foundationalls of the Church of Ephesus which were about twelve the number in the first beginning of the greatest Church was small enough in comparison Acts 1.15 p. 9 POS. 3. A visible Church in the new Testament consists of no more in number then may meet in one place in one Congregation 1 Cor. 11.20 14.23 p. 13 POS. 4. A visible Charch in the new Testament is not Nationall as the Jewes was hence we reade of the Churches of Galatia Macedonia Judea not Church of Galatia 1 Cor. 16.1 2 Cor. 8.1 p. 21 POS. 5. When a visible Chuch is to be erected the matter of it should be visible Saints and Believers 1 Cor. 1.2 p. 31 POS. 6. The form of a Church is the gathering together of these visible Saints and combining and uniting them into one body by the form of a holy Covenant Deut. 29.1.10 11 12. by which is plainly shewed that a company of people become Gods people that is a Church by entring into Covenant with God If it be said they were a Church before yet that was when the Church of the Jewes was constituted in Abrahams Family by Covenant p. 37 POS. 7. Every Member at his admission doth promise to give himself as to the Lord to be guided by him so to the Church to be guided by them which is no more then the Members of the Church of Macedonia did in a parallel case 2 Cor. 8.5 p. 44 POS. 8. This particular Congregation is a Church before it have Officers Acts 2.47 p. 45 POS. 9. She hath also full and free power to choose her own Officers without the help of Synod Classis or Presbyterie Act. 1.15 6.3 14.23 p. 46 POS. 10. The particular Congregation though they want Officers have power and authority to ordain Officers as the children of Israel did put their hands upon the Levites Numb 8.9 10. p. 52 POS. 11. When the Apostles were sent out by Christ there was no mention of Ordination in that Commission of theirs but only of teaching and baptizing Mar. 16.15 Mat. 28.19 20. If ordination of Ministers had been such a speciall work there would belike have been some mention of in in their Commission p. 56 POS. 12. The Church hath power to censure her Officers if she see just occasion Col. 4.17 p. 58 POS. 13. These Officers are to be maintained by contribution every Lords Day 1 Cor. 16.1 p. 60 POS. 14. The great Mountain burning with fire cast into the Sea upon the sounding of the second Trumpet Rev. 8.8 9. is applied by some good Writers to those times in which Constantine brought settled endowments into the Church p. 68 POS. 15. There must be in the Church Teachers distinct from Pastors as Apostles are distinct from Euangelists Ephes 4.11 p. 69 POS. 16. This particular Congregation is Sion which God loveth and he hath promised to be present Mat. 18.20 p. 71 POS. 17. So long as a Believen doth not joyn himself to some particular Congregation he is without in the Apostles sense 1 Cor. 5.12 p. 74 POS. 18. The Elders are not Lords over Gods heritage 1 Pet. 5.3 nor do exercise authority as the Kings and Princes of the earth do remembring our Saviours lesson Mat. 20.25 26. Luke 22.25 26. p. 78 POS. 19. The Power of Government is expresly given to the Church where we are bidden Hear the Church which is a particular Congregation Mat. 18. p. 85 POS. 20. Matth. 16.19 Christ directeth his Speech not to Peter alone but to all the Disciples also for to them all was the Question propounded by Christ vers 15. Nor to them as generall Officers of the Churches for that Commission was not yet given them but as Disciples and Believers p. 90 POS. 21. 1 Cor. 5. Paul himself though an extraordinary Officer yet would not take upon him to excommunicate the incestuous person without the Church but sends to them exhorting them to do it and reproves the Brethren of the Church of Corinth as well as the Elders that they did no sooner put him away p. 95 POS. 22. The Lord Jesus reproving the Angel of Pergamus for suffering Balaamites sends his Epistle not only to the Angel but to the Church The Spirit saith not only to the Angel but to the churches Rev. 2.11 And the Church-members are seen by John in a vision sitting on Thrones clothed with white raiment having on their heads crownes of gold Rev. 4.14 Now thrones and crownes are Ensignes of Authority and governing power p. 101 POS. 23. The particular Congregation takes Christ for her only spirituall Prophet Priest and King Deut. 18.15 Acts 7.37 Psal 110.4 Heb. 5.4 Isa 9.6 7. Rev. 15.3 p. 104 POS. 24. Christ left but one way of Discipline for all churches which in the Essentialls of it is unchangeable and to be kept till the appearing of Christ 1 Tim. 6.13 14. p. 107 POS. 25. The Church or the Ministers thereof must not be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Pet. 4. And therefore the Minister must not perform a Ministeriall act to another Congregation Acts 20.28 1 Pet. 5.1 2. p. 111 POS. 26. Gifted men viz. so reputed by competent Judges though not called to the Ministery nor intended for it may preach They that were scattered abroad upon the Persecution which arose about Stephen were not Church-officers at least not all of them yet these men did preach the Word and Philip which was but a Deacon preached without the calling or privity of the Apostles Acts 11.19 8.14 p. 118 POS. 27. Jehosaphat sent Princes who were neither Ministers nor intended so to be to teach with the Priests and Levites viz. at least to incourage the people to hearken to the Priests and Levites 2 Chron. 17.7 8 9. as Jehosaphat did 2 Chron. 20.20 yea and was their mouth to God in Prayer vers 2.5 to 13. As we conceive something in that prophesying 1 Cor. 1.4 to be extraordinary so we conceive it to be ordinary that some private men grown Christians of able gifts who may have received a gift of Prophecy need no more extraordinary calling for them to Prophesie in the Churches then for Jehosaphat and his Princes to prophesie in the Church of Israel p. ibid. A Defence of certain Positions and Scriptures against an examination thereof by R.H. in which they are charged to be faultie POSITION I. GAthering of Churches in the Name of Christ See almost the same Argument verbatim in answer from New England to 32. q. p. 35. and setting up of Church-Ordinances cannot be unlawfull for want of a Commandement from Man as appeareth by the Doctrine and Practice of the Apostles Acts 4.19 5.29 THe Apostles never taught or practised to gather or separate some Christians from others one part of this true Church Answer and another part of that especially persons which themselves converted not to make a purer Church neither with nor without the Magistrates Authority THe Apostles both taught and practised the separating of some Jewes
such a Generall called to be souldiers this name shewes the intrinsecall nature of the thing to which applied Such is the name Saint when applied to the Church of God but there are other names which are extrinsecall and superadditionall to the nature of the things given to and separable and may be in some and not in other of that kinde As if one should write to the Army of such a one enriched with gold and silver apparell this is extrinsecall and casuall and may agree to some Armies and not to others such are the Epithets 1 Cor. 5. inriched with wisdome utterance c. Concerning the names Elect c. we have answered them before POSITION VI. The form of a Church is the gathering together of these visible Saints and combining and uniting them into one body by the form of a holy Covenant Deut. 29 1.10 11 12. by which is plainly shewed that a company of people become Gods people that is a Church by entring into Covenant with God If it be said they were a Church before yet that was when the Church of the lewes was constituted in Abrahams Family by Covenant You intend not that this Covenant doth make a true Church Answer but a pure Congregationall Church as it is refined according to the platform of the Gospel We intend that the combination of Saints into one body by some kinde of Covenant either expresse or implicite Reply or by some kinde of speciall bond as Dr. Ames calls it doth make a true Church The seed of Jacob and the Sechemites could not make a Church together Gen. 34.15 16. but by becoming one and they could not become one but by coming into the same Covenant therefore they say though deceitfully for they never meant it yet therein they shew how such a thing could only be done if you will be as we be that every male be circumcised then we will become one people and we would demand had those Sechemites been Believers and had this businesse been carried without guile whether they had not by this doing become one Church We conceive relation or combination into one unto domestick ends and purposes is the form of a Family and relation and combination into one unto politick and civill ends and purposes is the form of a Commonwealth and relation and combination of one man and one woman unto conjugall ends and purposes is the form of matrimoniall state and that covenant alwayes makes this relation and combination into onenesse where the persons are free from each other and no naturall tie amongst them and so relation and combination of so many Saints as do or may well meet in one place unto religious ends 〈◊〉 the enjoyment of Church-ordinances doth make a church and because the persons are free from one another therefore covenant or agreement together which is all one must make the relation A solemne expresse and verball covenant or agreement we assert to be necessary unto the purity and strength of a Church and so consequently unto the welbeing of a Church for how Saints and they alone living promiscuously in the world should yet be severed from the world with which they be in habitation mingled and how they even they alone should have communion together in all holy ordinances without expresse verball consent we cannot conceive which yet we judge ought to be if the rule be well attended which saith Nothing shall enter into the holy city which defileth Rev. 21.27 22.14 And how such loosenesse which is in our Parish-churches from which any may depart to another Parish-church without rendering any reason removing their habitation it may be but a stones cast which we conceive to be a great evill For the members in a naturall body are not so loosly joynted nor stones in any house so loosly set unto which yet a particular Church is compared Eph. 2.22 and 1 Cor. 12.27 How this evill may be prevented but by expresse agrement we cannot apprehend and therefore conceive such a covenant to be necessary to such purposes A Church-covenant s especially in relation to Church-estate Answer and Church duties as a marriage-covenant is with relation to the marriage state and marriage duties but the Covenant here enentioned was not entered into in reference to Church estate and Church duties rather then to other duties of the morall Law and may be taken by two or three though they be too few to make a Church or by persons of severall Churches in a ship or a journey and yet leave them in the same Church-state they were before and not make them members of a distinct Church A Church-covenant is especially in relation to Church duties Reply but not only so for Christian duties are comprehended under it and the Covenant in Deut. 29.1.10 11 12. respects principally Church-duties more then other duties of the morall Law as appeares from vers 16 17 18. for he warns them of Heathenish worships such which they had seen in Egypt and among the Nations and would ingage them by holy covenant to all Gods holy worships which were of his own institution of which were the worship and service of the Passeover and all the offerings of Gods prescription which were to be brought to the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation and the covenant of two or three to perform such duties might not be taken because some of them did seal their union and communion with that body and were to be celebrated when the whole body was assembled And though a covenant binding to the performance of some of the duties of the morall Law may be made by two or three and by persons of severall Churches and yet leave them in the same Church-state and not make them members of a distinct Church from what they were of before yet not so a covenant that binds to Church-duties as if a company of persons of divers churches should covenant to meet together to pray one with another this would not make them a Church nor change their state but if they covenant to walk together in the constant enjoyment of all Church-ordinances which God requires of a Church this would make them a Church and change their state that afterwards they could not be of divers Churches but of the same Church and Body A Covenant in generall doth not make a Church nor a marriage Answer a Covenant betwixt this man and that woman makes it but a Covenant with appropriation and application to this or that Pastor or people but the Scripture covenants are not with appropriation and application to this Pastor or people viz. that they would serve God with this people or Pastor rather then with that therefore they are not Church-covenants Who ever read or heard of any Covenant in generall of duties to be done Reply without application to persons mutually ingaged to perform such duties As a covenant of duties in a marriage would be ridiculous without application to persons this man or that woman to be
