CHAP. I. Of Gathering Churches.

I Asserted in my answer, That the Apostles never taught or practised to gather or separate some Christians from others, one part of this true Church, and another part of that, (especially per­sons which themselves converted not) to make a purer Church, neither with, nor without the Magistrates Authority. To this you Reply: The Apostles both taught and practised the separating of some Jews from other Jews, 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 Jews first, and thought themselves bound so to do, 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 self acknowledg) Acts 2.40. And their communion they had with them in Iewish 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 Iews were gathered into many Christian Chur­ches, as both the Acts of the Apostles, and their Epistles do 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.

Rejoynder 1. Suppose (at present) that the Jewish Church was then a true Church and not yet dissolved, yet it was then in dissol­ving [Page 2]and ceasing to be a true Church, your own words [Yet the Iewish Church was not dissolved] do intimate so much, and the thing is undeniable, that Church was but to continue for a time, and then to be dissolved by Gods appointment. As it was said of the two covenants, that the first was taken away that the other might be established, Heb. 1 [...]. So it was with those two Churches, that le­gal, this Evangelical; the first was taken away, that the other might be established: and therefore separation from the then Jewish Church was more warrantable, then from our Churches, unless you count them true Churches only in the sense you speak of, viz. the body of them have not pertinaciously and desperatly rejected Christ come in the flesh, and that (as the Jewish Church then) they now are to be dissolved, yea that they are in dissolving by Gods ap­pointment, and ceasing to be true Churches, notwithstanding the progress that is made in Reformation.

2. You do not reply directly and pertinently but obliquely and e­vadingly (though in your last book called the Congregational way justifyed P. 17. You are bold to say, that no reply can more front or diametrically oppose my Answer then yours doth) yea, I dare appeal to your selves whether a precept or president of gathering or separating a Church out of the Churches of Galatia, Corinth, Laodi­cea, because of their many and great corruptions would not have more fronted, and bin more point-blank opposite to that part of my (as your wisdoms stile it) confused answer then this instance of the Jewish Church. For

• first, Did ever any man deny that there might then be separation from the Jewish Church? Could you think I did deny it? Your selves cite me acknowledging it, and you could not but know after I had published my Epistle and Quere's (what ever you did before) that an instance of separation from true Christi­an Churches, would most diametrically have opposed my an­swer which speaks not of separation of Christians from Jews (as your instance doth) but of some Christians from others, and I dare witness thus much for you, that if you had such a one, you would have preferred it before the other.
• Secondly, Whereas you say in your last P. 18. That you do not consider that Church as Iewish, but under the notion of truth, you acknowledg that you do not consider it as you ought to have considered it, for the seperation was from that Church as it was Jewish, having officers and ordinances diffe­rent from the Christian Church, which hath Ministers in stead of [Page 3] Priests, which hath not bodily sacrifices of beasts, nor such Sacraments and Ceremonial services, nor the presence of God in one place especially, as the Jews had, and the lawfulness of separation from that Church, (if it were then a true Church, and had not been Jewish) is stil uncleared.
• 3. The Refor­med Churches and Ministers, are not to be compared to the then Jewish Church and the Priests thereof, as you seem to compare them by pleading, that the Reformed Churches, and Ministers may be separated from, because the then Jewish Church and Preists were to be separated from; nor is this concerning the Ministers impertinently shuffled in (as in your last P. 18. You most untruly alledge) for they which separate from a Church, do with­draw from the officers of it; they that separated from the Jewish Church did withdraw from the obedience of their Priests, and they that separate from the Reformed Churches, do withdraw from the obedience of their Ministers, and withdrawing (your selves tell us, Pag. 60.) is a negative Excommunication, and therefore the Mi­nisters have as much or more injury, then so many members have in every unjust separation from them, as your selves would say, were it your case; but this must serve in stead of a better reply. Surely you have either too much charity to the then Jewish Church and Preists thereof, or too litle to our Churches and Ministers.
• 4. That Church was but one, and you should shew gathering out of several Church­es, for whereas you alledge they might have gathered out of twenty, or an hundred, had there been so many at that time. I answer, that it may be there were twenty, possibly an hundred Churches while the Jewish Temple stood: your selves say there were many Christian Churches, and yet I doubt not but you will acknowledg both, that no Churches were gathered or separated out of those or any other true Christian Churches, and also that it is more lawful and orderly to separate the pretious of one Christian Church from the vile there­in, and the Godly party to cast out the incurable sinfull party 1 Cor. 5.12. Then to separate some persons of severall Churches into one distinct Church, the former being not a gathering of a Church but a reforming and purging of it, which is warranted by Scrip­ture.

3. Whereas you speak much both in your former and latter Book, of the truth of the then Jewish Church, I pray you what trueness mean you? A naturall trueness, as a thief or a lyar is a true man, (id est) [Page 4]truly a man, and Sathan a true spirit that is truly a spirit, or a morall trueness, viz. that it held and taught the way of salvation, dare you say that the Jewish Church then did hold and teach the way of salva­tion? Did they not pertinaciously and desperatly reject Christ? No not while their Temple stood, as you say, some think? The Scripture calls them an untoward generation, from which it exhorts tho e that were pricked in their hearts, (which were but few in respect of the body of the Jews) to save themselvs, and from amongst which the Lord converted and added to the Christian Church, such as should be saved, Acts 2.40.47. And they did put the word from them being filled withenty, contradicting and blaspheming, Acts 13.45.46. A­gain the Apostle. Rom. 11.11, 12, 15, 19. Plainly implyeth, that the Jewish Church ceased to be a true Church, did fall, was broken off, cast away, before salvation came to the Gentiles. Nor do your Scrip­tures or reasons solidly prove that the Jewish Church was then a true Church; for one of your texts, Acts 11. which you produce for that purpose saith, That they that were scattered (whom in this place you call Apostles contrary to Scripture, Acts 8.1. and your own assertion elsewhere; Defence, P. 4.) Preached some to the Jews only, and some when they were come to Antioch, to the Grecians also, Acts 11.20. Now the Grecians were not then a Church of God, nor ga­thered (yourselvs say) into Church state til Barnabas was sent to them, Defence p. 4. The other text mentions their Preaching to the Jews first, but that they thought themselves bound to Preach to the Iews first, because they were the people of God, is your gloss, which cannot be inferred from your texts joyntly or severally; you know Gods com­mand might make it necessary, they should Preach to the Jews first, whether they were at that very time the people of God or no, and that was the true reason of it, as you may see by comparing Acts 13.46.47. with, Math. 10.1.5.6. But neither their Preaching first to the Jews nor afterwards to the Gentiles, doth evince that either of them were then the people of God. As for the Communion the Apostles had with the Jews which is your second argument, to prove the true­ness of the then Jewish Church, I would you had expressed what Communion what worships you mean, if that which you count pro­perly Church-Communion, then the Apostles did not (as you say they did) teach and practise seperation from the then Jewish Church, at least not a totall one, they had yet Church Communion with her, if you mean not Church Communion which is properly and peculiarly [Page 5]such, then it did not shew that they counted her a true Church: Though the Apostles being Jews and formerly members of that Church might become Iews to the Iews, 1 Cor. 9.20. That they might ga [...]n the Iews and give no offence, Acts 21. (which is un­lawful to do to those that are within or without the Church, 1 Cor. 10.32.) Might give great respect to the Jewish Church and wor­ships even after they were then dead, as in some places by way of funeral pomp, the honour done to great personages by their attendants while they lived is in measure continued to them after their death, till they be buried, as uncovering the head, carrying maces and scep­ters before them, &c.

Lastly, Vnless you can solidly prove

• 1. That the Jewish Church was then a true Church by a morall trueness.
• 2 That there is or ought to be such a change of our Ministry, Sacraments, and service of God in the Churches gathered from amongst us, as was then of the Jewish Priesthood, Sacraments, and service of God, in those Churches which were gathered from amongst them.
• 3 That the Reformed Churches and Ministers, may as lawfully be forsaken as the then Jewish Church and the Priests thereof.
• 4 That you have authority to gather Chur­ches amongst us, as wel as the Apostles had for gathering Churches from amongst the Jews.
• 5 That men are bound to become Independents when they hear you preach, as the Jews were to become Christians when they heard the voyce of the great Prophet, Deut. 18.18, 19. Vnless also you can invalidate my other fore-mentioned exceptions against this instance I would advise you to lay it aside and to pass to another argument.

Sect. 2. Reply, P. 2. 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, Mat. 18.17. Tell the Church, of a Pres­byterian Church, which consists of the Elders of many Chur­ches.

Rejoynder. What do you hence conclude that the Apostles taught and practised to gather some Christians from others, one part of this true Church, &c? This is it which P. 18. of your last Book you profess to shew at large in this and the subsequent particulars, then belike you acknowledg that the gathering of Presbyterian Churches is according to the doctrin and practise of the Apostles. 2 Between a Presbyterian Church and your gathered and seperated Church [Page 6]there is most difference. For,

• 1 A Presbyterian Church is not a par­ticular congregation, nor are al her members accounted to be members of a particular congregation, much less covenanted members such as yours are.
• 2 She doth not refuse the communió of those congregations, out of which you say it is gathered, and therefore cannot be called a seperated Church.
• 3. She is gathered with the consent of her so­cieties.
• 4 She doth not cast off the care of government of those so­cieties, but her gathering makes much for the better government of them, and for setling of truth and peace in them, as the convening in Parliament of the principall patriots, out of severall Counties doth make for the good government of the State.
• Lastly, their gathering is warranted (as hereafter Pos. 3. & 4. may appear) by the Doctrin [...] and practice of the Apostles which you cannot shew of yours. In­terim you may take notice that M^r. Cotton himself as he doth assert that Synods rightly ordered and classes and conventions of Presby­ters of particular Churches are all one, keyes. P. 42. So he doth call a Synod a Congregation of Churches, or a Church of Churches, which is as much as to say, there is a Presbyterian Classical Church, but of this and of Mat. 17. I shal speak more hereafter.

Sect. 3. Reply, p. 2. Thirdly, why may not one Church be gathered of the members of many Churches, as wel 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.

Rejoynder. Yes they may; in these troublous times, one family hath oft bin divided into more families; part of them at Manchester, another at home; and one family hath consisted of the members of many families, possibly the heads of several Country families have taken one house and dyeted together, yea it may be in times of per­secution, wives may live apart from their husbands, and their hus­bands live together apart from their wives, yet it were strang bold­ness to say that the Apostles taught and practised the seperation of several husbands, and gathering them into a distinct family from their wives, and it is no less unreasonable from the necessitous con­dition of a scattered persecuted Church, to infer that the Apostles taught and practised to seperate some Christians &c. Your selves do intimate P. 14. That one Church may meet in many places, in [Page 7]some time of hot persecution, may we thence conclude that the A­postles taught and practised the meeting of one Church in many pla­ces? 2. You read as much of the return of the scattered disciples to Jerusalem, as you read of their falling into membership with other Churches, if therefore it be probable (as you say it is) that they fell into membership with other Churches, I am sure it is as probable that they ere long did return to Jerusalem, seing there was the first Church, the chief Church in which the Apostles continued as offi­cers, whose doctrin and government all that were members of that Church could not but much desire, and the persecution was but short though sharp. Acts 9.31.3. Your selves do in effect acknow­ledg that this argument doth not necessarily (if it do probably) conclude the undertaken conclusion. 4. They that fell into member­ship with other Churches did not (nor do you think they did) se­parate from the Church of Jerusalem, or refuse communion with her or with the godly of her, aiming at a purer Church, and unless you had shewn this, you have not performed what you say you have performed. When the scattered Disciples left the Church of Jeru­salem it was their affliction, not their choice, much less was it their duty, as you pretend your separation to be.

Sect. 4 Reply, p. 2. Fourthly, such a Church which consists of the mem­bers of many other true Churches, hath formerly bin without exception in the days of the Prelates; how comes it now to be questioned? For at least fourteen years since, such a Church was extant in Wirrall in Cheshire, (the vocal covenant being only wanting) which consisted of the choicest Christians of many parishes. And we think it can­not be denied, but Mr. Iohn 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 happiness to have liberty to make such a Church; but was never accounted by the godly sinful before. If assembling constantly together, and partici­pating in all the Ordinances that the rest do 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, make members of a Church, then these persons of other Parishes were members, and with the rest made such Churches.

Rejoynder,

• 1. If all this were granted it is but an humane testimo­ny not divine, nor can you though you should produce a 1000 more [Page 8]instances (as you might)
• 2 I am informed, and in part know that these were not gathered separated Churches, for those members of other Churches did not refuse communion in Parish-assemblies, they grieved when they were deprived of it for non-conformity; they did not exclude all that were not visible Saints, much less the known godly of other Churches from their Sacraments, they aimed not prin­cipally (it at all) at a purer Church but a better Ministry, they possibly having no Ministry at their parish Churches, or a bad one, and it may be dwelling neerer to those, then to their own paro­chial assemblies, and you confess they wanted the vocal Covenant, and I suppose also they wanted subscription, and signals, of their mutual consent that they would be a Church together; and they re­sorted sometimes to their parish meetings, and if they had had such Ministers there, and liberty of conscience in point of gesture as in o­ther places, it may be thought they would not have sought else where.
• 3 Suppose there were such a Church in the days of the Prelates, and that it was then lawful too; can you thence infer that it is still lawful, though Innovations and scandalous Ministers and other offensive things be removed, have you as great occasion still of with­drawing as they then had?
• 4 That such a separation was never accounted sinful by the godly before is too large a speech, if you mean, That the separation which then was used by them that used it, and possibly by some others was approved, I contend not: but that no godly man accounted it sinful, ordinarily to frequent another assembly (especially if they had a Minister of ordinary parts and pie­ty) I cannot think. As for your separation many godly did account it sinful, yea the most eminent non-conformists, yea they which did best affect congregational government; yea you two have often told me and others of my godly brethren, That you are free in your judg­ment to baptize my child, or the children of any godly Minister, or member of our Church, or to receive us to the Sacrament amongst you: now if you would act according to your own Principles, (which I should conceive my self bound in conscience to do in this case) and would inform your Churches of their duty herein, your separation would be less offensive; but how you can account admission of us to your Sacraments lawful and yet the denyal, of it not sinful, I see not.

Sect. 5. Reply, P. 3. 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 [Page 9]without any consent? 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, wil be granted of all.

Rejoynder, 1. What then? wil you thence conclude, that the A­postles taught or practiced to gather or separate some Christians from others &c? Did your selves ever before call this gathering of Churches or separating Christians into Churches; is this the common acceptation of the words [Gathering of Churches] or separating Christians into Churches? Did your selves dream that was my meaning, or the thing I put you to prove? Doth remooval from one parish to another, imply the forsaking of, or separating from the communion of the former parish, and refusal to receive the Sacraments with the godly of the former parish? If not, how doth it, can it justifie your kind of separation from all our parish-assem­blies? And yet you argue thus; remooval from one parish to another hath bin judged pious or at least honest, therefore your separation is pious and honest, and you should conclude therefore the Apostles taught and practised your separation. For you know the question is not what is judged pious and honest by men, but what is so judg­ed by the spirit of God. Truly I might as well argue, some separation from our parish-assemblies is sinful (as that of the Papists, Brownists &c.) Therefore yours is so. And indeed whether your separation be with consent or no it is not much material, for it is sinne to con­sent sent to such a separation, and sinne to separate, whatsoever con­sent you have: shew that your gathering of Churches with consent, or without consent is justifyed by the doctrin and practise of the Apostles, and it shal serve your turn.

Sect. 6. Reply p. 3. Suppose some Ordinances, be corruptly dispen­sed, without all hope of redress, and that men must partake therein without having any power, so much as to witness against such cor­ruptions, unless they wil be accounted factions, 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; what must they now do? 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 evil) give warrant to every member that is endangered to be leavened by the lump, to withdraw [Page 10]from such a lump, (because power to purge out the lump they have none) when there is no other means to prevent the evil? Church-membership is for edification of the members, not for destruction.

Rejoynder,

• 1. These passages and your practise of gathering & sepe­rating Churches from amongst us do pass an harsh and heavy censure on our Churches, viz. that there are amongst us not only smaller faults but greater corruptions, and those obstinately persisted in without all hope of redress; and that there is no other means left to prevent the evil but separation, a censure so void of truth and charity, that it is worthy to be exibilated rather then confuted.
• 2. When there is indeed such a case as you put, a particular member may and ought humbly to admonish the Ministers and members, plead with the Church. Hose. 2.2. Bear witness against her sinnes and errors, and act to his utmost in his place for her reformation, both by exciting (quantum inse) the power of that particular Congregation, and complaining to superior judicatories, but not presently to separate. The Apostle Paul, notwithstanding the incestuous person was in com­munion with the Church, and they were puffed up and gloried, 1 Cor. 5.1.2. Allows worthy receivers to Communicate in it, 1 Cor. 11. 28. & 10.16. He blames their schismes in it, (which are less then separation from it) 1 Cor. 11.18. & 12.25. And prescribes the put­ting away of the old leaven as a means of making a new lump, e­specially by casting out the grossest offender (as the incestuous per­son) first.
• 3. Those members which in their place laboured to reform the gross prophanation of the Sacrament, by the Incestuous man (as its like some few did) and mourned for what they could not mend, were not leavened or corrupted (no more then those of Thyatira were leavened with the false doctrin of Iezabel, by be­ing co-members with her which had not that dostrin &c. Whom the spirit of God acquits. Revel. 2.24.) But they that were puffed up and neglected to use the means which they had, be it less or more to the putting of him away. If Iosua and his house serve the Lord and do what in them lies to reform the rest, they are not guilty of all the sinnes and wickedness of their tribe, much less of all the tribes or of all that were in communion with the Jewish Church; some of your Churches have Brownists (whose errors the Apolo­gists call fatal shipwracks) Anabaptists, Antinomians and possibly some other erroneous persons amongst them; can no member be free from being corrupted and leavened by these unsound opinions (for [Page 11]false doctrin leaveneth as much, and in some respects more dange­rously then prophaness) except he separate from you if he hath not power to cast them out.
• 4. Separation from a true Church and re­fusing to partake the Sacrament in it, or with the godly of it, which is your practise (of which we speak all along) savours much of faction, and more disturbs the Churches peace, then witnessing a­gainst the corruptions of the Church while we are in her communion, and using means to reform her: and is indeed sinful, being a remedy of your own devising; the scripture doth require that the bad should be cast out, not that the good should cast out themselves: every person should inform the Church of a brother that wil not be gained by private admonition, and the Church should cast such a one out, but that every person should cast off the Church if the Church doth not heare him, is a step beyond our saviours direction, and we should not be wise above what is written.
• 5. Your selves when it is your case wil not approve it; suppose seven or eight should se­parate from your Congregation, and would not admit either of you to the Sacrament, because you want the Ordinance of prophe­sying, of singing himnes, of annointing with oyl, holy kiss &c. Or because some are admitted to your Sacraments which they judg not fit, or because Pedobaptism is retained, or because you make not (as they think) separation enough from our Churches, (which is the case of some Congregational Churches) though they pretend to worship God in a purer way, would or could your Church ap­prove worship God in a purer way, would or could your Church ap­prove of their doings? Lastly, in 2 Cor. 13.10. Paul speaks of the power which God had given him over the Church and over every member of it, not of power given to the Church as distinct from officers, not of power given to any member to withdraw from it, not of Church-membership, at least not in your sense. But if he did speak of Church-membership, it wil not serve your turn, unless you could prove (as you can never do) that destruction only, and not edification is found in our assemblies, and edification only and not destruction in yours, nor can I think that you hold that every Co­rinthian (if in his judgment the Apostle did use his power for de­struction and not for edification) was bound to withdraw from him, which they were too apt to do, and for which he reprehends both them and the Galatians, Gal. 1.6.1 Cor. 4.10.11.13.14.15. 2 Cor. 10.2. Cor. 11.

Sect. 7. But you say that I stumble at this because they conver­ted [Page 12]them not: and to this you 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 Church-state, 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.

Bejoynder,

• 1. I stumble not, but only discover your stumbling and falling, I never denyed or doubted that some might plant and others water; why do you trifle away time to prove it?
• 2. I brought in by a parenthesis an aggravation of the great wrong done, by separa­tion, unto Pastors which are not only robbed of their sheep, but of their children; in that they are gathered into such societies, as will not eat, or have Church-communion in the Sacrament with their spi­ritual fathers.
• 3. Did it not grieve Paul himself when those which God had called by his Ministry were withdrawn from him, Gal. 1. 6.1. Cor. 4.15. 2 Cor. 11.2.4? And yet they I suppose never proceed­ed so far as to deny him communion. If they had and should have prooved to him (as you do to us) that some plant and some water (which he knew wel enough) would this have given him satis­faction or excused their withdrawing from him? If a father should complain that some Iesuite, Monke, or Nunn, had seduced his children from his family into their scieties, the sayd Iesuite, Mon­ke, or Nunn might make as solid and just Apology for themselves as this is, viz. That oftimes one begetts and another brings up, and upon occasion of the death of parents, removall &c. Children are to be disposed of and transplanted into other famlies, therefore they did the father no wrong? surely their reasoning and yours too is very weak.

Sect. 8. You suppose I may object, That this separation must be orderly done and with consent an to this you answer, P. 4. No such order can be expected, where no such order hath been wont to be exercised. If any godly person hath removed from one Country to another, and planted himself 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 Ministry, Doth this make it the worse, or more unwarrantable? Is it lawful to remove to a fatter soil, to a pur­er aire, And not to a purer Church? The purer any Church is, doth not Christ the more delight in it? And 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, may not many agree together to make such a Church? And this is all the gathering of Churches that we know of, that is either taught or practised.

Rejoynder,

• 1. You play with your own fancy, for it is not ac­knowledged that your gathering of Churches is at any time or­derly done, whether it be with consent or no.
• 2. You assert what I think your selves approve not, that order is not to be expected where it hath not bin wont to be exercised: as though custome were the guide of conscience.
• 3. You take it for granted,
  • 1 That your Churches are purer Churches (as if humane inventions sundry whereof I have discovered in Quare's, (to which contrary to my caution given you in my Epistle) you sent me censures in stead of answers, would make a Churth more pure.
  • 2. That Christ doth delight in your Churches more then in ours, (as the Anabaptists boast that they have more of Christs presence in their Churches then you in yours)
  • 3. That your manner of gathering and separating Christians into Churches, is as justifiable as the removal of one or many to dwel in a fatter soyl, clearer aire and under a better Mini­stry that they may be a purer Church, yea this (you say) is all the gathering of Churches you know of, I pray you consider better of it.
  • Lastly, your selves are not determined when a Church is pure enough to live in. Hence many of you do fly from one Church to a­nother, under pretence of attaining more purity though they are usu­ally mistaken, as those Corinthians were, which sleighted Paul, ac­counting [Page 14]him one of the foolish things of the world, his bo­dily presence weak and his speech contemptible, and those foo­lish Galatians which accounted him their enemy because he told them the truth.

CHAP. II. Of Parishes, how they are jure Divino and how not.

Sect. 1. YOu say, the exception is, That there is a removall of persons to other Churches without the removall of their habitations. This exception you take off by saying, why should this be blamed? 1. If distinction of Parishes by bounds and limits be not Iure Divino, where then is the fault.

Rejoynder,

• 1. The Parishes now are some too great, some to little, some unfitly and incommodiously divided, and where they are most fitly divided these or those limits are of politique and not of divine constitution, and are alterable upon just occasion, and the law (if there be any such) whereby all that dwel within such a line are ac­counted of the Church there, proceeds from a supposition that a due profession of Christianity is made by all the inhabitants, I say [if there be any such law] because many Jews, Pagans, Papists have formerly, and yet may dwel within the percinct of some Parish, as many Heathen did dwel amongst the Church-members of Jerusalem, Corinth &c. (though no Christians of other Churches did) and so may many ignorant and scandalous persons which by the laws of the land and orders of the Church are to be kept from our Sacraments.
• 2. It is most agreeable to the law of nature and scripture, that there should be Parishes, that is that Churches should be confined with­in convenient local limits.
  • For first, else the members of one Con­gregation might live each of them, 10.20.50. an 100. miles asun­der without blame.
  • 2. The Scripture usually denominates Chur­ches from places, as the Churches of Ierusalem, of Rome, Antioch, Co­rinth, and Cenchrea are denominated respectivly from the Cities of Ierusalem, Rome &c. So that (for ought we know) Churches were then so exactly distinguished by local bounds, that a man [Page 15]might have stood in some place between Corinth and Cenchrea; and have said no member of the Church of Corinth dwels on this side, and no member of the Church of Cenchrea on that side.
  • 3. In constant scripture-phrase the Christian inhabitants of such a town, city or place were the Church in that city or place, The Christian Corinthians, Smyrnaeans, Laodicaeans were the Church of Corinth Smyrna, Laodicea, 1 Cor. 1.1. 2 Cor. 6.11. Col. 2.1. & 4.16. Rev. 2.8. & 3.14.
  • 4. Cities and Churches in scripture-phrase do ex­pound one another (as you confess defence P. 16.) Which could not be if all the members of the Church were not in the city, for certainly all the citizens (many being Heathens) were not of the Church, Acts chap. 16. verse 4, 5. Acts chap. 14. ver. 23. cum Tit. c. 1. v. 5.
  • 5. The way of Christ all along in Scripture is, That Christians dwel­ling together should together make one Congregation, and the con­verting of many Christians in a place to be a Church was all the ga­thering of Churches that then was.
  • 6. They that did remove from place to place did (it is very probable (as your selves acknowledge page 2. in the case of the scattered disciples) fall into membership with those Churches where they did reside, so Aquila and Priscilla might fall into membership sometime of the Church of Rome, some­time of the Church of Corinth, &c. Acts 18.2, 24, 25, 26. Rom. 16.3. and so many persons removing their places may well be of other Churches and yet transgress no scripture Rules, as your separation doth.
  • 7. If Church-members should not cohabite, how can Pastors feed the flock that is amongst them, and be resident with them if they be not resident amongst themselves?
  • 8 This is a pattern uncontrou­led by preceps and other patterns, which kind of pattern (your selves say, Defence, p. 15.) hath doctrine in it, for no instance can be gi­ven, either that any dwelt in a Town or City where there was a Church, though very corrupt, as Corinth, Laodicea, Sardis, &c. and was a member of a Church in another City or Town, as Cen­chrea, &c. Or that any dwelt neerer to one Church, and was a mem­ber of a remoter Church, Or that any Christians dwelling remote one from another, were united into one particular Church. This hath al­so the consent of godly learned men, as Mr Carwright, Mr Parker, and others non-conformists, which agree against the Brownists in the lawfulness and expediencie of confining, for orders sake, particular Churches within the bounds of distinct Parishes; and in New Eng­land it self (as I hear) Congregations are divided and bounded by the [Page 16]divisions and boundings of Towns and Parishes, as Cambridge, New Plimouth, Boston, &c.
• 3 Suppose distinction of Parishes by bounds and limits, were but of humane and Politick or (as a nou­resident Doctor in justification of his non-residency said) of Popish institution, it will more disadvantage then advantage you; for before the said division, many Congregations did but make one Church, and the Presbytery did teach and rule in Common, and probably the seve­rall Assemblies were not fixed, but fluid, consisting now of some per­sons, and then of others; sometimes of more, and sometimes of fewer; and the reason of division of Parishes was, Ne administratio in promiscuo esset, Poll. Verg. intimating plainly, That no Presbyter did know his particular Congregation, whereof he had more care than another Presbyter, or then himself had of another Assembly within such and such limits, as of a City, &c. but after Division of Parishes this particular Minister and assembly were better known, more related, and fastned one to another; if this be of a Politique or Popish institution, what do you gain by it?
• 4. I cannot but observe that you plainly intimate that he that transgresseth such bounds or li­mits as are not jure Divino is not in any fault.

Sect. 2. Reply, P. 5.2. Was there not liberty within this very Kingdom formerly, for persons to pay their tythes to what Mini­ster they pleased? And consequently, they were not tyed to the Pa­rish they lived in, but might choose 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 abridg­ment?

Rejoynder, Suppose Mr. Selden say so, and that it be true that he saith yet,

• 1. You know this doth not evidence the doctrine and practise of the Apostles.
• 2. I cannot think that from their payment of tythes to such a Minister or society, it can be concluded that they did choose to be of that society, for they sometimes payd their tythes to Regulars, sometimes to Seculars, sometimes they payd one year to one, and another year to another, and possibly a 3 year to a third person.
• 3. That people payd their tythes to what Minister they pleased, within such or such limits, within which Ministers did ad­minister; and several assemblies of people did partake in ordinances promiscuously, is not so hard to beleeve as that after the division of Parishes, (as you intimate, saying they were not tyed to their own [Page 17]Parish) they did so.
• 4. Suppose the people had then free choice of their society and Pastor, and afterwards according to their choice Parishes were divided, (which you to the discredit thereof make the occasion of inconvenient division of Parishes) must it always be free, notwithstanding any obligation by consent of Churches, custome, command of authority for every private person to live where he listeth, and to choose his own society and Pastor? Is it an abridgment of the children of your Church-members liberty to be accounted of your Church, or may they separate themselves from your communion, and gather whensoever they conceive there is just occasion into any Church which they think is purer? Sure you must say that they may; for seeing their parents voluntarily chose your Church, why should there now be an abridgment?

Sect. 3. Reply, P. 5. 3^d There are many inconveniences both to Minister and people, arising hence:

• 1. The Pastors of parish Churches are only at certainty what houses they have under their Ministry, not what persons: for they may go which way they wil leaving their houses, but their houses and lands are fixed, and they shal always 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 nearer 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 several 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?

Rejoynder,

• Pastors may be at certainty what persons they at pre­sent have under their Ministry but for time to come indeed they are not certain, nor can you shew us where the word of God requireth that they should have such certainty, your selves are not certain how long you shal have your members, for death may take them away, or they may turn Anabaptists, seekers, or fall into such sinnes as they may be cast out or they may voluntarily, notwithstanding any co­venant [Page 18](which binds no further then it is lawful and warrantable) desert you: Nor are we certain what houses we shal have in our Parishes, A fire may burn them, or the sea in some places may over­flow them, or the wind may blow them down, we cannot say what shal be to morrow.
• 2. The removeal of men from one Pa­rish to another, is for the most part volunt [...]ry (possibly) for some secular ends and volenti non fit injuria.
• 3. Distinction of Parishes are in some cases, is or ought to be dispensed with where Parishes are in conveniently divided.
• 4. A Christian removeing from one Pa­rish to another; may be a member (at least a transient one) in any Parish where he dwels, as a man that hath houses in several coun­ties, cities and towns, may be a member of any of those several coun­ties, cities and towns where he dwelleth: they that were scattered from the Church of Ierusalem, fell (you say) into membership with other Churches, was this any inconvenience to the? Aquila and Priscilla dwelling sometimes in one place sometimes in another, were members of several Churches. And if a Christian citizen of Corinth did dwel at Cenchrea, he did (as is probable) fall into the membership of the Church of Cenchrea.
• 5. If Parishes or neigh­bourhoods of people to be in one Church-society be an ordinance of God, (as hath bin proved Sest. 5.) then allegation of these or many more such inconveniences cannot equallize the inconveniences and unwarrantableness of your gathered or separated Churches.
• 6. The cohabitation of Church members is ful of conveniency,
  • 1. For their more commodious meeting together in publike with ease, fre­quency, less expence of time and money.
  • 2. Their more easy con­versing with, and watching over, comforting and releeving one a­nother.
  • 3. For the preventing of confusion, contention, and o­ffence.
  • 4. For their more convenient inspection over their families that their families as wel as themselves do sanctify the Sabbath.

CHAP. 3. Of gathering Churches and preaching with­out, yea against the laws of the Magistrate.

Sect. 1. WHen you alledg for it, the doctrine of the Apostles Acts 4.17, 18, 21. & Acts 5.28. I answered that the [Page 19]Apostles were immediatly called Gal. 1. 1. You reply, Pag. 6. That the ordinary Pastors and teachers of those times, did so as wel as the Apostles. and Pag. 7. That the warrantableness ariseth not from the immediatness of the commission, but from the truth and reality of it. I rejoyn,

• 1, You should produce those ordinary Pa­stors and teachers which did so, and prove it by scripture, which proof the reader may expect as being only able to satisfy conscience, your selves dis-allow many things reported in Ecclesiastical histo­ry.
• 2. You cannot make out so true and real a Commission for ga­thering Churches amongst us as the Apostles had amongst the Jews and Gentiles, (as hath bin largely shewed Cap. 1.) If you could, yet surely had you as immediate a commission now, as they then had you might more boldly imitate them therein, which is the thing I asserted.
• 3. Mr. Weld a Congregational man, calleth this an opposition to Magistracy (yea (saith he) what pen can express a greater latitude of opposition?) as you acknowledg in your last, P. 22. And promise to annex a more pertinent answer.

Sect. 2. When I assert that you hold not that ministers deposed by their Churches ought to preach, or that Mr. Ward deposed by the Church at Roterodam, was hound to officiate there before his re­stauration, you reply, P. 7. That Ministers censured by a lawful power where ever it lyes, whether in their own Congregational Churches or in a Presbytery, whether the censure be inflicted justly or unjustly, ought to submit and forbear the execution of their Mi­nistry in that place til they be restored &c. But what (say you) makes this against the position?

Rejoynder,

• 1. Then you plainly intimate that either the Presby­tery or the Congregational Church, hath lawful power to depose their Minister.
• 2. Your grant here makes much against the Position, as it relateth to the Apostles, For
  • 1. The Apostles immediate Com­mission could no more be called in or curbed by the Church then by the Magistrate.
  • 2. Nor had the Churches power to silence them (as they had ordinary Elders you confess) no more then the Ma­gistrate.
  • 3. Those whom Peter and Iohn refused to obey, if they were not meerly an Ecclesiastical Court, yet there was amongst them Ecclesiastical Persons, Acts 4.5, 6, 23. & Acts 5.17, 24, 27.
  • 4. That they had lawful power is not denyed nor questioned by the Apostles but granted rather, Acts 4.8. And you assert it was a true Church then, and if these things be so, and you do hold up to your [Page 20]rule it wil follow as wel that Ministers deposed (specially if unjustly) by lawful Ecclesiastical judges ought not to desist from their Mi­nistry, but say to them (as wel as to the Magistrate) as the A­postle said to the high Priest, Acts 5.20. We ought to obey God ra­ther then man: (Ecclesiastical judges being but men no more then civil) which would tend to the undermining and subverting of the Government, by pretence of unrighteousness in the managing of it, and disturb the Churches peace, as you ingenuously acknowledg.

Sect. 3. When Iurge that the Apostles had infallible direction of the holy Ghost, you reply nothing at all to it, though you know,

• 1. That he which is infallible may more safely resist the laws of the Magistrate then he that is not.
• 2. That opposition made by men so infallibly inspired is rather made by the holy Ghost then by them.
• 3. The points which the Apostles were forbidden to preach, were of themselves of more absolute necessity, and undoubted certainty, (as your selves wil acknowledg) then your tenets of discipline, and therefore the Magistrate is not to be so peremptorily disobeyed in the one as in the other. When I further answer, That the case of living under a Christian Magistrate Intending, indevouring, (I might now add, and having in measure effected Reformation) and of li­ving under an Heathen Magistrate and a professed publike enemy of the Church is much different: you reply, That the case is not different in my sense, for the Christianity of the Magistrate or his piety and sedulity for Reformation cannot take any person or per­sons off their duty which they would be bound unto, if a Heathen Magistrate bore sway, The Magistrate, Minister and the people stand ingaged each for himself to Iesus Christ, unto the work of his own place. The impediments that come from any unto other can­not be a discharge to any.

Rejoynder: but.

• 1. The question is whether it be private mens duty to set up Churches or to make publike Reformation; can a pre­cept or president be shewed in Gods Book for such a practise? we must keep within the compass of our callings, 1 Cor. 7.17. When things were amiss in Israel the people made no Reformation nor did the Prophets call them to it, or blame them for not doing it, when they were opposed by soveraign authority; the Iews omitted to build the Temple and the City being forbidden by the Kings of Persia, yea Christ and his Apostles shifted from place to place, and left the execution of their Ministry in places where they were persecuted, at [Page 21]least to avoyd offence or to escape danger.
• 2. It is the right and du­ry of every Magistrate to be the Churches nursing Father, and to reform it if there be need, as also it is the duty of every family-go­verner to reform his family. Now a godly Christian Magistrate and houshholder have both jus and aptitudinem, the right (as also Hea­thens may have) and fitness so to do. A wife may be more bold to order the family, if her husband be distracted then if he be solid­witted, for though he be an husband stil and it is his duty to do it, yet he wants fitness to do it: It is not orderly for some companies of an army to engage while their faithful and valiant General and Coun­cel of war are consulting and deliberating how they may best do it, yea possibly have determined another course; shal no more respect be shewed nor obedience in matters of God, yeelded by a wife, child, servant to a conscionable Christian husband, Father, Master then if they were professed Heathens; you would not take it wel if you should catechize your children, command them to come to family-duties, and to keep the way of the Lord. Gen. 18.19. And they should answer, an Heathen father is as truly a father as you, and you are no more to be obeyed in matters of Religion then he.
• 3. The General Court civil in N. England hath made a law that no Church should be set up there without the consent of the Magi­strate. T. W. to W. R. and were you in N. E. I suppose you durst not preach or print that that law is against Gods law, or that any ought to set up Churches there against the consent of the Magi­strates. And hath not the civil Magistrate in old England (from whence theirs is but derived) as much power (there being the same or greater occasion) to make a law to the same effect?

Sect. 4. When I tel you, that New-England men wil not allow a Presbyteryan Church, nor a new Independent-Church against the wil of the Magistrates.

You Reply, P. 8. The Questian is not what they would allow, but what a company of people planted there (which cannot without unfaithfulness to their own light, be subject to any other govern­ment save the Presbyterian) ought to do. 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? Our beliefe of New England is this, that they would suffer the godly and peaceable to live amongst them, though they differ in point of Church-government from them: Because so far as [Page 22]we could ever learn, they never banished any, but unpeacebleness together with desperate erroneousness, was the cause of it.

Rejoynder; Yes the Question is what they would allow, for

• 1. It may be presumed they do not transgress the charter they have from old England, nor the due power of the Magistrate in the opinion of the Churches there.
• 2. That they do to others as they would be don unto.
• 3. Your selves intimate that if Presbyteryans have no live­lyhood there, then they should remove.
• 4. A course hath bin taken that they should have no livelyhood there, for when some of them being persecuted for non-conformity writ into N. E. desiring that they might be a sister-Church and have the liberty of their Consci­ences, N. E. bretheren would not then tolerate them, though now the case is altered, and the difference is pretended to be so smal that one party ought to tolerate the other.
• 5. They that now plead for liberty of Conscience and toleration wil, and (if they hold Presby­terian government to be Antichristian, as some do) must endea­vour to the utmost to root it out, if ever they have ability and op­portunity for such a designe: these times shew much, and after-times wil shew more to the grief and shame of the luke-warme or (as they would be called) moderate Presbyterians.

Sect. 5. To omit that it is plain (notwithstanding what you say in your reply) that the chiefest Independents in London did think it unseasonable to gather Churches at that time that you did gather yours, and that so far as any thing is unseasonable so far it is unlaw­ful: When I sayd that it may be Brownists, Anabaptists, Antino­mians, Familists, and other gross Heretiques and Schismatiques do also pretend the doctrine and practise of the Apostles. You reply. They must be found to be lyers, but 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 com­mandment of man to warrant it, The Church of Ephesus found the false Apostles lyars and rejected them.

Rejoynder,

• 1. You here omit a fair opportunity of bearing wit­ness against those Heretical and Schismatical conventions, saying only (what themselves would say) that they should be found lyars.
• 2. They are found lyars both when in disputations and conferences they are solidly confuted (as they often are) or when they are sub­dued or constrained to yedd (at least) feigned and dissembled obe­dience. Deut. 33.29. Psal. 18.44. As they ought to be.
• 3. Sure you [Page 23]would not have them let alone by the Magistrates and ministers, til they confess themselves to be lyars: do not all Heretiques, and Schismatiques say, that they in truth and not in pretence have the doctrine and practise of the Apostles with them? and it may be they think so too, being given up to beleeve lies: and therefore by your argument they may, yea are bound to erect Churches in their own way. Did the false Apostles of Ephesus, did those opinions of N. E. whom neither preaching, nor conference, nor the assem­bly of the Churches could cure, confess they were lyars, though the Churches knew them to be so? no, no, they went on in their former course not only to disturb the Churches but miserably to in­terrupt the civil peace, and pour contempt upon Courts and Chur­ches, and therefore the Magistrates did convent and censure them, and if the Magistrates had not so don, they had bin guilty of those Heresies, Schisms, Seditions, and of the bloud of so many soules as should perish thereby, (as he that willingly suffers men to go about to poyson all waters in a country, is guilty of the death of those which are thereby poysoned) nor had they bin nursing fathers to the Church, nor had discharged the trust reposed in them by that Plan­tation, yea should they have tolerated Hereticks, and Schismaticks for their own profit, or some Politique end, (as the Pope doth Jews and Curtizans) their sale of Religion truth and the soules of men for money or worldly interest would have made them abominable to God and all good men.

CHAP. 4. What number makes a Church.

Sest. 1. WHen I alledg that the case of Adams family and Noahs was extraordinary, there being then no more in the world. And that Adam and his wife and first son were the Church, if then there was any, and that Cain lawfully married his own Sister. you reply, P. 9.1. That I grant in that extraordi­nary case that 7. 8 or 9. may make a Church. That the Church is Christs body, and every body consists of members; if all were one member, where were the body, and therefore one Adam could not make a Church: That we have a manifest Prohibition of a mans [Page 24]marrying with his sister, but what scripture (say you) is there against this, that what number of beleevers have formerly bin a Church, such a number may yet be a Church, and no greater num­ber is required to the simple being of a Church. And that God hath not percisely determined what number do make a Church.

Rejoynder,

• 1. I no more grant that seven or eight then that two or three did then make a Church, much less that they may now make a Church; but that two or three may now make a Church (though) it be the opinion of some congregational men, as white Summer Ilands. P. 23.) is rejected upon good grounds by Mr. T. and Mr. M. against Mr. H. and by M. Cotten. P. 53. For if thy bro­ther offend thou must tel him his fault between him and thee, and if he heare thee not, take one or two with thee, (now they are three or four) yet this was but the 2. admonition which if he did not heare then they were to tel the Church; now as the second admo­nition was to be given by more then the first, so the third admoni­tion was to be given by more then the second, and therefore the Church must of necessity consist of more then two or three.
• 2. If one Adam could not make a Church, it is nothing to my answer, for I only say that Adam was the Church before Eve was made, and Adam and Eve before their first sonne was born, if then there was any; and this (you know) is most true.
• 3. The Apostles saying if all were one member where is the body; is not to be understood so much, that the Church must be a Collective body, as that it must be an Organical Heterogeneal body, if all were one member (id est) if all were one sort of members, all eye, all eare, all feet as is plain by the Coherence, 1 Cor. 12.14.15. &c.
• 4. Your Reply leaves the reader very doubtful, in that you say, God hath not precisely deter­mined what number doth make a Church; for he may question
  • first, how you dare precisely determine either that 7.8. or 9. may make a Church, that a Church may consist of so many as may with edifica­tion meet in one place, and of no more; which doth determine the number materialiter, though not formaliter seeing God himself hath not precisely determined it as your selves confess.
  • 2. You do not possitively must be found to be lyers, him what number did at any time make a Church, whether 7. or 8. or 10.20.40. or 100. but send him to seek it:
• 5. Mr. Cotten saith though there might be a domestical Church in A­dam and Eve at the beginning, yet such a Church as Christ hath instituted in the new Testament consisteth of a greater number then [Page 25]two or three, way of the Churches. P. 53. And if you do assert that Adam and Eve did then make a Church, (which seems to be your opinion, for you argue only against one person being a Church) then you have scripture produced by mee, and cited by you, Defence. P. 73. And Reverend Mr. Cotton against such a number making a Church now. And indeed in the beginning of the world, there was defectus physicus, but now if a defect be, it is defectus moralis: If there were no woman in the world, an incontinent person could not many, but now it is a sin for him not to marry.
• 6. I beleeue your selves do not conceive that those 7. or 8. in Adams or in Noahs family might be now an instituted Church, if they were alive (though the reader may think you contend for it) can one man, one woman, foure or 5 children (the eldest whereof must needs be very young) make a Church? should the man sin, the Woman reproves him (or e contra) and he wil not be gained, where must she have one or two more, or a Church to complain to? seeing little children (as reason tells us and your selves grant) are neither meet for, nor ca­pable of that imployment: Can foure men and their Wives make a Church? Cham sins, Noah rebukes him, he wil not be gained, he according to rule takes with him one or two more as Sem and Ia­phet, then they have a goodly Church left, viz foure women, their four wives, which you know are disabled by their sex.
• 7. Suppose in a Church of 7. or 8. a man and a woman should be suspected by their brother of Committing adultery, (as David and Bathsheba did) or incest, and their brother admonish them and they deny it; he takes one or two with him to charge sin upon them and they yet deny it, and complain of wrong, and take one or two with them to charge sin upon him or them that admonished them, then all these are parties; who is left to judg this business, if the Church consist but of 7. 8. or 9?
• 8. You say a particular Church is called a City, an Army, a Kingdom, which titles do imply multitudes, now it were strange to say that two or three, or 7. 8. 9. may make a City, an Ar­my, a Kingdom.
• 9. It is inconvenient and of dangerous consequence, that 7. or 8. should be able to cast out of Communion any person, not only with themselves but the whole Catholique visible Church, and deliver him to Sathan; especially if they be illiterate and unex­perienced in the wayes of God, and apt to be byased as so few men (though visible Saints) may easily be.

Sect. 2. When I say that Twelve are more then seven or eight, [Page 26]and an hundred and twenty a competent number, yet it appeareth not that they were called or counted a Church til they were more increased. If there were no more beleevers in Ephesus then twelve (as there was, viz. Aquila. and Priscilla, which knew more then Iohns Bapti [...]m, Acts 18.26. with 24.25. If not others) Yet there were more in Jerusalem then an hundred and twenty. 1 Cor. 15.6. You reply, P. 10. That twelve is not more in the truth of the con­stitution of a Church then 7. or 8.

Rejoynder.

• 1. My meaning was, that you cannot prove that 7. or 8. may make a Church though twelve might, for 12. is almost dou­ble to [...].
• 2. Twelve men (your selves wil acknowledg) are ra­ther capable of being a Church then 7. or 8. in Adams family or in Noahs. where were so many women and children; for here if a man sin, and his br [...]ther admonish him, and he wil not be gained: and he take two or three with him, yet there is some remaining to take cognizance of the thing, which in the precedent instances there was not: you see I dispute upon your own principles, though I grant them not.
• 3. You say, P. 13. Smal Churches are inconsistent with Christs and, which is edification by Pastors: from whence it fol­lows that the more smal the more inconsistent, and the less smal the less inconsistent, and in this sense I might say that twelve is more then 7 or eight, and so declare some what else then that I can num­ber twelve.

Sect. 3. You Reply, P. 10. That the scripture determines not what number is competent and what not competent to the being of a Church, that I am the more presumptuous in aring that an 120 are a competent number to make a Church, that if I wil, I may see them a Church before they were so encreased; 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 3000. be added to no Church and they are stil no Church which to affirm were flat against the Scripture.

