abstracted from the place where they are set may be stretched to more but the restriction which I have given if well weighed leave us but this 2. If a share of this fight stands as you say in an Evangelists conversation yet still the commandement may be peculiar an eminencie and exemplarinesse being required of an Evangelist or Minister in his conversation as such c. 4.12 The enemies in this fight bending themselves more against such then against ordinary persons as gaining more advantage by it if they prevail 3. If the word faith be here understood of sides qua ereditur or doctrine of Christianity as you take it in your next page it is more properly and directly said to be fought for by a Minister in his publike ministery then in his life Gal. 1.23 The Apostle delivering a Bishops part saith he must be one that holdeth fast the faithfull word in teaching so the margent Tit. 1.9 4. If this Commandement reach to the conversation will it ever the more yield a bottom for a perpetuall form of Church-government You go on Reply p. 408. How can these words Fight the good c. drink up the whole meeting of the words And it may seem too grosse to teare in peece-meal the continued exhortation v. 11 12. and to apply the words this commandement only to that in v. 12. R. But my words carry not in them a dividing between v. 11.12 nor a referring of the charge following to the 12. verse for the words I used sâ— faith and holinesse may comprise the whole of those two Verses what is there in them of commandment which may not be reduced to these two heads Your bold censure of the thoughts of my heart I passe over Sect. 4. When I urge that this commandment extends not is the whole Epistle nor to every precept and example of Discipline in gods book or to the whole way of Discipline Against this you oppose and assert p. 109. that the words relate to the Rules concerning Church-government in the former part of the Epistle Rejoynd Say they do yet in so doing they relate not to the whole way of Discipline for all Churches not to the essentials of it which is that you have to make good there being divers parts of that Discipline yea as you will upon second thoughts grant I suppose essentials not found laid down by precept or pattern is this epistle What is there in it about Excommunication and other censures by the people or ordinary Elders What of election or ordination of Elders by the people What of Church-covenant Qualifications of persons capable of membership c You should therefore enlarge your assertion which seems large enough already and say that the Apostle relates in these words to all fore written books of Scripture which have any thing of Church government in them or else you do not make good the Position by the Text nor do you prove what I required you in my answer to prove that the words this commandement doe extend to every preccept and example of discipline in Gods book which clause you answer not but with a deleatur wherein you deale wisely in your generation to shape my answer so as that you might better reply to it 2. For proof of your assertion you say Consider the cohaerence The Apostle having in the former part of this Epistle insisted on the severall duties of the officers of the Church he commands them in the later end of the second verse of this chapter to teach and exhort these things Rejoynd If wee doe consider the coherence wee shall finde that the Apostle had insisted most on Timothy's owne duty in which indeed other officers may read theirs so farre as they are analogated with him in the Ministery and somewhat of the qualifications of the persons eligible to the offices of Bishops Deacons widdowes cap. 3. and cap. 5. that so Timothy might know how to regulate in such cases 2. You greatly and plainly mistake the text for it is not them that in the second verse of this chapter hee commands to teach and exhort but him viz. Timothy you could have wisht perhaps it had been them to have brought in the severall officers to a nearer interest in the charge wee are about but the cohaerence here will not stretch to it Thirdly as this them for all the officers is an altering of the text so it is against sense and commonly admitted principles that it should bee so for who on your or our part will grant that all officers even Deacons Widdowes then as it is held officers shall exhort and teach these things and that authoritatively by this commission not only as you distinguish by vertue of a gift Fourthly you strangely mis-interpret the words these things teach and exhort in making these things there to bee the severall duties of the officers of the Church delivered in the former part of the Epistle for who so reads over the two beginning verses of this chapter unto which this clause is the close and epiphonema will in one instant perceive what hee means by these things scil the dutys of Christian servants to their masters which this Apostle with Peter saw cause more then once to presse the contrary practise reflecting much upon the name of God and his Gospel and therefore wils Timothy to teach and exhort these things yet you passe over this clear Inference of the words and seek a longer stretch for them which I suppose none will follow you in that would not be lost in a dark labyrinth You proceed in your coherence and say Next hee armes him now you come again to the right person with instructions how he should carry himself towards those that should teach and exhort the contrary v. 3 4 5. R. The contrary to what To the duties of servants immediately preceding v. 1 2. and not to the duty of Church-officers formerly as you say laid down as you would insinuate and if you will not yet agree to my sense observe the characters given of the contrary teachers in in v. 3 4 5. and judge whether they have not more direct contrariety to the doctrine of Servants duties v. 1 2. than to Church-officers duties any where before in this Epistle laid down former argument to bear the sense I have cleared it to have and so may your following paraphrase on v. 11 12. and your transition to this text as a charge laid on Timothy as an Evangelist or Pastor But what is in all this tending to pitch the charge upon the matter of Church-government situate so remotely from this passage though treated on in this Epistle Your selves have found out now at length a neerer dependence for it upon a subject of a different nature sc v. 11 12. on which I shall suffer it to rest and take the coherence or relation of it to the rules concerning Church-government in the former parts of this Epistle yea in every other book of Scripture which the Position