which to affirme were slat against the Scripture Acts 2.47 If there were no more Beleevers in Ephesus then twelve as there was Answer viz Aquila and Priscilla which knew no more then Johns Baptisme Acts 18.26 with 24.25 if not others yet there were more in ferusalem then an hundred and twenty even five hundred brethren at once c 1 Cor. 15.6 First though Aquila and Priscilla were at Ephesus Reply yet they were but sojourners there as they were also in many other places sometimes at Rome sometimes at Corinth as appeares from Acts 18.2 Rom. 16.3 But to what place they did belong is not certain Secondly your five hundred brethren at Jerusalem is as slightly collected from 1 Cor. 15.6 For 1. doth the Apostle say that he was seen of those five hundred in Jerusalem He shewed himselfe in Galilee and some other places as well as in Jerusalem 2. Though the place of manifesting himselfe might be Jerusalem must the persons therefore be of Jerusalem Why not appertaining unto Judea Or suppose of Jerusalem why might they not be dispersed before Christs ascension For present afterwards when they chose an Apostle they were not which was yet a Church action and without doubt the major part of the Church would have been present at it Adam and Noah with their Families Answer if they were Churches they were but Domesticall Churches not Congregationall Domesticall Churches enjoying Congregationall Ordinances Reply and congregationall Churches are not divers species of Churches neither doe they differ in their nature or kind but in quantity as one Congregation differeth from another as one small Countrey Chappell differeth from a numerous Towne Church What will ye make of Christ and his Disciples Answer a Church distinct from the Jewish You know Christ did not make a new Church or gather men into it but lived and died a member of the Jewish Church d Answer to to 32. q. p. 14. Had they been called a Church as some housholds are in the new Testament e Phile. 2. witnes T.W. to W.R. you had had some more pretext and yet they are but a Domesticall Church c. 1. Whether Christ died a member of the Jewish Church Reply is questionable But that he gathered certain persons to him and that he instituted Baptisme and the Supper amongst them is most certain which were Ordinances of the Gospel Church and he either thereby prepared them for or laid the foundation of a Gospel Church before his death For immediatly after his ascension they were a Gospel Church as appeareth from Acts 1.14 15. 2. For the denomination of Church we passe not much whether we meet with it or not provided that we find the reality of a Church among any persons 3. Many Domesticall Churches may be in one Congregationall in your sense but not in ours We deny and put you to prove that two or three converted in a Family enjoying some Christian Ordinances but no Church Ordinances are called a Church It is an Argument you will not own Answer seven eight twelve may make a Domesticall Church therefore they may make a Congregationall We acknowledge not any such distinction of Congregationall Church Reply and Domesticall as you presse after But say That the foundation of a Congregationall Church may be laid in one Family and may spread unto many It may be laid in seven or eight and may grow up to an hundred or a thousand or to as many as can meet together constantly unto edification in one place The Church in Abrahams Family was the same which was in the Families of all his sonnes and in the Families of their children after them which afterwards grew up into a nation And though the Gospel Church is not now Nationall as the Jewish was yet a congregation of many Families may spring out of a Church of one Family more easily then a Nation did formerly And if seven eight or twelve may not make a congregationall Church in our apprehension what have you been consuting all this while If seven or eight may make a Church Answer then two hundred persons in a Citie may well make twenty distinct Churches and by consequence so many Independent Judieatures First this collection is made to bring an Odium upon congregationall Churches but it may be thus retorted foure or five in a house may make a family therefore three hundred in an house may make sixtie distinct families Foure or five in a family may make a Domestick Church say you then three hundred in a family may make sixty Domestick Churches two thousand in a Field may make an Army therefore two hundred thousand in a Field may make ten distinct Armies under so many independent Generals Secondly we have declared our selves before that seven or eight may make a Church in the first foundation and whilst there are no more persons fitted and that as more in that place shall be converted the Church of them is to be increased And we are utterly against the unnecessary multiplication of Churches as conceiving such small Churches inconsistent to Christs ends which is edification by Pastors Teachers Ruling Elders Deacons which he hath given to his Church But that a Church of seven or eight should require so many Officers or be able to maintain them we cannot understand And we perceive from the patternes presented in the New Testament that Churches in cities which at first were small grew great by the daily addition of others to them Acts 1.14.15 with Acts 2.41 19.7 8 9 with 18 19 20. Acts 20.17.28 So that we would not have beleevers of one citie be of so many Churches if one congregation will conveniently hold them except there be some eminent reason for it But though there should be many Churches consisting of a few members yet without Officers amongst them we doe not assert them to be Independent Judicatures POSITION III. A visible Church in the new Testament consists of no more in number then may meet in one place in one Congegation The like you have Answer to 32 q p. 9. 1 Corinth 11.20 14.23 If you seek for Congregations meeting for prayer hearing the Word Answer Sacraments in one place or that they were called by the name of Church or that all Beleevers in some Cities and Countries when they might did meet in one place I will not contend We plead for congregations meeting together Reply not for prayer hearing the Word Sacraments alone but for the executing of censures also 1 Cor. 5.4 which you leave out as if Church censures belonged not to congregations as those Ordinances you mention do And we say that there is no sacred Worship or Institution prescribed in the Gospel which may not be observed to have been exercised in or appertained unto the congregations And these congregations are called Churches in the Scripture And further we say not onely that all beleevers in some cities did meet together in one place but that there can no instance be
ingaged to perform such duties so is any covenant The covenants in Scripture were no such covenants they were applied to Israel and to the Gentiles that should joyn to Israel and appropriated to them also So that they were a separated people from other Nations by covenant Exod. 12.47 48. the Passeover was a service which all the house of Israel was ingaged to perform together and all that would joyn to them and by circumcision they became one people with them but no stranger might partake with them so that the Jewes by the Covenant of God were to serve God rather with this people then with that That a covenant makes a Church with appropriation to this or that Pastor is denied for we hold it a consequent priviledge of a Church whether constituted by verball covenant or not to choose their own Pastor therefore the Church is first before it hath a Pastor this is confessed by your self page 13. if it were not so the Church would be dissolved at the death of the Pastor there is a covenant between the Pastor and people but it is emergent and groweth out and proceeds from the Covenant among the people the people must first be one before they can agree in one to choose their Pastor with whom they afterwards enter into covenant There was a covenant with Abraham and his house by vertue of which Israel was the Lords people in Egypt before there were any Pastors to be over them therefore Church-covenant there was in Scripture without application to Pastors And it was so in the Wildernesse also at the first before Aaron and his sons were chosen To be Gods people Answer and Gods Church is not all one in your sense Forty Believers of no Church or of forty severall Churches are the Lords people but they are not an instituted Church To be one people unto God Reply in a professed solemn way which is done by entring into covenant with God and to be a Church is all one Now this is that which is asserted from Deut. 29.12 13. That thou shouldest enter into covenant with the Lord thy God that be may establish thee this day for a people or one people to himself in a professed way So by the Covenant of circumcision for so it was called because it was the seal of it the Seehemites were to become one people to God and to the seed of Jacob Gen. 34.15 16. No Covenant in Scripture was at the founding of the Jewish Church Answer nor of the Christian Church nor at the adding any members to them neither did they make a Church more truly a Church or politique Society or more truly members but did make them or shew them to be more pure and holy servants of God even as when single persons or families do covenant with God 1. If there were no covenant at the founding of the Jewish church Reply how comes it that all that entred into the Iewish Church of the proselyted Gentiles entred by the Seal of the Covenant which was Circumcision doth not the way of augmentation of the Church shew the way of the first constitution thereof So it may be spoken of Christian Churches why are converted Heathens and the Infants of Church-members brought into the Church by baptisme which is a Church-ordinance and the seal of the Covenant of grace and of that part of it principally which respects Church-society 2. How do those which were many become one among themselves and distinct from all other bodies of the same kinde as Corinth was one in it self and distinct from Cenchrea for parishbounds were not then on foot so that the members of one were not the members of the other nor the Officers of one the officers of the other if there be nothing that knits