Rejoynder,

• 1. Pardon me (I pray you) I thought I had bin no more presumptuous to say an 120. is a competent number then you are in saying, 7. or 8. is a competent number to the being of a Church, seeing God hath as wel determined that an 120. as that 12. or 7. or 8. is a competent number, and 120. is more capable of all offi­cers, [Page 27]and of a flock then 7. or 8. The truth is, as you sayd that an 120. was smal enough in comparison, (you mean) of what it was af­terward, so I sayd, that it was a competent number comparatively to 12. which yet is more then 7. or 8. the number which you should prove competent to the being of the Church or else forgoe the posi­tion.
• 2. Election of an Apostle is not properly a Church act, for then other Churches might have done it as wel as that, for other Churches may do all Church acts, but it was an occasional extra­ordinary act, and the power of doing it, did not result from the combination of them into a particular Church, but from an im­mediate extraordinary commission from God for that time only, and therefore noteth not any Church-ship in them, nor that any o­ther Church might do it, any more then Ananias his laying of hands on Saul proves that every single disciple or Minister may ordinarily do it. It is the honour of Apostles and Apostolique men, not to be of men, or by men, but of God. God himself elected the first twelve, and after there were Christian Churches, God without the interven­tion of all or any of them chose Paul to be an Apostle. And in this place he confined them to some sort of men that had conversed with our Saviour, (amongst whom (I suppose) an unfit man could not be found, and if he had bin unfit, the gifts of the holy Ghost which they were then immediatly to receive would have made him fit) he gave them no power to nominate the particular man, but himself determined it by Lot, and he might have chosen a third man not no­minated by them, yea one that had not accompanied the Apostles (as Paul) if he had so pleased.
• 3. That election (so far as it was the act of man) might aswel be the Apostles as the peoples act, for though Peter stood up in the midst of the Disciples, and told them that in the room of Iudas one must be ordeined, yet he doth not bid them nominate or elect one or two or more, nor doth the text convin­cingly decide who did appoint those two: Bucerus saith, The Apo­stles named two, and it is likely it was they, the same parties that prayd and cast lots, And though all persons present did not joyn in the election, Peters speech unto them might be of use, lest they should conceive (as they might wel enough) that none should have succeeded an Apostle an extraordinary Officer, no more then any succeeded Iohn Baptist before, or Iames afterward: and that they might submit to such an one, and joyn with more understanding and faith in prayer with them, and in approbation of their act.
• 4. If [Page 28]you can see them a Church (you mean) a particular Church, be­cause they elected an officer, then I may say, you (if you wil) may see them an universal Church, because they performed one great act of the universal Church in electing an universal officer.
• 5. It is strange that men of your strength should make so weak work, for
  • 1. The words [to them] upon which you build, are not in the ori­ginal text, but only in the translation; and therefore it may be read, they were add [...]d to the Lord, as Acts 5.14.
  • 2. The words [to them.] (if they were in the text as they are not) may be meant of Peter and the rest of the Apostles spoken of v. 37.42. as Acts 9.26.27 which were not set members of any particular congregation.
  • 3. If one Apostle only had bin there, and 3000. had added them­selves to him, receiving his word, being baptized, and continuing in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship, they might have bin a Church of themselves; though that one Apostle (to whom they were added) was not nor could be a Church.
  • 4. Those that were dayly conver­ted to the faith, & baptized are said to be added dayly to the Church, meaning the general visible Church, into which the Eunuch was baptized, and Paul also before he did so much as assay [...] to joyn to any particular Church.

Sect. 4. You Reply, P. 11. Though Aquila and Priscilla were at Ephesus, yet they were but sojourners there, as they were also in many other places: sometimes at Rome, sometimes at Corinth, as appears from Acts 18.2. Rom. 16.3. But to what place they did belong it is not certain.

Rejoynder,

• 1. If it be uncertain to what place they did belong, how dare you say peremptorily they were but sojourners there, why might they not be inhabitants of Ephesus, and members of the Church there?
• 2. They had an house in Rome, and in that house a Church, Rom. 16.5. Therefore they remained there for one season. Pareus thinks they dwelt at Ephesus another while, and removed from one place to another as occasion was offered.
• 3. The dissent­ing brethren in their reasons, P. 18. do affirm that many of the members of the Church of Hierusalem were but sojourners there, and if so, why might not Aquila, and Priscilla be members of the Church of Ephesus, though (suppose) they were but sojourners there.
• 4. If their being but sojourners in a place did hinder them from being members of the Church in that place, then how can they which are not so much as sojourners in a place, but meer strangers [Page 29]and inhabiting 5.8.10.20. miles from it, be members of the Church in that place?
• 5. Those twelve which you call the foundationals of the Church of Ephesus, When the holy Ghost came on them, they not only spake With tongues but prophesyed, Acts 19. Now though tongues were a sign to them that did not beleeve, yet Prophesying served not for infidells but beleevers, 1 Cor. 14.4.22. Yea Beza signifieth that they were called unto the Ministry, and then these may well be those Elders mentioned, Acts 20.28. Which the holy G [...]ost (in a special manner) made Bishops, now that 12. men should prophesie, yea to be made Ministers at Ephesus; and there be no other beleevers to heare that prophesie, or to submit to their Ministry, your selves wil judge very improbable.

Sect. 5. Reply, p. 11. Your five hundred brethren at Ierusa­lem is as sleightly collected from 1 Cor. 15.6. For first doth the A­postle say that he was seen of those 500. in Ierusalem? He shewed himself in Galilee, and some other places as wel as in Ierusalem. 2. Though the place of manifesting himself might be Ierusalem, must the persons therefore be of Jerusalem why not appertaining to Iudea? Or suppose of Ierusalem; why might they not be dispersed before Christs ascention? for presently afterwards when they chose an Apostle, they were not there, which yet was a Church action, and without doubt the major part of the Church would have bin pre­sent at it.

Rejoynder,

• 1. Those 500 might wel be of Ierusalem, seeing that I [...]rusalem (which could be no less then a considerable part, if not the major part of that City) were baptized by Iohn; See more. Cap. 5. Sect. 2.
• 2. You render no reason why it might not be at Ierusalem as wel as any other place.
• 3. Imagine the place to be Ga­lilee or Iudaea (and indeed you do but imagine it, not prove it) and those 500 to appertain to Galilee or Iudaea, might they not be of the Church of Ierusalem? was there yet any other Church to which they did belong? would they not desire the society of the Apostles? were there not men of Galilee amongst the 120. Acts 1.11.15. & 2.7. which your selves acknowledg were of the Church of Ierusalem? Suppose therefore these 500. were Galilaeans or dispersed into Iudaea and Galilee, this doth not hinder but they might be of the Church of Jerusalem.
• 4. If Christ did appear in Galilee they had notice of it in Ierusalem, Math. 28.7. And questionless they would go out of Ierusalem to see him.
• 5. The choosing of an Apostle (concern­ing [Page 30]which see before in Sect. 3.) was of general concernment, and why then should not the 500 brethren though in Galilee or Iudea have bin there at the choosing of an Apostle, who was to be an offi­cer to them, as wel as to those in Ierusalem?

Sect. 6. When I alledg that Adam and Noah with their families, if they were Churches were but domestical Churches not congrega­tional, some houshoulds are called Churches in the new testament, many whereof may be within a congregational Church and special­ly within a national. To this you Reply, pag. 11.12.

That Domestical Churches enjoying Congregational ordinan­ces, and Congregational Churches, differ not in their nature and kind, but in quantity, as a smal country Chappel differeth from a numerous Town-Church. That many domestical Churches may be in one Congregational, in my sense, not in yours, that you de­ny, that two or three concerted in a family, enjoying no Church-ordinances are called a Church: that you acknowledg not any such distinction of Congregational Church and Domestical. But say the foundation of a congregationall Church may be layd in one family, and spread into many. It may be layd in 7 or 8. and grow up to as many as can meet together constantly unto edification in one place, as the Church in Abrahams family, which afterwards grow up into a nation, and though the Go pel-Church is not now national, yet a Congregation of many families, may spring out of a Church in one family, more easily then a nation did.

Rejoynder.

• 1. you do not express, whether you mean that one, or two, or all, or none of the three families mentioned in the posi­tion did enjoy Congregational ordinances. Nor.
• 2. What you mean by Congregational ordinances; but the Reader may conceive, that you mean election of officers, partaking Sacraments and censures:
• 3. You tax me to hard to require me, to prove that two or three converted in a family enjoying no Church-ordinances are called a Church, for neither you nor I know the number of persons in the families called Churches, whether it was 2. or 3, 7, or 8, 11, or 12, 19, or 20. more or less, nor is it (as to this) any whit material.
• 4. Mr Weld a congregational man doth acknowledg a domestical Church to be spoken of in scripture, as distinguished from a particu­lar visible Church, and cites Phil [...]m 2. and so do Zanchy and very many good interpreters, and Mr Cottons words cited, Sect. 1. im­port the same. And indeed these families might be called Churches, [Page 31]because they were more eminently Religious or more numerous, or for some other reason, besides the enjoyment of Congregational ordinances.
• 5. You say, p. 16. That city and Church do expound one another, and p. 113. You say we do not read of more Congrega­tions of Saints constantly meeting for the Worship of God in any City then one. But if these were Congregational Churches, then you must acknowledg that there was more Congregations then one in a City; for you read of the Church of Rome, Rom. 1.7. And of the Church in the house of Aquila, and Priscilla, Rom. 16.3. of whose being in Rome you spake even now.

Sect. 7. When I cite new-England men to say, that Christ did not make a new Church, but lived and dyed a member of the Iewish Church; and therefore he and his family were not a Church di­stinct from the Iewish Church. you reply, p. 12. Whether Christ dyed a member of the Iewish Church or no, is questionable, but that he gathered certain persons to him, and instituted baptism and the Lords supper amongst them is most certain, which were ordinances of the Gospel Church: and he either thereby prepared them for, or layd the foundation of a Gospel Church before his death: for immediatly after his ascention they were a Gospel-Church as appea­reth from. Acts. 1.14.15.

Rejoynder,

• 1. The Elders of new England confidently assert it, An­swer, to, 32. q.p. 14. Though you question it.
• 2. If it be questionable whether Christ dyed a member of the Jewish Church or no, then it is questionable whether he & his disciples made a Cospel Church or no, and then what becomes of that instance in the Position?
• 3. To pre­pare for, and to lay the foundation of the Gospel Church are much different, yet you tel us not whether of these two Christ did; as though either would serve your turn, but you know he might pre­pare them for a Gospel Church, and himself dye a member of the Iew­ish Church. David did prepare for building the Temple, but did not build it, nor lay the foundation of it.
• 4. What you mean by ga­thering certain persons to himself, or who were those certain per­sons you do not tell us: if you mean the 12. how prove you that he instituted baptism amongst the 12? if others, how do you prove that he instituted the Lords supper amongst them? were all baptized persons only prepared for the Church, or was the foundation of the Church layd in them, or only in those to whom he administred, the sup­per: or if in both, was the foundation of the Church layd in them equally [Page 32]or unequally? If the foundation of the Church was layd in all them that were baptized, then it was a very large foundation, if only in the twelve, then it was but a little one, and so it makes for the position, the other makes against it? I pray explian your opinion that the rea­der may understand it, and the reasons of it.
• 5. Was the reality of an Instituted Congregational Church in the family of Christ or no? (you speak like Apollos oracles very doubtfully) if it was not, then this instance is impertinent to prove the position, if it was (for they did partake in the Sacrament to which you wil admit, none but such as are in Church-state) then it is to be proved that Christ and his Apostles did covenant or agree to be a Christian Church, that they did choose Iesus for their officer (which seems to contradict, Iohn 15.16.) or at least that they had power to choose their own officers, to ordain them, and if need had bin to censure them, and that they had power to receive Saints by calling into that society and fellowship, and why then was not the blessed Virgin received into that Church?
• 6. It appeareth not to me (nor I think) to any man from Acts 1.14.16. That they were a Gospel-Church, an instituted Congregational Church, nor can you by any consequence infer it from those two verses, though you say it appears from them.

Sect. 8. When I argue, If seven or eight may make a Church, then 200. persons in a City may wel make twenty distinct Churches and Independent judicatures, you reply, p. 12. That this is to bring an odiù upon Congregational Churches. That 7. or 8. may but make a Church in the first foundation, and whilst they are no more persons fitted for membership, and that the Church is to be en­creased, as more in that place shal be converted, as you perceive by the patern's, Acts 1.14.15. with Acts 2.41, & 19, 7, 8, 9. with 18, 19, 20. Acts 20.17, 28. That you are against the unnecessary mul­tiplication of Churches, as conceiving that smal Churches are in­consistent with Christs ends which is edification by Pastors, teach­ers, Ruling Elders, Deacons: and that a Church of 7. or 8. re­quires not, nor is able to maintain so many officers. That if one Congregation wil conveniently hold the beleevers of a City, you would not have them to be of so many Churches without, ome emi­nent reason.

Rejoynder,

• 1. The collection is necessarily inferred from the Posi­tion; nor do you, or can you deny the consequence:
• 2. It is wel you grant it is as disorderly or inconvenient, that 200 persons in a [Page 33]City should be 20 Churches as that 300 in an house should make 60. distinct families, or 60 domestick Churches, or as that 200000 in a field may make so many distinct armies under so many Independent Generals.
• 3. Christ's family which you seem to affirm to be a con­gregational Church but of 12 or 13, was not so little for want of more persons converted in that place and fitted for membership, for there were many such persons in Jerusalem, yet not one of any o­ther family was added to them while Christ lived.
• 4. You ac­knowledge, that the Church is to be increased of such persons as are converted in that place where the Church is (though your own Church is increased of some that dwel remote from it) that smal Churches are incon [...]stent with Christs ends, that Churches are not unnecessarily to be multiplied; but your brethren in London do practise the contrary, for some three, or four, or more of their Churches might be conveniently one Congregation; nor is there any [...]minent reason (except that they cannot all agree to affect any one Minister, but some are for Paul, some for Apollos, be an eminent reason) though possibly they wil tel you, that officers seeking to encrease their Churches seek more their own profit or credit, then the discharge of their duties for they may better attend to afew people then to many.
• 5. Of the texts cited by you I have spoken of before in this Chapter.
• 6. Whereas you say you do not assert Churches consisting of a few members without officers to be Inde­pendent judicatures, then you do not assert all Churches to be Independent, but some only; if some be already acknowledge not to be Independent judicatures, the rest may possibly, in time, be so acknowledged also.

CHAP. V. Whether a Chu [...]ch may consist of more then may ordinarily meet in one place.

Sest. 1. VVHen I grant that 1 Cor. 11.20. & 14.23. do prove, that there were Congregations, meeting for prayer, hearing the Word, Sacraments in one place; and that beleevers in some Cities and Countries (when they might) did [Page 34]meet in one place, you reply, That they meet also for execution of censures, I Cor. 5.4. And you say, That there is no sacred worship or institution prescribed in the Gospel, which may not be observe [...] to have bin exercised in, or appertaining to the Congregations, and that those Congregations are called Churches.

Rejoynder,

• 1. The texts cited by you speak only of meeting in one place for Sacraments and prophesying, (to which certainly prayer was annexed) of the 1 Cor. 5. (which you now produce) we shal speak herea [...]ter.
• 2. That every Gospel-worship and institu­tion hath bin either exercised in, or, in some sense, appertaining to the Congregations, may be true, and yet no prejudice come to the cause I maintain, but I dare appeal to you: are not Synods ordinan­ces of God, yea General coun [...]ls? yet they cannot be enjoyned in any less Church then the universal visible Church. Is not ora [...]ation by Presbyters a Go [...]pel-institution, and yet it cannot be enjoyned in every congregation; especially not at first in an Independent congregation which consists only of private members, for which also she cannot as yet regularly partake in Sacraments and censures.

Sect. 2. The strength of your Reply is, p. 14. where you say, That there can no instance be given in all the new testament, that Christians ordinarily meeting together in divers places are called one Church, except where Church is taken improperly, and in a distributive sense; and you challenge me again and again to produce such an instance from, 1 Cor. 11.20. & 14.23.

Rejoynder, Instances may be given o [...] Christians meeting ordina­rily in divers places, which are properly called one Church: 1. The Church of Ierusalem, the prime and patern-Church, was properly called one Church, and under one Presbytery (who hath read or heard of the Presbyteries of Jerusalem?) and yet the Christians there did meet ordinarily in divers places, as appears first, there were so ma­ny Christians that they could not meet for all ordinances in one place for edification; therefore they did meet ordinarily in several places: the consequence is evident, for the Apostles certainly did avoid con­fusion, and seek the order and edification of the people: The Antece­dent is thus proved. 1. Ierusalem and all Iudea and all the region round about Iordan were baptized by Iohn, Math. 3.6.7. And the Disciples of Christ baptized more Disciples then Iohn, Iohn 4.1. The Pharisees sayd the world is gone after him, Iohn 12.19. For [Page 35] many of the people beleeved in him, Iohn 2.23. & 7, 31, & 8, 30. And after Christs ascention there were added 3000. Acts. 2.5000. heard the word and beleeved, Acts 4.4. Multitudes of men and women: and afterward the Disciples were multiplyed greatly, and a great company of the Priests were obedient to the faith. Acts 5.14. Acts 6.1, 7. Now those which deserved to be called a City, a world of people, thousands, and multitudes (for the holy Ghost at last leaves numbering of the converts after Christs ascension) could not meet together with order and edification in one place for hearing the word; for first no one room could wel hold them. 2. No one Mi­nisters voyce could reach so many at once. 3. Much less could so ma­ny myriades orderly at once in a private house receive the Sacrament together, nor could be accommodated with bedds to sit, lye or lean, upon (which was Christs gesture) atable to receive at, & cups to drink in. 3. We read expresly of more then one assembly of Saints con­stantly meeting together for the worship of God in that city, Acts 2.46. breaking bread from house to house, Acts 5.42. And in every house they ceased not to teach &c. That these assemblies were Church-meetings, appears. 1. By that which they are said to meet for, to wit breaking of bread, which phrase though it do not only signify the Lords Supper, yet it doth signify it together with their ordinary tables or love-feasts, and is so generally interpreted, Acts. 2.42. Acts 20.7. And for teaching and preaching, Acts 5.42. con­tradistinct to preaching in the temple and in publique, it being (as is by it self evident) the Apostles custome to preach both in the tem­ple, Synagogues, markets, court-houses and the like publike places, to all promiscuously, beleevers and others, that would heare, and in houses to the beleevers only in their Church-assemblies, so that publiquely or in the temple (which tearms expound one another) and from house to house, and in every house, note two kinds of As­semblies, sc. promiscuous meetings and Church-meetings: 2. That these were distinct several Congregations, and not the same kept successively at several houses, may be gathered. 1. by the words, [...] duly rendred, which signify house by house distributively, or in every house, as it is translated, Acts 5.42. That is, not in every house in the city, nor in every beleevers house in the city; (for there were thousands probably of these) but in every house designed for a Church-meeting, 2. By the opposition the text in Acts 2.46. Makes between their meeting in the temple, and their [Page 36]breaking of bread house by house, the former its sayd was [...] with one accord, implying they all met together in the temple, but distributively in their private houses or Church-meetings for the cele­bration of the Lords Supper, (the Iews probably not permitting this new ordinance in the temple) and other Church ordinances. 3. Learned Mr. Beza on that of Acts. 2.46. Saith that procul dubie the number of Christians at Ierusalem did require that more com­modious houses should be chosen for their living together in common, as we see the Church in every populous city distributed into several Parishes, as the preposition [...] sheweth: so he. And of these seve­ral meeting houses, we may very fitly understand that of Saul his entring into every house, Acts 8.3. [...] house by house, that is, he watched and assaulted them at their meeting times and places, and thence halling men and women, committing them to prison, for into every private house of Christians, it cannot be con­ceived that he entred for them; how could the Apostles themselves remain at Ierusalem and escape him as they did? v. i. But he entered the ordinary meeting houses which were best known, and most noted, and where he was likely to meet with them for his purpose by great numbers, and both interrupt their exercises and find most occasion against them to punish them, he therefore possibly with re­ference to this, confesseth that he persecuted this way, Acts 22.4. And is said to make havock of the Church, c. 8, 3. And to get authority to bind all that call on the name of the Lord Iesus. c. 9, 14. 4. Mr. Burton an eminent man of your way, confesseth that the Christians of that Church were constrained to sever themselves into divers companies, to communicate (which probably they did every Lords day) and consequently they did every Lords day, enjoy other ordi­nances accompanying the Sacrament, as preaching, prayer, singing, and (yet saith Mr Burton) these several companies (which we call congregations) were but so many branches of one and the same par­ticular Church, no properly several Churches but one Church. 2. Where there were so many preachers, that they could not all, nor the most of them be imployed in preaching every Lords day to one par­ticular congregation, there was more then one congregation; this consequence is good and firm both by reason, for God did not or­dain preachers to be idle or negligent, or to preach seldom, but to be instant in season and out of season, he appointed not many shep­heards over a little flock: any by scripture, which affirms that the [Page 37]increase of the disciples was the occasion of the encrease of those offi­cers; and that there were so many officers in that Church is also evi­dent, 12. Apostles, Math. 9.35. with 10.1 and 70. disciples Luc. 10. 2. besides Elders mentioned, Acts 11.30. as being extant we know not how long before that time, and others having immediate com­mission to preach, Luc. 9.60. (If those Elders were not the same with the 70. disciples, seeing we read not of the institution of any other, and if so, then there was twelve Apostles answerable to the twelve Princes of the tribs, Num. 1.16. and 70 Elders in the Christi­an Church answerable to the 70 Elders amongst the Jews, Num. 11. 16.) which could not be imployed in preaching every Lords day in one congregation. 3. The Church that prayed for Peter, Acts 12. 5. Met many of them in the house of Mary, v. 12. and others of them viz. Iames and his bretheren else where, v. 17. And yet the text calls them the Church of Jerusalem though met in several places. 4. Again it is said that Paul abode in Ierusalem with Peter 15 days, Gal. 1.18. And doubtless Peter and he frequented the publique mee­tings, yet he saw no other of the Apostles save Iames the Lords bro­ther; (he saith not, that they were not in Ierusalem but he saw them not) which had bin very improbable if not impossible (seeing the Apostles were diligent in preaching) if there had bin but one Church-meeting in Ierusalem: another instance may be given in Sa­maria, where the generallity of the city, which had before given heed to Simon Magus, imbraced the Gospel in outward profession, Acts 8.6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14. Now all these m [...]st needs be more then could orderly in one place receive the Sacrament, (and they were not baptized into several Churches, (for then Church and city could not expound one another as the scripture witnesseth, and you ac­knowledg) therefore they met ordinarily in several places. So now to omit other Instances til a fitter occasion, I have given you two Instances in the new Testament, of Christians ordinarly mee­ting in divers places which yet were but one Church properly so called.

Sect. 3. in Reply p. 14. You say, Can you shew that the be­leevers of any Christian Church met only at first in one place, and afterwards (being increased) they met not in one place, but ma­ny places, except at sometime of hot persecution?

Rejoynder:

• 1. Reason teacheth that when a land is Heathenish, the conversion of it from Heathenish to Christianity must begin [Page 38]somewhere, first it may be one or two, or moe are converted and baptized, and then as leaven (to which the Gospel is compared, Mat. 13.) It spreadeth further and further: some say the first Christi­an Church in England was planted at Glastenbury by Ioseph of Ari­mathea; and if so, then at first beleevers in England meet in one place.
• 2 Of the Jewish Church the thing is evident, that they at first were altogether, both in the family of Abraham, and in the wilderness, though they never all met together again after their setl­ling in the land of Canan.
• 3. I have manifested that the Church of Jerusalem did ordinarily meet in several places, and yet you doubt not but that at first they met together in one place.
• 4. The primitive times were times of hot persecution, when Peter and Iohn as they were preaching were apprehended, threatned again and again, halled to the common jaol and beaten, Acts 4.1, 2, 3, 17, 21. Acts 5. 18, 40. Saul also persecuted for a time, Acts 8.1. and Herod, Acts 12.1. Your selves tel us, page 6. that the ordinary Pastors and teach­ers, of those times were martyred for preaching against the perempto­ry commands of Magistrates: yet I suppose you intend not that the Primitive paterns of Churches meeting in several places, produced or to be produced, should hereby be evaded, because those were times of persecution, seeing it is not possible that in the Churches great­est prosperity, such a vast number cannot orderly and edifyingly con­veene.

Sect. 4. When I put you to make good your inference, viz. Scrip­ture saith such & such a Church did meet in one place, therefore the Church must consist of no more then can meet in one place: You say, Reply p. 15. You must take the argument in the scope of it, 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 uncontrouled by percepts, and other patterns have Doctrine in them, and do teach how things ought to carryed. It is one thing more warrantable to derive an inference from patterns when they all run one way, and be patterns of one kind, and another thing (and less safe) to draw an inference from patterns when there is di­versity of kinds of them about the same thing.

Rejoynder:

• 1. Your selves dare not say that all the patterns in the new testament do run one way, in point of gathering of Churches [Page 39]out of Churches, of having 7 or 8 to be a Church, of ordination by non-officers, of the Church censuring her officers, of maintenance by contributions, or out of the Church-stock &c. And therefore your reasoning is less safe and warrantable by your own confession in these points, in which you have much adoe to find one pattern for each of them, so far are you from proving that they all run one way.
• 2. It is repugnant to plain Scripture, or to neer and necessary con­sequence from it to assert, that no Church in the new testament doth consist of no more then may meet in one place, as is instanced and proved in the Church of Jerusalem and of Samaria, Sect. 2. and in the Church of Corinth, ch. 6.
• 3. Christians dwelling in a vicinity or neighbourhood together do alway in scripture make a Church to­gether, & this is a pattern uncontrouled by precepts or other patterns therefore (by your own rule) it hath doctrin in it, but your prac­tiles are not conformable to this doctrin:
• 4. Suppose that in the new testament, only one family in a city had received the faith, could it thence have bin concluded that no Church should consist of more, then of the members of one family, I beleeve you wil not own such a conclusion?

Sect. 5. When I urge that all the beleevers in such or such a city were of the Church in that city, whether they were more or fewer, (hence every city and every Church expound one another, Acts 14.21, 2, cum. Tit. 1.5. Acts 16.4, 5.) And that it cannot be she [...]ed that any Church how numerous [...]oe [...]er it grew, was divided into two or more Churches, or that there Were more Churches then one in any city or town; therefore the beleevers in any one city or town may be but one Church, whether they can meet in one place or no. You Reply, p. 16. Not so, because as appears to us thene is light of scripture gainsaying it, for though in all cities all the be­leevers of them were of the Church of each of them, yet such an in­ference would be [...]aught, because it was so for a special reason, and in regions and countries where that reason took not place it was [...] ­therwise. All the beleevers of Ierusalem 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 beleevers in In­dea were not of one Church there, but of many Churches, because they could not meet constantly in one place. And if beleevers in cities meeting in divers places are but one Church for this reason, because they were of [...] city (as you would form to infer) than [Page 40]shew but a probable reason, why beleevers meeting in divers pla­ces in countries, may not be one Church because they are of one country, especially the beleevers of Indea being but a smal coun­try 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 beleevers were so multiplyed in any city, is that they could not all meet in one place, then Wil we shew you that such Churches were divided into more Churches.

Rejoynder:

• 1 Here are patterns of the new Testament uncontrou­led by precepts, and other patterns rejected by you upon pretence of special reason, and that special reason is your begging of the questi­on, viz. there were no more converted in any city, then might con­stantly meet together in one place.
• 2. I have shewed out of the new testament, and light of reason, that beleevers in Ierusalem were so multiplyed that they could not meet together constantly for edificati­on to receive the Sacrament of the Lords supper. Sect. 2.
• 3. we read of Churches planted by the Apostles in cities, and in great townes, Cenchrea the least was oppidum valde frequens & populosum, navi­um statione celeberrimum; Gualter in Rom: a wel-frequented, popul [...] town, most famous for the station of the ships, and that they usual­ly preached in cities, Math. 10.23, & 11, 1, & 23, 34. Ierusalem Rome Corinth, Coloss, were all cities; so were Philippi and Thes­salonica, Antioch, Laodicea, &c. Hence cities (not countries or villa­ges) and Churches do in scripture-phrase expound one another, and Paganus which signifies a Country-man, signifies in our common ac­ceptation an Heathen, and yet you tell us of Churches in the coun­tries, as distinct from Churches in cities, and never offer to prove that there were such Churches. That the Apostles in their journeyes did preach sometime in villages I grant; but that they planted any Church in a village, I put you to prove by scripture, and if you can­not prove it, then your distinction of country Churches and city Churches, and the observation there upon which you make so much use of, falls to the ground.
• 4. I did not hold them bound to be out Church, only because they were in one city, but because their Elders or commissioners might come together, being all of one city, easily and conveniently, as your selves say of Herod and Pilate, p. 19. And I hold that several congregations in the countries, (if they may con­veniently [Page 41]meet and govern in common) not only may, but ought so to do as wel as several congregations in a city.
• 5. You cannot sh [...]w so express a pattern of Christians in a city making two Churches, as I have shewed of Christians of one Church meeting or­dinarily in several places, and therefore this pattern is more uncon­trouled then the other, and consequently by your own doctrin more to be followed.
• 6. You presume that there were Churches in some other parts of Iudea besides Jerusalem, though the particular assem­blies of the Church of Jerusalem, might wel enough be called the Churches of Judea; and you cannot shew where one Church was in Judea, save at Jerusalem; and it is improbable to suppose any Churches in Judea, but what were in Jerusalem; seeing at Jerusa­lem the Apostles resided, held their constant assemblies and occa­sional councells, and there they of Galilee (which was beyond Ju­dea) that beleeved in Christ, continued Luke 23.49. Acts 1.15. & 2.1, 7. & 13.31. And the converts of the Apostles closely adhered to them in fellowship at Jerusalem, and sold their possessions, goods, lands, houses, and had all things common in the Church, Acts 2.42, 44, 46, 47. & 4.34. Some of which were of remoter places far then any part of Judes, cap. 4.36.
• 7. If you should prove there were Churches elsewhere in Judea besides Jerusalem, yet it could not thence be gathered, that they were all congregational, and only such; for as little and final as Judea was,
  • 1. It had cities in it and great ones too besides Jerusalem, as Lidda, Azotus &c. And you acknowledg that city and Church do explain one another.
  • 2. Judea (through the blessing of God multiplying the inhabitants as the sand of the sea, according to his promise to Abraham) contained an innumerable multitude of people (for ought I know) more then in England, In Ata's tune out of Juda and Benjamin alone, there was an army of almost 600000 men, besides women, and children, valiant men besides impotent aged persons; now you know, the mul­titude or paucity of the people, not the largness or littleness of the of the place or country is in this case most considerable: London may fitter be a providence, then the same circuit of ground in some parts of the kingdome, a parish:
  • 3. There was a vast multitude of Christians in Iudea converted by the Ministry of Iohn Baptist, Iesus Christ the 12 Apostles, the 70 disciples, all rai [...]ed up to gather Gods chosen ones out of Iudaea, and which were very successful in their Ministry, so that the littleness of Judea is no let but that there might [Page 42]be ten or 20. several Churches and each of them dividid into 5 or 6 several assemblies, as also the county of Midlesex one of the least counties in the kingdome, and far less then the Province of Judea, and having no city in it save one, might also contain so many and such Churches. Concerning the term Churches see more after­wards.

CHAP. VI. Whether the Epistles to the Corinthians were writ only to those that met ordi­narily in one place.

Sect. 1. WHen I alledg that Paul writs to them that in every place (not throughout the world as appears, 2 Cor. 1.1. Writen to the same persons, 1 Cor. 5.1.2. with 2 Cor. 2.1, 2. Nor is this a Catholique Epistle) but in all Achaja, call upon the name of the Lord. You Reply, p. 16. That Paul writes, sends, and applyes this to the Corinthians alone, 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 reproofs, directions &c. Yet he in­tended it for 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 redound; to all the world, as wel as to Achaia, else how can it be Canonical scripture and the foun­dation of our sermons that we preach out of it?

Rejoynder:

• 1 Certainly you know that the Epistle may be cano­nical, and yet the use of it not redound to all the world as wel as to Achaia, if by as wel you mean equally in all the particular contents of this Epistle, The Epistle to Philemon is canonical, and the 2. to Timothy, though the use of it in point of Onesimus, and Pauls cloak do not as wel or equally concern all the world as Philemon & Timo­thy.
• 2. The use of these Epistles, I dare say, redounds not to Co­rinth only; nor to all the world as wel as Achaia, for there are di­vers passages in both these Epistles which cannot be limited to Co­rinth, nor enlarged to the whole world, as 2 Cor. 11.1, 2. For­wardness [Page 43]of Ministring to the Saints, was not only in the Corin­thians, but in the Achaians; Paul boasteth of them to whom he writes in these words, I boasted of you that Achaia was ready a year ago: now it is improper for any man that writes to London, and not to England more then all the world, to say I boasted of you, that England was ready a year ago. The house of Stephanas he commends to them under the notion of being the first fruits of Achaia. The contribution for the Saints at Jerusalem, was the contribution of Achaia, Rom. 15.26. And part of his drift and scope is to get a liberal contribution, not from Corinth only, but from all Achaja; and he doth not desire the Church of Corinth to commu­nicate this letter to the other Saints of Achaia, because he writs to them all in the second person.
• 3. The Apostle doth not write to the Saints in Ephesus and in all Asia, Ephes. 1.1. Or the Saints at Philippi, or the Church of Thessalonica, and to all Macedonia, nor any where else doth he write to the Saints or to the Church in such a city with all the Saints in such a province or country, or in every place, though every Epistle be of common use and profit, both to the borderers, and to strangers, yea to all the world, yet he writes to the Church of Corinth, with the Saints in every place, or in all Achaia. Which words are not vainly and impertinently put here and not in any other Epistle; and what can they else im­port but that this Epistle is more an Achaian, (pardon your own improper term) then a Catholique Epistle.
• 4. I put you to prove that the reproofs, directions, exhortations, commendations were pro­per to them, that schisms, fornications, were only amongst them, that the exhortation to a liberal contribution on the first day of the week was proper to Corinth, yea that the Incestuous person was a member of the Church of Corinth, though we presume and com­monly speak so, yet it is not necessary, for he might be a member of the Church of Cenchrea, or some other Church in Achaia for ought we know. Why do you so strongly assert things, and yet leave them naked without the least shew of proof?

Sect. 2. You Reply, p. 17. I Ask what commentator ever sayd, that all in every place and Saints in all Achaia expound one another: doth, 1 Cor. 1.1. compared with 2 Cor. 2.1. Inforce such an ex­position? you would suggest that he writes to the same Corinthians in the 2. Epistle, that he writes to in the first; more your scriptures import not, and we grant it. But the inference you draw is this, [Page 44]ergo all in every place, and all the Saints in all Achaja are all one: a strang consequence. If the 2. Epistle be written to the same persons as the first, why do ye not expound the subject persons of the second by the subject persons of the first, and say though the Saints in all Achaja be mentioned only, yet under them the Saints every where in the world are meant?

Rejoynder,

• 1. I observe you say not, no commentator hath sayd so, or that you know not any commentator hath sayd so; possibly you knew that Reverend and Iudicions Beza, Annot in 1 Cor. 1.1. Ex­pounds [...] id est in quavis Achaiae Ecclesia, assert­ing also, that though this inscription is made properly and specially to the Corinthians, yet next, it is writen to the rest of the Churches in all Achaja, as appears by the beginning of the 2 Epistle, as the Epistle to the Galatians was to all the Churches of that nation, for that it is not absolutely Cathol [...]que, directed to the Churches in all the world, appears (saith he) by the Inscription and matter of the E­pistle, Thus he.
• 2. I would suggest not only that the 2. Epistle is written to the same Corinthians, that the first (as you strangely in­terpret me, but that it is written to the same persons (as I plainly expressed my self) Corinthians or others.
• 3. I have not read any one that makes so loose an interpretation of the Saints in all Achaja, 2 Cor. 1.1. As to say that under them, the Saints every where in the world are meant, for so they might have bin under the name of the Corinthians alone, as wel as under the name of the Romans alone, Rom. 1.7. Ephesians alone, Gal. 1.1. And that the use of them re­dounds to all the world, as wel as to all Achaia, against which I have formerly given some reasons, to which I add that the Apostle might have said as wel to the Church of Corinth and to all the Saints in In­dea, if this Epistle had concerned them being a part of the world, or any other province as wel as Achaia.

Sect. 3. Reply, p. 17. The Corinthians not the Achaians had writ­ten to Paul, c. 7, 1. And Paul had received sundry reports con­cerning them, not concerning all the Saints in Achaja, for the Cen­chreaus had not writ to him, nor he heard any thing of them that we read 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 Achajans their neighbours to peruse it, yea the Saints every where to read it; in both his Epistles he mentioneth the Corinthians, [Page 45]as the proper subject thereof, the Achajans he mentioneth 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 all the Saints in all Achaja, and with all that in every place, as it were on the by, And this is Pareus his exposition upon, 1 Cor. 1.2.

Rejoynder,

• 1. You first presume that the Epistles are written to the Corinthians only (which is the thing denyed) and then tel us that the Corinthians had written to Paul, and he had heard some re­ports of the Corinthians, but it is evident that those he writes to, did write to him, and that he had received some reports concerning them, but that these were only Corinthians, and no other Saints in Achaia to whom he writes, and which did write to him, and con­cerning whom he had received some reports, you cannot evidence.
• 2. I grant there might be some special aym at the Church of Corinth, in some things at least, rather then any other Church of Achaia, & pos­sibly in other things other Saints were more aymed at then the Corin­thians; and doubtless the Churches then could better tell when this Church or that was more specially aimed at by the Apostles, then we which are more ignorant of the then state of those Churches can; yet your collection is very sleighty and infirm, concerning the bring­ing the Saints in every place, and in all Achaia in collaterally rather then directly. Do your selves think that he that in his prayer men­tioneth Christ, and saith, To whom with the Father and the holy Ghost be glory, doth give glory to God the father, and the holy Ghost collaterally, rather then directly? if you do think so, I hope you wil hold him accursed that useth it: the phrase is the same, the Rea­der can apply it.

Sect. 4. When I answer that [...] 1 Cor. 11.20. & 14.23. may fitly be translated in idipsum for the same and in one, you reply p. 18. That the words [...] are conjoyned with with the verb [...] 1 Cor. 11.20. & 14.23. and then (you say) it will not be denyed but that place is principally meant.

Rejoynder,

• 1. If the Apostle doth write to more Churches then one as is alledged and proved from 1 Cor. 14.34. Then I hope your selves will not interpret this of the identity of place, for you hold not (as I told you though you blotted it out of my answer) that two, three, or more Churches in the new Testament must consist of no more then may meet in one place.
• 2. You begge the question and would [Page 46]perswade the Reader there is something in the Greek (which pos­sibly he understands not) to force my assent to your opinion: but the words import no more then convenire in unum, as the Lords and Commons may be said to do, which are but one Parliament though met in two houses, and if there be no incongruity of applying the phrase to those which we know do meet in severall places, then the Apostle might apply the phrase to the Corinthians though he kn ew that they did meet in severall Assemblies: on a day of a publike fast or of thanksgiving all the Churches in Holland, yea all in New Eng­land may be said [...]
• 3. It is at least very pro­bable that the Church of Corinth it self (suppose he write to no more) was more then one particular congregation: for, 1. Not onely Crispus the chief Ruler but many of the Corinthians hearing the Word be­leeved and were baptized, Act. 18.8. And God told Paul that he had much people in that City, v. 10. And Paul tarried there a long time which he would not have done if his ministery had not prospe­red; yea so many were the Christians that the Jews which made insur­rection against Paul were driven away, and Sosthenes beaten by the Geeks, Gall [...]o the Proconsull was Pauls friend. 2. There was a great multitude of teachers (as is intimated, 1 Cor. 4.15.) Though you have 10000 Instructers implyes they had many, and they had contentions amongst them, one being for one teacher, and ano­ther for another, 1 Cor. 4.6. 1 Cor. 11.12. There was al­so many that had the gift of tongues and of Prophesie, 1 Cor. 14.31. And Paul tarried with them a year and six moneths toge­ther, now it is incongruous there should be so many Pastors, Tea­chers, Speakers with tongues, Prophets, un-imployed (at least in part) and imployed, they all could not be to any purpose in one Congre­gration.

Reply, p. 18. Except the words [...] do hold forth a coming together into one place, their meeting at all, any of them together though in an hundred places will be overthrown, If the words do carry any respect to place, then seeing it is said [...] the whole Church they will be in force to proove that the whole Church came together into one place.

Rejoynder,

• Camero, that learned Critick, saith, the words have respect to the unity of the persons not the identity of the place. Yet,
• 2. Their meeting at all any of them needs not be overthrown, for though this phrase could not uphold it, yet other texts of Scrip­ture [Page 47]may.
• 3. Your selves know that James 2.2. and Heb. 10.25. the Texts cited in my Answer do carry respect to place, and do im­port that some met together in one place, and some in another place or places, and yet do not import the meeting of them all in one place: so we say the Parliament comes together, The Lords amongst them­selves and the Commons amongst themselves, not all both Lords and Commons in one house:
• 4. This Phrase (or one equivalent) may re­spect place and yet be taken distributively, so Joab and Abners men, 2 Sam. 2.13. are said [...] yet the holy Ghost in­tends not to expresse thereby a meeting in one place, but exp [...]sly overthrows that sense, by telling us that they sate one on the one side, and the other on the other side of the pool of Gibeon. The same word is used of Edom, Ishmaelites, Moab, &c. Psal. 83.4, 5, 6. so Kingdomes are said to come together to serve the Lord. Psalm. 102.22.

Reply, p. 18. When these words are found without [...] is not the sense darkned if not overthrown by such an interpre­tation? shal Acts 2.44. be rendered, And all that beleeved were in one thing or mind? 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?

Rejoynder:

• 1. I cannot see any shaddow of absurdity to say, Be­leevers were in one, or in one mind, (though it sounds not wel to say Beleevers were in one thing, nor know I any but your selves so rendering the text, and had all things common, it is the language of the holy Ghost, Acts 4.32. (a place which seems paralel) and the multitude of them that beleeved were of one heart, and one soul, nei­ther sayd any of them, that ought he possessed was his own, but had all things common. Surely, you dare not quarrell with the language of the holy Ghost:
• 2. Suppose that this interpretation of [...] in Acts 2.44. Would darken the sense, it will not follow that the same interpretation in the texts cited, 1 Cor. 11.20. & 14.23. will darken the sense also; the same words may bear one sense in one scripture, and yet not necessarily bear the same sense in all other scrip­tures.

Reply. p. 19. Wil those words in Acts 3.1. Now Peter and Iohn went up together into the temple, be wel translated? They went up to the temple for the same thing, not together in company, but for [Page 48]one end, then they might go one after another; several passages in the story do flatly contradict it, and do shew that they ascended toge­ther in company one of another into the temple.

Rejoynd [...]r:

• 1. If some passages of the story shew that they went together in company, do any of them shew that [...] proves their going together in company?
• 2. It is untrue that the passages of the story do flatly contradict their meeting in one-ness of business. That they went together for the same thing, and with one mind, your selves wil not deny.
• 3. No one ever sayd that one-ness of mi [...]d and business, doth exclude one-ness of place, (which is the thing you confute) only we say, it doth not necessarily include it, they might meet [...] in one mind and to one end, and meet more place too; and the rather because (if [...] cany any re­spect to place) Peter and Iohn being but two, were not capable of meeting distributively in several places, as the phrase (if it do respect place) must of necessity be understood in other texts as hath bin shewed.

Reply. But Acts 4.26. compared with Psal. 2.2 Is alledged to confirm the exposition of [...] To which we answer, we see nothing but that the conspirators against Christ met in one place, for Psal. 2. Saith they took counsel together, and how can that be better done then by meting in one place? Acts 4.27.5. Saith [...] which without [...] signifies they came toge­ther in 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 read that Pilate and he were made friends.

Rejoynder. That [...] may signifie consent of minds in one thing, and that Herod, Pilate, and the Gentiles did agree in one d [...]sign is as clear as the Sun, but that [...] signifies their meeting in one place (as you assert) is improbable.

• 1, Because (though I deny not but they might come together) yet it cannot be made to appear by the story, that ever th [...]y did come together all at once in one place.
• 2. Suppose they did (sometimes) meet toge­ther, do you in good earnest think that the prophesie, Psal. 2. or the history, Acts 4. Of their being gathered together [...] was verified of them only in that punctilio of time, when all the [Page 49]foresaid persons (without exception) met together in one place, and not any other time. The Lords and commons are together some­times in one house, cannot they be sayd to meet [...] at any other time but then?

Sect. 5. Reply. p. 19. We do not stand in need of [...] to prove that the Churches of the Gospel met in one Congregation fre­quently: for there are other words that carry it clearly, as may ap­pear from, Acts 2.46, & 5.12, & 14.27. & 15.22, 30, & 1 Cor. 5.4. & 1 Cor. 11.17.

Rejoynder: None of those texts do carry the thing clearly, nor doth it appear that the Churches of the Gospel met frequently (much less and constantly and ordinarily, which you should prove) but the contrary rather; for 1 Though Acts 2. & Acts 5. May prove a meeting in the temple to heare Gods word, which was a worship common to Jews with Christians, and frequented in the temple joyntly by both, yet they prove not that in the temple they admini­stred the sacraments, (the Jews probably would not permit this new ordinance there) which are the distinguishing ordinances of the Christian Church, Interpreters collect that they did break bread (which was Sacramental breaking as that phrase is generally under­stood by all, Acts 20.7.) not in the temple but [...] in every house, or from house to house; now it hath bin shewed by good reasons, and by the acknowledgment of a prime man amongst you, that it is no way probable that in those several houses of the poor, which did then receive the Gospel, there should be rooms so capa­cious, and other accommodations, as that so many thousands might orderly and edifyingly communicate therein at once; not can I think that you being ingenuous dare assert that the whole Church of Jeru­salem did constantly meet together in one place to receive the Sacra­ment, for your bretheren of the assembly having formerly disputed for it do now wave it. Acts 14.27. Saith that Paul gathered the Church together, but you should have shewed. 1. That the Church they gathered was any other then the Church that sent them out by imposition of hands, Acts 13.1, 2. viz. The Prophets and teachers of Antioch, or at least. 2. That women and children were gathered together by the Apostles that they might give them account of their labor and success, For. 1. We might grant that the men of a Church might sometimes be no more then might meet in one place, and yet in respect of the women and children, (which[Page 50]for most part are treble or more to the men) they could not meet ordinarily in one assembly: at a Leet-court a [...] city may be ga­thered together, if you mean all the men of it, whereas if women and children were there too, there would not be room for half for a quarter of them. 2. This meeting was not an ordinary s [...]ted meet­ing on a Lords day, but an occasional meeting; for the text saith not, that Paul and Barnabas came when they were gathered tog [...]ther, but they gathered the Church together: and therefore it is likely no women or children were there, nor (it may be) any besides the Elders. 3. It is said that when they went to Jerusalem. Acts 15.3. They were brought on their way by the Church, which must needs be Synecdochic [...]y understood, either of the Elders or at least some part o [...] the Church, and not the whole Church, and so is this place also to be understood: compare Acts 14.27, with 15, 3. It seemes evident that the Church of Antioch was more then one Con­gregation, for first a great number beleeved, Acts 11.21. And then upon Barnabas preaching much people were added to the Lord, v. 24. And Paul a whole year assembled with the Church, and t [...]ght much people, and questionless he saw the fruits of his labors; and the Disciples were first ca [...]ed Christians in Antioch, v. 26. And besides Barnabas and Saul they had Prophets and teachers, Acts 13.1. And some others which came from Iudea, Acts 15.1. All which could not have competent imployment in one Congrega­tion. Acts 15.22, 30. Speaks not of one single Church, but of a Synod or assembly of the Churches, as Mr. Tompson, Mather, Cotton expound it, and your selves must needs acknowledg, that there were others besides the Church of Jerusalem there; wil you hence infer, That a Church under the new testament, must not con­sist of so many, but that others may assemble with them in one place? and if others, how many? if two, why not ten, 20.100.1000. where and upon what grounds wil you determine the number? As for, 1 Cor. 5.4. [...] &c. 1 Cor. 11.17. I answer.

