there are an hundred or a thousand Churches I affirm it is a far greater absurdity for Churches is a term used in the Old as well as in the New Testament for particular assemblies meeting for the worship of God as hath been shewed but Sions is a term not read in the Old or New Testament as your selves do silently confesse for though you be put upon that work yet you do not shew it Sect. 4. When I ask whether you have not found God present in our assemblies have not you by faith closed with the promises of God in the use of ordinances amongst us You grant that God is present with us in our assemblies nor dare you deny though you do not expresly grant it that he hath promised his presence to us or that you sometimes did by faith close with the promises in ordinances amongst us 2. But you assert that God is most present vouchsafeth a speciall presence with his people gathered into a body compacted together in an instituted Congregational Church which you call the order of the Gospel the way of Christ concerning which I demand 1. Have both of you and your Members since your entrance into the Church-way felt such a speciall presence of Christ in ordinances as none of you did before 2. If your way be not the way of Christ and the order of the Gospel is not then the conceit of a greater and more speciall presence of Christ in your way a strong delusion As when men fall off from your Congregations to Antinomianisme Libertinisme Familisme or but rigid Separation they perswade themselves you know that they haue a greater and more speciall presence of Christ after they have left you then when they were with you If I have solidly answered your Book which I leave almighty God and ingenious impartiall Saints to judge of then your way is not the order of the Gospel nor the way of Christ 3. That God might give his presence though there be some error you grant alledging Rev. 2.1 with Rev. 2.14.20 and afterwards you say He vouchsafeth a speciall presence amongst such Churches Rev. 2.1 So then God not only might but he doth give his presence yea his especiall presence to such Churches as have not only some error but grosse error for all the seven Churches of Asia were golden candlesticks and God walked in the midst viz. equally neer to each of them notwithstanding Balaamites Nicolaitans Jezebelians many that had a name to live and were dead many that had defiled their garments viz. were visibly wicked many lukewarme c. were amongst them only Philadelphia had nothing reprehensible by which Mr. Brightman who so long since prophesied of these times conceives the Church of Scotland to be typified by the Spirit of God will you say that all the 7 Churches were alike in the way of Christ in the order of the Gospel or will you revoke your own speech that Christ was specially present with them Surely if God should not vouchsafe his speciall presence where there are some errors and grosse ones too your Churches should not have it Sect. 5. Whereas Mat. 18.20 is alledged to prove that Christ hath promised his speciall presence to a Congregationall church above all other societies and persons I answered 1. That Christ in that place promised his presence to those which are not a Church even to two or three which will not make a Church 2. That faithfull people though women whether Church-members or no are not to be excluded from this promise though they make not a Congregationall church And 3. That Christs presence is promised to the Apostles and their successors the Elders Mat. 28.20 and to the assemblies of Sion or Churches jointly as well as severally Isa 4.5 Rev. 2.1 21.22 23. 22.3 4 5. To which you reply p. 73. There is a figure in the number a certain number put for an uncertain two or three are put for a few the Paucity that may be in a Church shall be no obstacle of his presence Pareus upon these words It is an argument that the judgement of the Church shall be ratified because Christ himself will be present as supreme Judge to ratifie it it is also a generall promise of the presence of the grace of Christ in his Church be it great or small Now surely say you we shall lesse doubt of our exposition having so learned and well-approved a Commentator to stand by us in it Rejoynd 1. What is that figure and where is it found v. 17. or v. 20. or both If not both how doth it appear that the one is literall and the other figurative Mr. Cotton saith Way p. 53. that those two or three are not considered as a Church-body but as a sufficient number of witnesses to joyn with the brother offended Mr. Voyes another N. E. man saith those two or three do refer to the Preshyterie and so you may well doubt of your exposition having such godly learned Divines of your own way against you in it 3. I durst appeal to you whether you would interpret two or three in v. 7. two or three v. 20. after a different manner if it were not as you conceive for the advantage of your cause 4. It is too familiar a thing with you to alledge one or two Commentators interpreting a Text thus or so whereas your selves know that if the controversie between you and me should be determined by the major part of the godliest and learnedest Commentators your part would be nothing nor are you ignorant that even godly men writing against the Papists and being then not in fear of contrary errors did write lesse cautelously then otherwise they would have done CHAP. XXV Who are without in the Apostles sense 1 COR. 5. Sect. 1. I Said that those without of whom the Apostle speaks were unbelievers Pagans and Heathens without Christ without visible profession of Christianity for so I meant and out of the universall visible Church as well as out of a particular Church To which you reply that those without whom the Apostle had not to do with stand in opposition to those within the Church of Corinth Rejoynd It is harsh to say that the members of the church of Jerusalem Rome c. should be without to them that were of Corinth or that a visible Christian not joyned to some particular Church should be excluded out of the universall Church Paul Act. 9. and the Eunuch Act. 8. were of the visible Church before they were joyned to any particular Congregation It Paul had converted those women Act. 16. which could not have been brought into an organicall congregation they might have been baptized and so counted within the Church A man may be detained by violence from joyning driven away by persecution incommunicated it may be unjustly in which case he is not a member of a particular church it were hard therefore to say he is without the visible church They that are without are
opposed to any man that is called a Brother but all Christians in Scripture-phrase are called brethren whether they be of the same or of severall congregations yea though one should be unjoyned to any congregation as Paul whom Ananias calleth brother Saul Act. 9 17. And the Apostle writing to severall churches wills them to love as brethren to love the brotherhood 1 Pet. 2.17 3.8 Lastly they are here said to be without which Paul had not to do with by judging them but of this more afterwards Sect. 2. But you reply If this exposition of yours be true then the judgement of the Church of Corinth did extend to the lands-end of Christianity to the confines of Paganisme and consequently any one Church hath power to judge any Believer in the world for he saith Do not ye judge them that are within V. 12. Rejoynd Nothing so for Ye there is to be understood of the Corinthians as members in part of the universall visible church 1 Cor. 12.27 28. Your selves tell us p. 65. that the Epistles do respect persons according to their capacities so this judging those that are within respects only the church of Corinth suppose he writes only to one church for we would not mingle questions lest we should darken the light according to her capacity viz. You judge all within your limits all of the city of Corinth the Cenchrean church all within that town and other Churches pari ratione authoritate within theirs So ye are Gods husbandry and Gods building 1 Cor. 3.9 that is ye are part of Gods husbandry of Gods building So 1 Cor. 12.27 Ye are the body of Christ viz. as he immediately by way of correction doth interpret himselfe Members in part And in 1 Cor. 3.21 22. he saith all things are yours Paul Apollos Cephas Now Paul and Cephas were officers of all churches his meaning therefore is that they are yours viz. yours amongst others and All things are yours viz. all things belong to the Universall church of which the Apostles were properly officers and to you as members And so it is no more but this Ye are amongst those that judge them that are within So Calvin and Beza might have written to one or two English Bishops and said You silence all Nonconformists and yet might well enough have been understood that they had but silenced all within their Diocesses and other Bishops had done the like in theirs Sect. 3. Reply p. 74. Suppose the Apostle had known a member of the Church of Corinth whatever he appeared outwardly in the frame of his conversation to be indeed without God and in a state of enmity with God if this man had committed a grosse sin might not the Apostle have judged such a one to be excommunicated and why should a Church-unbeliever be subject to the Apostles judgement and an Heathenish unbeliever exempt from it if Church-membership did not make the one obnoxious to that judgement more then the other Rejoynd 1. By your argument p. 36. he ought not to be excommunicated for you say Excommunication supposeth men to be alive in the judgement of charity but such a one as is known to be without Christ is not supposed to be alive 2. We assert that if he have committed some grosse sinne and appear to the Church obstinate therein he may be excommunicated though he be supposed to be truly ingrafted into Christ 3. I dare not say that one known by the Apostle to be without Christ which hath committed some grosse sinne as heresie adultery or some other work of the flesh Gal. 5. if he being admonished do heare the Church and submit himself ought to be excommunicated Tit. 3.10 Mat. 18.17 A member of the visible Church though indeed without Christ and so discerned by an Apostle cannot be judged to be without Christ in foro ecclesiastico he appearing as you put the case outwardly otherwise in the frame of his conversation 4. I never said nor thought but a man must be within the Church before the Apostle could excommunicate him yet it hence follows not that he must be within this or that particular church or within the Church in your sense Of I'resbyterian calculation I shall speak in the last Section Sect. 4. When I urge that the Apostle opposeth fornicators of the world and fornicators that are brethren You reply that Persecution in the Primitive times was levied against those which did joyne themselves to the Churches or otherwise visibly as Paul at his first conversion by preaching declared themselves to be Christs disciples That the brother opposed to the fornicators of the world is not be that by the internall and invisible grace of faith is a brother and dare not â—â—enly professe Christ but a named and professed brother Fervicators of this world are to be understood of it as it stands in opposition to the visible Church Rejoynd The Apostle forbad them to eat not only with scandalous Church-members but with all Brethren not those which are brethren only in foro Dei conscientiae suae by the internall and invisible grace of faith whereof it is impossible the Church should take notice De non existentibus non apparentibus eadem est ratio But those that were brethren in foro ecclesiae did make profession of Christianity were called brethren and yet were scandalous I am not so senslesse as to think that the Church was bound to take notice of the internall invisible and unprofessed grace of faith in a mans heart why do you so largely disprove it 2. A man may be a brother that is a Christian and disciple of Christ as Paul was it is your own instance at his first conversion before any such enchurching yea every visible Christian is so for by priority of nature every Christian is first of the universall visible Church and so in that respect called a brother and secondarily of a particular congregation An Heathen is not first converted into this or that or the other Congregation but first into the Church catholique then into this or that Congregation Now the Apostle saith not if any man that is called a brother and is a member of a particular Congregation with such a one eat not but you contrary to the rule Non restringendum ubi lex non restringit say if a man be called a brother and be not of a particular congregation he is without as well as an Heathen and the Church hath no power to censure him nor doth the Apostle forbid us to eat with such an one And so you make scandalous Church-membership not scandalous professorship of Christianity to be the formall objective cause of our separation and withdrawing from them Sect. 5. When I say Without are dogs sorcerers Rev. 12.15 such as Paul had not to do with What have I to do c. v. 12. And yet he had to do with all Christians by his illimited Apostolique power whether they belong to that or any other Congregation on no
