Gen. 17. That Melchizedeck a Priest, and Lot, which were not of his seed nor of his family? were out of Church-state, That a Be­liver is not a son of Abraham, nor an heir of the promise and covenant made to Abraham, if he be not in Church-state by Covenant? All which you seem to imply, when you say that Jewish Church was constituted in Abrahams family by Church-covenant. The family of Sem was the Church of God long before this, Gen. 9.25, 26, 27.

Answ. The givers are not the members of the Church of Macedonia, (as you for your advantage phrase it) but the Churches of Ma­cedonia, Apol. for Ch. Covenant, v. 12. and therefore if this do prove Union or Cove­nant, it is of the members of severall Churches, and not of [Page 12]one onely: It is not said that they gave themselves to the Church or Churches, but to us, viz. to Paul and Timothy, (which were not so much as set members of any particular Church) 2 Cor. 1.1, 19. which as they joyned in the Epistles extant to the Macedonian Churches, Phil. 1.1. 1. Thess. 1.1. 2. Thess. 1.1. so they commend those Churches for being guided by them, Phil. 2.12, 19. & 4.9, 15. 1 Thess. 1.5, 6, 7. & 3.6. But how the case of the Churches of Macedonia is paralell with your Church-covenant, to abide in that particular con­gregation you shew not.

Answer. In a generall sence a few private men without Officers, yea a few women without men, yea 20. 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.Cotton Keyes p. 16.

The Church in Acts 2. had Officers, and better Officers than any Church now hath, even the Apostles (if the Com­mission of the 70. was expired) which were the Elders of all Churches.The Apo­stles were as the Elders and Rulers of all Churches, Cot­ton Keyes p. 48. 1 Pet. 5.1. 2. Cor. 11.28. 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.

In Church affaires of weighty and difficult common concern­ment, as Election and Ordination of Elders, excommunication of an Elder, it is safe and wholsome, and an holy Ordinance to proceed with consultation and consent of the Churches, Prov. 11.14. Cottons Keyes, p. 55. You will not take upon you hastily to cen­sure the many notable Precedents of ancient and later Synods, who have put forth Acts of power in Ordination and Excom­munication. [Page 13] Cot. Keyes p. 28. We hold it a priviledge of the people, (espe­cially if they proceede wisely and piously) to Elect their Offi­cers; and an injury to obtrude any on them, without their consent; but let us view your Scripture, The assembly, Acts 1. it is likely was not a body politick, but occasionall onely, 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 seperate from the Jews before Acts 2.44. The company was not without El­ders, the Apostles if not the 70.) were present; all the Chur­ches and Elders that were at that time in the world, were present, in respect whereof it may be called an Aeconieni­call counsell, (the Apostles being Elders of all Churches) ra­ther then a particular Congregation.

If there had been any more Elders and Churches, they must have conveened upon that occasion to choose an Apostle who is a Pastor of all Churches. The choise was limited by the Apostle Peter: First, to the persons present; secondly, to those that had accompanied the Apostles, all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out amongst them, and by God the director of the lot (to whom properly the Election of an Apostle doth belong) to Matthias; As for the Deacons and Over-seers for the poor (though people may better discerne of mens fitnesse and ability for that Office, then for the Mini­stery; and their liberty of choosing was a good meanes at that time, to abate their discontentments because of former neg­lect; yet at their Election, there were all the Churches and Elders in the world, and more there could not have been in any case; such necessity hath no Law. Your selves acknow­ledge Synods an Ordinance of Christ, usefull in sundry cases, (as in case a Church being leavened with Popery, Arminia­nisme, Antinomianisme, Libertinisme, Anabaptisme, &c. should choose a Minister like themselves: If such a case had happened, they could have had no more of a Synod at that time then they had; the company did nominate two, but they that prayed (which is likely was the Apostles) did ap­point them, ver. 23, 24. The people chose seven, such as they were directed to choose, set them before the Apostles, which did [Page 14] appoint them over the businesse, prayed and imposed hands: In Acts 14.23. Paul and Barnabas ordained Elders by Suffrages given by lifting up or stretching out of hands, (for so the Greek Word usually signifies, though not alwayes, Acts 10.41. 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 [...] signifieth rather to give, then to gather suffrages: As [ [...]] doth imply the election of more Churches then one,Churches do joyn in [...]. and yet it imports the election of no more Churches then those there spoken of: so the phrase, [Paul and Barnabas [...]] doth not imply that any Church, or other person besides Paul and Barnabas did elect those Presbyters.