• 1. That the Church of Corinth appeareth not to be only one particular Congregation.
• 2. The Apostle writes not only to that Church, but to other Churches.
• 3. The same Greek words or other equivalent to them have bin proved insufficient, when joyned with [...] to evince one-ness of place, and therefore you cannot perswade any wise reader that they alone wil evince it: I suppose you think not that [...] doth weaken them.

Sect. 6. When I urge that Iames call's the twelve tribes scatter­ed abroad, one assembly, Synagogue or Church, Jam. 1.1. cum 2.2. & 5.13. Or Paul's mentioning the Hebrews gathering them­selves together, Heb. 10.25. Doth not prove that they were only one Congregation which might and did constantly meet in one place. You Reply, That there is a palpable difference betwixt the places.

R. But I suppose if it had bin said to the Corinthians, If there come into your assembly, or a charge given them not to forsake the assem­bling themselves together, you would not have discerned such differ­ence, but would have urged that the word Synagoga in the N. T. is usually taken for a place, & when it is taken for the people it is under­stood of one only, and not of several assemblies. You 2. Reply, That the scripture makes such a meeting of the scattered Hebrews impossible.

R. But doth not the vast numbers of the Church of Ierusalem (for whose meeting ordinarily in one place the most is pretended) make it also impossible that they all should orderly ordinarily con­vene to receive the Sacrament? and the Inscription of the first Epistle To the Church of Coriath with all that in every place &c Being expounded, by the Saints in all Achaia, 2 Cor. 1.1. Doth contra­dict the meeting in one place of all those to whom Paul writ: You say p. 20. The literal sense of the words may pass, there is no need of a figure in texts you alledg; for

• 1. The persons were neither so many nor so remote but they might come together; And if the holy Ghost say they did, we must beleeve it, and not seek a figure when we are not enforced to it.
• 2. The text in 1 Cor. 14.23, Saith [...] when the whole Church comes together, have any of your texts any such fulness of words in them, to sway to a meeting in one place as that text hath? 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 in one place.

Rejoynder,

• 1. My exposition of the words in sensu distributive is no more figurative then yours; If it be, I pray you, what figure is it? wil you make a new Rhetorick too?
• 2. What the holy Ghost saith, we must beleeve; but you should not beg the question, and say the holy Ghost saith what he doth not mean, all the Hebrews did assemble themselves together (in the sense he means) viz. in several companies and so may this be understood and beleeved:
• 3. You for your ad­vantage translate [...] when the whole Church comes toge­ther [Page 52]but you should translate if the whole Church come together, and I told you in my answer that suppositions put nothing in being, and you know they do not, Gal. 1.8. Though you take no notice of it, yet you are willing to lay aside the conditional expression which is both in the original, and sundry translations and take up a more absolute one; this dealing is not candid: should the Apostle have said (which (you know) may without any impropriety be said now in London) if two or three whole Churches shal meet together in one place, would you have collected thence, that two or three whole Churches may orderly convene, and that there ought to be no more in two or three Churches then may so convene? when we say if the whole County of Lancaster or York respectively come together into the Castleyard of Lancaster or York, doth this prove that the whole County doth ordinarily meet in one place, though upon some spe­cial occasion (as choosing of a Knight &c.) They may meet together, or at least a great part of them in the name and power of the rest? And so when he faith if the whole Church come together in one place, it cannot be thence rationally concluded, that every member of the Church was at any time much le [...]s ordinarily in one place, some were infants, some no doubt were sick and weak, 1 Cor. 11.30. Some abroad about necessary negotiation, some women in travel, some in childbed: so we read Ioshua 22.12, And Ezra 2.64. That the whole Church or all the Church was gathered together, and yet you know there were many thousands of men in the Church of the Jews, besides women and children and sick persons, which were not in that assembly: so far are such texts as these from proving that the Church must consist of no more then may meet in one place.
• 4. That same thing which now you alledg to me was alledged by a Pro­testant revolted to Popery concerning hoc est corpus meum, viz. The holy Ghost saith it, and Protestants have bin convinced with the evidence of that text to grant a corporal presence in the Sacra­ment.

Sect. 7. When I urge, that the Apostles writes to the Saints in all Achala, and that there were other Churches in that Region, at least two Corinth, and Cenchrea which was oppidū Corinthiorū &c. You Reply p. 20. That he doth not write to them as making one Church with the Corinthians, for he mentions them with a note of distinction from the Corinthians [...]

Rejoynder.

• 1 You fight with your own shaddow, I said not that [Page 53]he writes to them all as one Church, but plainly asserted with Beza Piscator and others, that he writes to the Churches in that region,
• 2. Your criticism is worth nothing if one should say, Paul writes not to the Bishops and Deacons as Saints at Philippi, for he men­tions them with a note of distinction, to the Saints at Philippi with the Bishops and Deacons, yourselves would laugh at it:
• 3. He might have a scope that the other Churches in Achaia from the Epistle he sent to Corinth which they were to peruse (as the Lao­dicean Church was to read the Epistle written to the Colossians) should be stirred up to the same duty of contribution &c. Thus you, But the Apostle had not a scope to stir up all other Churches, at least not all alike to that duty of contribution to the poor Saints at Ieru­salem, and therefore you now in effect acknowledg (what before you did deny) viz. That the Apostle writes more properly to the Achaians then to the whole world. Besides, you know your para­lel is not suitable, for 2 Cor. inscribed to the Achaians, and so is not that Epistle to Colo [...]s inscribed to the Church of Laodicea.
• 4. You demand, why then doth not the Apostle say to the Churches of Judea, Macedonia, Asia? Why is the Church of Corinth mentioned and the Church at Cenchrea wholy silenced in the first Epistle and not mentioned directly and by name in the second? You are as good at asking questions as any? I pray you answer me one question and then if need be I wil answer yours. Why doth not Paul cal the Romans Ephesians, Philippians by the name of Saints, and the Corinthians and Thessalonians by the name Church? Why doth not Paul, James and Jude inscribe their Epistles to the Churches of Iudea or the Hebrew Churches, though all of them write to Churches and famous ones too, far more famous then Cenchrea (probably) was? yet they make no mention of them directly or by name. The answer is,
  • 1. We must not teach the Apostle in what phrase to speak. Nor
  • 2. can we render a reason why he inscribes his Epistle to the. Saints at Ephesus, whom elsewhere he calleth the Church of Ephesus, no more then we shew a reason why the Church of Cenchrea may be included under the name of Saints in Achaia.
  • 3. The Church of Corinth may be mentioned and not any other Church by name, be­cause the Church of Corinth was the most famous, best-gifted Church: Or (to use the words of Mr Banes Diac. tryal p. 16.) because it was the most illustrious and conspicuous Church.
• 5. Where Iurge that the women he writes too did resort to Churches, [Page 54] else how could they keep silence in the Churches,
  • 1 Cor. 14.34. You reply, p. 21. That these Epistles were written for universal direction of the women of all Churches.
  • 2. That women were wort to go from ove Church to another (as Phebe) and were to keep silence in all Churches.
  • 3. That though he saith [your wome] he saith not [your Churches.]

Rejoyn.

• It was indeed for universal direction of the women of all Churches in a secundary and mediate way, but primarily and immediately it was for direction of those he writes to, and hence he saith not, set women or all women, but your women.
• 2. Phaebe's going from Cenchrea to Rome doth not prove, that women had such a wont to go from one Church to another, and that they were so forward speakers that the Apostle had need to silence them, not only in their own Church but in strange Churches.
• 3. If it had been said your Churches (which phrase being not found in any place of Scripture is not here to be expected) it had been somewhat more plain; but as it is, it is plain enough, viz. that the women he writes to did resort to Churches; and therefore I conclude they were not all of one particular Congregation; you presume the contrary, viz. they were all of one Congregation, and that the Apostle speaks of Churches because they did sometimes occasionally resort to other Churches; any text may be thus answered, let the Reader judge.

CHAP. VII. Of a National Church.

Sect. 1. IF there ought to be such a national Church, then in Reply, p. 22. this Church there must be some national combinati­on, national place for convention, national pastor upon which it must depend and national ordinances, for seeing there was no such Church extant when the Gospel was written, nor rules left how things must be carried in such a national Church, what reason can be shewed, if such a Church must be, why there should be a depar­ture from the pattern of the national Church among the Jews?

Rejoyn.

• 1. I expresly distinguished in my Answer between a [...]d Church or such a national as the Jewish Church was; and therefore your confutation of such a Church might wel enough have [Page 55]been spared, for the Jewish Church had an high Priest (which was a type of Christ, and his office is now ceased) to be a national Pa­stor, and a national place of Convention as the Temple or Tabernacle being of divine institution and promise (which was also ceremonial) and national ceremonial ordinances, but that the Church cannot be national except it be such a national, except there be a national pastor, a set place for convention, and national ordinances is unrea­sonable to assert; for then Scotland it self were not a national Church, for it hath no national pastor, no national place, not a cer­tain fixed place for convention, no national ordinances, but doth justly and necessarily vary from the Jewish Church in t [...]ose things that are ceremonial; but subora nation of Ecclesiastical Judicatories and the benefit of appeals is not meerly ceremonial but grounded on natural reason and equity, not doth the abrogation of it appear in the New Testament.
• 2. You grant, both that the Saints in a nation as destinguished from the Saints of another nation, may be call [...]a national Church, and al [...]o that [...]ll the Churches in a nation may, and in some cases ought, to combine together and convene in a Synod or Church of Churches to consuit the good of the whole, and to preserve truth and peare in the Churches; such was the assem­bly of the Churches in New England, and this their convention is an ordinance of Christ, though in the Apostles times there was no pat­tern of such national Synod no more then there was a national Church, when there was no Christian Magistrate, nor were Christi­ans so many as to bear the name of a Land or Nation (as if but one family had been Christian the Church could not have been more then Domestical) the Protestant Church could not be national in the dayes of Henry the 8. and Queen Mary as in the days of King Edward and Queen Elizabeth; nor had they liberty safely and freely to meet in such national assemblies, nor is there rules left how things must be carried in such a national assembly or Synod, considering it as National: Yea Mr Cotton groundeth this Synodi­cal combination on Act. 15. and alledgeth the Jewish Church in Ezek. 48.30. to be but one Congregation, twelve furlongs, and the Church in Rev. 21.16. to be 12000. furlongs, many Chur­ches combining together in a Synod, Keyes p. 57. the difference then is only about combination in government, or whether a lawful national Synod or Assembly may or ought to exercise jurisdiction over particular Churches in that nation, I hold assirmatively and in [Page 56]this sense maintain there may lawfully be a National Church, and this is not of my framing (as you assert) but was framed many hundred years before you or I were born, and is consonant to the rules of Gods Word, you hold the negative.
• 3. You say there is no necessity of Congregational officers to the being of Congregational Churches, and then what necessity is there of National officers to: National Church? Yea it is clear that one Congregation may have more Pastors then one, and then what necessity there is that a National Church should only have one officer.

Sect. 2. Reply p. 22. Then these persons must stand in relation to all and every of the assemblies of the natian under their juris­diction, and so they are national officers every one of them, and the whole is the flock of each amongst them; as in the representative civil body, every Knight and Burgess hath the care of the kingdom up­on him, and each hath equal authority of inspection, and decision of matters concerning cities and countries, which he knows not, as of those from whence he came.

Rejoynder:

• 1. Your selves grant, not only that Synods are the or­dinances of God, but also that all the Elders thereof are to be look­ed upon as the officers of Iesus Christ, when they do such synodied acts as they may do in relation to many Congregations, you cannot deny that they do those acts of Elders as Elders, when a Minister doth administer the Sacrament to another Congregation, or to the people of another Congregation, he doth it as an Elder, and as having special relation to that people at that time and in that work, he be­ing called unto it.
• 2. The Knights and Burgesses in Parliament, are not each of them severally and singly kingdom-officers; though in that body they may do many things in relation to the whole king­dome: So Colonells associated in a councel of war, So particular heads of Colledges joyned in a consistory, So aldermen of several Wards in the Court of Aldermen, So in the Jewish common-wealth the heads of the several tribes, which were as a Parliament to all Is­rael might in that associated body do many things, which could not be required of particular Elders and heads of the tribes, yet it is an unproper and untrue speech to say, every head of this or that tribe is an officer of all the tribes; every Colonel is a general officer of the whole army, and so it is an unjust and incongruous speech to say, every member of an authoritative national assembly is a national Church-officer, though he with the rest in a body or whole assembly [Page 57]whereof he is a member, may in some acts of government relate to the whole,

Sect. 3. Reply p. 23. Now if it be so, the question is, whether each be not a Pastor to every purpose as wel as to one? and to feed by Doctrine as wel as Discipline, all such assemblies which are un­der his charge (which thing is yet impossible to be done) why they must joyntly rule al the assemblies, but severally teach each man the Congregation to which he is designed without care of the rest.

Rejoynder:

• 1. What mean you to call each member in a national assembly, a Pastor? Is each man in a Congregational Presbytery a Pastor?
• 2. We hold not that Pastors may or ought to teach each man his own Congregation without care of the rest, because from the one-ness of the Catholique Church, there ariseth to every par­ticular Church and person, such a relation to and dependance on the Church Catholique as parts have to the whole, and neither of them are to work as several divided bodyes by themselves (which is the ground of all Schisms) but as parts conjoyned to the whole and mem­bers of the Common-wealth for the edification of it, having care of, and exercising their power to other, as their call, occasion and neces­sity doth require, Eph. 4.11. Epaphras Pastor of Coloss had a zeal, and therefore a care also for them in Laodicea and Hierapolis. Col. 4.13.
• 3. Your argument is a meer non sequitur, it runns thus. If Colonels in a Councel of war may exercise some acts of power over the whole army, then one Colonel should teach, train, and lead up the souldiers of other Regiments, as wel as he with the rest may rule them. Now this inference is evidently weak and so is yours, for as the Colonel doth not singly and severally by himself govern the whole army but joyntly with others, and therefore cannot be ex­pected to train every Regiment, so a Pastor which is a member of a national assembly, doth not separatim govern all the Congrega­tions but joyntly with others, and therefore it cannot be concluded that he should separatim feed them.
• 4. All that can be concluded wilbe but this that he must feed them by Doctrine as wel as by the rod of Discipline, and so he doth; he with the rest do lawfully (as you confess) upon occasion, put forth Doctrinal power to bring light to the Churches.
• 5. Seeing Mr. Burroughes not only as his own opinion, but as the judgment of other Congregational men doth hold that Elders in a Synod are to be looked upon, as the officers of Iesus Christ; your argument may be thus retorted upon your [Page 58]selves. The question is whether each be not an Elder or officer of Iesus Christ to every purpose as to one, they as officers may feed by do [...]trine (as you acknowledg) and why not by discipline? They may (you say) by authority from Iesus Christ admonish men or Chur­ches, and this admonition is a censure, why then may they not pro­ceed to other acts of censure?
• 6. Elders receive their power for the whole Church of Christ, and may (having a call) preach, ad­minister the Sacraments, or rule in any Congregation, or do one of these and not the other where their call and necessity of the Church requireth one and not the other. Your selves as Elders do administer the Sacrament to some of other Churches which you have no power to censure, and so you become a Pastor to them for one purpose and not for another.
• 7. Acts the 15. doth hold out the authorita­tive power of a Synod (as you may see in the next section) and then your arguments against it are nothing worth.

CHAP. VIII. Of Councels especially of that, Acts 15.

Sest. 1. THere is a pattern of a Synod of Churches, Acts 15. of two evidently, and (probably) of many more, as of the Churches of Syria and Cilicia which were alike troubled, and their soules subverted, and the letters of the councel directed to them, rather then to other Churches, as more peculiarly binding them, which intimates they had commissioners there; but if there were but 2 Synod of two Churches, Ierusalem and Antioch, (for those that were sent from Antioch were certainly members of that meeting, Acts 15.12.22.) a Synod of two Churches warranteth a Synod of three, foure, or five Churches, (for where must it stay?) even of as many as sh [...]l combine and associate Synodicatry, else it could not be proved hence that Synods are an ordinance of Christ, and that the assembly of the Elders of the Churches in N. E. was a lawful assem­bly. 2. This meeting is not to be looked upon as Apostolical, but as Synodical, for though the Apostles were present and acted in it, yet they acted not as Apostles: Paul as an Apostle needed not to have gone up to Ierusalem to the Apostles and Elders, Gal. 1.16, 17. Peter, Iames and Iohn added nothing to him, Gal. 2.6. much less [Page 59]ordinary Elders; I Paul say unto you had bin enough, Gal. 5.2. And all preachers of another Gospel, should have bin accursed, Gal. 1.7, 8. Nor had the Church of Antioch any power to send out Paul as he was an Apostle, but only as an Elder and member of their Presbytery there, Acts 13.1 & 15.1, 2. Had they acted as Apostles, they needed not to have stated the question, and debated it from scripture in an ordinary way, having deliberative discourses before the decisive suffrage. v. 7. Nor should the ordinary Elders have gone hand in hand with them as they did, for the Elders were sent unto as wel as the Apostles. v. 2. They came together to consider of the matter, v. 6. The Decrees were ordained by the Elders, Acts 16.4. The Elders did write and conclude, Acts 21.25. where the word Eld [...]rs may and ought to include the Apostles, but cannot include any un-officied men, though it be supposed, that some such were present and did joyn in the inscription of the Synodical E­pistle, as Sylvanus and Timotheus did in the Inscriptions of some of Pauls Epistles. 1 Thes. 1.1. 2 Thes. 1. 1. The Apostles may be pretended to act as Apostles in other cases as wel as this, and then nothing done by them is to be drawn by us into imitation. 3. This Synod was an authoritative Synod, not only consultative; they put forth doctrinal power confuting the heresy, vindicated the truth, v. 1, 7, 8, 9. And this power was above the power of a single Pastor, or the Presbytery of a single Church. 2. They made a practical canon for avoiding the Scandal and the occasion of it, v. 20.29. and they ordeined Decrees, Acts 16.4. not doctrines, but decrees or laws, for so the word dogma is taken in the new testament, Luk. 2.1. Acts 17.7. Ephe. 2.15. Col. 2.14. Of these decrees they say, It seemeth good to the holy Ghost and to us, (as any Synod upon assu­rance of scripture warrant may say) to impose upon you no other bur­thens, now it is an act of the binding power of the keyes to impose burthens, and this binding power ariseth not only materially from the weight of the matter imposed, (though that ought to be war­ranted by the word of God) but also formally from the authority of the Synod, which being an ordinance of God, bindeth more for the Synods sake. 3. They put forth an act of Critick power, v. 24. Branding them with the black mark of lyars, subverters of soules, troublers of the Church. They needed not to summon the false teachers for they were present, at least some of them, to whom else doth Peter say, v. 10. Why tempt ye God? Neither was it necessary [Page 60]they should make mention of excommunication, it being a clear case of it self, that those Hereticks and Schismaticks which could not by admonition and other due means be reclaimed, were to be excommunicated, Tit. 3.1 [...].11. Rev. 2.2.14.20. It being also clear that if they were not then duly proceeded against, they could not be justly and orderly excommunicated. 4. If it be said that this meeting, if it was a formal Synod it was only occasional, and not a set stated monethly, or yearly meeting. I answer. 1 This is but a circum­stance of time, which followeth necessarily the substance of the thing; if Synods sit, they must sit in some time; but what time or times they should sit, doth depend upon circumstances and as the Churches business requireth: the scripture doth not mention any st [...]t [...]d Ecclesiastical meetings for government, Synodical or Con­gr [...]gational, that they should meet weekly, monethly, nor mention­eth it any set Church-meetings (except the Lords day) for preach­ing, hearing, fasting, prayer, conference; yet the Church may up­on occasion order weekly or monethly Congregational meetings for those purposes according to the general rules of Gods word: your selves grant that the officers of several Churches may meet together as oft as occasion shal require to advise and consult about the order­ing of the affaires of the Churches in all difficult cases. And that at every meeting the time of the next meeting be determined on, and the occasion thereof so far as appears intimated. Yea you tel us, p. 128. That emimently-gifted men may preach for divers moneths together while the occasion lasts. And so (I say) Synods may meet, but if it appear there be no just occasion of a Synod, I de­sire not that there should be any in a stated way.

Sect. 2. Reply, p. 23. What is there to warrant combination of assemblies in a Nation more then of all Christian assemblies in the world represented in an oecumenical Councel? For if a Congrega­tional Church must depend upon a National Church, then a Natio­nal Church must depend upon the universal, as the lesser upon the greater. What a Nation is to a Congregation, that the Universal is to a Nation.

Rejoyn.

• I wil also ask you one question, what is there more to warrant the Elders of New England to convene in a Synod or As­sembly of the Churches, then the Elders of all the world to convene in a general Councel? Surely no more warrant save that they had a better call and more power and encouragement by the Civil Ma­gistrates [Page 61]and their mutual consent, and might with more conveni­ency, ease, exped [...]tion, and safety meet together in Cambridge in N. E. then all the Elders in the world could, and yet you account that Assembly an Ordinance of God.
• 2. There is not the same necessity of combination of all Churches in the world as there is of all Churches in a Nation for peace and government. Is there as good reason that all kingdoms should be subject to one general meeting o the Kings and supreme Magistrates, as that in every Kingdom there should be subordination of Judicatories and appeals from the less to the greater?
• 3. How much greater distance there is between particular Churches, so much the less needs the visible communion of those Churches to be, because danger of scandal and infection and the opportunity of mutual edification is less or more according as the distance of place is greater or less; therefore there is or ought to be a more strict ordinary visible Ecclesiastical communion within a Classis then within a Province, within a Nati­on then in all the world.
• 4. Your selves must either acknowledg that a particular Church hath power to elect an officer for other Churches (for you oft alledg Acts 1. for the Churches power of Election) as wel as their own, or else grant that that was a general Church or Councel which did choose an Apostle a general officer.
• 5. As for your conceit that the members of a general Councel must be universal Pastors, it hath been before confuted; in a democracy or popular government the power is in all the people joyntly, but to say that every one of the people is an universal officer is ridi­culous.

Sect. 3. When I say, shew me a Nation of Magistrates and people converted, and I wil shew you a National Church. You reply p. 24. that I might have said, Shew me a Nation converted, and I wil shew a National Church framed like the Iewish Church with one National Bishop over it, one National Cathedral in it.

Rejoyn.

• 1. The Jewish was rather the Universal then a National Church, if God should have called any or all other Nations they must have been proselyted into it.
• 2. If there were no better ar­guments against the Pope and Prelatical men then you bring against a National Church, and if the Nationalness of the Church was as truly Ceremonial and abrogated as the high Priest and Temple were (which you odly cal a National Bishop and Cathedral) are, then that form of speech, should I use it, were irreprehensible.
• 3. I retort, [Page 62]shew me an Assembly of the Churches in a Nation like that of New England, and I wil shew you a National Church. You further say, Reply p. 24. Though there was no Nation converted, yet Christ's mind in that matter might easily have been dictated in the Scrip­tures had he intended any such Church afterwards, as Moses tels the Iews, Deut. 12.8, 9, 10. And though there were not Nations converted yet there were so many in a Nation converted as made many Assemblies. In little Iudea there were Congregation, and why, together with the Church at Ierusalem, might t [...]ere not have been a Diocesan or Classical Church? The foot-stets of a Diocesan or Classical Church shal serve the turn, then we wil yeeld there might in time be a National.

Rejoyn.

• You hold a National Synod to be a lawful and useful Or­dinance of God; if one should deny it and say shew me a lesser Synod of all the Churches within such or such a circuit and I wil grant there may be a National Synod; consider wel what ye would an­swer.
• 2. It is either weakness or worse to intimate to the world that Presbyterians do plead for a Diocesan Church; you know (I suppose) that Mr Rhuterfurd and others do professedly reject and refute it.
• 3. I have shewed that the Church of Ierusalem [...] did consist of many Congregations, and that the Elders of that Church did convene for acts of government you cannot deny; and this you know is a Presbyterial Church which we cal a Classis.
• 4. I have shewed a pattern of an authoritative Synod exercising jurisdiction over particular Churches and cleared it from your grea­test and strongest exceptions against it.
• 5. In Chap. 9. I have shewed from holy Scripture that there is an Ʋniversal visible Church which is greater then a National, and doth include and justifie it, and to which it is subordinate in a regular way. These (you know) are more then footsteps of a Presbyterial or Classical Church.
• 6. The Scriptures do prophecy of the cal of a Nation, I. a. 55.5. and also of a Nations answer to that call: and that Israel should be one of the three, which may import three National Churches: One Nation, as Aegypt, should be one people of God, which in Defence p. 40. you say is all one with one Church; another nation another people of God; and Israel shal be so far from being alone a National Church that she shal not be the chiefest, but other Nati­ons shal be before her, Isa. 19.25. So Abraham became the fa­ther of many nations, Rom. 4.17. the Jewish Nation and the Nations [Page 63]of the Gentiles, one (its evident was a National Church, and why might not a Gentilish Nation converted to Christianity be a sister National Church: Paul faith Rom. 3.29. God is not the God of the Iews only, but of the Gentiles, the word in the Original is, of the Nations also, his meaning is, God is in covenant with beleeving Na­tions of the Gentiles as wel as with the Jewish nation. Now if God call a nation, and a nation obey that call, and become the daugh­ter of father Abraham and a sister of the Iewish nation, and God be in covenant with a nation, or the God of a nation, Is not that nation a national Church? Did not thus much (if there had been no more) make the Jews a national Church? And wil it not make a beleeving nation among the Gentiles so also? Have you any so good an argu­ment against a National Church as this for it?
• 7. Moses in Deut. 12. did not tell the Jews that God did intend they should be a na­tional Church, for that they were before, even as soon as they grew into a nation, Acts 7. but only of a peculiar place of some sol [...]mn publick worship, which was but ceremoni [...]l, and because it was so and God hath not intended any such set place for solemn publick worship in the New Testament as more holy then other places, therefore he hath prescribed to us no such thing, but l [...]ft us at liberty, Ioh. 4.8. Of little Iudea much is spoken before and after.

CHAP. IX. Of the universal visible Church and gene­ral Councels.

Sect. 1. Reply. ANd if an universal visible instituted Church be ac­knowledged, why are there not then universal re­presentative conventions? What a defect is this in Christendom that all Christians do not endeavour it? But we conceive that they are so far from the endeavouring of it, that if there were any such thought they might make use of them for advice, yet they would be loath to subject themselves to the binding decrees of them.

Rejoyn.

• 1. You being no Scriptures at all against the universal [Page 64]visible Church or the subordination of lesser Judicatories to greater.
• 2. You acknowledg (at least implicitely) that if there be an univer­sal visible Chuch, then there may be a national subordinate to it, and a congregational subordinate to it, in which you deal fairly and in­genuously, for the whole is not subject to a part, but the part to the whole, and the neerer any part comes to the whole Church, the more authority it hath; and hence a general Councel is of more authority then a National, and a National then a Provincial.
• 3. I assert that the Scriptures do hold out an universal visible Church. For
  • 1. the Apostles which were general officers (to which a general Church is the adaequate correlative) and had the care of all the Churches, are said to be put or placed in the Church, as speaking but of one: 1 Cor. 12.28.
  • 2. This is that one body into which all both Iews and Gentiles, bond or free are baptized, v. 13. where­of Christ is the head, v. 12. yea the visible head, though he be now removed to heaven, (as King Iames was visibly the head of Scotland though removed into and residing in England) and Paul the Minister Col. 1.25. in which God hath set [ [...]] the members 1 Cor. 12.18. viz. he hath set [ [...]] Apostles, Prophets, Teachers, helps, governments, v. 28.
  • 3. The same is proved, Ephes. 4. to the end of the 16. verse, for there we find that the whole Catholique Church is but one. v. 4. one body, one spirit, one hope of our calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and father of all. All which are adaequate and commensurate to the Catholique Church, unto which he after saith, the Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, and teachers were given. v. 11.
  • 4. This Church consisteth of all beleeving Iews and Gentiles, Ephes. 2.16. & 3.6. And is contra-distinguisht from, and opposite to all other Iews and Gentiles in the world yet uncalled; and is called one fould, Iohn 10.16. one woman traveling, Rev. 12. one city of God. Rev. 11. one field, one draw net, one barn-floor &c.
  • 5. This Church was a child, and in non-age under the law, and at ful age under the Gospel, Gal. 4.1.2. One assembly of 24. Elders, and foure beasts in allusion to the 24. orders of Priests, and the foure camps of Israel bearing in their standards the same beasts. Rev. 4. and as all the twelve tribes did but make one Church, so the 144000. of all Christian Churches (as it were of the twelve tribes) are but one Church.

I omit many more such expressions which signify to us, that as the Church was but one a­mongst [Page 65]the Jews, so it is but one amongst the Gentiles, one army under Michael, one vineyard &c. you may object, that we read of Churches in the new testament, therefore there is not only one Church: I answer. These are particular Churches of the same name and nature with the whole, as the dry land is but one; yet being possessed by several nations under several climates, divided by hils, rivers and other boundaries is called lands; as Labans flocks ha­ving all one owner and probably all one mark, are called one flock; and so Iacobs also. Gen. 30.31, 32, 36, 38. & 33.13. as the free­men of Rome where ever born or bred, make but one corporation; hence the Church of Ephesus (though a compleat particular Church) is not called the whole city or houshold, but fellow citizens with the Saints, viz. of other Churches, and of the househould, Ephes. 2.19, 20. As the Iewish Church was certainly but one, yet it is cal­led Churches as you shal hear anon: as the Antichristian Churches of Italy, France, Spain, Germany, are but one whore; one Church under one head the Pope, so the Christian Churches of England, Scotland, Holland &c. which have their fathers name written in their foreheads, having one faith &c. are but one woman, one Church. The one is the army under the Dragon, the other under Michael; particular Churches and Antichristian conventions are as the several Brigades, Regiments or companies of those armyes. Hence the Church of God is called Army, and Armies, Cant. 6.10.13. vineyard, and vineyards, Cant. 7.12. & 8.11.12. Garden, and Gardens. Cant. 6.2. Note (Reader) that these are not spoken of the invisible Catholique Church, but of the visible Church, for offi­cers are not set in the invisible Church; Iudas was an Apostle, but was not a member of the invisible Church, nor is baptism a badg of it. 2. Whereas some object that my first argument for an universal visible Church [The Apostles were universal officers, to which an universal visible Church is the adaequate correla­tive] were good, if the Apostles had bin universal ordinary officers, but they were universal extraordinary officers; therefore the Adae­quate correlative is an extraordinary universal visible Church. I an­swer.

• 1. I have not heard til now of an extraordinary visible Church, which continued til the death of Iohn, and then breathed its last.
• 2. If there were then an universal visible Church, (whether ordinary or extraordinary (as to this) it matters not) it followes necessa­rily, that all those presidents which are brought for Iuda po [...] [Page 66]Churches in Galatia, Asia, Iudea, do not so much as prove de facto, that the Churches then were Independent, much less do they prove de jure, that then and ever after all Churches ought to be such.
• 3. God hath set Pastors, teachers, helpes, governments, which are ordinary officers and offices in the very same Church, in which [...]e set Apostles, Evangelists, Prophets, extraordinary officers, and therefore the same Church doth continue to the end of the world.
• 4. Ordinary Pastors baptized the Corinthians into this universal vi­sible Church, for Paul baptized none of them but Crispus, and Gajus. and the houshold of Stephanus, 1 Cor. 1.14, 16. with 1 Cor. 12.13. And ordinary Pastors now do baptiz into the same body that ordinary Pastors then did viz. into the universal visible Church, as hath bin shewed before, therefore the universal visible Church con­tinues to the end of the world.
• 5. The arguments and illustrations I have brought to hold out the universal visible Church, do suite (all or most of them) not only with the Church in the Apostlique times but in after ages.
• 6. Every Apostle was as it were an El­dership of the Churches extraordinarily combined in one man, and so one Apostle being an Elder of all Churches, had universal authority in all Churches, but that so much authority in all the Churches as was to be perpetual, should be in the Elders of all the Churches, was not temporary or extraordinary, but is ever useful and necessary.

Sect. 2. As for the defect of general Councels &c. I answer.

• 1. You seem to assert that that doctrine which supposeth a great defect in Christendome is not to be entertained, or is not likely to be the way of God, which if true, I am sure the Independent way is not likely to be the way of God, for that supposeth a far greater defect in Christendome; the Churches of Christ far more generally opposing it then the other way.
• 2. There have bin some general representa­tive conventions, as the Councel of Nice, Ephesus &c. The Pro­testant Churches a great part of this body, met at the Synod of D [...]rt.
• 3. There is nothing intrinsecal to the Church, but that they may meet so stil; the lets are but extrinsecal, viz. division amongst Kings and Countries &c. The deadly enmity or great re [...]teness of the several nations, in which Christians do respectively dwel. Had you but one Independent Congegation in England, another in Spai [...], another in Turky; you could not gather an assembly or Synod of these Churches, though it were never so needful, and though you did much desire it, as being an ordi [...] of God: yea in that [...] [Page 67](suppose you were Presbyterians) you could not have so much as a Class, and yet such a defect you would esteem your affliction not your sin.
• 4. The fault is not so great as you make it:
  • For 1. every Prince and State doth come as neer a general assembly as they can, encouraging the Churches within their territories to combine and be, as it were, one body or Church of Churches.
  • 2. That is su­pream authority to us which is the highest authority we can get pro hic & nunc; we hold that supream Ecclesiastical power may be in a National or in a Provincial Church (if God shut the door of higher appeals, and he by his providence, and not we through our default, do break the line of subordination) yea in a particular Church, which same thing we hold also of supream civil power that in some neces­sary cases it may be exercised in one Assembly, yea in one Family, the same thing might in some cases be said of a Jewish Synagogue when they could not have the benefit of any superior Judicatory.
  • 3. A general Councel hath in this last age been desired and endeavoured by sundry famous Christians, though in vain.
• 5. If there were such a lawful general Councel we should be as willing to submit to their godly decrees as to follow their advise, though the question is not what we would do, but what we should do.

CHAP. X. Of the word (Churches) whether it evince Independency of Congregations.

I Omit some things less pertinent and profitable; as

• 1. That the Eng­lish word Church did anciently signifie the place; for the Saxons, Germanes, Dutch Nations, from whence this word is deriued, do usually cal their temples or meeting places by the name of Cyrick, Kirich, Kerck; and they cal the people the Gemeine and the Ge­meint; as is acknowledged by one of your friends. Guide to Sion, p. 4. Hence our Translators turn the word [...] into Church, Acts 19.37. and our meeting places are properly and truly called Churches.
• 2. That Ecclesia commonly translated Church is not necessarily so translated, but convocation or a people called o [...]; though it may be at least meto [...]mically und [...]ood of the place of [Page 68]ordinary publick worship, as Mr Mede, Mr Fuller, and of late Mr Bifield do interpret 1 Cor. 11. which ought not to be despised, a negative civil reverence being due unto it, as to a Court-house, Senate-house, Parliament-house, &c.
• 3. That the words Ka [...]l and Gnedah do sometimes signifie a dispersed multitude or company that possibly never did nor could meet together: Hence we read of a Church of Nations, Gen. 35.11. Church of evil doers, Psa. 26.5. Church of the dead, Prov. 21.16. Church of the righteous, Ps. 1.5. And the people of Israel, though divided into several Domistied Assemblies to keep the Passover, are called one Church, Exod. 12.46, 47. when I urge and prove, that usually an Assemby or Co [...]cio is all one with Kahal or Ecclesia; and that in this sense there were many Churches amongst the Iews; the Scripture cals them. Church or Congregation often, and sometimes in respect of their several Synagogues, Tribes, and Families, Congregations, Psa. 74.4.8. No wonder therefore if the Christians of one Country, meeting in several. Synagogues and houses, do receive the dom­mination of Churches, which in Scripture-phrase is all one with assemblies, many whereof we confess were in Galatia, Macedo­nia, &c. You reply, p. 26, 27. Psa. 74.4.8. is impertinently a­ledged, for Congregations there is metonymically used, and is all on with Synagogues, and signifies the place and not the people at all; the Congregation was but one, having one high Priest for their chief Pastor, though meeting in its parts in many places; the Church of the Iews is not called Congregations there, as Mollerus shews But suppose there be truth in all that is said, what are all these [...] ­ceptions of the words Kahal and Ecclesia to the purpose? Can you find that ever any one Church is called two or more Churches. For except there can be found such an instance, the ayr is but beat [...] all this while, and our assertion stands immoveable. You cannot shew, as we suppose, that ever any one Church was called Churches in the plural number either in the Old or New Testament in re­ference to plurality of places they met in.

Rejoyn.

• 1. Doubtle [...]s our Translators did understand v. 4. of [...] people (and v. 8. of the place) else why should they translated [...] Congregations and not Synagogues: and that is the primary sign [...] ­cation of the word; and so it is most usually taken in the Old Te­stament, That there were in Davids or in Asaph's time any Syna­gogues or set stated appointed places to use your own wor [...] [...] [Page 69]it is hard to prove, the temple it self being not yet built.
• 2. I have shewed that an Assembly or Concio and a Church are often in Scrip­ture phrase all one, and therefore seeing it cannot be denyed that there were assemblies in several places, it must needs be granted, that there were many Congregations in scriptural and ordinary phrase of speech, though these were indeed but parts of the Jewish Church: and therefore it might be said to be but one congregation, having one high Priest, &c. yet it may be called many congregations be­cause they did meet in several assemblies.
• 3. If it can be shewed that one Church is called Churches in the Old and New Testament, then you grant something is done to purpose for the weakning of the position. Now (besides that the Universal Church is but one and yet called Churches, as hath been shewed) I alledg that the Jewish Church, which you confess was but one, is called Churches, Ps. 26.12. where David promiseth to bless God in the Churches, the Origi­nal being the properest word to signifie Churches, and such as you cannot say is meant of Synagogues or places. Also Psal. 68.26. which was a Psalm sung at the removal of the Ark, Bless ye the Lord in the Churches: viz. In the Church-meetings, in the seve­ral assemblies for the worship of God: Mr Ainsworth himself translateth it Churches, and paralels it with 1 Cor. 14.34. Now to say that David promised and the Israelites were commanded at the removeal of the Ark to bless God in the Churches of the New-Testament, or that those texts are only prophetical, or to [...]ll of Enallage numeri, when the strength of the Argument is in the difference of the number, are strained and far fetcht evasions, and such whereby I might quickly answer you, saying, The Churches of Galatia are spoken figuratively for the Church of Galatia [...]. Thus I have, through the good hand of God helping me, done the task you set me, and by bargain your position should fail.
• 4. If your consciences did not tell you the contrary of what you instance con­cerning my scope and drift (when you say, Is your scope to confound and lose your Reader in the various acceptions of the word Assem­bly or Church, that when they read the word [Church] or [Chur­ches] they shal not know what to under of it); yet my rejoying [...] this, the testimony of my consc [...] [...] [...]d rather extricate my Reader out of di [...]ties that [...], and the true rea­son of all my ted [...] and exp [...] [...] satisfaction and strengthing of God [...] peo [...] [...] GOD, [...] [Page 66] [...] [Page 67] [...] [Page 68] [...] [Page 69] [...] [Page 70]speak (as becometh Saints in the sight of God) are these things no­thing to the purpose, you to prove that there were several Indepen­dent judging Churches in Galatia, and in Macedonia alledg the words Churches of Galatia; I grant there were several assemblies in Galatia and also in Macedonia and in Iudea: The question is whether the texts cited do prove more then I grant; I shewed that the words Kahal and Ecclesia in Scripture (as wel as prophane Authors) signifies Concio or an Assembly, whether orderly or dis­orderly, less or greater, with government in it or no: Whether is be an instituted Church or no, a whole governing Church or but a part of it. Hence though the Jewish Church was but one yet Churches are said to be in it, because there were divers Assemblies in it: Hence (as I proved in my Answer) those that met at such and such a time and place are called the Church, the whole Church, yet they were not (it may be) the half or a third part or the tenth part of the Iewish Church: and hence it followeth what I would infer, that the calling of them Churches of Galatia doth not prove that each of them was an instituted visible Church uncombined is any other in point of government, seeing the Assemblies amongst the Jews were certainly combined in point of government, and yet are called Churches as wel as the Churches of Galatia. It is there­fore clear to me, and I hope to you too, that the word Churches proves no such thing as that they were instituted Independent Churches, though (it may be) other texts do shew that some of them were compleat particular Churches.
• 5. You should not only say but prove that there is no other combination to enjoy all Gospel ordinances but congregational, a position which in the latitude of your words your own authors Mr Cotton, Mr Mather, Mr Tompson, and others wil not own; nor I think your selves, when you have considered wisely of the matter, for Synods are some ordinances, yea Gospel-ordinances too, and a Congregational combination (if there be no other) cannot enable us to partake of those ordinances, as you very wel know.

Sect. 2. You do but think (though you in pag. 28, intimate that you know) that those Churches were only Congregational, 1 Cor. 1.1.2. Cor. 8.1.19. Rev. 1.4. and that they are properly called Churches, and that the word Church in 1 Cor. 12.28. is read in a figurative sense; when I say, that though the beleevers in Galatia were called Churches, yet (for ought you alledg to the contrary) [Page 71]they might be combined one to another, as the Churches of England, Scotland, Holland are respectively combined; for the Apostle speaks of them as one lump, 1 Cor. 5.6. with Gal. 5.9. and wish­eth the anathematizing or excommunicating of him that troubled them. Gal. 1.8, 9. & 5.10, 11. and the restoring with the spirit of meekness (both which I take to be acts of discipline, and Cottons Keyes p. 8, 9. doth so take them) of a faln brother, Gal. 6.1. You thus reply: As for such combination as is in Scotland, Holland without proof 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 but one Church, he would never have called them Churches in the Preface of his Epistle; if one speak in a literal sense and say a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump, doth he thereby make all the dough in a Country 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 Country to be one.

Rejoyn.

• 1. Suppose it were granted that there were no combina­tion for jurisdiction in those Churches, doth it thence follow that such combination never ought to be? If a national assembly of the Churches of Galatia cannot be shewed, wil you thence conclude that therefore there ought to be no national assemblies, and that the present assembly in England and the late assembly in New Eng­land is unlawful, possibly there might have been a special reason why the Churches of Galatia could not be combined, either because they lived too remote or under several civil Magistracies, which would not or could not have entercourse one with another, or the Magistrates being enemies would not suffer such meetings or com­binations or the like peculiar reasons which now binde not.
• 2. I omit your needless cavils you uncandid intimations, and to this which is the solidest part of your Reply I say, Suppose Paul had been alive before the coming of Christ in the flesh, and should have writ to the Churches (a speech used by the Psalmist, as hath been shewed) and the phrase Churches of Indea which were in Christ, 1 Thes. 2.14. Gal. 1.22. seem to imply that even after the time of Christ there were some Churches it Indea which were not in Christ (as I urged in my Answer, though you put it out by [Page 72]and Index expurgatorius,) or suppose he were now alive and should write to the Churches of Holland or of France (as wel he might without deserting the ordinary stile) and one should gather thence, that there were before Christ Independent Churches un­combined in government, or that now every Congregation in France or Holland were Independent and uncombined, your selves would deny the warrantableness of that inference and yet could justifie the propriety of Paul's speech wel enough: If we may call those which we know are combined, by the name of Churches, why might not Paul cal them by the name of Churches though they were combined? So that if you wil maintain that the Chur­ches of Galatia were each of them an Independent judging Church, you must seek out a better argument, for there is nothing in the proof made in the position that infers so much; and this An­swer doth serve for the C [...]urches of Indea and Macedonia as wel as of Galatia.
• 3. There was one special man amongst the false teachers which the Apostle aims at, Gal. 5.10. (Now this m [...]n could not be of every Church of Galatia but of one of the Chur­ches) yet he writes not only, no not so much as principally to that Church of which he was, but to all the Churches of Galatia, and declareth what censure he wisheth might be dispensed (to use Mr Cottons own words Keyes p. 59.) against him and other corr [...] teachers. Now the strength of my Argument is this: Those which are wished to dispense censures against a false teacher or to do any acts of discipline must needs be combined; but the Churches of Galatia are wished to dispense censures against a false teacher and to do acts of discipline, therefore they were combined.
• 4. Let me ask you, as sometimes you ask me,
  • 1. What Commentator before you did explicate the word lump as you do, denying the combinati­on of those Churches?
  • 2. Why it should not be taken distributively in 1 Cor. 5. as wel as here?
  • 3. Do you indeed hold what your exposi­tion imports, that false doctrine doth only leaven and corrupt the lump in which it is, and one particular Congregation and not other Congregations in any case? I should have ended this business, [...] you would tell me of leaving Indea (as you did p. 29. though [...] was but deferred to its proper place, and no text of Scripture [...] produced in the position for it) I alledging therefore that [...] Churches of Indea were so combined, that they did come together, Acts 20.20, 21, 22. to be satisfied of Paul concerning an accusaetion [Page 73]they had received against him, and are called a Church, Gal. 1.13. Acts 12.1. and an house, Heb. 3.6. which title you say is not gi­ven to loose stones and timber, but imports joynting and knitting one to another. You Reply 1. These were not the Iews of Iudea alone that did gather together, but of all other parts Act. 21.27.

Rejoyn. 1. You deal too cunningly, for though the Jews of other parts might be there gathered, yet they are apparently distinguished from the other beleeving Jews which had received the information, of which I spake v. 20, 21. The Iews amongst the Gentiles were they whom Paul was said to teach, and it may be some of those Jews did inform, but the persons informed (you know) were dif­ferent from them both, and could be no other then the beleeving Jews or Churches of Iudea, and yet that they came together to be satisfied of Paul is plain, and that Iames and all the Elders perswa­ded Paul to give them satisfaction. You further Reply p. 31. That the Church Which Paul persecuted and Herod vexed is meant either of that of Ierusalem or of the Saints in general, and not of the Churches of Indea.

Rejoyn. Why not the Churches of Indea, seeing Ierusalem was one of them which you acknowledg he persecuted, and not it only, for they that were scattered abroad durst not stay in Iudea no more then in Ierusalem, Acts 11.19, 20. which implies that his persecution reached all Iudea over, and the Churches of Iudea were within Herods reach, and the ground of his killing Iames and pro­ceeding to take Peter also was because it pleased the Iews: Now it would please the Jews that he should vex any Christian Church a­mongst them in Iudea as wel as the Church of Ierusalem; and Paul also being a Jew his main envy was at the Christians of Iudea? 2. How dare you say Paul persecuted not the Churches of Iudea? Why might not they be persecuted to Damascus which was in Samaria, as wel as the Saints of Ierusalem? Compare Gal. 1.13. with v. 22, 23. Paul saith, I persecuted the Church of God, and the Churches of Judea heard that he that persecuted us (viz. the said Churches of Indea) now preacheth the faith; which makes it clear that the Church of God in one place and Churches of Iudea in the other are the same thing, as I asserted. Finally advertising the Reader, that the Printers error, not mine, putting Heb. 3.4. for 3.6. hath given you some advantage; I conclude, that the title of Churches of Galatia, &c. doth not prove that they were [Page 74]each of them distinct, governing, Independent, uncombined Chur­ches.