such as God judgeth or are loft to the immediate judgement of God You reply p. 76. There might be dogs in the Apostolique churches as well as without Phil. 3.2 and with such dogs Paul had to do A strange speech to proceed from you who elsewhere maintain that the Apostolick Churches did consist of visible Saints and that 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
one city easily and conveniently as your selves say of Herod and Pilate p. 19. And I hold that several congregations in the countries if they may conveniently meet and govern in common not only may but ought so to do as wel as several congregations in a city 5. You cannot shâ—w so express a pattern of Christians in a city making two Churches as I have shewed of Christians of one Church meeting ordinarily in several places and therefore this pattern is more uncontrouled then the other and consequently by your own doctrin more to be followed 6. You presume that there were Churches in some other parts of Iudea besides Jerusalem though the particular assemblies of the Church of Jerusalem might wel enough be called the Churches of Judea and you cannot shew where one Church was in Judea save at Jerusalem and it is improbable to suppose any Churches in Judea but what were in Jerusalem seeing at Jerusalem the Apostles resided held their constant assemblies and occasional councells and there they of Galilee which was beyond Judea that beleeved in Christ continued Luke 23.49 Acts 1.15 2.1 7. 13.31 And the converts of the Apostles closely adhered to them in fellowship at Jerusalem and sold their possessions goods lands houses and had all things common in the Church Acts 2.42 44 46 47. 4.34 Some of which were of remoter places far then any part of Judes cap. 4.36 7. If you should prove there were Churches elsewhere in Judea besides Jerusalem yet it could not thence be gathered that they were all congregational and only such for as little and final as Judea was 1. It had cities in it and great ones too besides Jerusalem as Lidda Azotus c. And you acknowledg that city and Church do explain one another 2. Judea through the blessing of God multiplying the inhabitants as the sand of the sea according to his promise to Abraham contained an innumerable multitude of people for ought I know more then in England In Ata's tune out of Juda and Benjamin alone there was an army of almost 600000 men besides women and children valiant men besides impotent aged persons now you know the multitude or paucity of the people not the largness or littleness of the of the place or country is in this case most considerable London may fitter be a providence then the same circuit of ground in some parts of the kingdome a parish 3. There was a vast multitude of Christians in Iudea converted by the Ministry of Iohn Baptist Iesus Christ the 12 Apostles the 70 disciples all raiâ—ed up to gather Gods chosen ones out of Iudaea and which were very successful in their Ministry so that the littleness of Judea is no let but that there might be ten or 20. several Churches and each of them dividid into 5 or 6 several assemblies as also the county of Midlesex one of the least counties in the kingdome and far less then the Province of Judea and having no city in it save one might also contain so many and such Churches Concerning the term Churches see more afterwards CHAP. VI. Whether the Epistles to the Corinthians were writ only to those that met ordinarily in one place Sect. 1. WHen I alledg that Paul writs to them that in every place not throughout the world as appears 2 Cor. 1.1 Writen to the same persons 1 Cor. 5.1.2 with 2 Cor. 2.1 2. Nor is this a Catholique Epistle but in all Achaja call upon the name of the Lord. You Reply p. 16. That Paul writes sends and applyes this to the Corinthians alone for all along proper and peculiar things belonging to the Corinthians and not to the Achaians nor Saints in all the world are spoken of in commendation and discommendation and proper reproofs directions c. Yet he intended it for use and benefit of all Achaia and of the whole world also And it may as properly be called a Catholique Epistle as an Achaian Epistle for the use redound to all the world as wel as to Achaia else how can it be Canonical scripture and the foundation of our sermons that we preach out of it Rejoynder 1 Certainly you know that the Epistle may be canonical and yet the use of it not redound to all the world as wel as to Achaia if by as wel you mean equally in all the particular contents of this Epistle The Epistle to Philemon is canonical and the 2. to Timothy though the use of it in point of Onesimus and Pauls cloak do not as wel or equally concern all the world as Philemon Timothy 2. The use of these Epistles I dare say redounds not to Corinth only nor to all the world as wel as Achaia for there are divers passages in both these Epistles which cannot be limited to Corinth nor enlarged to the whole world as 2 Cor. 11.1 2. Forwardness of Ministring to the Saints was not only in the Corinthians but in the Achaians Paul boasteth of them to whom he writes in these words I boasted of you that Achaia was ready a year ago now it is improper for any man that writes to London and not to England more then all the world to say I boasted of you that England was ready a year ago The house of Stephanas he commends to them under the notion of being the first fruits of Achaia The contribution for the Saints at Jerusalem was the contribution of Achaia Rom. 15.26 And part of his drift and scope is to get a liberal contribution not from Corinth only but from all Achaja and he doth not desire the Church of Corinth to communicate this letter to the other Saints of Achaia because he writs to them all in the second person 3. The Apostle doth not write to the Saints in Ephesus and in all Asia Ephes 1.1 Or the Saints at Philippi or the Church of Thessalonica and to all Macedonia nor any where else doth he write to the Saints or to the Church in such a city with all the Saints in such a province or country or in every place though every Epistle be of common use and profit both to the borderers and to strangers yea to all the world yet he writes to the Church of Corinth with the Saints in every place or in all Achaia Which words are not vainly and impertinently put here and not in any other Epistle and what can they else import but that this Epistle is more an Achaian pardon your own improper term then a Catholique Epistle 4. I put you to prove that the reproofs directions exhortations commendations were proper to them that schisms fornications were only amongst them that the exhortation to a liberal contribution on the first day of the week was proper to Corinth yea that the Incestuous person was a member of the Church of Corinth though we presume and commonly speak so yet it is not necessary for he might be a member of the Church of Cenchrea or some other Church in Achaia for ought we
do not stand in need of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to prove that the Churches of the Gospel met in one Congregation frequently for there are other words that carry it clearly as may appear from Acts 2.46 5.12 14.27 15.22 30 1 Cor. 5.4 1 Cor. 11.17 Rejoynder None of those texts do carry the thing clearly nor doth it appear that the Churches of the Gospel met frequently much less and constantly and ordinarily which you should prove but the contrary rather for 1 Though Acts 2. Acts 5. May prove a meeting in the temple to heare Gods word which was a worship common to Jews with Christians and frequented in the temple joyntly by both yet they prove not that in the temple they administred the sacraments the Jews probably would not permit this new ordinance there which are the distinguishing ordinances of the Christian Church Interpreters collect that they did break bread which was Sacramental breaking as that phrase is generally understood by all Acts 20.7 not in the temple but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in every house or from house to house now it hath bin shewed by good reasons and by the acknowledgment of a prime man amongst you that it is no way probable that in those several houses of the poor which did then receive the Gospel there should be rooms so capacious and other accommodations as that so many thousands might orderly and edifyingly communicate therein at once not can I think that you being ingenuous dare assert that the whole Church of Jerusalem did constantly meet together in one place to receive the Sacrament for your bretheren of the assembly having formerly disputed for it do now wave it Acts 14.27 Saith that Paul gathered the Church together but you should have shewed 1. That the Church they gathered was any other then the Church that sent them out by imposition of hands Acts 13.1 2. viz. The Prophets and teachers of Antioch or at least 2. That women and children were gathered together by the Apostles that they might give them account of their labor and success For. 1. We might grant that the men of a Church might sometimes be no more then might meet in one place and yet in respect of the women and children which for most part are treble or more to the men they could not meet ordinarily in one assembly at a Leet-court a 〈◊〉 city may be gathered together if you mean all the men of it whereas if women and children were there too there would not be room for half for a quarter of them 2. This meeting was not an ordinary sâ—â—ted meeting on a Lords day but an occasional meeting for the text saith not that Paul and Barnabas came when they were gathered togâ—ther but they gathered the Church together and therefore it is likely no women or children were there nor it may be any besides the Elders 3. It is said that when they went to Jerusalem Acts 15.3 They were brought on their way by the Church which must needs be Synecdochicâ—â—y understood either of the Elders or at least some part oâ— the Church and not the whole Church and so is this place also to be understood compare Acts 14.27 with 15 3. It seemes evident that the Church of Antioch was more then one Congregation for first a great number beleeved Acts 11.21 And then upon Barnabas preaching much people were added to the Lord v. 24. And Paul a whole year assembled with the Church and tâ—â—ght much people and questionless he saw the fruits of his labors and the Disciples were first caâ—ed Christians in Antioch v. 26. And besides Barnabas and Saul they had Prophets and teachers Acts 13.1 And some others which came from Iudea Acts 15.1 All which could not have competent imployment in one Congregation Acts 15.22 30. Speaks not of one single Church but of a Synod or assembly of the Churches as Mr. Tompson Mather Cotton expound it and your selves must needs acknowledg that there were others besides the Church of Jerusalem there wil you hence infer That a Church under the new testament must not consist of so many but that others may assemble with them in one place and if others how many if two why not ten 20.100.1000 where and upon what grounds wil you determine the number As for 1 Cor. 5.4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 1 Cor. 11.17 I answer 1. That the Church of Corinth appeareth not to be only one particular Congregation 2. The Apostle writes not only to that Church but to other Churches 3. The same Greek words or other equivalent to them have bin proved insufficient when joyned with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to evince one-ness of place and therefore you cannot perswade any wise reader that they alone wil evince it I suppose you think not that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth weaken them Sect. 6. When I urge that Iames call's the twelve tribes scattered abroad one assembly Synagogue or Church Jam. 1.1 cum 2.2 5.13 Or Paul's mentioning the Hebrews gathering themselves together Heb. 10.25 Doth not prove that they were only one Congregation which might and did constantly meet in one place You Reply That there is a palpable difference betwixt the places R. But I suppose if it had bin said to the Corinthians If there come into your assembly or a charge given them not to forsake the assembling themselves together you would not have discerned such difference but would have urged that the word Synagoga in the N. T. is usually taken for a place when it is taken for the people it is understood of one only and not of several assemblies You 2. Reply That the scripture makes such a meeting of the scattered Hebrews impossible R. But doth not the vast numbers of the Church of Ierusalem for whose meeting ordinarily in one place the most is pretended make it also impossible that they all should orderly ordinarily convene to receive the Sacrament and the Inscription of the first Epistle To the Church of Coriath with all that in every place c Being expounded by the Saints in all Achaia 2 Cor. 1.1 Doth contradict the meeting in one place of all those to whom Paul writ You say p. 20. The literal sense of the words may pass there is no need of a figure in texts you alledg for 1. The persons were neither so many nor so remote but they might come together And if the holy Ghost say they did we must beleeve it and not seek a figure when we are not enforced to it 2. The text in 1 Cor. 14.23 Saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when the whole Church comes together have any of your texts any such fulness of words in them to sway to a meeting in one place as that text hath Some of your own side have been convinced with the evidence of this text that the Church of Corinth was but one Congregation and came together in one place Rejoynder 1. My exposition of
