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 wil be 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 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 doâ—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 shâ—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 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 Eldâ—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 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 1â—.11 Rev.
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 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 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 co-ordinate 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
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 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.
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 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 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 judgâ—â—â— 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 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 it s 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
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 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 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 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
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 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 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 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
visible church or the visible church neither of which the gates of hell can utterly overthrow 5. Keyes in Scripture phrase doe import office and authority either Magisteriall Rev. 1.18 and 3.7 Or Ministeriall Isay 22.22 But all church-members are not officers and you sometimes say that unofficed men have no authority Sect. 3. When I say If the keyes bee given to Peter aâ— a beleever then they are given to all beleevers making Peters confession whether in chuch-convenant or no whether church-members or no whether males or females for a quatenus ad omne valet consequentia you having first granted that the power of the keyes is promised to every beleever making Peters confession though it cannot bee executed by them except they bee in such a capacity of state or office You reply p. 93. That axiome will not hold when wee speak of a soveraign Lord acting in a transcendent way of liberty nor of a raâ—ional creature moving according to choyce and election If one looking upon a servant as faithfull should promise him all the keyes of the house that hee should open and shut to all the rest it will not follow that every other faithfull servant may execute that power or that hee may execute it as a faithfull servant Rojoynd I knew well before you told mee that it is one thing to promise to give the keyes to a servant because hee is faithfull and another thing for that servant to execute the power of the keyes quâ a faithfull servant everlasting Priesthood was promised as you truly alleadge to Phineas because hee was zealous for God his zeale and especially Gods own free love moved God to give it him but did not enable him to exercise the Priestly functions only his calling to the Priesthood did thereunto enable him 2. That the words in the Position as disciples and beleevers are to bee interpreted by because they were disciples and beleevers therefore as a reward of grace and mercy a further office was promised to them you strangely presume yet your selves hold not that God did look upon Judas of whom the Position must needs bee understood as well as of the rest of the Apostles as faithful and did therefore promise him the keyes as a reward of grace and mercy 3. What the opinion is of the Elders of New-England out of whose book the Position seemed to mee to bee taken though I meddle not with it as such but take it in terminis the Reader may see Answ to 32. q. p. 44. and p. 49. c. Where they expresly affirme that church-power church-government the keyes are committed to the whole Church and that some exercise of it is in the whole Church as distinct from the officers yea over the officers themselves if they offend and therefore I wonder that you should say in your last clause that the Elders of New-England do not give authoritative power to the Ruled but to the Elders seeing in the 22. position set down by your selves the thrones and Crownes Answ to 32. q. p. 45. are by them aleadged as I upon supposal the position might originally bee theirs noted in the margin to bee ensignes of authority and governing power in church-members and in your last you assert this to bee the allegation of the Elders of New-England and that it may be they are able to maintain it though you by reason of your weaknesse dare not undertake it you have need to come with another distinction to reconcile your selves and to shew how that Position can be asserted by them and yet give authoritative power to the Elders and not to the members CHAP. XXX Of Excommunication Delivering to Sathan In 1 COR. 5. WHen I urge that Paul's blaming of the Believers as well as the Elders doth not prove that they had power to put away the incestuous man for he blames the women that did not mourn but were puffed up as well as the men and yet the women by your confession had no such power You reply When an Epistle is writ to a whole Church it doth respect particular persons according to their severall capacities Now women are not in a capacity of dispensing Church-censures therefore the reproof extends not to them If things indefinitely spoken to a whole Church because they cannot be verified of one who is not in a capacity to receive them may not therefore be affirmed of another then because a liberty in cutting off offenders by vertue of Gal. 5.9.12 13. doth not belong to women neither doth it belong to Elders or brethren Rejoynd 1. Your rule is good and sound but gains you nothing for hence it followes that whosoever by Scripture rules is in capacity to administer Church-censures is only blamed for not dispensing them whether Elders brethren and sisters or Elders and brethren or Elders alone and they that are not in that capacity are not blamed for not dispensing censures though they may be blamed for being puffed up and not rather mourning That Elders are in such capacity we both agree that brethren are in it I deny if therefore Scriptures do not affirm that Brethren are in such capacity then this place which respects particular persons according to their severall capacities and puts none into a new capacity doth not blame the Brethren for not dispensing Church-censures no more then it doth blame women You beg the question and take that for granted which I deny and you should prove and interim you prove that which was never denied 2. If you call cutting off of offenders an act of liberty I pray you what is an act of authority Sect. 2. When I cite Mr Cotton speaking of Pauls excommunicating alone 1 Tim. 1.20 you leave out the citation and would make the Reader believe it was only my speech and yet you do not professe to deny it nor to argue strongly against it only you say If we should deny it we could argue probably for the negative R. I will not justifie Mr. Cotton at least not in that expression Paul did excommunicate For 1. as in my Answer I left it in medio whether Excommunication and delivering up to Sathan were the very same thing or no propending rather to the opinion which differenceth them So now I know not any necessity why they should be the very same for though every Excommunication Clave non errante be a kind of delivering up to Sathan yet every Delivering up to Sathan especially in those times was not Excommunication Job was delivered up to Sathan Job 2.6 so were those that were possessed with Devils and yet were not excommunicated When the Apostle saith hee hath in readinesse to revenge all disobedience 2 Cor. 10.6 That he hath a rod 1 Cor. 4.21 That when he comes he will not spare 2 Cor. 13.2 he doth not I conceive mean it of sharp rebukes or of excommunication which were not so proper and peculiar to the Apostle but the Church might have done that before Paul came 2. I will not meddle
