seperation from the then Jewish Church at least not a totall one they had yet Church Communion with her if you mean not Church Communion which is properly and peculiarly such then it did not shew that they counted her a true Church Though the Apostles being Jews and formerly members of that Church might become Iews to the Iews 1 Cor. 9.20 That they might gaâ—n the Iews and give no offence Acts 21. which is unlawful to do to those that are within or without the Church 1 Cor. 10.32 Might give great respect to the Jewish Church and worships even after they were then dead as in some places by way of funeral pomp the honour done to great personages by their attendants while they lived is in measure continued to them after their death till they be buried as uncovering the head carrying maces and scepters before them c. Lastly Vnless you can solidly prove 1. That the Jewish Church was then a true Church by a morall trueness 2 That there is or ought to be such a change of our Ministry Sacraments and service of God in the Churches gathered from amongst us as was then of the Jewish Priesthood Sacraments and service of God in those Churches which were gathered from amongst them 3 That the Reformed Churches and Ministers may as lawfully be forsaken as the then Jewish Church and the Priests thereof 4 That you have authority to gather Churches amongst us as wel as the Apostles had for gathering Churches from amongst the Jews 5 That men are bound to become Independents when they hear you preach as the Jews were to become Christians when they heard the voyce of the great Prophet Deut. 18.18 19. Vnless also you can invalidate my other fore-mentioned exceptions against this instance I would advise you to lay it aside and to pass to another argument Sect. 2. Reply P. 2. Secondly if the Apostles never taught nor practised such a thing what warrant then have our brethren for their Presbyterian Church which is gathered out of many Churches For they interpret Mat. 18.17 Tell the Church of a Presbyterian Church which consists of the Elders of many Churches Rejoynder What do you hence conclude that the Apostles taught and practised to gather some Christians from others one part of this true Church c This is it which P. 18. of your last Book you profess to shew at large in this and the subsequent particulars then belike you acknowledg that the gathering of Presbyterian Churches is according to the doctrin and practise of the Apostles 2 Between a Presbyterian Church and your gathered and seperated Church there is most difference For 1 A Presbyterian Church is not a particular congregation nor are al her members accounted to be members of a particular congregation much less covenanted members such as yours are 2 She doth not refuse the communió of those congregations out of which you say it is gathered and therefore cannot be called a seperated Church 3. She is gathered with the consent of her societies 4 She doth not cast off the care of government of those societies but her gathering makes much for the better government of them and for setling of truth and peace in them as the convening in Parliament of the principall patriots out of severall Counties doth make for the good government of the State Lastly their gathering is warranted as hereafter Pos 3. 4. may appear by the Doctrinâ— and practice of the Apostles which you cannot shew of yours Interim you may take notice that Mr. Cotton himself as he doth assert that Synods rightly ordered and classes and conventions of Presbyters of particular Churches are all one keyes P. 42. So he doth call a Synod a Congregation of Churches or a Church of Churches which is as much as to say there is a Presbyterian Classical Church but of this and of Mat. 17. I shal speak more hereafter Sect. 3. Reply p. 2. Thirdly why may not one Church be gathered of the members of many Churches as wel as many Churches consist of the members of one Church For we read that the Church at Jerusalem was scattered upon Stevens persecution and we read not that they returned again but fell into membership with other Churches as is probable which were planted in severall parts of the world Rejoynder Yes they may in these troublous times one family hath oft bin divided into more families part of them at Manchester another at home and one family hath consisted of the members of many families possibly the heads of several Country families have taken one house and dyeted together yea it may be in times of persecution wives may live apart from their husbands and their husbands live together apart from their wives yet it were strang boldness to say that the Apostles taught and practised the seperation of several husbands and gathering them into a distinct family from their wives and it is no less unreasonable from the necessitous condition of a scattered persecuted Church to infer that the Apostles taught and practised to seperate some Christians c. Your selves do intimate P. 14. That one Church may meet in many places in some time of hot persecution may we thence conclude that the Apostles taught and practised the meeting of one Church in many places 2. You read as much of the return of the scattered disciples to Jerusalem as you read of their falling into membership with other Churches if therefore it be probable as you say it is that they fell into membership with other Churches I am sure it is as probable that they ere long did return to Jerusalem seing there was the first Church the chief Church in which the Apostles continued as officers whose doctrin and government all that were members of that Church could not but much desire and the persecution was but short though sharp Acts 9.31.3 Your selves do in effect acknowledg that this argument doth not necessarily if it do probably conclude the undertaken conclusion 4. They that fell into membership with other Churches did not nor do you think they did separate from the Church of Jerusalem or refuse communion with her or with the godly of her aiming at a purer Church and unless you had shewn this you have not performed what you say you have performed When the scattered Disciples left the Church of Jerusalem it was their affliction not their choice much less was it their duty as you pretend your separation to be Sect. 4 Reply p. 2. Fourthly such a Church which consists of the members of many other true Churches hath formerly bin without exception in the days of the Prelates how comes it now to be questioned For at least fourteen years since such a Church was extant in Wirrall in Cheshire the vocal covenant being only wanting which consisted of the choicest Christians of many parishes And we think it cannot be denied but Mr. Iohn Angiers Church at Denton in Lancashire hath of long time been such and many other