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
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
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
to consider Sect 6. Reply p. 113. They are called one flock one church We have declared that one instituted Church and a Congregation is all one when Church is properly taken and in this place there is no necessity of a figure therefore the charge runs to the Elders to feed the church viz. the congregation at Ephesus and to that they are so limited Rejoynd 1. Those to whom Peter writes are called one flock yet sure you will not say that they were but one congregation the Inscription of that Epistle and your own Interpretation next following will forbid you 2. What you have declared before is I hope sufficiently answered 3. Many churches congregationall associated or combined in one Presbyterie may as properly be called a church as many Christians may which belong to one congregation I would fain see you evince the contrary and know your meaning distinctly in that distinction of properly and improperly with and without a figure you are oftentimes prest with multiplicity of Scripture instances for the word church taken for more then one congregation your distinguishing thus at randome and in generall can satisfie none about these instances Let me give you one instance it is in Act. 15 22 and let me heare what impropriety there is in church there it is a Church assembled and acting in the ordinances of Jesus Christ and it is not a particular congregation your Authors as well as ours acknowledge it to be a Synod of churches and it is as hath been said a Church imposing burthens making decrees for many churches which you will not grant single congregations may do A church made of many particular assemblies was a proper term when the Jewish church stood and in the Old Testament how comes the propriety in this point to be so much altered I had thought there had been fewer figures since and not more but because you will needs put a figure on the word when it is used otherwise then for one congregation I pray you erect your figure and state what it must be you can find none such figures but what will fall upon that acception which you will have to be the only proper one there is as much necessity of a figure in your exposition as in ours but it seems figures are necessary yea and new-coyned ones too for the old ones will not serve to help out your improbabilities 4. What will the conclusion so long looked for be from all these premises certainly but possible which is far from probable and further from more then probable which it was promised to be for that which follows upon no necessity of the contrary and no improbability of the thing will amount to no more Your conclusion should be that the flock at Ephesus was but one congregation but this hath so little strength in the premises that you have thought good to set it aside and only to joyn the Church at Ephesus and the Congregation at Ephesus together with a Viz. presuming that they are both one in the Text but not proving it After all this feeble or fallacious dealing you in the close of all bring in And to that they are so limited whereas if the former assertion of Ephesus being one Congregation had followed soundly on your preâ—â—sâ—â— yet this had still been in controversie so that here you doubly commit that grand solaecisme in argumentation of putting more in the conclusion then was in the premises Sect. 7. Reply p. 113. Flock in 1 Pet. 5.1 2. is to be taken figuratively and distributively of necessity and the charge of feeding the flock is to be limited by the words amongst you and thus it must be understood You Elders in Pontus feed the flock amongst you and you Elders of Galatia amongst you and each in every place feed the flock where you be And yet more distributively Ye Elders in this city feed the flock among you and ye Elders in that city feed the flock amongst you Now the Saints in Galatia were not with the Elders of Asia nor the Saints of one city with the Elders of another city therefore the Elders were by commission to look to the Saints in every city place where themselves were and not to others where they were not if they should take authoritative inspection over other Saints they should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because all Elders are bounded to the Saints amongst themselves Rejoynd 1. This is an ill compacted argument if you did intend it for one and may thus be taken off 1. This toucheth nothing the binding of a Minister to one congregation but onely insists on a tye to one city or region inclusive of many congregations Galatia had churches in it Gal. 1.1 and so had Asia Rev. 1.11 2. This offers not to confine him in all acts to that place but only in authoritative inspection it is your own word which can mean no more then administration of discipline 3. This reacheth no further then to a limitation of him in those acts to that place while he is there present which is naturall and necessary ex parte adjecti â—o that if he should thence remove or but travell for a few dayes to another city or country he might as this argument runs yeâ— he ought to feed the flock in each place where he is 2. Whereas you say the word floâ—k is to be taken distributively and to be limited by the words amongst you let me ask if it be distributive how can it be limited The words amongst you are more properly distinctive then distributive and point out what flock he chargeth them to feed 3. You cannot prove that this charge is the commission of the Elders as you call it nor a full recitâ—â— thereof but a charge insisting on some part of the Ministers duty viz. of feeding or overseeing 4. When you say the Elders must 〈◊〉 look to the Saints in other cities or places where themselves were not you condemn your own practise of Allotriepiscopacy in that you gather and constitute your Churches of Members dwelling in severall towns and countries many miles distant one from another and from your Elders Thus this term you so often bandy rebounds to your selves still 5. Whereas you say that all Elders are bounded c. I demand was not the Apostle himself an Elder as v. 1. and might there not be within the circuit of those countries mentioned c. 1.1 other Apostles and Evangelists amongst them either in Pontus or Asia c and will you say these also were so bounded by this Scripture Sect. 8. You go on to overthrow my exceptions against the Positions arguing à testimonio negativè laid in by two instances A Communicant must examine himself will you thence inferre that none else must examine him You change this word him into himselfe which change alters the sense fits it to be more liable to your answer The Theslalonians are to know them that were over them and laboured amongst them and esteem
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
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
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
such there have been besides And it was accounted an high happiness to have liberty to make such a Church but was never accounted by the godly sinful before If assembling constantly together and participating in all the Ordinances that the rest do partake of and contributing with the rest in the maintenance of the Minister of such a place and an adhering rather to such a Minister and people then to any other in affection and action make members of a Church then these persons of other Parishes were members and with the rest made such Churches Rejoynder 1. If all this were granted it is but an humane testimony not divine nor can you though you should produce a 1000 more instances as you might 2 I am informed and in part know that these were not gathered separated Churches for those members of other Churches did not refuse communion in Parish-assemblies they grieved when they were deprived of it for non-conformity they did not exclude all that were not visible Saints much less the known godly of other Churches from their Sacraments they aimed not principally it at all at a purer Church but a better Ministry they possibly having no Ministry at their parish Churches or a bad one and it may be dwelling neerer to those then to their own parochial assemblies and you confess they wanted the vocal Covenant and I suppose also they wanted subscription and signals of their mutual consent that they would be a Church together and they resorted sometimes to their parish meetings and if they had had such Ministers there and liberty of conscience in point of gesture as in other places it may be thought they would not have sought else where 3 Suppose there were such a Church in the days of the Prelates and that it was then lawful too can you thence infer that it is still lawful though Innovations and scandalous Ministers and other offensive things be removed have you as great occasion still of withdrawing as they then had 4 That such a separation was never accounted sinful by the godly before is too large a speech if you mean That the separation which then was used by them that used it and possibly by some others was approved I contend not but that no godly man accounted it sinful ordinarily to frequent another assembly especially if they had a Minister of ordinary parts and piety I cannot think As for your separation many godly did account it sinful yea the most eminent non-conformists yea they which did best affect congregational government yea you two have often told me and others of my godly brethren That you are free in your judgment to baptize my child or the children of any godly Minister or member of our Church or to receive us to the Sacrament amongst you now if you would act according to your own Principles which I should conceive my self bound in conscience to do in this case and would inform your Churches of their duty herein your separation would be less offensive but how you can account admission of us to your Sacraments lawful and yet the denyal of it not sinful I see not Sect. 5. Reply P. 3. Fifthly are not some parish Churches constituted sometimes of members of other parish Churches when many persons have left their own places and removed into other Parishes without any consent Sixthly that a Church may consist of persons that have been members of other Churches if such persons have been orderly dismissed from such Churches and have come away with consent wil be granted of all Rejoynder 1. What then wil you thence conclude that the Apostles taught or practiced to gather or separate some Christians from others c Did your selves ever before call this gathering of Churches or separating Christians into Churches is this the common acceptation of the words Gathering of Churches or separating Christians into Churches Did your selves dream that was my meaning or the thing I put you to prove Doth remooval from one parish to another imply the forsaking of or separating from the communion of the former parish and refusal to receive the Sacraments with the godly of the former parish If not how doth it can it justifie your kind of separation from all our parish-assemblies And yet you argue thus remooval from one parish to another hath bin judged pious or at least honest therefore your separation is pious and honest and you should conclude therefore the Apostles taught and practised your separation For you know the question is not