them together among themselves and divides them asunder from others and if any thing combine them what can it be but some agreement or covenant expresse or implicit Why must circumcision the seal of the Covenant be used to make the Sechemites one people with Jacobs family if Jacobs family or Isaak's or Abrabam's before that were one unto all holy Church-worships among themselves without covenant 3. Did the joyning of the believing Gentiles to the family of Abraham by circumcision make them no more truly members of the church of Israel then they were before only make them and shew them to be more pure and holy servants of God were they not accounted after circumcision of the Jewes Common-wealth and were invested into all the Jewes spirituall priviledges which they had no right to before though they were converted persons and Gods servants 4. We conceive that Abraham and his family were not in Church state and professedly and openly separated from the world till the Covenant in Gen. 17. at which time by a mark in his flesh he was distinguished from all the nations and became Gods houshold if this be so then Church state is founded in Covenant if it be otherwise let it appear that he was in Church state before that time and we shall look out for a Covenant before that time That which induceth us thus to thinke is 1. Because we reade nothing of Abrahams family that they were a professed people unto God before that time 2. We reade not of any Symbole of Church state by which Abrabam and his family were separated from the rest of the world before circumcision which was a token in their flesh to distinguish them from the nations round about them 3. This distinguished him and his family not from the world alone but from other believers of his time Melchisedeck and Lot which though holy men yet not in his state nor had his priviledges But this Argument from circumcision is encountred with in your answer that followes The Covenant in Gen. 17. is taken only for Gods part of the Covenant Answer or his promise to Abraham Gal. 3.16 17. not for mans part to God While you charge us of mis-interpreting the Scriptures Reply it stands you upon to be wary that your self run not into that error Paul Gal. 3.16 with vers 8. as Peter Acts 3.25 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rendered well there and in thy seed seems to make use of the promise of God made to Abraham and his seed in the Covenant Gen. 12.3 and 22.16.18 The Apostle there had no occasion to speak of the restipulation on Abrahams part and in Gen. 17.1.9 't is manifest that that Covenant was reciprocall as Junius and Pareus do observe upon that place but you check your self as if overbold and therefore say Indeed Answer receiving of circumcision doth import a Covenant on Abrahams part or consent to the Covenant as baptisme also doth but it is held they were in Church state before they had right to circumcision therefore you should shew they made a Covenant before circumcision Circumcision being but the sign and seal of the covenant betwixt God and Abraham doth argue necessarily that there was a covenant before Reply of
which it was the sign and seal and we would demand whether Isaac were not in covenant before he was circumcised and whether his circumcision did not seal so much and alwayes this order is supposed First Gods promise Secondly mans faith Thirdly the sign and seal of both in some Symbole of Gods institution so in Baptisme How prove you that Melchisedeck a Priest and Lot Answer which were not of his seed nor family were out of Church-state That a believer is not a son of Abraham if he be not in Church state by covenant which things you seem to imply when you say the Jewish Church was constituted in Abrahams family by church-Church-covenant the family of Sem was the Church of God long before this 1. We assert not that they were out of Church-state Reply but this we say if they were not circumcised as we read not that they were they were not of Abrahams Church nor had the Passeover been on foot could they have partaked of it any more then Believers could afterward who joyned not to Abrahams family Cornelius may be an example 2. It is one thing to be a son of Abraham as a Believer and heire of promise for so all Believers are and an Heathen is when converted before joyned to any instituted Church and another thing to be the son of Abraham as a professed Covenanter with God and bearing the Symbole of it in his flesh in the former sense Abraham was the father of all Believers though uncircumcised and in the latter a father of the circumcised which were also of his faith as the Apostle shewes Rom 4.11.12 3. Though it be probable that there was a Church in the famimily of Sem yet that place Gen. 9.26 27. proves it not for first it is propheticall of the posterity of Sem and Japhet and respects not so far as we can discern the persons of Sem and Japhet at least not at that time being both as is probable in the family of their father Noah Secondly there might be a Church in Sems family and yet of another constitution then this in Abrahams family this hinders not but that the church in Abrahams family might be constituted by covenant POSITION VII Every Member at his admission See the like allegation in Answer to Pos 9. p. 73. doth promise to give himself as to the Lord to be guided by him so to the Church to be guided by them which is no more then the Members of the Church of Macedonia did in a parallel case 2 Cor. 8.5 The givers are not the Members of the Church of Macedonia Answer as you for your advantage phrase it but the Churches of Macedonia and therefore if this do prove Union or Covenant it is of the members of severall churches and not of one only 1. The allegation in answer to the 9th Position Reply pag. 73. runs in these words As to the Lord to be guided by him so to the Church according to God to be guided by them these words according to God are lest out whether wilfully to make the practice of our Churches the more odious or by oversight we conclude not 2. There was no intent to prove Vnion or Covenant of a Church but subjection of each member to the Church to which he is joyned himself and the officers thereof and the practice of the Churches of Macedonia by way of allusion is made use of it is said it is no more then the members of the Church of Macedonia did in a parallel case The Argument is fetcht à comparatis the members of the Church of Macedonia did as much in a like case they gave themselves to the Lord and to the Apostle and Timothy according to Gods will to be guided by the Lord and directed by them a whole Church or Churches to one or two persons gave themselves and an Argument is fetcht thence thus then may one person that is to joyn to a Church as fitly give himself to the Lord to be guided by him and to the whole Church and the Officers thereof to be directed by them according to the will of God and it is urged that a member should therefore promiseit and to call it Church of Macedonia or churches is neither advantagious nor disadvantagious for though many Churches gave themselves to be guided by one Paul because he was Officer to them all yet a members subjection will be only required to his own Church and the Officers thereof because there is no superiority of jurisdiction of one Church over another and the members thereof We believe you would be ready enough to make use of this pattern to prove that the members of a Congregation must submit to the guidance of their Pastors and why do you except against it because subjection of each member to the Church is endevoured to be proved thence seeing that the Church compriseth the Officers thereof POSITION VIII This particular Congregation is a Church before it have Officers Acts 2.47 In a generall sense a few private men without Officers yea Answer a few women without men yea twenty members of severall Churches may be called a Church but a governing Church they are not the Church hath not received an office of rule without her Officers (b) Cottons Keyes p. 16. Reply We take Churches for such churches Reply as the Apostles planted in all places when they had converted any considerable number of persons into which Saints were wont to be gathered that they might be built up and edified by the Ordinances Acts 9.31 and unto which Pastors were given to reside with them and to oversee them Acts 20.28 and these must be Congregationall Churches for Pastors cannot constantly feed any other Or we take Church as Amesius defines it * A company of faithfull ones by speciall bond betwixt themselves joyned together to exercise the communion of Saints constantly amongst themselves Coetus sidelium speciali vinculo inter se conjunctorum ad communionem sanctor um inter se constanter exercendam such an united company is the Church before it have Officers for it is their priviledge to choose their Officers as you confesse in your Answer to the next Position in which sense if in any sense at all a few private men or a few women or twenty members of severall churches have never been called a Church Now whether this Congregationall church be a Governing church or not because it is not asserted in the Position we have no occasion here of discussing it The Church in Acts 2. had Officers Answer and better Officers then any Church now hath even the Apostles which were the Elders of all Churches 1 Pet. 5.1 2 Cor. 11.28 (d) The Apostles were as Elders and Rulers of all Churches Cotton Keys p. 48 and particularly of the Church of Jerusalem and did act therein as Elders it is not all one to want Elders now they are instituted as before ordinary Elders were not appointed at that time There is a
given in all the new Testament that Christians ordinarily meeting together in divers places are yet called one Church except where Church is taken improperly in a distributive sense And therfore in cities where they might and did meet together they are called a Church and in countries where they could not all meet in one but in divers places they are called Churches Many such Churches or Congregations we have in England Answer We say so too Reply and add that either we have such in England or none at all For what other besides such can you shew us And the Beleevers in every Christian Church Answer even in the Church of England and in the Jewish Church also might and did at first meet 1. Reply Can you shew that the Beleevers of any Christian church met onely at first in one place and then afterwards being increased they met not in one place but many places except at some time of hot persecution 2. If Beleevers in England ever met together in one place it was when there was but one congregationall Church in England As for the Jewish Church in it Exo. 34.23.24 Deut. 16.2.16 both at first and afterwards all the males wore to meet by speciall appointment in one place at some seasons though not alwayes and in some ordinances though not all to shew that they were but one Church To say nothing that all the people of the Jewes being about six hundred thousand Answer are called one Congregation and are frequently in the old Testament said to come together and that * One Myriade is 10000. Myriads did come together Act. 21.22 They were one church and therefore did and ought to congregate together and are therefore called one congregation Reply and yet neither they nor those Myriads spoken of Acts 21.22 did then nor can such a number now ordinarily come together Now our Position is to be understood that a Gospel visible church consists of no more then can ordinarily come together into one place nor of so many as sometimes in an extraordinary way have met together How will you make out this Inference The Church of Corinth did meet in one place and so did Antioch Jerusalem Answer therefore no Church in the new Testament