such there have been besides And it was accounted an high happiness to have liberty to make such a Church but was never accounted by the godly sinful before If assembling constantly together and participating in all the Ordinances that the rest do partake of and contributing with the rest in the maintenance of the Minister of such a place and an adhering rather to such a Minister and people then to any other in affection and action make members of a Church then these persons of other Parishes were members and with the rest made such Churches Rejoynder 1. If all this were granted it is but an humane testimony not divine nor can you though you should produce a 1000 more instances as you might 2 I am informed and in part know that these were not gathered separated Churches for those members of other Churches did not refuse communion in Parish-assemblies they grieved when they were deprived of it for non-conformity they did not exclude all that were not visible Saints much less the known godly of other Churches from their Sacraments they aimed not principally it at all at a purer Church but a better Ministry they possibly having no Ministry at their parish Churches or a bad one and it may be dwelling neerer to those then to their own parochial assemblies and you confess they wanted the vocal Covenant and I suppose also they wanted subscription and signals of their mutual consent that they would be a Church together and they resorted sometimes to their parish meetings and if they had had such Ministers there and liberty of conscience in point of gesture as in other places it may be thought they would not have sought else where 3 Suppose there were such a Church in the days of the Prelates and that it was then lawful too can you thence infer that it is still lawful though Innovations and scandalous Ministers and other offensive things be removed have you as great occasion still of withdrawing as they then had 4 That such a separation was never accounted sinful by the godly before is too large a speech if you mean That the separation which then was used by them that used it and possibly by some others was approved I contend not but that no godly man accounted it sinful ordinarily to frequent another assembly especially if they had a Minister of ordinary parts and piety I cannot think As for your separation many godly did account it sinful yea the most eminent non-conformists yea they which did best affect congregational government yea you two have often told me and others of my godly brethren That you are free in your judgment to baptize my child or the children of any godly Minister or member of our Church or to receive us to the Sacrament amongst you now if you would act according to your own Principles which I should conceive my self bound in conscience to do in this case and would inform your Churches of their duty herein your separation would be less offensive but how you can account admission of us to your Sacraments lawful and yet the denyal of it not sinful I see not Sect. 5. Reply P. 3. Fifthly are not some parish Churches constituted sometimes of members of other parish Churches when many persons have left their own places and removed into other Parishes without any consent Sixthly that a Church may consist of persons that have been members of other Churches if such persons have been orderly dismissed from such Churches and have come away with consent wil be granted of all Rejoynder 1. What then wil you thence conclude that the Apostles taught or practiced to gather or separate some Christians from others c Did your selves ever before call this gathering of Churches or separating Christians into Churches is this the common acceptation of the words Gathering of Churches or separating Christians into Churches Did your selves dream that was my meaning or the thing I put you to prove Doth remooval from one parish to another imply the forsaking of or separating from the communion of the former parish and refusal to receive the Sacraments with the godly of the former parish If not how doth it can it justifie your kind of separation from all our parish-assemblies And yet you argue thus remooval from one parish to another hath bin judged pious or at least honest therefore your separation is pious and honest and you should conclude therefore the Apostles taught and practised your separation For you know the question is not what is judged pious and honest by men but what is so judged by the spirit of God Truly I might as well argue some separation from our parish-assemblies is sinful as that of the Papists Brownists c. Therefore yours is so And indeed whether your separation be with consent or no it is not much material for it is sinne to consent sent to such a separation and sinne to separate whatsoever consent you have shew that your gathering of Churches with consent or without consent is justifyed by the doctrin and practise of the Apostles and it shal serve your turn Sect. 6. Reply p. 3. Suppose some Ordinances be corruptly dispensed without all hope of redress and that men must partake therein without having any power so much as to witness against such corruptions unless they wil be accounted factions and disturbers of the Churches peace or that by remaining where such corruptions are they be in danger to be leavened with the corrupt lump of such a Church of which they be members what must they now do Doth not that Rule that bids a Church purge out one person that may endanger the leavening of the whole lump when there are no other means to prevent such an evil give warrant to every member that is endangered to be leavened by the lump to withdraw from such a lump because power to purge out the lump they have none when there is no other means to prevent the evil Church-membership is for edification of the members not for destruction Rejoynder 1. These passages and your practise of gathering seperating Churches from amongst us do pass an harsh and heavy censure on our Churches viz. that there are amongst us not only smaller faults but greater corruptions and those obstinately persisted in without all hope of redress and that there is no other means left to prevent the evil but separation a censure so void of truth and charity that it is worthy to be exibilated rather then confuted 2. When there is indeed such a case as you put a particular member may and ought humbly to admonish the Ministers and members plead with the Church Hose 2.2 Bear witness against her sinnes and errors and act to his utmost in his place for her reformation both by exciting quantum inse the power of that particular Congregation and complaining to superior judicatories but not presently to separate The Apostle Paul notwithstanding the incestuous person was in communion with the Church and they were