what is judged pious and honest by men but what is so judged by the spirit of God Truly I might as well argue some separation from our parish-assemblies is sinful as that of the Papists Brownists c. Therefore yours is so And indeed whether your separation be with consent or no it is not much material for it is sinne to consent sent to such a separation and sinne to separate whatsoever consent you have shew that your gathering of Churches with consent or without consent is justifyed by the doctrin and practise of the Apostles and it shal serve your turn Sect. 6. Reply p. 3. Suppose some Ordinances be corruptly dispensed without all hope of redress and that men must partake therein without having any power so much as to witness against such corruptions unless they wil be accounted factions and disturbers of the Churches peace or that by remaining where such corruptions are they be in danger to be leavened with the corrupt lump of such a Church of which they be members what must they now do Doth not that Rule that bids a Church purge out one person that may endanger the leavening of the whole lump when there are no other means to prevent such an evil give warrant to every member that is endangered to be leavened by the lump to withdraw from such a lump because power to purge out the lump they have none when there is no other means to prevent the evil Church-membership is for edification of the members not for destruction Rejoynder 1. These passages and your practise of gathering seperating Churches from amongst us do pass an harsh and heavy censure on our Churches viz. that there are amongst us not only smaller faults but greater corruptions and those obstinately persisted in without all hope of redress and that there is no other means left to prevent the evil but separation a censure so void of truth and charity that it is worthy to be exibilated rather then confuted 2. When there is indeed such a case as you put a particular member may and ought humbly to admonish the Ministers and members plead with the Church Hose 2.2 Bear witness against her sinnes and errors and act to his utmost in his place for her reformation both by exciting quantum inse the power of that particular Congregation and complaining to superior judicatories but not presently to separate The Apostle Paul notwithstanding the incestuous person was in communion with the Church and they were
challenged him as theirs Or have the Ministers or people whom he hath come to rejected him as none of theirs because not orderly delivered into their hands Suppose the end of his removall was communion with a better people or better Ministry Doth this make it the worse or more unwarrantable Is it lawful to remove to a fatter soil to a purer aire And not to a purer Church The purer any Church is doth not Christ the more delight in it And desire to be there most And why may not persons desire to plant themselves where Christ gives most of his presence And if one man may unite to such a Church may not many agree together to make such a Church And this is all the gathering of Churches that we know of that is either taught or practised Rejoynder 1. You play with your own fancy for it is not acknowledged that your gathering of Churches is at any time orderly done whether it be with consent or no. 2. You assert what I think your selves approve not that order is not to be expected where it hath not bin wont to be exercised as though custome were the guide of conscience 3. You take it for granted 1 That your Churches are purer Churches as if humane inventions sundry whereof I have discovered in Quare's to which contrary to my caution given you in my Epistle you sent me censures in stead of answers would make a Churth more pure 2. That Christ doth delight in your Churches more then in ours as the Anabaptists boast that they have more of Christs presence in their Churches then you in yours 3. That your manner of gathering and separating Christians into Churches is as justifiable as the removal of one or many to dwel in a fatter soyl clearer aire and under a better Ministry that they may be a purer Church yea this you say is all the gathering of Churches you know of I pray you consider better of it Lastly your selves are not determined when a Church is pure enough to live in Hence many of you do fly from one Church to another under pretence of attaining more purity though they are usually mistaken as those Corinthians were which sleighted Paul accounting him one of the foolish things of the world his bodily presence weak and his speech contemptible and those foolish Galatians which accounted him their enemy because he told them the truth CHAP. II. Of Parishes how they are jure Divino and how not Sect. 1. YOu say the exception is That there is a removall of persons to other Churches without the removall of their habitations This exception you take off by saying why should this be blamed 1. If distinction of Parishes by bounds and limits be not Iure Divino where then is the fault Rejoynder 1. The Parishes now are some too great some to little some unfitly and incommodiously divided and where they are most fitly divided these or those limits are of politique and not of divine constitution and are alterable upon just occasion and the law if there be any such whereby all that dwel within such a line are accounted of the Church there proceeds from a supposition that a due profession of Christianity is made by all the inhabitants I say if there be any such law because many Jews Pagans Papists have formerly and yet may dwel within the percinct of some Parish as many Heathen did dwel amongst the Church-members of Jerusalem Corinth c. though no Christians of other Churches did and so may many ignorant and scandalous persons which by the laws of the land and orders of the Church are to be kept from our Sacraments 2. It is most agreeable to the law of nature and scripture that there should be Parishes that is that Churches should be confined within convenient local limits For first else the members of one Congregation might live each of them 10.20.50 an 100. miles asunder without blame 2. The Scripture usually denominates Churches from places as the Churches of Ierusalem of Rome Antioch Corinth and Cenchrea are denominated respectivly from the Cities of Ierusalem Rome c. So that for ought we know Churches were then so exactly distinguished by local bounds that a man might have stood in some place between Corinth and Cenchrea and have said no member of the Church of Corinth dwels on this side and no member of the Church of Cenchrea on that side 3. In constant scripture-phrase the Christian inhabitants of such a town city or place were the Church in that city or place The Christian Corinthians Smyrnaeans Laodicaeans were the Church of Corinth Smyrna Laodicea 1 Cor. 1.1 2 Cor. 6.11 Col. 2.1 4.16 Rev. 2.8 3.14 4. Cities and Churches in scripture-phrase do expound one another as you confess defence P. 16. Which could not be if all the members of the Church were not in the city for certainly all the citizens many being Heathens were not of the Church Acts chap. 16. verse 4 5. Acts chap. 14. ver 23. cum Tit. c. 1. v. 5. 5. The way of Christ all along in Scripture is That Christians dwelling together should together make one Congregation and the converting of many Christians in a place to be a Church was all the gathering of Churches that then was 6. They that did remove from place to place did it is very probable as your selves acknowledge page 2. in the case of the scattered disciples fall into membership with those Churches where they did reside so Aquila and Priscilla might fall into membership sometime of the Church of Rome sometime of the Church of Corinth c. Acts 18.2 24 25 26. Rom. 16.3 and so many persons removing their places may well be of other Churches and yet transgress no scripture Rules as your separation doth 7. If Church-members should not cohabite how can Pastors feed the flock that is amongst them and be resident with them if they be not resident amongst themselves 8 This is a pattern uncontrouled by preceps and other patterns which kind of pattern your selves say Defence p. 15. hath doctrine in it for no instance can be given either that any dwelt in a Town or City where there was a Church though very corrupt as Corinth Laodicea Sardis c. and was a member of a Church in another City or Town as Cenchrea c. Or that any dwelt neerer to one Church and was a member of a remoter Church Or that any Christians dwelling remote one from another were united into one particular Church This hath also the consent of godly learned men as Mr Carwright Mr Parker and others non-conformists which agree against the Brownists in the lawfulness and expediencie of confining for orders sake particular Churches within the bounds of distinct Parishes and in New England it self as I hear Congregations are divided and bounded by the divisions and boundings of Towns and Parishes as Cambridge New Plimouth Boston c. 3 Suppose distinction of Parishes by bounds and limits were but
and Independent judicatures you reply p. 12. That this is to bring an odiù upon Congregational Churches That 7. or 8. may but make a Church in the first foundation and whilst they are no more persons fitted for membership and that the Church is to be encreased as more in that place shal be converted as you perceive by the patern's Acts 1.14.15 with Acts 2.41 19 7 8 9. with 18 19 20. Acts 20.17 28. That you are against the unnecessary multiplication of Churches as conceiving that smal Churches are inconsistent with Christs ends which is edification by Pastors teachers Ruling Elders Deacons and that a Church of 7. or 8. requires not nor is able to maintain so many officers That if one Congregation wil conveniently hold the beleevers of a City you would not have them to be of so many Churches without ome eminent reason Rejoynder 1. The collection is necessarily inferred from the Position nor do you or can you deny the consequence 2. It is wel you grant it is as disorderly or inconvenient that 200 persons in a City should be 20 Churches as that 300 in an house should make 60. distinct families or 60 domestick Churches or as that 200000 in a field may make so many distinct armies under so many Independent Generals 3. Christ's family which you seem to affirm to be a congregational Church but of 12 or 13 was not so little for want of more persons converted in that place and fitted for membership for there were many such persons in Jerusalem yet not one of any other family was added to them while Christ lived 4. You acknowledge that the Church is to be increased of such persons as are converted in that place where the Church is though your own Church is increased of some that dwel remote from it that smal Churches are inconâ—â—stent with Christs ends that Churches are not unnecessarily to be multiplied but your brethren in London do practise the contrary for some three or four or more of their Churches might be conveniently one Congregation nor is there any â—minent reason except that they cannot all agree to affect any one Minister but some are for Paul some for Apollos be an eminent reason though possibly they wil tel you that officers seeking to encrease their Churches seek more their own profit or credit then the discharge of their duties for they may better attend to afew people then to many 5. Of the texts cited by you I have spoken of before in this Chapter 6. Whereas you say you do not assert Churches consisting of a few members without officers to be Independent judicatures then you do not assert all Churches to be Independent but some only if some be already acknowledge not to be Independent judicatures the rest may possibly in time be so acknowledged also CHAP. V. Whether a Chuâ—ch may consist of more then may ordinarily meet in one place Sest 1. VVHen I grant that 1 Cor. 11.20 14.23 do prove that there were Congregations meeting for prayer hearing the Word Sacraments in one place and that beleevers in some Cities and Countries when they might did meet in one place you reply That they meet also for execution of censures I Cor. 5.4 And you say That there is no sacred worship or institution prescribed in the Gospel which may not be observeâ— to have bin exercised in or appertaining to the Congregations and that those Congregations are called Churches Rejoynder 1. The texts cited by you speak only of meeting in one place for Sacraments and prophesying to which certainly prayer was annexed of the 1 Cor. 5. which you now produce we shal speak hereaâ—ter 2. That every Gospel-worship and institution hath bin either exercised in or in some sense appertaining to the Congregations may be true and yet no prejudice come to the cause I maintain but I