Answer. That Congregation had Officers, 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.R. M. and W. T. to C. H. p. 52. 45. All the children of Israel, being about 600000, and many women and children, 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. (All the congregation, and, All the El­ders of the congregation, are all one, Exod. 12.3. cum 21) The Levites were separated to their work, and taken from a­mongst the children of Israel, cleansed and offered before the Lord by Moses and Aaron respectively, according to Gods expresse appointment, v. 6 7, 8, 11, 13, 14 therefore this laying on of hands was either onely obedientiall for approbation of Gods election, or for oblation of the Levites to God, in stead of their first-born, v. 16 17, 18. as they laid hands on sacrifi­ces, v. 12. which was a speciall reason, and peculiar to those times. If the people did ordain the Levites, I am sure they [Page 15]did not choose them: If this be a binding patern, you will lose Election, while you contend for popular Ordination.

You tell us, that it is a main pillar of Popery, to proportion the Church now, to the outward policie in Israel; and that Christs faithfulnesse above Moses, consists in as full determi­nation of Gods Worship in the New Testament, as in the Old; and that we are as strictly tied to the Gospel-patern, as the Jews were to the Old Testament: Why then should we in Ordination of Officers be guided by the Old Testament, and not by the New? And why should we follow the Ordi­nation of Levites, rather then of Priests, for a patern for the Ordination of Elders, except to gratifie you?

Answer. Neither is there mention of celebration of the Eucharist. Preaching and Baptising were first to be done to the Nations, therefore they are there mentioned. We finde the Apostles did practise Ordination, and yet we suppose not that they went beyond their Commission, Acts 6. & c. 13. & 14. And a Commission to Elders we read, 1 Tim. 5. as well as practice, 2 Tim. 4. You intimate, that speciall works, which the peo­ple might not do, 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 unoffic'd-men either to Preach or to Ordain.If that need so require, she may admonish her Officers, and excommu­nicate, &c. T.W. to W.R. p. 39.

The Church of Colosse had other Elders besides Archippus, which might joyn with the people in the Admonition. Paul bids Timothy fulfill his Ministery, 2 Tim. 4 5.Answer. This doth not [Page 16]suppose Timothy to be faulty, or to be under censure: and it may be Archippus, Pauls fellow-labourer, Philem. v. 2. was not faulty, and then this Admonition was no censure; and therefore it is alleadged to no purpose. Neither doth admo­nition alway suppose Authority; for this may be an act of charity, as well as of authority. Paul might admonish Peter; and one Brother another of the same Church, though Paul had no authoritie over Peter, nor fellow-members one over another, Gal. 2.11. Matth. 18.15, 16.Cot. Keyes, p. 19. Private members cannot censure judicially, or unchurch the Congregation, though they be bidden, Plead with their mother, plead, Hos. 2.2

The Colossians were as well to cause that Epistle to be read in the Church of Laodicea, as to say to Archippus, &c. yea, 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. Finally, the Church cannot excommuni­cate their whole Presbyterie, no more then the Presbyterie excommunicate the whole Church; onely she may withdraw from themCot. Keyes, p. 16.: the Church hath not received from Christ an Office of rule without her OfficersIbid. This Text is much insisted on, and weekly contributions for the Mini­ster grounded on it..

You do not maintain all your Officers, not your Ruling-Elders, though the Text. 1 Tim. 5.17. doth as cleerly hold out the maintenance as the lawfulnesse of Ruling-Elders.Answer. The Apostles Rule was not generall, but onely (for ought there appears) in the Churches of Galatia and Achaia, v. 1. nor perpetuall; for those Gatherings were to cease when Paul came, v. 2. (though Ministers maintenance did not cease when Paul came) not for any Officers, at least not quâ Officers, but for the poor, not of their own Church neither, but of the Church of Jerusalem, many miles distant; which was a singular and extraordinary case. You might much better alleadge, Matth. [Page 17]23.23. These you ought to have done, &c. yea, Acts 2.45. & 4.34. (as the Anabaptists) for the manner of maintaining the Ministery, and relief of the poor, then to say, that the tempo­rary way of the Churches extraordinary charity to the poor of another Church, is a perpetuall binding Rule to direct how Church-Officers should constantly be maintained.