of humane and Politick or as a nouresident Doctor in justification of his non-residency said of Popish institution it will more disadvantage then advantage you for before the said division many Congregations did but make one Church and the Presbytery did teach and rule in Common and probably the severall Assemblies were not fixed but fluid consisting now of some persons and then of others sometimes of more and sometimes of fewer and the reason of division of Parishes was Ne administratio in promiscuo esset Poll. Verg. intimating plainly That no Presbyter did know his particular Congregation whereof he had more care than another Presbyter or then himself had of another Assembly within such and such limits as of a City c. but after Division of Parishes this particular Minister and assembly were better known more related and fastned one to another if this be of a Politique or Popish institution what do you gain by it 4. I cannot but observe that you plainly intimate that he that transgresseth such bounds or limits as are not jure Divino is not in any fault Sect. 2. Reply P. 5.2 Was there not liberty within this very Kingdom formerly for persons to pay their tythes to what Minister they pleased And consequently they were not tyed to the Parish they lived in but might choose their own society and Pastor and hence it is that there are some pieces of Parishes in some places six or eight miles distant from other parts of it and whole Parishes betwixt Why therefore now should there be an abridgment Rejoynder Suppose Mr. Selden say so and that it be true that he saith yet 1. You know this doth not evidence the doctrine and practise of the Apostles 2. I cannot think that from their payment of tythes to such a Minister or society it can be concluded that they did choose to be of that society for they sometimes payd their tythes to Regulars sometimes to Seculars sometimes they payd one year to one and another year to another and possibly a 3 year to a third person 3. That people payd their tythes to what Minister they pleased within such or such limits within which Ministers did administer and several assemblies of people did partake in ordinances promiscuously is not so hard to beleeve as that after the division of Parishes as you intimate saying they were not tyed to their own Parish they did so 4. Suppose the people had then free choice of their society and Pastor and afterwards according to their choice Parishes were divided which you to the discredit thereof make the occasion of inconvenient division of Parishes must it always be free notwithstanding any obligation by consent of Churches custome command of authority for every private person to live where he listeth and to choose his own society and Pastor Is it an abridgment of the children of your church-Church-members liberty to be accounted of your Church or may they separate themselves from your communion and gather whensoever they conceive there is just occasion into any Church which they think is purer Sure you must say that they may for seeing their parents voluntarily chose your Church why should there now be an abridgment Sect. 3. Reply P. 5. 3d There are many inconveniences both to Minister and people arising hence 1. The Pastors of parish Churches are only at certainty what houses they have under their Ministry not what persons for they may go which way they wil leaving their houses but their houses and lands are fixed and they shal always find them there 2. The members of these Churches though they have been bred up under the wing of such Churches and Pastors thereof and have taken a love and liking to the same yet if they remove from their habitation but a stones cast sometimes they must be broken off thereby from such Churches in point of Membership 3. A mans habitation may be nearer to some Church that is out of that Parish and so far off from his own Parish Church that he cannot conveniently repaire thereunto must he yet be bound to his own Parish Church by his habitation 4. Suppose a man have many houses in several Parishes and would desire sometimes to live in one and sometimes in another must he needs alter his Church membership as oft as he changeth his habitation Or can he be a member in all the Parishes where he hath houses Rejoynder Pastors may be at certainty what persons they at present have under their Ministry but for time to come indeed they are not certain nor can you shew us where the word of God requireth that they should have such certainty your selves are not certain how long you shal have your members for death may take them away or they may turn Anabaptists seekers or fall into such sinnes as they may be cast out or they may voluntarily notwithstanding any covenant which binds no further then it is lawful and warrantable desert you Nor are we certain what houses we shal have in our Parishes A fire may burn them or the sea in some places may overflow them or the wind may blow them down we cannot say what shal be to morrow 2. The removeal of men from one Parish to another is for the most part voluntâ—ry possibly for some secular ends and volenti non fit injuria 3. Distinction of Parishes are in some cases is or ought to be dispensed with where Parishes are in conveniently divided 4. A Christian removeing from one Parish to another may be a member at least a transient one in any Parish where he dwels as a man that hath houses in several counties cities and towns may be a member of any of those several counties cities and towns where he dwelleth they that were scattered from the Church of Ierusalem fell you say into membership with other Churches was this any inconvenience to the Aquila and Priscilla dwelling sometimes in one place sometimes in another were members of several Churches And if a Christian citizen of Corinth did dwel at Cenchrea he did as is probable fall into the membership of the Church of Cenchrea 5. If Parishes or neighbourhoods of people to be in one Church-society be an ordinance of God as hath bin proved Sest 5. then allegation of these or many more such inconveniences cannot equallize the inconveniences and unwarrantableness of your gathered or separated Churches 6. The cohabitation of Church members is ful of conveniency 1. For their more commodious meeting together in publike with ease frequency less expence of time and money 2. Their more easy conversing with and watching over comforting and releeving one another 3. For the preventing of confusion contention and offence 4. For their more convenient inspection over their families that their families as wel as themselves do sanctify the Sabbath CHAP. 3. Of gathering Churches and preaching without yea against the laws of the Magistrate Sect. 1. WHen you alledg for it the doctrine of the Apostles Acts 4.17 18 21. Acts