action of the infinitive in another person having no other ground but only Rhetoricall placing by which it stands nearer to the Infinitive then the verb doth 4. There might bee good reason to require the assembling of themselves together though hee only did deliver to Sathan 1. That the Church might behold it and bee afraid might repent of their glorying and being puffed up and take heed of the same sinne least they should meet with the same punishment 2. That there might be more shame and confusion upon the Incestuous mans spirit as when a Malefactor is openly punisht 3. That they which were in capacity to dispense church-censures might more solemnly excommunicate hiâ— 4. That the rest if they also must bee gathered might give a popular consent and approbation to the sentence and execute it in withdrawing from him some of these reasons were given by mee in my answer by way of prevention but you left them out that your objection might bee more plausible 5. If the Church of Corinth by an extraordinary commission had been enabled in Pavl's absence of body and presence of his spirit to deliver the Incestuous person to Sathan that cannot bee drawn into ordinary imitation 6. As for your other passages I find you mis-aprehension of my opinion to bee the ground of all or the greatest part of your discourse you conceive I grant that delivering up to Sathan and excommunication of the incestuous person is all one possibly I did not so clearly in my answer expresse my conceptions as I might and ought to have done out of a feare of multiplying questions Whereas you say in p. 96. The Church in 1 Cor. 5.7.4.5 is made by the holy Ghost the subject excommunicating I grant you that the Church in v. 7 8. 13. was the subject purging out or putting away if you will the subject excommunicating with this proviso that as imposition of the hands of the Presbytery is by your selves p. 96. called the concurrence of the Church in Ordination so the acting only of the Presbytery in excommunication may be called the concurrence of the Church As the whole Church which Act. 15.22 is said to send messengers and decrees to Antioch was in the judiciall passing of those decrees only the Apostles and Elders Acts 15.2 and 16.4 and 21.5 3. I assert not that Paul did command the Church to deliver the Incestuous person to Sathan nor that excommunication was an act belonging to the Apostolique function I know it may and ought in cases requiring it bee transacted by the Church I assert not that there were no other grounds of Paul's writing to them to put away the wicked person but to try their obedience I only say if Paul did write to them to deliver him to Sathan as you strongly affirme some other way then by church-censure then the Church of Corinth was in obedience to Paul and by his spirit to deliver him up and every Church hath not the same power and this was the reason of those passages Paul by Apostolique authority bids the Colossians cause an Epistle to bee read in Laodicea c. I grant that whatsoever power the fraternity and the Presbytery of the Church of Corinth had the fraternity and Presbytery of all such Churches as Corinth was hath to the end of the world but deny that the fraternity of that or any other Church hath power to dispence church-censures and that it is that you should prove Sect. 4. When I say that bidding them purge out the old leaeven and put away from them that wicked person c must not bee understood as if Elders and people were equally authorized thereunto c. You reply p. 100. Is not this to insinuate that the Elders of New-England and Mr. Cotton affirme that the Elders and people are equally authorized to cast out the incestuous person there is nothing in the place by you alleadged that doth import thus much the King for a mis-carriage in a cause may reprove the Jury as well as the Judge and not imply that Judge and Jury are equally authorized c. Rejoynd 1. The Position in the letter saith that he did reprove the brethren of the Church of Corinth as well as the Elders that they did no sooner put him away implying that the brethren were to put him away as well as the Elders 2. The Position in the scope of it seems not to me if I understand it to make any difference between the power of Elders and of Brethren Mr. Cottons words are There is no word in the Text that attributes any power to the Presbyterie apart or singularly above the rest but as the reproof is directed to them all so is the commandement directed to them all Cottons way p. 99. You bring in Mr. Cotton expresly giving all authority properly so called to the Eldership allotting only popular power of interest and liberty to the people I would suppose he doth not contradict himself and yet me thinks in his late book called the Keyes he comes neerer to the truth then in the former called the Way I know not how to reconcile him I leave it to you to do which are better acquainted with his manner of speaking 3. If N. E. men may interpret the Position which I conceive might be and you assert was taken out of them they do hold that the Members of the Church have authority and governing power I will not glosse on their words or meaning or on your distinction of authority properly so called and not properly so called let the Reader judge as he pleaseth I count these unnecessary unprofitable debates 4. Your comparison of Elders and people to Judge and Jury is not proper for the Jury is not all the County or Corporation but only some select dozen of men out of many and so the Ruling Elders are liker to the Jury then all the Congregation 2. The judgement of the Jury is a judgement I think of authority properly so called for they condemne or acquit the party in some degree though not compleatly Sect. 5. Reply p. 100. And lastly A man would think you did acknowledge that the People in suo gradu were authorized to purge out the old leven and put away the wicked person which questionlesse is some act of governing power and yet in the Catastrophe of your Discourse you wipe the Fraternity clearly of all such acts This is is a ridle Rejoynd 1. I do acknowledge that the people yea the women are authorised in suo gradu to put away the wicked persons viz. by withdrawing from them being excommunicated yet sure Womens withdrawing is no act of governing power but of obedience to it for you say Women are prohibited by positive law from having any Church-power though it is said women do exercise power in some of the new Churches in London When the Steward of a family hath discharged a naughty servant all the servants are authorized to withdraw from him yea if need be to turn him