must consist of more then can meet in one place You must take the Argument in the scope of it Reply 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 uncontrolled either by precepts or other patterns have doctrine in them and do teach how things ought to be carried To say there was a Church in Adams house and in Noahs Answer and also in Philemons Aquila's and Priscilla's houses therefore the Church in the old and new Testament must be domesticall is an inconsequent illation contrary to plain Scripture We confesse it and for the reason you render Reply because contrary to plain Scripture Now if you could have shewed us the repugnancy to plain Scripture of the inference which you oppugne wee should have confessed a great oversight in it It is one thing and more warrantable to derive an inference from patterns when they all run one way and be patterns of one kind and another thing and lesse safe to draw an inference from patterns when there is diversity of kinds of them about the same thing Is not the Argument as good if it run thus All the believing Corinthians were of the Church of Corinth 1 Cor. 1.1 2 Cor. 6.11 Answer The Smyrnians and Laodiceans of the Church of Smyrna and Laodicea Col. 2.1 4.16 Rev. 2.8 3.14 Whether they were more or fewer Hence in every city and every church seem to expound one another Acts 14.21.23 with Tit. 1.5 Acts 16.4 5. And it cannot be shewed that any church how numerous soever it grew was divided into two or more churches therefore the believers in any one city or town may be but one church whether they can meet in one place or no. No brother not so Reply because as appeares to us there is light of Scripture gain-saying it For though all the believing Corinthians were of the church of Corinth which yet you seem to contradict in the after part of your Answer while you say that Gaius the Corinthian was the host of another church besides that of Corinth which if true then all believing Corinthians were not of the church of Corinth and though in all other cities all the believers of them were of the church in each of them yet such an inference would be naught because it was so for a speciall reason and in regions and countries where that reason took not place it was otherwise All the Believers in Jerusalem 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 Believers in Judea were not of one church there but of many churches because they could not meet constantly in one place And if believers in cities meeting in divers places are yet but one church for this reason because they were of one city as you would seem to inferre then shew but any probable reason why believers meeting in divers places in countries may not be one church because they were of one countrey especially the believers of Judea being but a small countrey 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 believers were so multiplied in any city as that they could not all meet in one place then will we shew you that such churches were divided into more churches Paul writes not only to them which might Answer and did meet in one place but to all that in every place not throughout the world at appeares 2 Cor. 1.1 written to the same persons 1 Cor. 5.1 2. with 2 Cor. 2.1 2. neither is this a Catholique Epistle but that in all Achaia call upon the Name of the Lord. Paul writes and sends this Reply and applieth it to the Corinthianss and to them alone as appears almost in every chapter of the Epistle and in many of the verses of each chapter 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 reproofes directions exhortations are given yet he intended it for the 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 redounds to the world as well as to Achaia
of the Church that is of the church he is of Not forsaking the assembling of your selves together that is no one with his own church that he is of or each church with it self But there is no need of any such figure in the Texts which wee alledge but the literall sense may passe and in some places must passe or there will be no sense For 1. The persons which wee say came together they might do it they were neither so many nor so remote but they might And if the Holy Ghost say they did wee must believe it and not seek a figure when wee are not enforced to it 2. The Text in 1 Cor. 14.23 saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when the whole church comes together Now let the Reader judge whether any of your Texts have any such fulness of words in them to sway to a meeting in one place as this one Text hath which we have brought 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 into one place Especially Answer seeing the Apostle writes to the Achaians 2 Cor. 1.1 1 Cor. 16.1 with 2 Cor. 9.2 11.10 Now there were other churches in that Region at least two Corinth and Cenchrea Rom. 16.1 To say nothing of the church whereof Gaius the Corinthian was the Host 1. Reply Paul writes to the Achaians no otherwise then hee doth to the Saints which call on the name of the Lord Jesus every where 1 Cor. 1.1 with 2 Cor. 1.1 2. Hee writes not to them as making one church with the Corinthians for hee mentioneth them with a note of distinction from the Corinthians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The places which you would have compared will not enforce any such thing For hee might have a scope that the other churches in Achaia from the Epistle hee sent to Corinth which they were to peruse as the Laodicean church was to reade the Epistle written to the Colossians should be stirred up to the same duty of contribution c. So that the onenesse of the Congregation of the church of Corinth is not yet infringed 4. Doth the Apostle write to the Achaians and were there in that Region two churches at least Corinth and Cenchrea why then doth not the Apostle say To the Churches of Achaia as in all other such cases he doth To the churches of Galatia The churches of Judea Macedonia Asia Why is the church of Corinth mentioned and the church at Genchrea wholly silenced in the first Epistle and not mentioned directly and by name in the second Hence there is mention of churches to which the women hee writes to for he saith Your women not women or all women did resort Answer Or how else could they keep selence in the churches 1 Cor. 14.34 1. These Epistles were written for the use and direction of all churches and therefore the Apostle nameth churches Reply because this was to be a standing rule for all churches and by your women the Corinthian women were primarily meant to whom the Epistle was sent yet in regard of use not they alone but they with the women of Achaia and all that call on the name of the Lord Jesus in every place It was a command intended for universall direction for the women of all other churches 2. Women were wont to go from one church to another upon occasion as Rom. 16.1 Phebe from Cenchrea went to Rome so might the Corinthian women go to other churches and in all churches must keep silence 3. Though it he said your women yet it is not said your churches but in the churches that is churches every where and the verse before gives some light hereto For hee had said As in all the churches of the Saints And he addes Let your women keep silence in the churches What churches The churches of the Saints every where POSITION IV. The visible Church in the new Testament is not Nationall as the Iewes was hence we reade of the Churches of Galatia Macedonia ludea not Church of Galatia 1 Cor. 16.1 2 Cor. 8.1 We say not that the Christian Church is Nationall Answer as was the Jewish church viz. that it hath a nationall Tabernacle Temple or House of God and solemne worship peculiar to it to which all the members or all the males must sometimes resort towards which the absent are to pray and in which the Priests in their courses do minister unto God 1. Why do you yet find fault with the Position Reply when you agree with us in the same 2. Why do you not lay down in what sense the Christian church is nationall and in what sense not nationall 3. If in any proper manner of speaking you will have the Christian church nationall meaning by nationall the Saints that live within such a nation as distinguished from the Saints of another nation in countrey and place of habitation without any othertie amongst them being all of them parts only of the Mysticall or Catholique church as wee know the Sea that washeth the British shores is called the British Sea and that which washeth the Belgick shores is called the Belgick Sea though they be not distinct Seas but parts of the great Ocean yet in reference to an adjunct of place they run by they receive distinct denominations and by a Synecdoche the parts carry the names of the whole in this sense we do yeeld the exposition or phrase of nationall church But if you mean by nationall church an instituted church of nationall extent in point of power and jurisdiction upon which particular congregations within that nation do depend wee want light that there is or ought to be any such church in the times of the Gospel For if there ought to be such a nationall church for patterns we have none as your self do confesse then in this church there must be some nationall combination nationall place for convention nationall Pastor upon which it must depend and nationall Ordinances For seeing there was no such church extant when the Gospel was written nor rules left for you would have alledg'd them we suppose had there been any how all things must be carried in such a nationall church what reason can be shewed if such a church must be why there should be a departing from the pattern of the nationall church among the Jewes in which they had all these things Therefore those seem to do best that in thir moulding of their nationall church come neerest to the example of the Jewish church Or if you will have another modell of this nationall church of your owne framing viz. a nation of Assemblies combined together and represented in their officers meeting in one place and consulting the good of the whole and executing authority over the whole then these persons must stand in relation to all and each one of the Assemblies of the Nation under their jurisdiction and so they are Nationall Officers