dare appeal to you are not Synods ordinances of God yea General counâ—â—ls yet they cannot be enjoyned in any less Church then the universal visible Church Is not oraâ—â—ation by Presbyters a Goâ—pel-institution and yet it cannot be enjoyned in every congregation especially not at first in an Independent congregation which consists only of private members for which also she cannot as yet regularly partake in Sacraments and censures Sect. 2. The strength of your Reply is p. 14. where you say That there can no instance be given in all the new testament that Christians ordinarily meeting together in divers places are called one Church except where Church is taken improperly and in a distributive sense and you challenge me again and again to produce such an instance from 1 Cor. 11.20 14.23 Rejoynder Instances may be given oâ— Christians meeting ordinarily in divers places which are properly called one Church 1. The Church of Ierusalem the prime and patern-patern-Church was properly called one Church and under one Presbytery who hath read or heard of the Presbyteries of Jerusalem and yet the Christians there did meet ordinarily in divers places as appears first there were so many Christians that they could not meet for all ordinances in one place for edification therefore they did meet ordinarily in several places the consequence is evident for the Apostles certainly did avoid confusion and seek the order and edification of the people The Antecedent is thus proved 1. Ierusalem and all Iudea and all the region round about Iordan were baptized by Iohn Math. 3.6.7 And the Disciples of Christ baptized more Disciples then Iohn Iohn 4.1 The Pharisees sayd the world is gone after him Iohn 12.19 For many of the people beleeved in him Iohn 2.23 7 31 8 30. And after Christs ascention there were added 3000. Acts. 2.5000 heard the word and beleeved Acts 4.4 Multitudes of men and women and afterward the Disciples were multiplyed greatly and a great company of the Priests were obedient to the faith Acts 5.14 Acts 6.1 7. Now those which deserved to be called a City a world of people thousands and multitudes for the holy Ghost at last leaves numbering of the converts after Christs ascension could not meet together with order and edification in one place for hearing the word for first no one room could wel hold them 2. No one Ministers voyce could reach so many at once 3. Much less could so many myriades orderly at once in a private house receive the Sacrament together nor could be accommodated with bedds to sit lye or lean upon which was Christs gesture atable to receive at cups to drink in 3. We read expresly of more then one assembly of Saints constantly meeting together for the worship of God in that city Acts 2.46 breaking bread from house to house Acts 5.42 And in every house they ceased not to teach c. That these assemblies were Church-meetings appears 1. By that which they are said to meet for to wit breaking of bread which phrase though it do not only signify the Lords Supper yet it doth signify it together with their ordinary
tables or love-feasts and is so generally interpreted Acts. 2.42 Acts 20.7 And for teaching and preaching Acts 5.42 contradistinct to preaching in the temple and in publique it being as is by it self evident the Apostles custome to preach both in the temple Synagogues markets court-houses and the like publike places to all promiscuously beleevers and others that would heare and in houses to the beleevers only in their Church-assemblies so that publiquely or in the temple which tearms expound one another and from house to house and in every house note two kinds of Assemblies sc promiscuous meetings and Church-meetings 2. That these were distinct several Congregations and not the same kept successively at several houses may be gathered 1. by the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 duly rendred which signify house by house distributively or in every house as it is translated Acts 5.42 That is not in every house in the city nor in every beleevers house in the city for there were thousands probably of these but in every house designed for a Church-meeting 2. By the opposition the text in Acts 2.46 Makes between their meeting in the temple and their 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
first they met together in one place 4. The primitive times were times of hot persecution when Peter and Iohn as they were preaching were apprehended threatned again and again halled to the common jaol and beaten Acts 4.1 2 3 17 21. Acts 5. 18 40. Saul also persecuted for a time Acts 8.1 and Herod Acts 12.1 Your selves tel us page 6. that the ordinary Pastors and teachers of those times were martyred for preaching against the peremptory commands of Magistrates yet I suppose you intend not that the Primitive paterns of Churches meeting in several places produced or to be produced should hereby be evaded because those were times of persecution seeing it is not possible that in the Churches greatest prosperity such a vast number cannot orderly and edifyingly conveene Sect. 4. When I put you to make good your inference viz. Scripture saith such such a Church did meet in one place therefore the Church must consist of no more then can meet in one place You say Reply p. 15. You must take the argument in the scope of it such and such churches did meet constantly in one place and there is no mention of any Church which did not meet together in one place therefore no church in the new testament doth consist of more then can meet in one place the consequent is now good for we think that patterns that are uncontrouled by percepts and other patterns have Doctrine in them and do teach how things ought to carryed It is one thing more warrantable to derive an inference from patterns when they all run one way and be patterns of one kind and another thing and less safe to draw an inference from patterns when there is diversity of kinds of them about the same thing Rejoynder 1. Your selves dare not say that all the patterns in the new testament do run one way in point of gathering of Churches out of Churches of having 7 or 8 to be a Church of ordination by non-officers of the Church censuring her officers of maintenance by contributions or out of the Church-stock c. And therefore your reasoning is less safe and warrantable by your own confession in these points in which you have much adoe to find one pattern for each of them so far are you from proving that they all run one way 2. It is repugnant to plain Scripture or to neer and necessary consequence from it to assert that no Church in the new testament doth consist of no more then may meet in one place as is instanced and proved in the Church of Jerusalem and of Samaria Sect. 2. and in the Church of Corinth ch 6. 3. Christians dwelling in a vicinity or neighbourhood together do alway in scripture make a Church together this is a pattern uncontrouled by precepts or other patterns therefore by your own rule it hath doctrin in it but your practiles are not conformable to this doctrin 4. Suppose that in the new testament only one family in a city had received the faith could it thence have bin concluded that no Church should consist of more then of the members of one family I beleeve you wil not own such a conclusion Sect. 5. When I urge that all the beleevers in such or such a city were of the Church in that city whether they were more or fewer hence every city and every Church expound one another Acts 14.21 2 cum Tit. 1.5 Acts 16.4 5. And that it cannot be sheâ—ed that any Church how numerous â—oeâ—er it grew was divided into two or more Churches or that there Were more Churches then one in any city or town therefore the beleevers in any one city or town may be but one Church whether they can meet in one place or no. You Reply p. 16. Not so because as appears to us thene is light of scripture gainsaying it for though in all cities all the beleevers of them were of the Church of each of them yet such an inference would be â—aught because it was so for a special reason and in regions and countries where that reason took not place it was â—therwise All the beleevers of Ierusalem were of one Church there because they were not so many but that they might come constantly together into one place and did so But all the beleevers in Indea were not of one Church there but of many Churches because they could not meet constantly in one place And if beleevers in cities meeting in divers places are but one Church for this reason because they were of 〈◊〉 city as you would form to infer than shew but a probable reason why beleevers meeting in divers places in countries may not be one Church because they are of one country especially the beleevers of Indea being but a smal country and under the same civil Government The reason why city and Church expound one another was this because there was not more converted in a city then could meet together in a congregation or Church And when you can shew us out of the new testament that beleevers were so multiplyed in any city is that they could not all meet in one place then Wil we shew you that such Churches were divided into more Churches Rejoynder 1 Here are patterns of the new Testament uncontrouled by precepts and other patterns rejected by you upon pretence of special reason and that special reason is your begging of the question viz. there were no more converted in any city then might constantly meet together in one place 2. I have shewed out of the new testament and light of reason that beleevers in Ierusalem were so multiplyed that they could not meet together constantly for edification to receive the Sacrament of the Lords supper Sect. 2. 3. we read of Churches planted by the Apostles in cities and in great townes Cenchrea the least was oppidum valde frequens populosum navium statione celeberrimum Gualter in Rom a wel-frequented populâ—â— town most famous for the station of the ships and that they usually preached in cities Math. 10.23 11 1 23 34. Ierusalem Rome Corinth Coloss were all cities so were Philippi and Thessalonica Antioch Laodicea c. Hence cities not countries or villages and Churches do in scripture-phrase expound one another and Paganus which signifies a Country-man signifies in our common acceptation an Heathen and yet you tell us of Churches in the countries as distinct from Churches in cities and never offer to prove that there were such Churches That the Apostles in their journeyes did preach sometime in villages I grant but that they planted any Church in a village I put you to prove by scripture and if you cannot prove it then your distinction of country Churches and city Churches and the observation there upon which you make so much use of falls to the ground 4. I did not hold them bound to be out Church only because they were in one city but because their Elders or commissioners might come together being all of
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