CHAP. XI. Whether and how the visible Church must consist of visible Saints.

Sect. 1. THe state of the question is this.

• First it is to be meant of Iews, Heathens, and other strangers to the Church, not of children born within the Church whose parents are Church­members, which are reputed within the Church and baptized as such, though no visible Saint-ship doth or can (they being infants) appear in them, and consequently this is not of much (if of any) concernment to the Reformed Churches of England, Scotland, France. For until it can be proved, that a perfect reformation of the Churches cannot be made without a new constitution, and that Churches may lawfully be gathered out of Churches, the said new constitution is to be judged unnecessary.
• 2. It cannot be denyed that all men are morally bound to be visible Saints, yea real Saints; yea God requireth that armies should be holy, Deut. 13.14. & 23. 9. And the Instance of Achan for relative guilt, is more suitable to the Isralites as a camp, (the passages of it being military not Ecclesiastical) then as a Congregation. Cities should be holy, Isa. 1.21, 26. Isa. 64.10. families should be holy, Psal. 101.2, 7. That is, they ought to be so, it is their duty so to be, and the words in the position nakedly considered import no more: and he that e­rects a family is bound (so far as he may) to erect it of such as fear God. Church-members should much more be visible and real Saints, for a Church-member (quâ such) makes more profession, enjoys more means, is in a neerer relation to God, then a souldier or a Citizen quâ such.
• 3. I grant that some visibility of Saint-ship is requisite to admission, viz. profession of faith and repentance, (especially if men be not sufficiently known, and approved by ex­perience of them, acquaintance with them, or by sufficient testimo­ny of others that are known; or if they have bin known to be Hea­thenish, heretical or wicked) and desire of admission.
• 4. I deny [Page 75]not but all means prescribed by the rule, that the Church may con­sist of visible Saints are to be used: but I question.
  • 1. whether it were better no Church were erected then not of visible Saints, as you assert. p. 31. That is not wholy of visible Saints, for thus I un­derstand you, seeing those Churches from which you gather mem­bers, consist of some if not of many visible Saints.
  • 2. I question also whether God doth not require Heathens and irreligious wick­ed persons to joyn to the Church, as wel as to raise armies, or wage war, erect families, and that their joyning to the Church by pro­fession of faith and repentance; craving the Sacraments is not a sin, no more then raising armies, families &c. Yea it is a greater sin to neglect the one then the other, though indeed their remaining Hea­then is a great abomination, and more odious in Gods sight after their entrance into the Church then after the erection of Cities. But the main question as it is stated by you, p. 33. is, whether a Church should examine persons which come to be admitted, whether the work of grace be wrought in them, or not.
  I hold the negative, and my reasons are.
  • 1. There is no precept for it in the word of God.
  • 2. Nor was every member at his admission into the Church, in the Apostles times called to give account of the work of grace in his heart.
  • Nor. 3. Can any Congregation be named, which was ap­pointed to judg or did actually judg, whether the work of grace was wrought in such an heart or no, and consequently whether he were to be admitted into the Church or no.
  • 4. Nor doth the Scripture prescribe that men should meet together for prayer and mutual con­ference, to be satisfyed of the good estate one of another, and to ap­prove themselves to one anothers consciences in the sight of God, before they can constitute a Church.
  • Nor. 5. Were those three thousands and the Apostles also satisfyed in their consciences of the regeneration of all those they joyned with, as Ananias and Sap­phira; [...]or can we think that they could in one day or had a­ny days before, used the foresaid means of tryall one o [...] another by prayer, conference.
  • Nor. 6. That all that were circumcised and admitted into the Jewish Church, would (upon such examination) have bin found visible Saints.
  • Nor. 7. That Iesus Christ as man, did know those thousands and myriads of Ierusalem, and all Iudea, and all the region round about Iordan, (what one man knows the people of London, of all Midlesex and of all the Country about Thames or Trent) with whom he was baptized, much less can it [Page 76]be proved that Iesus, Iohn Baptist which baptized them, or the disciples of Christ, (which were born and lived amongst them, and knew the great wickedness, and frequent fained confessions and hu­miliations o [...] that people) did esteem each of them a true Saint of God, or that they did examine, and try whether their confession of sin, or profession of faith and repentance was real or but meerly verbal, or that they required them to Walk in Christian fellowship with them some space for tryal and approbation, or that they stayd or deferred to baptize any of them, til they saw their fruits meet for repentance, especially seeing Luke saith, Luc. 3.21. that all the people (which v. 7. he calls Generations of vipers) were bapti­zed: if you cannot prove to the contrary of these things, I pray you acknowledg it if you can do it, hitherto you have not done it.
  • 8. This makes the Churches charity the rule of admission, which is but a leaden rule no certain one, some mens charity being larger, some lesser, yea the same mens charity being larger at sometimes then at others, and more to some men, as those that are of thei [...] opinions, kindred, benefactors &c. Then to others, whence it followeth that men of larger charity, may lawfully admit such, as they that have less charity cannot.
  • 9. This Tenet makes Communion with all the A­postolique Churches, and particularly with the Church of Corinth, unlawful, whereas the Apostle allows the worthy receivers to com­municate in it, 1 Cor. 11. he would have no schism in it, nor se­paration from it, 1 Cor. 12.25. & 11.18.
  • 10. A man that beleeves he should not communicate with any of whom his Conscience is not satisfyed that they are visible Saints, dareth not communicate in any Congregational Church, especially not in a great one; for if cove [...]ous persons, raylers, (two of the very sins mentioned by the Apostle 1. Cor. 5.) or Brownists (whose errors the Apologists call fatal shipwracks, or Schismaticks, (which professedly the Apostle speaks of, 1 Cor. 11.18, 19, 20.) or Hypocrites and false teachers, (which the Scripture saith are of a leavening nature) idle persons, disorderly Walkers. 2. Thes. 3.6, 8, 12. or spiritually proud, cen­sorious, uncharitable persons be unworthy receivers, it is an hard thing to be satisfyed, that in those Churches, especially in the great­er of them, there is none at all of any of these sorts amongst them, no not one.
  • 11. The Scripture compares a Church lawfully consti­tuted to a draw-net, to a wheat field, in which are tares discerned, a cornfloor; and to a City; but as for the comparing of a visible Church, [Page 77]to a garrison town.
    • 1. Is a similitude invented by your selves for your own purpose.
    • 2. You cannot shew so good warrant for your examination, as souldiers have for theirs.
    • 3. It is neither necessary, nor ordinary, that each man that is admitted into a garrison should give satisfaction to all the souldiers therein, that he is a real frend.
  • 12. Mr. Noyes a N. E. man, saith, p. 6. p. 10. Our facility of admitting members must give testimony to the Lords dispensation of grace in the embracing of invisible members. The gates of Ieru­salem do stand open, Rev. 21.25. The Elders of the City of Refuge did not expostulate with such as fled before the avenger of bloud in way of any explicite covenant or exquisite examination, Iosh. 20. Excess of complements, insolemnities, formalities, punctu­alities are unsuitable to the simplicity and spirituality of the Gospel, and also fully forbidden in the 2. Commandment.

Sect. 2. Reply, p. 34. If the Church be not a common receptacle but must consist of selected, then there are certain rules of recep­tion, and rejection, and tryal must be made by some, whether per­sons be so qualifyed according to those rules: and this the light of na­ture, and rule of reason leads to, though there should be nothing in Scripture expresly mentioning it.

Rejoyn.

• 1. When the rule of reason, and light of nature is al­ledged by some for episcopacy, by others more cleerly, necessarily for subordination of Ecclesiastical judicatories, and the remedy of ap­peals, then you decline tryal by those judges, but now you do ap­peal to them.
• 2. Your argument is a meer non-sequitur; The Church is not a common receptacle, there are rules of reception and rejection, a tryal must be by some; therefore the Church must ex­amine all those that come to be admitted, whether the work of grace be wrought in their hearts or no.

For

• 1. The Iewish Church, the Christian Church in the days of the Apostles were not common re­ceptacles; yet they did receive and admit into them (respectively) many, whom they did not examine whether the truth of grace was wrought in their hearts or no.
• 2. The rules of reception and re­jection, are set down in Scripture, but amongst them this rule is not to be found, that the Church must examine &c. If it be, why do you not shew it?
• 3. If some may try persons that come to be admitted, it follows not that the Church must do it.
• 4. If there may be examination of something, it follows not, that it must be of the truth of grace wrought in the heart, and that all are to be reje­cted [Page 78]which cannot give satisfactory arguments thereof.

Sect. 3. Reply, p. 34. It was lawful and commendable in the E­phosians to try false Apostles which professed in words to be true Apostles, Rev. 2.2.

Rejoyn.

• 1. You do here much qualify your tener, signifying you would accept of verbal profession of faith and repentance, if there be any thing which may (though but probably) give witness to the reality thereof.
• 2. That those Apostles did desire member-ship with the Church of Ephesus, and were tryed upon that occasion is not expressed or implyed in the text, but rather they that said they were Apostles did in effect say, that they ought not to be set mem­bers of any Church but had the care of all the Churches.
• 3. This try­all was not of their sanctity or syncerity, but of their doctrine and authority; not whether they had true grace or no, but whether they had the office and doctrine of Apostles or not, which two things differ much. Indas was a true Apostle, and yet the work of grace was not wrought in his heart, and the work of grace is wrought in many that are not Apostles.
• 4. They had commission to examine them, 1 Iohn 4.1. 1 Thes. 5.21. And for this the Bereans were commended, Acts 17.11. And the Elders or the Angel of Ephe­sus were in effect put upon that duty by Paul, Acts 20.29, 30. But you have no such commission for the Church to examine the work of grace, and therefore your practise is not so lawful as theirs.

Sect. 4. The Church of Ierusalem sought satisfaction concer­ning Saul; you wil say there was cause of suspition and jealousy concerning him; and we may say, there is now also cause of jea­lousy, for profession of faith and repentance is common, and the fruits worthy of it, Math. 3.8. are rare.

Rejoyn. Your practise is not so reasonable as the practise of that Church in that case: for.

• 1. There was just ground of personal excep­tion against Saul, and so there is not against every man of whom you doubt, the Apostles might suspect him stil to be a Iew, a perse­cutor, a spy, and that he but assay'd to joyn himself to them to be­tray them: Protestants in Q. Maryes days, and Non-conformists in the Prelates days, (though they held not that they ought to exa­mine each man of the truth of his grace before they admitted them into their society) would have bin afrayd to have admitted known persecuting persons into their private meetings, though they had pretended to be converted, til they had known they had left off [Page 79]their trade of persecution, which the Aposties knew not, that Paul had done til they heard Barnabas his testimony concerning him, which they received without any examination.
• 2. Fruits meet for repentance were ever rare, yet Iohn Baptist did not defer bap­tism til the people brought them forth, nor was he or the disciples of Christ afrayd (notwithstanding they wel knew the rarity of such fruits) to admit thousands at once to baptism, against whom they had no just ground of personal exception, as they had against Saul, and therefore were afraid of him.

Sect. 5. In Answer I alledg, If the Gospel and Christian Religion was brought into England in the Apostles times then it was like it was constituted of Saints, as wel as the Church of Corinth. If we look up­on the latter constitution in Q. Elizabeth's time, many Congregati­ons (Manchester for example) had visible, yea doubtless real Saints which were sufferers all Queen Maries time to be the foundation­nalls thereof. You Reply. p. 35. It is uncertain what Congrega­tion was so constituted, and what not: we neither justify nor condemn the constitution of any, but judg according to their present state; and if we see any visible Saints, (as doubtless there are many in some Congregations, and united also amongst themselves) for the sake of those few so united, we acknowledg them a Church, and in all things so far as they carry the ordinances uncorruptly, desire to have fellowship with them.

Rejoyn.

• 1. It is as certain as any thing built upon humane faith, that God had a faithful people, not only in London, but in Man­chester, and neer to it in Queen Maries days, witness not only tradition, but the letters of Mr. Iohn Bradford and Mr. George Marsh,
• 2. There are also visible Saints stil in it, and those as much united (save that a few Anabaptists, Brownists, and Independents break the union) as the Scripture requires a true Church to be.
• 3. You two shew no willingness of joyning with us so far as the ordi­nances are carried uncorruptly; for you hold that without such cor­ruption the godly amongst us may be admitted to your Sacraments, and yet you deny to do it, we bless God we need not to it.
• 4. It is a fond thing that you should urge your humane inventions, as a means to carry Gods ordinances uncorruptly.

Sect. 6. You say, Reply. p. 35. 1 Cor. 1.1.2. Shews either what the members of the Church of Corinth were at first or ought to have bin, or what some of them were at that time, and ought [Page 80]to have bin, viz. sanctifyed in Christ &c. As Hemingius, Gualter, Pareus do note, and say that a definition of the Church may thence be fetched.

Rejoyn.

• 1. Though this text doth indeed shew what some of them were, and all ought in duty to have bin; yet your selves dare not assert, either that it proves that the Church of Corinth was consti­tuted wholly of v [...]sible Saints. or.
• 2. That then when Paul writ, it consisted wholly (if mostly) of visible Saints: were all the car­nal Schismaticks. 1 Cor. 3.1, 2. The Incestuous person, and they that were puffed up and gloryed. 1 Cor. 5.1, 2. The Contentious persons, Fornicators, Idolaters, Drunken Communicants, deny­ers of the Resurrection, spoken of 1 Cor. and 6.10, 11, 15. chapters. the false teachers, despisers of Paul, impenitent persons mentioned Epist. 2. Chap. 10, 11, 12. visible Saints? you know they were not. or.
• 3. That the Church of Corinth did, or ought to have examined all she admitted, whether true grace was wrought in their heart or no: or.
• 4. That the Church of Corinth had better bin no Church then not constituted of Saints. or.
• 5. That it is necessary that a Church should be constituted of visible Saints, or else sin is committed. I conceive none of those Divines can hence conclude any of the fore­said things by me denyed, nor can they rightly gather the definition of a visible Church from these words, taking Saints in the same sense that you do: for then if a Church should not consist of visible Saints, then it wanteth the definition and consequently the being of a Church. Surely none of them did judg the way of Independency to be the Scriptural way, as you would pretend to the Reader they did, at least in this point.

Sect. 7. Reply. p. 35.1. The end of Church-fellowship is not conversion but edification, Ephes. 4.11, 12. Acts 9.31. For if it were, all unconverted ones, whether they make profession of faith and repentance or no, may enter in.

Rejoyn.

• 1. Conversion is as much the end of Church-fellowship in the time of the Gospel, as in the time of the law, when all the lews and their seed (though not all visible Saints) were within the Church, conversion to the Iewish Religion was not the end of Church-membership then, not conversion to Christianity now, but conversion to true sanctity might then and now be one end of Church-membership:
• 2. Your texts say that God hath given A­postles, Evangelists, Pastors and teachers for the edifying of the [Page 81]body of Christ; and then were the Churches edified, and walking in the fear of God were multiplied. Hence you conclude, not only that edification is the end (which indeed the Text imports) but also that conversion is not the end of Church-fellowship: The weakness of which inference doth thus appear:
  • 1. The Apostle saith not that edification is the only end, or that conversion is not one end of Church-membership.
  • 2. The Apostles, of whom Paul speaks as wel as of Pastors, are acknowledged by your selves to be sent not for edification but for conuersion, though that Text (by your exposition) would as wel prove that their mission, as the mission of Pastors, was not for conversion contrary to Math. 28. 19, 20. Acts 26.18.
  • 3. The word which we translate edifying is building, and in common phrase signifies as wel the rearing of a new house, as the repairing, strengthning, and amending of an old house. And yet
  • 4. there can be no repairing of an old house without some addition of new materials, not can it be conceived how the Church, a collective dying body, can be built or preserved without conversion of souls.
  • 5. To be builded, in Scripture-phrase is to have children, Gen. 16.2. & 30.3. So Sarah and Rachel are said to be builded: See Ainsworth in Gen. 16. And God made the midwives houses, Exod. 1.21. that is, gave them children; and so Pastors are given to build the Church, viz. to beget children; hence they are said to plant also, Jer. 1.10. Persons converted are the joy and crown of their Pastors, and an argument of their mission from God.
  • 6. Acts 9.31. saith, the Churches were multiplied [...] which cometh of the word [...] of [...] : Now how, I pray you, could they be multiplied without conversion of some new souls?
  • 7. One of your texts sheweth the end of giving Apostles, Pastors, Teachers; of which we have spoken before. The other shews the fruit of the Churches, rest and peace, but neither of them doth (at least not directly and plainly) tell the end of Church-fellowship.
• 3. As for the entrance of unconverted ones and persons not professing saith and repentance into the Church; I answer,
  • 1. In­fants do enter into the Church though they neither profess faith nor repentance; and these must either be converted in the Church or not at all.
  • 2. Though conversion be one end of Church-member­ship, yet it follows not that Jews, Turks, Pagans may enter, be­cause a profession of Christianity is required by Gods law before admission, and so much care as God prescribes, ought to be taken.
  • [Page 82]3. Though one end of conversion be hearing, yet if God have seclu­ded excommunicate persons from hearing (as I conceive he hath (Excommunication being vltimum remedium) then he must not be admitted to the Word: So though one end of Church-fellow­ship be conversion to true sanctity, yet none but they that are con­verted to the profession of Christianity can partake in it, and so Turks and Jews are excluded.

Sect. 8. Reply p. 36, Excommunication is to recover persons desperately sick and ready to dye, 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 Church-members are to be reputed in the judgement of charity living stones, 1 Pet. 2.5.

Rejoynd.

• 1. Excommunication and Physick are not alike in point of the life of the object, for no man gives physick to one whom he knows to be dead; but though one spiritually alive be­ing scandalous or erroneous may be excommunicated, yet the more certainly (yea suppose infallibly) a man is known to be spi­ritually dead, the more liable and fit he is to be excommunicated; for Excommunication looks upon a man as sinful and erroneous, yea as incurably such, & therefore to be cut off, —Immedicabile vulnus ense recidendum, ne pars syncera. trabatur, Math. 18.15, 16. Tit. 3.10. that the other members be not leavened or corrupted by it. And yet
• 2. one end of Excommunication may be the saving of the soul of the excommunicate, and yet not suppose him to be already in the state of grace; for as a known unconverted man may be ad­monished (if not apparently and obstinately wicked) and when God sets in with the admonition we gain our brother and he is converted, and his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus; so if God set in with the Excommunication he may be gained by it, though before he was not gained.
• 3. The Apostle supposeth not the in­cestuous person to be alive, but to be a wicked person and spiritually dead, 1 Cor. 5.12. and yet would have him cast out.
• 4. In the Churches of Asia and Galatia were some that were bewitched, Gal. 3.1. and turned to another Gospel, Gal. 1.6. and counted Paul their enemy for telling them the truth, Gal. 4.16. And some that were of the Synagogue of Sathan, Nicolaitans, Balaamites, Jeze­belians, many that had defiled their gariments, viz. were visibly wicked, that were luke-warm, neither hot nor cold, Rev. c 2. & c. 3. Therefore Peter writing to the strangers scattered through Pautus, [Page 83]Asia, Galatia, &c. could not repute them all in the judgment of charity living stones or visible Saints, but this denomination is given a meliori parte, as if a man should call a Parliament godly, wise, faith­ful Senators, he is to be understood that the better part of them are such, but not that all of them are such, no not in the judgment of charity.

Sect. 9. Reply p. 36. If Excommunication be an ordinance to throw forth visible sinners, both all scandalous sinners 1 Cor. 5. and all other which will not be healed of their lesser faults being duly proceeded against, Math. 18.15, 16.

Rejoyn.

• 1. I doubt whether every one that is not healed of lesser sins after due admonitions be to be excommunicated. Suppose of passionate speaking, of vain merriment, &c. if he be not otherwise blameable. The censure of excommunication in Scripture is read to pass for grosser crimes, but no example of passing it for lesser faults, we complained of this very thing in the Prelates. Beza affirms Math. 18. to be meant of private scandals which differ only from publick scandals, that the one is less known then the other; we must not (saith Doctor Sibbs) kil a fly on a mans forehead with a beetle: If every one that is not healed of every sin must be procee­ded against so far as to excommunicate him; the purest Churches would have nothing to do but excommunicate one another.
• 2. Sup­pose they were to be cast out; can you shew as good warrant to keep such out, before due course of admonition, as to cast them out when you perceive that admonitions and other due proceedings wil not work upon them?
• 3. Suppose you had good warrant to cast out all such, you cannot hence infer, that all that are not visible Saints are to be kept out nor cast out; for there are thousands that are not scandalous, and it may be (if they were admonished) of their lesser faults would strive to amend them; (Herod did many things after John Baptist) which yet you would not put in the Calender of Saints, especially if you should examine them of the work of grace in their heart: Sometimes the thing is in medio, and we are neither satisfied that this man is a Saint, nor dare we censure him to be a sinner: Can you shew that the Church ought to exa­mine her members (yea those of which she hath no just ground of personal suspition) whether they have committed any sin that de­serves casting out? Then we wil grant she may examine such be­fore she take them in: Or could you shew that Non-regeneration [Page 84]or the Churches not being satisfied of their visible Saint-ship (she possibly seeing more into them then she did at her admission of them) is a just cause of excommunication, though they be neither gross offendors, nor in foro Ecclesiastico obstinate in their lesser faults, then you speak somewhat to the purpose: But if this could be shewed, then the Apostle needed not to give us a catalogue of divers sorts of sinners with whom we must not eat, 1 Cor. 5. for he might have given us a shorter and readier rule, saying, you shal nos eat with any, of whose regeneration you are not satisfied, or that are not in your judgments, Saints.

Sect. 10. When I say he writes to the Church called to be Saints or called Saints, not to 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. You Reply p. 36. Can there be a Church before there were Saints? What a Church was that which had no visible Saints in it when it was first constituted?

Rejoyn. Why do you oppose an inference which I professed I would not maintain?

• the Reader certainly would have discerned the impertinency of this your Reply, if you had not in your book left out that Passage of mine.
• 2. That which I said, is undeniable, that the words [Church called to be Saints] doth in the grammatical constru­ction (rather of the two) conclude that they were a church before they were called to be Saints, then that they were Saints before they were called to be a Church: as if I should write to Mr E. called to be a Pastor, it were more rational to conclude that Mr E. was a man before he was a Pastor, then that he was a Pastor before he was a man.
• 3. Any company or assembly called together by com­mand to hear some laws and speeches whether they obey them or no, are called Ecclesia or Concio, but be it as absurd as you can make it to say; there was a Church which had no visible Saints in it, much more absurd is the other Position that they were Saints before they were a Church, considering it as an inference from this Text, whatsoever it is in it self.
• 4. [...] may be read called to be holy, which is in Scripture a word of greater latitude then Saint­ship in English; so little children are said to be holy 1 Cor. 7.14. by a faederal holiness which cannot be called Saints or Sainted. [Page 85]The Papists invented this substantive Saints which the Scripture useth always as an adjective (though possibly sometimes the sub­stantive is not expressed, of which also instance may be given in other adjectives) and from them we borrow the word.
• 5. There is no more here ascribed to the Corinthian Church then is oft ascribed to the Jewish Church by the Holy Ghost, as holiness, Deut. 7.6. Deut. 33.2, 3. Psa. 79.2. and their Church is said to be a Church of Saints, Psa. 89.5.7. Psa. 149.1. and their seed holy, Ezra 9.2. so that in this there is not the least difference between Christians and Jews, save that the Jewish Church was called holy and a Church of Saints in the first place, and Christian Churches in the second, Exod. 19.5, 6. with 1 Pet. 2.9. Psa. 89.5, 7. So that it may as wel be concluded that every member of the Jewish Church was or ought to be a visible Saint, or else sin was committed in it, and better not to have been a Church at all then not to have consisted of visible Saints, and that the Saints should have been separated into a distinct Church from the rest, that the Church of the Jews did or ought to have ex­amined persons coming to be admitted, whether the work of grace was wrought in their hearts or no, and did or ought to have reje­cted all those of whose sincerity and sanctity she was not satified, as these things can be said of the Christian Church.

Sect. 11. When I say, How appears it that all the honourable titles and epithites given by Paul are given with relation to Church-member ship? The Corinthians were curiched by God in all utterance and all knowledg, and did come behind in no gift, &c. So when other Saints are called beloved of God, elect, blessed, &c. 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. Reply. There are some names, which shew the intrinsecal nature of the things to which they are given, and they do agree to all of that kind: so [souldier] shews the intrinsecal nature of an ar­my, and [Saint] of the Church of God, but there are names ex­trinsecal to, and separable from the nature of the things, and may be in some not in other, such are the Epithites enriched with wise­dome, utterance &c. As if one should write to the army of such an one enriched with gold and silver.

Rejoyn. 1. You have a pretty distinction and similitude here, yet they are faulty, for.

• 1. You beg the question and presume that to be true, which you should prove so to be; for the very question is, [Page 86]whether Saint-ship, satisfactory to the Church is of the Intrinsecal nature of a Church-member, and agrees to all Church-members, and is inseparable from them; so that whosoever hath not given satisfaction to the Church of his Saint-ship, or is not a Saint in the Churches judgment, cannot be a Church-member.
• 2. You know that if a man be inlisted in an army, he is a member of it, though he was not examined of his souldier ship before his inlisting; yea though he was known not to be a souldier before, and is yet but in trayning, exercising, and learning souldiery. If you mean that Church-members are called to be Saints only in such a sense, as such a man is called to be souldier, you come short of the questi­on.
• 3. The Iewish and Christian Churches are compared to an ar­my in the books of Canticles, and Revelation, but neither the Jewish nor the then Christian Church did pretend to consist all of Saints, nor was this doctrine known, at least not practised til sepa­rated. Churches were erected by Brown, Barrow &c.
• 4. As con­cerning the names Elect, blessed, beloved of God &c. The sum of what you answered, p. 42. I take to be this. That some of those to whom the Apostle writes, might by him be infallibly known to be elect, beloved of God &c. But all of them were judged such by Paul in the judgment of charity, which latter you prove by Phil. 1.7. But the thing is evidently false, even in that very instance you bring to prove it true, for the Apostle did not account all the Philippians to be Saints, for he expresly saith, Phil. 3.18, 19. that some were enemies to the Cross of Christ, and your selves tel us, p. 76. That there might be dogs in the Apostolique Churches, and alledg Phil. 3.2. which is as much as to say, there were dogs in the Church of Philippi, and Paul knew it when he writ this Epistle, how then could he in the judgment of charity account them all to be Saints? So that of necessity you must acknowledg, that these titles, Saints, sanctifyed, elect, beloved of God, faithful, were only in truth appli­cable to a party in the Apostles judgment; I demonstrate it thus, If in those very Epistles which he writes to Churches by the name of Saints, faithful &c. He brand some of those he writes to, to be wicked, Impenitent dogs &c. Then he doth not, cannot, without contradicting himself, count all in those Churches to be Saints; but the first is true; therefore he did not, could not account them all vi­sible Saints. And if this text do not prove that in the judgment of Paul the Corinthians were Saints when he writ this Epistle, then [Page 87]much less doth it prove that they were visible Saints at the first constitution of the Church, or that it was necessary they should be such, or that they were better no Church then not so constituted, or that the Church then did or ought to examine whether men in­tending or desiting member-ship, had the work of grace wrought in their hearts or no, which is the practise you did undertake to justify.

CHAP. XII. Of a Church Covenant.

Sect. 1 YOu say. Reply. p. 37. That the combination of Saints into one body by some kind of covenant, either express or implicite, or by some kind of special bond, doth make a true Church. The Shechemites Gen. 34.15, 16. could not become one with the seed of Iacob, but by comming into the same Covenant.

Rejoyn.

• 1. Surely you understand this of adulti, persons of age, not of infants; for that infants born in the Church (suppose an In­dependent Church) give any consent to their being or baptizing in that Church, it cannot be sayd.
• 2. You hold (I suppose) that those infants, whose parents did voluntarily combine into a Church and are fit matter for a Church, and have continued from their child-hood in the fellowship of that Church, need not any new a­greement or covenant to make them of that Church.
• 3. You deny not (it seems) that there is an implicite covenant, (they are your own words) though some have no less fondly then confidently carped at the expression, as implying a contradiction, but now the case is altered, your selves do use it:
• 4. This implicite covenant or consent implyed in actions is in our Congregations, for amongst us (Christians that dwel in a vicinity or neighborhood, as hath bin shewed Chap. 2. that they ought) are one Congregation, they choose or submit unto, and maintain the same individual officers, as Iohn, Thomas; frequent the same numerical meeting places, Sa­craments, and other ordinances, and so are distinguished from o­ther Congregations of Christians dwelling in other vicinityes, sub­mitting to and maintaining other officers, as Andrew, Thomas &c. Paul and Barnabas, assembling a whole year with the Church at [Page 88]Antioch, (though they did not covenant themselves into it) are sayd to be within that Church, Acts 11.26. cum. cap. 13.1. And therefore if implicite covenant, agreement, or combination doth make a true Church, we are not deficient therein.
• 5. As for that of the Sichemites being one people, (that is to say) one Church, or one people to God, as elsewhere you phrase it. I conceive that Si­meon and Levi did not pretend them to be one Church, neither would this have bin an acceptable motion to an Heathenish Ido­latrous people, nor would Circumcision alone have effected it, (E­domites and others were Circumcised, and yet were not of the Jew­ish Church) except they had renounced their idols, and become Proselytes. 2. I conceive the poor Sichemites had no thoughts of altering their Religion for a wife, nor would the men of the City (in all probability) have so unanimously consented to it, they might look upon Circumcision as a national rite, and by being one people they do interpret themselves to mean of a civil union, viz. dwelling, trading, marrying one with another, enjoying the cattel and sub­stance one of another, Gen. 34.21. Of any overture or pretence of Simeon and Levi, or any desire or hope that the Sichem tes had, that they should be one Church, one people to God, partakers of the same Sacrifices and ceremonies, there is no mention; I conceive therefore it is but your gloss; what covenant is involued in Circum­cision, we shal shew hereafter.

Sect. 2. Reply. p. 38. Relation and combination to domestick ends and purposes is the form of a family; unto politick and civil ends is the form of a Common-wealth &c. And so relation, and combination of so many Saints as may wel meet in one place, unto the enjoyment of Church-ordinances doth make a Church.

Rejoyn.

• 1. Do you not mean that this agreement, or covenant is only of them that are sui juris? must every member of the Com­mon-wealth, as mean men, servants, women, children, per se, at least implicitly, consent to their relation or combination in the Common-wealth, and every particular member of a City and family also, or he else is not to be judged one in that Common-wealth, City or fa­mily; and do you hold the same of Church-relation?
• 2. Do you mean that this covenant is not only between inferiors, and superi­ors, but between equals, viz. that all the subjects of the Common-wealth must agree together to be one, all the children and servants in a family should agree to be one, all the wives of David and all [Page 89]the wives of Solomon did agree to be one; and not only that there is an agrrement between Magistrates and subjects, Masters and servants, (as we acknowledg also between Ministers and peo­ple) but that there must be agreement, or covenant of the wives amongst themselves, the servants amongst themselves, the subjects amongst themselves, and that this is the form of a family, or of a Common-wealth; and so consequently Christians agreement to be a Church is (you say) the form of a Church.
• 3. Do you mean that any former agreement or covenant, made by our parents unto Domestique, Politique, or Ecclesiastique ends and purposes doth not bind us, their children and successors; but notwithstanding the same we (without a particular and personal consent) are not of the same family, City, Common-wealth, or Church that they were of. I pray you express your selves plainly.

Sect. 3. Reply. p. 38. A solemn express, and verbal covenant or agreement, we assert necessary to the purity and strength of a Church, how should Saints and they alone living promiscuously in the world have communion together without express verbal con­sent, which yet we judg ought to be, if the rule be wel attended, Rev. 22.27. & 22.14. And how else such loosness as in our Parssh Chur­ches (from which we may remove into another Parish without rendring a reason, the members in a natural body, the stones in an house are not so loosly set, to which a particular Church is com­pared Eph. 2.22. 1 Cor. 12.27.) may be prevented, therefore we conceive a covenant necessary for such purposes.

Rejoyn.

• 1. You assert here more then I can yeeld unto, For. 1. The Scripture gives us no precept or president of such a solemn ex­press and verbal covenant, which you assert necessary to the strength and wel-being of the Church: For.
  • 1. Church-covenant hath reference to Church-state, and Church-duties as such; as marriage hath to conjugal duties as such, Apol. for Church Cov. p. 3. & 25. This doth distinguish it from the covenant of grace, and other covenants which have no more reference to those duties, (if so much) as to other duties.
  • 2. Your Church-covenant binds men to walk in all the ordinances of God, which in the known sense of your Church, expressed by your confession of faith, and by your practise, is no other then to walk in the congregational or Indepen­dent way, now no Scripture doth require that men should covenant to walk in that way.
  • 3. Your Church-covenant is not only with [Page 90] God, but with a particular Congregation, which doth difference it from all those covenants that are made with God only, and not with any Church.
  • 4. Your covenant is publike, vocal, express, and this doth distinguish it from all those agreements that are only implyed in actions; as one that dwels in Manchester joyns in choos­ing and submitting to the Constables and other officers, payes lays and taxes, assists officers, and bears office if required, doth tacitely agree that he is a Manchester man, and yet we do not say he hath entered into covenant, or that none can be a Manchester man but by covenant.
  • 5. Your solemn covenant is before the choosing of officers, which distinguisheth it from al such covenants as are made by a Church having officers.
  • 6. It binds men not to depart without leave-asking, which though it be no ordinance of God, but a politique invention; yet it doth infringe much the liberties of the Church. members, w^th els in some cases might lawfully depart without leave. asking.
  • 7. If a man cannot in Conscience consent to your cove­nant, he shal be secluded from the Sacrament though he be never so fit and holy.
  • 8. Your covenant doth translate men and remove men out of our Churches into yours, and makes them members of a di­stinct Church, whereas Scripture-covenants at the most did but confirm (if so much) men in their Church-state; If you can shew such a Church-covenant as this in Scripture, or that hath all the essentials of your Church-covenant, then I shal incline to beleeve it, (not only lawful but) necessary to the Churches welbeing, but I cannot beleeve any thing to be necessary to the strength and purity of the Church, if it cannot be found in Scripture: some have sayd, If set formes of prayer had bin lawful, Christ would have prescribed them: I may much rather say, if this Church-covenant were so necessary, Christ would have prescribed it.
• 2. Any seperation or division that is of God may be brought about without our own inventions. The Christians did seperate them­themselves from amongst the Iews and Heathens, and the Pro­testants in Queen Maries days from the Papists, and yet without any such vocal express covenant that we read of.
• 3. If such loo [...]ness in our Parish-Churches be so great an evil, then take you heed you be not guilty of that great evil by making that loosness greater then it is, or by Gods law ought to be; Is it a greater evil for men that remove their habitation, then for those that do not remove it all, to depart from their Parish-Church with­out [Page 91]rendering a reason?
  • Is it not a greater evil to add to the com­mandments of God our own carnal and politick devices, and to lay a yoke or covenant on our people which God hath not layd on them for preventing of some inconveniences which Gods law doth not enable us to prevent?
  • 2. If there be any local bounds (as by Scripture rules hath been shewed there ought to be) that inconve­nience must necessarily happen, but to this I have spoken before Chap. 2.
  • 3. The place in Eph. 2.22. is apparently not meant of a particular Congregation but of the universal Church which is called the City, the Houshold, the Temple, and all the Christians of the particular Church of Ephesus were not the whole City but [...] fellow-citizens with the Saints, not the whole houshold but of the houshold, not all the temple or building but [...] are built together with other Saints and Churches, which also are part of the City, Temple, Houshold, building as wel as they.
  • 4. in Cor. 12.27. when he had said ye are the body of Christ, he cor­rects himself [...] as if he should say, ye are not the whole body, but members in part of that body, and others are part of that body as wel as you, for into it both Jews and Gentiles are baptized, v. 13. viz. into the universal Church, and in this sense these Scrip­tures do not serve your purpose; and therefore you say (but not rightly) that a particular Church is there compared to a body and an house.
  • 5. Your selves, I know, hold not that Church-membership is as in dissolvable, as the members of a natural body are one from an­other, which are not separated without ruine of the part separating if not of the whole body, nor can that member be willingly separa­ted from its body or joyned (with any good effect) to another body.

CHAP. XIII. Whether Deut. 29. or Gen. 17. be presidents of a Church-Covenant.

Sect. 1. THe Covenant in Deut. 29.1.10, 11, 12. respects Reply p. 39. principally Church-duties more then other duties of the moral law, v. 16, 17, 18. for he warns them of Heathenish wor­ships, [Page 92]and would engage them by an holy Covenant to all Gods holy worships of the Passover, and all the offerings of Gods prescription, which were to be brought to the door of the Tabernacle of the Con­gregation, —though a Covenant binding to some duties of the moral law may be made by two or three persons of several Chur­ches, and yet not make them members of a distinct Church; yet if they Covenant to walk together in the constant enjoyment of all Church-ordinances, this would change their state and make them a Church.

Rejoyn. 1. Those verses contain in them Moses admonition and exhortation to the people, v. 10. Ye stand this day all of you before the Lord your God — v. 12. that thou should'st enter into Covenant with the Lord thy God and into his oath which he maketh with thee this day, &c. that they should not serve the gods of Aegypt or of other Nations, least there should be amongst them man, or woman, or family, or tribe, whose heart turneth away from God; but there is not the least mention of Passover or other Church-duties which you say that Covenant did engage them to; and therefore it doth not appear by those verses that the Covenant more principally re­spects Church-duties more then other duties of the moral law; some part of the moral law is mentioned and interpreted, viz. the first Commandment, but nothing spoken of Church-membership; Every particular servant of God ought to take heed of Heathenish wor­ships which is there required, and not a Church only. I appeal to you, may not, ought not, every man, woman, family, or tribe (to use the words of v. 18.) make a Covenant with God that he, she or they wil not turn away from the Lord to go and serve the gods of the nations, as Jacob covenanted for himself, Gen. 28.21. and Ruth cap. 1.16. and Joshuah for himself and his house, Josh. 24.15? May not any two or three amongst us covenant that they wil keep the first Commandment, which in this text is paraphrased on, Thou shalt have no other Gods before me, viz. not the abominations of Aegypt nor their idols, v. 17. of some duties sealing their union and communion with the body of the Jewish Church and celebrated when the whole body was assembled, I find mention in your book, but not in the book of God in the place cited. 3. Suppose it true that persons covenanting to walk together in all Church-ordinances which God requires of a Church would make them a Church and change their state, yet it is not to the point, for the question is, [Page 93]whether two or three of several Christian Churches, covenanting in the very words of v. 16, 17, 18. on which you build, That their hearts should not turn away from the Lord their God to go to serve other gods, or that they would not serve or worship images; would this make them one Church together? And if it do not, how can you say this was a Church-Covenant? 4. This was not an express vocal Covenant on the peoples part, which you are to prove necessary to the wel-being of the Church; for it was made with them that were absent as wel as with them that were present; now they that were absent, however they were included, did not, could not (if they that were present did) make a solemn express verbal Covenant: Mr Cottons opinion you shal hear here­after.

Sect. 2. When I answer that a Covenant in general doth not make a Church (nor a marriage) and that Scripture-Covenants are not with appropriation and application to this Pastor or people, viz. that they would serve with this people or Pastor rather then with that, therefore they are not Church-Covenants. You reply page. 40. Who ever read or heard of a Covenant in general of duties to be done without application to persons mutually engaged to perform such duties? The Covenants in Scripture were no such Co­venants, they were applied to Israel and to the Gentiles that should joyn to Israel, and so they were a separated people from other nations by Covenant, Exod. 12.47, 48. The Jews by the Covenant of God were to serve God rather with this people then with that.

Rejoyn.

• 1. You ask who hath read or heard. I answer Mr E. and Mr T. have I suppose read the N. E. Elders apology for Church-covenant, out of which that phrase, and most part of the sentence is taken. why do you quarrel with me, or rather with the Elders of N. E. beating them on my back.
• 2. Your selves wil say, A cove­nant to serve God, to endeavor after the enjoyment of all Gods or­dinances, A covenant to perform Church-duties, is not a Church-covenant except they covenant to enjoy Gods ordinances, and per­form Church-duties together: a man promiseth to marry, a wo­man promiseth to marry, this doth not make them many and wife, except they promise to marry one another, and do so; Surely you do not think these expressions ridiculous.
• 3. I speak (as you might discern by my phrase) of the Churches and people of the new testament not of the old, and so did the Elders of N. E. for they speak of distin­guishing [Page 94]one Church from another, a speech proper to the new testa­ment.
• 4. Suppose there had bin before Christ some other Church which had worshipped God as purely, and enjoyed God as fully as the Jewish Church did; would such a covenant as this you speak of Deut. 29. have bound all that took it to be of the Iewish Church, and not of the other? I think you wil not say it, I dare say you can­not prove it:
• 5. However we yet want a solemn verbal express covenant by which the Jews and Gentiles converted bound them­selves to be all of one Church, though they were one Church, and did not want any thing necessary to the strength and purity of the Church: for Mr. Cotton himself saith that God propoundeth and giveth a covenant to a people, and they accept it, though not in express words, yet in silent consent, and he cites, Gen. 17.7. Deut. 29, 10. ad fin [...]m. Cap. 30. Way of the Churches. p. 3.

Sect. 3. Reply. p. 40. There is a covenant between Pastor and people, but it groweth out of the covenant amongst the people, who must first be one before they can agree in one to choose a Pastor; There was a covenant with Abraham and his house, by vertue of which Israel was the Lords people in Aegypt, before there were Pa­stors over them; and it was so in the wilderness before Aron and his sonnes were chosen.

Rejoyn.

• My speech was dis-junctive, if a Church-covenant imply appropriation, either to this or that people, or to this or that Pa­stor, or both, the speech is true.
• 2. That the covenant between Pastor and people is emergent from a covenant amongst the people is gratis dictum, and so stands, til you shew a people covenanting to be a Church together before they had officers.
• 3. That Israel was the Lords people before they had any Pastors over them, is a gross untruth. The first born (until Aaron and the sonnes of Levi were separated for that work, were unquestionably Priests and Pa­stors) yea Adam was a Priest to himself and family, and therefore it is said that Cain brought of the fruits of the ground, viz. he brought to his father that he might offer it to the Lord, so both an­cient and modern Interpreters do expound it, and they had Priests before the giving of the law, which questionless came with them out of Aegypt, Ainsworth in Exod, 19.22. and those young men, Gen. 24.5. are interpreted to be the first born of the several fa­milies, and these continued til the Levites were substituted in their places.

Sect. 4. Reply. p. 40. To be one people to God in a professed so­lemn way by entering covenant with God, and to be a Church is all one; and this is asserted, Deut, 29.12.13.

Rejoyn. Neither the text, Deut. 29.11.12. nor my answer had the words [one people] in them, but [a people] you force in the word [one] that you may have some pretence for a covenant. The Scripture shews us not that a people, or a people of God is equiva­lent to one people. 2. England, Scotland, and Ireland, are or may be the Lords people in a professed solemn way by entering into co­venant with God; wil you hence conclude that they thereby are all made one Church? God foretels that many nations shal be joyned to the Lord, and be his people, Zach. 2.11. The Christian Gentiles are called Gods people, and that by covenant. Hose. 2.23. The Jews scattered in Pout us, Asia, Cappadocia, and Bithinia are called a poculiar people. 1 Peter 2.9. And therefore by your logick they are all one Church.

Sect. 5. Reply. p. 41. To prove there was a covenant at the founding of the Iewish Church, and so of Christian Churches, you urge, That all the Proselyted Gentiles entered into the Church by the seal of the covenant which was Circumcision, and converted Heathens, and the infants of Church-members are brought into the Church by baptism, which is the seal of the covenant of grace, and especially of that part of it which concerns Church society.

Rejoyn.

• 1. You know my meaning was not that there was no covenant at all, but that there was Church-covenant, no solemn express verbal covenant which you assert to be necessary to the strength and purity of the Church. The Jewish Church (qua Church if not qua Jewish) was founded first in Adams family, then again in Noahs; (hence your selves argue from their families that 7 or 8 may make a Church, so it continued in Shems family, (who (as some most probably think) was M [...]l [...]his [...]d [...]ck, who be­ing a Priest must needs be within the Church, and yet all this while you have no colour for a Church-covenant.
• 2. If the bringing in of converted Heathens, and the infants of Church members into the Christian Church by baptism, (of Circumcision we shal speak after­ward) be a sufficient evidence that the Church is founded by cove­nant, then the Reformed Churches are founded in covenant as wel as yours, yea as wel as the Primitive Apostolick Churches, for the same argument you bring why they were founded in covenant suits fits [Page 96]all the Churches (for ought I know) Gentiles converted and in­fants of Church-members being brought into them all by baptism, and consequently, they that forsake the Reformed Churches, are (coeteris paribus) covenant-breakers, as wel as they which for­sake your Churches.
• 3. That Congregational society is a part and a principal part of the covenant of grace, I understand not. For if it were so, then.
  • 1. It would follow that Adam and Eve While alone til they were so many as would make a Church, were not wholly partakers of the covenant of grace.
  • 2. That a true beleever excom­municated (though for the name of Christ) is deprived in part of the covenant of grace. Yea that every one that is not a Church-mem­ber wants a part of the covenant of grace, and a principal part too.
• 4. Nor do I beleeve Paptism to be a seal of Congregational com­munion principally: Because
  • 1. The Apostles (as you say p. 56.) might baptize in all the world, and not only in the Church.
  • 2. Paul himself was baptized before he did assay [...] to joyn himself to the Disciples.
  • 3. You cannot shew of what Congregati­on all those that were baptized by John Baptist, by the Disciples of Christ were, or that they were of any, and if they were of none, then the seal of Baptism in reference to a principal part of the Co­venant of grace was set to a blank.
  • 4. Baptism doth admit us into that one body consisting of Jews and Gentiles, 1 Cor. 12.13. else if Baptism do admit only into one Congregation, then a person so baptized is an alien to other Congregations, as he that is a member only of one Corporation is a stranger to all the rest.
  • 5. Whereas you ask, how those that are many become one amongst themselves, and distinct from others of the same kind, as Corinth was one in it self and distinct from Cenchrea (for parish bounds were not then on foot) so that the members and officers of one were not the members and officers of another, what can it be but some agreement or cove­nant explicite or implicite? I answer the same way of uniting and distinguishing Congregations and Churches which the Scripture holds out to be practised in the primitive times cannot be denyed to be sufficient now a days, partly by local bounds and limits, and partly by an implicite Covenant (which here you confess to be sufficient) or an agreement implyed in actions, submitting to the same officers, frequenting the same Sacraments, &c. of which we have spoken more Chap. 2.
  • 6. Whereas you demand p. 41. Did not the joyning of the beleeving Gentiles to the family of Abraham by circumcision [Page 97]make them more truly members of the Church then they were be­fore? Were they not afterwards accounted of the Jewish common­wealth and invested into all their spiritual privileages which they had no right unto before, though they were converted persons and Gods servants.