If it be so applied by some good Writers who possibly had in their eyes the Lordly and almost Regall riches and pomp of Prelates,Answer. it is by as many and as good Writers applied other­wise. For my part, as I finde that Constantines Donation, the foundation of this Exposition is but a Fiction, accounted by Gratian himself to be but Palea, (and what is the chaff to the wheat?) so I finde in the Prophecies, that Kings and States are called mountains, Zech. 4.7. casting of mountains into the Sea implieth great commotions and troubles, Psal. 46.2. their burning with fire, signifieth their opposition and fiercenesse, whereby they become destroying mountains: or, as the Septu­agint (whom the Penmen of the New Testament much fol­low) [...] —a mountain on fire, Jer. 51.25. but I finde not that setled and stinted maintenance is in any Prophesie understood by a mountain burning with fire cast in­to the Sea, nor that it is unlawfull either from yeer to yeer, as in New-England T.W. to W.R. p. 59. or for certain yeers, or for term of life; much lesse do I finde that it is unlawfull for one yeer, and not for a yeer and a quarter, or two, three, or four yeers.

That Text proves not the same distinction between them; for he saith, Some Apostles, and some Prophets, &c. but not some Pastours, and some Teachers; but,Answer. but some Pastours and [Page 18]Teachers; or rather, These Apostles, these Prophets, these E­vangelists, these Shepherds and Teachers; which words seem but to explicate one another, as Shepherd and Bishop do, 1 Pet. 2.25.

No Sir, it is not Sion, but one of the Assemblies of Sion, Isa. 4.5. The Hebrews,Answ. which were divided into 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 Sion. Have not you found God present in our Assemblies? have not you by faith closed with the promises in the use of Ordinances, amongst us? Speak out, I know you dare not belye your selves, us, and God himself. Christ, in Matth. 18. promiseth his pre­sence to those that are not a Church, for two or three will not make a Church: they (v. 17.) were to give the second Admonition, the Church the third. If any faithfull people, though women, or not in Church-fellowship, or members of severall Churches, meet together, you dare not exclude them out of his promise, though they do not make a congregatio­nall Church. Christs presence is promised to the Apostles and their Successours, the Elders, Matth. 28.20. and to the Assem­blies of Sion, or Churches joyntly, as well as severally, Isai. 4.5. Rev. 2.1. & 21.22, 23. & 22.3, 4, 5. The new Jerusalem, Rev. 21. is many particular Churches combined, Cot. Keys, p. 56. Answ. to 32 q. p. 38.

Those without, Answ. of whom the Apostle speaketh, were unbe­lievers, Pagans and Heathen,Answ. to 32 q. p. 11. without Christ, as well as without the visible Church.

The Apostle opposeth Fornicators of the world, to Forni­cators that are Brethren.

Without are dogs, Sorcerers, Rev. 12.15. such as Paul had not [Page 19]to do with, What have I to do &c. v. 12. (and yet he had to do with all Christians, by his illimited Apostolike power,Answ. to 9 Pos. p. 64. 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 the Churches of England and Scotland.

To say nothing that the title [...], Dominus, sometimes translated Sir, and sometimes Lord, Job. 12.21. 1 Pet. 3.6. is given to Christ, to Elders, and meaner persons, 3 Job. v. 4.40. & 5.7. & 12.21. Kev. 7.14. Though Elders be not Lords over Gods heritage, yet they are Leaders and Guides, yea Shepherds, Rulers, Overseers, Bishops and Governours, and not onely Presidents of the Congregation,Answer. Moderatours of her actions, or as the fore-men of the Jury. The other Text forbids Kingly or Lordly power in the Ministers of the Go­spel; for the two Apostles still dreaming of a Temporall king­dom, and being kinsmen to Christ, did expect some Temporall honour and advancement. Christ saith not, there was ine­quality amongst the Priests of the Jews, or amongst the Priests of the Gentiles, or between the Priests and People, but it shall not be so among you; but, very aptly and pertinently to their Petition, answereth, The Princes of the Gentiles, &c. propoun­ding himself, v. 28. whose Kingdom is not of this world, for an example to them; yet he had no intent to equall them to himself in Church-power, or other Ministers to the Apostles, or the People to the Presbyters. We make not all Church Mi­nisters Bishops, but the Elders onely, as we are warranted by Acts 20.17, 28. Tit. 1.5, 7.