ask who hath read or heard I answer Mr E. and Mr T. have I suppose read the N. E. Elders apology for Church-covenant out of which that phrase and most part of the sentence is taken why do you quarrel with me or rather with the Elders of N. E. beating them on my back 2. Your selves wil say A covenant to serve God to endeavor after the enjoyment of all Gods ordinances A covenant to perform Church-duties is not a Church-covenant except they covenant to enjoy Gods ordinances and perform Church-duties together a man promiseth to marry a woman promiseth to marry this doth not make them many and wife except they promise to marry one another and do so Surely you do not think these expressions ridiculous 3. I speak as you might discern by my phrase of the Churches and people of the new testament not of the old and so did the Elders of N. E. for they speak of distinguishing one Church from another a speech proper to the new testament 4. Suppose there had bin before Christ some other Church which had worshipped God as purely and enjoyed God as fully as the Jewish Church did would such a covenant as this you speak of Deut. 29. have bound all that took it to be of the Iewish Church and not of the other I think you wil not say it I dare say you cannot prove it 5. However we yet want a solemn verbal express covenant by which the Jews and Gentiles converted bound themselves to be all of one Church though they were one Church and did not want any thing necessary to the strength and purity of the Church for Mr. Cotton himself saith that God propoundeth and giveth a covenant to a people and they accept it though not in express words yet in silent consent and he cites Gen. 17.7 Deut. 29 10. ad finâ—m Cap. 30. Way of the Churches p. 3. Sect. 3. Reply p. 40. There is a covenant between Pastor and people but it groweth out of the covenant amongst the people who must first be one before they can agree in one to choose a Pastor There was a covenant with Abraham and his house by vertue of which Israel was the Lords people in Aegypt before there were Pastors over them and it was so in the wilderness before Aron and his sonnes were chosen Rejoyn My speech was dis-junctive if a Church-covenant imply appropriation either to this or that people or to this or that Pastor or both the speech is true 2. That the covenant between Pastor and people is emergent from a covenant amongst the people is gratis dictum and so stands til you shew a people covenanting to be a Church together before they had officers 3. That Israel was the Lords people before they had any Pastors over them is a gross untruth The first born until Aaron and the sonnes of Levi were separated for that work were unquestionably Priests and Pastors yea Adam was a Priest to himself and family and therefore it is said that Cain brought of the fruits of the ground viz. he brought to his father that he might offer it to the Lord so both ancient and modern Interpreters do expound it and they had Priests before the giving of the law which questionless came with them out of Aegypt Ainsworth in Exod 19.22 and those young men Gen. 24.5 are interpreted to be the first born of the several families and these continued til the Levites were substituted in their places Sect. 4. Reply p. 40. To be one people to God in a professed solemn way by entering covenant with God and to be a Church is all one and this is asserted Deut 29.12.13 Rejoyn Neither the text Deut. 29.11.12 nor my answer had the words one people in them but a people you force in the word one that you may have some pretence for a covenant The Scripture shews us not that a people or a people of God is equivalent to one people 2. England Scotland and Ireland are or may be the Lords people in a professed solemn way by entering into covenant with God wil you hence conclude that they thereby are all made one Church God foretels that many nations shal be joyned to the Lord and be his people Zach. 2.11 The Christian Gentiles are called Gods people and that by covenant Hose 2.23 The Jews scattered in Pout us Asia Cappadocia and Bithinia are called a poculiar people 1 Peter 2.9 And therefore by your logick they are all one Church Sect. 5. Reply p. 41. To prove there was a covenant at the founding of the Iewish Church and so of Christian Churches you urge That all the Proselyted Gentiles entered into the Church by the seal of the covenant which was Circumcision and converted Heathens and the infants of Church-members are brought into the Church by baptism which is the seal of the covenant of grace and especially of that part of it which concerns Church society Rejoyn 1. You know my meaning was not that there was no covenant at all but that there was Church-covenant no solemn express verbal covenant which you assert to be necessary to the strength and purity of the Church The Jewish Church qua Church if not qua Jewish was founded first in Adams family then again in Noahs hence your selves argue from their families that 7 or 8 may make a Church so it continued in Shems family who as some most probably think was Mâ—lâ—hisâ—dâ—ck who being a Priest must needs be within the Church and yet all this while you have no colour for a Church-covenant 2. If the bringing in of converted Heathens and the infants of Church members into the Christian Church by baptism of Circumcision we shal speak afterward be a sufficient evidence that the Church is founded by covenant then the Reformed Churches are founded in covenant as wel as yours yea as wel as the Primitive Apostolick Churches for the same argument you bring why they were founded in covenant suits fits all the Churches for ought I know Gentiles converted and infants of Church-members being brought into them all by baptism and consequently they that forsake the Reformed Churches are coeteris paribus covenant-breakers as wel as they which forsake your Churches 3. That Congregational society is a part and a principal part of the covenant of grace I understand not For if it were so then 1. It would follow that Adam and Eve While alone til they were so many as would make a Church were not wholly partakers of the covenant of grace 2. That a true beleever excommunicated though for the name of Christ is deprived in part of the covenant of grace Yea that every one that is not a church-Church-member wants a part of the covenant of grace and a principal part too 4. Nor do I beleeve Paptism to be a seal of Congregational communion principally Because 1. The Apostles as you say p. 56. might baptize in all the world and not only in the Church 2. Paul himself was baptized