was more warrantable then from our Churches unless you count them true Churches only in the sense you speak of viz. the body of them have not pertinaciously and desperatly rejected Christ come in the flesh and that as the Jewish Church then they now are to be dissolved yea that they are in dissolving by Gods appointment and ceasing to be true Churches notwithstanding the progress that is made in Reformation 2. You do not reply directly and pertinently but obliquely and evadingly though in your last book called the Congregational way justifyed P. 17. You are bold to say that no reply can more front or diametrically oppose my Answer then yours doth yea I dare appeal to your selves whether a precept or president of gathering or separating a Church out of the Churches of Galatia Corinth Laodicea because of their many and great corruptions would not have more fronted and bin more point-blank opposite to that part of my as your wisdoms stile it confused answer then this instance of the Jewish Church For first Did ever any man deny that there might then be separation from the Jewish Church Could you think I did deny it Your selves cite me acknowledging it and you could not but know after I had published my Epistle and Quere's what ever you did before that an instance of separation from true Christian Churches would most diametrically have opposed my answer which speaks not of separation of Christians from Jews as your instance doth but of some Christians from others and I dare witness thus much for you that if you had such a one you would have preferred it before the other Secondly Whereas you say in your last P. 18. That you do not consider that Church as Iewish but under the notion of truth you acknowledg that you do not consider it as you ought to have considered it for the seperation was from that Church as it was Jewish having officers and ordinances different from the Christian Church which hath Ministers in stead of Priests which hath not bodily sacrifices of beasts nor such Sacraments and Ceremonial services nor the presence of God in one place especially as the Jews had and the lawfulness of separation from that Church if it were then a true Church and had not been Jewish is stil uncleared 3. The Reformed Churches and Ministers are not to be compared to the then Jewish Church and the Priests thereof as you seem to compare them by pleading that the Reformed Churches and Ministers may be separated from because the then Jewish Church and Preists were to be separated from nor is this concerning the Ministers impertinently shuffled in as in your last P. 18. You most untruly alledge for they which separate from a Church do withdraw from the officers of it they that separated from the Jewish Church did withdraw from the obedience of their Priests and they that separate from the Reformed Churches do withdraw from the obedience of their Ministers and withdrawing your selves tell us Pag. 60. is a negative Excommunication and therefore the Ministers have as much or more injury then so many members have in every unjust separation from them as your selves would say were it your case but this must serve in stead of a better reply Surely you have either too much charity to the then Jewish Church and Preists thereof or too litle to our Churches and Ministers 4. That Church was but one and you should shew gathering out of several Churches for whereas you alledge they might have gathered out of twenty or an hundred had there been so many at that time I answer that it may be there were twenty possibly an hundred Churches while the Jewish Temple stood your selves say there were many Christian Churches and yet I doubt not but you will acknowledg both that no Churches were gathered or separated out of those or any other true Christian Churches and also that it is more lawful and orderly to separate the pretious of one Christian Church from the vile therein and the Godly party to cast out the incurable sinfull party 1 Cor. 5.12 Then to separate some persons of severall Churches into one distinct Church the former being not a gathering of a Church but a reforming and purging of it which is warranted by Scripture 3. Whereas you speak much both in your former and latter Book of the truth of the then Jewish Church I pray you what trueness mean you A naturall trueness as a thief or a lyar is a true man id est truly a man and Sathan a true spirit that is truly a spirit or a morall trueness viz. that it held and taught the way of salvation dare you say that the Jewish Church then did hold and teach the way of salvation Did they not pertinaciously and desperatly reject Christ No not while their Temple stood as you say some think The Scripture calls them an untoward generation from which it exhorts tho e that were pricked in their hearts which were but few in respect of the body of the Jews to save themselvs and from amongst which the Lord converted and added to the Christian Church such as should be saved Acts 2.40.47 And they did put the word from them being filled withenty contradicting and blaspheming Acts 13.45.46 Again the Apostle Rom. 11.11 12 15 19. Plainly implyeth that the Jewish Church ceased to be a true Church did fall was broken off cast away before salvation came to the Gentiles Nor do your Scriptures or reasons solidly prove that the Jewish Church was then a true Church for one of your texts Acts 11. which you produce for that purpose saith That they that were scattered whom in this place you call Apostles contrary to Scripture Acts 8.1 and your own assertion elsewhere Defence P. 4. Preached some to the Jews only and some when they were come to Antioch to the Grecians also Acts 11.20 Now the Grecians were not then a Church of God nor gathered yourselvs say into Church state til Barnabas was sent to them Defence p. 4. The other text mentions their Preaching to the Jews first but that they thought themselves bound to Preach to the Iews first because they were the people of God is your gloss which cannot be inferred from your texts joyntly or severally you know Gods command might make it necessary they should Preach to the Jews first whether they were at that very time the people of God or no and that was the true reason of it as you may see by comparing Acts 13.46.47 with Math. 10.1.5.6 But neither their Preaching first to the Jews nor afterwards to the Gentiles doth evince that either of them were then the people of God As for the Communion the Apostles had with the Jews which is your second argument to prove the trueness of the then Jewish Church I would you had expressed what Communion what worships you mean if that which you count properly Church-Communion then the Apostles did not as you say they did teach and practise