Diotrephes, being but one, was liker to a Prelate, then to a [Page 20]Presbytery: yet Saint John doth not blame him simply for accepting or having pre eminence, or for taking upon him to answer in behalf of the Church to which S. John writ, or for taking to him the power of commanding, forbidding, excommunicating; but for loving pre eminence, (as Mat. 23.6, 7.) for not receiving the Apostles and Brethren, and pro­hibiting what he should have required and encouraged, and excommunicating such as were the best members of the Church. I will not tell you who said, All the Church is holy; ye take too much upon you, &c.

Answer. The Church, in the first and primary intent of these words, was a Church then in being, which did abominate the Gen­tiles (for Heathens and Gentiles are all one) viz. the Jewish Church, which was not a particular congregation, but a Na­tionall Church, having graduall judicatories and appeals, of which the Apostles were at that time, and Christ lived & dyed an actuall member,Answ. to 32. Q. p. 14. They who presume that Christ did no more respect the Jewish Church, then they do the Church of England, do over-skip it, and understand this onely of the Christian Church, and bring Christ in, speaking on this man­ner; Peter, if thy Brother offend thee to day or to morrow, and will not be gained, keep it in thy mind two or three yeares, and thou shalt have a Church to which thou mayst complain; tell the Church when there is one. This Gospell was writ principally to and for the Jews (some say in Hebrew) in it the Spirit of God useth much the language and dialect of the old Testament, in which Kahal (and Ecclesia with the 70.) do sometimes signifie the company of Elders,A subordi­nation of the Jewish Syna­gogues and courts is ac­knowledged by Cot. Keyes, p. 24. aswell as the body of the people; and a Nationall Church with graduall Judicatories and appeals, as well as a particular assembly. Now there is not a Word in the Text to shew either that Church is not here taken for the Presbitary, but for the peo­ple (seeing when Christ saith, Whatsoever ye shall bind, &c. [Page 21]he speaks to the Disciples, v. 1. or Apostles, which are else­where said to have the power of binding and loosing, Mat. 16.19. Jo. 20.23. and were not ordinary beleevers but El­ders, 1 Pet. 5.1.) or that it is meant onely of a parutilar congre­gation without graduall Judicatories or appeals, (a Notion not agreeable to the Jewish Church here in the first place spoken of. I read that the promise of binding and loosing is not given to a particular congregation, when it is leavened with errour and variance, Ecclesia litigans non ligat, clavis errans non ligat, but then a Synod of Churches or of their messengers may Judicially convince and condemn errour, fearch out truth, determine, declare, and impose the way of truth and peace upon the Church.Cot. Keyes p. 47.

Peter was an Apostle in Office and Commission,Answ. though not yet sent out into all the world, and an Elder, Mat. 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, John 20.23. is the same authority which is given to their successors the Elders, See Cot. Keyes p. 4. & p. 10. whereby they are called to feed and rule the Church of God, as the Apostles had done before, Acts 20.28. If the Keyes were not given to Peter as an Elder or Apostle, but as a Believer, then it will follow; First, that the Keyes are not given to a congregationall Church, or any visible Church, or the Members, thereof against whom the Gates of hell may prevail; but to true beleevers or members of the Catholick Invisible Church, which onely are built on the rock, and the gates of Hell, &c. So that Hypocrites (as Judas) have not to do with them: Secondly, that they are given to all beleevers, making Peters confession, whether in Church-covenant or no, whether Church-members or no, whether males or females, for a quatenus ad omne valet conse­quentia: [Page 22]Thirdly, that Peter as an Apostle, and Pastors as Pastors, have no more power of the Keyes, given to them hereby, then other ordinary Beleevers; a groundlesse and sencelesse tenent, which makes Church-government meerly Democraticall and popular.