every one of them and the whole is the flock of each amongst them and each of them hath as full power over the assemblies that he never saw as over that from which he came and which sent him as in the representative civill body every Knight and Buegesse hath the care of the kingdome upon him and each hath equall authority of inspection and decision of matters concerning cities and countries which hee knowes not as of those whence hee came Now if it be so the Question is whether each be not a Passor to every purpose as well as unto one And whether hee be not to feed by doctrine as well as by the rod of discipline all such assemblies which are under his charge Which thing is yet impossible to be done And what warrant there is of non-residencie with the flock unto purposes that do most concern the flock seeing themselves are Christs Ministers and substitutes and have not power of appointing Ministers and substitutes under them and what ground there is why they must joyntly rule all the assemblies but severally teach each man the congregation to which he is designed without care of the rest Or if there be any such combination of assemblies in a Nation what is there to warrant it more then the combination of all Christian assemblies in the world represented in an oecumenicall councell the members of which must be universall Pastors having power over and care of all churches under them For if a Congregationall church must depend upon a Nationall church as the lesser upon the greater then a Nationall church must depend upon the universall as the lesser upon the greater For look what a Nation is to a Congregation that the universall is to a Nation and if Nations may be independent of the universall Congregations may be independent of the Nationall And if an universall visible instituted church be acknowledged why are there not universall representative conventions What a defect is this in Christendome And what a fault that all Christian nations do not endeavour it But we conceive that they are so farre from the endeavouring it that if there were any such though they might make use of them for advice yet they would be loth to subject themselves to the binding decrees of them Nor say wee that the Scriptures do mention a Nationall church Answer for the supreme Magistrate was an enemy to Christian Religion and Regis ad exemplum c. Believers it is like were not so many as to beare the name of a Land or Nation nor could they have liberty safely to meet in Nationall Synods Shew mee a Nation of Magistrates and people converted and I will shew you a Nationall church Ultra posse non est esse whether Nationall churches be lawfull or unlawfull 1. Reply You might have said Shew me a Nation of Magistrates and people converted and I will shew you a Nationall Christian church framed like the Jewish church with one Nationall Bishop over it one Nationall Cathedrall in it c. for so would Prelaticall men and the Pope himself argue No one Nation was converted then and therefore there could be no Nationall Pastor Many nations were not converted then therefore there could be no universall Pastor But what hinders but that there might be afterwards when a Nation and when the world should come to be converted 2. Though there was no Nation converted wholly and therefore as you say no nationall church could be yet Christs will and minde in that matter might easily have been dictated in the Scriptures had he intended any such Church afterwards as Moses tells the Jewes Deut. 12.8 9 10. That they should not do when they should come to Canaan every man what he listeth as they did in the Wildernesse but there should be a place appointed and thither should they bring their offerings and tythes and though there were not Nations converted yet there were so many in a Nation converted as made many Assemblies In little Judea there were Congregations and why together with the Church at Jerusalem might there not have been a Diocesan or Classicall Church There were enough converted for such a purpose But shew the sootsleps of a Diocesan or Classicall Church and it shall serve the turn then wee will yeeld there might in time be a Nationall Arguments taken from the appellation of the word Church Answer or Churches are very unsatisfactory because of the various acceptations of the words Kahal Gnedah Ecclesia Synagoga which we sometimes translate Church but should alwayes translate Convocation or Congregation a company called out or gathered together In this answer you labour to overthrow our Argument Reply for Congregationall churches setched from the appellation of the Apostle when he speaks of Countries and Provinces where more Congregations were he calls them perpetually churches in the plurall number and not church by these suggestions rather then arguments 1. That the words Kahal Gnedah Ecclesia Synagoga should alwayes be translated Convocation a company called out or gathered together if this be yeelded wherein it will advantage you we know not A nationall Convocation or Congregation or gathering together will sound harsher then a nationall Church for every one knows that we have no Nationall Congregation in England But 2. You suggest The English word church Saxon Cyrick and Scots Kirk Answer are derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Cambd. Rem or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Sr. Hen. Spelm. which as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth the place of meeting Hence we reade of robbers of Churches or Temples Acts 19.37 Kahal whence our English word call is sometimes Metonymically understood of the place The Heathen enter into the Sanctuary which God hath forbidden to enter into the Church Lam. 1.10 with Deut. 23.3 Nehem. 13.1 To come together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is if it be rightly translated to come together in one place and so Ecclesia is opposed to the buildings or houses in which they did eat and drink 1 Cor. 11.19 20 21 22. Synagoga is evidently taken for the place of meeting Luke 7.5 Acts 18.7 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the proper signification Reply is appertaining to the Lord and may more properly relate to people appertaining to the Lord then to place because the people do more appertain to the Lord then the place 2. Though Kahal once perhaps and Synagoga oftener may be understood of the place yet Ecclesia never That place in Acts 19.37 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 robbers of Temples not Churches That place in 1 Cor. 11.18 When yee come together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not to be rendered in one place Pareus upon those words utterly denies it And there is good reason why they should rather be referred to the people as a church then to the place For the meaning is when yee meet in the church when yee meet as the church that is to perform Church-work For they
Gnedah be taken as they may there was but one kinde of Church so combined which was Nationall And in the new Testament we say there is no other combination to enjoy all ordinances and worships instituted in the Gospel but Congregationall and we produce the small countrey of Judea containing a plurality of Churches and thence collect that they must be Congregations and that Congregations are therefore Churches And this is not weakened by what variety of acceptions is brought Furthermore wee do not know that Church or Flock or Lump or Body when referred to God and Christ and is properly taken is used otherwise then in two or three senses either for the mysticall Church Ephe. 5.25 26. or the * 2 Cor. 8.1.19 Congregationall 1 Cor. 1.1 sometimes indeed Rev. 1.4 we reade of it in a sigurative sense as in 1 Cor. 12.28 Gal. 5.9 James 2.2 1 Pet. 5.2 and many more places For though you say That four or five in a Family joyning in the worship of God are the Domesticall Church spaken of by Paul many times in his Epistles yet we conceive otherwise for seeing usually when there were any heads of Families converted some of the houshold were converted with them as we can give many instances wee think that many or the most that Paul saluted had in that sense churches in their Families and therefore Paul would not have singled out and with a note of distinction have spoken of some persons and the churches in their Families for that reason if some other reason had not moved him either then these Families were large and great Families and might be as numerous as some Congregationall Churches or the foundation of a Church might be laid in the persons of a Family but not so to continue but to grow to a Congregation or else some Congregationall Church might meet in such houses which was ordinary in those dayes And for the word Church in Acts 12. either it is to be taken for the mysticall church or else for that particular visible society of Believers which was at Jerusalem though some of them were absent But you proceed to give more particular answers and incounter with a part of the forementioned Position viz. There were Churches in Galatia therefore they were Congregationall Galatia was a large countrey in England a far lesse countrey Answer severall Churches have been heretofore and yet not meerly Congregationall And why are Galatia and Macedonia taken hold of Reply and made use of and Judea left out which in the Position was mentioned as well as they Surely the reason was because in both those countries there was more room for your Nationall Church then in Judea You could not find breadth enough to make a plutality of Diocesan Churches and therefore durst not contend for Nationall But grant wee the largeness of those countries according as you speak were either of them too large to make one Nationall Church wee know you think not so Why then doth not the Apostle knit them all up into one Nationall Church if hee had so intended them But you add The Churches of Galatia might he combined one to another Answer as the Churches of England Scotland Holland France are respectively combined for the Apostle speaks of them as one lump 1 Cor. 5.6 with Gal. 5.9 c. Such a combination wee easily grant to be among the Churches of Galatia as is among the Churches of England Scotland Reply c. and that is none at all or at the most a combination without jurisdiction But if by respectively you mean a combination which each of these Churches hath in it self in all the Congregations of and belonging to it such a combination wee deny to have been in the Churches of Galatia For all our Congregations have been united under one Metropolitane Archbishop of all England and as yet there is none other established and for other combinations such as in Scotland Holland c. without proofe we cannot grant them in Galatia And if Paul had intended by saying A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump that we should gather thence that they were all one Church hee would never have called them churches in the Preface of his Epistle but in a distributive sense it is to be understood For suppose one speak in a literall sense and say a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump doth he thereby make all the dough in a countrey 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 countrey to be one And the Churches of Macedonia were not so severall Answer but they joyned in one to choose a Brother which I conceive was an authoritative act to go with Paul for the managing of the Churches contributions 2 Cor. 8.18 19. 1. Reply Then to choose an Officer is much more an authoritative act which you grant to appertain unto the people then the people may act authoritatively which is none of our assertion but yours and the people are beholden to you for it 2. A combination of churches without jurisdiction will enable them to such an act nay if there were no combination at all yet when many churches are alike interessed in a businesse reason shews they ought to joyn alike to promove it 3. They did not make him an Officer by this act of choosing him but they deputed him thereby to a particular work which when accomplished all was ended The churches of Judea Answer consisting of Myriads of people did come together Acts 21.20 21 22. to be satisfied of Paul concerning an accusation that they had received against him and are called a Church Gal. 1.13 Acts 12.1 and an House Heb. 3.4 Not the Jewes of Judea alone did gather together Reply but the Jews of all other parts as appeareth from Acts 21.27 But be it that they gathered alone yet are they called one Church the place alledged is Gal. 1.13 I persecuted the Church of God What Church Churches in Judea No Paul saith hee persecuted them unto strange cities and Damascus was one of them The meaning is them that were of Jerusalem he persecuted to strange cities or he persecuted the Saints in generall Who as they are parts of the mysticall Church may be called by a Synecdoche the Church And Herod stretched out his hands to vex certain of the Church What church Either the mysticall or that at Jerusalem or any Church within his reach And his house Heb. 3.4 to be understood of the churches of Judea What strange mis-interpreting of Scripture is this house in that place is all the churches that were then or ever were to be in the world Christ is the builder of them all POSITION V. When a visible Church is to be erected This is not unlike the Answer to 32. q. p.