therefore to be cut off Immedicabile vulnus ense recidendum ne pars syncera trabatur Math. 18.15 16. Tit. 3.10 that the other members be not leavened or corrupted by it And yet 2. one end of Excommunication may be the saving of the soul of the excommunicate and yet not suppose him to be already in the state of grace for as a known unconverted man may be admonished if not apparently and obstinately wicked and when God sets in with the admonition we gain our brother and he is converted and his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus so if God set in with the Excommunication he may be gained by it though before he was not gained 3. The Apostle supposeth not the incestuous person to be alive but to be a wicked person and spiritually dead 1 Cor. 5.12 and yet would have him cast out 4. In the Churches of Asia and Galatia were some that were bewitched Gal. 3.1 and turned to another Gospel Gal. 1.6 and counted Paul their enemy for telling them the truth Gal. 4.16 And some that were of the Synagogue of Sathan Nicolaitans Balaamites Jezebelians many that had defiled their gariments viz. were visibly wicked that were luke-warm neither hot nor cold Rev. c 2. c. 3. Therefore Peter writing to the strangers scattered through Pautus Asia Galatia c. could not repute them all in the judgment of charity living stones or visible Saints but this denomination is given a meliori parte as if a man should call a Parliament godly wise faithful Senators he is to be understood that the better part of them are such but not that all of them are such no not in the judgment of charity Sect. 9. Reply p. 36. If Excommunication be an ordinance to throw forth visible sinners both all scandalous sinners 1 Cor. 5. and all other which will not be healed of their lesser faults being duly proceeded against Math. 18.15 16. Rejoyn 1. I doubt whether every one that is not healed of lesser sins after due admonitions be to be excommunicated Suppose of passionate speaking of vain merriment c. if he be not otherwise blameable The censure of excommunication in Scripture is read to pass for grosser crimes but no example of passing it for lesser faults we complained of this very thing in the Prelates Beza affirms Math. 18. to be meant of private scandals which differ only from publick scandals that the one is less known then the other we must not saith Doctor Sibbs kil a fly on a mans forehead with a beetle If every one that is not healed of every sin must be proceeded against so far as to excommunicate him the purest Churches would have nothing to do but excommunicate one another 2. Suppose they were to be cast out can you shew as good warrant to keep such out before due course of admonition as to cast them out when you perceive that admonitions and other due proceedings wil not work upon them 3. Suppose you had good warrant to cast out all such you cannot hence infer that all that are not visible Saints are to be kept out nor cast out for there are thousands that are not scandalous and it may be if they were admonished of their lesser faults would strive to amend them Herod did many things after John Baptist which yet you would not put in the Calender of Saints especially if you should examine them of the work of grace in their heart Sometimes the thing is in medio and we are neither satisfied that this man is a Saint nor dare we censure him to be a sinner Can you shew that the Church ought to examine her members yea those of which she hath no just ground of personal suspition whether they have committed any sin that deserves casting out Then we wil grant she may examine such before she take them in Or could you shew that Non-regeneration or the Churches not being satisfied of their visible Saint-ship she possibly seeing more into them then she did at her admission of them is a just cause of excommunication though they be neither gross offendors nor in foro Ecclesiastico obstinate in their lesser faults then you speak somewhat to the purpose But if this could be shewed then the Apostle needed not to give us a catalogue of divers sorts of sinners with whom we must not eat 1 Cor. 5. for he might have given us a shorter and readier rule saying you shal nos eat with any of whose regeneration you are not satisfied or that are not in your judgments Saints Sect. 10. When I say he writes to the Church called to be Saints or called Saints not to Saints called to be a Church or to the Church constituted of Saints which expression rather of the two proves there was a Church before they were Saints See v. 1. Paul called to be an Apostle then that they were Saints before they were a Church though I maintain not the validity of either inference You Reply p. 36. Can there be a Church before there were Saints What a Church was that which had no visible Saints in it when it was first constituted Rejoyn Why do you oppose an inference which I professed I would not maintain the Reader certainly would have discerned the impertinency of this your Reply if you had not in your book left out that Passage of mine 2. That which I said is undeniable that the words Church called to be Saints doth in the grammatical construction rather of the two conclude that they were a church before they were called to be Saints then that they were Saints before they were called to be a Church as if I should write to Mr E. called to be a Pastor it were more rational to conclude that Mr E. was a man before he was a Pastor then that he was a Pastor before he was a man 3. Any company or assembly called together by command to hear some laws and speeches whether they obey them or no are called Ecclesia or Concio but be it as absurd as you can make it to say there was a Church which had no visible Saints in it much more absurd is the other Position that they were Saints before they were a Church considering it as an inference from this Text whatsoever it is in it self 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be read called to be holy which is in Scripture a word of greater latitude then Saintship in English so little children are said to be holy 1 Cor. 7.14 by a faederal holiness which cannot be called Saints or Sainted The Papists invented this substantive Saints which the Scripture useth always as an adjective though possibly sometimes the substantive is not expressed of which also instance may be given in other adjectives and from them we borrow the word 5. There is no more here ascribed to the Corinthian Church then is oft ascribed to the Jewish Church by the Holy Ghost as holiness Deut. 7.6 Deut. 33.2 3.