out of doors The withdrawing of people from an outlawed person is no part of the Judicature or of power but of obedience Briefly he that executes an authoritative command may be said to be authorized to that act as to execute a malefactor though himself be not a governour And so I have read your ridle and Oedipus may save his labour unlesse he come to observe but any ingenious Reader that minds the scope and drift of the Position and of your discourse may do it that while you have been catching at this or that shadow you have not given us one solid argument to prove what you should prove from 1 Cor. 5. viz. that the Brethren must concurre with the Presbyterie by way of authority or by way of power Or unlesse he will judge whether that which you put out of my answer as guilty of a grand misprision be guilty or no viz. Numb 5.2 The children of Israel are commanded to put out of the Camp every Leper yet the Elders did judicially make clean or unclean Lev. 13.3 Deut. 17.13 yea sometimes they alone did put the Leper as Vzziah 2 Chron. 26.20 from amongst them The allusion to the Leaven is not to be too far strained for every woman or child in their private house without the consent of the Church might cast out leaven but yet they cannot excommunicate The Apostle 1 Cor. 14.31 bids them all prophesie one by one yet our brethren do not hold that all sanctified persons which in any place call upon the name of the Lord Jesus Cor. 1.1 2. were by this precept bound to prophesie Also in 1 Thess 5.12 he beseecheth the Thessalonians to know them that are over them c. which he speaks to Believers and not to the Elders So when he speaks of the acts of governing power it is to be understood of Elders not of Believers Rejoynd I now adde that the Priest wanted not authority to pronounce judgement of excluding the Leper untill he had consent of the people The Priests alone did make him polluted or clean viz. did authoritatively declare him so The Priest alone might shut him up seven dayes Lev. 13.3 4 5 6. and yet all the children of Israel are commanded to put away the Leper from amongst them as well as the Church of Corinth is commanded to purge out the old leven and to put away every wicked person though this punishment was inflicted by many 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Elders which were many and not by all the whole Church in your sense CHAP. XXXI Whether REV. 2.11 4.14 prove that Church-Members have power and authority Sect. 1. WHen you say the Lord Jesus reproving the Angel of Pergamus sends his Epistle not to the Angel but to the Church I adde not to the Church but to Churches And As you gather that the suffering of corrupt persons and practices was the sin of the Church and not of the Angel only so I may gather that it was not the sin of one Church only but the neighbouring churches 〈◊〉 But this you deny You reply p. 101. If you should unto this inference of the Elders adde an hundred more of your own yet this will not prove that the Inference is injurious to the Text for still it may be doubted whether theirs or yours any of them all of them or none of them be true inferences from the text It is harsh to say John wrote to all the seven churches ergo not to Pergamus if the suffering of Balaamites in the church of Pergamus was the sin of the neighbouring churches then it may be securely affirmed it was the sin of that church Rejoind 1. Revel 2.11 being brought to prove that the church may concurre by way of power with the Elders to cast out Balaamites according to your opinion because the Spirit speaketh not to the Angel to whom the Epistle is inscribed but to the whole church I demanded whether they held that Churches might joyn by way of power to cast out the Balaamites They denied that Then I said the Text doth as well prove the joyning together of Churches by way of power as the joyning of one Church with her Elders your selves shall be judges in this case between me and the alledgers of the Position speak conscionably I pray you may not I as well infer from Rev. 2.11 that the suffering of corrupt persons and practises is the sinne of Churches and that Churches may authoritatively or by way of power concurre for the casting out of Balaamites out of the Church of Pergamus as you or any other can infer it was the sin of one Church and that one Church only must concurre authoritatively or by way of power with the Angel have you warrant for the help of the Independent way to vary from the text and to turne Churches into Church the plural number into the singular number and have I no warrant to keep close to the words in opposition of it 2. I told you in my answer that Congregational men do deny that Churches should exercise such power as the scope of the Position would inferre from these words that our Church should exercise with her Elders I plainly shewed that they cannot inferre the one and deny the other as they do now you very strangely leave out those words But this you deny whereby my answer builded upon that deniall doth not appear to your Reader so pertinent and strong as it is indeed For you count it absurd and too like the Presbyterian way that Churches should concurre by was of power to cast out offenders out of any Church and thither therefore I brought the alleadgers of the Position and there I left them 3. Your selves do not vindicate the inference made in the scope of the Position but say it may be still doubted whether theirs or mine or any or all or none be true inferences 4. I neither affirmed that the suffering of the Balaamites was not the sinne of the Church of Pergamus nor that it was the sinne of neigboring Churches but I said and you cannot deny it to bee true that I may gather from the text aswell that it was the sinne of Churches as of one Church yea better then that it was the sinne of one Church only Sect 2. Reply p. 102. When you say Christ reproving the Angell sends the Epistle to the churches we suppose you mean the other sixe churches the seven Epistles were of immediate concernment in a distributive sense to seven severall churches it is undeniably manifest that the Church of Pergamus was guilty of suffering Balaamites and other wicked persons but to have so much faith to beleeve that all the rest of the sixe churches were guilty of suffering Balaamites and Nicholaitans yea even Ephesus and Philadelphia to prove that the seven Churches were governed by a joynt and common Presbytery hic labor hoc opus est But suppose such a common Presbytery and that the Presbyters
act with the Key of power wherein only he resembles a Magistrate or to exercise jurisdiction in any other That he is at all times and cases fixed to such a circuit but as a Colonel Captain c which possibly somtimes may be the governour of such such a castle defender of such a country c. or any Martial commander may do acts of government whereever his Camp removes so may he do his office by your own confession wheresoever his Congregation is present but a Magistrate may not do justice no not to his own citizens no more then to strangers out of his liberties 2. Acts of justice and judgement by Majors or other Magistrates our of their territories are not only unlawfull but null in Law but sure you hold not that if a Minister preach in another congregation by vertue of office baptize administer the Sacraments Ordain or the like that those acts are altogether null and void as if they had not been baptized or ordained and that they ought to be rebaptized or reordained Lastly the County-Magistrates power is bounded by expresse laws or orders of the King or State but you can shew no Divine Law for the bounding of a Minister to a particular assembly yea whether there be any such laws or no is the question which you must not beg Reply p. 116. We grant that not one only of another Church but two three six eight which it may be are the whole Church may be received to the holy Communion but we demand who shall recommend them and without recommendation they cannot orderly be received or suppose they commend themselves they are now swallowed up in the fellowship of the other Church and counted pro tempore members of it and have not the consideration of a distinct church And though it be lawfull for a Minister to dispense the Sacrament