Rejoyn.

• 1. That Passage of mine [their Covenants did not make a Church more truly a Church, or more truly members] had appa­rent reference to the Covenant in Deut. 29. pretended to be a Church-covenant, the beleeving Gentiles were not a Church or members at all before their beleeving, and therefore not capable (in propriety of speech) of being made more truly such.
• 2. You shew not that the joyning of the Gentiles to the Iewish Church was by solemn express verbal Covenant, that they would be a Church together.
• 3. That beleeving Gentiles after Circumci­sion were always accounted of the Iews common-wealth, viz. under their civil government, had a portion of their land, I deny and put you to prove, and if they all were of that Church, it was but per ac­cidents, because there was then no other Church to which they might joyn: had God pleased to have erected several Independent Churches amongst the Iews, their circumcision had sealed them no more into one of these Churches then into the other.

Sect. 6. Reply p. 41. 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 otherwise, let it appear that he was in Church-state before that time, and we shal look for a Covenant before that time: We read nothing of Abrahams family that they were a professed people to God before that time.

Rejoyn.

• 1. You speak but doubtingly; you know that if it be not certain that the Church was now constituted, it is impossible to de­monstrate hence (what the Position asserts) that the Church of the Iews was constituted in Abrahams family by Covenant, no more then it can be certain that A. B. sold his land for ready money, if it be uncertain that A. B. did sell his land.
• 2. But for ought you say they were in Church-state before, though not professedly and openly separated, yea they might be one of them and yet your words be true, if they were not both.
• 3. I conceive they were in Church-state [Page 98]before, for God called Abraham and blessed him with a promise of Christ, Gen. 12.1, 2, 3. and Abraham beleeved the Lord, &c. built altars, called on the name of the Lord, God appeared to him and made him promises, was blessed by and payd tythes to Melchi­sedeck the Priest.
• 4. Was not Lot a professed servant of the Lord, and Sarah and Hagar, one of the worst in Abraham's family, Gen. 16.9, 10, 11? Abraham was the Priest of his family, and when he offered sacrifices upon the altars he builded, did he not offer sacrifice for his family as wel as himself? Doubtless Abraham be­fore circumcision as wel as after, did command his chidren and house­hold to keep the way of the Lord, Gen. 18.19. his family willingly, for ought appears, even 300 and more left their own Country and Idolatrous kindred at Gods cal, Gen. 17.4, 5. Iosh. 24.23. Isa. 41.2. and came into the land of Canaan, and this they did visibly and pro­fessedly bringing no Idols with them that we read of; were none of these arguments of Church-state and of real profession and seperation from the world?
• 5. You tell us, p. 28. that usually when any heads of families were converted, some of the houshold were con­verted with them, and was Abrahams family to be excepted?
• 6. You reply p. 42. We read not of any symbole of Church-state by which they were seperated from the rest of the world before circumcision.

Rejoyn. But would you have any symbole of Church-estate which God hath not instituted? You assert, that Adam's and Noahs family was a Church. You say p. 43. there might be a Church in Sem's family: You cannot deny that there was a Church before Abraham's time: Had that Church any symbole of Church-estate which Abraham's family wanted? What was that? I beleeve you cannot shew any; and if he had all the symboles of Church-state which God had then instituted, or any Church before him had, it was enough; take heed lest by your reasonings against the Family of Abraham being a Church you utterly overthrow the Church of God before his time every where else also. 7. You say, This distin­guisheth him and his family not from the world alone, but from the beleevers of his time: Melchisedeck and Lot though holy men were not in his state, nor had his priviledges.

Rejoyn. Melchisedeck and Lot might be circumcised though we do not read they were, and if he was Sem, then by vertue of a natu­ral precedency in age (as Mr Noyes supposeth) he was a Priest of Abraham's family as wel as his own, and they were sons of the [Page 99]same Church, and if Melchisedeck and Lot were of one Church with Abraham before, Abraham; receiving of circumcision could not thrust them out of that Church which they were of before, though they did not (suppose) lie under the same command of cir­cumcision that Abraham and his family did; if God required them to be circumcised, they (its like) heard of it, and doubtless being holy men would not slight Gods holy Ordinance. 2. What is all this to prove that a solemn express verbal covenant is necessary to the purity of the Church; if Melchisedec was of another Church was not his Church (for he being a Priest had one) whether con­stituted in Covenant or no, as pure as Abraham's that was consti­tuted by Covenant.

Sect. 7. I said, The Covenant in Gen. 17. is taken onely for Gods part of it or his promise to Abraham, Gal. 3.16, 17. not for mans part to God wherof we now speak. you reply, The Apostle seems to make use of the promise of God made to Abraham and his seed in the Covenant, Gen. 12.3. & 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 the Covenant was reciprocal. Junius and Paraeus.

Rejoyn: He seemes, (you say) multa videntur et non sunt, many things seem what they are not: dare you say that the Apostle makes use of the promise, Gen. 12. and Gen. 22. and excludes, Gen. 17? Was not this as solemn glorious a promise as any made to Abraham, might the covenants, Gen. 12. & 22. be taken for Gods part of the covenant, or his promise (as you confess) and may not covenant in this place be so taken? Paul speaks of promises and may include them all, this, as wel as those. 2. Paul might if he had pleased have taken occasion from the subject in hand to have spoken of Abrahams part of the covenant. 3. Put case the covenant was reciprocal (as you say it is expounded; I am not so furnished with books as for­merly I have bin) it follows not that it was explicitly reciprocal on Abrahams part, nor that it was a Church-covenant, nor that an express solemn verbal Church-covenant is necessary to the welbe­ing of a Church. You Reply. Cong. way Iustif. p. 31. The Posi­tion saith nothing of an express vocal covenant, and you by bring­ing in these words do alter the question, we hold not an express vocal covenant necessary to the being of a Church. And when we say it is necessary to the purity and strength of a Church; our meaning is not that it is a standing ordinance of God, that the Church should be united by a vocal expression of their mutual consent, (which we [Page 100]call the covenant) so as that subscription, signals, or silence it self as a signe may not be a lawful testification of their consent, but it is fit and convenient that it should be expressed in words, and so words are necessary as one, and usually the fittest expression of our minds.

Rejoyn:

• 1. If you understand only an implicite covenant or a­greement implyed in actions, we never denyed it, the Scripture ap­proves it.
• 2. If a man may judg of the Position by the definition given by N. E. men of a Church-covenant. Apol. p. 3. That it is a solemn publike promise before the Lord, or by your practise which commonly have an express verbal covenant; or by your own asser­tion of the necessity of it to the purity of the Church. I did no wrong to bring in a vocal express covenant, and to shew that A­brahams was not such a one.
• 3. If vocal expression of mutual con­sent which you call the covenant, be not a standing ordinance of God, as you confess it is not, then how comes a solemn express verbal covenant, or agreement to be necessary to the purity and strength of a Church, if it be no standing ordinance of God?
• 4. Subscription, signals, and silence it self as a signe do suppose a verbal, and express covenant written, repeated or read to them or by them; and if the said verbal express written covenant, be not the ordi­nance of God, then subscriptions, signals, silence it self as a sign, do not much more qualify the matter, then if vocal expression were required, prove that subscription to a Church-Covenant, signals, or silence as a sign are the ordinances of God, and it shal serve the turn: Suppose Abrahams family did not vocally covenant to be a Church together, did they subscribe, give signals, or keep silence as a sign of it?
• 5. If words be necessary as one, and usually the fittest expression of our minds? how comes it to pass, that in neither of the tex [...] cited (as Mr. Cotton acknowledgeth) they did accept the covenant by express words? Cotton. way. p. 5.

Sect. 8. Reply. p. 42. But you check your self as if over-hold; and therfore say, ‘Indeed receiving of circumcision doth import a covenant on Abrahams part, or consent to the covenant as Baptism 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.’ Reply. Circumcision doth argue necessarily that there was a covenant before, of which it was the sign and seal, was not Isack in covenant before he was Circumcisied, and did not his Cir­cumcision seal so much? This order is alway supposed

• 1. Gods [Page 101]promise.
• 2. Mans faith.
• 3. The sign and seal of both— [...]in bap­tism.

Rejoyn.

• 1. You are much mistaken, I see no cause to check my self, but you rather for omitting part of the Answer. viz. Gods covenanting with Abraham did not impose, or suppose an express vocal covenant on Abrahams part, (although when God appear­ed visibly and spake vocally, there was more colour for an express covenant then now he doth not) nor always an implicite Covenant. The children not yet born could not give so much as an implicite as­sent &c. Which strongly proves (though Gen. 9.9.10. which speaks not properly be left out) that they with whom God did Cove­nant, Gen. 17. did not (for ought appears by the text) make a solemn verbal express Covenant.
• 2. That Circumcision was a seal of the Covenant between God and Abraham, that Isack was in Covenant I grant, but you know very wel, That to be in covenant & to make a covenant are two distinct things; you should have shewed that they made a Covenant, and you ask whether Isack was not in Cove­nant, you children and mine not yet born, or but of a year old, may be in Covenant, but they cannot be sayd to make Covenants: we blame you not for being in Covenant, but for making Church-Covenants express verbal &c.
• 3. The order you speak of.
  • 1. Gods promise.
  • 2. Mans faith.
  • 3. The sign and seal is a right order in adult is, and most true of Abraham.
  1. The promise was made, then he beleeved, then was Circumcised, but what is this to an express verbal solemn Covenant, or subscription, signals before his Circumcision? I presume you speak not of Infants; for Isack (you know wel) did not, could not beleeve nor make profession of faith before he was Circumcisied.
• 4. If Circumcision in the old testa­ment, and now baptism in the new, be such a certain sign of Church-Covenant; you need not to ask whether a baptized person be in Church-Covenant or no? for his baptism doth prove him to be in Church-Covenant, as wel as Circumcision did, all that were baptized by Iohn Baptist, or the Disciples and Apostles of Christ, and Paul himself before he did assay to joyn to the Disciples was in Church-Covenant, because he was baptized by Ananius, and all those that were baptized in our Churches, were in your judgment in Church-Covenant with us; and if you perswade them to leave us; how do you clear your self of being accessary to their breach of Church-Covenant? I add How prove you That Melchisedeck a [Page 102]Priest, and Lot which were not of his seed, nor of his family were out of Church-state? That a beleever is not a sonne of Abraham, nor an heire 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 the Jewish Church was constituted in Abrahams fa­mily by Church-Covenant. The family of Shem was the Church of God long before this. Gen. 9.25, 26, 27. You Reply. p. 43. We assert not that they were out of Church-state, but if they were not Circumcised, they were not of Abrahams Church, nor could they have partaked of the passover, had it bin on foot, any more then o­ther beleevers, not joyned to Abrahams family as Cornelius.

Rejoyn.

• 1. You have not yet proved that Abraham was not in Church-state before Gen. 17. This demand you answer with a deleatur.
• 2 If Melchisedeck and Lot were of another Church then Abrahams, can you prove that that Church also was made by Co­venant, if it was not, then every Church is not (as you assert) founded in a Church-Covenant.
• 3. If Melchisedeck was not a Jew (as I beleeve he was) Lot certainly was one, Cornelius was certainly a Gentile, Melchisedeck (if he was Shem) was Abra­hams progenitor, and Lot was his kinsman, and so neerer to the fa­mily of Abraham then Cornelius was, but of Melchisedeck and Lot see before. You Reply further. It is one thing to be a sonne of Abraham, as a beleever and heire of promise: another thing to be the sonne of Abraham, as a professed Covenanter with God, and bearing the symbol in his flesh; in the former sense Abraham was the father of all beleevers, though uncircumcised, in the later of the Circumcised, which were also of his faith, as the Apostle shews. Rom. 4.11, 12.

Rejoyn. Rom. 4.11, 12. Shews that Abraham was the father of all that beleeve, whether Circumcised or uncircumcised (that is in Scripture language you know) Iews or Gentiles, the Jews had the symbol in their flesh, the Gentiles had not: but what is this to the purpose, you assert the Covenant, Gen. 17. to be a Church-Cove­nant, then I conceive it follows from your opinion, that beleevers which are not now in Church-state by Covenant are not heires of that promise, and put you to prove it, or (if you had pleased) to renounce it; your text doth rather prove that he was the father of all beleeving Gentiles, whether joyned to an instituted Church or no; and that such beleevers are heires of that promise and Covenant. [Page 103]2. You say every beleever is the sonne of Abraham as a beleever and heire of promise. But what promise mean you if not that Gen. 17. my demand was, and is, whether a beleever out of Church Co­venant be not an heire of that promise and Covenant, Gen. 17! If you grant he is, then it wil follow that it was not a Church-covenant, if you say he is not, I pray you speak plainly, I sometimes find it more difficulty to discern the strength of your Reply, then to confute it. 3. A single person, two or three persons may undoubtedly be pro­fessed covenanters with God, and so may be children of Abraham in that, but to be the children of Abraham as bearing the symbol of that covenant in his flesh; no beleeving Gentiles, whether in Church-covenant or no, baptized or unbaptized can: for the Scripture, yea common sense tels us that neither baptism nor Church-mem­bership do leave any symbol in the flesh, you are able enough to ex­press your selves; if you would make your meanings more plain, our discourses would be more profitable to the Reader. Lastly you re­ply. p. 43. Though it be probable there was a Church in the fami­ly of Shem, yet that place proves it not, and that Church might be of another constitution then this in Abrahams family; this hin­ders not but that the Church in Abrahams family was constituted by covenant.

Rejoyn.

• 1. If there were a Church in Shems family, it is less mat­ter whether that text proves it, and yet if the thing had bin denyed I could have proved it.
• 2. You take too much delight in multiply­ing Churches, and diversifying their constitutions; one Church whereof Melchisedeck was, (for you wil not assert that he was out of Church-state) another Church where Lot was, (for I imagin you wil not assert that Melchisedeck and Lot were both of one Church)
• 3. A third might be in the family of Shem (if you hold him not to be Melchisedeck.) and a
• 4. in Abrahams family, what three or foure Churches at once? and that before Christ too, and those or some of those of different constitutions, and yet all a­greeable to the wil of God? I suppose if necessity had not driven you to seek Churches to take Sanctuary in, you would not upon so little ground of Scripture have deserted the received and most ration­al opinion; That there was but one Church at once before Christs time. But surely the more Churches you find out, the more work you have to do to prove they were (as you say, all Churches are) founded in Covenant, especially if you should prove that a [Page 104]solemn express verbal covenant was necessary to the strength and purity of each of those Churches, or (if you wave that) that sub­scription, signals, silence it self as a sign were used.

CHAP. XIIII. Of members promising at their admission to give themselves to the Church. 2 Cor. 8.5.

Sect. 1. TO shew that 2 Cor. 8.5. doth not uphold that pra­ctise, I urged, that the givers are not the members of the Church of Macedonia (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 several Churches, and not of one only.

Reply. The allegation in answer. to 9, Pos. pag. 73. runs thus. So to the Church (according to God) to be guided by them these words [according to God] are left out, whether wilfully or by over­sight I conclude not.

Rejoyn. I never professed nor intended that the Positions and Scriptures alledged, should agree punctually and verbatim to the places set in the margin, nor could I effect it without some (in mine opinion) unfitting alterations of them as they were alledged to me, and for evidence that I tyed not my self to the Printed books (as at the first coming out of my examinations, I advertised one of your brethren) I sometimes alledged no book at all, even where you know I might, as Pos. 4. Other times that by comparing ar­guments which otherwise came to hand with the Printed books, I might probably intimate (and if my conjecture should fail, it were no great matter) from whence they were taken, and also evidence the truth of what I said in my preface. That Independency for the most part produceth the same texts in Print, which she did in preaching, writing, conference. I alledged Printed books, the by­standers mentioned in the preface, with these or the like clauses. See almost the same argument verbatim, the like you have, this [Page 105]though not so fully. This seems to be taken out of — These Scriptures are alledged though not with such tartness &c. And sometimes I alledged for one position (the 2. for example) two or 3. Printed books, differing possibly more then in Phrase one from another, which are so evident signs, that I tyed not my self to the Printed books, that I cannot but wonder if you did not observe it, which had you done, you needed not to have fought so much with your own shaddow; for if it be acknowledged that the Scriptures alledg­ed prove no such thing, as they are produced for (whether they be in Printed books or no) I (as I told you in my preface) have my ful end. Besides the very first Position is not the very same with the place cited in the margin, In Answ. to 32. q. p. 35. You have not gathering of Churches named, though the Position name it, and many other things added which the Position includes not, and you do not there quarred with the difference of the Position and cita­tion, possibly one of you may remember, that at a lecture set up by you in Chesshire, for the promoting of the Congregationga­tional way, (which abundantly justified the setting up a Counter-lecture in Manchester afterwards at the motion of a very godly Minister there was a conference, and at that conference, Acts 4.19. & 5.29. were urged for gathering of Churches in the very words, or as neer as could be) of the Position: Lastly some persons not the meanest in the Parish can witness how sundry al­legations of Scripture have come to my hands. Surely if you have but a little charity and ingenuity, this may satisfy you. 2. In this Po­sition, the leaving out the words [according to God] doth not hinder but that Answ. to 9. Pos. p. 73. which hath those words in (though I observed it not til you told me of it) may be alike al­legation, (which is all I said in my margin) though not the very same with the Position. And I dare appeal to you, must not that man which gives himself first to the Lord to be guided by him, be ne­cessarily understood that he gives himself to the Church to be guided by them, according to God and no otherwise. But if you wil blot paper with suchweak unjust exceptions I wil not deign to answer. 3. I wonder that you should tax me with leaving out two or three words (which I was not bound to put in) & yet in the same place leave out the Principal part of my answer, though you mention part of it in your defence, yet you mention it not as my answer, but as your free confes­sion. viz. That it is not said, that they gave themselvs to the Church or [Page 106]Churches, but to us that is to Paul and Timothy, which were not so much as set members of any particular Church &c. 4. You do not answer the whole strength of the exception. For.

• 1. The Po­sition speaks of a promise and Covanent; the text saith not, that the Churches of Macedonia did promise to give themselves &c. And your selves in this point wave the Position saying, there was no in­tent to prove union or covenant of a Church, but subjection of each member; what is not a promise to give our selves to the Church a covenant? The text speaks of their giving themselves to the Lord, to Paul and Timothy by the wil of God, but not of their promising so to do, to do a thing, and to promise to do it, are two distinct things; especially when the promise, and not the performance is the thing controverted whether it be appointed of God or no.
• 2. The Posi­tion saith that every member doth so promise at his admission: the text saith not that the members of the Church of Macedonia did so promise, or give themselves at their admission into the Church: but that the Churches gave themselves to the Lord and to his Mini­sters, specially in this duty of charity to be guided by them, and to contribute liberally according to their exhortations.
• 3. If the pra­ctise of the Church of Macedonia be made use of by way of allusion, and the argument be good a comparatis, as you plead, then it is a far more paralel and proportionable case, that Churches should give themselves to the Lord, and then to their officers according to God to be guided by them, then that members (you mean officers and all) should give themselves to the Church, for Paul and Timothy to whom the Churches gave themselves were officers, they were not a Church to which members gave themselves; If this which is more agreeable to the text suite your liking, there wil be no more controversy about this, we may pass to the next.

CHAP. XV. Wheher Acts 2.47. doth prove that a Congre­gation may be a Church before it have officers.

Sect. 1. Reply. WE take Churches for such Churches as the Apostles planted in all plapes, when they had converted a [Page 107]considerable number of persons, into which Saints are wont to be gathered, that they might be built up and edifyed by the ordinance, Acts 9.31. And unto which Pastors were given to reside with them and oversee them. Acts 20.28. Or we take Church as Amesius takes it. Coetus fidelium speciali vinculo inter se conjunctorum ad comunionem sanctorum inter se constanter exercendam. Such a company is the Church before it hath officers, for it is their privi­ledg to choose their officers.

Rejoyn. It is granted that in a general sense a few private men with­out officers, yea few women without men, yea 20 members of se­veral Churches may be called a Church, that an assembly in Scripture­phrase is all one with a Church, the word Church may be taken for a mystical Church. 2. It cannot be denyed by you or me that Synecdochi [...]s the Church may be taken either for the officers apart from the people, or without consideration of them, or for the peo­ple apart from the officers or without consideration of them. But the question is what is a Church properly so called; the Elders of N. England say, A Church properly so called is the body Politick con­sisting of people and Minister, Answ. to 33. q. p. 46. They cite al­so Mr. Banes saying of Math. 16. The word Church (saith he) we understand not figuratively, taken metonymically for the place. Synecdochically for Ministers, but properly for a body Politick, standing of a people to be taught, and teachers, and governors: I pro­fess my self to hold as they here express themselves, for these reasons.

• 1. The Church is not one member but many, viz. not one sort of members but composed of variety, as hath bin said. Chap, 4. Hence the Church is described as an organical body of divers members, Rom. 12.4, 5. And if all were one member (that is beleevers only) then where were the body? A corporation, an army properly so cal­led doth consist of governers, as wel as governed.
• 2. Word, Sacra­ments, censures, yea all sacred worships (you say) may be observed to belong to the Church, but none but professed Anabaptists, and Morellians hold that Christians united without officers have power to preach, and to administer Sacraments or censures.
• 3. The Chur­ches we read of in Scripture were organical Churches, yea those by you spoken of. Acts 9.31. might be such, for ought appears, they were edified, how but by officers, which (elsewhere you say) were given for their edification, Ephes. 4.11. or by ordinances, by the word and Sacraments, which they could not regularly enjoy with­out [Page 108]out officers; if you mean by prayer, reading, hearing, conference, this you wil acknowledg they might have had without enchurching.
• 4. That the Apostles taught Christians to unite themselves together without officers, and to call themselves a Church, or do any any act of Church-power or that they planted Churches any other wayes then to convert many Christians in a City and to ordain Elders over them it cannot be shewed.
• 5. As for Amesius his definition of a Church if it be to your mind; I am sure it is not in your usual language, for he speaks of commu­nion of Saints which you use to distinguish from Church-commu­nion; if Church-communion be not included then you in effect tell us p. 39. that such a bond wil not make them a Church, and if Church-communion be included, how Church-communion in Sacra­ments and censures can be lawfully had without officers, and what that is I cannot see.
• 6. A man may have a priviledg to choose a wife and yet not be an husband, nor she a wife till they be married; a free State may have a priviledg to choose a King, yet they cannot be a Kingdom till they have chosen him; so it may be the priv [...]l [...]dg of the people to choose their officers and yet not be a Church properly so called till they have them: for it is their priviledg to be a Church together, yet they are not a Church before they are one. Lastly, it is a contradiction to say the Apostles planted Churches and yet those Churches were without officers, for the Apostles that planted them were officers of them if they had no other.

Sect. 2. Reply p. 46. You grant that the Church Act. 2. had no ordinary officers, for none were then appointed: Act. 14.23. shews they were Churches before the Apostle ordained Elders in them.

Rejoyn.

• 1. You take full as much as I granted, and possibly I gran­ted more then I needed, but I in a Parenthesis (which you leave out) spake of the 70 which might be ordinary officers or extraordinary, and their commission might be in force or no for ought I determined, but it is as like they were Elders of that Church as no; seeing Act. 11.30. we read of Elders in that Church as extant we know not how long before that time, and we read not of the institution of any officers amongst them save the 12 Apostles, 70 Disciple, and 7 Deacons.
• 2. In the first plantation of Churches the Elders that plan­ted them must needs be before the plantation, and the spiritual fa­thers before their children.
• 3. Acts 14.23. proves not your asser­tion, for Apostoles and Apostolick men did ordain Elders in some [Page 109]Churches where Elders were before, yea they joyned with Elders in the ordaining of other Elders, as 1 Tim. 4.14. cum 2 Tim. 1.5. and 1 Tim. 15.22. cum Acts 20.28. Acts 19. Yet grant they were without Elders, that only proves that they were called by the name of Church, and so are officers sometimes so called as distinguished from the members, but neither of them are properly called by the name of Church.

Sect. 3. Reply p. 46. And though there were general El­ders —yet neither these nor any other Elders do ingredi essentiam Ecclesiarum, nor is it any formal reason why a company of beleevers are a Church because they have Elders—then their priviledg to choose their officers would be when they have them, and they cannot choose them when they want them, for then they are not a Church, and so can have no such power, and this is uncomfort able, for the death of an officer might be the unchurching of a people; members mentioned apart from the officers are called the Church. Act. 20.28. Phil. 1.1.

Rejoyn.

• 1. Though they were general officers yet (as I told you) they were Elders particularly of the Church of Jerusalem and acted therein as Elders, for that Church then was the universal Church, the Apostles (or 70) had no present exercise of their pastoral autho­rity any where but there, they did preach, administer Sacraments, ordain there and only there. Can a regiment complain of want of a Colonel? May it not rather say it hath a good one, if a faithful and wise General, which hath no other soldiers but that regiment, become a Colonel to it?
• 2. I suppose your selves dare not assert that the Church of Ierusalem was then an incompleat Church, and yet you account every Church wanting officers to be an incompleat Church.
• 3. If officers be not essential to a visible Church properly so called, then neither authoritative preaching the Word, dispensation of Sa­craments and discipline are not essential to such a Church, or they are in the hand of Church-members.
• 4. Concerning the unchurching of a people by the death of an officer:
  • 1. You say Pos. 2. that 7 or 8 may make a Church; What if 4 or 5 of these dye and leave but two or three? What if the men dye and leave the women? These that are best make not a Church.
  • 2. The Pastor may dye, and yet the Church not dissolved at his death, they may have other officers if they have none at present, but the shepherd being smitton, the sheep are scattered, yet they may have ere long: In an elective Kingdom. [Page 110]if the King dye, the Kingdom is actually dissolved till another King be set up.
  • 3. If all the officers of a Church do dye, this doth not so un church it, as to deprive them of Gods love, nor divorce them from God, or from the ordinances in other Congregations, but only so that for the present they are uncapable of the Sacraments and other Church-ordinances amongst themselves till others be set over them, and this you must needs acknowledg.
• 5. Acts 20.28. Phil. 1.1. will give no certain satisfaction, for
  • 1. It is granted that the name Church may be given to officers or to people as distinguished from one another, as also you acknowledg, that the word Cove­nant is sometimes taken for Gods part to man, sometimes for mans part to God, but when it is properly taken it includes both.
  • 2. The word Church. in Acts 20. is but distin­guished only from Elders, not from all the officers, and from feeding. not ruling Elders; for that the ruling Elders are said to be made Bi­shops by the holy Ghost is not probable.
  • 3. Phil. 1.1. wil prove that there were Saints in Philippi distinct from Bishops and Deacons but not that they were a Church without them, much less that they were a Church properly so called. Lastly, If you can shew by Scripture that any company of people without officers did or ought to exercise Church-power, or that they might receive in, or cast out members our of the Church, it shal suffice, we wil not contend about names, nor wil the name of the Church avail, if this power cannot be proved by Scripture.

CHAP. XVI. Of Election of Ministers and other officers.

Sect. 1. Reply p. 47. THe Position saith not that a particular Congrega­tion hath full and free power without seeking the help of advise and direction of a Synod, Classis or Presbytery, but without the authoritative help thereof.

Rejoyn.

• 1. Then you allow both that there should be Synods, Classes and Presbyteries, and that they should be advised with about election; prove you that any Congregation did ask or seek the di­rection or advice of any Synod, Classis or Presbytery in election of officers (which you press as a duty and holy ordinance) and I will shew you that they used authoritative help of a Synod, Classis, &c.
• 2. I approve your approbation of Mr Cottons modesty in not taking [Page 111]on him hastily to censure the many notable presidents of ancient and latter Synods which have put forth the acts of power in ordinati­on &c. Which Author though he speak not expresly of election, yet if acts of power may be put forth in another Congregation in one thing, they may be put out in another.
• 3. When I say, we hold it a privi­ledg of the people (especially if they proceed wisely and piously) to elect their officers. 1. You vainly ask, Reply, p. 47. What people? Is it a people-priviledg or a Church-previledg to choose Ecclesiasti­cal officers? R. You are too willing to contend, Scripture war­rants me to cal un-officed men, Church-members or others, by the name of people Heb. 7.5. and your selves p. 59. yea in the last line of this very page use the same word in the same sense which you quar­rel at: that a Church, viz. a company of people knit together by ex­press publick covenant or agreement hath the only power of choosing officers, I put you to prove.
• 4. You ask, What if they do not proceed wisely and piously, is their priviledg lost? Would it then be no injury to intrude any officer on them? Is the priviledge of a Church-officer or Master of a family lost, if he use it not wisely and piously? Must they not be directed and exhorted to use it rightly, and the priviledg remaine still with him, we have Junius of our mand.

Rejoyn.

• Then I conceive the Presbyters ought to keep the charge of the Lord, and not to ordain hastily, though the people should elect suddenly, 1 Tim. 5.22. Least they should be partakers of other mens sins, viz. of that unwise and ungodly Election.
• 2. A master of a fami­ly may rule his house so unwisely and impiously that his priviledge of Governing it, yea his liberty and his life may by the Magistrate be ta­ken away from him; A Church officer (your selves assert) may be censured, yea deposed for unwise and ungodly managing his trust.
• 3. Your selves hold not (I suppose) that it is the priviledge of the peo­ple to have an unwise and ungodly election confirmed, but rather an injury to them.
• 4. The Church of Boston in New England did chuse (or would have chosen) a notorious familist to have been co-teacher with Mr C. would you have the Elders to have ordeined him, or the Synod to have approved him?
• 5. If you grant that whensoever a peo­ple do chuse unwisely and ungodlity, the Presbytery or Synod should oppose, and refuse to ordain them, and that without such ordination they may not lawfully officiate, it is enough as to my present purpose, and this at least if not more, you seem to grant, by equalling the case of a Church mis-electing to the case of a Mr of a family, or a Church-officer [Page 112]mis-governing both which may loose their priviledg and power by a. busing it, especially for a time til they be more wise.

Sect 2. I ingenuously confess I have always and stil do in my opinion and practise propend that people should elect their Minister they being thereby engaged the more to love and obey him and his cal to them made more unquestionable, yet the Scriptures you bring (though (as I conceive) as perument as any other, and your defence of them upon the matter as strong as the cause wil suffer) are unsatisfactory to me. To your first text I answered,

You reply p. 48.1. There is a contradiction, if they were but the sounder parts of the Jewsh Church then they were not a Christian Church, and if no Christian Church, how were the Apostles Elders of it, how was it an [...]cumenical Councel the Churches and Elders in all the world being present.

Rejoyn. I do not at all contradict my self, for

• 1. To he Christian and to be the sounder members of the Jewish Church was then all one.
• 2. The Apo­stles being members of the then Iewish Church hinders not but that they might be Elders of all the Churches in the world (as Christ was a member of the Jewish Church, & yet head of the whole Church Christian or Jewish) in several respects.
• 3. If you wil have it to be a Christian Church (as you affirm) it was liker to a general Councel then a particular Congregation.

You further reply,

• 1. Is there not some mistake in point of truth? There were ad­ded to them 3000 souls (to them) to whom? To those who were yet members of the Iewish Church, then these separated ones who were added were members of the Iewish Church, for they came into their state to whom they added, and so they were separated a [...]d not separated which agrees not toy. 47. where they are all called a Church. R. Here is indeed a mist ake yea a great one too in you, for the words (to them) or which you build are not in the original but in the transla­tion only, but of the whole matter see cap. 4. sect 3.
• 2. Though they were unseparated in Act. 1. it follows not that they were unseparated Act. 2. but if the Christians had stil been members of the Jewish Church yet the 3000 Christians could not be said to be added to the Iewish Church (whereof they were members before their conversion to Christianity) but to the professors of Christianity. You further reply p. 49. That the company was not straituod in their liberty, but acquainted with their privileds in this matter by these Elders, that their limiting was nothing lut necessary direction, that it was but in one thing, for ought that appears [...]l that accompained them were present and who could be so fit to be as Apostle as one of those, 1 Joh. 1.1.

Rejoynder. To that which hath been largely said to this before, I adde,

• 1. That a hundred and twenty were not all the believers of Jerusalem, not the major part of them, though taking in only men of note, and Disciples of the longest standing in Christs school, even those that had accompanied with the Apostles all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out amongst them, begenning from the Baptism of John unto the day of our Saviors ascension (of whom v. 21, 22.) which were the twelve, the seventy, and some others which Christ sent to preach, as Luke 9.60. it is very pro­bable the number of these did not exceed an hundred and twenty: And this was a different meeting from that spoken of v. 14. as is evident by the transcision. And in those days, for no impartial man which reads and considers the wonderful operations of the Sermons of John Baptist, Jesus Christ, the Apostles, and the Se­venty, as in other places, so in Jerusalem, can conceive that an hundred was the total number of the believers there, or the major part of them.
• 2. You tell us, p. 15. That it is less safe and war­rantable to draw inferences from paterns, where there are diversity of kinds of them about the same thing: Now in this point of election there are diversities of kinds; The 12 Apostles, and the Seventy, were chosen by Christ himself, Luke 6.13. & 10.1. others appoint­ed to preach by Christ himself, Luke 9.60. The people chose seven, whom the Apostles appointed over the business. Acts 6. Paul was chosen by God immediately, Acts 9. The Presbytery separated Paul and Barnabas by Imposition of hands, Acts 13.1, 2. and Ti­mothy, 1 Tim. 1.14. & 1.18. The Elders of Ephesus made by the Holy Ghost, Acts 19.6. with 20.28. Lastly, in this Text they were not only limited and restrained in election, but they were limited and restrained from election of any, they were only allow­ed to present two (which also had they not had an extraordinary particular warrant at that time for, it had been high presumption for them to have done) and to offer them to the choice of the Lord; and the very way and means of tendring them to Gods choice, was limited and restrained to lots; a course not now pactised.

Sect. 3. Reply, p. 49. 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, v. 26. by the common suffrage of them all Matthias was numbred, &c.

Rejoynd.

• 1. If they were all (or (but almost all) Officers (as [Page 114]hath been in part proved before) the Apostles, the Seventy, and others, what will this advantage you, that by the common voice of the Officers Matthias was so numbred?
• 2. You know, that they did not ordain or elect Matthias rather then Justus; and they had no more to do, when God had chosen Matthias, then to accept him, by an orderly subjection to Christs will, as people do, or ought to do, to a Governor made by supreme Authority, and yet their acceptation of him is not an act of power, but of obedience.

You Reply farther, p. 39. We reade but of one Church and the Elders thereof present at the ordaining of Paul, Acts 13.1, 2, 3, 23. Whereupon Paul calleth himself [...].

Rejond. [...] Rom. 11. I doubt whether Paul calls him­self and Apostle separated with reference to Acts 13. possibly it was rather with respect to the Pharisees (one of which he was) which were said to be [...]. I doubt also, whe­ther Paul was then ordained an Apostle, for he was chosen by God, and Ananias laid hands on him that he might receive the holy Ghost, Acts 9.15.17. some years before, Gal. 1.15. and he preached, Acts 9.15, 17, 20, 28, 29. yea, he had fulfilled his ministery, Acts 11.26, & 12.25. even at Antioch, where hands were imposed on him: Therefore, I conceive, the holy Ghost minding to have Paul and Barnabas preach in other Churches, as well as they had done in Antioch, willeth the Prophets and Teachers there to let him go (for so the word [...] may signifie) and the words following import so much, that they laying their hands on them [...] sent them away; and Paul and Barnabas [...] being sent forth by the holy Ghost, went to Seleucia, Cyprus, &c. and therefore Paul is not considered as an Apostle, but as an Elder of Antioch, one of that Presbytery, which may be the reason why they are immediat­ly before said to be in that Church, v. 1. and amongst the Presby­ters thereof: And this rite of Imposition of hands, was a solems commending them to the grace of God, Act. 14.26. and as Elders they returned & gave account to the Church, which an Apostle was not bound to do. Your selves say, p. 123. Paul and Barnabas did not now go forth by vertue of their Apostolique Commission, for so they needed not to have been separated by fasting and prayer, and imposition of the hands of the Eldership, for they had Apostolique commission long befort. How will you reconcile your selves with your selves? but if you can, and do maintain, That Paul was then ordained an Apostle, then [Page 115]it will infallibly follow, That the Eldership of Antioch did admi­nister Ordination (which you grant is an authoritative act) with reference to other Congregations: As also if the One hundred and twenty did chuse an Apostle (whether they were a particular Church, or the Eldership thereof) they did an act of Church-power, with reference to other Churches, if you do not consider them under the notion of being then the universal Church, or all the Officers of it.

CAP. XVII. Of the choice of Deacons, Acts 6. And of the Elders, Acts 14.23.

Sect. 1. TO Acts 6. I answered, ‘For the Deacons or Over­seers of the poor, though people may better discern of mens fitness and ability for that office then the ministery, and their liberty of chusing was a good means 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, useful in sundry cases (as in case a Church being leavened with Popery, Arminianism, Antinomianism, Libertinis [...]s, Anabaptism, &c. should chuse a Minister like themselves: If such a case had hapned, they could have had no more of a Synod at that time then they had; the company, Acts I. did nominate [...], but they that prayed, which is likely was the Apostles, did appoint them, v. 23, 24. The people chose seven, such as they were directed to chuse, set them before the Apostles which did appoint them over the business, prayed and imposed hands.’ You Reply, p. 49. Why are Deacons and overseers for the poor made Synonima's? have We had Deacons all this while? Who ordained or imposed hands upon them according to the pattern?

R.

• I added, Overseers for the poor to explain and limit the word Deacons, which in Scripture phrase is a general word, usually sig­nifying and translated Ministers.
• 2. That I might shew that the work of the Deacon was to oversee the poor according to their institution, Acts 6.
• 3. That I might (with a learned holy man be­fore [Page 116]me) discover in our Churches low at ground, those Officers which are specified in Scripture, though with some defects: In­terest of Engl. part 2. p. 33. who also instanceth in Overseers for the poor refined by the late Statutes, 43 Eliz 2.3 Car. 4. to be the Deacons. You further Reply p. 50. They had direction to i [...]ble them to discern aright in chusing Deacons, and by direction they [...] be able to discern aright in chusing other Officers: A godly people or Church rightly const [...]uted for the maner, wi [...] be able to discern of w [...]oles [...]m and powerful Doctrine, of humane learning, they may wite [...]le ado be informed; upon this ground the people should chuse Deacons, not other Officers, and so limit your first grant.

Rejoynd.

• 1. They had Apostolique direction, and all the people were f [...]u of the holy Ghost, Acts 4.31. but we have not such in­fallible direction nor extraordinary gifts.
• 2. Even a godly peo­ple or Church, which (you say) is rightly constituted, and hath good direction, cannot sometimes judge of a mans fitness for the Ministery: The Church of Boston in New England would have chosen Mr. Wheelright a Familist to have been co Teacher wish Mr. Cotton: The Brownists, Anabaptists, Familists, would be esteemed a godly people and rightly constituted (especially those which being first Independents do afterwards turn such) yet they usually chuse a Pastor or Teacher of their own Way, and the ma­nifold Blasphemous, Hrretical, Schismatical Doctrines of these Times, especially amongst those which are for Indepency doth flow from this fountain, and their Ministers, if they will not lead, or at least follow them into those giddy Opinions, are despised, so unable are some Congregations, which in your sense are rightly constituted and Well directed to discern Shepherds from Wolves. So the Churches of Galatia counted Paul an enemy, and the Church of Co [...]inth was like lier sometimes to entertain a false then a true Teacher.
• 3. However you talk of direction, or of information, you hold, That the Election of a particular Congregation, whether she have direction, or no, will take it, or no, is valid, and cannot be frustrated but by her self,
• 4. You deal not fairly; For

• 1. you untwine those passages which I twisted together, placing the strength in all of them joynely, and not in any one singly, quae non prosent singula juncta juvant, that you may break them better when you have sundred them.
• 2. You are too forward in making inferen­ces for me from every of them, which I would but make from all [Page 117]of them, joyntly considered.
• 3. I desire you to express, whether your conscience do not tell you, That what I have said is [...] most certain truth, Tha [...] people may better discern mens fitness and ability for oversight of the poor, then for the Ministery, and whether your selves judge the cases alike: Do you count it ne­cessary to have the advice of other Churches in the one, as in the other; or that the help of God should be so solemnly craved in the one, as in the other.

Sect. 2. Reply, p. 50. Then by your speech the liberty of choosing Deacons was granted to them of courtesie; Doth any thing appear to make this a Reason that this liberty was? would not they have been as well pleased if the Apostles had done it? all magnified the Apostles: would the Apostles nourish a sinful [...] of discontent in the people, by giving them that prividedge which belonged not to them? these are dangerous glosses.

Rejoynd.

• 1. That which you conceive so absurd in me, your selves say in effect, p. 96. It was sutable to the holy and self denying frame of the Apostles Spirit, jure suo cedere, to remit something of his own right—And the Apostles concurrence with the Church (you mean the Churches concurrence with the Apostle) seems to make more for the Churches peace, who are now more likely to sub­scribe to the equity of those proceedings of which themselves have the cognizance, then if it were carried by a transcondent and supe­rior motion of Apostolique power: That you speak of Excommuni­cation, and may not I speak the same of Election of Deacons, which if the Apostles (with whose managing of the contributions the Grecians were displeased) should have nominaeted, the Grecians might still have suspected some fraud or partiality; and there­fore they might allow the people to nominate some whom they might appoint over the business, as they were ever careful to avoid suspition of wronging any this way, which made them for sa­tisfaction of such as contributed to the poor Saints at Jerusalem, to desire them to approve some man to carry it, 1 Cor. 16.3.2 Cor. 8. 19.20. That the Apostles did somewhat condescend to the multi­titude—and that there was a peculiar reason for it, especically in that tenderness of the Church, and to put off from themselves all sini­ster suspition, is asserted also by Bucerus, diss. de gub. Ecclesiae apud Apoll. p. 104.
• 2. You much wrong your selves and your Reader, in calling that assertion of mine (which you cannot deny to be true and pertitent) a dangerons gloss.

You adde, p. 50. Your meaning (in saying there were all the Churches and Elders in the world) is, there was but one Church and the Elders thereof, at the time, in the world: 'Tis true, the Apostles and Members were there, for these elect­ed, and the Apostles directed; But did they interpose their authority in election! Did they take it out of the brethrens bands? Did they not put it into their b [...]ds, in commanding them to look out seven men?

Rejoynd. If you had faithfully transcribed all my foresaid answer, it might have prevented these exceptions; for,

• 1. That if they had been the stricte [...] Presbyterians in the world, they could have had Elders of no more Churches pre­sent then there was.
• 2. The people did not set them before the Apostles, that the Apostles might give direction, but that the Apostles might ordain them, which your selves yield to be an authoritative act.
• 3. Though the people did nominate and propound some persons which they had looked out according to the direction, yet those so nominated were not Officers by their election, before the Apostles approved them, prayed and imposed hands on them; for the Text expresly saith, That the Apostles (it saith not, that the people) did appoint them over the business; therefore it was but clectio oblata & preparatoria, not perfe­cta, these seven had not been Officers, had they not been appointed by the Apostles, nor were the Apostles any way bound to approve whomsoever they should have chosen.
• 4. Your selves do not, dare not assert, That the people did do any authoritative act; for you elswhere expresly yield; That the [...] of Authority doth not hang at their girdle; and if that be true, then all the autho­rity which was interposed in that Election, was by the Officers, and not my by the people.
• 5. Did not the Apostles interpose their authority when they pre­scribed the number of seven, and neither more nor less, Acts 6.3. had it not been a sin against authority, if they would not have chosen so many, or twice, thrice as many?
• 6. The authority of Synods by way of Inrisdiction, b [...]h been proved Cap. 8.

Sect. 3. To Acts 14.23. I answered, ‘Paul and Barnabas ordained Elders by suffrages given by lifting up or stretching out of hands (for so the Greak word usually signifies, though not always, Acts 10.41.) but that the pe [...]ple did ordain Eiders by Election without the Aposiles, it saith not; bu [...]ther the contrary (viz.) that they stayed from Election and Ordination of Elders till the Apostles came to advise and assist therein: The word [...] [...]g­nifieth rather to give, then to gather suffrages: As [...] doth imply the Election of more Churches then one, and year imports [...]. Election of [...]o more Churches then those there spoken of S. th [...] p [...]ra [...]e Paul and barnabas [...] d [...]h not imply that any Church or other persons, besides Paul and Barnahas, did elect there [...]resbyt [...]rs.’ To this you Reply, p. 51. We do not affirm, That the coopie did it without the Apostles, the Aposiles guided them.

Rejoynd. But do you not affirm, That they might have done it with the A­postles? The Position speaks of a Congregation without Officers that she hath full and free power to elect them, yea, though she hath no Officer to guide or assist.

You adde p 51. Concerning their staying from Election and Ordination, we reade not of it, their advising we grant; what other assitance the Apostles afforded, we understand not, unless they led the people by their own suffrage, and so they [Page 119]night 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 with out the peoples, seems unreasonable: When hath it been known that two persons alone in the presence of many others, have gone to voting by lifting up of hands? the one must say to the other, If thou be for such a man to be an Elder in this Church, left up thy hand: a most ridiculous course, one man to gather, and another to give; they two might better have gone apart and agreed. for two persons can and nothing by vote, if they be contrary one to another.

Rejoynd.

• 1. You do reade of Churches which were (as your selves hold) without Officers till the Apostles came; and you reade not that any Church without Officer did elect or ordain their first Officer; what call you this, if it be not a staying from Election and Ordination till the Apostles came?
• 2. As [...] doth not always signifie suffrages (as would have appeared to the Reader of your Book, had you fully transcribed my Parenthesis) so there was no necessity I should grant that it doth so signifie there; for as God who is but One in the forenamed place, is said [...], so Paul and Barnabas being Two, may in this place be said [...] without absurdity: Stephanus in bis Treasure of the Greek tongue, upon the word [...], saith, That when it governs an Accusative case (as in this place) it signifieth not to give suffrage, but to ordain, create, elect. The Text doth manifestly restrain it to Paul and Barnabas (as well as the other Text doth restrain the chusing of the brother to the Churches there spoken of) for the substantive of this participle is Paul and Barnabas, not the people. But if you can shew that the word is taken in any good Writer for gathering suffrages, or taking the consent of others (which I believe you can­not) then I will grant that they did lead the people by their suffrage: but if it signifies only chusing, or ordaining, or giving their own voices, they might do that as well by stretching out their hands (which with Ecclesiastical Writers imports as much as [...] to lay on hands) as by lifting up of hands; for I reade it disjunctively, though you by altering my word [Or] into the word [And] do read it copulatively; and then, what is here to note, That the peo­ple did concur with Paul and Barnabas in that action; yea, That that action was whelly the peoples, and that Paul and Barnabas. did but direct them in it, or at most lead them by their suffrage.
• 3. Those passages, If thou be for such a man to be an Elder, hold up thy hand (which, you say, was a ridiculous course for Paul and Barnabas) were not (I easily believe) used by them, nor by any Pri­mitive Church, either when Officers or Members were admitted; for who hath read or doth believe, That the One hundred and twenty did lift up their hands, when each of the Three thousand were added; or that when Matchias as seven Deacons were chosen, they lift up their hands (though I have read of such a pra­ctise amongst the Heathens?) if you think they did, shew when, and where they did it. The word [...] not only in Scripture, Acts 10.41. but in Ec­clesiastical Writers, is used where the suffrage of the people is not intended, nor included, but (it may be) professedly excluded. Lastly, bethink your selves, if these Elders were made by the holding up of the hands of the people, and this be the sence of the word [...], then the sence of it cannot be, that they were made by the Imposition of hands of Paul and Barnabas; for that one and the same word should at once both signifie the lifting up of [Page 120]the peoples hands, or the voting of the people, and the stretching out of Paul of Barnabas hands, or their imposing hands in Ordination, is no whit probable.