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
5.28 I answered that the Apostles were immediatly called Gal. 1. 1. You reply Pag. 6. That the ordinary Pastors and teachers of those times did so as wel as the Apostles and Pag. 7. That the warrantableness ariseth not from the immediatness of the commission but from the truth and reality of it I rejoyn 1 You should produce those ordinary Pastors and teachers which did so and prove it by scripture which proof the reader may expect as being only able to satisfy conscience your selves dis-allow many things reported in Ecclesiastical history 2. You cannot make out so true and real a Commission for gathering Churches amongst us as the Apostles had amongst the Jews and Gentiles as hath bin largely shewed Cap. 1. If you could yet surely had you as immediate a commission now as they then had you might more boldly imitate them therein which is the thing I asserted 3. Mr. Weld a Congregational man calleth this an opposition to Magistracy yea saith he what pen can express a greater latitude of opposition as you acknowledg in your last P. 22. And promise to annex a more pertinent answer Sect. 2. When I assert that you hold not that ministers deposed by their Churches ought to preach or that Mr. Ward deposed by the Church at Roterodam was hound to officiate there before his restauration you reply P. 7. That Ministers censured by a lawful power where ever it lyes whether in their own Congregational Churches or in a Presbytery whether the censure be inflicted justly or unjustly ought to submit and forbear the execution of their Ministry in that place til they be restored c. But what say you makes this against the position Rejoynder 1. Then you plainly intimate that either the Presbytery or the Congregational Church hath lawful power to depose their Minister 2. Your grant here makes much against the Position as it relateth to the Apostles For 1. The Apostles immediate Commission could no more be called in or curbed by the Church then by the Magistrate 2. Nor had the Churches power to silence them as they had ordinary Elders you confess no more then the Magistrate 3. Those whom Peter and Iohn refused to obey if they were not meerly an Ecclesiastical Court yet there was amongst them Ecclesiastical Persons Acts 4.5 6 23. Acts 5.17 24 27. 4. That they had lawful power is not denyed nor questioned by the Apostles but granted rather Acts 4.8 And you assert it was a true Church then and if these things be so and you do hold up to your rule it wil follow as wel that Ministers deposed specially if unjustly by lawful Ecclesiastical judges ought not to desist from their Ministry but say to them as wel as to the Magistrate as the Apostle said to the high Priest Acts 5.20 We ought to obey God rather then man Ecclesiastical judges being but men no more then civil which would tend to the undermining and subverting of the Government by pretence of unrighteousness in the managing of it and disturb the Churches peace as you ingenuously acknowledg Sect. 3. When Iurge that the Apostles had infallible direction of the holy Ghost you reply nothing at all to it though you know 1. That he which is infallible may more safely resist the laws of the Magistrate then he that is not 2. That opposition made by men so infallibly inspired is rather made by the holy Ghost then by them 3. The points which the Apostles were forbidden to preach were of themselves of more absolute necessity and undoubted certainty as your selves wil acknowledg then your tenets of discipline and therefore the Magistrate is not to be so peremptorily disobeyed in the one as in the other When I further answer That the case of living under a Christian Magistrate Intending indevouring I might now add and having in measure effected Reformation and of living under an Heathen Magistrate and a professed publike enemy of the Church is much different you reply That the case is not different in my sense for the Christianity of the Magistrate or his piety and sedulity for Reformation cannot take any person or persons off their duty which they would be bound unto if a Heathen Magistrate bore sway The Magistrate Minister and the people stand ingaged each for himself to Iesus Christ unto the work of his own place The impediments that come from any unto other cannot be a discharge to any Rejoynder but. 1. The question is whether it be private mens duty to set up Churches or to make publike Reformation can a precept or president be shewed in Gods Book for such a practise we must keep within the compass of our callings 1 Cor. 7.17 When things were amiss in Israel the people made no Reformation nor did the Prophets call them to it or blame them for not doing it when they were opposed by soveraign authority the Iews omitted to build the Temple and the City being forbidden by the Kings of Persia yea Christ and his Apostles shifted from place to place and left the execution of their Ministry in places where they were persecuted at least to avoyd offence or to escape danger 2. It is the right and dury of every Magistrate to be the Churches nursing Father and to reform it if there be need as also it is the duty of every family-governer to reform his family Now a godly Christian Magistrate and houshholder have both jus and aptitudinem the right as also Heathens may have and fitness so to do A wife may be more bold to order the family if her husband be distracted then if he be solidwitted for though he be an husband stil and it is his duty to do it yet he wants fitness to do it It is not orderly for some companies of an army to engage while their faithful and valiant General and Councel of war are consulting and deliberating how they may best do it yea possibly have determined another course shal no more respect be shewed nor obedience in matters of God yeelded by a wife child servant to a conscionable Christian husband Father Master then if they were professed Heathens you would not take it wel if you should catechize your children command them to come to family-duties and to keep the way of the Lord. Gen. 18.19 And they should answer an Heathen father is as truly a father as you and you are no more to be obeyed in matters of Religion then he 3. The General Court civil in N. England hath made a law that no Church should be set up there without the consent of the Magistrate T. W. to W. R. and were you in N. E. I suppose you durst not preach or print that that law is against Gods law or that any ought to set up Churches there against the consent of the Magistrates And hath not the civil Magistrate in old England from whence theirs is but derived as much power there being the same or greater occasion to make a law to the same