8 9. the matter of it should be visible Saints and Believers 1 Cor. 1.2 True so it should when an Army is to be raised a City begun Answer a Family set up much more when a Church is to be erected or continued the matter of them should be visible yea reall Saints beloved of God elect blessed Deut. 38.14 Isai 1.21.26 Acts 16.34 Rom. 1.7 Ephes 1.1.2 3.4 And we heartily wish they were all such 1. The meaning of the Position is this Reply Visibility of Saintship is requisite to warrant the setting upon such an action as erecting of a Church else the action for the nature of it is naught might not be performed Better no Church erected then not of visible Saints The rule is broken sin committed Is this granted by you If so why is the position quarrelled at seeing it is all that is asserted 2. But why do you jumble these actions together The raising of an Army the erecting of a City the setting up of a Family and the erecting of a Church As if they were actions of a like nature As if visibility of Saintship to them all were of like necessity Do you conceive that the matter of an Army must either be visible Saints or there must be no Army raised The matter of a city visible Saints or no city erected Doth the nature of those actions necessarily require any such qualification in the subject persons performing them that without such qualifications the subject persons are in a state of incapacity according to Gods true scope and intention to set upon such actions Wee know you hold it not Heathens may raise Armies and wage war and not sin because they do so if the cause be just They may erect cities and remain Heathens still and not sin because they do so for it may be their duty so to do but may they erect a Church to God and remain Heathens and not sin in doing so An Atheist and prophane wicked person may buy and sell and labour in his Calling and not sin because he doth so because it is his duty but may he be one to erect a Church of and to partake in the seal of the Lords Supper and be an Atheist and visible person still without sin Men need not be Believers and Saints to warrant them to perform civill actions or some religious actions for irreligious wicked persons while in that state are called to them but to do them with acceptation and so as to be accounted righteous in the doing of them they must be Believers and Saints But to erect a Church which is Christs body and is called to have communion with Christ in his body and blood in that Supper which he instituted is an action of another nature and requires faith and holinesse in the persons that constitute it to warrant the constitution of it For Church state being holy and the Ordinance of it holy either the subject persons must be holy also or all will be grievously prophaned and God foully dishonoured But why do you say They should not only be visible but reall Saints except it be to cast another mist before the eyes of the ignorant For if an Army were to be raised to fight on the Purliament side against the Cavaliers you would say it must consist of visible friends which seem sincere and cordiall else let it not be raised at all but you would not say it must consist of reall friends for then it would not be raised at all For if it must consist of reall friends God must be the raiser of it and not man who alone knoweth who are reall friends So of a Church if it must consist only of reall friends God alone must erect it and man must not meddle with it And though we reade these phrases Beloved of God Elect blessed yet either they received these denominations from the judgement of Charity because they seemed to be such as Phil. 1.7 or if there were infallibility it was applicable only to a party within the Churches whom the Apostle discerned to be such and not to the whole Church Yet we dare not use unscripturall wayes and means for the procuring and preserving of Church-members sanctity Answer To be wise and holy above the rule is to be foolish prophane presumptuous superstitious Could you shew us out of Scripture that the Church must examine persons that come to be admitted and that they must make any other declaration then professing of faith and repentance and that the Congregation ought to reject such of whose sincerity and sanctity they are not satisfied and that the want of this care in the first constitution of a Church doth nullifie it or make it unlawfull for men to joyn to it or continue in it and that it is necessary to know that a Church was constituted of visible Saints before he can in faith joyn to it we should not differ about the sanctity of the members Here is a deep charge of some things practised by us Reply to preserve the Churches sanctity and purity to be foolish prophane superstitious and presumptuous And there are instances given in examination of persons whether there be the works of Grace wrought in their hearts or no c. We answer for our selves First there are some things fathered upon us which we hold not as 1. That there must be some further declaration besides profession of faith and repentance We contend for no such thing but conceive profession of faith and repentance if in the judgement of charity it may be accounted reall if there be any thing that may serve to give witnesse unto it that it is not meerly verball may be judged sufficient 2. That the want of care to try the sincerity and sanctity of men doth nullifie the Church This is an opinion which we renounce as none of ours 3. That we must know that a Church was constituted of visible Saints before we can in faith joyn to it We hold flatly against such an assertion and do believe a judgement may be made from the present faith and order which any Church holds forth whether it be safe or unsafe to joyn to it or to continue in it Secondly there are other things which some Churches hold and practise which we think cannot be condemned As that a Church must examine persons that come to be admitted whether the work of grace be wrought within them or not Your self will now admit none of whom you doubt to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper till you have first examined them of their knowledge and why may not we examine them of their grace Is the Lords body discerned by knowledge most or by grace Faith is a grace and faith is the best discerner of the Lords body and if we can but finde grace we shall be sure to finde knowledge The Scripture saith Let a man examine himself yet you think not that sufficient unlesse you examine him if it be no Scripturall way to examine others why will
you be so soolish prophane presumptuous superstitious A stranger comes to the gate of a Garrison town professeth to be a friend yet except there be something to witnesse the truth of that profession he is examined over and over again and it is strictnesse that shewes faithfulnesse to the State And shall we be more remisse and carelesse when we receive persons into the Church then we are when we receive them into a town Our too much credulity may shew too little fidelity in the matters of Christ as well as in the businesse of men Besides if the Church be not a common receptacle of all persons but that it consist of a selected number and some are received and others rejected then there are certain rules of reception and rejection And then there must be a triall made by some whether persons be qualified according to those rules and this the light of nature teacheth and the rules of Reason lead to it though there should be nothing in the Scripture expresly mentioning it The most sutable means serving most fitly to atchieve such ends are alwayes enjoyned in the ends though they be not particularly expressed But what think you Is it not as lawfull to try persons that would be Church-members and make some profession in words of saith and repentance but hold forth nothing which may probably give witnesse to the reality thereof as it was lawfull and commendable in the Ephesians to try false Apostles which professed in words to be true Apostles Rev. 2.2 And is it not as reasonable for a Church to seek satisfaction concerning the reality and sincerity of sanctity from persons of whom they doubt as it was just and equall for the Church at Jerusalem to seek satisfaction concerning Saul whether he were a Disciple in truth or in pretence only Acts 9.26 27. But you will say there was cause of suspicion and jealousie in them concerning him because they knew him formerly to be a destroyer of the Church And may not we say there is cause of jealousie when we know externall profession of faith and repentance to be so common and the fruits which are worthy of it Mat. 3.8 to be so rare and scarce to be found If the Gospel and Christian Religion was brought into England in the Apostles times then it was like it was constituted of Saints Answer Church-covenant p. 37. as well as the Church of Corinth c. Because it is uncertain what Congregation was at first constituted of Saints within this kingdome and what was not Reply we neither justifie nor condemn the constitution of any but judge according to the present state of them And if we see any visible Saints as doubtlesse there are many in some Congregations and united also amongst themselves we could wish they were all such and in the mean time for the sake of those few whom we see so united we acknowledge them a Church and in all things so farre as they carry the ordinances uncorruptly we desire to have fellowship with them The Text in 1 Cor. 1. rather shewes what the members of the Church of Corinth were at the time of Pauls writing to them Answer then that they were on ought to have been visible Saints at the first erection of that Church yet it shewes not that all the Church-members he writes to were visible Saints for many known evill livers were known Members The denomination of Saints is a parce meliore that is from the better part c. The Text shewes what they either were at first Reply or ought to have been or what some of them were at that time and ought all of them to have been viz. sanctified in Christ called to be Saints as Hemingius Gualter Pareus upon that place do note for they say a definition of a Church may thence be fetched And what rule soever there is in Scripture requiring that any be Saints the same rule requires that all be Saints And there may many Arguments be brought to hold it forth 1. The end of Church-fellowship is not conversion but edification Ephes 4.11 12. Acts 9.31 For if it were conversion then all uncoverted ones whether they make profession of faith and repentance or no might enter in that thereby they might attain one end for which they enter as we know Because one end of the preaching of the Word is conversion therefore all may partake of it Jewes Turks Heathens because they may attain one end whereto it serves It is supposed then that the persons that enter into the Church are converted already 2. Excommunication is an ordinance in the Church and one end of it is to recover persons that are desperately sick and ready to die it is in the use of it as physick 1 Cor. 5.5 and therefore supposeth the persons to whom applied to be alive therefore all Church-members are to be reputed in the judgement of charity to be living stones 1 Pet. 2.5 3. If excommunication be an ordinance to throw forth visible sinners of all sorts then the Church should consist of visible Saints 1. It appeareth that all scandalous grosse sinners ought to be cast out from 1 Cor. 5. and that all other sinners which are not seandalous if they will not be healed of their lesser faults and brought to repentance ought to be duly proceeded against untill at last it come to an excommunication Matth. 18.15 16 c. He writes to the Church called to be Saints Answer or called Saints not to the Saints called to be a Church or to the Church constituted of Saints which expression rather of the two proves there was a Church before they were Saints See vers 1. Paul called to be an Apostle then that they were Saints before they were a Church He writes to the Church of God Reply and can there be a Church of God before there be Saints What a Church of God is that which had no visible Saints in it when it was first constituted Surely except you will say they were a Church of God while they were Heathens you must confesse that professing to be turned by the power of the Gospel in a time of persecution from the service of Idols to imbrace the living God in Christ they must be judged visible Saints at the first when they were a Church of God And these words Paul called to be an Apostle will not avail you for Paul was a man and a Christian too before an Apostle but what would you have the Church of God to be before they were visible Saints But how appeareth it that all the honourable Titles and Epithets given Paul Answer are given with relation to Church-members The Corinthians were enriched by God in all utterance c. Will you thence conclude that all Church-members must be so c. There are some names which shew the intrinsecall nature of the things to which they are given Reply and they do agree to all of that kinde As if one should write to the Army of