CHAP. XVIII. Of Ordinination of Elders by non-Elders.

Sect. 1. TO your proof from Num, 8.9, 10. That a Congregation want­ing Officers may ordain, I answered, That Congregation had Of­ficers, Aaron the High Priest, and many other Priests, Num. 3.4. You Reply, p 52. Those Officers could not lay their hands upon them, for a spe­cial Reason, viz. The Levites were given to God, and they were given to Aaron and his sons, to God's service, and therefore they must be preson [...]e [...], not by Aaron and his sons; but before them, Num. 8.13. Laying on of hands was the more of those that offered and gave them, not of those that must receive them, Num 3.6 [...]. & 8.13. with 18.2.

Rejoynd.

• Your Argument is this, They for whose service Officers are gives, must re [...]eive them, but not ordain them; which if you would prove (as you [...] not) it would make as much or more against O [...]dination by the Iewish Church, as by Aaron and his sons, for the Levites were given for the service of the Con­gregation, Num. 16.8. ye [...], and Aaron too. You say, p. 54. That Officers us given for the service of the Church, and that the service of the Minist [...]ry is [...] service of the Church; will you hence conclude the Church must receive then, therefore she must not ordain them?
• 2. The seven in Acts 6. were presented, not by, but before the Apostles; will you hence infer, That there was a special reason why the Apostles should not have ordained them, but the people.
• 3. It this were a special reason, & a good one too, why Aaron and his sons might not ordain them, yet they had other Ecclesiastical Officers, Exod. 19.22. See Aynsworth is locum, even the first-born (as Son the first-born of Noah by priviledge, if not by birth, is judged to be Melchizedek the Priest) in whose place the Levites came; and was there a special reason also why they might not put their work upon the Levits by ordaining them, as Moses did on Joshuah his successor, Deu. 34.9. and the Apostles on the Deacons which succeeded them in part of their charge, Acts 6? I pray you shew, if you can, some special good reason for it. You farther say, Will it not hold a majore from the greater, if in the Old Testament the people did ordain in the presence of Officers, then they may in the New much non in the want of Officers?

Rejoynd.

• I believe you dare not say that it will hold.
• 2. If it would bold, ye you cannot shew that the people did ordain.
• 3. Every particular Congregation runs not parallel with the whole Iewish Church. The Apostle, Gal. 4.1, 2. [...] serts, That the Jewish Church was but one childe in nonage, and the universal Church (since that partition wall was trodden down) was but the same child [...] grown to full age, and is not multiplied and made many children (as you fancy) but only one still, though by clearer manifestations, and larger accessions, ripe [...] and bigger then before: Now that in the Universal visible Church there should be no Officers, is a strange supposition, not true in the time of Antichrist g [...]at­est rage and raign, Rev. 12.6, 14. As for a particular Congregation, it is but a part of the Church, as hath been shewed.
• 4. You know it will hold as well, yea better, if the people might in the Old-Testament ordain in the presence of Officers, then they may in the New Testament ordain in the presence of Officers; and to this purpose Mr. Noyes a N. Engl. man argueth, [...].15.

‘Sect. 2. when I say that all the children of Israel could not lay hands on the Levites, but some in stead of the rest, which were most likely to be the Elders; you reply, what Elders?’ Eclesiasticall Elders there were none but Aaron and his sonnes, they were there­fore Civill Elders (not as Civill but) as they were the chiefe and Principall men, and we hold that the gravest, wisest, and prime of the congregation (in want of Eclesiasticall Officers) ought to doe it in behalfe of the rest.

Rejoyn. 1 There were other Ecclesiasticall Officers beside Aa­ron and his sonnes, viz. the first-borne till the Levites came in their places as page. 54. you confess they did: See Ainsworth in Exod. 24.5. And they did ordeine in the name of the rest; Aaron and his sonnes were not in stead of the first-borne, nor did put them out of Office, as the Levites did, and your selves dare not deny that if there were other Elders besides Aaron and his Sonnes, they were more likely to ordein then any civill Elders, or other men. When I further answer, That all the congregation and all the El­ders of the congregation are all one Exod 12.3. with verse 21.

You Reply,

• 1. that it doth not appeare that they were all one, for when God saith, speake yee to all the congregation of Israell, hee meant really that congregation should be spoken to, not the Elders onely, for the ordinance was as well appertaining to the congregati­on as to the Elders. Moses was to speak to all the congregation but not immediately, but by the Elders, this doth not confound the con­gregation and the Elders, for then the Elders killing the passover, though the people had not done it, had fulfilled Gods command.
• 2. Though the Congregatïon and the Elders should be all one yet is the congregation and Ecclesiasticall Elders all one.
• 3. if they should be all one in some place, yet in Num. 8.9, 10. They are not all one, for Aaron and his Sonnes were the only Eccle­siasticall Elders, and they are mentioned distinctly from the con­gregation.

Rejoynd.

• 1. if that God meant all the Congregation of Israell shoald bee spoken to; and that the Passover did concerne them all, Yet the question is whether God bad Moses speake immediatly to all the Congregation as a collective body, or meant, he that Moses should immediately speak to all the Elders only, and they [Page 122]should speak unto the people, If the former, then Moses sinned in that he himselfe spake not immediatly to all the People (which yet was impossible he should at once do) if the latter, then God calls the Elders to whom Moses immediatly spake, by the name of all the Congregation, and so we else where find, and your selves can­not deny but that Elders in the Old Testament as distinguished from the people are sometimes called by the name of Church?
• 2. Why may not the Ecclesiasticall Elders be called the Congre­gation or Church as well as the civill? Moses here receives a com­mand for an Ecclesiastical not a civil Ordinance, viz. the Passeo­ver in which Ecclesiasticall Elders had most to do, and there­fore Moses would be sure to speak to them; but you do not ex­press your opinion [though an unwary Reader may conceive you doe] but only aske a question and make a supposition.
• 3. I pray you resolve mee who were the Ecclesiastical Elders in Exod 12. before Aaron and his Sons were made Priests, or dare you assert it to be your opinion [how soever you wrigle] that the Congre­gation had no Ecclesiasticall Elders at that time when the Passe­over was instituted, or that those Elders [I meane the first-borne] were put out of Office before the Levites were put in, I would think you dare not assert so groundless a thing.

Sect. 3. I Answered that the Levites were seperated 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 express appointment v. 6.7.8.11.13.14. therefore this laying on of hands was either only obediential for approbation of Gods Election, or for Oblation of the Levites to God in stead of their first borne, v. 16.17.18. as they lay'd hands on sacrifices which was a speciall reason and peculiar to those times:’ if the people did ordaine the Levites, they did not choose them. If this be a binding patterne, you will lose Election, while you contend for a popular Ordination.

You Reply p. 54. It was obedientiall, but principally for another reason, the service of the Levites was the service of the Chil­dren of Israel, which formerly the first borne performed, therefore Israel must lay hands on them, that is put that work upon them which was theirs, for as the laying on of hands on the sacrifice did put the sins on the sacrifice: so the laying on of hands, did put the [Page 123]service upon the Levites, Num. 3.7. Num. 8.18.19. and herein is a parity, for the service of the ministry is the service of the Church, and the Officers performe it for the Church. Yet this reason would not have been, nor is good in the presence of Officers, had there not been a speciall reason, because the Officers are to transact her af­faires for her. As for Election, we have examples enough in the New Testament, for such a priviledge we need not fly to the old.

Rejoyn. That the service performed by the Levites was for­merly performed by the first borne, That the first borne did sacri­fice for Israel, I grant; The Priests did sacrifice first for their owne sins, then for the sins of the people, Heb. 7.27. but that Israel did sacrifice by their Priests, or that the power or authority of sa­crificing was in the Congregation, or that the Priests did sacri­fice by any power they had from the Congregation is an unjustifi­able opinion, The Priests were neither chosen, nor ordained, nor authorized by the people, God alway did single out whom he pleased to the Priesthood. The Elders, not all the People did lay hands on the Sacrifice even when the whole Congregation had sinned, Levit. 4.14.15. It was never the service of the whole Congregation to offer sacrifice to God but of the first borne of Aaron and his Sons, no more then Saul might Sacrifice: That the service of the Ministry is performed for the Church, I grant finaliter for the good of the Church, and all good Ministers do make themselves (as Christ himselfe did) in this sence servants of the Church, and are willing to spend and be spent for them, ac­knowledging that they are for the Church and not the Church for them equally, but if you meane that the service of the Mini­stry is vice Ecclesiae, and by authority received from the people, or that they do the peoples worke when they baptize or admini­ster the Sacrament, or when the Priest did offer Incense, or that your people may be said to baptise, administer Sacraments, preach to themselves by you their Pastor and Teacher, or Rule over themselves by their Elders, that is a phrase of speech and a tenet not warranted by the word: Ministers are in the New Testa­men called the Ministers of God, of Iesus Christ, of the Gospell, of the Word, of the New Testament, but not servants of the Church, of this or that Congregation.

2. I Demand why this should be a Pat [...]ern in Ordination and not in Election, & you almost tell us you have no Examples for Ordina­tion [Page 124]by people in the New Testament and therefore you fly to the Old when you say of Election you have Example enough in the New Testament to settle it on the people, you need not fly to the Old. your principall examples, have been already weighed.

Sect 4. IF you can but produce one Instance from the New Reply p. 54. Testament that ever Elders of one Church ordained Officers in another, or any good reason for it grounded thence, the con [...]roversy about ordination shall be ended, and the pattern of Numb. 8 waved. Rejoynd.

• 1. By the Words In Another Congregation. I suppose you meane not in the presence of ano­ther Congregation, but for the use and benefit of another Congre­gation to officiate there; your selves say the 120 Act 1. were to be considered only as a Particular Congregation, and yet they did choose an Apostle which was Pastor of all Churches: why might they not have ordained him?
• 2. Your selves say, that the Presbytery of Antioch did Ordeine Paul an Apostle; which if so, then they did ordaine an Officer for other Churches, yea even for Rome, to which he Writing calls himself (with reference (you say) to that ordination) an Apostle separated Rom. 1, 1. and the truth is, they did not by this imposition of hands inable Paul and Barnabas to officiate in the Church of Antioch, for that Paul had done a Twelve-Month before, nor were they to stay there but to be sent thence.
• 3. The Presbytery that Ordained Timothy was not the Presbytery of the Church of Ephesus, that Church was not foun­ded [your selves say] till Act 19. yet Timothy [...] exercised his fun­ction before, and Paul wisheth him not to neglect the gift (viz. to use it in the Church of Ephesus) which was given by the laying an of hands of the Presbytery (some say at Lystra.)
• 4. If sundry Congregations in Ierusalem were under one Presbytery, which is clearely proved Cap. 5. If there be an Vnivers all Visible Governing Church, If a Synod have authoritative power of which see cap. 8.9. then it is a cleere case that Elders may have power of Ordination in severall Congregations.
• 5. Division of the Church into Con­gregations, and fixing particular Elders to them is no further of Divine Institution then order and edification did fi [...]st occasion, and doe still require it should be so, as the whole Tribe of Levy fed all the Iewes in common (for ought wee know) while they were together; and afterwards when the tribes of Israell came to be fixed in their severall divisions, the Levitess alo were scattered [Page 125]and fixed amongst them, so the Apostles notwithstanding theri generall commission did feed the church in common while there was but one particular Church, and afterward when Church­es were multiplied, did for edifictaion and orders sake, agree upon a division of themselves, and had their severall places Ordinarily to Officiate in Gal. 2.9.2 Cor 10.13.14.15.16. as souldiers and watchmen of any regiment (to which Ministers 1. Tim 2.3. Isa. 62.6. are compa'rd) have their severall wards, limits, and gates, which they looke to, and take care of; yet so as they all are the Souldiers and Watchmen of the whole ci­ty, and ministers may teach and Governe severall congregations in common, by consent of all parties Interessed, if it shal be found most for their edification, as it is in some reformed churches at this day; for all Ministers and officers of the Church are given to the whole church for the gathering and building of it. 1. cor. 12.28. Ephes. 4.11.12. and they are to teach and rule and performe all ministrations with reference to it, and the best advantage of it. And yet (that I may prevent an usuall objection) there is diffe­rence enough between Apostles and Ordinary Elders; for the A­postles were to teach and rule not onely Churches and Flocks, but Pastors, and Ministers also, being men of an higher Order 1 Cor. 12.28. Eph. 4.11, they were immediately called of God, Gal 1.1. Infallible in their Doctrine, Gal. 1.7.8, & 5.2 endowed with extraordinary gifts Act 2.1, 2, & 8.18. were enjoyned ordina­rily to travell abroad to plant Churches Math 28.19 they might act authoritatively any where without a call or consent, and might shake of the dust of their feet, against such Ministers, or others as did not receive them, Math. 10.14. their Commission was irre­pealable, their limits were large. Gal. 2.9. one Apostle had autho­rity over all the Churches whether he were present or absent. But a Minister is not of an higher order, nor hath power over his Fel­low-Ministers, nor hath an immediate unrepealable call, is not in­fallible, nor in these times extraordinarily gifted, he cannot act authoritatively, either in an ordinary or occasionall way, either inpreaching, administring the sacraments or the like, without the call or consent of persons Interested.
• 6. You cannot shew any one Elder that was ordeined by those that were only of that par­ticular congregation where he was to officiate byvertue of the said ordination.

Sect. 5. Lastly, if it be unlawfull for unofficed men to ordaine, then [at least in case a congregation have no Elders] the Elders of o­ther congregations must ordaine Elders there, or else they can have no ordination without sinfull surpation of Presbyterian Power: now for the unlawfullness of unofficed men's ordination of Elders; consider first what ordination is. It is the solemne set­ting apart of a Person to a publike church-office. so it was voted in the Assembly nemine contradicente, or it is in Scripture phrase, an appointment of men over some church-business: Act: 6.3. Im­position of hands the usuall and most approved ceremony of ordi­nation, notes 1. a visible designation of persons to be in office. 2. a separation of them to God in that office or work, Act. 13.1.3. Rom. 1.1.3. a putting of that worke and service upon them, as laying hands on the sacrifices, did put sin upon them. 4. A bene­diction of them that their labor may be to the glory of God and good of the Church. 5. a signification to them in Gods name that his hand is with them in all that they doe in his name and by his Authority, to guid, strengthen, and protect them. 2. Let us con­sider who hath the power and Authority to ordaine: viz. Officres only, for first, The Apostles [which did where ever they came leave the Elders and people to the exercise of that right which be­longed to them] did not leave to non-Elders the power of ordaining though it had been much easier to have writ to the churches that they should ordaine their own Elders then to have come themselves [as Act. 14.23] or to have sent Timothy or Titus for that purpose, 1. Tim. 5.22. Tit. 1.5.

2dly. There can no Instance, no not one be given in all the New Testament of any Officer upon whom an unofficed man did im­pose hands in ordaining him. 3. They that do ordaine do put some of their worke upon the person ordained; but Preaching Baptizing, &c. Is it not the worke of any non-officed men. 4. He that ordaines blesseth him that is ordained, and without all contradiction the less is blessed of the greater, Heb. 7.7.5. Ordi­nation [vou confess] is an Act of authority, but non-officed men have no rule or authority. Cotton Keyes p. 5.6. The two Bre­thren in their answer to Mr. Herle page 48. do allow that a Church wanting Elders, may request the Elders of other Churches to ordaine Elders for her, and they that are so requested have a calling to come. 7. Your selves say p. 110. It is essentiall that or­dination [Page 127]be done by the right Subjectum capax of that ordinance, and alledge, 1 Tim. 4.14. laying on of hands of the Presbytery, Tit. 1.5. Act. 14.23. to which I add Act. 6.2.6. & 13.1.2.1 Tim. 5.22. 2. Tim. 2.2. which texts do not only prove that Ordination is to be done by the right Subjectum capax, but also; that Elders are that Subjectum capax. 8. their being deputed by a Congregation or not deputed varies not the case, till it be made to appeare that though no other non-Officer may ordain, yet the Church may lawfully de­pute a man, and a man so deputed may lawfully ordaine. Where hath the Congregation any charter for this? Sect. 6. When I alledge that you tell us that it is a maine Pillar of Popery to ‘proportion the church now to the outward policy in Israell, and that Christs faithfullness above Moses consists in as full deter­mination of Gods worship in the New Testament,’ as in the old that we are as strictly tied to the Gospell Patterne, as the Jewes were to the old Testament, you reply p. 55. The foundati­on of the Antichristian Hierarchy is laid in the proportion betwixt the Iewish policy, & the policy of the christian church, yet use may be made of the Old Testament where the new is silent, do not you conclude Infants must be baptised, not because the new expresly saith so, but because you find in the old Testament that Infants were circumcised.

Rejoyn.

• 1. Then the foundation of the Antichristian hierarchy and of Popular ordination is one and the same, viz. the proportion between the Iewish church and the christian.
• 2. Your selves confess that the New Testament is not silent in this matter, for it shewes [say you p. 110] that ordination must be done by the right sub­jectum capax of it, of which I spake in the next precedent Secti­on.
• 3. The covenant of grace to which the controversie of Pae­dobaptisme hath reference is the same in the old and new Testa­ment, but ordination is an Act of Government and policy, and you tell us p. 86. That Christ hath not appointed the Iewish Church in matters of Government to be a Patterne to Gospel Churches, but that they should be conformed to spirituall Patterns and Precepts left by Christ and his Apostles, amongst which this is not to be found, that the people may ordaine.
• 4. Baptisme of Infants hath better ground in the new Testament then your popular ordination
• 5. you say it is an Essentiall in government that ordination be done by the right subjectum capax, therefore that by your own confession must be directly determined. And [...] [Page 126] [...] [Page 127] [...] [Page 128] deny not your selves to have certaine knowledge of Essentiall, in government, and the people thinke, you are assured, that it is law­full for non-officied men, in case a church want Officers, to ordeine. Sect. 7. When I ask why should wee 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 pattern of Ordination o [...] Elders? You Reply I. no hands at all were layd upon the Priests, they were anointed and consecrated 8 c. but you would not have ordination of Elders tur­ned into consecration after the manner of Priests.

Rejoynd. No I would not indeed, and therefore I would not have the Ordination either of Preists or Levites a pattern for ordination of Elders, as you may see by the last question above, why should we in &c. whereunto you give no direct answer, but Popish-Priests will be annointed using such a like argument from the annointing of the Priests as you doe for popular ordination from the ordination of the Levites.

2dly: you Reply. p. 55. what was done to the Priests was not done by any Ecclesiasticall person but by Moses the chiefe Magistrate.

Rejoyn. 1. Surely you know that Moses though he was the chief Magistrate, was also an Ecclesiasticall person. Psal. 99.6. Moses & Aaron amongst his Priests; and that he did offer sacrifice (which had hee been onely a civill Magistrate (as Saul) hee could not have done) at the time of the consecration, Exod. 29.11.12.13. 12. at it were to shew that he consecrated Aaron as a Priest, not as a Magistrate. 2ly. This puts me in minde, that I told you that the Levites were by Moses separated to the work from amongst the Children of Israell & cleansed & brought before the tabernacl of the congregation, and set before Aaron and his Sons, and Offered as an offering to the Lord; Num. 8.6, 7, 13, 14. which was more (to say nothing what Aaron did) then was done by the children of Israell towards the consecration of the Levites, and your eva­sion that he was a civil Magistrate will not serve your turne. 3dly your reply, the Elders of the new Testament are rather the succes­sors of the Levites then of the Priests because there was no Hie­arrchy amongst them and therefore the pattern of their ordination is rather to be followed.

Rejoynd

• 1. The Levites are often called Diaconi, Deacons and [Page 129]the Deacons seem in the Prophesies to be pointed out by Levites, and Elders by Priests Isa. 66.21. I will take of them for Priests and Levites, which (as your selves say, p. 71.) is spoken of the New Te­stament.
• 2. There was an Hierarchy amongst the Levites hence we read of the Princes and over-seers or Bishops of the Levites, 1 Chro. 15.16, 22. 1 Chro. 9. 33, 34, 2 Chron. 35.9. Nehe. 11.22. & 12.42. when you have consulted better with Scriptures (as you bid me do, and God-willing I will do in these dangerous times wherein men fa­ther their bastard opinions on God) and with Bertram de politia Iu­daica. p. 101. You will find an Hierarchy amongst the Levites as well as amongst the Priests, and also that there is no footing for ordi­nation by non-officers no more then for the Antichristian hierarchy.

Sect. 8. I alledged in my Answer that there was no mention in Mar. 16.15. Mat. 28.19, 20. of the celebration of the Eucharist you Reply, p. 56. The Apostle having Commission for Baptism could not want it for the Eucharist, which sealeth the same Covenant which baptism sealeth.

Rejoynd. Very true, therefore Ordination being an Act of Presby­teriall power, as well as Baptism, the Apostles did not want it though it be not mentioned. I further said that preaching and baptizing were first to be done to the nations, therefore they are there mentioned: you Reply. That was not the sele reason, but because they were prin­cipall works and in reference to the subject persons about which they were to be exercised more Apostolical, for they might preach and Baptize in all the world, whereas ordinary Officers in an Ordinary way, may not do such works in al the world but onely in the Church. Rejoynd. 1. You allow my reason to be good, though it be not the sole reason. 2. The reason you adde is not good for the Administring of the Supper is as principal a work as Apostolicall as Baptism, it seals the same Covenant (as you confesse) requires as much if not more Authority might have been Administred in all the world by the Apo­stles as well as Baptism and so might ordination also. 3. If the Apo­stles might Baptise any that were not in the Church, then how could their Baptism be a seal principally of Church-Communion as you have asserted. I further urged. That the Apostles did practise Ordi­nation and we suppose that they went not beyond their Commission Act. 6. &c. 13. & 14. And a Commission to Elders we read as well as practise, 1 Tim. 4. You reply, That the Position saith not that Or­dination is within their Commission, but that there is no mention [Page 130]thereof when they first received their Commission and the page out of which the Position is exerted, makes mention of some works with­in their Commission not mentioned, viz. prayer, and Act. 6.4. is quo­ted for it. But indeed you are injurious to the Authors of the Answ. to 32. q. p. 71.

Rejoynd.

• 1. You are injurious to me to accuse me of injury to the Authors of the Answ. to 32. q.
• 2 What ever their meaning be if your selves will plainly acknowledge (what you seem to do covertly) that those words in that position will not justifie Ordination by non of­ficers I have attained my end.
• 3 That passage of yours That Ordina­tion is nothing else but the accomplishment of Election, I must take notice of it here, it may be I shall not meet with it els-where, and in direct opposition of it, I say, That Ordination is more then the accom­plishment of Election, yea it is of more moment then election; for, 1. laying on of hands (not lifting up of hands (as you speak) is reckoned amongst the Principles, Heb. [...].3.2 The charge is more expresse that Ordination rather then election should not be hastily and suddenly done. [...] The description of persons fit for Office is much more large in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, which were to ordein, then in any or all the Epistles written to the Churches to whom Election is conceived to belong.
• 4. The Apostles by Ordination rather then the people by Election are said Act. 6. to uppoint the 7 over the business.
• 5. Fasting and Prayer was specially with reference to the ordination of the seven, rather then to the Election Act. 6.

Sect. 9. Ordination by the Prelates (notwithstanding what is said of Hierarchical, and Prelatical men) is more lawful and valid then ordination by non-officers; for the Prelates were Preshyters, and so more enabled by the word to ordain then any non-Presbyters. Prelacy though an humane Institution did no more annihilate their being Presbyters then Pharrisaism did the Jewish Priesthood, and they did ordain as Presbyters, for Bishops and Presbyters are but made one order by the very Papists, which also judg, that if a Dea­con should be made Bishop par saltum, he hath no power to ordain Presbyters; and although the Prelates partly through their own usurpation, partly through the sloth or Pusillanimity of the Presby­ters, partly by law and cannon were invested with too much power; yet they did not ordain Presbyters without the assistance of other Elders, and their ordination comes neerer to the Scripture-way of ordination by the Presbytery, then ordination by non-Elders (espe­cially [Page 131]by one) can do; and is by the Scripture-rules, by the pre­sent Parliament, as formerly also by the reformed Churches and godly non-conformists, (notwithstanding their opposition to Prela­cy) judged valid, and not to be changed for any popular ordina­tion. When the Church was in the wilderness, when Antichrist most reigned and raged; God did preserve some foundamental Do­ctrines, and the essence of Baptism and Ministry; and they (that is her Pastors) did feed her there, Rev. 12.6, 14. before there was any Popular ordination. If you deny these things shew the contrary of them.

CHAP. XIX. Of the Churches power to Censure her of­ficers from, Col. 4.17.

Sect. 1. VVHen I alledg that the Church of Coloss had other Elders besides Archippus, You reply p. 58.

• 1. What officers there were therein, and with that Church appears not.
• 2. Though they had officers, yet the command is directed to the Church without express consideration of any officers amongst them, and the brethren are not excluded from joyning with the offi­cers in that which is commanded, Col. 4.17.

Rejoyn.

• 1. You dare not say there was no ruling nor preaching Elders, besides Archippus though you seem to argue that there was not, It may be Philemon, to whom Paul writes as to a fellow labou­rer, was there, seeing Onesimus his servant is said to be one of the Co­lossians, Col. 4.9. Epaphras was also an officer, though absent, v. 12. If they had no officers with them but Archippus (which is not credible) yet Tychicus a Minister, and Onesimus might from Paul joyn with the Church in that admonition.
• 2. I might as wel say, it doth not appear that Archippus was of the Church of Coloss, for the Apostle seems to have done with the Colossians, only wils them to salute them in Laodicea and Nymphas, who (its like) was a Laodecean, and then to cause this Epistle to be read in the Church of Laodicea, and read the Epistle from Laodicea, and say to Ar­chippus, who as one writes was Bishop or Pastor of Laodicea, and [Page 132]not unlikely, that a cold Church might have a cold Minister, nor unagreeable to the context. But it is as probable that Philemon and he were joint Pastors or Coloss, Phil. 1.1. Bullinger saith that Philemon was Bishop or Pastor of Coloss, and then it is probable Archippus was his partner: But if it be denyed that Philemon was of Coloss, it wil hardly be proved that Archippus was.
• 3. If there be not express consideration of officers, yet an implicite considera­tion may serve the turn.
• 4. That brethren in their, sphere may joyn with the officers is not questioned, but that the brethren of a Church distinct from Elders, have power to censure their Elders.

I deny

• 1. Elders have authority, but such brethren have none, as you acknowledg, now that they which have no authority, should have power to censure such as have authority, is a strange and new tenet.
• 2. The Apostle which doth all things fitly, directs Timothy about receiving accusations against Elders, but he doth not direct any brethren in that matter. Now every Apostle as also Timothy and Titus, were as it were an Eldership of the Churches extraordi­narily combined in one man.
• 3. When the Prophets speak by two or three the other Prophets, not the body of the people were ap­pointed to judg [...], and in that sense as wel as in any other. The Spirit of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets.
• 4. The power of ordaining and making Elders is not in hands of Non-Elders; therefore jurisdiction over Elders to to censure, depose, excomuni­cate them is not in their hands.

Sect. 2. I answer Paul bids Timothy fulfil his Ministry, 2. Tim. 4.5. This doth not suppose Timothy to be faulty or to be under cen­sure, and it may be Archippus Pauls fellowlaborer was not faulty, and then this admonition was no censure and therefore it is alledged to no purpose. You Reply, p. 58. 1 Expositors do judge him faulty, as Zanchy. 2 There is a difference between, Make full proof of thy Ministery, which respects persons himself and others: And fulfill thy ministry which respects the work it self in the duties of it. 3. It is one thing when the Apostle a superior writing to a person and inferi­our, gives him good Councel, and amongst other things injoyns him to make full proof of his ministery, and another thing when he writes to a people without any occasion, and without mingling it with other exhortations of like nature, and excites them in an abrupt manner to say to Archippus, see to the ministry of the former there are many patterns which imply not faultiness, 1 Pet. 5.1, 2, 3. Tit. 2. ult. for [Page 133]the latter where is there a parallel place? therefore there is a strong presumption that Archippus whom the people ordinarily must heare in silence & are now put upon it to admonish him, was not faulty. Con­gregationall way justified, p. 7. You argue thus; Paul bids Timothy fulfill his ministry, 2 Tim. 4.5. yet this doth not suppose Timothy to be faulty, and then this admonition was no censure, and thence you in­fer, therefore its alledged to no purpose; it had bin more tolerable if you had said therefore it may be it is alledged to no purpose.

Rejoynd.

• 1. My meaning is plainly this, It may be Archip­pus was not faulty, and then, (viz. if he was not faulty) this was no censure, and (if this was no censure) it is alledged to no purpose, These are hypotheticall propositions, and are not grounded upon a possibi­lity but upon supposall of Archippus his faultlesness, and that being supposed, they are not onely tolerable but justifiable without it may be.
• 2. The authority of Zanchy you do not much regard, nor any o­ther humane authority, which is not to your mind: you know well if matters between us, should be put to the arbitrement of Commen­tators, they would not cast them on your side.
• 3. Notwithstanding your criticall difference of the Greek words, our translators conceived that fulfil or make full proof are either of them consistent with the Originall, therefore they put one in the text the other in the margent.
• 4. Was it not a duty for Timothy to make ful proof of his Ministery as well as for Archippus to fulfill it, and if so, doth not the requiring the one of Timothy suppose a defect in duty as well as requiring the other of Archippus?
• 5. As for the abruptness of the speech, nothing is more usuall in the end of Pauls Epistles then abrupt speeches.
• 6 grant they do amount to as much (as your selvs reckon them to) viz. a strong presumption that Archippus was faulty, that is but as if you should say, There is strong presumption, that the Church is commanded to censure him, that is there is but weak proof.
• 7. Strong presumption cannot carry away the cause, for there are strong presumptions on the other hand,
  • 1. That Paul inscribes an Epistle to Philemon and him, at or about the same time, Isaacson Chron. and doth not tax Archippus at all.
  • 2. That in that Epistle he calls him his fellow-souldier, a very honourable Epithet.
  • 3. If these words were then understood to im­ply faultiness then this Epistle being read in the Churches of Coloss and Laodicea would shame Archippus publikly before he had (for ought we know) any private admonition, these considerations with many others may weigh down your strong presumption, of the contrary.

Sect. 3 I answered that admonition doth not alway suppose autho­rity, for this may be an act of charity a wel as of authority? Paul might admonish Peter, and one brother another of the same Church, though Paul had no authority over Peter, nor fellow-members one over another. Gal. 2.11. Math. 18.15, 16. You Reply p. 59. Church-admonition is some degree of censure, for it is a leading step to an higher censure, til it come at last to excommunication; call it what you wil consure it is, and that is all the Position doth assert.

R.

• 1. The Position doth assert that the Church doth not only admonish by way of charity, but that she hath power to censure doth admonition imply power? can you say properly that Paul had power to censure Peter, because he did admonish him, or that a woman hath power to censure a Church-member, yea a Church-officer; because upon occasion she may tel him his fault between him and her, and yet this may be a leading step til at last in come to excommunication?
• 2. I would you had expressed whether in your opinion, this admonition did suppose authority in the people or no? if you say that the people have no authority to admonish their Pastors, you as I conceive wave the position:
• 3. When one of your Chur­ches doth admonish another, this is Church-admonition; and is (you say) a leading step to an higher censure, viz. Non-communion, yet I suppose you wil not say, one Church hath power to censure ano­ther.

I further answered. That Private members cannot censure judicially or un-Church the Congregation though they be bidden plead with their mother plead. Hos. 2.2. You Reply. If they may plead, then they may withdraw from the Congregation off from their officers, when they wil not be reclaimed, Which though it be not a judicial and positive censure, yet must be granted to be negative,

Rejoyn.

• 1. The consequence is naught, a wife may plead with her husband in many cases (and a child with his parent) in which, she may not withdraw from them.
• 2. The question is, whether we may conclude, that they that are bidden plead, have power to cen­sure the Church judicially you intimate, that we may not so con­clude.
• 3. They might plead with the Church before Christ (I grant the text bears it) but that then they might withdraw not only from her corruptions, but from her Communion; and that into a distinct Church (as the manner of some now is) you cannot prove:
• 4. If pleading do by consequence prove withdrawing, yet sure it doth not prove that they should withdraw from the Church before they [Page 135] plead with her, but that they should first plead with her, and if she wil not be healed withdraw from her.
• 5. You might have done wel to have explained and proved by Scripture or sound reason, that there is an unjudicial censure as wel as a judicial, a negative censure as well as a positive, and that they which may only censure negatively and judicially may be said (as it is in the Position) to have power to cen­sure, otherwise the Reader happily may think these distinctions were but invented to help in a strait.
• 6. You hold that women may withraw (and indeed they having learned of their great grand-mother are too apt to do it & to perswade their husbands also) and have women po­of the keyes? Or is this any key at all? Or do you mean that the Churches admonition of Archippus doth prove only a negative un­judicial censure, such as private men may have one toward other, yea toward the Church, or a positive and judicial censure, if you hold the former then we differ less, if the latter, more.

Sect. 4. I answered the Colloss: were as wel to cause that Epistle to be read in the Church of Laodicea, as to say to Archippus, yea the word [cause] seems more authoritative then say ye, yet our brethren hold not that one Church hath not power over another Church; if it had been said of Archippus Cause Archipyus and say to Laodicea you could have made notable use of it. You reply p. 59. [Cause] in the original is [...] not command ye, but work ye, effect ye, endeavour ye, that it be read and so interpreted, it is not so authoritative as say ye, for say ye take heed seem more imparative: The Greek word translated Cause imports no more then endeavor ye.

R.

• 1. You tol us p. 99. there is a the fold causing by way of au­thority or by way of moral swasion, this later, say you, the Apostle speaks of here, but if it had been said cause Archippus, some would have told us that causing by way of authority is here meant, and that [...] signifies to make or cause a thing to be done, and that there is no classick Greek writer in which a man is said [...] any thing which he doth only endeavour and not accomplish.
• 2. You say, say ye &c. seems more imperative then mak ye or cause eye who ever said so? thought so (if your selves do) you do not shew us that these is a two-fold saying, one authoritative and the other swasive as you say there is a two-fold causing, nor do you shew us any place of Scrip­ture where saying is taken for authoritative saying, and yet if you did it were not good reason a genre ad sp [...]ci [...]m affirmative, no more then if a man should say, causing is sometimes by way of autho­rits [Page 136]therefore it is so here.
• 3. The word say ye may be translated tell ye to Archippus as wel as Math. 18.17. (which is the very same word) tell the Church, or that place in Mathew may be translated say ye to the Church as wel as this say ye to Archippus, as you being acquainted with the Greek tongue know wel enough; now if both of these places had been translated say or tel they would not have sounded so much for your purposes: I conclude therefore there is as much or more force in these words to prove the Collossians power to cause an Epistle to be read in another Church, as to say Archippus; but I maintain not that they had of themselves power in either.

Sect. 5. I concluded the Church cannot excommunicate their whole Presbytery no more then the Presbytery excommunicate the whole Church; the Church hath not received from Christ an office of rule without her officers, Cotton Keyes. You reply p. 60. This withdrawing is a negative excommunication which is some kind of censure though not so authoritative as the positive.

Rejoyn.

• 1. I observe that this negative censure, is now swelled up to a negative excommunication.
• 2. That it is grown up to be authoritative, though not so authoritative as the Positive.
• 3. You deny not but that in case of Apostasy, scandal, obstinacy of the Church? the Elders as Mr. Cotton saith, may denounce the judg­ments of God against the Church, and withdraw from it; and there­fore we may invert the Position and say. The officers have power to censure the whole Church if they see just occasion and prove it, be­cause they may withdraw.
• 4. A man by the law of nature, may withdraw from his crud father, or Master, (or a wife from her hus­band that seeks to kil her) for the safety of their lives, and men (and women also) ought to forsake a Church in the Communion of which they cannot be saved, but this is not an authoritative but a natural act, yet sure women have no power over their husbands, over their Churches and Ministers.
• 5. Is not negative excommunication of the officers by the Church tantamount with Positive excommunica­tion (saving the pronouncing of the sentence) which is not much material if the thing if self be effectually done without it.

CHAP. XX. Of Tythes, and setled Maintenance.

Sect. 1. Repl. p. 61. YOu discover your apprehensions thus. 1. That Tythes are Jewish maintenance.

Rejoynd.

• 1. What you or I apprehend is not materiall, but what we prove.
• 2. What mean your by Jewish? That they were cere­moniall, and abrogated by Christ. I believe you mean so; but then you should shew wherein the Ceremony did consist? where, what is the analogical resemblance of things prefigured? wherein con­sists the signification of them? All ceremonies properly Levitical were either of mysticall signification, or typicall of something be­longing to Christ and his kingdome.
• 3. If by Jewish you mean, used among the Jews, I grant it, (and that they were used amongst the Heathens also; Amsworth on Gen. 14.20.) but this doth not make them unlawfull, your selves being judges; for, pag. 67. you labour to prove by Chemnitius, and by comparing Joh. 8.20. with Mar. 12.61. That the Doctors in Christs time were maintained by contribution, and that the treasury of the Temple (which sure was no Gospel-ordinance) was both to maintain the Doctors and the poor, and thence you will gather the lawfulnesse of maintaining Mini­sters out of the Churches stock.

Are Contributions lawfull, because they are Jewish; and Tythes unlawfull, because they are Jewish? If the manner of maintenance in Christs time be so much looked at, then I dare say, yea I did say in my Answer though you left it out, and now justifie that you might better alleadge Mat. 23.23. for manner of maintenance; for there Christ expresly saith of Tythes, yea of the smallest tythes of mint, annyse and cummin, These things ye ought to have done, &c. Which if it had been spoken concerning Sabbath-day contributions, or maintenance out of the Treasure of the Temple, or Church-flock, that it ought to be done, or not to be left undone; you would not have fetched such a compasse for proving the Divine institution of such maintenance; nor have urged Chemnitius his testimony, if you had so plain a one of Christ.

Sect. 2. Reply, p. 61. Because Tythes were setled on the Levites upon consideration of having no inheritance amongst their brethren.

Rejoynd. 1. It is evident that Tythes were not setled on the Levites as Levites, nor proper to the Leviticall officers. Paul to the Hebrews, c. 7. v. 5, 6, 8. expresly affirmeth that Melchizedek (after whose order Christ the greatest Priest was, Heb. 5.6. (and not of the order of Aaron) and who represented Christ) did receive Tythes, and by his receiving of tythes proves him to be a more ex­cellent and eternall Priest; for in the Law men that die receive tythes, but Melehisedeck received tythes, of whom it is witn [...]ssed that he liveth. Paul saith not, the Priests and Levites receive tythes, but Melchisedeck (of whose order Christ was) receiveth none: This would have been an argument for your purpose; but he in effect saith plainly, that the payment of tythes was not proper to the Levitical Priesthood, but paid also to Melchisedeck the type of Christ: for the Apostles purpose was not only, nor chiefly to ad­vance 0208 0108 V 3 Melchizedeck's, but Christ's Priestheod above Aaron's, yea 0208 0108 V above Melchizedeck's, which in token of his greatnesse received tythes, Heb. 7.4. and was not made after the law of a carnall com­mandement, but after the power of an endlesse life, and of whom it is witnessed that he liveth, v. 8. as Christ also, Rev. 1.18. Secondly, you do dictate, not prove, that Tythes were setled upon the Levites upon consideration of having no inheritance amongst their brethren; for the contrary is evident, viz. They had no inheritance amongst their brethren, upon consideration that they had Tythes, &c. because God had given them Tythes, First-fruits, &c. and the Lord was their inheritance, therefore he said unto them that among the children of Israel they should have no inheritance, Num. 18.24. Deut. 18.1, 2. and yet you think men should believe it without any pretence of proof. Thirdly, in the margent you say, see John Selden of Tythes, but neither cite book, chapter, nor page, nor do you by any letter direct us for what part of this Section you cite him, whether for this or some other particular in it, nor have I his book; I did once see it, but was neither then, nor am now any further versed in this controversie then your book doth occasion me to be: And yet I suppose Mr. Selden, being a learned man, doth not hold Tythes unlawfull; why then do you so abuse him to set him so in the margent of such a section, in which (as you tell us in your last) you prove Tythes unlawfull by the Word of God, as though his book did bear witnesse to such an untruth? but as I remember, he counts it a sinne against Gods law, Prov. 20.25. to [Page 3]alien Tythes. Consult you again with him. I will credit your re­port of his opinion, if you do distinctly and deliberately relate it. Fourthly, It must not be understood that the Levites had no in­heritance at all, for the contrary appears, they had forty eight cities and suburbs, which were 2000 cubits from the wall on every side, Numb. 35.2. Lev. 25.32, 33, 34. though Judaea (as oft times upon other occasions you assert) was but a small country. Jeremy a Priests sonne buyes a field of his uncle as next a ki [...] Jer. 32.7, 9. Barnabas a Levite having land, sold it, Act. 4.36. Yea for ought you know (except you have studied more against tythes, then I for them) the cities of the Levites (though a small tribe) might e­quall, yea excell the portion of any tribe in Israel, besides their tythes and other their great revenues: therefore you cannot say that they had no inheritance at all, though they had none such as other tribes had, so separate from the rest, so bounded, so entire to­gether, but they had their inheritance by parts and peeces, as Jacob had prophesied, and God in wisdom disposed, both that the land should be but divided into twelve parts, and the children of Joseph should be two Tribes, Josh. 14.4. and that the Levites should for the better instruction of the people be scattered amongst the tribes, and have their maintenance also where they lived.

Sect. 3. Reply, p. 61. Tythes were appointed together with Offer­ings, Mat. 3.8.

Rejoynd.

• 1. That text saith that they were taken away together, God was robbed of them both at once: but that they were ap­pointed together, it saith not.
• 2. The text mentions them together; yet this (if you have no better argument) proves not that they were of the same nature. Fornication, eating of blood and things strangled, prayer ever the sick and a [...]inting them with [...]yle, are not of the same nature, nor alike commanded or forbidden, and yet the first two are mentioned together, Act. 15.29. and the other two, Jam. 5.14.
• 3. The text implies they were at the same time due, and required of God, but not that they both were appointed at the same time and upon the same grounds.
• 4. How do you make it appear that all the Offerings there mentioned were cere­moniall, and now unlawfull? Is it ceremoniall to offer to the Church-stock or treasury, because the Jews did so? Your selves, for the credit of such offerings, say they were used amongst the Jews; and I dare say, you hold that it is lawfull upon good oc­casion [Page 4]to keep a Day in the moneth or yeare, a Fast or a Feast, though we know the Jewes did keep fasts or feasts on the same day.

Sect. 4. Reply, p. 61. Tythes 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.

Rejoynd. Here is another mistake. The text saith not that tythes were paid to the Priests, but to the Priest the sonne of Aaron, the successor of Aaron in the High-Priests office; as the very citation in the margent led me to Num. 18.27, 28. which faith, that the tenth of the Levites (amongst whom the Priests, as to that, were comprehended) was to be given as the Lords heave-offering to Aaron the Priest. But tythes were payed by Abraham, Gen. 14. vowed by Jacob, Gen. 38.22. Asserted by Paul, not to be proper to the Leviticall Priesthood, Heb. 7, are not (that we know) of any typical or mystical signification, as the High-Priest (we know) was; therefore they are not of the same nature. If tythes to the High-Priest be now unlawfull, the reason is because there is no High-Priest now; Christ hath made that office void, it was typical and plainly ceremonial, and not because Tythes are unlawfull. And these, or some of these, are the answers we give to them that tell us we might as well keep the Sabbath of the 7. year, as of the 7. day.

Sect. 5. You reply, p. 61. That you see no ground for setled stinted maintenance, to last from year to year, 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 setled. And this also is an argument against Tythes.

Rejoynd.

• But what if Tythes were ceremoniall and Jewish? is set maintenance ceremoniall also? Of what mysticall or typicall signification is that? or is it grounded on equitie and morall reason? Doth not the Scripture, Ezek. 45.1.5. allude to a certain and setled maintenance that should be given to the Ministery? and in comparing it with servants hire and wages, 1 Tim. 5.18. and to a Souldiers pay, 1 Cor. 9.7. both which are certain.
• 2. Had [Page 5]God more care of the maintenance of the Ministers of the Old Testament, then of the New? As the father allotting his sonne some portion of lands and revenues, or allowing him to be capa­ble of certain maintenance which none can deprive him of, doth expresse more care of him then if he should make him uncapable of such maintenance, and assigne him to his friends at large to be maintained as they thought fit.
• 3. When the Minister hath set­maintenance, he knowes better how to proportion his living, his alms, his expences for the publike, his provision for his children, and how to keep hospitality (as the Scripture requires he should)
• 4 Tythes are not in one sense setled or stinted maintenance; for they are more or lesse, according as the husbandman soweth and God prospereth, as Corn is little or much, good or bad, well or ill gotten, dear or cheap; they that receive Tythes do rise and fall with them from whom they receive them.
• 5. Where do you see ground in Scripture for setled and stinted maintenance to last from year to year, if it come from the State? how prove you that the State may lawfully settle such maintenance, and the Church may not? Can the State settle Gods blessing to make it abide with them in an equall manner without increase or decrease, any more then the Church can?
• 6. Do you see ground for set stinted maintenance for a time, as a quarter of a year, or half a year, or a year, (as you intimate you do) only (you say) you see not ground it should last from year to year: Can the blessing of God be setled and made to abide with men in an equal manner without increase or decrease, a year, or half a year, or a quarter?
• 7. When main­tenance is given from the State, must it not come out of the Sub­jects purses? (You would not have the Parliament men out of their proper purses to maintain all the Ministers in the kingdome) And out of whose purses can it so fitly come, as from those which are bound by Gods law to maintain their Ministers?
• 8. Do not Tythes come from the State, or from the King (which as to this is all one) Did they not voluntarily at first give them? and when some by Law did fall again into their hands at the dissolution of Abbies, they might either give them to the Ministery, or dispose them to private persons, or possesse them to the publike use; the present inhabitants or country-men having no more legal right unto them where they were assigned to the Ministery, then where they were assigned to other persons and uses; for [Page 6]when they bought or took their Lands, they did not think of buy­ing or taking the Tythes, or did the sellers or setters think of set­ting or selling them; if they had, they would have required more money for the sale or lease.

Sect. 6. Reply, p. 61. There is great inequality in Tythes, and in all setled 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 Country maintains the Ministery of the Town, though many Chap­pels perhaps be robbed thereby, and persons who are much poorer in Estate then others, but have larger Lands then they, 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, some in the increase, others 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 not belong, and they are so much the more disabled i [...] supporting the Ministery to which they do belong.

Rejoynd.