a duty for Timothy to make ful proof of his Ministery as well as for Archippus to fulfill it and if so doth not the requiring the one of Timothy suppose a defect in duty as well as requiring the other of Archippus 5. As for the abruptness of the speech nothing is more usuall in the end of Pauls Epistles then abrupt speeches 6 grant they do amount to as much as your selvs reckon them to viz. a strong presumption that Archippus was faulty that is but as if you should say There is strong presumption that the Church is commanded to censure him that is there is but weak proof 7. Strong presumption cannot carry away the cause for there are strong presumptions on the other hand 1. That Paul inscribes an Epistle to Philemon and him at or about the same time Isaacson Chron. and doth not tax Archippus at all 2. That in that Epistle he calls him his fellow-souldier a very honourable Epithet 3. If these words were then understood to imply faultiness then this Epistle being read in the Churches of Coloss and Laodicea would shame Archippus publikly before he had for ought we know any private admonition these considerations with many others may weigh down your strong presumption of the contrary Sect. 3 I answered that admonition doth not alway suppose authority for this may be an act of charity a wel as of authority Paul might admonish Peter and one brother another of the same Church though Paul had no authority over Peter nor fellow-members one over another Gal. 2.11 Math. 18.15 16. You Reply p. 59. Church-admonition is some degree of censure for it is a leading step to an higher censure til it come at last to excommunication call it what you wil consure it is and that is all the Position doth assert R. 1. The Position doth assert that the Church doth not only admonish by way of charity but that she hath power to censure doth admonition imply power can you say properly that Paul had power to censure Peter because he did admonish him or that a woman hath power to censure a Church-member yea a Church-officer because upon occasion she may tel him his fault between him and her and yet this may be a leading step til at last in come to excommunication 2. I would you had expressed whether in your opinion this admonition did suppose authority in the people or no if you say that the people have no authority to admonish their Pastors you as I conceive wave the position 3. When one of your Churches doth admonish another this is Church-admonition and is you say a leading step to an higher censure viz. non-Non-communion yet I suppose you wil not say one Church hath power to censure another I further answered That Private members cannot censure judicially or un-un-Church the Congregation though they be bidden plead with their mother plead Hos 2.2 You Reply If they may plead then they may withdraw from the Congregation off from their officers when they wil not be reclaimed Which though it be not a judicial and positive censure yet must be granted to be negative Rejoyn 1. The consequence is naught a wife may plead with her husband in many cases and a child with his parent in which she may not withdraw from them 2. The question is whether we may conclude that they that are bidden plead have power to censure the Church judicially you intimate that we may not so conclude 3. They might plead with the Church before Christ I grant the text bears it but that then they might withdraw not only from her corruptions but from her Communion and that into a distinct Church as the manner of some now is you cannot prove 4. If pleading do by consequence prove withdrawing yet sure it doth not prove that they should withdraw from the Church before they plead with her but that they should first plead with her and if she wil not be healed withdraw from her 5. You might have done wel to have explained and proved by Scripture or sound reason that there is an unjudicial censure as wel as a judicial a negative censure as well as a positive and that they which may only censure negatively and judicially may be said as it is in the Position to have power to censure otherwise the Reader happily may think these distinctions were but invented to help in a strait 6. You hold that women may withraw and indeed they having learned of their great grand-mother are too apt to do it to perswade their husbands also and have women poof the keyes Or is this any key at all Or do you mean that the Churches admonition of Archippus doth prove only a negative unjudicial censure such as private men may have one toward other yea toward the Church or a positive and judicial censure if you hold the former then we differ less if the latter more Sect. 4. I answered the Colloss were as wel to cause that Epistle to be read in the Church of Laodicea as to say to Archippus yea the word cause seems more authoritative then say ye yet our brethren hold not that one Church hath not power over another Church if it had been said of Archippus Cause Archipyus and say to Laodicea you could have made notable use of it You reply p. 59. Cause in the original is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not command ye but work ye effect ye endeavour ye that it be read and so interpreted it is not so authoritative as say ye for say ye take heed seem more imparative The Greek word translated Cause imports no more then endeavor ye R. 1. You tol us p. 99. there is a the fold causing by way of authority or by way of moral swasion this later say you the Apostle speaks of here but if it had been said cause Archippus some would have told us that causing by way of authority is here meant and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to make or cause a thing to be done and that there is no classick Greek writer in which a man is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 any thing which he doth only endeavour and not accomplish 2. You say say ye c. seems more imperative then mak ye or cause eye who ever said so thought so if your selves do you do not shew us that these is a two-fold saying one authoritative and the other swasive as you say there is a two-fold causing nor do you shew us any place of Scripture where saying is taken for authoritative saying and yet if you did it were not good reason a genre ad spâ—ciâ—m affirmative no more then if a man should say causing is sometimes by way of authorits therefore it is so here 3. The word say ye may be translated tell ye to Archippus as wel as Math. 18.17 which is the very same word tell the Church or that place in Mathew may be translated say ye to the Church as wel as this say ye