all the dough in a Country one lump No but of every lump how many soever they be it is to be understood a little leaven leaveneth each of them so of Churches a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump that is the whole Church every Church in which it is this maketh not all the Churches in a Country to be one Rejoyn 1. Suppose it were granted that there were no combination for jurisdiction in those Churches doth it thence follow that such combination never ought to be If a national assembly of the Churches of Galatia cannot be shewed wil you thence conclude that therefore there ought to be no national assemblies and that the present assembly in England and the late assembly in New England is unlawful possibly there might have been a special reason why the Churches of Galatia could not be combined either because they lived too remote or under several civil Magistracies which would not or could not have entercourse one with another or the Magistrates being enemies would not suffer such meetings or combinations or the like peculiar reasons which now binde not 2. I omit your needless cavils you uncandid intimations and to this which is the solidest part of your Reply I say Suppose Paul had been alive before the coming of Christ in the flesh and should have writ to the Churches a speech used by the Psalmist as hath been shewed and the phrase Churches of Indea which were in Christ 1 Thes 2.14 Gal. 1.22 seem to imply that even after the time of Christ there were some Churches it Indea which were not in Christ as I urged in my Answer though you put it out by and Index expurgatorius or suppose he were now alive and should write to the Churches of Holland or of France as wel he might without deserting the ordinary stile and one should gather thence that there were before Christ Independent Churches uncombined in government or that now every Congregation in France or Holland were Independent and uncombined your selves would deny the warrantableness of that inference and yet could justifie the propriety of Paul's speech wel enough If we may call those which we know are combined by the name of Churches why might not Paul cal them by the name of Churches though they were combined So that if you wil maintain that the Churches of Galatia were each of them an Independent judging Church you must seek out a better argument for there is nothing in the proof made in the position that infers so much and this Answer doth serve for the Câ—urches of Indea and Macedonia as wel as of Galatia 3. There was one special man amongst the false teachers which the Apostle aims at Gal. 5.10 Now this mâ—n could not be of every Church of Galatia but of one of the Churches yet he writes not only no not so much as principally to that Church of which he was but to all the Churches of Galatia and declareth what censure he wisheth might be dispensed to use Mr Cottons own words Keyes p. 59. against him and other corrâ—â—â— teachers Now the strength of my Argument is this Those which are wished to dispense censures against a false teacher or to do any acts of discipline must needs be combined but the Churches of Galatia are wished to dispense censures against a false teacher and to do acts of discipline therefore they were combined 4. Let me ask you as sometimes you ask me 1. What Commentator before you did explicate the word lump as you do denying the combination of those Churches 2. Why it should not be taken distributively in 1 Cor. 5. as wel as here 3. Do you indeed hold what your exposition imports that false doctrine doth only leaven and corrupt the lump in which it is and one particular Congregation and not other Congregations in any case I should have ended this business 〈◊〉 you would tell me of leaving Indea as you did p. 29. though 〈◊〉 was but deferred to its proper place and no text of Scripture 〈◊〉 produced in the position for it I alledging therefore that 〈◊〉 Churches of Indea were so combined that they did come together Acts 20.20 21 22. to be satisfied of Paul concerning an accusaetion they had received against him and are called a Church Gal. 1.13 Acts 12.1 and an house Heb. 3.6 which title you say is not given to loose stones and timber but imports joynting and knitting one to another You Reply 1. These were not the Iews of Iudea alone that did gather together but of all other parts Act. 21.27 Rejoyn 1. You deal too cunningly for though the Jews of other parts might be there gathered yet they are apparently distinguished from the other beleeving Jews which had received the information of which I spake v. 20 21. The Iews amongst the Gentiles were they whom Paul was said to teach and it may be some of those Jews did inform but the persons informed you know were different from them both and could be no other then the beleeving Jews or Churches of Iudea and yet that they came together to be satisfied of Paul is plain and that Iames and all the Elders perswaded Paul to give them satisfaction You further Reply p. 31. That the Church Which Paul persecuted and Herod vexed is meant either of that of Ierusalem or of the Saints in general and not of the Churches of Indea Rejoyn Why not the Churches of Indea seeing Ierusalem was one of them which you acknowledg he persecuted and not it only for they that were scattered abroad durst not stay in Iudea no more then in Ierusalem Acts 11.19 20. which implies that his persecution reached all Iudea over and the Churches of Iudea were within Herods reach and the ground of his killing Iames and proceeding to take Peter also was because it pleased the Iews Now it would please the Jews that he should vex any Christian Church amongst them in Iudea as wel as the Church of Ierusalem and Paul also being a Jew his main envy was at the Christians of Iudea 2. How dare you say Paul persecuted not the Churches of Iudea Why might not they be persecuted to Damascus which was in Samaria as wel as the Saints of Ierusalem Compare Gal. 1.13 with v. 22 23. Paul saith I persecuted the Church of God and the Churches of Judea heard that he that persecuted us viz. the said Churches of Indea now preacheth the faith which makes it clear that the Church of God in one place and Churches of Iudea in the other are the same thing as I asserted Finally advertising the Reader that the Printers error not mine putting Heb. 3.4 for 3.6 hath given you some advantage I conclude that the title of Churches of Galatia c. doth not prove that they were each of them distinct governing Independent uncombined Churches CHAP. XI Whether and how the visible Church must consist of visible Saints Sect. 1. THe state of the question is this First it is to be meant of Iews
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
taken it includes both 2. The word Church in Acts 20. is but distinguished only from Elders not from all the officers and from feeding not ruling Elders for that the ruling Elders are said to be made Bishops by the holy Ghost is not probable 3. Phil. 1.1 wil prove that there were Saints in Philippi distinct from Bishops and Deacons but not that they were a Church without them much less that they were a Church properly so called Lastly If you can shew by Scripture that any company of people without officers did or ought to exercise Church-power or that they might receive in or cast out members our of the Church it shal suffice we wil not contend about names nor wil the name of the Church avail if this power cannot be proved by Scripture CHAP. XVI Of Election of Ministers and other officers Sect. 1. Reply p. 47. THe Position saith not that a particular Congregation hath full and free power without seeking the help of advise and direction of a Synod Classis or Presbytery but without the authoritative help thereof Rejoyn 1. Then you allow both that there should be Synods Classes and Presbyteries and that they should be advised with about election prove you that any Congregation did ask or seek the direction or advice of any Synod Classis or Presbytery in election of officers which you press as a duty and holy ordinance and I will shew you that they used authoritative help of a Synod Classis c. 2. I approve your approbation of Mr Cottons modesty in not taking on him hastily to censure the many notable presidents of ancient and latter Synods which have put forth the acts of power in ordination c. Which Author though he speak not expresly of election yet if acts of power may be put forth in another Congregation in one thing they may be put out in another 3. When I say we hold it a priviledg of the people especially if they proceed wisely and piously to elect their officers 1. You vainly ask Reply p. 47. What people Is it a people-priviledg or a Church-previledg to choose Ecclesiastical officers R. You are too willing to contend Scripture warrants me to cal un-officed men Church-members or others by the name of people Heb. 7.5 and your selves p. 59. yea in the last line of this very page use the same word in the same sense which you quarrel at that a Church viz. a company of people knit together by express publick covenant or agreement hath the only power of choosing officers I put you to prove 4. You ask What if they do not proceed wisely and piously is their priviledg lost Would it then be no injury to intrude any officer on them Is the priviledge of a Church-officer or Master of a family lost if he use it not wisely and piously Must they not be directed and exhorted to use it rightly and the priviledg remaine still with him we have Junius of our mand Rejoyn Then I conceive the Presbyters ought to keep the charge of the Lord and not to ordain hastily though the people should elect suddenly 1 Tim. 5.22 Least they should be partakers of other mens sins viz. of that unwise and ungodly Election 2. A master of a family may rule his house so unwisely and impiously that his priviledge of Governing it yea his liberty and his life may by the Magistrate be taken away from him A Church officer your selves assert may be censured yea deposed for unwise and ungodly managing his trust 3. Your selves hold not I suppose that it is the priviledge of the people to have an unwise and ungodly election confirmed but rather an injury to them 4. The Church of Boston in New England did chuse or would have chosen a notorious familist to have been co-teacher with Mr C. would you have the Elders to have ordeined him or the Synod to have approved him 5. If you grant that whensoever a people do chuse unwisely and ungodlity the Presbytery or Synod should oppose and refuse to ordain them and that without such ordination they may not lawfully officiate it is enough as to my present purpose and this at least if not more you seem to grant by equalling the case of a Church mis-electing to the case of a Mr of a family or a Church-officer mis-governing both which may loose their priviledg and power by a. busing it especially for a time til they be more wise Sect 2. I ingenuously confess I have always and stil do in my opinion and practise propend that people should elect their Minister they being thereby engaged the more to love and obey him and his cal to them made more unquestionable yet the Scriptures you bring though as I conceive as perument as any other and your defence of them upon the matter as strong as the cause wil suffer are unsatisfactory to me To your first text I answered that it is likely that Assembly was not a body politick but occasional only no part of Church-government being as yet on foot here were not all but some of the sounder members of the Jewish Church and they had no commission to separate from the Jews before Act. 2.44 The company was not without Elders The Apostles if not the 70 were present all the Churches and Elders that were at that time in the world were present in respect whereof it may be called an acumenical councel The Apostles being Elders of all Churches rather then a particular Congregation If there had been any more Elders and Churches they must have convened upon that occasion to choose an Apostle who is a Pastor of all Churches The choise was limied by the Apostle Peter 1. To the persons present 2. To those that had accompanied the Apostles all the time that the Lord Jesus went and out amongst them and by God the director of the lot to whom properly the election of an Apostle doth belong to Matthias You reply p. 48.1 There is a contradiction if they were but the sounder parts of the Jewsh Church then they were not a Christian Church and if no Christian Church how were the Apostles Elders of it how was it an â—cumenical Councel the Churches and Elders in all the world being present Rejoyn I do not at all contradict my self for 1. To he Christian and to be the sounder members of the Jewish Church was then all one 2. The Apostles being members of the then Iewish Church hinders not but that they might be Elders of all the Churches in the world as Christ was a member of the Jewish Church yet head of the whole Church Christian or Jewish in several respects 3. If you wil have it to be a Christian Church as you affirm it was liker to a general Councel then a particular Congregation You further reply 1. Is there not some mistake in point of truth There were added to them 3000 souls to them to whom To those who were yet members of the Iewish Church then these