• 1. Is there not as great an inequality, when Tythes are paid to a Gentleman (possibly a Papist) as where they are paid to the Ministers? Or do you intend, that as well the Parliament­men and others should be wronged of the Tythes legally due to them, as the Ministers?
• 2. Is it any inequality or unrighteous­nesse that men should pay their debts which they are legally bound to by their own consent, because it falleth out that a poorer man may pay more then a richer? When a fifth part of the land became Pharaohs, Gen. 47.26. was it unequall or unrighteous that they which possessed much lands, should pay for the fifth part of them more to Pharaoh, then richer men that had lesse lands did? Is it unequall or unrighteous, that he that hath a greater quantity of ground, should pay a greater Rent or a greater chief, then a richer man that hath lesse?
• 3. You count it lawfull for the State to allow setled maintenance; how can they do it any way, but there will be some pretence of inequality or unrighteousnesse? If the State do allow an Independent Minister 40. l. 50. l. or 100. l. per annum out of the sequestred Tythes of a neighbouring Parish, may not the people complain of inequality and injustice, as well [...] if they were of a Ministers own parish, and paid their tythes to [Page 7]him?
• 4. If any inequalitie or unrighteousnesse be now or here­after, the Parliament may from time to time rectifie it.
• 5. If Tythes be so burdensome (as you say they are) to the poor, what if it be possible to find some poor Church-members to pay much more to the Contributions then their tythes come to? Nor is their act meerly voluntary, it is expected they should give some­thing every Lords day; and two pence every Lords day, Fast and Feasting day, cannot be lesse then 10. s. per annum; it may be his Tythes comes not to two shillings, and he is not worth 10. or 20. l. Surely your rich ones do not keep their proportion with your poor ones, and for every ten or twenty pounds they are worth, pay two pence per diem.
• 6. Conscience tells us, that every one should have his own; but conscience in sundry cases doth not de­termine that this or that is mine, nor must I be mine own Judge in it; even good men are partiall in their own cases (as Judah and David) though just in other mens: therefore the Lawes we live under must determine it.

Sect. 7. You say in [Congregat. way justified, p. 8.]. If Christ our Lord hath appointed no such thing as stinted maintenance, then it is unfit for the Church to settle stinted maintenance.

Rejoynd.

• 1. Your conclusion should be, Therefore it is un­lawfull. A thing may be unfit, at least in opinion, and not unlaw­full.
• 2. Hath Christ appointed that the State may settle main­tenance, and forbidden it to the Church? or may the State plead exemption from Christs appointment any more then the Church? See above, Sect. 5.

Reply, p. 61. 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 years 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 Magistrate be a Christian or a Hea­then.

Rejoynd.

• 1. What then? is it therefore unlawfull? Mainte­nance from the State is not had but in peaceable times; therefore it is unlawfull too? Publike meeting-places for worship cannot [Page 8]be had but in peaceable times; are not they unlawfull too? And sometimes the Church-treasury may be robbed & spoiled; the free and publike peaceable exercise of Religion cannot be had but in peaceable times; you will not therefore conclude that they are unlawfull?
• 2. For lasting; the trade of the Begging-Friars outbids your Church-stock; for the Ministers may beg, whether times be peaceable or troublesome, whether the Magistrate be a Christian or an Heathen, whether there be maintenance out of the Church stock or no.
• 3. The tythes amongst the Jews were paid to the Jewish Priests in the time of Christ and his Apostles; if the Apostles had been never so desirous of them, they could not have had them: The Christians were very poor, in respect where­of, for fear of offence, the Apostles did preach freely in some places, having neither maintenance from Church nor from State, but working with their own hands. And yet you say that set maintenance from the State is not unlawfull, though such main­tenance neither was nor could be on foot for the first 300 years.

CHAP. XXI. Of Ministers maintenance out of the Church-stock and Lords-day Contributions.

Sect. 1. YOu say, p. 62. This maintenance out of the stock of the Church, we think we see most warrant for from the New Testament, & as most probable we once disputed; but neither then, nor now, are we peremptory in it. And in your last you say, That the Ministers are to be maintained by such a stock as is raised by weekly contribution; because it is not absolutely clear in the Text, at least to us, we thought fit to dispute it only as probable.

Rejoynd.

• 1. Then it seems the Scripture annexed to the Positi­on, is not sufficient, pertinent, and full of power to prove it. And in this I praise your modesty.
• 2. Your applying of the commen­dation of Jugurtha to your selves in your last, That he did pl [...]ri­mum facere, & minimum de se loqui, is no act of your modesty.

The Independent Answerer of Mr. Prynnes Quaere's, saith, Inde­pendents [Page 9]are the meekest men upon earth; and you, by your own re­port, are men that do much, and say little. Surely few think so but your selves.

You say, p. 62.1. We considered how Christ and the Apostles were maintained in the work of the Ministery, and we find 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. appears. See Junius Ecclesiast. p. 1954.

Rejoynd. The one Text saith, The women ministred to Christ of their substance; The other faith, that Judas had the bag. But that the womens contribution was given every Lords day, or that it was put into the publike treasury; Or that Judas bag out of which Christ gave somewhat to the poor, had not Christs proper goods in it, but the Churches stock; that Judas was a kind of Deacon or Church-officer, it saith not. 2. That Christs maintenance was wholly out of a stock that was raised by contribution, your selves do not assert; nor were the Apostles maintained in the work of the Ministery out of that bag, save only when they were at home as being of Christs own family.

Sect. 2. Reply, p. 62. We consider what was done in the Apostles times, Act. 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 and all others that had need were maintained; and the Apostles had at first the oversight of this stock.

Rejoynd.

• 1. They could not have any other way of Church-maintenance at that time.
• 2. Your selves acknowledge, First, that a setled maintenance may come from the State; And must it come from the State and the Church-stock too? Secondly, that that was but a temporary businesse, and not astrictive to all times, else it would hold that there must be a community of all things in the Church.
• 3. What is this to Lords-day contributions for the Ministers maintenance, of which the Position speaks?

Sect. 3. Reply, p. 62. You say, 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 & to Prayer, Act. 6.4. and neither medled with receiving, nor with disposing of what was [Page 10]contributed: The Deacons took that burden from off them, so that now they received all, and disposed of all: 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 medled 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 follows, 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 dispose as the Labourers had need, and their office was not to oversee the Poor alone.

Rejoynd.

• 1. That the Deacons came so into the Ap [...]stles place, that the Apostles medled with nothing, but received their main­tenance from the Deacons, or that men laid their money at the Deacons feet, it appears not in Scripture.
• 2. The contrary ra­ther appears; for not only Paul took great care of the poor divers times and in divers places; and James, Cephas, and John, (not the Deacons) did desire him to remember the poor, Gal. 2.10. but the Antiochians, Act. 11.30. sent the relief for the poor bre­thren which dwelt in Judaea, to the Elders, not to the Deacons. Now Agabus and other Prophets came lately thither from Hie­rusalem, v. 27, 28. and Barnabas and Paul that went with it, knew to whom to deliver it, yet they lay it down at the feet of the El­ders (not of the Deacons) which imports that Agabus, the Pro­phets, Barnabas and Saul, did know that the Apostles and Elders had somewhat to do with it, at least to take for their own ne­cessity as they did before, and not to be at the disposall of the Deacons; and if Barnabas and Saul had conceived it to be Gods ordinance that the Apostles and Elders should not meddle with reception, they would have brought it to the Deacons whose office they knew well enough, nor would the Elders have re­ceived it at their [...]hands, but have sent them to the Deacons.
• 3. That the charge of the poor belongs to Pastors, is the judgement of Pareus and others, which do hold that the greater and higher office doth include in it the lesse and lower.
• 4. By this doctrine, Pastors, if they have meanes of their own, ought not to receive maintenance out of the Churches stock, except they have need in [Page 11]the judgement of the Deacons or of the Church, as other poor Saints have.

Sect. 4. P. 63. You tell us, That the office of the Deacons is not temporary, but perpetuall. But what is this to prove Ministers maintenance by Lords-day contributions, or out of the Church-stock? Yes, say you, In the Commandment which respects the ne­cessity of the Ministers, Gal. 6.6. the word is the same in the Greek which is in the commandment to distribute to the necessity of the Saints Rom. 12.13. Heb. 13.16. and signifies to communicate. But what then?

• 1. The word communicating is a generall word, and com­priseth all duties whereby men do mutually help one another, Calv. on Heb. 13.16. Can there be no communicating, except the Dea­cons do receive it and pay it over to the Minister? except there be Lords-day contributions and a Church-stock? You know the contrary.
• 2. That place in Gal. 6. (which only speaks expresly of Ministers maintenance) is understood of private, as well, yea rather then of publike contribution. [...], of all his goods, by which is meant not only money which may be fitly brought to the Congregation, but other good things according as there is opportunity, ability, and necessity, some of which cannot be fitly brought into the Congregation.
• 3. Your own Texts do declare, that the Scripture distinguisheth communicating to the necessity of the Saints, and communicating to their Ministers, and that these two are not both one; f [...]r then Paul might have said, Give unto the Church-treasury for publike uses, for the main­tenance of the Ministery and of the poor; to both which if there were a Church-stock, they might contribute in one act, but he speaks of severall acts, yea kinds of contribution.

You say further, That the word there used signifies often, Church-communion; and that the Apostles meaning may well be, that it should be upon dayes when the Church meets in communion. Hence it is that Deacons are called [...], 1. Cor. 12.28. which being interpreted, may import a person that receives something for another, and it may beare receiving of a just reward for another, and so not for the poor Saints alone, but for the Labourers also. But what then? Is it your meaning, that every day the Church meets in commu­nion, they are bound by the law of God to contribute to their Ministers, whether they be Lords-dayes or no? 2. Is Church-communion any whit violated, if the Minister himself do receive [Page 12]his own maintenance from others besides the Deacon, and some other day besides the Lords day? Your selves confesse, you would not be understood to exclude private distributing or communicating to the Ministers or Members. 3. As for the word [...] 1. If it may import such a person, that doth not prove it doth so in this place. 2. The most proper signification of the Word is help or holding up a man or thing that is weak and ready to fall, and so it is taken for relief of weak poor and miserable persons, Luk. 1.54. He bath holpen his servant Israel. And the properest acceptation of a word is first to be cleaved to, unlesse there be (as here there is not) some convincing reason to the contrary: Now the Dea­cons were to help the poor and needy. 3. Beza conceiveth the Ministry of the widowes is also meant, I Cor. 12.28. as well as of the Deacons. Did the widow also receive a just reward for an­other? And whereas you alledge, that this communicating or di­stribution is called a Sacrifice, Heb. 13.16. and that sacrisice was wont to be brought to the door of the tabernacle, and that it comes most freely when it is brought, &c. I answer,

• 1. If contribution and communication be called a sacrifice, Heb. 13.16. (as it may well be, for first, it should be freely offered; secondly, it is in stead of the sacrifices required of the Jewes, which were very chargeable; thirdly, it is as pleasing to God as sacrifice) Yet that proves not that the intent of the Holy Ghost is, in calling it a sacrifice, (as you would make your Reader believe) that it should be brought to the publike assemblies every Lords day. If a man from that appel­lation should inferre, that only Ministers should communicate or distribute, because they only might offer sacrifice; That distri­bution is not to be made to men, because sacrifice; were only to God; That a man must contribute morning and evening, as they did offer sacrifice; That contributions are propitiatory, as s;ome sacrifices were, your selves would cry out, Non sequitur, Nonse­quitur, and so do I; for you know that private distributing or communicating to Saints or Ministers is a sacrifice as well as pub­like; so also is Prayer, Psal. 140. I. Praise, Psal. 50.23. Righte­ousnesse, Psal. 4.5.
• 2. The Church may have a stock by contri­butions gathered on the week-day from house to house, or other­wise, or by monethly, quartetly, yearly contributions, and many other wayes besides weekly contributions.
• 3. The Church may have a stock by weekly contributions, and yet that stock not be [Page 13]for the Ministers maintenance. Surely I cannot think that your selves do think you have solidly proved this manner of mainte­nance out of Gods word.

Sect. 5. Reply, p. 64. You confesse that the occasion of this Insti­tution, I Cor. 16.'. was collection for the poor Saints at Jerusalem; that there are no other Churches mentioned upon whom this institu­tion was injoyned, but Corinth and the Churches of Galatia. Not­withstanding, if we consider severall particulars of the Injunction, we may probably conjecture that be had a further scope in the com­mandement, then the occasion doth import. 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 were many; and that at Corinth; and there cannot be a reason rendred why all other Churches that were called to the duty, Rom. 15.26, 27. 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.

Rejoynd.

• 1. That there is an institution here of a Church-stock for the maintenance of Ministers, occasioned by the collection for the Saints at Jerusalem, is fancied by you, but not confirmed.
• 2. You can shew no Church which was not required to contribute in the said extraordinary case that was appointed to have such collections; nor can you shew that all those which did contribute, (as the Churches of Macedonia, 2 Cor. 8.1. or Antioch, Act. 11.29.) did do it every Lords day: And you may observe the Apostle faith not, So I have ordained in the Churches of Macedonia, nor So I have ordained in all Churches; but only, As I have ordained in the Churches of Galatia.
• 3. You meerly presume (but prove not) that there were many Churches, a great many of Churches in Galatia; Though it were as big as England, can you shew any more Churches in Galatia then two, Antioch and Laodicea?
• 4. The reason why we believe not that other Churches were bound to the same manner of doing, is because we read it n t. Shew where we may read it, that we may believe it.

Sect. 6. Reply, p. 65. The Apostle binds this contribution to the Lords day, in all these Churches; if he had no scope to make this an Ordinance in all the Churches, be might have pitcht upon some other day. 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 [...]gr [...] is often rendred, as Scapula observes and gives instances abun­dantly, [Page 14]&c. Why must this contribution be every Lords day, inrefe­rence 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, they might have had the longer time allotted them, and yet have given it at once; or the richer and abler might have given it at once, and the rest at. wice, 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.

Rejoynd.

• 1. Amongst us, Collections for the Palatinate, for Ireland, &c. have been appointed on the Lords day, as being the fittest day, most people meeting, the Minister might exhort and excite them to this duty; and yet you know we account it not an Ordinance in all Churches, and so it might be with that col­lection which might be appointed on the Lords day, without any such scope as you pretend.
• 2. The preposition [...] is often rendred distributively, I grant, but not alwayes, nor necessarily. In the first chap. in all the New Testament, [...] is translated in a dream, speaking of one, not many dreams.
• 3. When it is taken distributively, it is not alway so to be understood of every, but of sundry, as [...] Act. 2.46. They brake bread, not in every house, but in severall houses.
• 4. However you understand it, this is certain, that Paul would have no gatherings when be came, and then he intended to come shortly, 1 Cor. 4.19. even when be had passed through Macedonia, which journey he then was entring up­on, 1. Cor. 16.3, 5, 6, 7. and probably there were but few Lords-dayes, may be two or three, before the intended time of his being with them.

And we our selves, whose people are richer, and the time more prosperous, have had for the Palatinate or some other extraordinary occasions, collections more Lords dayes then one in some places, to make the summe more considerable.

Sect. 7. Reply p. 65. They are bound under this injunction, 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 find no such thing there; 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: the Greek words are against his exposition, but agree well with ours, [...] [Page 15]which words are truly thus translated, that not when I come, then gatherings be made: He is diverse (I think) from Paul, in expo­sition of Pauls words; he would have gatherings then to cease, Paul would not have them then to begin, lest there should be no­thing in readinesse when use should be made thereof.

Rejoynd. Paul saith, that there be no gatherings when I come, or (if we must pedantically translate the Greek) That not when I come, then gatherings be made; he saith not, That there be no gatherings for the Saints of Jerusalem when I come, but in the generall, that there be no gatherings when I come. 2. He saith not, That not onely when I come, gatherings be made; nor saith he, That not when I come gatherings begin to be made. And therefore you that at first confidently and joyntly said, The Greek words are against his exposition, and that I am more guilty of cor­upting the Text then you; do afterwards abate of your confi­dence, saying that I am diverse (as one of you thinks) from Paul in my exposition. The Lord knoweth your thoughts, and not I.

Sect. 8. Reply, p. 66. You say, Consider the manner of performing this act; every one must not keep it with him, but treasure it up, as the Greek carries it; or put it into the Treasury: What treasury? his own private treasury? no; for then it needed not to have been up­on the Lords day, 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 the Churches by an every Sabbaths contribution.

Rejoynd.

• 1. The words are, Let every one lay by him in store, which seem to import rather a laying up in private then in pub­like.
• 2. If it was the common treasury of Church-stock, it was only for the relief of the poor Saints of Jerusalem, not of the Officers of the Church of Corinth.
• 3. Finally, if the Churches own poor do rather require weekly contribution for their relief, then the poor of other Churches; if the Belgick churches have Lords. dayes contributions for their poor, if these contributions be according to Scripture, yea grounded on this Text, wherein doth this stock or treasury of the Church respect Ministers?

Sect. 9. To prove that it doth respect Ministers, you say, pag. 66. The stock raised by selling of estates, and laying them down at the Apostles feet, respecteth the very Apostles; why then s;hould 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 little set by) He tels us, The Doctors in Christ 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 joyns the Poor with the Doctors, and saith, that the Treasury was for both uses. See Jonn 8.20. and compare it with Mark 12.41.

Rejoynd.

• 1. Now at last you are welcome home, for you have been Wandring from the question all this while, and I have (though somewhat unwillingly) followed you with intent to fetch you home.
• 2. If it be conceived that the stock raised by selling estates did respect Ministers, there is more warrant for that opinion, (though it may be though that the Apostles, quà Ministers, did then take no maintenance but quà needy, Act. 4.35.) from the Text, then there is for Ministers maintenance by Lords-day con­tributions from this Text.
• 3. Though I rendred you reasons in my Answer, and have taken notice of your Replies in this Re­joynder;

yet because you still crave more Reasons, I will give you some.

• 1. The Apostle saith not any thing of gathering any Church-stock or treasury, but that which should be sent to Jeru­salem, v. 3. Whom you shall approve I will send to bring your gift to Jerusalem, not making the least mention of the maintenance of the Ministry, or other necessities of the Church of Corinth.
• 2. He sent this Collection to them of Jerusalem under the notion of poor Saints and Brethren, and not under the notion of Officers. quà such, though they (if poor) were also relieved by it.
• 3. If the Apostle had any further scope of gathering a Church-stock for maintaining the Officers, as well as the poor of the Church of Corinth, he might plainly have expressed it, and doubtlesse he would, saying in this or the like manner, I have ordained in the Churches of Galatia, that not only the poor of Jerusalem, but their own Officers should be maintained by contribution; seeing the men­tioning of the severall uses of the Church-stock, viz.
  • 1. for their officers,
  • 2. for their own poor,
  • 3. for the poor of other churches [Page 17]and other necessities would have provoked them to a more libe­rall contribution, which was the main designe of the Apostle.
• 4. N. E. men do not generally preach or practise the maintenance of Ministers by Lords-day contributions, but (as Mr Weld saith, p. 59. Their weekly contribution is properly intended for the Poor, according to 1 Cor. 16.1. yet so, as if much be given in, some (burches do (though others do not) appoint the overplus towards the Ministers maintenance. In which words,
  • 1. he expresseth their opinion, that the contribution (1 Cor. 16.1.) Was properly intended for the poor.
  • 2. That some Churches appoint not any part of it towards their Ministers maintenance.
  • 3. That those that do it, do it but conditionally (if much be given in, if there be an over­plus) and in a secundary way, which is not the manner of your Churches, which (or at least some of them) make it an ordinance of God.
• 5. The setting up of this way of Ministers maintenance is the grand designe of Hereticks and Schismaticks (though some godly men in the simplicity of their hearts may approve it or actin it) for some or all of these ends.
  • 1. That they may streng­then the hands of Cormorants, who under pretence of Reforma­tion, and abhorring Idols, do now (as in the dayes of Henry the 8.) commit sacrilege, viz. That do take away to private use things de­puted to holy uses, or maintenance and furtherance of Gods worship, (for what is the sinne of sacrilege, if this be not?) by the received custome and consent of the Churches, by donation of Princes, legacie of Testators, severall Acts of Parliament and Magna Charta, and do alien them from their generall end; whose sinne consisting in devouring that which is holy, or devoted to the service of God and his Church, Prov. 20.5. Lev. 27.28, 30. and in abrogating the Testaments of men, Gal. 3.15. makes them worse then Ananias and Sappirah, which did only with-hold part of that which they had pretended to give to the Church, though before they gave it it was in their own power; but these do take away that which neither they, nor (it may be) their ancestors did give, but others, strangers to them, and long since dead.
  • 2. That they may make way for their own maintenance in their severall separated Congregations, as of Divine institution, whether they be tolerated or no.
  • 3. That they might put an imputation of covetousnesse and burdensomnesse upon the Ministers of the Gospel (as the false teachers did upon Paul) who therefore took [Page 18]no maintenance at all (though he might) but wrought with his hands, that he might take off that imputation.
  • 4. That they might catch men to their party, because this way is for the peo­ples profit.
  • 5. That they might discourage Learning.
  • 6. That they might set the People aloft over their Ministers.
  • 7. To bring the Ministers which cannot in conscience comply with their un­steddy unsound people, to basenesse and beggery, and that they might neither have learning, nor leisure, books nor spirits, to op­pose their ungodly wayes.
• 6. As for Chem [...]itius, I have spoken before, and now adde, You do not produce him to say, that de jure it ought to be so now, but only de facto, it was so then: he saith, contributions was the maintenance amongst the Jews, not that it ought to be so amongst Christians.

CHAP. XXII. Of the burning Mountain cast into the Sea, REVEL. 8.8, 9.

Sect. 1. TO shew that that is not rightly applied to setled en­dowments brought in to the Church, I urge, that Kings and States are called mountains, Zach 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 Pen-men of the New Testament much follow) [...], a mountain on fire, Jer. 51.25. But I find not that setled and stinted Maintenance is in any Prophesie understood by a mountain burning with fire cast into the sea.

You reply, p. 68. that Constantine did bring in great riches and setled endowments to the Clergy of the Church, and that this may be clearly evidenced from credible Authors.] But why do you not shew this in your first or second book, and that those Authors meant not of Constantines donation, which is justly accounted a fiction? What other setled endowments did he give to the Cler­gie, and to whom? and who are those credible Authors that [Page 19]assert it? You further reply, If Kings and States be called moun­tains, so is prosperity in riches and honours. Psal. 30. Thou hast made my mountain to stand 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 in your sense for Kings, when almost Regal riches and honours were cast upon the Pre­lates, and the ambition of Prelates did set the world on fire, it might be called a burning mountain.

Rejoynd.

• You know Kings and States are called mountains. The most learned and godly Interpreters of Prophesies, Bright­man, Mede, &c. tell us so; you need not to If it.
• 2. The place Psal. 30.7. may be understood of Davids Kingdom in which God had setled him; it was a Psalm at the dedication of his house, v. 1.
• 3. Do you hold indeed, that Kings may not cast any riches and honour upon the Church? how are Kings nursing fathers and mothers, if the Church be as poor and beggerly as when they were enemies? how can the Kings of the earth bring their glory and honour into it, Rev. 21.24. Why might not Constantine bring in setled endowments, as well as the State allow setled main­tenance? are they not both one? yet the one you hold lawfull, and not the other.
• 4. I had nothing to do with ampla praedia, the Position was of setled endowments. Even N. E. men bring it against them, and I understand it of set maintenance, which may be either lesse or more, which you deny to be lawfull from the Church: therefore the leaving out of ampla praedia (minding you alwaies of what is said in answ. to Pos. 8.) was no fault in the producers of the Position.
• 5. You should shew that setled en­dowments given to the Church, are in any prophesie called a burning mountain cast into the Sea: but because you cannot do it, therefore you acknowledge (Congr. way justified, p. 9, 10.) that the interpretation is but probable and doubtfull, and that you dare not speak definitively of it. And so I leave it; minding you only, that many which seemed most Anti-Prelatical, do justifie the Bishops setting the world on fire.

Sect. 2. You tell me of my misinterpreting and misreporting of T.W. to W.R. p. 59. I shall relate the case, and leave the deter­mination of it to any ingenuous indifferent person. It is thus: [Page 20] New-England men being asked, Whether they do allow, or think it lawfull to allow and settle any certain and stinted maintenance upon their Ministers? do answer, But for setled and stinted maintenance, there is nothing done that way amongst us, except from year to year, because the conditions of Ministers may vary, &c. Mr. Weld saith, For a way of setled maintenance, there is nothing done that way, ex­cept (mark the exception) from year to year. And a little before he saith, The Church usually meets twice in the year, or oft [...]er, to consult and determine of the summe to be allowed for that yeare to their Ministers, and to raise it. Whether it may not be hence in­ferred, that there is a way of setled and stinted maintenance in New-England for a year at least, let the Reader judge, I will not con­tend about it: That the people in New-England, when the work is done, do consult and consider the Minister for the year past, or that the Minister doth not know till the year be up what he must have, (in which respect the condition of the meanest servant is usually better then his) is scarce agreeable, I think, to the letter of Mr. Welds words, or to the practise of New-England, where (as Theodore de la Guard, p. 39. saith) They generally find and practise as the best way, That the Ministers have seasonable and honourable maintenance, and that certainly stated. But our work is to find out the mind of God, not of man.

CHAP. XXIII. Of the distinction of Pastors and Teachers, on EPHES. 4.11.

WHen I say, that Ephes. 4.11. proves not that Teachers must be distinct from Pastors, as Apostles are distinct from Evan­gelists; you reply, p. 70. You crosse the opinion of many Ortho­dox modern Writers,—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 School-Doctors, to train up Youth in the knowledge of Arts and Sciences, especially of Divinity, or Teachers of the whole Church, and their work to doctrinate the Church by words of know­ledge, [Page 21]which seems more consonant to the Scripture. And Zanchy, Pareus, Bucer, and many others are of this judgement, whose Reasons your selves (in the Congregational way justified, p. 9.) thus abridge. God gives distinct gifts to Pastors from those he gives to Teachers; for to one is given a speciall faculty of Exhortation, to the other a clearer understanding of doctrine, and consequently they are distinct officers. And you conclude your Reply, p. 70. with these words: So that if we do put any false glosse upon the Scriptures by misinterpreting of Ephes. 4.11. yet more modest language had be­commed you, seeing such Reverend and learned men, whom your self so much honour, have gone before us in this exposition.

Rejoynd.

• 1. The force of my argument (to which you answer not at all) was not (as you would in both your books make the Reader to believe) that the article [...] was translated [some] or [these] but that the said article is not inserted between Pastor and Teacher, as it is between every of the rest; to shew that there is not the same distinction between them as between each two of the rest, as appears plainly by my answer, though you take no notice of it, having fit occasion, and being minded of it by me: I would not so deal with you.
• 2. That you have the authority of Zanchy, and of some reverend men besides on your part in this Position, I do not deny, nor do I want such on my part; but I would see with mine own eyes, not other mens.
• 3. To the rea­sons alledged (as you say) by Pareus and Bucer, for the distinction of Pastors and Teachers from difference of gifts, which is ground­ed on Rom. 12. I answer,
  • 1. It takes not away the exception made against the proof of this, by Ephes. 4.11.
  • 2. I suppose the A­postle did not intend, no not in Rom. 12. (though he might intend it there, and yet Ephes. 4.11. be impertinently alleadged for proof of it) that each of those severall gifts should constitute a severall officer; for then there should be seven officers in the Church, viz. Prophets, v. 6. Ministers and Teachers; v. 7. Exhorters, Givers, Rulers, Shewers of mercy, v. 8. For all these are equally by the dis­junctive particle [Or] severed one from another; for it is not sufficiently cleared to me, that Prophesie and Ministery, or Mi­nistery and Teaching, or Teaching and Exhortation, are in the A­postles sense all one, or one the genus, and the other the species. And yet Mr. Gillespy hath done most learnedly & accurately in that point.
  • 3. Difference of gifts, without an institution from God, [Page 22]cannot make a different office. James and John (it may be) had a speciall gift of terrifying sinners, and are called sonnes of thunder, Mark. 3 17. and Joses a speciall gift of comforting weak Saints, and called the son of consolation, Act. 4.36. Yet no man will upon this ground conclude them to be different officers; one Pastor may be excellent in one gift, another in another, possibly some men may be excellent in both gifts: Paraeus himself, a little after the place by you cited, saith, The Apostles did excell in both gifts, and they are indeed common parts of the Episcopal or Pastoral office, and therefore are conjoyned, 1 Cor. 14.4. And it is evident,
    • 1. That every Pastor should be apt to teach, 1 Tim. 3.3. which word is of the same originall with this in Ephes. 4.11.
    • 2. That Pastors are called Teachers, (the very word that is here) 1 Cor. 12.28. (which runs paralel with this Text, & may be well fetchr into explicate it) and also in Isa. 30.20. Act. 13.1.
    • 3. The Scripture doth ascribe the work of feeding with knowledge and understanding (which up­on supposall of the distinction of these officers is the work of the Teacher) unto the Pastor, Jer. 3.15.
    • And lastly, words joyned together by a conjunction copulative, are often exegetical and ex­plicative one of another, as in the example produced by me, 1 Pet. 2.25.
    And the Apostle purposely omits the distinguishing and dividing particle [some] inserting it between Apostles and Evangelists, but not between Pastors or Shepherds (for the word is the same with 1 Pet. 2.25.) and Teachers, where [Teachers] tels us what he means by Shepherds, as Bishop doth expound Shepherd in the other place; And there is no parallel in all the Scripture doth prove that [And] doth stand for [Some.] From all which jointly considered, I conclude, That Ephes. 4.11. is not sufficient, pertinent, and full of power to prove that Pastors and Teachers are by Gods institution distinct officers. And your selves also seem so to think, when you conclude your Reply, p. 70. with these words, So that if we do put a false glosse upon the Scripture by misinterpreting Ephes. 4.11. &c.

CHAP. XXIV. Whether every particular Assembly be Sion, the place of Gods speciall presence.

Sect. 1. WHen I say, that every particular Congregation is not Sion, but one of the Assemblies of Sion, Isa. 4.5. That the Hebrewes which were divided into many Congregations, are not said to be come to many mount Sions, but to mount Sion, Heb. 12. And that the Scripture warrants not the expression of an hundred or a thousand Sions. You reply, p. 71. That Sion was a mountain contiguous to Moriah upon which the Temple was built, in which God vouchsafed a speciall presence, and unto which the Tribes went up; and by a metonymy is frequently put for the temple, and the people that repaired thither and assembled there, and so for the Church of the Jewes, which consisted of many assemblies, and yet was but one Church, and the Temple was but one which was called Sion, and so Sion 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, not Nati­onall, much lesse Ʋniversall, as hath been proved: therefore the Congregationall Church is Sion the speciall place of Gods presence.

Rejoynd.

• 1. A question of names and words is of no great mo­ment; yet in opposition to that which is most common with Congregational men, (yea with confessed Heretiques and Schis­matiques) to call each of their Congregations by the name of Sion, which in their sense imports that it is an entire visible church, Independent of any Ecclesiastical judicature, and that the greatest presence of God is there to be found, and that combination of many Sions is unnecessary, yea sinfull; I truly observed, that there was but one Sion in the Old and New Testament, and that the Scri­pture warrants not the expression of an hundred or a thousand Sions.
• 2. The Temple is one expression, and Sion another: the Scripture may, yea doth acknowledge many temples of God, not many Sions; every Christian is a temple, not a Sion; yet if you do betake your selves into the temple, I will follow you thither rnd fetch you thence.
• 3. The visible Church in 2 Cor. 6.16. is not [Page 24]called a temple; but every Christian in whom the spirit of God dwels, 1 Cor. 3.16. yea his body is the temple of the Holy Ghost, 1 Cor. 6.20. even that body which may be joyned to an harlot, which is especially sinned against and abused by fornication, viz. his natu­rall body (as Christ called his naturall body a temple, Joh. 2.19.) and that body which might be unequally yoked with unbelievers, 2 Cor 6.6. one way whereof was by unequall marriages, and of it the Apostle chiefly speaks, and not of any visible Church or Society as such.
• 4. It hath been shewed that the visible Church may not only be Congregationall, but Nationall, yea that there is an universall visible Church. And in Ephes. 2.20, 21, 22. (which your selves interpret of the visible Church) the Church of Ephesus is not said to be the whole city, house, or temple, but to be built to­gether with other Churches and Christians, and all the building groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord. Of this temple all the Churches to which Peter writes, 1 Pet. 1.1. are living stones, not so many living temples, 1 Pet. 2. Thus many Nations shall in the day of the Gospel be joyned to the Lord, and shall be Gods people, and he will dwell amongst them, Zach. 2.11. so Antichrist is said to sit in the temple of God, viz. in the Church universall, 2 Thess. 2.2.4 See also Rev. 11.1. and Mr. Cotton (Keyes, p. 56.) saith, The new Jerusalem is many particular churches combined, all which are yet but one city, one tabernacle, Rev. 21.

Sect. 2. Reply, p. 71. 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. Isa. 66.20, 21. So in Isa. 4, 5. we may as well read of the assemblies of Sion, though there be no such thing, but each assembly is Sion; as of the feast of tabernacles, when in the dayes of the Gospel there is no such thing, but it is spoken by way of allusion; because Sion was then but one, it is spoken of as one still, and yet it is more then one.

Rejoynd.

• 1. That the language of the Old Testament may be used in the Old Testament or in the New, is not denied: yet it is considerable, if the word Sion be read perhaps two or three hun­dred times in the Scriptures, and never taken for one particular Independent congregation, as you frequently use it; if you could find Sions in the plurall number, you would judge it to be a justi­fication of your appropriating the word to a particular assembly, [Page 25]and full as good an argument for the Congregational way, as the terme [Churches] which you say (though untruly) is not found in the Jewish church.
• 2. If you can prove it to be as ceremoniall, that Sion should consist of many assemblies, as that the feast of ta­bernacles should be kept, and the one be as evidently abrogated as the other, then you say something, or otherwise it is nothing. If a man should endeavour to prove from Isa. 4.5. that the Church should be at least one assembly, you would not sure stop his mouth with the feast of tabernacles. Now if I alledge that there shall be assemblies of Sion in the New Testament, I suppose you can find no ceremony in the plurality of the number.
• 3. That there is but one Sion, is the language, yea the constant unchanged language of the New as well as of the Old Testament, yea when it is applied to the Christian church; and no example there is to the contrary; but the feast of tabernacles is not constantly, not frequently, not once (that I remember) applied to Christian worship in the New-Testament; and therefore the case is not alike, though you make itso.

Sect. 3. Reply, p. 72. Now that there are many mount Sions, your self do really confesse. We know you hold, 1. That the Church of the Jewes was called Sion. 2. That the visible Church in the dayes of the Gospel is Sion; 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? You say the Hebrews which were divided into many Congregations, are said to be come to one mount Sion? If so, then the Congregation of Christian Gentiles may be called another mount Sion.

Rejoynd.

• 1. All this doth not so much as prove (though it con­fidently affirms much more) that there is two Sions, one in the Old Testament, and another in the New. The Jewish church and the Christian notwithstanding may be but one Church, one Sion, though under a different state and condition.
• 2. I hold not there are as many Sions as particular visible Churches; but you grossely misunderstand my words. A believing Jew and a believing Gentile may be (you will acknowledge) of one particular Congregation, and so of one Sion; much more may I say, that they both may come to one mount Sion, yea many people, all nations may flow unto it, Isa. 2. [...], 3. I never said nor thought that the Hebrews did come to one mount Sion, and Christian Gentiles to another, but all to one. [Page 26]You see you are far enough from proving what you would have us believe, that every particular assembly of Sion, Isa. 4.5. is a di­stinct Sion.
• 3. Whereas you ask what greater absurdity it is to say there are an hundred Sions, then to say there are an hundred or a thousand Churches? I affirm it is a far greater absurdity; for [Churches] is a term used in the Old, as well as in the New Testa­ment, for particular assemblies meeting for the worship of God, as hath been shewed; but [Sions] is a term not read in the Old or New Testament, as your selves do silently confesse; for though you be put upon that work, yet you do not shew it.

Sect. 4. When I ask whether you have not found God present in our assemblies? have not you by faith closed with the promises of God in the use of ordinances amongst us? You grant that God is present with us in our assemblies, nor dare you deny (though you do not expresly grant it) that he hath promised his presence to us, or that you (sometimes) did by faith close with the promises in ordinances amongst us. 2. But you assert that God is most present, vouchsafeth a speciall presence with his people gathered into a body, compacted together in an instituted Congregational Church, which you call the order of the Gospel, the way of Christ; concern­ing which I demand,

• 1. Have both of you, and your Members, since your entrance into the Church-way, felt such a speciall presence of Christ in ordinances, as none of you did before?
• 2. If your way be not the way of Christ, and the order of the Gospel, is not then the conceit of a greater and more speciall presence of Christ in your way, a strong delusion? As when men fall off from your Congregations to Antinomianisme, Libertinisme, Familisme, or but rigid Separation, they perswade themselves (you know) that they haue a greater and more speciall presence of Christ after they have left you, then when they were with you. If I have solidly answered your Book (which I leave almighty God, and ingenious impartiall Saints to judge of) then your way is not the order of the Gospel, nor the way of Christ.
• 3. That God might give his presence, though there be some error, you grant, alledging Rev. 2.1. with Rev. 2.14.20. and afterwards (you say) He vouchsafeth a speciall presence amongst such Churches, Rev. 2.1.

So then God not only might, but he doth give his presence, yea his especiall presence to such Churches as have not only some error, but grosse error; for all the seven Churches of Asia were golden candlesticks, [Page 27]and God walked in the midst, viz. equally neer to each of them, notwithstanding Balaamites, Nicolaitans, Jezebelians, many that had a name to live and were dead, many that had defiled their gar­ments, viz. were visibly wicked, many lukewarme, &c. were a­mongst them; only Philadelphia had nothing reprehensible (by which Mr. Brightman who so long since prophesied of these times, conceives the Church of Scotland to be typified) by the Spirit of God: will you say that all the 7 Churches were alike in the way of Christ, in the order of the Gospel? or will you revoke your own speech, that Christ was specially present with them? Surely if God should not vouchsafe his speciall presence where there are some errors, and grosse ones too, your Churches should not have it.

Sect. 5. Whereas Mat. 18.20. is alledged to prove that Christ hath promised his speciall presence to a Congregationall church above all other societies and persons; I answered,

• 1. That Christ in that place promised his presence to those which are not a Church, even to two or three, which will not make a Church.
• 2. That faith­full people, though women, whether Church-members or no, are not to be excluded from this promise, though they make not a Congregationall church.
• And 3. That Christs presence is pro­mised to the Apostles, and their successors the Elders, Mat. 28.20. and to the assemblies of Sion, or Churches jointly as well as se­verally, Isa. 4.5. Rev. 2.1. & 21.22, 23. & 22.3, 4, 5. To which you reply, p. 73.—

There is a figure in the number, 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 his presence. Pareus upon these words. It is an argument that the judgement of the Church shall be ratified, because Christ himself will be present 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 (say you) we shall lesse doubt of our exposition, having so learned and well-approved a Commentator to stand by us in it.

Rejoynd.

• 1. What is that figure, and where is it found? v. 17. or v. 20. or both? If not both, how doth it appear that the one is literall, and the other figurative? Mr. Cotton saith (Way, p. 53.) that those two or three are not considered as a Church-body, but as a sufficient number of witnesses to joyn with the brother offended. [Page 28]Mr. Voyes another N. E. man saith, those two or three do refer to the Preshyterie; and so you may well doubt of your exposition, having such godly learned Divines of your own way against you in it.
• 3. I durst appeal to you, whether you would interpret two or three in v. 7. & two or three, v. 20. after a different manner, if it were not (as you conceive) for the advantage of your cause.
• 4. It is too fa­miliar a thing with you to alledge one or two Commentators in­terpreting a Text thus or so, whereas your selves know that if the controversie between you and me should be determined by the major part of the godliest and learnedest Commentators, your part would be nothing; nor are you ignorant that even godly men writing against the Papists, and being then not in fear of con­trary errors, did write lesse cautelously then otherwise they would have done.

CHAP. XXV. Who are [without] in the Apostles sense, 1 COR. 5.

Sect. 1. I Said, that those without, of whom the Apostle speaks, were unbelievers, Pagans and Heathens without Christ, with­out visible profession of Christianity (for so I meant) and out of the universall visible Church, as well as out of a particular Church. To which you reply, that those without, whom the Apostle had not to do with, stand in opposition to those within the Church of Corinth.

Rejoynd. It is harsh to say that the members of the church of Jerusalem, Rome, &c. should be without to them that were of Corinth; or that a visible Christian not joyned to some particular Church, should be excluded out of the universall Church. Paul, Act. 9. and the Eunuch, Act. 8. were of the visible Church before they were joyned to any particular Congregation. It Paul had converted those women, Act. 16. which could not have been brought into an organicall congregation, they might have been baptized and so counted within the Church. A man may be de­tained by violence from joyning, driven away by persecution, in­communicated [Page 29]it may be unjustly, in which case he is not a mem­ber of a particular church; it were hard therefore to say he is without the visible church. They that are without, are opposed to any man that is called a Brother; but all Christians in Scripture­phrase are called brethren, whether they be of the same or of se­verall congregations, yea though one should be unjoyned to any congregation, as Paul whom Ananias calleth brother Saul, Act. 9 17. And the Apostle writing to severall churches, wills them to love as brethren, to love the brotherhood, 1 Pet. 2.17. & 3.8. Lastly, they are here said to be without, which Paul had not to do with by judging them; but of this more afterwards.

Sect. 2. But you reply, If this exposition of yours be true, then the judgement of the Church of Corinth did extend to the lands-end of Christianity, to the confines of Paganisme, and consequently any one Church hath power to judge any Believer in the world; for he saith, Do not ye judge them that are within, V. 12.

Rejoynd. Nothing so; for [Ye] there is to be understood of the Corinthians, as members in part of the universall visible church, 1 Cor. 12.27, 28. Your selves tell us, p. 65. that the Epistles do re­spect persons according to their capacities; so this judging those that are within, respects only the church of Corinth, (suppose he writes only to one church; for we would not mingle questions, lest we should darken the light) according to her capacity, viz. You judge all within your limits, all of the city of Corinth, the Cen­chrean church all within that town, and other Churches pari rati­one & authoritate within theirs: So ye are Gods husbandry and Gods building, 1 Cor. 3.9. that is, ye are part of Gods husbandry, of Gods building. So, 1 Cor. 12.27. Ye are the body of Christ, (viz. as he immediately by way of correction doth interpret him­selfe) Members in part. And in 1 Cor. 3.21, 22. he saith, all things are yours, Paul, Apollos, Cephas. Now Paul and Cephas were officers of all churches; his meaning therefore is, that they are yours, viz. yours amongst others; and All things are yours, viz. all things belong to the Universall church (of which the Apostles were properly officers) and to you as members. And so it is no more but this. Ye are, amongst those, that judge them that are within. So Calvin and Beza might have written to one or two English Bishops, and said, You silence all Nonconformists, and yet might well enough have been understood, that they had but [Page 30]silenced all within their Diocesses, and other Bishops had done the like in theirs.

Sect. 3. Reply, p. 74. Suppose the Apostle had known a member of the Church of Corinth (whatever he appeared outwardly in the frame of his conversation) to be indeed without God, 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? and why should a Church-unbeliever be subject to the Apostles judgement, and an Heathenish unbeliever exempt from it, if Church-membership did not make the one obnoxious to that judgement, more then the other?

Rejoynd.

• 1. By your argument (p. 36.) he ought not to be ex­communicated; for you say, Excommunication supposeth men to be alive in the judgement of charity, but such a one as is known to be without Christ, is not supposed to be alive.
• 2. We assert, that if he have committed some grosse sinne, and appear to the Church obstinate therein, he may be excommunicated, though he be sup­posed to be truly ingrafted into Christ.
• 3. I dare not say, that one known by the Apostle to be without Christ, which hath com­mitted some grosse sinne (as heresie, adultery, or some other work of the flesh, Gal. 5.) if he being admonished, do heare the Church and submit himself, ought to be excommunicated, Tit. 3.10. Mat. 18.17. A member of the visible Church, though indeed with­out Christ, and so discerned by an Apostle, cannot be judged to be without Christ in foro ecclesiastico, he appearing (as you put the case) outwardly otherwise in the frame of his conversation.
• 4. I never said nor thought but a man must be within the Church, before the Apostle could excommunicate him; yet it hence follows not that he must be within this or that particular church, or within the Church in your sense. Of I'resbyterian calculation I shall speak in the last Section.

Sect. 4. When I urge that the Apostle opposeth fornicators of the world, and fornicators that are brethren: You reply, that Persecu­tion in the Primitive times was levied against those which did joyne themselves to the Churches, or otherwise visibly (as Paul at his first conversion by preaching) declared themselves to be Christs disciples. That the brother opposed to the fornicators of the world, is not be that by the internall and invisible grace of faith is a brother, and dare not [...]enly professe Christ, but a named and professed brother. Fervi­cators [Page 13]of this world are to be understood of it as it stands in opposi­tion to the visible Church.

Rejoynd. The Apostle forbad them to eat not only with scan­dalous Church-members, but with all Brethren (not those which are brethren only in foro Dei & conscientiae suae, by the internall and invisible grace of faith, whereof it is impossible the Church should take notice, De non existentibus & non apparentibus eadem est ratio) But those that were brethren in foro ecclesiae, did make profession of Christianity, were called brethren, and yet were scandalous. I am not so senslesse as to think that the Church was bound to take notice of the internall, invisible, and unprofessed grace of faith in a mans heart; why do you so largely disprove it? 2. A man may be a brother, that is, a Christian, and disciple of Christ, (as Paul was (it is your own instance) at his first conversion) before any such enchurching; yea every visible Christian is so; for by priority of nature every Christian is first of the universall visible Church, and so in that respect called a brother, and secon­darily of a particular congregation. An Heathen is not first con­verted into this, or that, or the other Congregation, but first into the Church catholique, then into this or that Congregation. Now the Apostle saith not, if any man that is called a brother, and is a member of a particular Congregation, with such a one eat not; but you (contrary to the rule (Non restringendum ubi lex non re­stringit) say, if a man be called a brother, and be not of a parti­cular congregation, he is without as well as an Heathen, and the Church hath no power to censure him, nor doth the Apostle for­bid us to eat with such an one. And so you make scandalous Church-membership, not scandalous professorship of Christianity, to be the formall objective cause of our separation and with­drawing from them.

Sect. 5. When I say, Without are dogs, sorcerers, Rev. 12.15. such as Paul had not to do with, What have I to do, &c.? v. 12. (And yet he had to do with all Christians by his illimited Apostolique power, whether they belong to that, or any other Congregation, on no) such as God judgeth, or are loft to the immediate judgement of God. You reply, p. 76. There might be dogs in the Apostolique churches, as well as without, Phil. 3.2. and with such dogs Paul had to do. A strange speech to proceed from you, who elsewhere maintain that the Apostolick Churches did consist of visible Saints and that [Page 32] Paul in the judgement of charity did thinke all the Philippians to be Saints, Phil. 1.7. and if I grant that there might be dogges as well within the Churches as without, what gaine you by it? you further reply that Paul had to doe with the dogges of the Gen­tiles; he received a Key of knowledge to open the Kingdome of Hea­ven to beleevers, and to bind them that would not repent and be­leeve under the guilt of impenitency, but Paul had nothing to do to judge (with the judgement mentioned in this place viz. by the Mi­nistery of the Church of Corinth) those that were without the combi­nation of that Church; the Apostles had received no such Power, to judge those persons to excommunication by the Ministry of a Church that were never in fellowship with the Church.

Rejoynd.