Psa 79.2 and their Church is said to be a Church of Saints Psa 89.5.7 Psa 149.1 and their seed holy Ezra 9.2 so that in this there is not the least difference between Christians and Jews save that the Jewish Church was called holy and a Church of Saints in the first place and Christian Churches in the second Exod. 19.5 6. with 1 Pet. 2.9 Psa 89.5 7. So that it may as wel be concluded that every member of the Jewish Church was or ought to be a visible Saint or else sin was committed in it and better not to have been a Church at all then not to have consisted of visible Saints and that the Saints should have been separated into a distinct Church from the rest that the Church of the Jews did or ought to have examined persons coming to be admitted whether the work of grace was wrought in their hearts or no and did or ought to have rejected all those of whose sincerity and sanctity she was not satified as these things can be said of the Christian Church Sect. 11. When I say How appears it that all the honourable titles and epithites given by Paul are given with relation to Church-member ship The Corinthians were curiched by God in all utterance and all knowledg and did come behind in no gift c. So when other Saints are called beloved of God elect blessed c. their Life is hid with Christ in God if these things be spoken of them as Church-members then they are true of all Church-members which you know they are not Reply There are some names which shew the intrinsecal nature of the things to which they are given and they do agree to all of that kind so souldier shews the intrinsecal nature of an army and Saint of the Church of God but there are names extrinsecal to and separable from the nature of the things and may be in some not in other such are the Epithites enriched with wisedome utterance c. As if one should write to the army of such an one enriched with gold and silver Rejoyn 1. You have a pretty distinction and similitude here yet they are faulty for 1. You beg the question and presume that to be true which you should prove so to be for the very question is whether Saint-ship satisfactory to the Church is of the Intrinsecal nature of a Church-member and agrees to all Church-members and is inseparable from them so that whosoever hath not given satisfaction to the Church of his Saint-ship or is not a Saint in the Churches judgment cannot be a Church-member 2. You know that if a man be inlisted in an army he is a member of it though he was not examined of his souldier ship before his inlisting yea though he was known not to be a souldier before and is yet but in trayning exercising and learning souldiery If you mean that Church-members are called to be Saints only in such a sense as such a man is called to be souldier you come short of the question 3. The Iewish and Christian Churches are compared to an army in the books of Canticles and Revelation but neither the Jewish nor the then Christian Church did pretend to consist all of Saints nor was this doctrine known at least not practised til separated Churches were erected by Brown Barrow c. 4. As concerning the names Elect blessed beloved of God c. The sum of what you answered p. 42. I take to be this That some of those to whom the Apostle writes might by him be infallibly known to be elect beloved of God c. But all of them were judged such by Paul in the judgment of charity which latter you prove by Phil. 1.7 But the thing is evidently false even in that very instance you bring to prove it true for the Apostle did not account all the Philippians to be Saints for he expresly saith Phil. 3.18 19. that some were enemies to the Cross of Christ and your selves tel us p. 76. That there might be dogs in the Apostolique Churches and alledg Phil. 3.2 which is as much as to say there were dogs in the Church of Philippi and Paul knew it when he writ this Epistle how then could he in the judgment of charity account them all to be Saints So that of necessity you must acknowledg that these titles Saints sanctifyed elect beloved of God faithful were only in truth applicable to a party in the Apostles judgment I demonstrate it thus If in those very Epistles which he writes to Churches by the name of Saints faithful c. He brand some of those he writes to to be wicked Impenitent dogs c. Then he doth not cannot without contradicting himself count all in those Churches to be Saints but the first is true therefore he did not could not account them all visible Saints And if this text do not prove that in the judgment of Paul the Corinthians were Saints when he writ this Epistle then much less doth it prove that they were visible Saints at the first constitution of the Church or that it was necessary they should be such or that they were better no Church then not so constituted or that the Church then did or ought to examine whether men intending or desiting member-ship had the work of grace wrought in their hearts or no which is the practise you did undertake to justify CHAP. XII Of a Church Covenant Sect. 1 YOu say Reply p. 37. That the combination of Saints into one body by some kind of covenant either express or implicite or by some kind of special bond doth make a true Church The Shechemites Gen. 34.15 16. could not become one with the seed of Iacob but by comming into the same Covenant Rejoyn 1. Surely you understand this of adulti persons of age not of infants for that infants born in the Church suppose an Independent Church give any consent to their being or baptizing in that Church it cannot be sayd 2. You hold I suppose that those infants whose parents did voluntarily combine into a Church and are fit matter for a Church and have continued from their child-hood in the fellowship of that Church need not any new agreement or covenant to make them of that Church 3. You deny not it seems that there is an implicite covenant they are your own words though some have no less fondly then confidently carped at the expression as implying a contradiction but now the case is altered your selves do use it 4. This implicite covenant or consent implyed in actions is in our Congregations for amongst us Christians that dwel in a vicinity or neighborhood as hath bin shewed Chap. 2. that they ought are one Congregation they choose or submit unto and maintain the same individual officers as Iohn Thomas frequent the same numerical meeting places Sacraments and other ordinances and so are distinguished from other Congregations of Christians dwelling in other vicinityes submitting to and maintaining other officers as