separated ones who were added were members of the Iewish Church for they came into their state to whom they added and so they were separated aâ—d not separated which agrees not toy 47. where they are all called a Church R. Here is indeed a mist ake yea a great one too in you for the words to them or which you build are not in the original but in the translation only but of the whole matter see cap. 4. sect 3. 2. Though they were unseparated in Act. 1. it follows not that they were unseparated Act. 2. but if the Christians had stil been members of the Jewish Church yet the 3000 Christians could not be said to be added to the Iewish Church whereof they were members before their conversion to Christianity but to the professors of Christianity You further reply p. 49. That the company was not straituod in their liberty but acquainted with their privileds in this matter by these Elders that their limiting was nothing lut necessary direction that it was but in one thing for ought that appears â—â—l that accompained them were present and who could be so fit to be as Apostle as one of those 1 Joh. 1.1 Rejoynder To that which hath been largely said to this before I adde 1. That a hundred and twenty were not all the believers of Jerusalem not the major part of them though taking in only men of note and Disciples of the longest standing in Christs school even those that had accompanied with the Apostles all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out amongst them begenning from the Baptism of John unto the day of our Saviors ascension of whom v. 21 22. which were the twelve the seventy and some others which Christ sent to preach as Luke 9.60 it is very probable the number of these did not exceed an hundred and twenty And this was a different meeting from that spoken of v. 14. as is evident by the transcision And in those days for no impartial man which reads and considers the wonderful operations of the Sermons of John Baptist Jesus Christ the Apostles and the Seventy as in other places so in Jerusalem can conceive that an hundred was the total number of the believers there or the major part of them 2. You tell us p. 15. That it is less safe and warrantable to draw inferences from paterns where there are diversity of kinds of them about the same thing Now in this point of election there are diversities of kinds The 12 Apostles and the Seventy were chosen by Christ himself Luke 6.13 10.1 others appointed to preach by Christ himself Luke 9.60 The people chose seven whom the Apostles appointed over the business Acts 6. Paul was chosen by God immediately Acts 9. The Presbytery separated Paul and Barnabas by Imposition of hands Acts 13.1 2. and Timothy 1 Tim. 1.14 1.18 The Elders of Ephesus made by the Holy Ghost Acts 19.6 with 20.28 Lastly in this Text they were not only limited and restrained in election but they were limited and restrained from election of any they were only allowed to present two which also had they not had an extraordinary particular warrant at that time for it had been high presumption for them to have done and to offer them to the choice of the Lord and the very way and means of tendring them to Gods choice was limited and restrained to lots a course not now pactised Sect. 3. Reply p. 49. They proceeded as far as they could therein and agreed in the denomination of two and when the lot determined whether of the two should be the man the Text saith v. 26. by the common suffrage of them all Matthias was numbred c. Rejoynd 1. If they were all or but almost all Officers as hath been in part proved before the Apostles the Seventy and others what will this advantage you that by the common voice of the Officers Matthias was so numbred 2. You know that they did not ordain or elect Matthias rather then Justus and they had no more to do when God had chosen Matthias then to accept him by an orderly subjection to Christs will as people do or ought to do to a Governor made by supreme Authority and yet their acceptation of him is not an act of power but of obedience You Reply farther p. 39. We reade but of one Church and the Elders thereof present at the ordaining of Paul Acts 13.1 2 3 23. Whereupon Paul calleth himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rejond 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 11. I doubt whether Paul calls himself and Apostle separated with reference to Acts 13. possibly it was rather with respect to the Pharisees one of which he was which were said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I doubt also whether Paul was then ordained an Apostle for he was chosen by God and Ananias laid hands on him that he might receive the holy Ghost Acts 9.15.17 some years before Gal. 1.15 and he preached Acts 9.15 17 20 28 29. yea he had fulfilled his ministery Acts 11.26 12.25 even at Antioch where hands were imposed on him Therefore I conceive the holy Ghost minding to have Paul and Barnabas preach in other Churches as well as they had done in Antioch willeth the Prophets and Teachers there to let him go for so the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may signifie and the words following import so much that they laying their hands on them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sent them away and Paul and Barnabas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being sent forth by the holy Ghost went to Seleucia Cyprus c. and therefore Paul is not considered as an Apostle but as an Elder of Antioch one of that Presbytery which may be the reason why they are immediatly before said to be in that Church v. 1. and amongst the Presbyters thereof And this rite of Imposition of hands was a solems commending them to the grace of God Act. 14.26 and as Elders they returned gave account to the Church which an Apostle was not bound to do Your selves say p. 123. Paul and Barnabas did not now go forth by vertue of their Apostolique Commission for so they needed not to have been separated by fasting and prayer and imposition of the hands of the Eldership for they had Apostolique commission long befo rt How will you reconcile your selves with your selves but if you can and do maintain That Paul was then ordained an Apostle then it will infallibly follow That the Eldership of Antioch did administer Ordination which you grant is an authoritative act with reference to other Congregations As also if the One hundred and twenty did chuse an Apostle whether they were a particular Church or the Eldership thereof they did an act of Church-power with reference to other Churches if you do not consider them under the notion of being then the universal Church or all the Officers of it CAP. XVII Of the choice of Deacons Acts 6. And of the Elders
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.
their hands at the dissolution of Abbies they might either give them to the Ministery or dispose them to private persons or possesse them to the publike use the present inhabitants or country-men having no more legal right unto them where they were assigned to the Ministery then where they were assigned to other persons and uses for when they bought or took their Lands they did not think of buying or taking the Tythes or did the sellers or setters think of setting or selling them if they had they would have required more money for the sale or lease Sect. 6. Reply p. 61. There is great inequality in Tythes and in all setled maintenance if not unrighteousnesse Persons whose estates arise from Trading and consist in goods not having any lands in some places pay nothing to the Ministery out of duty and so the Country maintains the Ministery of the Town though many Chappels perhaps be robbed thereby and persons who are much poorer in Estate then others but have larger Lands then they yet pay more because of their lands then they and if houses be rated or mens present estate valued and maintenance setled in the just proportion yet because mens estates are like the Moon some in the increase others in the decrease it will soon grow unto an inequality again besides mens estates lie many times where their persons inhabite not neither can inhabite and then their estates go to maintain a Ministery to which they do not belong and they are so much the more disabled i◠supporting the Ministery to which they do belong Rejoynd 1. Is there not as great an inequality when Tythes are paid to a Gentleman possibly a Papist as where they are paid to the Ministers Or do you intend that as well the Parliament-men and others should be wronged of the Tythes legally due to them as the Ministers 2. Is it any inequality or unrighteousnesse that men should pay their debts which they are legally bound to by their own consent because it falleth out that a poorer man may pay more then a richer When a fifth part of the land became Pharaohs Gen. 47.26 was it unequall or unrighteous that they which possessed much lands should pay for the fifth part of them more to Pharaoh then richer men that had lesse lands did Is it unequall or unrighteous that he that hath a greater quantity of ground should pay a greater Rent or a greater chief then a richer man that hath lesse 3. You count it lawfull for the State to allow setled maintenance how can they do it any way but there will be some pretence of inequality or unrighteousnesse If the State do allow an Independent Minister 40. l. 50. l. or 100. l. per annum out of the sequestred Tythes of a neighbouring Parish may not the people complain of inequality and injustice as well 〈◊〉 if they were of a Ministers own parish and paid their tythes to him 4. If any inequalitie or unrighteousnesse be now or hereafter the Parliament may from time to time rectifie it 5. If Tythes be so burdensome as you say they are to the poor what if it be possible to find some poor Church-members to pay much more to the Contributions then their tythes come to Nor is their act meerly voluntary it is expected they should give something every Lords day and two pence every Lords day Fast and Feasting day cannot be lesse then 10. s. per annum it may be his Tythes comes not to two shillings and he is not worth 10. or 20. l. Surely your rich ones do not keep their proportion with your poor ones and for every ten or twenty pounds they are worth pay two pence per diem 6. Conscience tells us that every one should have his own but conscience in sundry cases doth not determine that this or that is mine nor must I be mine own Judge in it even good men are partiall in their own cases as Judah and David though just in other mens therefore the Lawes we live under must determine it Sect. 7. You say in Congregat way justified p. 8. If Christ our Lord hath appointed no such thing as stinted maintenance then it is unfit for the Church to settle stinted maintenance Rejoynd 1. Your conclusion should be Therefore it is unlawfull A thing may be unfit at least in opinion and not unlawfull 2. Hath Christ appointed that the State may settle maintenance and forbidden it to the Church or may the State plead exemption from Christs appointment any more then the Church See above Sect. 5. Reply p. 61. And this setled visible maintenance can be the maintenance but of peaceable times when the Magistrate is a Christian and countenanceth Religion for in the Apostles dayes and afterwards for three hundred years together while the ten Persecutions lasted there neither was nor could be on foot any such maintenance But the Church-treasury duly kept up by contributions according as God blesseth every man will afford maintenance while the Church hath any thing at all times whether peaceable or troublesome whether the Magistrate be a Christian or a Heathen Rejoynd 1. What then is it therefore unlawfull Maintenance from the State is not had but in peaceable times therefore it is unlawfull too Publike meeting-places for worship cannot be had but in peaceable times are not they unlawfull too And sometimes the Church-treasury may be robbed spoiled the free and publike peaceable exercise of Religion cannot be had but in peaceable times you will not therefore conclude that they are unlawfull 2. For lasting the trade of the Begging-Friars outbids your Church-stock for the Ministers may beg whether times be peaceable or troublesome whether the Magistrate be a Christian or an Heathen whether there be maintenance out of the Church stock or no. 3. The tythes amongst the Jews were paid to the Jewish Priests in the time of Christ and his Apostles if the Apostles had been never so desirous of them they could not have had them The Christians were very poor in respect whereof for fear of offence the Apostles did preach freely in some places having neither maintenance from Church nor from State but working with their own hands And yet you say that set maintenance from the State is not unlawfull though such maintenance neither was nor could be on foot for the first 300 years CHAP. XXI Of Ministers maintenance out of the Church-stock and Lords-day Contributions Sect. 1. YOu say p. 62. This maintenance out of the stock of the Church we think we see most warrant for from the New Testament as most probable we once disputed but neither then nor now are we peremptory in it And in your last you say That the Ministers are to be maintained by such a stock as is raised by weekly contribution because it is not absolutely clear in the Text at least to us we thought fit to dispute it only as probable Rejoynd 1. Then it seems the Scripture annexed to the Position is not