to them with his own people yet not lawfull to go forth from his own people and give it to them alone If a whole Town should come and live in another Town they might have the justice of that Town from the Magistrate which cannot dispense justice to them abiding in their own place Rejoynd 1. If you grant that a Pastor may administer the Sacrament to another Church comming into his assembly as you say you do then first May not a Pastor and his Church upon some occasion go to the meeting-place of another Church and there perform the same ministeriall acts by consent of all parties interessed as he may do if that other Church come to his Churches meeting-place Doth the place make any difference in your opinion Secondly May a Pastor if his flock be present administer the Sacrament to another Church which possibly may be an hundred times bigger then his own and may he not if his flock be absent doth the presence of his church add so much to his power over another church Sure these things are gratis dicta without Scripture without reason 2. As for recommendation I answer first M. Cotton the Elders of N.E. as I shewed before yield another way of communicating betwixt Churches besides Recommendation so that this barre is needlesse and untrue if they must be Judges Secondly if Recommendation be so needfull for a whole Churches communicating with another Church it may be had from its officers from other neighbour-churches or from members of that church to which they come and joyn which are able to testifie of them Thirdly whereas you suppose they may commend themselves this is of all other reliefs the weakest as good as nothing a meer formality sure Recommendation with you is very needfull that must be thus patched up rather then wanted when it is thus helpt out it stands you in great stead 3. As for comming of one Church to another I rejoyn first If they communicate with this other church by vertue of communion of churches they must needs be considered as a distinct church Communion is at least between two and imports plurality and distinction betwixt the parties Identity destroyes communion which consists in the conveniencie or agreement of persons or things in aliquo tertio and not in a coalescencie of them in one Secondly whatsoever they are counted howsoever considered by you this temporary fellowship makes them not indeed one church with that they communicate with Your way of constituting churches and your everlasting covenant Cottons Way p. 104. wild noc brook such an easie and interchangeable putting together into one and parting again of churches your considering them as one then when they are not such is the error of your Conceptus and salves not the matter in hand in this case deny it if you can A Minister acts ministerially to another church and now you have brought two churches together in communion let me enquire May not their Elders act in common to both are the Eldert of either suspended in this conjunction and if so of which are they that are to be suspended and why not a third and a fourth church come to them after the same manner and the Elders of all joyn interests in ruling what will lack to make up here a Classis or Presbyterie of many churches Thus you are unawares comming into our tents Thirdly by this you plainly teach a Minister acts not ministerially but in the presence of his Congregation and the authoritativenesse of his acting and lawfulnesse of his authoritative acts depends on their being assembled with him But first it is the presence of Christ which gives authority and efficacy to his Ministry Mat. 18.20 which is promised to him alway and with no such limitation Mat. 28.20 Secondly some Ministeriall acts are required of him in private Jam. 5.14 2 Tim. 2.15 1 Tim. 4.13 14 15 16. He is to charge privately the people that they live not inordinately Cottons keyes p. 21 22. and he may act authoritatively in a Synod of churches where his Church is not collectively which is your sense present Of the difference as to this between a Magistrate and a Minister see Sect. 12. Reply p. 117. The Scripture alloweth the recommendation of the members of one Church to another Rom. 16.1 2 Cor. 3.1 But can you produce any place where the Minister of one church hath acted ministerially in another church Rejoynd 1. Neither of the places you cite for recommendation of members mentions any thing of meer members but both speak of officers Phaebe in Rom. 16.1 is termed a servant of the Church Mr. Cotton calls her a Deaconesse of that church Way p. 103. Keys p. 17. And that in 2 Cor. 3.1 speaks of Paul himself as not needing recommendation to or from them as do other teachers for of such he had immediately before discoursed c. 2. ult and much in this Epistle the Apostle useth this collation as c. 10. 11. 2. Your demand annexed should in equity and correspondency to your own attestation be Can you produce one place where the Ministers of one church are recommended to another And this I can though your places for Members recommendation be not found and may as strongly therefore inferre their acting ministerially in other churches upon their recommendation to them as you with Mr. Cotton conclude for the communicating of members in other churches from such supposed recommendation of them thereunto See for the recommendation of Ministers 2 Cor. 8.16 18 19 22 23. Act. 15.22 25 26 27 32. Col. 4.7 8 10 11. Ephes 6.21 22. Phil. 2.19 20 21. and your own place 2 Cor 3.1 Sect. 4. When I produce Mr. M. Mr. T. granting that Elders have a power to ordain Elders in other churches by request of that church where the Elders are to be ordained You reply p. 117. Not by their own proper right not as Elders or Officers but as of better gifts and greater abilities and their power is derived to them from those congregations which entreat them if they acted as officers then they might act without entreaty for entreaty makes them not officers and if they were officers before entreaty is not needfull to enable them Rejoynd This reason is not good 1. A man may be intreated to do that which he hath office and authority to do Act. 16.9 2 Cor. 8.4 with 19. Mar. 9.23 2. When there is an office and calling to do a work there is requisite on the part of them to or for whom it is to be done a consent and whether it be signified in the form of an intreaty or otherwise is nothing materiall In censures you give some proper power to the Elders and yet require the peoples consent in passing them In this matter of Ordination you hold the Churches consent necessary though their own Elders did transact it and their acting therein you will grant to be authoritative 3. You say the same of Elders acting in their own congregations therefore the Elders deriving power from the Church is no hindrance but that they may have it from Christ to another congregation upon their request as to their own 4. Let me ask you 1. How can the Church according to you delegate its power to persons out of it self 2. Whether is this act of deriving power to the Elders of another church an act of authority or no If it be then the Church acts authoritatively to persons of another church and if the Church may why may not also the Ministers If it be not then the Ordination performed by them is either done by no authority or by an authority underived from the church to which they are intreated 5. If the Church may derive power to Elders of another church in point of Ordination why may she not translate it to the Elders of two three or four churches why not to a classis of Elders and why not her interest in other acts of power as well as this You haue thus a power to become Presbyterians with us if you will You further reply p. 117. And if they act as officers in another congregation then they may in all congregations R. So they may act in any positis omnibus requisitis ad agendum but they act not formally as officers of another congregation but as officers of the same classical provincial or national church and as joyned in government with that church Part of this and the whole 35. Chapter of the Preaching of gifted men Waits a farther occasion FINIS