misgovernment of his family in his absence which he prayes against mourns for and endeavours what he can at such a distance to amend Surely God will be to him a more equall and mercifull Judge Lastly your selves do hold communion of Churches too for counsel though not for jurisdiction yea you hold that Churches ought to have a 〈◊〉 one of another are you thereupon guilty of all those heresies and blasphemies that are broached by men which at first were Independents if you do admonish them of their error and renounce communion with them and use what means you can to reclaime them Sect. 4. I read in Rev. 4. that four and twenty Elders distinguished from believers c. 7.8.11.13.14 not four and twenty Saints or members were clothed and crowned by which I understand the officers of the Church alluding to the four and twenty orders of the Priests and the four beasts represent the Christian churches through the four quarters of the world alluding to the foure camps of Israel bearing in their standards the same beasts By your exposition the Elders which you say are signified by the four beasts are excluded from governing power for they sit not on thrones nor have crowns on their heads Their crowns and thrones are no more ensignes of power and authority then their white raiment of Priesthood Cot keyes p. 16. But they are not Priests by office they cannot do Pastorall acts as baptize c. neither have they authority to govern Every Christian man or woman Church-member or other hath a crown and sitteth on a throne viz. is spiritually a King and Priest to God Rev. 5.10 Finally governing power properly so called you acknowledge none but in the Elders alone 1 Cor. 12.28 Rom. 12.8 Heb. 13.17 The peoples power you say is more fitly called liberty and priviledge too mean a thing to be represented by crowns and thrones This my answer to Rev. 4. you blot out by an Index expurgatorius and being justly taxed for it in my Epistle before my Quaere's you say That in the copying out of your Reply for the Presse it was omitted but whether casu or consilio casually or purposely we cannot say I pray you whom should I ask if you know not You tell us how godly and able men having proved a thing by plain texts of Scripture do adde probable ones though more obscure But I pray you where are those plain texts which do solidly prove that Church-members are to sit on thrones or that they have authority and governing power You expresse your selves unwilling to defend the Position by vertue of the Text at least in that expression viz. of authoritative and governing power Why then do you not ingenuously confesse that the Text doth not prove the Position You say that it may be N. E. men are able to maintain it by vertue of the Text. Then it may be authority and governing power may be duly setled on Church-members as distinct from officers by Gods word You say that the exposition that I give in my answer seemed probable to one of you yet upon further inspection you have some exceptions against it though you do not absolutely reject it But if my exposition seem probable and you do not reject it why do you except against it 1. You say the four Beasts are full of eyes Revel 4.8 but you read not of any eyes that the Elders had I answer it was convenient to mention the beasts with eyes that it may not be thought the Churches were bruitishly ignorant but to mention Elders with eyes was superfluous seeing they are men and of the gravest and wisest of men and you may presume they had eyes for the Text tels us not that they were blind 2. You say the four beasts do lead the 24 Elders in the worship and service of God Rev. 4 9 10. c. 5.8 11. Now Churches do not lead their Officers but Officers the Churches I answer 1. The Elders are sometimes set before the four beasts Rev. 7.11 2. If I should say When the Society of Duckenfield doth communicate the Elders do break the bread therefore the Church of Duckenfield doth lead her Officers you would laugh at that consequence The cafe is the same When those beasts give glory and honour you may read shall give glory and honour the 24 Elders fell down therefore say you the Church doth lead her Officers 3. You say As for your allegation Rev. 7.9 11 13 14. that Elders are distinguished from believers we discern not that they are any more distinguished then the four beasts are I answer You may discern more distinction for one of the Elders not any of the four beasts speaks of them as of another sort then themselves in some respects v. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These are they not We are they c. 4. You say Mr. Conon asserts some priviledges of Church-members which are priviledges of Kings wearing crowns viz. to transact nothing by themselves but by their officers 2. Their consent is requisite to the judgements that passe in the Church I answer 1. I thought that a Church viz. the non-officed members had nor transacted things by their Officers to expresse their royalty but for want of authority per se to administer Sacraments 2. That their consent had not been a royall consent as to Acts of Parliament but a popular consent 3. No exposition can be given of the words but some exceptions may be made against it 4. All your exceptions together are not of such weight no not with your selves as that you daâ—e because of them reject the exposition I gave Lastly if you do maintain the position that Church-members have authority and governing power you contradict your selves CHAP. XXXII Of taking Christ for their onely spirituall Prophet Priest and King Deut. 18.15 Act. 7.37 Psal 110.4 Heb. 5.4 Isa 9.6 7. Rev. 15.3 YOu professe that you do not appropriate this to the Congregational churches as if in these offices Christ were so only hers that no five or six or one particular Saint out of Church-fellowship no Classical Presbyterial or National Church may take him for their only Prophet Priest and King You condemn any that have thus expressed themselves you call it a cup of abomination and say in whose sack soever it be found let him suffer according to his dâ—â—â—rits Yea that all the churches of God yea all the people of God may deservedly condemn such that it favours of most detestable pride and censoriousnesse that it is a thing of greatest abhorrency to our thoughts if it fall on this side blasphemie against the holy Ghost Rejoynd 1. The texts cited prove that Christ is a King a Priest and Prophet but not that Congregational churches do only so take him 2. You insinuate that it may be found in the writings of some on your right hand you may mean the rigid Seperatists which if it bee I am sure it is found in the writings of those that in point of
that question were propounded to any Minister so exercising in another Church which was once to our Saviour by the high Preists and Elders by what authoritie dost thou doe these things and who gave thee this authoritie let that Minister whosoever he be study to make an answer and retort them thus on you you say here there are some acts of feeding which though they be authoritative to that people over whom the persons performing them are officers yet they may be performed without an office c. let him that holdes or exercises any such acts in such manner suppose preaching which was the subject of that question of the high Priests Matth. 