there is any compact betwixt Ministers and the Church how much the Ministers must have before the work be begun but it is the consultation of the Church after the work hath been performed or a consideration for the yeer past when they all agree that if there be not enough in the slock of the Church to raise it up to an honourable allowance by the voluntary gift of each yet according as God hath blessed them Otherwise were it an agreement aforehand it would be as lawfull for two or three yeers as for one But how you will answer your mis-interpreting and mis-reporting of T. W. in the page you cite wherein he doth expresse himself as we have shewed we understand not POSITION XV. There must be in the Church Teachers This for substance is alledged by Answ to 32. q. p. 75. and many others distinct from Pastors as Apostles are distinct from Euangelists Ephes 4.11 That Text proves not the same distinction between them for he saith Answer Some Apostles and some Prophets c. but not some Pastors and some Teachers but some Pastors and Teachers or rather these Apostles these Prophets these Euangelists these Shepheards and Teachers which words seeme but to explicate one another as Shepheard and Bishop do 1 Pet. 2.25 You crosse the opinion of many Orthodox modern Writers Reply while you speak contradictorily to us for it is not our tenent alone but the judgement of many learned ones that they are distinct Offices Whether you translate some Apostles or these Apostles the matter is not weighty nor are you advantaged by it The greater question is who these Teachers be and what their work is whether they be School Doctors as Junius * Jun. Eccles lib. 2. cap. 5. p 1955 thinks and so their work to train up the youth of the Church in the knowledge of Arts and Sciences especially of Divinity for the service of the Church or whether they be Teachers of the whole Church and their work to doctrinate the Church by words of knowledge The latter seems to be more consonant to the Scripture then the former Rom. 12.7 8. 1 Cor. 12.8 And Zanchy Pareus Bucer and many others are of this judgement Zanchy's words are these There are only five orders of Ministers in the Church Zanc. de Feel milit gubernatione tom 8. p. â—4â— instituted by Christ and then under this Position are these words We acknowledge not more kindes of Ministers then the Apostle expresseth in Ephes 4.11 Apostles Euangelists Prophets Pastors Teachers The three first were not tied to places but were sometimes here and sometimes there either to gather Churches or to govern them to plant or to water them The two latter viz. Pastors and Teachers he would have to be set apart for the conservation and government of particular Churches as also for the augmentation and propagation of them Pareus upon Rom. 12.7 hath these words Now he under puts two kindes of prophecies the gift of teaching which is proper to the Doctor or Teacher the gift of exhorting which is proper to the Pastor of the Church for Paul in Ephes 4. distinguisheth Pastors and Teachers and the gifts of the Spirit were distinct for to some were given a most cleere revelation and understanding of doctrine these did attend to the explication of the heads of Religion and did form the faith of the Church to others was given a faculty of exhorting Bucer also upon Rom. 12.7 saith thus One man hath the gift of propecie another hath the gift of ministring so the person that teacheth having the gift of teaching in doctrine so the person that exhorteth the person that teacheth he makes distinct from the person that exhorteth endued with the gift of exhortation and then he mentions the Deacon and Ruling Elder as distinct with their gift from the rest So that if we do put any false glosse upon the Scriptures by mis-interpreting of Ephes 4.11 yet more modest language had becomed you brother seeing such Reverend Learned men whom your self so much honour have gone before us in the exposition POSITION XVI This particular Congregation is Sion This Text is frequently alledged in answ to 32. q. and others which God loveth and he hath promised to be present Matth. 18.20 No Sir it is not Sion but one of the assemblies of Sion Isai 4.5 Answer The Hebrewes which were divided in many Congregations are not said to be come into many mount Sions but to Mount Sion Heb. 12. The Scripture warrants not the expression of an hundred or a thousand Sions Sion was a mountain contiguous unto Moriah Reply upon which the Temple was built in which God vouchsafed a speciall presence and unto which the Tribes went up and by a Metonymie it is frequently put for the Temple that was built neer to it and by another Metonymie it is put for the people that repaired thither and assembled there and so for the Church of the Jewes which Church in the times of the old Testament consisted of many assemblies and yet it self was but one Church and the Temple also was but one which was called Sion and so Sion while the Temple was to stand and the Church of the Jewes was to continue 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 and not Nationall much lesse universall as hath been proved therefore the Congregationall church is Sion therefore the speciall place of Gods presence 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 Isai 66.20 21. So when Sion in the new Testament is spoken of in Isaiah 4.5 there may be an allusion in phrase and manner of speaking to Sion in the old Testament We may as well reade of the assemblies of Sion though there be no such thing but each assemblie is Sion as of the Feast of Tabernacles when yet in the dayes of the Gospel there is no such thing as a feast of Tabernacles but it is spoken by way of allusion the things of the new Testament are set forth to us under the shadowes of the old therefore because Sion was then but one it is spoken of as one still and yet it is more then one Now that there are many mounts Sions your self doth really confesse though in words you contradict it 1. We know you hold that the Church of the Jews in the dayes of the old Yestament was called Sion 2. We know you hold that the visible Church in the dayes of the Gospel is Sion 3. 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 Your own words are that the Hebrews which were divided in many Congregations
are said to be come to one mount Sion If so then the Congregations of the Christian Gentiles may well be another mount Sion And if the Nationall church of the Jewes with the assemblies thereof were mount Sion why may not every Nationall-church of Christians with the assemblies thereof we speak now in your language be Sion also and then there being many Nationall churches as you say there are many Sions And what greater absurdity is it to say there are an hundred or a thousand Sions then to say there are an hundred or a thousand Churches Seeing Sion and Church are all one Now you know there were many visible churches in Judea Galatia Macedonia Asia and many other places and if then so many how many more now therefore many Sions and because those many churches then and these now we believe to have been and still to be Congregationall therefore every Congregationall Church we hold to be Sion But you ask an odde strange needlesse to say no worse of it question with a great deal of vehemency Answer viz. Have you not found God present in our Assemblies Have you not by faith closed with the promises in the use of the Ordinances among us Speak out I know you dare not belie your selves us and God himself c. Reply Your question is bottomed upon a mistake when we say that God hath promised to be present in Sion you give this glosse upon it that we deny all your Assemblies to be Sion and will not grant Gods presence at all to be with you and that we appropriate Sion and Gods presence to our selves which is a great injury to us You also put this sense upon our words that God is so present in Sion that he is present no where else and so not present with holy men and women which are out of Church-fellowship nor present with members of many churches meeting together which either is a foul mistake or a slander For we think God to be present with his people when they meet in his feare whether they be Church-members or not Church-members whether they be of one or many churches whether they be in our assemblies or yours provided that his Ordinances be carried according to his minde yea though there should be some error yet he might give his presence (a) Rev. 2.1 with Rev. 2.14.20 Much rather do we think God will be present with persons whom he sets on work to exalt him in the execution of some office as he did the Apostles and now doth ordinary Elders Neverthelesse we conceive God to be most present with his people gathered into a body and compacted together in an instituted Church which we hold to be Congregationall and the reason is because the more any people do fall into the order of the Gospel and come into the way of Christ which he hath appointed for Saints to walk in the more Christ is ingaged to be present with them Now to joyn to some instituted Church of Christ is that way and order which Christ hath directed to therefore with them in such a way as so united and joyned Christ will more especially be present for he vouchsafeth a speciall presence amongst such Churches Rev. 2.1 he styles himself one that walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks he walks in other places and people but he would intimate thus much that his especiall delightsome walk is among them and the more golden the candlesticks are the more pure they be the more delight he takes to walke in the midst of them But Matth. 18. you say is mis-interpeted Your words are these Answer Christ in Matth. 18. promiseth his presence to those that are not a Church for two or three will not make a Church they vers 17 were to give the second admonition the Church the third There is a figure in the number Reply there is 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 Christs presence Pareus upon this Text hath these words It is an argument that the judgement of the Church shall be ratified because Christ himself will be present in the Church 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 we shall lesse doubt our exposition having so learned a Commentator so well approved of to stand by us in the same POSITION XVII So long as a Believer doth not joyn himself to some particular Congregation he is without in the Apostles sense 1 Cor. 5.12 Those without Answer of whom the Apostle speaketh were unbelievers Pagans and Heathen without Christ as well as without the visible Church Let it be granted that those whom the Apostle speaks of were both without Christ Reply and without the visible Church yet it may be securely affirmed that the Apostle speaks of them under the notion of such as were without the visible church and not of those that were without Christ 1. Singuli de suâ familia judicant non immittunt consuram in alienam samiliam Ergo in Ecclesia similis servetur ratio ut singulae desuit membris judicent Aretius in 1 Cor. 5. Because those without whom the Apostle had not to do to judge stand in opposition to those within vers 12. the latter part whom the Church of Corinth had to do to judge and consequently if this exposition of yours be true the judgement of the Church of Corinth extended as far as the ultima Thule the lands end of Christianity and only ceased when it came to the consines of Paganisme and consequently any one Church hath power to judge any one Believer in all the world because say you he is not without in the Apostles sense that is to say he is not a Pagan Heathen or unbeliever 2. Suppose the Apostle had known a member of the Church of Corinth what ever he appeared outwardly in the frame of his conversation to be indeed without Christ 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 We suppose you will say he might and if so we demand why should a Church-unbeliever be subject to the Apostles judgement and an Heathenish unbeliever be exempted from the Apostles judgement If Church-membership did not make the one obnoxious to that spirituall judgement more then the other For in the notion of unbelievers and without Christ they both agree and therefore if a Heathen were exempted from judgement because without Christ and not for this reason because without the visible Church why should not a Church-unbeliever be exempted as well as a Heathen 2. If we mistake not a Believer not joyned to any particular congregation is without in reference to Church-judgement and we suppose by vertue of this Text in your Presbyterian