2. Any seperation or division that is of God may be brought about without our own inventions The Christians did seperate them-themselves from amongst the Iews and Heathens and the Protestants in Queen Maries days from the Papists and yet without any such vocal express covenant that we read of 3. If such looâ—ness in our Parish-Churches be so great an evil then take you heed you be not guilty of that great evil by making that loosness greater then it is or by Gods law ought to be Is it a greater evil for men that remove their habitation then for those that do not remove it all to depart from their Parish-Church without rendering a reason Is it not a greater evil to add to the commandments of God our own carnal and politick devices and to lay a yoke or covenant on our people which God hath not layd on them for preventing of some inconveniences which Gods law doth not enable us to prevent 2. If there be any local bounds as by Scripture rules hath been shewed there ought to be that inconvenience must necessarily happen but to this I have spoken before Chap. 2. 3. The place in Eph. 2.22 is apparently not meant of a particular Congregation but of the universal Church which is called the City the Houshold the Temple and all the Christians of the particular Church of Ephesus were not the whole City but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fellow-citizens with the Saints not the whole houshold but of the houshold not all the temple or building but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are built together with other Saints and Churches which also are part of the City Temple Houshold building as wel as they 4. in Cor. 12.27 when he had said ye are the body of Christ he corrects himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if he should say ye are not the whole body but members in part of that body and others are part of that body as wel as you for into it both Jews and Gentiles are baptized v. 13. viz. into the universal Church and in this sense these Scriptures do not serve your purpose and therefore you say but not rightly that a particular Church is there compared to a body and an house 5. Your selves I know hold not that Church-membership is as in dissolvable as the members of a natural body are one from another which are not separated without ruine of the part separating if not of the whole body nor can that member be willingly separated from its body or joyned with any good effect to another body CHAP. XIII Whether Deut. 29. or Gen. 17. be presidents of a Church-Covenant Sect. 1. THe Covenant in Deut. 29.1.10 11 12. respects Reply p. 39. principally Church-duties more then other duties of the moral law v. 16 17 18. for he warns them of Heathenish worships and would engage them by an holy Covenant to all Gods holy worships of the Passover and all the offerings of Gods prescription which were to be brought to the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation though a Covenant binding to some duties of the moral law may be made by two or three persons of several Churches and yet not make them members of a distinct Church yet if they Covenant to walk together in the constant enjoyment of all Church-ordinances this would change their state and make them a Church Rejoyn 1. Those verses contain in them Moses admonition and exhortation to the people v. 10. Ye stand this day all of you before the Lord your God v. 12. that thou should'st enter into Covenant with the Lord thy God and into his oath which he maketh with thee this day c. that they should not serve the gods of Aegypt or of other Nations least there should be amongst them man or woman or family or tribe whose heart turneth away from God but there is not the least mention of Passover or other Church-duties which you say that Covenant did engage them to and therefore it doth not appear by those verses that the Covenant more principally respects Church-duties more then other duties of the moral law some part of the moral law is mentioned and interpreted viz. the first Commandment but nothing spoken of Church-membership Every particular servant of God ought to take heed of Heathenish worships which is there required and not a Church only I appeal to you may not ought not every man woman family or tribe to use the words of v. 18. make a Covenant with God that he she or they wil not turn away from the Lord to go and serve the gods of the nations as Jacob covenanted for himself Gen. 28.21 and Ruth cap. 1.16 and Joshuah for himself and his house Josh 24.15 May not any two or three amongst us covenant that they wil keep the first Commandment which in this text is paraphrased on Thou shalt have no other Gods before me viz. not the abominations of Aegypt nor their idols v. 17. of some duties sealing their union and communion with the body of the Jewish Church and celebrated when the whole body was assembled I find mention in your book but not in the book of God in the place cited 3. Suppose it true that persons covenanting to walk together in all Church-ordinances which God requires of a Church would make them a Church and change their state yet it is not to the point for the question is whether two or three of several Christian Churches covenanting in the very words of v. 16 17 18. on which you build That their hearts should not turn away from the Lord their God to go to serve other gods or that they would not serve or worship images would this make them one Church together And if it do not how can you say this was a Church-Covenant 4. This was not an express vocal Covenant on the peoples part which you are to prove necessary to the wel-being of the Church for it was made with them that were absent as wel as with them that were present now they that were absent however they were included did not could not if they that were present did make a solemn express verbal Covenant Mr Cottons opinion you shal hear hereafter Sect. 2. When I answer that a Covenant in general doth not make a Church nor a marriage and that Scripture-Covenants are not with appropriation and application to this Pastor or people viz. that they would serve with this people or Pastor rather then with that therefore they are not Church-Covenants You reply page 40. Who ever read or heard of a Covenant in general of duties to be done without application to persons mutually engaged to perform such duties The Covenants in Scripture were no such Covenants they were applied to Israel and to the Gentiles that should joyn to Israel and so they were a separated people from other nations by Covenant Exod. 12.47 48. The Jews by the Covenant of God were to serve God rather with this people then with that Rejoyn 1. You
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