21.23 study to make answer to it If he say by no authoritie but by a gift then 1. He answers not the Elders question which demandeth by what authoritie c nor can hee positively answer it 2. Either this giftednesse is a sufficient warrant and then he hath authority and so doth it authoritatively or else its insufficient and then he is convinced as a transgressor and presumptuous and hee and you must quit this and find out another distinction to salve your disparityes which can hardly be so strange and incongruous as this Sect. 11. When I urge If the relation of Ministers and people be mutual If the people may receive the Sacrament from one that is not their Minister then the Minister may administer it to them that are not of his flock you reply p. 115. In one sense all that you say is true they may so doe by recommendation but then this recommendation is as it were a dismission differing not really but only in time Recommendation commends them for a time into the fellowship with that Church and dismission for continuance when persons of another Church doe orderly intermingle themselves with this or that Church then they are as Members and Pastor is as their Pastor and so hee might dispence the Sacraments to them Rejoynd In New-England members well known and approved doe mutually without exception communicate each of them at other Churches even so often as Gods providence leads them thereto and they desire it and this is done by virtue of communion of Churches and sometimes without letters of recommendation See Answ to Pol. 9. p. 78. Cottons keyes p. 17. way p. 103. F.W. to W.R.p. 10. 2. We stil ask why may not a Minister officiate inanother church recommended or as it were dismissed by his own aswel as a member of another communicate in his by recommendation 3. Belike you are pinched with the argument that you are glad to use such amphibolous termes as it were a dismission as his member as his Pastor but observe 1. Your Author Master Cotton gives a reason of this both more genuine and crosse to this of yours for we saith he receive the Lords Supper not onely as a seale of our communion with the Lord and with his members in our Church but also in all the Churches of the Saints if so then what need you or how can you say truly that a member of another Church comming to receive at yours is as it were dismised or dismembred from the other Church and is become as a member of yours and you are as his Pastor 2. I aske is he not still really a member of the Church he comes from is he not under another Pastor of another Church if you deny these things it would overthrow that communion of Churches which Master Cotton reduceth this mutual receiving one of another to and would make membership and Pastorship like a cloake to cast off and put on alternation upon every slight occasion of going from home and eturne and if you yeeld or affirme the said things then you must recal those words wâ—erein you say Recommendation differs not really from dismission for if it doe not then is hee really dismissed from the Church he comes from and is not as one of them he comes from but as one of them to whom he is resigned and recommended Cottons way p. 104. In what Church then to place him or whether he be in either according to you I cannot resolve and I am sure to say he is a member of both would be incongruous to your Principles and to reason 3. In saying Recommendation differs not from dismission really but in time is a contradiction for things that differ in time must needs differ really ut res res quorum incipiente vel desinente uno non incipit vel desinit alterum else you must needs say eadem res est non est but you are not happy in your distinctions the lesse wonder it is that in some things you erre for qui bene distinguit bene docet 4. The Argument for all this that you have said must still presse you if this man a member of another Church may come to your Church why may not the Pastor of his Church come and if hee as a member may receive why may not his Pastor as a Minister preach and administer the Lords Supper is not the one as strictly tyed in by his Church-Covenant in his relation as the other in his is not recommendation of a Minister as truely a dâ—smission of him as recommendation of a Member Sect. 12. Reply p. 110. But it will not follow that therefore hee may act ministerially out of his owne Church and people in and among another Church and people Magistrates and Subjects are Relatives and if any Subjects of one County come to another County and be wronged there he may require justice from the Magistrate of the County where the wrong is done him and receive it but the Magistrate may not therefore goe from among his people to another County and dispense justice amongst them So of Ministers Rejoynd 1. The similitude is not truly laid down for a Magistrate of this County and a Subject of the Kingdome are not relata as such a County-Magistrates correlative is a Subject and Inhabitant of the said County And if you had so put your comparison what could you have inferred from it 2. The similitude is unfit even in that for which you bring it For first a County-Magistrate is tyed within locall bounds in administrations whether to his country-men or to strangers but the case of a Pastor is not so especially with you which admit of no Parochial or locall bounds which we think requisite in some cases not possible in all to the circumscribing of a Church or the Pastorship of it but enlarge the Pastors leave to officiate any where in the world if his Church remove thither and the Church may remove whithersoever Secondly a Magistrate as he may do a stranger justice in his own County so he may as well execute justice on him within the same but you will not allow another Churches member to be censured in this Church though he may communicate there Thirdly I should easily grant that a Pastor may not go from his own congregation to
act with the Key of power wherein only he resembles a Magistrate or to exercise jurisdiction in any other That he is at all times and cases fixed to such a circuit but as a Colonel Captain c which possibly somtimes may be the governour of such such a castle defender of such a country c. or any Martial commander may do acts of government whereever his Camp removes so may he do his office by your own confession wheresoever his Congregation is present but a Magistrate may not do justice no not to his own citizens no more then to strangers out of his liberties 2. Acts of justice and judgement by Majors or other Magistrates our of their territories are not only unlawfull but null in Law but sure you hold not that if a Minister preach in another congregation by vertue of office baptize administer the Sacraments Ordain or the like that those acts are altogether null and void as if they had not been baptized or ordained and that they ought to be rebaptized or reordained Lastly the County-Magistrates power is bounded by expresse laws or orders of the King or State but you can shew no Divine Law for the bounding of a Minister to a particular assembly yea whether there be any such laws or no is the question which you must not beg Reply p. 116. We grant that not one only of another Church but two three six eight which it may be are the whole Church may be received to the holy Communion but we demand who shall recommend them and without recommendation they cannot orderly be received or suppose they commend themselves they are now swallowed up in the fellowship