He blames them all, women as well as men, that notwith­standing the notorious fornication which was amongst them, were puffed up and gloried, and did not rather mourn, that he might be put away, ver. 1.2.6. Paul himself did excommu­nicate Alexander and Hymaencus, 1 Tim. 1.20. and it is not mentioned that he took the consent of any Church or Presby­tery in it.Cot. Keyes p. 30.. The Apostle saith, [...]. I have judged or decreed already, as if I were present to deli­ver, &c. which imports rather that Paul himself would de­liver him to Sathan, then that he exhorted them to do it: in­deed he commands them to put him away, as he writes to them to restore him again, to see whether they would be obe­dient in all things, 2 Cor. 2.9. and he would have it done when they were gathered together, that the people might be­hold, approve, and execute what was decreed. Paul bids the Colossians to cause an Epistle to be read id Laodicea, they (it is like) did it in obedience to Apostolique Authority; yet it will not hence follow, that a Church hath ordinarily the same power over another Church: he bids them purge out the lea­ven, and put away from them that wicked person, &c. which must not be understood as if Elders and people were equally authorized thereunto, but Quilibet in suo gradu, every man in his place, So Numb. 5.2. The children of Israel are comman­ded to put out of the camp every Leper; yet the Elders did judicially make clean or unclean, Levit. 13.3. Deut. 17.13. [Page 23]yea sometime they alone did put the Leper (as Ʋzzials 2 Chro. 26.20.) from amongst them: The allusion to the Lea­ven is not to be too far strained: for every woman or childe in their private house, without the consent of the Church might cast out Leaven, but yet they cannot excommunicate. The Apostle, 1 Cor. 14 31. bids them all prophesie one by one, yet our Brethren do not hold that all sanctified persons which in any place call upon the Name of the Lord Jesus, 1 Cor. 1.1, 2. were by this Precept bound to prophesie. Also, in 1 Thess. 5.12. he beseecheth the Thessalonians to know them that are over them, &c. which he speaketh to the Believers, and not to the Elders. So when he speaks of acts of governing power, it is to be understood of Elders, and not of Believers.

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 Churches. As you gather, that the suffering of corrupt persons and practice was the sin of the Church, and not of the Angel onely: so I may gather, that it was the sin not of one Church onely, but the neighbou­ring Churches also: But this you deny. I read in Revel. 4. that four and twenty Elders (distinguished from Believers, c. 7.8. 11.13.14.) not four and twenty Saints or Members) were so clothed and crowned, by which I understand the Officers of the Church, alluding to the four and twenty Orders of the Priests, and the four Beasts represent the Christian Churches thorow the four quarters of the world, alluding to the four Camps of Israel, bearing in their Standards the same Beasts.Cot. Keyes p. 16. By your Exposition, the Elders, which (you say) are signified [Page 24]by the four Beasts, are excluded from governing power; for they sit not on Thrones, nor have Crowns on their heads. Their Crowns and Thrones are no more Ensignes of Power and Authoritie, then their white Raiments of Priesthood:Cot. Keys, p. 16. But they are not Priests by Office, they cannot do Pastorall acts, as Baptize, &c. neither have they authority to govern. Every Christian man or woman, Church-members or other, hath a Crown, and sitteth on a Throne, viz. is Spi­ritually a King and Priest to God, Revel. 5.10. Finally, gover­ning power, properly so called, youM. & T. to C.H. Cot. Keys, and G. and N. Epi­stle. acknowledge none, but in the Elders alone, 1 Cor. 12.28. Rom. 12.8. Heb. 13.17. The peoples power is more fitly called Liberty and Priviledge, too mean a thing to be represented by Crowns and Thrones.

Seven or eight (you say) are the fewest that will make a Church;Answer. but five or six, yea any one particular Saint, though out of Church-fellowship by Excommunication, &c. may take Christ to be his onely Spirituall Priest, Prophet and King; yea a Presbyteriall, Classicall, Nationall Church may do it; the Jewish Church did it, the Hebrews did it, Heb. 5.4. and 4.15. yea, the Churches of the Gentiles, which at that time were not meerly Congregationall, did acknowledge Christ their King, Revel. 15.3. What Scripture witnesseth that a Congregationall Church, rather then a Presbyteriall Church, doth acknowledge Christ to be the onely absolute King, Priest and Prophet? Do your selves believe what you would have us believe, that Christ doth exercise his Kingly, Priestly, Pro­pheticall Office onely in Churches meerly Congregationall? did Christ offer up himself a Sacrifice for all the Members of a Congregationall Church, and onely for such? If you believe it not, why do you so clearly hint it?

It seems by the words, Thou, O man of God, I give thee charge that thou keep this Commandment,Answer. (viz. which im­mediately precedes) concerning faith and holinesse, in the mi­nistery of the Word, to be directed to Timothy himself: or if to his successours, then it it must be to the ordinary Elders (for evangelists which succeeded him we know none) not to the Churches; for example, not to the Church of Ephesus, to whom Paul writes nothing of Government, though in his Epistles to Timothy he writes almost of nothing else, and char­geth the Elders to take heed to the Flock, and look to the Wolves, Act. 20.28. But if you wil needs have the words, this command­ment, extended to this whole Epistle, yea to every Precept and Example of Discipline in Gods Book, you had need of good warrant for this exposition. That the essentials of Discipline set down in Scripture are unchangeable, I grant: but whether any essentials be in controversie, or how many, and which they are, you tell us not: I am sure those things that some (possibly) do make essentiall, are not such; as, holy kisse, an­ointing with Oil, washing of feet, &c. The differences be­tween the Apostolike Churches and ours are observable, be­cause they justly occasion some alteration, at least in externals, of Discipline or Worship.