expresseth their opinion that the contribution 1 Cor. 16.1 Was properly intended for the poor 2. That some Churches appoint not any part of it towards their Ministers maintenance 3. That those that do it do it but conditionally if much be given in if there be an overplus and in a secundary way which is not the manner of your Churches which or at least some of them make it an ordinance of God 5. The setting up of this way of Ministers maintenance is the grand designe of Hereticks and Schismaticks though some godly men in the simplicity of their hearts may approve it or actin it for some or all of these ends 1. That they may strengthen the hands of Cormorants who under pretence of Reformation and abhorring Idols do now as in the dayes of Henry the 8. commit sacrilege viz. That do take away to private use things deputed to holy uses or maintenance and furtherance of Gods worship for what is the sinne of sacrilege if this be not by the received custome and consent of the Churches by donation of Princes legacie of Testators severall Acts of Parliament and Magna Charta and do alien them from their generall end whose sinne consisting in devouring that which is holy or devoted to the service of God and his Church Prov. 20.5 Lev. 27.28 30. and in abrogating the Testaments of men Gal. 3.15 makes them worse then Ananias and Sappirah which did only with-hold part of that which they had pretended to give to the Church though before they gave it it was in their own power but these do take away that which neither they nor it may be their ancestors did give but others strangers to them and long since dead 2. That they may make way for their own maintenance in their severall separated Congregations as of Divine institution whether they be tolerated or no. 3. That they might put an imputation of covetousnesse and burdensomnesse upon the Ministers of the Gospel as the false teachers did upon Paul who therefore took no maintenance at all though he might but wrought with his hands that he might take off that imputation 4. That they might catch men to their party because this way is for the peoples profit 5. That they might discourage Learning 6. That they might set the People aloft over their Ministers 7. To bring the Ministers which cannot in conscience comply with their unsteddy unsound people to basenesse and beggery and that they might neither have learning nor leisure books nor spirits to oppose their ungodly wayes 6. As for Chemâ—itius I have spoken before and now adde You do not produce him to say that de jure it ought to be so now but only de facto it was so then he saith contributions was the maintenance amongst the Jews not that it ought to be so amongst Christians CHAP. XXII Of the burning Mountain cast into the Sea REVEL 8.8 9. Sect. 1. TO shew that that is not rightly applied to setled endowments brought in to the Church I urge that Kings and States are called mountains Zach 4.7 Casting of mountains into the sea implieth great commotions and troubles Psal 46.2 Their burning with fire signifieth their opposition and fiercenesse whereby they become destroying mountains or as the Septuagint whom the Pen-men of the New Testament much follow 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a mountain on fire Jer. 51.25 But I find not that setled and stinted Maintenance is in any Prophesie understood by a mountain burning with fire cast into the sea You reply p. 68. that Constantine did bring in great riches and setled endowments to the Clergy of the Church and that this may be clearly evidenced from credible Authors But why do you not shew this in your first or second book and that those Authors meant not of Constantines donation which is justly accounted a fiction What other setled endowments did he give to the Clergie and to whom and who are those credible Authors that assert it You further reply If Kings and States be called mountains so is prosperity in riches and honours Psal 30. Thou hast made my mountain to stand strong that is my condition so prosperous And sea in Scripture is the Church sometimes or the Religion of the Church Rev. 13.1 15.2 Therefore casting of a mountain into the sea may be bringing prosperity and casting riches and honours upon the Church and though mountains should be in your sense for Kings when almost Regal riches and honours were cast upon the Prelates and the ambition of Prelates did set the world on fire it might be called a burning mountain Rejoynd You know Kings and States are called mountains The most learned and godly Interpreters of Prophesies Brightman Mede c. tell us so you need not to If it 2. The place Psal 30.7 may be understood of Davids Kingdom in which God had setled him it was a Psalm at the dedication of his house v. 1. 3. Do you hold indeed that Kings may not cast any riches and honour upon the Church how are Kings nursing fathers and mothers if the Church be as poor and beggerly as when they were enemies how can the Kings of the earth bring their glory and honour into it Rev. 21.24 Why might not Constantine bring in setled endowments as well as the State allow setled maintenance are they not both one yet the one you hold lawfull and not the other 4. I had nothing to do with ampla praedia the Position was of setled endowments Even N. E. men bring it against them and I understand it of set maintenance which may be either lesse or more which you deny to be lawfull from the Church therefore the leaving out of ampla praedia minding you alwaies of what is said in answ to Pos 8. was no fault in the producers of the Position 5. You should shew that setled endowments given to the Church are in any prophesie called a burning mountain cast into the Sea but because you cannot do it therefore you acknowledge Congr way justified p. 9 10. that the interpretation is but probable and doubtfull and that you dare not speak definitively of it And so I leave it minding you only that many which seemed most Anti-Prelatical do justifie the Bishops setting the world on fire Sect. 2. You tell me of my misinterpreting and misreporting of T.W. to W.R. p. 59. I shall relate the case and leave the determination of it to any ingenuous indifferent person It is thus New-England men being asked Whether they do allow or think it lawfull to allow and settle any certain and stinted maintenance upon their Ministers do answer But for setled and stinted maintenance there is nothing done that way amongst us except from year to year because the conditions of Ministers may vary c. Mr. Weld saith For a way of setled maintenance there is nothing done that way except mark the exception from year to year And a little before he saith The Church usually meets twice in the