A Rejoynder To Master Samuel Eaton and Master Timothy Taylor 's REPLY OR AN ANSWER TO Their late Book called A Defence of sundry Positions and Scriptures c. With some occasionall Animadversions on the Book called the Congregational way justified For the satisfaction of all that seek the Truth in love especially for his dearly beloved and longed for the Inhabitants in and neer to Manchester in Lancashire Made and Published by Richard Hollinworth Mancuniens The Lord will shew who are his and who are holy LONDON Printed by T. R. and E. M. for Luke Fawne and are to be sold at the signe of the Parrot in Pauls Church-yard 1647. Some of the principall CONTENTS of this Book OF gathering Churches out of true churches Cap. 1. Sect. 1. c. Of separation from a true church because of corruption S. 6. Presbyterial-Classical National and Oecumenical church c 1 s 2. p. 6. the citation in l. 12 being misprinted for it read c 7 s 1 c. c 8 s 2 3 c 9 s 1 c 10 s 2 c 28 s 3 c 15 c 18 Of Parishes how jure divino and how not c. 2. s 1 c. Of the heathen and christian Magistrate c. 3. s 3. No toleration in New-England c. 3. s 3 4 5. Whether seven or eight can make a church c. 4. s 1 c. Whether Adam's family Noah's Christ's and the 12 Disciples of Ephesus and the 120 at Jerusalem were each of them particular churches ibid. The church of Jerusalem did not ordinarily meet in one place c. 5. s 2. Churches were planted in cities and great towns not in villages c. 5. s 5 Judaea was not so little but it might have many classical churches in it ibid. The Epistle to the Corinthians written to the churches of Achaia c. 6. s 1.7 E 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what it signifies c. 5. s 4. Church taken as properly in a distributive sense as for one assembly The word Churches notes not Independencie it is given to the Jewish church c 10. c. 1. Combination of churches c. 8. s 2. c. 10. s 2 3. Whether and how the church consists of visible Saints c. 11. s 1. Edification whether the only end of church-fellowship and not conversion c. 11. s 7. Who are to be excommunicated c. 11. s 8 9. The Jewish church a church of Saints c. 11. s 10 Of the Church covenant c. 12. s 1 2 c. Church-fellowship whether a part of the covenant of Grace c. 13. s 5 The Authors just Apology for pretended abusing of the Authors out of which the Positions seem to be taken c. 14. s 1 Whether Christians without Officers be properly called a church c. 15 1. Of election of Officers c. 16 Ordination by Bishops and popular Ordination compared c 18 s 4 Ordination and Election compared c. 18. s 8 Neither Tythes nor setled maintenance are unlawfull c. 20 21 Of Lords dayes contributions for maintenance of Ministers and the designe of it c. 21 s 1 c 9 Deacons not to take care of Ministers maintenance c 21 s 3 Distinction whether between Pastors and Teachers c 23 Each church Assembly is not Zion c 24 Of the word without in 1 Cor. 5. c 25 Of Anarchy worse then tyranny c 26 s 2 Marks of Malignancy c 26 s 3 Presbyteriall Government not Prelaticall c 26 s 3 The difference between the Prelaticall Presbyterian way c 26 s 3 What was the sin of Diotrophes c 26 s 4 Independents likenesse and unlikenesse to Corah c. c 27 s 1 c. Differences between the Christian church and the Jewish c 27. s 1 c 28 s 2 3 4 Of the Key of Liberty and of the necessity of the churches consent to excommunication c 29 s 1 The Keyes how given to Peter c 29 Whether Excommunication and delivering to Satan be all one c 30 The supposed sad condition of the Presbyterian churches c 31 s 3 A Definition of Discipline and Essentials examined c. 33 s 6. The Independents Model promised c 33 s 7 Of Ministeriall acting in another congregation c 34 Why men may preach to Heathens and before Ordination and not administer the Sacraments c 34 s 2 Recommendation of Ministers and Members c 34 s 11 Christian Reader I intended to have reprinted in this Book the Positions my Answer to them and Mr. E. and Mr. T. Reply to it and a large Rejoynder but that course my wife friends judged tedious and chargeable not profitable I have therefore taken up the pith of their Reply especially of that part of it which pretends to Scripture or Reason and of my Rejoynder omitting prefaces personal matters repetitions impertinencies My style is plain and modest Not victory but Gods truth the Churches peace thy good yea their good who in this are my adversaries is really intended and endeavoured by Thine in the service of Truth and Peace R. H. A Rejoynder to Master Samuel Eaton's and Mr Timothy Taylor 's Reply 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 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
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 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 gaâ—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 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 Doctrinâ— and practice of the Apostles which you cannot shew of yours Interim you may take notice that Mr. 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 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
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 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. 3d 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 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 voluntâ—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
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 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 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 mâ—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 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
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 â—â—â—â—d Church or such a national as the Jewish Church was and therefore your confutation of such a Church might wel enough have 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 tâ—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 â—â—a national Church and alâ—o that â—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 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 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
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 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 solâ—mn publick worship which was but ceremoniâ—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 lâ—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 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 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 poâ—â—â—â—â—â— 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 â—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 Dâ—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 reâ—â—teness of the several nations in which Christians do respectively dwel Had you but one Independent Congegation in England another in Spaiâ— 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 ordiâ—â—â— of God yea in that 〈◊〉 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 oâ—â— though it may be at least metoâ—â—â—mically undâ—â—â—ood of the place of 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 Kaâ—â—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 Coâ—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