calculation of Ecclesiasticall power For Classicall Provinciall and Nationall Synods have a power of judging or excommunicating those only that are within the combination Now these being representative Churches he that is of no particular Congregation is without the verge of Presbyteriall power or else it will follow that the Presbyteriall Church hath power to excommunicate a person that is not within their combination and if one by the same reason a thousand ten thousand in every quarter and corner of the world But say you The Apostle opposeth Fornicators of the World Answer and Fornicators that are Brethren Persecution in the Primitive times as it is at this day was chiefly if not only levied against those who did joyn themselves to the Churches to the enjoyment of Ordinances Reply or at least otherwise visibly as Paul at his first conversion by preaching declared themselves to be Christs Disciples Hence those to whom God had given so much faith and constancy as to be willing to expose themselves to persecution these did inlist themselves in the Churches frequented their meetings which were observable by the Persecutors and professed themselves of the fraternity of the Church the Church looked on them as her members and accordingly dispensed ordinances and censures to them as they had need Others there were who like Nicodemus came to Christ by night or like those chief Rulers spoken of Joh. 12.42 who though they believe in Christ yet they dare not confesse him by publike joyning of themselves to run all hazards with the Church Hence it is that no politick visible Church doth look upon these as of her fraternity or doth dispence all ordinances and censures to them Now the Brother that is opposed to the fornicators of the world is not he that by the internall and invisible grace of faith is a Brother and of the mysticall body of Christ though peradventure he dare not openly professe Christ But such a one is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Church of Corinth who is a named and professed Brother so looked upon not only by the motherly eye of the Church but oft times by the malitious eye of the world though peradventure they be not truly brethren united with the rest of the faithfull people of God as members of the mysticall body of Christ 2. With such a one not to eat presupposeth in an orderly way a forbearing of voluntary civil and spirituall communion with the party upon this ground that he is under censure in the Church Now the power of Church-censures is not to be executed by the church-mysticall but by the church-church-visible as such neither is it to be executed upon the members of the Church-mysticall as such but upon the members of the visible church whether they be in truth or only in appearance members of the mysticall church So then Fornicators of the world are to be understood of the world as it stands in opposition to the visible church and so those that are of the mysticall church may be fornicators of the world in that sense And though by the lawes of Christ concerning Church-discipline every man be forbidden to eat with those that are known Fornicators under church-censure in their own church and by vertue of church-communion with those that are fornicators under censure in any other church yet if one that is a member of the mysticall but dares not professe his subjection to Christ in that particular of joyning himself to some visible church shall be a fornicator we know no law of Christ precisely concerning church-discipline that interdicts a man to eat in point of voluntary civill communion with such a man any more then if he were a Pagan or Heathen But Answer say you without are Dogs and Sorcerers such as the Apostle had not to do with What have I to do c. vers 12. and yet he had to do with all Christians by his illimited apostolike power whether they belong to that or any other Congregation or no such as God judgeth or are left to the immediate judgement of God But this is not the case of Believers not joyned especially in your sense of joyning to a particular Congregation nor do you I hope judge it to be the case of Believers in England and Scotland 1. Reply There might be Dogs in the Apostolike Churches as well as without Phil. 3.2 and with such dogs Paul had to do with Nay he had to do with the dogs of the Gentiles he received a key of knowledge by which he was to open the Kingdome of heaven to them in case they would repent and believe and to binde them under the guilt of impenitencie and infidelity in case they would not repent and believe Matth. 28.19 with Mark 16.16 But those that Paul had not to do to judge who are said to be without in this place are all such as are contradistinguished to those that are within with whom the Church had to do by way of Ecclesiasticall judgement Now the church of Corinth had power of Ecclesiasticall judgement over all and only those which were within the combination of that church and therefore Paul had nothing to do to judge them that is to say with the judgement mentioned in this place which were out of this combination Now what was this judgement Answ The judgement whereby the Apostle decrees that the church of Corinth shall excommunicate fornicators and consequently shall not eat with them Now the Apostle had received no such power to judge those persons to excommunication and that by the ministery of a church that were never in fellowship with the church But such persons though for their crimes they may be subject to the judgement of the civill Magistrate yet in respect of Ecclesiasticall judgement they are left to the immediate judgement of God And if this be not the case of Believers not joyned to a particular congregation by whom shall those Believers be judged Why shall this Congregationall Classicall Provinciall National-church judge them rather then that May they be judged by all or any one Certainly 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 We said before if a church may judge one out the combination why not a thousand why not ten thousand c. yet we are far from judging those Believers in England and Scotland which are not joyned in our Way of joyning to a particular Congregation therefore to be altogether out of Church-combination not capable of the Ecclesiasticall judgement of their Churches and consequently subject to the immediate judgement of Christ POSITION XVIII The Elders are not Lords over Gods heritage 1 Pet. 5.3 nor do exercise authority as the Kings and Princes of the earth do remembring our Saviours lesson Matth. 20.25 26 Luke 22.25 26. They are not so many Bishops striving for preeminence Answer as Diotrephes did 3 Joh. vers 9 10. (a) These Scriptures
Princes might preach but as King and Princes gifted and singularly stirred up to the work by Almighty God That a King and Princes eminently gifted and stirred up by an internall prothumie and desire wrought upon their spirits to preach is of perpetuall use in all such cases of defection as was in Jehosaphats time Nor will this confound the matters of God and the Kings matters But still the Priests and Levites shall preach ordinarily by vertue of Office and the King and Princes only occasionally by vertue of gifts And as they may preach themselves in all such cases so they may send forth eminently gifted men though the Churches through corruption should neglect or refuse to call them and this belongs to Civill Magistrates as they are custodes utriusque tabulae Neither are Kings or those sent out by them limited to particular Congregations but may call the people to such places and at such times as they shall judge most to tend to edification Thus Joshua called all Israel to Sechem Josh 24.1 and preached unto them before his death They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD as the waters cover the Sea Isaiah 11.9 Thus saith JEHOVAH Stand ye in the wayes and see and ask for the old paths where is the good way and walk therein and ye shall find rest for your souls Jeremiah 6.16 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing nor uncircumcision but a new creature And as many as walk according to this rule Peace be on them and mercy and upon the Israel of God Gal. 6.15 16. A TABLE of the Texts of Scriptures cited Discussed and cleared from mis-interpretations in this BOOK GENESIS 9. vers 26 27. Whether a Church in Sems family page 43 Gen. 12.3 22.16.18 with Gal. 3.17 as Acts 3.25 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 42 Gen. 17.1.9 Whether it was a covenant only on Gods part p. ibid. EXODUS 12.3.21 Whether the word Congregation and Elders are all one there p. 53 Exod. 12.47 Ingaged by covenant to serve God together page 40 Exod. 34.23 24. All the Churches males must meet together for worship in one place page 14 NUMBERS 8.9 10. with vers 6 7 13 14 18 19. All the Congregation must lay hands on the Levites how page 52 44 55 Numb 11.29 I wish all could prophesie page 125 128 Numb 25. Phinehas his zeal Hence Gods covenant with him and his ergo page 49 DEUTERONOMY 16.2.16 See Exod. 34.23 All males to meet page 14 Deut. 29.1.10.12 Whether a covenant makes a Church page 37 39 40 2 KINGS 2.3.5 Gods will revealed by Prophets and others page 122 2 CHRONICLES 17.7 Princes sent to teach the people page 118 2 Chron. 20.25.20 King Jehosaphat prayeth and teacheth Israel page 118 NEHEMIAH 10.38 Levites were tythed Tythes are a Jewish maintenance page 61 PSALME 30.7 My Mount so strong What page 68 Psal 46.2 Mountains into Sea what it signifieth ibid. Psal 74.4.8 Burnt up Synagogues What page 26 ISAIAH 4.5 Gospel-church is called Sion page 71 Isai 61.20 Gospel in Old-Testaments language ibid. Isai 9.6 7. Christ is the churches King page 104 JEREMIAH 51.25 Fire signifies oppositions page 68 HOSEAH 2.2 Members may plead with the Church page 59 ZACHARIAH 4.7 What is that great Mountain page 68 Zach. 14.19 Gospel in Old Testaments language page 71 MALACHI 3.8 Tithes as offerings are Jewish page 61 MATTHEW 16.19 Of Church-binding and loosing page 89 90 Mat. 18.17 Tell the Church What Church it is p. 2 36 Not a Classicall nor Nationall church c. page 86-89 Mat. 18.20 A Church is Sion and hath the promises to it page 71 73 Mat. 20.25 26. Ministers are not Lords page 78 79 Mat. 28.19 20. In that Commission to the Apostles is no mention of ordination nor in that Mar. 16.15 16. page 56 57 Was not given to them as Apostles page 91 MARK 12.41 The use of the Church treasurie page 67 LUKE 8.2 3. Christ received contribution page 62 Luke 22.25 26. Ministers are not as Lords page 78 79 81 JOHN 8 20. Church treasury for what page 67 Joh. 13.29 From contribution was distribution page 62 Joh. 20.23 The Key given Peter with the rest page 92 ACTS 1.15 A few begin a Church page 9 12 13 Act. 1.15.23 A Church hath full power to choose her own officers page 46 11 9 Act. 1.26 By common vote or suffrage page 49 Act. 2.4.10 Gifts make not officers page 128 V. 40. The Church was separated page 2 48 Vers 41. Whether they they were a church before page 10 13 V. 45. Whole estates put into the common stock page 62 V. 47. A Church before Officers page 45 Act. 4.35 Selling whole estates not binding to all times but extraordinary page 62 Act. 4.17.19.21 5.28 29. Preaching when men forbid to obey Christ page 6 Act. 4.26 Took counsell together how page 19 Act. 5.28 29. Obey and hearken to God most page 1 2 3 4 6 Act. 6.1 Of the Deacons office page 62 Vers 3. The Church must look out seven men page 46 51 Act. 6.4 Prayer one work of a Minister page 57 62 Act. 8.4.12 Preaching without office page 119 Act. 9.26 27. Satisfaction of members before they be received in page 34 Vers 31. The head of Church-fellowship is not conversion but edification page 35 Act. 11.19 Jews were first preached to page 2 Ver. 19. Some not in office may preach page 118 V. 20.21 Some converted others gathered them page 4 Act. 13.2 3. Paul set apart by God and the Church page 49 Act. 14.23 Churches before officers to them page 46 Act. 14.27 Paul and Barnabas sent by Church also page 123 Officers ordained by peoples election page 46 51 Act. 18.2.26 Aquila and Priscilla at Corinth page 11 Act. 19.1.9 Paul separated such at himself converted not page 4 Vers 37. Robbers of Temples not of churches page 25 Act. 20.28 Elders must see to the flock page 107 112 Act. 21.22 Myriads What not all those of one Church but of many churches page 14 15 30 31 ROMANS 4.11 12. Abraham father of the faithfull circumcised and uncircumcised page 43 Rom. 12.6 Of prophecy page 125 Rom. 12.7 8. Teacher and Pastor are distinct page 70 Vers 13. Distribute to the necessity of Saints page 63 Rom. 15.26 Romans to contribute to Jerusalem page 64 Rom. 16.1 2. Recommending members to another church to receive them page 117 1 CORINTHIANS 1. v. 1. All Saints of Corinth of one Church page 15 16 Qu. Whether this be writ to all Saints or no page 16 20 1 Cor. 1.1 2. Church-members to be visible Saints and what triall of Saints herein page 31 Vers 17. Preaching is a Ministers great work page 57 1 Cor. 5.5 6. Purge out the old leaven page 29 30 36 Vers 5. Excommunicating there whether done by Paul or to be by the Churches power page 95 97 98 1 Cor. 5.12 Whether some