of all the other six Churches did endeavor the casting out of these Balaamites c. why were they then not cast out Could the Elders of Pergamus over-vote the Elders of the neighouring churches in a Synod and if all or the major part of the Elders of the 7 Churches did neglect why are the Elders of Pergamus only reproved Rejoynd I pray you tell us whether the words The spirit saith to the Churches doth prove that only one Church and not Churches are spoken to by the spirit 2. Whereas you suppose I mean the other sixe churches of Asia and tell of a common combined Presbytery amongst them all Episcopall men make each of those Churches an Episcopall Sea having other Churches under it's jurisdiction and you fancy to bring them all under one combined Presbytery both which are extreams had I meant either of them I could have so expressed my selfe I meant only churches in the same sense that the text means and determined not what that meaning may bee but say once again if it could bee proved from Rev. 2.8 that the Epistle directed to the Angel of the Church of Ephesus was of immediate concernment to one Church then it may bee thence proved that it is of immediate concernment to churches sic de caeteris v. 11.17 and one is as cleer as the other and your selves I hope mean not to contradict the sacred Text whatsoever be the meaning of it 3. Mr. Brightman a godly learned man doth conceive that each of those seven churches did typifie one or more Nationall Churches for instance Laodicea doth typifie England Philadelphia in which the spirit of God finds nothing reprehensible Scotland Geneva c. each of which have severall Congregationall Churches within their combination 4. My thoughts I shall deliver in these propositions 1. The Church of Ephesus did consist of more congregations then one I evince it first by the muâ—titude of beleevers there Paul continuing Preaching there for the space of three years Act. 20.31 God gave special successe to his Ministry so that many beleeved and there were many also which used curious Arts who brought their books and burned them before all men the price of which was 50000. pieces of silver so mightily grew the Word of God and prevailed Act. 19.18 19 20. and a great and effectuall dore was opened to him 1 Cor. 16.8 9. 2. By the number of Elders Act. 20.17 the terme All being again and again given them v. 36 37. Paul setled there about twelve disciples which Prophesied Act. 19.1.6.7 and doubtlesse in any single Congregation many Elders and Prophets especially in those times of extraordinary gifts could not finde imployment The second Proposition is that the Church of Ephesus had but one Presbytery Rev. 2.1 Act. 20.17 28. The third Proposition is that congregations and assemblies are in Scripture phrase called Churches so the Jewish Church which unquestionably was but one is called Churches as hath been shewed and the severall assemblies were ruled by one Presbytery and so the meaning of this place is that the spirit speaketh not only to the Angell of the Church of Ephesus but to the severall assemblies of the Church As Church and city do expound one another so there was but one Church comprising all the Christians within Ephesus if they were 40000. as Church and Assembly doe explain one another so they were many churches 10.20.30 it may bee and your selves will acknowledge that if this bee true of Ephesus it may bee true of Smyrna Pergamus c. that they also consisted of more Congregations then one though perhaps it bee not so evident 5. Your large discourse to prove that the seven Churches were not under a common combined Presbyterie is not only impertinent for no one holds that opinion that I know but also in part insufficient if it were to any purpose I could discover the weaknesse of it but I shall take notice only of your last thing Sect. 3. Reply p. 104. The sad condition of Presbyterian churches is such that if wicked men bee suffered in any congregation in the world all the churches in the world are guilty of it for the same obligation that lies upon a classicall church to reform the congregation lyes upon a Provinciall church to reform the classis upon the Nationall to reform the Provinciall Synod upon the Oecumenicall to reform the Nationall though inferior churches should faile the Oecumenicall should see it reformed and if the Oecumenicall faile all the churches of the world are guilty Rejoynd 1. That there is or ought to be the same obligation in all respects between all the Churches in the world as there is between the Churches of a Nation Province or Classis I never asserted but the contrary why then do you let such a proposition as this go naked without any proof What are all the Churches in the world guilty if wicked men be suffered in any particular Congregation and doth Presbyterianisme bring such guilt Oh if you wrong it and the glorious Churches of God what can you answer when they rise up against you at that Day 2. If the Angel of the Church of Thyatyra suffer that woman Jezabel God will indeed cast them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation but the rest in Thyatyra as many as have not this doctrine and which have not known the depths of Sathan be will lay upon them no other burden but to hold fast what they have already Rev. 2.22.24 but you it seems will lay upon them the burden of all those fornications idolatries seductions impenitencies which any of those with whom they were in communion were guilty of though they mourned for it and laboured to amend it but could not 3. The faithfull in Pergamus are said to hold fast Gods name and not deny his faith and yet they had amongst them such as held the doctrine of Balaam and of the Nicolaitans which did not hold fast Gods name and faith Rev. 2.13.14 Dare you say that the godly and orthodox were guilty of these abominations because they were comembers with them of the same church 4. If one of your Church be a Brownist whose errors the five Apologists call fatall shipwracks or an Anabaptist which goes beyond the Brownists or hold some other error or is fit to be cast out for some sinne do you hold your selves guilty of that error or sinne though you should do your best to reform them or to cast them out and could not do it And if a member of a particular Church may be guiltlesse of the sinnes of his fellow-members yea of the Churches suffering wicked men if he do the duty of his place against them then why I pray you may not a particular Church be guiltlesse of the sins of other Churches 5. The externall impediments why an Oecumenical church cannot meet you have heard before If an English-man should be taken prisoner in Turkie and cannot return shall he be guilty of all the