• 1. Master Cotton tels us that the key of knowledge, sa­ving knowledge, or (which is all one) the key of faith is com­mon to all beleevers, and he distinguisheth it from the key of Power. Cot. keyes p. 6.7. but it may be this is not the key of know­ledge you mean, but you have made another.
• 2. Paul opening the Kingdome of Heaven to the Gentiles in case they would beleeve and repent, and binding them under the guilt of impenitency and ob­stinacy, if they would not repent (though you prove not that her did so bind any Gentiles) was done by Doctrine, not by Disci­pline, by preaching, not by censures (of which this 1 Cor. 5. evi­dently speaks.) Had Paul any thing to doe to judge or censure the Heathens to be excommunicated, which were never within the universall or particular Church?
• 3, Paul had not to doe indeed to excommunicate out of the Church, them that were ne­ver in the Church; for that is impossible how can hee bee excommunicated that is not within the universall visible Church, for excommunication is a casting out of the Church, not out of the invisible Church (for that cannot bee) nor out of a particu­lar visible Church onely, but out of the universall visible Church; as Baptisme doth admit into it, so excommunication doth cast out of it; and as they may be received to Baptisme, and not admit­ted into a particular Church, as Saul and the Eunuch; so they may be excommunicated though they were not set Members of a particular Congregation, but if they were never within the uni­versall Church they cannot be cast out of it; for that imployes a contradiction.
• 4. The judgement mentioned in this place, is not the judgement of Paul by the Ministery of the Church of [Page 33] Corinth (as you assert) for hee doth expressely distinguish them, what have I to do?—Do not yee judge? Paul saith not what have you to do to judge, nor what have wee to doe to judge, (for so it may seeme that he included the judgement of Corinth with his owne) but what have I to doe, &c.

Now though the Church of Corinth, could onely judge those that were within her limits (as other Churches could also within theirs) and therefore might judge the Incestuous Person, suppose hee was one of them, and lived amongst them: yet the Apostle did deli­ver to Sathan, Hymeneus and Philetus, without the Ministery of any Church (that wee read of) and certainly the Apostle had Power to judge all Christians, all of the universall visible Church, whether within a particular Congregation or no; for which I alledged the Authoritie of the Elders of New-England in the marginal citation which you leave out.

Sect. 6. Reply p. 77. Such Persons (though for their Crimes they may be subject to the judgement of the Civil Magistrate,) yet in respect of Ecclesiasticall judgement they are left to the immediate judgement of God; else by whom shall beleevers not joyned to any particular Congregation be judged? why shall this Congregational, Classicall, Provincial, National Church, judge them rather then that? may they be judged by all, or any one? 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? if a Church may judge one out of the combination, why not 1000.10000. Yet we are farre from judging those beneevers in England and Scot­land, which are not joyned in our way to a particular Congregation, therefore to be altogether out of Church combination, and not crpable of the Ecclesiasticall judgement of their Churches.

Rejoynd. Every Christian is to be accountable to the Church, or Churches where he doth reside, and that Congregation, or classis of Congregations is to receive him to such Ordinances as he is meet for, and to censure him if he doe offend (As in the time of the Law, if a man was found slaine, the next city must ex­piate the Murther, if the Murtherer was not known, Deut. 21.1, 2, 3. or punish him if knowne) for first, It is the duty of every Christian to joine to that particular Church of God, where hee doth reside on neere unto him; and those with whom hee doth reside, are to admonish him so to doe. but if he shall obsti­nately [Page 34]refuse, they may order that the brethren of those Chur­ches should not eate nor have familiar society with such an offen­der.

2. Members of that Congregation or classis of Congregations, within which an Heretick or Scandalous man doth reside, are in most danger to be infected with Heresie or Scandall You will say, hee hath not consented to be of that Congregation, and there­fore is not subject to her judgement. I Answer. 1. If it bee his sin, he hath not joyned, then one sinne cannot free another from be­ing censured, If a Malefactor at an Assize shall refuse to be try­ed by God and the Bench, or by God and the Countrey, shall hee therefore bee left to the immediate judgements of God? 2. It may be hee hath consented to it; 1. In Parliament hee and we all are included, which hath set bounds and limits. 2. Hee possibly was borne and baptized in it, and 3. It may be hee received the Sacrament in it, frequents prayer and preaching there; or at least, 4. hee voluntary sits downe in that Parish or Vicinity, the inha­bitants whereof by Law or custome in generall consent of Mini­sters and Members doe belong to that Congregation, and so may bee interpreted to have consented in his deeds, though in words he deny it: A Cambridge man that dwels within the Ci­ty of London, doth by deeds professe he is a Londoner, though in words he may deny it; no Christian dwelling in Corinth could e­scape the censure of the Church of Corinth by pretending to be of the Church or Cenchrea, 2. If there should yet be a question, what Congregation should judge such an offender, yet he might be judged by a Provinciall (for this is one benefit of combination of Churches) or National Assembly; or if there were a universall councell, all Christians should be subject to its Ecelesiasticall power, whether Members of a particular Congregation or no, and may be excommunicated upon just occasion, not onely out of particular Congregations if they be Members of them, but out of the Church universal; for though it might be doubted to what Church this or that man doth belong; yet it can scarce bee doubted in what province, in what Nation an offender doth re­side, and to which he by right doth belong: The Church of E­phesus is commended for trying the false Apostles, which did not acknowledge themselves Members of that Church (for this had been inconsistent with the aime of Apostleship) else [Page 35] grievous Wolves, false Teachers might have crept in amongst them, and drawne Disciples after them, to Blasphemie, Idolatrie, &c. without blame.

CHAP. XXVI. Of the Authority of Elders.

WHen I say though Elders bee not Lords over Gods heritage yet they are Leaders and Guides, yea Shepeards, Rulers, O­verseers, Bishops, Governours, and not onely Presidents of the Con­gregation, Moderators of her actions, or as the fore-men of the Iu­ry, you thinke your felves wronged, and expresse your selves to grant, that Elders dos rule as Stewards, as Captaines, as Guides, or Leaders; and his grant is large enough; for Stewards and Cap­taines may take or put out Servants and Souldiers, without the others of the family or company, intermedling by way of Pow­er therein, yet I could have wished, you had shewed what more Power then of a Moderator or President of a Synod, or fore­man of a Iury, or Speaker of a Parliament House, practically you give the Elders in election of Officers, receiving in of Members, or casting them out, or other acts which are properly act of Discipline and Government; for a Moderator may put matters to Vote, open the doores of speech or silence, advise or councell the Assemblie, pronounce the sentence, keep order, &c. But why do I put you upon this? you say they rule as Stewards and Captains, yea as Guides and Leaders, which Titles in Scripture Phrase (in which I presume you speak) doe signifie the Power of civill Ma­gistrates Act. 23.24. Mat. 27.2. and indeed Presbyterian Go­vernment in this sense in opposition to Praelaticall and Popular Government you cannot deny, seeing the Scripture saith, they have the Rule, they feede and governe the flock. Heb. 13.7, 17.1 Tim. 5.17.1 Pet. 5.2. Acts 20.17, 28. The Keyes (which in the Notion of them doe carry Power and Authoritie properly so called) are committed to them Matth. 16.19. and Power to remit and retain sins Joh. 20.28. and they are over the People in the Lord, 1 Thes. 5.12. and the Titles which are given to civill Magi­strates (at least to subordinate ones) are given to the Elders of [Page 36]the Church, and they (as you say afterwards) are Governours to the Church in the descending line of Power, though thy be but Ministeriall Governours in an ascending line that leads to Christ, the only Monarch or supreme Governour of the Church.

Sect. 2. when I urge that Matth. 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 advancement, Christ saith not there was inequality among the Priests of the Iewes, or a­mongst the Priests of the Gentiles, or between the Priests and the People, but it shall not be so amongst you, but very aptly and pertinently to their petition answereth, the Princes of the Gentiles, &c. propounding himself verse 28, whose Kingdome is not of this world for an example to them; yet had he no intent to equall them to himselfe in Church Power, or other Ministers to the Apostles, or the People to the Presbyters. You say in your Reply p. 79. Admit that the Apostles were such babes as to imagine that Christ would lay downe his spirituall Kingdome, and take up a temporal, and that any or all of them desired an eminency one above an other there­in, yet it will not follow that Christ speakes nothing by way of re­proofe of ambitious aspirings in the Spirituall, but onely in the tem­porall Kingdome of Christ; hee expresseth the disparity betwixt civill policies, where one or more rule with Lordly Power, and the rest are in subjection, and Spirituall policies, where Christ only rules with Lordly Power, and one Apostle or Minister hath no Au­thoritie at all one over another, but are fellow servants.

Rejoind.

• 1. You must needs admit you cannot deny that they did still dream of a temporall Kingdome Matth. 20.21 Acts 1.6.
• 2. The Apostles were not such babes as to imagine that Christ would would lay down his spirituall Kingdome over the soules and consciences of his People; but they are babes that imagine (as you intimate) that hee could not take up a temporall Kingdome, except hee did lay downe his spirituall Kingdome; for spirituall and civil Government which were confihenti in the person of Moses, Eli, Samuel, were much more consistent in the person of Christ, God and Man.
• 3. I said not, that it will follow that Christ spake nothing by way of reproofe of ambitious aspirings in the spirituall Kingdome of Christ; they may also bee included, though ambition in civill matters be the thing here directly and principally [Page 37]& intended, and I hope the Reader by reading the whole answer in my book, which is curtel'd in yours, will understand me aright.
• 4. Nor denied I that inequality of men of the same office may be here forbidden, (save only that reason and order, if not Scripture, do require presidencie, moderatorship) one Apostle is not to be above another Apostle, one Elder (as such) above another Elder, &c. Yet you cannot deny, that had Christs main scope been to forbid inequality of the Ministers of the Word, an instance of the inequality of the Jewish and Gentilish Priests had been more pat then of the Gentile Princes.
• 5. As our Saviours meaning was not to exclude the Apostles from being in Ecclesiastical power above Elders, Elders above Deacons, and himself above all; so neither was it his meaning to equalize believers in Church-power with their Presbyters, or one Elder or the lesser part, to many Elders or the major part; and consequently he speaks nothing a­gainst Presbyterian government, or the government of the Church by Presbyters.
• 6. It may be said of Civil policies, that one supreme Magistrate is not above another, but they are all fellow-servants.
• Lastly, whereas you say, pag. 80. That corruption of Church-Governours in an usurpation of Ecclesiastical domination, is of more dangerous influence to the Church, then if they should usurp some branches of Civil power. I answer,
  • 1. What you can shew to be a corruption of Church-government, an usurpation of exorbitant Ecclesiastical domination, God forbid that we should not abo­minate it: and I expect that you shall be as willing to abhominate Anarchy, which is far worse then tyranny. These four or five years hath brought forth more blasphemies, heresies, errors, schismes, phrensies, strong delusions proceeding from the spirit of lying and gid­dinesse, then four or five Ages before. And also that you should abhominate popular usurpation of Church-government, which God did abhominate in Corah, Dathan, and Abiram, and their congregation, and did severely punish, as also he did the men of Bethshemesh, 1 King. 6. for but looking into the Ark.
  • 2. To say that Presbyteriall government implies usurpation of exorbitant ec­clesiasticall domination, is a bearing false witnesse against the Re­formed churches of Scotland, France, Holland, &c. and tends to exasperate the Civil Magistrate against them as usurpers of undue power. And the same may much more truly be said of Indepen­dnt churches.

Sect. 3. When I answer, that Diotrophes being but one, was liker to a Prelate then a Presbytery; yet S. John doth not blame him simply for accepting or having preheminence, 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 preheminence, 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. You reply, 1. p. 82. Brother, a horse in the ab­stracted notion of unity, being but one, is liker a Prelate then a Pres­bytery, which are many; but Prelacie doth not consist in unity, but in usurpation of undue unscripturall power over their brethren. A Classicall Presbyterie may be as like to Diotrophes, as a Prelate; 'tis alike, if not equally Prelaticall, when fourteen or fifteen exercise a Jurisdictional power over their brethren, as when one man doth exercise it in two or three severall Counties.

Rejoynd.

• What mean you? Brother, a horse; Its well you said not an Asse. Let us be grave and serious. Though Prelacie do not consist in unity, yet in a Prelate unity and usurpation meet together, so they do not in an horse.
• 2. Prelacie in the most usuall sense, and in the sense of our Nationall Covenant, is neerer to Monarchical then to Aristocratical government; so also in the sense of the Reformed Churches, and the old godly Nonconformists, which did not esteem Presbyterian government to be Prelatical.
• 3. You jump notably with the Malignants, which say that a Par­liament may be as tyrannicall as a King; and when answer is made that it cannot be thought that a Community will destroy it self, they reply, Yes, a Representative kingdome may endeavour to de­stroy the Collective, and then the power is in the body of the peo­ple, and you (mutato nomine) say little lesse. And no wonder if you should (as some do) speak as expresly against representative Civil, as Ecclesiastical judicatories seeing many Independents have the undoubted marks of reall malignancie upon them, viz. they have as truly laboured to divide the Kingdomes, to divide the King and his people, to make divisions in Parliament, City and Kingdome, to nourish and foment those divisions, to hinder help from Ireland, to retard the work of Reformation, as Canterbury and Strafford did, to pick and pack Parliament-men for their pur­pose, and to awe his Majesties liege people by an Army, to the de­struction [Page 39]both of priviledge of Parliament, and liberty of the Sub­ject.
• 4. You told us, p, 47. That you did approve of Mr. Cottons modesty, who would not hastily censure ancient and latter Synods for putting forth acts of power in Ordination and Excommunication. Surely now you may say (what I, when I search and try my own wayes find cause to say) Video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor. Is the preserving the government and discipline of Scotland, preser­ving of Prelacie? Is setting Presbyterian government, the reviving of Prelacie? Are all the Reformed churches, all the old Non­conformists (save you, and the Brownists, Anabaptists, Familists) Prelatical? Are they covenanted against, and ought each in his place endeavour their utter extirpation? Doctor Ames saith, The Reformed Churches of France have their association and com­bination without any Hierarchy: [Fresh suit against Cerem. p. 91] Which is as much as to say, without any Prelacie.
• 5. May a Classical Presbyterie exercise undue, unscripturall power over their brethren, and in that capacity be as like to Diotrophes as a Prelate; and may not a Congregation in that respect be as like to Diotre­phes as a Classical Presbyterie? for she may also exercise undue unscripturall power, as the Church of Roterodam did in deposing her Minister, and every Congregation doth, that doth depute a Non-Elder to Ordain; for the Scripture gives not a Church of believers that power; and when a Non-Elder doth ordain a Pa­stor, he is Prelatical in the highest degree, For first, one man ought not to ordain a Minister, but a company, 1 Tim. 4.14. Act. 13.1, 2.2. They that ordain Elders, should themselves be first ordained Elders, which he is not.

Also when a Congregation without officers do exercise the power of the Keyes, she is Prelatical, yea super-Prelatical; for the Prelate by office as a Presbyter, hath some power of the Keyes, which Non-Elders have not; and the Prelate had Presbyters to assist in ordination of Ministers, and to joyn in Imposition of hands, which somtimes in Congregational churches is not observed. 5. I need not tell you of some of N.E. which call their godly Ministers Baals Priests, Popish factors, Scribes, Pharisees, Legal preachers, persecutors, and the Church of Boston there, the whore and strumpet of Boston, as well as you call us Pre­laticall. Nor need I to tell you, that extraordinary courses may be taken in extraordinary cases, and that some things are necessary to be done when Reformation is in fieri, that are not fit when it is [Page 40]in facto esse. But I must needs minde you, that I shewed in my E­pistle before the Quares, which you pretend to answer, the dif­ferences between Prelatical and Presbyterian government, which though you did not take so much notice of it as to transcribe it, nor can the Reader of your books perceive that there was any such thing in it, yet because it is safe for the Reader, it shall not be tedious to me to repeat it, for the further clearing of that Govern­ment from the aspersion of Prelacie. In the Prelatical govern­ment, the Prelate onely called and counted himself a Bishop, (a name common to Elders, Act. 20.17.28. Tit. 1.5.7.) he challenged Ecclesiastical jurisdiction above his fellow-Ministers to belong to him as a man of a higher rank, challenged to one what doth be­long to a Colledge, did not associate Congregations, but subjugate them to him, and himself would be subject to no Presbytery; he made the Cathedral and mother-Church superior in power to the rest: but the Presbyterian way is a social way as between friends, confederates, brethren, where all judge, and all are judged, all things done communi Presbyterorum consilio, where no Congregation is above another Congregation, no Minister above another Mini­ster, though the major part of them (as of Congregational mem­bers, though equall one to another) be above the minor part, where every Elder is left to enjoy the office of an Elder, and each Congregation left to the freedome of the Congregation in what belongs to them, and they able to perform. The Prelates power was altogether extrinsecal to those Congregations that were under it, they did not consent unto it, nor sent Commissioners to assist or concur in it; but Classes and Synods are aggregates made up out of their mutuall associations into one, and do in matters of common concernment strengthen and help particular Congregations walking according to rule, and reduce such as walk not in truth and peace, but are leavened with error and variance. The Prelates urged Subscription, Ceremonies, had civil power to imprison, fine; were Barons, and so had votes in Parliament; they had their Chancellors, Commissaries, Surrogates, Deans, Chapters, Arch­deacons, Rural Deans, Proctors, Apparitors, Singing-men, Choristers, Summoners. Their Courts were remote from many of the people, they were expensive, oppressive by exaction of Fees; they (or some of them) promoted Tyranny, Popery, Arbitrary government, suffered ignorant, profane, Popish, Arminian, Socinian Ministers, [Page 41]which the Presbyterian Government where it is in full strength, as in Scotland, doth not.

Sect. 4. Reply p. 8. You might more properly have said that John did not blame him simply for usurping or exercising prehemi­nence; for accepting presupposeth an offer made of the thing ac­cepted; now it is more then probable that the Church never offered him that preheminence, nor if shee would, had shee any such power; exorbitant preheminence usurped over the whole, both the Elders his equals and the fraternity (which yet have a share and interest in the passing of Excommunication) is here spoken of, not any lawfull preheminence; for then a moderate and well-tempered love of it were lawfull; By the same reason that Diotrophes is excused in regard of the materiality of his action, may the corrupt Princes, of whom it is said, Isai. 1.23. Every one lo­veth gifts, be excused from their bribery and corruption. 3. You say It is probable that John writ somewhat concerning Discipline, as the receiving of certaine brethren; a businesse in which the frater­nity had some interest as well as Diotrophes and the rest of the El­ders, and therefore he wrote not to Diotrophes, or to the Elders alone, but to the whole Church. But Diotrophes riseth up, he alone commands, forbids, excommunicates; and yet say you, (or else you say nothing to purpose) be is not blamed for it. If Diotrophes were not to blame be­ing a particular Elder, to take upon him the power of the whole Elder­ship, yea and the whole Church; why may not a brother do that which belongeth to the fraternity, an Elder do that which belongs to the Pre­sbytery, or to the Classis or Province, and yet blamelesse?

Rejoynd. 1. You grant Diotrophes was an Elder of the Church of Corinth, and is it not probable he had a primacy of order, or some preheminence amongst the Presbyters by reason of parts, or age, &c? whereunto he was chosen by his brethren, and whereup­on he made answer when John writ to the Church, as Presidents, Moderators use to do when Colledges, Synods, Societies are writ unto; and if so, the word accepting is not an unmeet expression. 2. That the text speaks of an exorbitant preheminence usurped over the whole, you assert, but prove not, the expresse words of the text are loving preheminence or primacy, not having preheminence (the word I used) not usurping it (the word you use.) The prehemi­nence might be lawfull, and yet the love of it be blamed in Scri­pture, as money, pleasure, uppermost roomes, long clothing, salutati­ons, [Page 42]may be lawfull, Prov. 21.17. Mat. 23.6. Mark 12.38. as your selves confesse: yea, the Prophet doth not reprove Princes for receiving of gifts or rewards, (notwithstanding your instance to the contrary) but for corrupt inordinate loving or receiving of them. Saul did lawfully receive gifts, and they were men of Beli­al that brought him none, 1 Sam. 10.27. though to love gifts or rewards, or to receive them so as to delay or pervert judgement, be a great sinne, Isa. 1.23. 3. By what logick do you conclude Diotrophes is not here blamed, ergo he is excused from the guilt of so­litary excommunication, in regard of the materiality of the action, or he is not here blamed, therefore he is not to blame, &c. Are all men in Scripture blamed, yea and simply blamed, (for that was my word) for every thing in which they were to blame? 4. I indeed had no thought of excusing him from guilt in solitary ex­communication, or exercise of any Ecclesiastical authority, (which I have publikely witnessed against, both lately and long since) nor well know I whether he was solitary, or only principall in that work, nor how far the Church was guilty of it: That he alone did rise up, and command, and forbid, and excommunicate, the Scri­pture saith not, neither did I say it or think it, much lesse did I say he is not to blame if he did so. They (for ought I know) might joyn with him, and yet he only be blamed by name, as being the head of the faction, and they doing it by his inducement and instigation, (as the rebellion of many, yea in a sort of all the con­gregation of Israel, is from the principal actor called the gainsay­ing of Corah, Jud. v. 12.) for how one man in the very Apostles times could excommunicate members out of a Church so great, well gifted, and fully furnished with officers as Corinth was, if the Elders and people had been against him, or have hindred John from comming to them, I cannot see. Might they not have received John, and have, some one, or all of them, writ to him to that pur­pose, whether Diotrophes would or no? seeing the Elders cer­tainly had, and you say the fraternity also had, a share in those weighty businesses.

But possibly this was one of those false teachers which brought the Corinthians into great dislike of the Apostle Paul their spiri­tuall father, 1 Cor. 4.13, 14. 2 Cor. 10.1. and was of an ambitious spirit, v. 12.18. (your selves take it for granted he was of that Church) and if so, then he might very easily bring them into dislike [Page 43]of John. 5. Suppose any Church-power (which you esteem most lawfull) should have loved preheminence, should not have received John nor the brethren, and have forbidden them that would, and have cast them out of the Church, might not John have writ on this manner, and sharply have rebuked them, without any intent on his part of reflecting upon the lawfulnesse of their power, but only upon their ambitious and corrupt use of it?

CHAP. XXVII. Of Independents likenesse, and unlikenesse to Corah, Dathan, and Abiram.

Sect. 1. WHen I desire you calmly to consider whether investing Non-Elders with Ministerial power, placing Church-power in the body of the Congregation, complaining of the Elders that rule over them in the Lord, for taking too much upon them; be not the gainsaying of Corah? You in the Cong-way justified, p. 38. say, Your reasons to prove our way is the gainsaying of Corah are weak; For first, this schismatical company would utterly have taken away the Power of Moses, and Priesthood of Aaron, and so when they had officers, would have destroyed their officers, We only in the ex­traordinary case of an utter want of an Eldership hold it fit to ordain by persons deputed by Preachers (such as have been Ministers) as deputed, or by Elders elected.

Rejoynd.

• I could wish for your sakes the reasons were weaker then they are.
• 2. That Schismatical company did not oppose Moses as a Magistrate, but as a Minister, and therefore they said, All the people of God are holy; Not, all the people of God are wise, valiant; true-hearted, which are the vertues of the Magistrate, (Sympsons Sermon before Parl. July 26. 1643.) And they did not claim to rule the State, but to offer incense, Num. 16.3.5.10. Hence Aarons rod budded, not Moses his rod.
• 3. That they would have destroyed their officers, is more then I know, or you prove, only they did usurp upon the office of the Priests: yet here you grant, that if you should endeavour to take away the power [Page 44]of the Magistrate, or to destroy their officers, then you were like to Corah indeed.
• 4. Your extraordinary case is now too ordinary, viz. at the erection of each of the Churches of Independents, Brown­ists, Anabaptists, Familists.
• 5. The case of Ʋzzah in staying the Arke, 2 Sam. 6.6.8. and of Sauls sacrificing, 1 Sam. 13.9, 10, 11. might seem to be extraordinary, yet the Lord was very angry.
• 6. If any Preachers do ordain that have been Ministers, they do renounce their Ministery before they do ordain. And as for the elect Elders, they are (when they do ordain) but persons elected to be Elders; for election of the people doth not make the offi­cer, as hath been shewed.
• 7. That the Church hath any com­mission to depute a man to ordain, I read not, and Non credimus quia. non begimus. If Corah, Dathan, and Abiram had had a depu­tation from the Church of Israel to have offered incense (as it may be they might have had) this would have made the sinne of the Church greater, not theirs the lesse.
• 8. But if you may here be excused à tanto, or à toto, yet the Anabaptists (with whom you close too much) which ordinarily do place the power of admini­string the Sacraments in disciples that are no officers, cannot be excused.

Sect 2. Cong. way just. If placing Church-power in the body of the Congregation, were the gainsaying of Corah; then because ele­ction of Officers Act. 6. is a branch of Church-power, and was placed in and acted by the body of the Church, then that Church was guilty of the gainsaying of Corah.

Rejoynd.

• 1. You do not answer my argument, but make a counter argument.
• 2. Placing of Church-power in the Body, is un­doubtedly the gainsaying of Corah, Num. 16.3. All the Church is holy, viz. hath power to do the Priests office—Wherefore lift ye up your selves above the Church of the Lord?
• 3. That election, Act. 6. was but a nomination of some officers, and a setting them be­fore the Apostles, who appointed them over the businesse, and made them officers, and that this was an act of Church-power placed in the body of the people, the text saith not. But of this more in its proper place.

Sect. 3. Cong. way justified. It is not true that our cause allowes or enjoyns complaining of the regular exercise of the power of the Elders that rule over us; we honour and obey the Elders of our se­verall Churches, and also the Elders and Members deputed of se­verall [Page 45]Churches meeting occasionally to rectifie disorders, &c. But for stated Classicall Elderships, and your severall graduall Judica­tories swallowing the Votes of the Elders of particular congregations, Ordaining, Depriving &c. these are not Powers ordained of God.

Rejoynd.

• Corah, Dathan, and Abiram, did not, nor (I believe) would confesse that they did oppose any Ordinance of God, but only the pride and usurpation of the Priests.
• 2. If Classicall Elderships and graduall Judicatories be powers ordained of God, as hath been shewed they are, then you are guilty (as you implicitely confesse) of the sinne of Corah, and do resist lawfull authority as they did.
• 3. That which makes me to suspect your Way of this sin, is,
  • 1. This is a sinne of the New-Testament as well as of the Old, Jude, v. 11.
  • 2. It was not so much a sedition against Moses the Magistrate, as a schisme against Moses the Minister and Aaron the Priest.
  • 3. They did gather a Gnedah out of a Gnedah, a Congregation out of a Congregation, Num. 16.1. the Chal­dee understands it of taking, that is, of withdrawing of himself, saying, And Corah separated himself; and Salomon Jarchi also ex­pounds it, He took himself aside to be apart from the congregation, and Dathan and Abiram also took men and separated themselves, or Corah took them all into a distinct Gnedah or congregation, v. 5.16. Psal. 106.17. Now who they are that plead for withdrawing, se­parating, gathering themselves from a true Church into a distinct Congregation, you very well know.
  • 4. As also to whose opinion the gainsaying of Corah is most sutable in the very expressions of it, All the church or congregation is holy, you Elders take too much upon you; wherefore lift ye up your selves above the church of the Lord? The church hath the power of the Keyes, the church may de­pose and excommunicate (if she see just occasion) all her Elders.
  • 5. The authors of that Schisme were no blasphemers, hereticks, or fundamentally erroneous, no adulterers nor grossely vitious any way (that we know of) but in likelihood they were men of good re­port and repute; the Text saith they were famous in the church, and though they be called wicked men, v. 26. that was but in re­lation to their Schisme, which is a work of the flesh, Gal. 5.20. and shewes men to be carnall, 1 Cor. 3.1, 2, 3. and the originall word signifies restlesse turbulent men; the Greek hath it hard men.
  • 6. That schisme pretending power and liberty (and questionlesse profit too; for if the Priests work might be taken of them, why [Page 46]not their tythes and wages?) took mightily: for,
    • 1. 250 Senators called to the Assembly, the Greek translates it Councel, of the Governours, Statesmen, famous and renowned, joyned themselves to these Schismatiques.
    • 2. The Congregation, yea many doubt­lesse religiously affected, in the simplicity of their hearts favoured them, v. 19.22.
    And though God appeared in an unheard of way against them, yet all the congregation judged that Moses & Aaron did oppose the people of the Lord, appropriating that title to Co­rah and his company, as though Moses and Aaron were not Gods people, but enemies, for which murmuring God sent a plague, v. 41. 45, 46, 47.

The Lord preserve the Parliament and people of the land from this abhominable sinne, and grant that the dream may be to our common enemies, and the interptetation to them that hate us.

CHAP. XXVIII. Whether the Church appear to be a particular Congregation. MAT. 18.

Sect. 1. IN Cong. way justified, you professe your selves to hold that the exercise of Church-power by the Congregatio­nal church is founded upon this text, as the observation of the Christian sabbath is upon the 4. Commandement. I joyn issue with you, and observe that you grant,

• 1. As the 4. Commande­ment did at the first promulgation of it, and afterward command the keeping of the seventh-day Sabbath, so this Text did first send the offended party of the Jewish church to the Jewish church, while that Church remained in power as you acknowledge.
• 2. As the 4. Commandement doth equally command any day in the week (which God by other Texts doth require to be kept) after the expiration of the Jewish sabbath, so this Text sends the people of God to any Church which after the dissolution of the Jewish church should be in strength by vertue of a charter from heaven.
• 3. That he that shall affirm that the first day of the week is to be kept holy, rather then the 7. or 6. is enjoyned by the fourth [Page 47]Commandement (other Texts set aside) doth abuse and wrest the 4. Commandement; so he that asserts that this Text doth so prove that the Church must be only Congregationall, not Nationall and Oecumenicall, doth wrong this Text.
• 4. Hence also may be inferred, That if a day or time of the same extent was there commanded to the Jewes, and after the expiration of the Jewish sabbath to Christians, then a Church of the same extent as was amongst the Jews, (which was a Church consisting of subordinate Judicatories, and was Nationall (assoon as it was capable of be­ing such) and in a sense Occumenicall) is here prescribed to the Christians after the expiration of the Jewish church.

And this is as much (or more) then I intended for it; my professed work was only to vindicate the Text from the Congregationall way, not to urge it for the Presbyterian, as you would make the Rea­der to believe. If I at this time do solidly vindicate the said text, I do as much as I desired; the chief of your other texts on which your opinions are pretended to be built, have been and shall be examined; Though I might spare my labour in this point; your selves confessing that Mat. 18. doth not prove that the Church must be congregationall, which I would have persons concerned to take notice of: yet I will give the Reader a taste of your Reply.

Sect. 2. Reply, p. 86. The sinew and strength of your reason is this. It is necessary that the judging Church in the times of the Go­spel should answer in the manner of its judicature to the judging church in the time of the Law; therefore the Gospel-Church ought to have gradual judicatories and appeals as the Jewish church had. The main hypothesis whereof is unsound; for it is necessary that the Judg­ing church in the time of the Gospel should be conformed to spirituall precepts and patterns left us by Christ and his Apostles, and Christ hath not appointed the Jewish church to be a pattern to Gospel church­es; so then Churches of Presbyterian complexion are not here under­stood, for there is a vast difference between them and the Jewish church.

Rejoynd.

• 1. The sinew and strength of my reasoning is not that which you pretend; it is plain in the words to be this. If Kahal (and Ecclesia with the 70) signifie the company of Elders, as well as the body of the People, and a Church with graduate Judi­catories and Appeals; then this Text doth not prove (whatsoever [Page 48]others do, or do not) that the Church must be a particular Con­gregation as opposed to Classical, Provincial. National, &c. But the first is true, therefore the second. And this argument is good and strong your selves being judges.
• 2. It is enough for me to shew that it doth not conclude for the Congregationall way, though I should not shew that it makes against it, or for the Pres­byterians. The argument you propound is your own, not mine, nor would I put the matter of it into fuch forme, did I use the ar­gument. 2. You shew a vast difference between our Churches and the Jewish; but doth this prove that the subordination of Ecclesiastical judicatories amongst the Jews was ceremoniall, or that we may not reason for it from the analogie of the Jewish church? Anabaptists may and do render many differences between Judaisme and Christianity, Baptisme and Circumcision: and yet notwithstanding from them all we may conclude from analogie the lawfulnesse of Paedobaptisme, and Christian Magistracie. There is a vast difference between the Priests of the Law and Mi­nisters of the Gospel; yet the Apostle by analogie reasons from the one to the other in point of maintenance. In things most like it is easie to find some difference, none of your differences do cleer that subordination of Ecclesiastical judicatories was cere­moniall amongst the Jewes, or unlawfull amongst Christians, and therefore they are not pertinent. But what are those dif­ferences?

Sect. 3. Reply, p. 87.

• 1. The Sanhedrim did not consist of cho­sen men sent out by the Synagogues, but of Priests and Levites. R. If it did not consist of chosen men, (which you say, but do not prove) yet God hath appointed us to chuse men for the Synod, Act. 15.2. The Church [...] determined or ordered to send Paul and Barnabas and certain others with them. This is as truly an ordinance of God, as that was then.
• 2. That the Sanhedrim did consist of none but Priests and Levites, you too barely and boldly affirm. It is said that Jehosaphat did set of the Levites and Priests, and of the chief of the fathers of Israel, 2 Chron. 19.8 for the judge­ment of the Lord, and for controversies. You reply further, p. 87. that there was one chief by office, 2 Chron. 19.11. but in the Classicall way all are equall in point of office. R. The High-Priesthood was ceremoniall, and therefore it must be abrogated: but that the Sanhedrim quà a superior Judicatory, was ceremonial, [Page 49]is the thing you should prove. 2. If in the Classicall way all be equall in point of office, how comes it to passe that you charge that way to be Prelatical?
• 3. So far as the high Priest, Amariah, or any other was but a President of the Sanhedrim, so far reason and light of nature, if not of Scripture, shewes us that we may follow the pattern.

Reply, p. 87. Thirdly, you reply, The Sanhedrim dealt with civil matters, Deut. 21.5. Synods with ecclesiasticall.

Rejoynd.

• 1. Their civil lawes were divine, not drawn up by Princes or Parliaments, but by God himself, and so as being Gods lawes, the Priests were the Lawyers and did interpret them, and tell de jure what of right ought to be done, yet de facto the Eccle­siastical Sanhedrim did put no man to death, nor inflict any civil punishment.
• 2. The rest of the things, as time, place, statednesse, are but circumstantial, or ceremoniall things (in which no one ever said that Church-government in time of the Gospel shonld bear conformity with the Jewish church-government) or are elswhere spoken of, and some of them are impossible now to be had.
• 3. I remember when you find but one Expositor interpreting a Text according to your minde (as p. 74.) you say, Surely we shall lesse doubt of our exposition, having so learned a Commentator so well approved of, to stand by us in the same.

Now you know we have a cloud of faithfull witnesses which argue for Classes and Synods from this text, year Mr. Cotton himself (Keyes p. 24.) Churches, faith he, have a brotherly communion amongst themselves; look then as one brother offended by another, and not able to heale him by the mouth of two or three brethren privately, is to carry the matter to the whole Church; so by proportion if one Church see matter of offence in another, and be not able to heal it in a more private way, it will behove them to procure the assembly of many Churches, that the offence may be orderly heard, judged, and removed. Mr. Parker also in his Politacclesiast. l. 3. c. 24. and multitude of other Non-conformists and forraign Divines cited by Mr. Paget in his defence of Church-government in the Pres­byterial, Classical, and Synodal assemblies, p. 44, 45, 46.

Sect. 4. Reply, p. 87. The Synagogues might be under a supe­rior Judicatory, for they were but parts of a Church, a Positique Nationall church: but particular Congregations are entire and compleat Churches, and may transact all Gods ordinances, [Page 50]walking in truth and peace amongst themselves.

Rejoynd.

• 1. What if the Synagogues were as compleat and entire Churches in all matters of perpetuall and morall concern­ment, as particular Christian congregations are. For,
  • 1. there were Assemblies there.
  • 2. Those assemblies are called Churches, Psal. 26.12.
  • 3. In them was reading, Act. 15.21.
  Preaching, Act. 18.20. Ruling, yea rulers, at whose request Paul preached, Act. 13.15. Censures, as excommunication, or casting out of the Synagogue, Joh. 12.42. & 9.34. & 16.1, 2. What moral ordi­nance waa wanting in the Synagogue, which was to continue in time of the Gospel?
• 2. That Congregations are entire and compleat Churches, you can never prove in your sense, nor that they can transact all Church-ordinances, the contrary hath been proved.
• 3. Power of Church-government is not left to every or to any Nation as it is a Nation, but to the Church, not because it is National simply, for a Provincial or Presbyterial Church, yea a Congregational, may have power of government; only the neerer any Church is to the Vniversall church, the more autho­rity it hath, and the further off, the lesse.

Sect. 5. I cannot but minde you, that p. 88. you deal unjustly, 1. In that you would make the Reader to believe, that from that single proposition, The Gospel was writ principally for the Jewes, some say in Hebrew, I conclude, that Congregationall men do not apply it rightly, yea that the Christians that are Gentiles may not make a right use of them. You know my purpose was only to shew the great probability of taking the word Church in Mat. 18. in the same sense that it is taken amongst the Iewes, and in the Hebrew tongue. 2. In that you divide the argument, and then encounter with the severall peeees of it, and say of the severall peeces of it, We cannot but despair of ever seeing the premises de­livered of the conclusion; and, How shall we do to get the conclusion willingly to follow these premises?

Rejoynd. 1. Seeing you want help to make a Syllogisme, and cry out, What shall we do? it is an act of charity to direct you. Do but joint the Premises together, put them in form, do not wrong them, strangle not the child in the place of bringing forth, and they will very easily deliver themselves of the genuine and naturall conclusion, viz. that this Text doth not prove that the Church in the time of the Gospel must be only Congregationall, [Page 51]not Nationall, Provinciall, &c. and that they which thus alledge this Text do abuse it: and this was my scope. 2. Notwithstand­ing this was my scope, yet by the providence of God some argu­ments are couched in my answer, which imply that by the word Church the Presbyterie is meant, because he speaks to the Disciples v. 1. or Apostles, which elswhere are said to have the power of binding and loosing, Mat. 16.19. Ioh. 20.23. and were not ordinary believers, but Elders, 1 Pet. 5. See my answer. 2. That he rather meant a Church with subordination, then a single Independent as­sembly, it is thus covertly argued. The notion of a particular Congregation is not agreeable to the Jewish church, which you say is here spoken of in the first place; but the notion of a Church with distinct judicatories is agreeable to it: and these two argu­ments might incline you to judge that he speaks of the Presby­tery, and of a Church with distinct judicatories, but in your Reply you take no notice of them.

Sect. 6. Reply, p. 89. Though this place 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 Classical. Provincial, National, &c, churches; because 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, Act. 6.3. 1 Cor. 5.4. c. 11, 12, 14, 16. but of any stated, Classicall, Provinciall, Nationall, and Occu­menical churches, there is deep silence in the Scriptures of the New-Testament, no precept for erecting of such, and no lawes nor officers provided for churches. Christ sends the people to such a Church as hath a charter from heaven.

Rejoind.

• 1. You implicitely acknowledge that the word Church is not understood only nor chiefly of the people as they stand in oppo­sition to their guides; then if a Church have but one guide, and he sinne, can the Church proceed against him or no?
• 2. You also in saying, this place may lawfully be understood of the Congre­gationall church, do imply that there is no necessity it should be so understood.
• 3. All these chapters are cited only to prove two presidents, viz. that the Church of Jerusalem and the Church of Corinth were only two particular Congregations, and we have fully cleared that the Church of Ierusalem consisted of many as­semblies.
• 4. Act. 6.3. will not prove the contrary; for,
  • 1. That [Page 52]meeting was for the choosing of Officers, wherein I suppose you re­quire not the presence of women and children, though (possibly) others of your way do.
  • 2. They had severall tables (possibly 7. for every Deacon one) and not one table only, v. 3. The word [table] is the plurall number: now severall tables to receive the collection of one Congregation, are neither usuall nor needfull.
  • 3. How 8000. or suppose but 5000. new Converts, and the many thousands converted by John Baptist, Christ, and the 12 Apostles, and 70 Disciples before Christs death could at that meeting upon the Apostles motion all of them know the seven men, and so una­nimously agree upon this new businesse, without considering and consulting apart (especially seeing they were of divers languages) is a thing incredible: most probable it is, that the Grecians that murmured against the Hebrewes, did apart choose one or more of of the Deacons, as suppose Nicolas the Proselyte of Antioch.
  • 4. Whereas you name Cenchrea, though you bring nothing to prove it was only one particular assembly, and your men pretend that it was but a little town, I read that it was a very well fre­quented populous town, most famous for the station of the ships, and so might be large enough to contain in it many Church-assemblies, as well as many Haven-towns in England do.
  • 5. There are no officers appointed by God for National churches, but the same that are for lesser churches; surely there may be National churches without National officers, as in Scotland. The office of a President, Register, &c. nature may teach it National Synods (which your selves hold lawfull) as well as Congregationall Judicatories.
  • 6. For Lawes, there are some lawes for Synods, whether National, Provincial, or Oecumenical, and there are some acts of Church-government which by the lawes of Christ every particular Con­gregation is unable to performe, as I have formerly shewed.
  • 7. Seeing there is deep silence in the Scripture of this Position, that every Church must be only Congregational and Independent in opposition to Classical, Provincial, &c. and seeing also there is a charter from heaven for combination of Churches into Classes & Synods, and for the authoritative power thereof; therefore they which say that Mat. 18. must needs be meant only of the former, and cannot be rightly applied to the latter, do abuse and wrest that Scripture.
  • Lastly, Mr. Cotton himself saith (Keyes, 47.) that the promise of binding and loosing is not given to a particular Congre­gation [Page 53]when it is leavened with error 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 error, search out truth, determine, declare, and impose the way of truth and peace upon the Church.

You say, a Synod must not assume authority of censuring De­linquents. Wherein you oppose Mr. Cotton; for how can a Sy­nod of Churches impose wayes of truth and peace upon a litigating erring Church, if she have no authority to censure the said delin­quent Church, nor any member of it, except she her self will do it. I leave you three to consider of the matter.

CHAP. XXIX. Of the power of the Keyes, in MAT. 16.19.

Sect. 1. Reply, p. 89. The power of the Keys we seat not in the peo­ple, as contradistinguisht to their Elders, but in the whole Church by a most wise and divine dispersion of power into the dissimilar parts of the Church; Elders have an authoritative power, the people have a power of liberty in point of Censures, so that reclamante ecclesia there can be no excommunication.

Rejoynd.

• 1. Who made these Keyes, especially this key of Liberty? cannot they that make Keyes, make Locks too? If God have made these Keyes, I pray shew me when and where? If the Scripture do not witnesse that they are true Keyes, I shall think them to be picklocks, and fit with the Popes keyes to be thrown into Tyber.
• 2. A Key in all mens judgements was wont to imply office and authority; they that have no office, have no keys that I know of at their girdle. In a family, or in a corporation or city, servants and citizens have some liberties, priviledges and in­terests, which yet have no stroke in ordering the Keyes in city or family.
• 3. Do not your selves give the people without officers (or as distinct from them) a Key of authority? Tell me, I pray you, is not Ordination an authoritative act, an act of government? And yet you say (Pos. 10.) the brethren may ordain. Is not Church-admonition as a step to an higher censure, an authoritative act, an act of government? and yet you say the brethren may admonish [Page 54]their officers, yea and excommunicate them, at least negatively, which you say is not so authoritative as the positive, but yet you imply it is authoritative. Do you hold that Elders do receive their authority from the Church of Believers, or no? If you do, then the Church of believers hath authority, else she could not give authority. If you do not, you forsake your own principles. If ye hold that the peoples denyal of consent (when a case is voted) doth bind the Elders, and the Elders denyal of consent doth not bind the people; then the people have more authority then the Elders. If you say, the Elders and body of Members have each a negative voyce, then you make the Church to consist of two co­ordinate societies, which you cannot prove by Scripture.
• 4. Your speech, Reclamante ecclesia, &c. must be rightly understood, or else it is not true: the sentence of Excommunication may be valid in foro, though not in facto, in respect of right, though it cannot take due effect; as an Outlawry may be good in law, though the peo­ple will not withdraw from the person out-lawed: if the people had a negative voice which might illegitimate and disanull the act of the Presbyterie, then they had greater authority then the Pres­byterie. A necessity of the Members consent doth constitute Church government in a Democratical frame; in Rome, Athens, &c. they had Magistrates, yet the government was democratical. But certainly it belongs to the Elders, which are stewards of the mysteries of God, 1 Cor. 4.1.2. Tit. 1.7. (and not to the whole fa­mily) next under the Lord, and by his direction, to take in and turn away servants; and Elders have full power to baptize, upon making of a disciple, without any intervening act of the Church, Mat. 28.19. and this power was exercised by John Baptist, Mat. 3.6. Luk. 3.7. and the Disciples of Christ, Joh. 4.1, 2. and the Apostles, Act. 2.37, 38, 41. Act. 4. & 5. & 8. &c. no mention being made of a Church or Congregation voting for their admission into the Church by baptisme.

Sect. 2. When I answer that Peter and the rest to whom Christ directs his speech were Apostles in office and commission though not yet sent out into all the world; you tell us that the terme Apostle is equivocall, as noting,

• 1. One authorised to dispence Doctrine and Discipline amongst all Nations, Mat. 28.19. and in this sense Peter was no Apostle.
• 2. As one sent out by a temporary commis­sion to preach and work miracles amongst the Jewes only.

Rejoynd..

• 1. That they were not called Apostles by Antici­pation only is very clear as any historicall thing is, for the Text saith, hee chose, made, and named the Apostles, Luc. 6.13. Mark 3.13. Mat. 10.1. and that hee sent them, Mark 6.7. Mat. 10.5. Luk. 9.1.
• 2. The terme of Apostle is not equivocall, for (if your selves do not equivocate in the word equivocall but take it in a logicall sense) it importes nomen commune and diversas rationes or essenti­ales definitiones, so canis a dog, is an equivocal terme being taken for the dog-starre, or a living dog, or a painted dog, now sure (you know) that Peter had more of an Apostle than the dog-starre, or pai [...]ted dog hath of a living dog: nor do you think I beleeve what­soever you pretend that Peter was an Apostle of one kind one while, and another while of another, that Judas was of one kind of Apostles and Matthias of another. The Apostles without e­quivocation had the same office at first, they had at last, only their limits were enlarged? you father your distinction upon mee but I own it not, Peter was authorised to dispence doctrine and disci­pline any where, the Apostleship included a generall commission in it, but Christ immediately after hee made them Apostles prohi­bited them from going to the Gentiles or Samaritans Mat. 10.2. and so I meant, they were not yet sent out into all the world, as neither they were long after they undoubtedly had commission to teach all Nations, nor was James all the time of his life (that we read of) sent out into all the world but abode in Jerusalem to his death and yet was as truly and fully an Apostle as any of the rest.
• 3. The 70. which were not Apostles were sent forth by a temporary commission to preach and work miracles amongst the Jewes only, by your definition they should be Apostles all the life time of Christ as well as the twelve. And whereas you say, Reply p. 91, that the promise of the keyes was not made to Peter as autho­rized to dispence doctrine and work miracles among the Jewes, nor was bee an Elder invested with authoritative power of government, he could not Excommunicate by himselfe or all the rest of the twelve with him, but must shake off the dust of his feet against them, Mat. 10.