cornfloor and to a City but as for the comparing of a visible Church 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 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 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
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 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 privâ—lâ—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 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 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
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 Libertinisâ—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 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 iâ—â—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 constâ—â—uted for the maner wiâ—â— be able to discern of wâ—olesâ—m and powerful Doctrine of humane learning they may wite â—â—â—â—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 fâ—â—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 Coâ—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 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 Thaâ— 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 'T is 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 bâ—â—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 stricteâ—â— 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 bâ—â—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 peâ—ple did ordain Eiders by Election without the Aposiles it saith not buâ—â—â—ther the contrary viz. that they stayed from Election and Ordination of Elders till the Apostles came to advise and assist therein The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—â—gnifieth rather to give then to gather suffrages As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth imply the Election of more Churches then one and year imports 〈◊〉 Election of â—o more Churches then those there spoken of S. thâ— pâ—raâ—e Paul and barnabas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dâ—â—h not imply that any Church or other persons besides Paul and Barnahas did elect there â—resbytâ—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 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
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 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 Patâ—ern in Ordination and not in Election you almost tell us you have no Examples for Ordination 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 conâ—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 Timothyâ— 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 fiâ—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 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
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 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 spâ—ciâ—m affirmative no more then if a man should say causing is sometimes by way of authorits 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
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 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 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 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
misgovernment of his family in his absence which he prayes against mourns for and endeavours what he can at such a distance to amend Surely God will be to him a more equall and mercifull Judge Lastly your selves do hold communion of Churches too for counsel though not for jurisdiction yea you hold that Churches ought to have a 〈◊〉 one of another are you thereupon guilty of all those heresies and blasphemies that are broached by men which at first were Independents if you do admonish them of their error and renounce communion with them and use what means you can to reclaime them Sect. 4. I read in Rev. 4. that four and twenty Elders distinguished from believers c. 7.8.11.13.14 not four and twenty Saints or members were clothed and crowned by which I understand the officers of the Church alluding to the four and twenty orders of the Priests and the four beasts represent the Christian churches through the four quarters of the world alluding to the foure camps of Israel bearing in their standards the same beasts By your exposition the Elders which you say are signified by the four beasts are excluded from governing power for they sit not on thrones nor have crowns on their heads Their crowns and thrones are no more ensignes of power and authority then their white raiment of Priesthood Cot keyes p. 16. But they are not Priests by office they cannot do Pastorall acts as baptize c. neither have they authority to govern Every Christian man or woman Church-member or other hath a crown and sitteth on a throne viz. is spiritually a King and Priest to God Rev. 5.10 Finally governing power properly so called you acknowledge none but in the Elders alone 1 Cor. 12.28 Rom. 12.8 Heb. 13.17 The peoples power you say is more fitly called liberty and priviledge too mean a thing to be represented by crowns and thrones This my answer to Rev. 4. you blot out by an Index expurgatorius and being justly taxed for it in my Epistle before my Quaere's you say That in the copying out of your Reply for the Presse it was omitted but whether casu or consilio casually or purposely we cannot say I pray you whom should I ask if you know not You tell us how godly and able men having proved a thing by plain texts of Scripture do adde probable ones though more obscure But I pray you where are those plain texts which do solidly prove that Church-members are to sit on thrones or that they have authority and governing power You expresse your selves unwilling to defend the Position by vertue of the Text at least in that expression viz. of authoritative and governing power Why then do you not ingenuously confesse that the Text doth not prove the Position You say that it may be N. E. men are able to maintain it by vertue of the Text. Then it may be authority and governing power may be duly setled on Church-members as distinct from officers by Gods word You say that the exposition that I give in my answer seemed probable to one of you yet upon further inspection you have some exceptions against it though you do not absolutely reject it But if my exposition seem probable and you do not reject it why do you except against it 1. You say the four Beasts are full of eyes Revel 4.8 but you read not of any eyes that the Elders had I answer it was convenient to mention the beasts with eyes that it may not be thought the Churches were bruitishly ignorant but to mention Elders with eyes was superfluous seeing they are men and of the gravest and wisest of men and you may presume they had eyes for the Text tels us not that they were blind 2. You say the four beasts do lead the 24 Elders in the worship and service of God Rev. 4 9 10. c. 5.8 11. Now Churches do not lead their Officers but Officers the Churches I answer 1. The Elders are sometimes set before the four beasts Rev. 7.11 2. If I should say When the Society of Duckenfield doth communicate the Elders do break the bread therefore the Church of Duckenfield doth lead her Officers you would laugh at that consequence The cafe is the same When those beasts give glory and honour you may read shall give glory and honour the 24 Elders fell down therefore say you the Church doth lead her Officers 3. You say As for your allegation Rev. 7.9 11 13 14. that Elders are distinguished from believers we discern not that they are any more distinguished then the four beasts are I answer You may discern more distinction for one of the Elders not any of the four beasts speaks of them as of another sort then themselves in some respects v. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These are they not We are they c. 4. You say Mr. Conon asserts some priviledges of Church-members which are priviledges of Kings wearing crowns viz. to transact nothing by themselves but by their officers 2. Their consent is requisite to the judgements that passe in the Church I answer 1. I thought that a Church viz. the non-officed members had nor transacted things by their Officers to expresse their royalty but for want of authority per se to administer Sacraments 2. That their consent had not been a royall consent as to Acts of Parliament but a popular consent 3. No exposition can be given of the words but some exceptions may be made against it 4. All your exceptions together are not of such weight no not with your selves as that you daâ—e because of them reject the exposition I gave Lastly if you do maintain the position that Church-members have authority and governing power you contradict your selves CHAP. XXXII Of taking Christ for their onely spirituall Prophet Priest and King Deut. 18.15 Act. 7.37 Psal 110.4 Heb. 5.4 Isa 9.6 7. Rev. 15.3 YOu professe that you do not appropriate this to the Congregational churches as if in these offices Christ were so only hers that no five or six or one particular Saint out of Church-fellowship no Classical Presbyterial or National Church may take him for their only Prophet Priest and King You condemn any that have thus expressed themselves you call it a cup of abomination and say in whose sack soever it be found let him suffer according to his dâ—â—â—rits Yea that all the churches of God yea all the people of God may deservedly condemn such that it favours of most detestable pride and censoriousnesse that it is a thing of greatest abhorrency to our thoughts if it fall on this side blasphemie against the holy Ghost Rejoynd 1. The texts cited prove that Christ is a King a Priest and Prophet but not that Congregational churches do only so take him 2. You insinuate that it may be found in the writings of some on your right hand you may mean the rigid Seperatists which if it bee I am sure it is found in the writings of those that in point of
overseers in the work of feeding Rejoynd 1. If you mean by their charge the commission and trust which was given them at their Ordination or admission to the Ministry you speak besides the book for here it is not described these Elders were officed and ordained before only here they have an occasionall visit and charge upon Pauls passing by Ephesus and taking leave of them which delivers to them as much as Paul thought fit and necessary to impart to them on that occasion as John the Evangelist upon occasion delivered a young man say the Ecclesiasticall stories to a Bishop or Pastor 2. If by their charge you mean the charge in the Text if that doe extend no further then the flock of Ephesus will it follow that they may not doe any ministeriall act beyond the limits of the flock I cannot judge so 1 Because the Apostle is here delivering them their fixed constant set task and duty and therefore speaks to them under the title of overseers or daily watchmen not simply their whole duty or the utmost bounds of what they have to doe either in ordinary or occasionally and he is urging them to their duty with relation to their particular charge but sets not down their whole duty as Ministers of the Gospel It is an error to take the function or calling of the Ministry and a pastorall charge identically the function of a Minister was attributed to the Apostles and Evangelists Ephes 3.7.2 Tim. 4.5 yea to Tychicus who is for such commended and sent both to the Colossians c. 4.7 and to the Ephesians cap. 6.21 and yet neither the Apostles or Evangelists nor possibly Tychicus had the pastoral charge of any one particular Church only 2. This is an unjustifiable way of argumentation and denyed by that known logick rule Testimonium non valet negativè The Elders must feed this particular flock of Ephesus therefore they must feed none else upon any occasion or this text mentions not that they may feed any other flock then that therefore they may not in any case feed any other Timothy must charge some at Ephesus that they teach no other doctrine c. 1 Tim. 1.3 ergo he must charge none else nor anywhere else he must command and teach these things 1 Tim. 4.13 observe these things cap. 5.21 exhort and teach these things cap. 6.2 keep this commandement v. 14. he must charge the rich that they be not high-minded c. v. 17 18 19. therefore he must command and teach observe exhort keep charge no other things then those respectively yet this is the strain of your argument here and in your following discourse all along Sect. 4. Whether there were more congregations in Ephesus or but one no Elder could then or can now feed by Word and Sacraments in a constant way any more then one Congregation and consequently if they feed ministerially other congregations they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rejoynd 1. If your argument be ab impossibili and that there is a contradiction implied in an Elders feeding more then one congregation I must deny it for some Elders there were that did it viz. the Apostles Evangelists and Prophets and I read of the Elders of some of the German and Belgick churches which do execute their offices promiscuously over many congregations ab acta ad potentiam valet consequentia 2. If you mean your proposition de 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 potestate of authority and warrant that no Elder can warranâ—ably feed more then one Congregation you beg the question the Elders in the Apostles times taught and ruled in common within a certain circuit containing many congregations as it is very probably conceived by some and Division of the church into congregations and fixing particular Elders to them is no further off Divine institution then Order and Edification did first occasion and do still require it should be so as hath been said 3. If it be granted what you say we grant that Elders cannot in a constant way feed any more then one congregation yet if we distinguish as your own words hint to us of a constant fixed quotidian feeding in all the acts of a Pastor and Overseer and of a feeding successive interchangeable occasionall and partiall and yield your Proposition as understood of the former which can only be applied to the Text and deny it if taken of the latter what will you gain hence seeing you cannot conclude by this argument against a Ministers exercising some ministeriall acts sometimes in another Congregation or his being a Minister to severall Congregations successively 4. Your often reiterated brand of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you should take from off us to your selves and that out of your own words and practice compared if the work of feeding by the word and doctrine be one principall work of the Elders then not those Elders which feed by the Word whomsoever and as often as they can are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but those which are no Elders and take on them to feed by Word and those who are Elders and hold they may not act ministerially out of their own congregations yet do feed by the Word yea some in a constant way other congregations are by your own rule 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sect. 5. Reply p. 113. It is more then probable that the flock at Ephesus was but one congregation 1. Ephesus was a city and we do not read of more congregations of Saints constantly meeting in any city then one 2. The Church of Jerusalem Corinth and Antioch were we think as numerous as Ephesus yet none of them more than one congregation the Holy Ghost witnesseth that they ordinarily met in one place as before was shewed Rejoynd 1. If it be more then probable then it is no lesse then necessary but me thinks your selves seem to suspect your proofs will not reach to so much seeing you modifie them thus We do not read We cannot think These are but feeble props for a demonstrable conclusion yet it behoved you to assert this or as I told you now you could challenge no leave to argue from this Text though you would make countenance as if this needed not and now you lay hold on this for a basis but it will not stand by you For first your argument à testimonie negativè is an inartificiall argument and will not hold as was before said if it would we may as well say è contrarie we read not that the Saints in any city were only one congregation 2. You read of more Saints residing in a city then could constantly meet for the worship of God in one congregation and consequentially you road of more congregations unlesse you will say though they could not meet in one yet they met not in divers but were uncongregated which were to impute a great sin to them This hath been formerly evidenced That the Holy Ghost witnesseth that each of those Churches met in one place and that ordinarily I leave you