As first, the Jewish ceremonies were then scarce dead, at least, not buried: hence we are not bound to use unleavened bread at the Sacrament, to abstain from things strangled and from blood, to circumcise, to purifie our selves, and to shave our heads, &c. Matth. 26. Acts 15.20. & 16.3. & 21.21, 22, 23, 26. & 23.2, 5.

Secondly, the civill customes of these countreys differ much from ours: Hence we are not bound to lie or lean on a bed at the Sacrament, Joh. 13.23, 25. & 21.20. to wash one ano­thers feet, Joh. 13.5, 14, 15. Luke 7.38. 1 Tim. 5 10. to kisse one another, Acts 20.37. Mark 14.4, 5. Rom. 16.6. 1 Cor. 16.20. [Page 26]1 Thess. 5.26. or to make covering of the mans head a to­ken of dishonour, 1 Cor. 11.11.4.5.7.10.

Thirdly, the Churches were then but in gathering from a­mongst Heathens and Jews: Hence we want examples (to convince refractory Anabaptists or Socinians) of the Bapti­zing of Christian Infants, or of any other, though of riper yeers, that was born of Christian parents, and educated in a Christian way, and was not in person a Jew or an Heathen.

Fourthly, the Church was then under Heathenish persecu­ting Magistrates: Hence they had no houses built for, or ap­propriated to holy Worship, they met in the night to pray, preach, and celebrate the Supper; Ministers had no setled maintenance; no Laws did compell men to keep the Sabbaths, to frequent the Assemblies, to submit to the Churches Disci­pline; Christians bare no civill Offices; the Magistrate did not meddle with, nor protect, but persecute the Church.

Fifthly, there was then an extraordinary effusion of the holy Ghost upon the Apostles, Evangelists, and sundry of the Elders and people: Hence there was no need of Universities nor Schools to teach Tongues and Arts, Acts 2. nor of study­ing for Sermons, nor using set Prayers or Psalms; for by the Spirit they then composed both, 1 Cor. 14. no looking on Bi­bles (Printing being not then in use) when the Pastour read or preached; no writing Sermons, &c.

Sixthly, The Apostles had the care of all the Churches, and without difference taught and baptized, and ordered mat­ters in all Churches where they came, 1 Cor. 11.28. & 4.17. & 16.1. & 7.11. (to say nothing of the Evangelists and Pro­phets) Now we may not, without presumptuous tempting of God, expect such Officers, but must be contented with ordinary Elders, amongst whom so much of their power as God intended to be perpetuall, is divided.

Seventhly, there were then some extraordinary occasionall Precepts and Practices, which binde not in ordinary; as, sel­ling all to give to the poor, Matth. 19.21. having all things common, Acts 2.44.45. & 4.32, 34, 35. anointing the sick will Oil, James 5.14. which are Apishly imitated by the Pa­pists, if not by others.

Finally, do but publish a full Narrative of your Church­courses and practices, and especially of all which you count Essentials, and prove them by Scripture; and I shall freely, by the grace of God, either consent with you, or shew rea­son of dissenting.