put for the temple and the people that repaired thither and assembled there and so for the Church of the Jewes which consisted of many assemblies and yet was but one Church and the Temple was but one which was called Sion and so Sion was but one But in the times of the Gospel there were to be no visible temples where God would dwell but the visible Church 2 Cor. 6.16 and the visible Church is Congregationall not Nationall much lesse Vniversall as hath been proved therefore the Congregationall Church is Sion the speciall place of Gods presence Rejoynd 1. A question of names and words is of no great moment yet in opposition to that which is most common with Congregational men yea with confessed Heretiques and Schismatiques to call each of their Congregations by the name of Sion which in their sense imports that it is an entire visible church Independent of any Ecclesiastical judicature and that the greatest presence of God is there to be found and that combination of many Sions is unnecessary yea sinfull I truly observed that there was but one Sion in the Old and New Testament and that the Scripture warrants not the expression of an hundred or a thousand Sions 2. The Temple is one expression and Sion another the Scripture may yea doth acknowledge many temples of God not many Sions every Christian is a temple not a Sion yet if you do betake your selves into the temple I will follow you thither rnd fetch you thence 3. The visible Church in 2 Cor. 6.16 is not called a temple but every Christian in whom the spirit of God dwels 1 Cor. 3.16 yea his body is the temple of the Holy Ghost 1 Cor. 6.20 even that body which may be joyned to an harlot which is especially sinned against and abused by fornication viz. his naturall body as Christ called his naturall body a temple Joh. 2.19 and that body which might be unequally yoked with unbelievers 2 Cor 6.6 one way whereof was by unequall marriages and of it the Apostle chiefly speaks and not of any visible Church or Society as such 4. It hath been shewed that the visible Church may not only be Congregationall but Nationall yea that there is an universall visible Church And in Ephes 2.20 21 22. which your selves interpret of the visible Church the Church of Ephesus is not said to be the whole city house or temple but to be built together with other Churches and Christians and all the building groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord. Of this temple all the Churches to which Peter writes 1 Pet. 1.1 are living stones not so many living temples 1 Pet. 2. Thus many Nations shall in the day of the Gospel be joyned to the Lord and shall be Gods people and he will dwell amongst them Zach. 2.11 so Antichrist is said to sit in the temple of God viz. in the Church universall 2 Thess 2.2.4 See also Rev. 11.1 and Mr. Cotton Keyes p. 56. saith The new Jerusalem is many particular churches combined all which are yet but one city one tabernacle Rev. 21. Sect. 2. Reply p. 71. Yet this hinders not but that the language of the Old Testament when it speaks of things of the New Testament may be used in the Old Testament yea in the New also as in Zach. 14. 19. Isa 66.20 21. So in Isa 4 5. we may as well read of the assemblies of Sion though there be no such thing but each assembly is Sion as of the feast of tabernacles when in the dayes of the Gospel there is no such thing but it is spoken by way of allusion because Sion was then but one it is spoken of as one still and yet it is more then one Rejoynd 1. That the language of the Old Testament may be used in the Old Testament or in the New is not denied yet it is considerable if the word Sion be read perhaps two or three hundred times in the Scriptures and never taken for one particular Independent congregation as you frequently use it if you could find Sions in the plurall number you would judge it to be a justification of your appropriating the word to a particular assembly and full as good an argument for the Congregational way as the terme Churches which you say though untruly is not found in the Jewish church 2. If you can prove it to be as ceremoniall that Sion should consist of many assemblies as that the feast of tabernacles should be kept and the one be as evidently abrogated as the other then you say something or otherwise it is nothing If a man should endeavour to prove from Isa 4.5 that the Church should be at least one assembly you would not sure stop his mouth with the feast of tabernacles Now if I alledge that there shall be assemblies of Sion in the New Testament I suppose you can find no ceremony in the plurality of the number 3. That there is but one Sion is the language yea the constant unchanged language of the New as well as of the Old Testament yea when it is applied to the Christian church and no example there is to the contrary but the feast of tabernacles is not constantly not frequently not once that I remember applied to Christian worship in the New-Testament and therefore the case is not alike though you make itso Sect. 3. Reply p. 72. Now that there are many mount Sions your self do really confesse We know you hold 1. That the Church of the Jewes was called Sion 2. That the visible Church in the dayes of the Gospel is Sion is it not manifest therefore that you hold that look how many visible Churches there are in the times of the Gospel so many Sions there are You say the Hebrews which were divided into many Congregations are said to be come to one mount Sion If so then the Congregation of Christian Gentiles may be called another mount Sion Rejoynd 1. All this doth not so much as prove though it confidently affirms much more that there is two Sions one in the Old Testament and another in the New The Jewish church and the Christian notwithstanding may be but one Church one Sion though under a different state and condition 2. I hold not there are as many Sions as particular visible Churches but you grossely misunderstand my words A believing Jew and a believing Gentile may be you will acknowledge of one particular Congregation and so of one Sion much more may I say that they both may come to one mount Sion yea many people all nations may flow unto it Isa 2. â— 3. I never said nor thought that the Hebrews did come to one mount Sion and Christian Gentiles to another but all to one You see you are far enough from proving what you would have us believe that every particular assembly of Sion Isa 4.5 is a distinct Sion 3. Whereas you ask what greater absurdity it is to say there are an hundred Sions then to say
abhominable sinne and grant that the dream may be to our common enemies and the interptetation to them that hate us CHAP. XXVIII Whether the Church appear to be a particular Congregation MAT. 18. Sect. 1. IN Cong way justified you professe your selves to hold that the exercise of Church-power by the Congregational church is founded upon this text as the observation of the Christian sabbath is upon the 4. Commandement I joyn issue with you and observe that you grant 1. As the 4. Commandement did at the first promulgation of it and afterward command the keeping of the seventh-day Sabbath so this Text did first send the offended party of the Jewish church to the Jewish church while that Church remained in power as you acknowledge 2. As the 4. Commandement doth equally command any day in the week which God by other Texts doth require to be kept after the expiration of the Jewish sabbath so this Text sends the people of God to any Church which after the dissolution of the Jewish church should be in strength by vertue of a charter from heaven 3. That he that shall affirm that the first day of the week is to be kept holy rather then the 7. or 6. is enjoyned by the fourth Commandement other Texts set aside doth abuse and wrest the 4. Commandement so he that asserts that this Text doth so prove that the Church must be only Congregationall not Nationall and Oecumenicall doth wrong this Text. 4. Hence also may be inferred That if a day or time of the same extent was there commanded to the Jewes and after the expiration of the Jewish sabbath to Christians then a Church of the same extent as was amongst the Jews which was a Church consisting of subordinate Judicatories and was Nationall assoon as it was capable of being such and in a sense Occumenicall is here prescribed to the Christians after the expiration of the Jewish church And this is as much or more then I intended for it my professed work was only to vindicate the Text from the Congregationall way not to urge it for the Presbyterian as you would make the Reader to believe If I at this time do solidly vindicate the said text I do as much as I desired the chief of your other texts on which your opinions are pretended to be built have been and shall be examined Though I might spare my labour in this point your selves confessing that Mat. 18. doth not prove that the Church must be congregationall which I would have persons concerned to take notice of yet I will give the Reader a taste of your Reply Sect. 2. Reply p. 86. The sinew and strength of your reason is this It is necessary that the judging Church in the times of the Gospel should answer in the manner of its judicature to the judging church in the time of the Law therefore the Gospel-Church ought to have gradual judicatories and appeals as the Jewish church had The main hypothesis whereof is unsound for it is necessary that the Judging church in the time of the Gospel should be conformed to spirituall precepts and patterns left us by Christ and his Apostles and Christ hath not appointed the Jewish church to be a pattern to Gospel churches so then Churches of Presbyterian complexion are not here understood for there is a vast difference between them and the Jewish church Rejoynd 1. The sinew and strength of my reasoning is not that which you pretend it is plain in the words to be this If Kahal and Ecclesia with the 70 signifie the company of Elders as well as the body of the People and a Church with graduate Judicatories and Appeals then this Text doth not prove whatsoever others do or do not that the Church must be a particular Congregation as opposed to Classical Provincial National c. But the first is true therefore the second And this argument is good and strong your selves being judges 2. It is enough for me to shew that it doth not conclude for the Congregationall way though I should not shew that it makes against it or for the Presbyterians The argument you propound is your own not mine nor would I put the matter of it into fuch forme did I use the argument 2. You shew a vast difference between our Churches and the Jewish but doth this prove that the subordination of Ecclesiastical judicatories amongst the Jews was ceremoniall or that we may not reason for it from the analogie of the Jewish church Anabaptists may and do render many differences between Judaisme and Christianity Baptisme and Circumcision and yet notwithstanding from them all we may conclude from analogie the lawfulnesse of Paedobaptisme and Christian Magistracie There is a vast difference between the Priests of the Law and Ministers of the Gospel yet the Apostle by analogie reasons from the one to the other in point of maintenance In things most like it is easie to find some difference none of your differences do cleer that subordination of Ecclesiastical judicatories was ceremoniall amongst the Jewes or unlawfull amongst Christians and therefore they are not pertinent But what are those differences Sect. 3. Reply p. 87. 1. The Sanhedrim did not consist of chosen men sent out by the Synagogues but of Priests and Levites R. If it did not consist of chosen men which you say but do not prove yet God hath appointed us to chuse men for the Synod Act. 15.2 The Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 determined or ordered to send Paul and Barnabas and certain others with them This is as truly an ordinance of God as that was then 2. That the Sanhedrim did consist of none but Priests and Levites you too barely and boldly affirm It is said that Jehosaphat did set of the Levites and Priests and of the chief of the fathers of Israel 2 Chron. 19.8 for the judgement of the Lord and for controversies You reply further p. 87. that there was one chief by office 2 Chron. 19.11 but in the Classicall way all are equall in point of office R. The High-Priesthood was ceremoniall and therefore it must be abrogated but that the Sanhedrim quà a superior Judicatory was ceremonial is the thing you should prove 2. If in the Classicall way all be equall in point of office how comes it to passe that you charge that way to be Prelatical 3. So far as the high Priest Amariah or any other was but a President of the Sanhedrim so far reason and light of nature if not of Scripture shewes us that we may follow the pattern Reply p. 87. Thirdly you reply The Sanhedrim dealt with civil matters Deut. 21.5 Synods with ecclesiasticall Rejoynd 1. Their civil lawes were divine not drawn up by Princes or Parliaments but by God himself and so as being Gods lawes the Priests were the Lawyers and did interpret them and tell de jure what of right ought to be done yet de facto the Ecclesiastical Sanhedrim did put no man to death
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
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.