that question were propounded to any Minister so exercising in another Church which was once to our Saviour by the high Preists and Elders by what authoritie dost thou doe these things and who gave thee this authoritie let that Minister whosoever he be study to make an answer and retort them thus on you you say here there are some acts of feeding which though they be authoritative to that people over whom the persons performing them are officers yet they may be performed without an office c. let him that holdes or exercises any such acts in such manner suppose preaching which was the subject of that question of the high Priests Matth. 21.23 study to make answer to it If he say by no authoritie but by a gift then 1. He answers not the Elders question which demandeth by what authoritie c nor can hee positively answer it 2. Either this giftednesse is a sufficient warrant and then he hath authority and so doth it authoritatively or else its insufficient and then he is convinced as a transgressor and presumptuous and hee and you must quit this and find out another distinction to salve your disparityes which can hardly be so strange and incongruous as this Sect. 11. When I urge If the relation of Ministers and people be mutual If the people may receive the Sacrament from one that is not their Minister then the Minister may administer it to them that are not of his flock you reply p. 115. In one sense all that you say is true they may so doe by recommendation but then this recommendation is as it were a dismission differing not really but only in time Recommendation commends them for a time into the fellowship with that Church and dismission for continuance when persons of another Church doe orderly intermingle themselves with this or that Church then they are as Members and Pastor is as their Pastor and so hee might dispence the Sacraments to them Rejoynd In New-England members well known and approved doe mutually without exception communicate each of them at other Churches even so often as Gods providence leads them thereto and they desire it and this is done by virtue of communion of Churches and sometimes without letters of recommendation See Answ to Pol. 9. p. 78. Cottons keyes p. 17. way p. 103. F.W. to W.R.p. 10. 2. We stil ask why may not a Minister officiate inanother church recommended or as it were dismissed by his own aswel as a member of another communicate in his by recommendation 3. Belike you are pinched with the argument that you are glad to use such amphibolous termes as it were a dismission as his member as his Pastor but observe 1. Your Author Master Cotton gives a reason of this both more genuine and crosse to this of yours for we saith he receive the Lords Supper not onely as a seale of our communion with the Lord and with his members in our Church but also in all the Churches of the Saints if so then what need you or how can you say truly that a member of another Church comming to receive at yours is as it were dismised or dismembred from the other Church and is become as a member of yours and you are as his Pastor 2. I aske is he not still really a member of the Church he comes from is he not under another Pastor of another Church if you deny these things it would overthrow that communion of Churches which Master Cotton reduceth this mutual receiving one of another to and would make membership and Pastorship like a cloake to cast off and put on alternation upon every slight occasion of going from home and eturne and if you yeeld or affirme the said things then you must recal those words wâ—erein you say Recommendation differs not really from dismission for if it doe not then is hee really dismissed from the Church he comes from and is not as one of them he comes from but as one of them to whom he is resigned and recommended Cottons way p. 104. In what Church then to place him or whether he be in either according to you I cannot resolve and I am sure to say he is a member of both would be incongruous to your Principles and to reason 3. In saying Recommendation differs not from dismission really but in time is a contradiction for things that differ in time must needs differ really ut res res quorum incipiente vel desinente uno non incipit vel desinit alterum else you must needs say eadem res est non est but you are not happy in your distinctions the lesse wonder it is that in some things you erre for qui bene distinguit bene docet 4. The Argument for all this that you have said must still presse you if this man a member of another Church may come to your Church why may not the Pastor of his Church come and if hee as a member may receive why may not his Pastor as a Minister preach and administer the Lords Supper is not the one as strictly tyed in by his Church-Covenant in his relation as the other in his is not recommendation of a Minister as truely a dâ—smission of him as recommendation of a Member Sect. 12. Reply p. 110. But it will not follow that therefore hee may act ministerially out of his owne Church and people in and among another Church and people Magistrates and Subjects are Relatives and if any Subjects of one County come to another County and be wronged there he may require justice from the Magistrate of the County where the wrong is done him and receive it but the Magistrate may not therefore goe from among his people to another County and dispense justice amongst them So of Ministers Rejoynd 1. The similitude is not truly laid down for a Magistrate of this County and a Subject of the Kingdome are not relata as such a County-Magistrates correlative is a Subject and Inhabitant of the said County And if you had so put your comparison what could you have inferred from it 2. The similitude is unfit even in that for which you bring it For first a County-Magistrate is tyed within locall bounds in administrations whether to his country-men or to strangers but the case of a Pastor is not so especially with you which admit of no Parochial or locall bounds which we think requisite in some cases not possible in all to the circumscribing of a Church or the Pastorship of it but enlarge the Pastors leave to officiate any where in the world if his Church remove thither and the Church may remove whithersoever Secondly a Magistrate as he may do a stranger justice in his own County so he may as well execute justice on him within the same but you will not allow another Churches member to be censured in this Church though he may communicate there Thirdly I should easily grant that a Pastor may not go from his own congregation to