The Text in Peter speaketh not of the Church, or of Elders, more then any other man;Answ. nor of medling with the affairs of other Churches, but, with other mens matters, or rather (as the word implieth) other mens riches or possessions, whether Christians or Heathens, Church-members or no: and not eve­ry medling with them, but such a medling as for which they suffered from the Heathens in those days; Let no man suffer as a busie-bodie in other mens matters: and therefore it is of no more strength against the power of a Presbytery over parti­cular Congregations, then against the power of Parliament over other Courts of Judicature. The Inference supposeth, that the Flocks mentioned in those two Texts were two par­ticular Congregations, which is impossible to be proved. Peter bids the Elders of Pontus, Galatia, &c. to feed the flock of God that is amongst them: therefore, say you, 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 infer that none else must examine him? The Thessalonians were to know them that were over them, and laboured amongst them, and esteem them very highly, in love, for their works sake; therefore they must not hear, or at least not esteem highly for their works sake, the Pastours of other Congregations, 1 Thess. 5.12, 13. Taking heed to the Flock and feeding it, 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. The relation of Ministers and people is [Page 28]mutuall: If the people may receive the Sacrament from one that is not their Minister, then the Minister may administer it to them that are not of his Flock. By vertue of Communion of Churches, you may (you say) and you do receive known ap­proved recommended members of another Church, to the holy Communion. If you may receive one, why not two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, which, it may be, are the whole Congregation? Where doth the Scripture allow the one, and not the other? You grant, that Elders have a calling to ordain Elders in other Churches, whereof themselves are neither El­ders nor members, by request of that Church where the Elders are to be ordainedR.M. and W.T. to C.H. p 48..

This Text cannot be understood generally of all that were scattered:Answer. your selves explain it of men, not of women, 1 Cor. 14. of gifted men, and called to that work by the Church, and not of ungifted and uncalled men: yet the words, in their indefinite latitude, will prove as well the preaching of ungifted and uncalled men, as others. Question­lesse there were Elders amongst them; it may be the seventy Disciples were not quite out of Commission: certainly Philip was amongst them, who was an Evangelist (which Office began upon that dispersion) as well as a Deacon, Acts 21.8. and did baptize (which your selves confesse unofficed men cannot do) as well as preach. They were all filled with the holy Ghost, Acts 2.4, 10. & 4.31. And the hand of the Lord was with them, Acts. 11.21. cum Ezek. 3.14. which made them Doctours the first day, and gave them both ability and a call to speak the Word (which the Apostles counted their principall work, and after it, Prayer and Administration of the Sacra­ments, 1 Cor. 1.17. Acts 6.4.Answ. to 32 q. p. 71. this therefore was an ex­traordinary Case: Yet that these did preach ordinarily and [Page 29]usually to the Churches, like to Pastours, and received main­tenance for the same, as some do in London and elsewhere, is impossible to be proved.

In the Church of Israel, Answer. none besides the Priests and Le­vites did ordinarily prophesie, either in the Temple, or in the Synagogues, unlesse they were either furnished with extraor­pinary gifts of Prophecie, as the Prophets of Israel; or were set apart and trained up to prepare for such a Calling, as the sons of the Prophets:Cot. Keys, p. 20. but Jehoshaphat and his Princes were neither Prophets, nor sons of the Prophets. There is a vast difference between prophesying, and encouraging the people to hear the Priests and Levites. Had Jehoshaphat a Warrant for what he did, or no? if he had, was it ordina­ry, or extraordinary? If either he had no Warrant, or an ex­traordinary one, he is not to be imitated: if an ordinary War­rant, you may produce it; for all the Books of Scripture that were writ in his time, are extant, and many more. Je­hoshaphat knew well the difference between matters of God, and the Kings matters, 2 Chron. 19.11. matters concerning the King and Common-wealth: The Princes might (as Judges, Justices, &c. now do) teach in the Cities. Do you indeed hold, that the King may not onely preach himself, but also appoint others to preach and teach, though the Church do not call them? If so, tell us (I pray you) whether [Page 30]he may preach in the whole Nation, or onely in one particu­lar Congregation. You tell us that the Kings of Judah (being Types of Christ; and not onely their people, but their very Land being typicall, &c.) might be invested by God With a larger power in matters of Religion, then Kings and Magistrates under the Gospel, [may not I adde, or Subjects?] have any ground or warrant to claim fromTwo Brethren to A.S. p. 54.. Those in 1 Cor. 14. had not an ordinary, but an extraordinary gift of Pro­phecie, and the gift of Tongues also; yea, they composed Songs and Psalms as the Spirit did thereunto move, enable and authorize them; yet you hold not that a man, having attain­ed variety of Tongues,See Cot. Keyes, p. 20. and M. Goodwin and M. Nyes Epi­stle. or a Poeticall vein, might then, or now may in Churches exercise the gift of Tongues, and sing self-composed Songs or Psalms; nor can you from hence shew, that it is lawfull for unofficed men to preach in an or­dinary course, and to receive maintenance for the same.

Reader, other Witnesses are come in, and more may come in: while thou art reading these, I shall hear them. Their testimonies (as Scouts shall bring tidings) shall be concealed or published.