of the other Church and counted pro tempore members of it and have not the consideration of a distinct church And though it be lawfull for a Minister to dispense the Sacrament to them with his own people yet not lawfull to go forth from his own people and give it to them alone If a whole Town should come and live in another Town they might have the justice of that Town from the Magistrate which cannot dispense justice to them abiding in their own place Rejoynd 1. If you grant that a Pastor may administer the Sacrament to another Church comming into his assembly as you say you do then first May not a Pastor and his Church upon some occasion go to the meeting-place of another Church and there perform the same ministeriall acts by consent of all parties interessed as he may do if that other Church come to his Churches meeting-place Doth the place make any difference in your opinion Secondly May a Pastor if his flock be present administer the Sacrament to another Church which possibly may be an hundred times bigger then his own and may he not if his flock be absent doth the presence of his church add so much to his power over another church Sure these things are gratis dicta without Scripture without reason 2. As for recommendation I answer first M. Cotton the Elders of N.E. as I shewed before yield another way of communicating betwixt Churches besides Recommendation so that this barre is needlesse and untrue if they must be Judges Secondly if Recommendation be so needfull for a whole Churches communicating with another Church it may be had from its officers from other neighbour-churches or from members of that church to which they come and joyn which are able to testifie of them Thirdly whereas you suppose they may commend themselves this is of all other reliefs the weakest as good as nothing a meer formality sure Recommendation with you is very needfull that must be thus patched up rather then wanted when it is thus helpt out it stands you in great stead 3. As for comming of one Church to another I rejoyn first If they communicate with this other church by vertue of communion of churches they must needs be considered as a distinct church Communion is at least between two and imports plurality and distinction betwixt the parties Identity destroyes communion which consists in the conveniencie or agreement of persons or things in aliquo tertio and not in a coalescencie of them in one Secondly whatsoever they are counted howsoever considered by you this temporary fellowship makes them not indeed one church with that they communicate with Your way of constituting churches and your everlasting covenant Cottons Way p. 104. wild noc brook such an easie and interchangeable putting together into one and parting again of churches your considering them as one then when they are not such is the error of your Conceptus and salves not the matter in hand in this case deny it if you can A Minister acts ministerially to another church and now you have brought two churches together in communion let me enquire May not their Elders act in common to both are the Eldert of either suspended in this conjunction and if so of which are they that are to be suspended and why not a third and a fourth church come to them after the same manner and the Elders of all joyn interests in ruling what will lack to make up here a Classis or Presbyterie of many churches Thus you are unawares comming into our tents Thirdly by this you plainly teach a Minister acts not ministerially but in the presence of his Congregation and the authoritativenesse of his acting and lawfulnesse of his authoritative acts depends on their being assembled with him But first it is the presence of Christ which gives authority and efficacy to his Ministry Mat. 18.20 which is promised to him alway and with no such limitation Mat. 28.20 Secondly some Ministeriall acts are required of him in private Jam. 5.14 2 Tim. 2.15 1 Tim. 4.13 14 15 16. He is to charge privately the people that they live not inordinately Cottons keyes p. 21 22. and he may act authoritatively in a Synod of churches where his Church is not collectively which is your sense present Of the difference as to this between a Magistrate and a Minister see Sect. 12. Reply p. 117. The Scripture alloweth the recommendation of the members of one Church to another Rom. 16.1 2 Cor. 3.1 But can you produce any place where the Minister of one church hath acted ministerially in another church Rejoynd 1. Neither of the places you cite for recommendation of members mentions any thing of meer members but both speak of officers Phaebe in Rom. 16.1 is termed a servant of the Church Mr. Cotton calls her a Deaconesse of that church Way p. 103. Keys p. 17. And that in 2 Cor. 3.1 speaks of Paul himself as not needing recommendation to or from them as do other teachers for of such he had immediately before discoursed c. 2. ult and much in this Epistle the Apostle useth this collation as c. 10. 11. 2. Your demand annexed should in equity and correspondency to your own attestation be Can you produce one place where the Ministers of one church are recommended to another And this I can though your places for Members recommendation be not found and may as strongly therefore inferre their acting ministerially in other churches upon their recommendation to them as you with Mr. Cotton conclude for the communicating of members in other churches from such supposed recommendation of them thereunto See for the recommendation of Ministers 2 Cor. 8.16 18 19 22 23. Act. 15.22 25 26 27 32. Col. 4.7 8 10 11. Ephes 6.21 22. Phil. 2.19 20 21. and your own place 2 Cor 3.1 Sect. 4. When I produce Mr. M. Mr. T. granting that Elders have a power to ordain Elders in other churches by request of that church where the Elders are to be ordained You reply p. 117. Not by their own proper right not as Elders or Officers but as of better gifts and greater abilities and their power is derived to them from those congregations which entreat them if they acted as officers then they might act without entreaty for entreaty makes them not officers and if they were officers before entreaty is not needfull to enable them Rejoynd This reason is not good 1. A man may be intreated to do that which he hath office and authority to do Act. 16.9 2 Cor. 8.4 with 19. Mar. 9.23 2. When there is an office and calling to do a work there is requisite on the part of them to or for whom it is to be done a consent and whether it be signified in the form of an intreaty or otherwise is nothing materiall In censures you give some proper power to the Elders and yet require the peoples consent in passing them In this matter of Ordination you hold the Churches consent necessary though their own Elders did transact it and their acting therein you will grant to be authoritative 3. You say the same of Elders acting in their own congregations therefore the Elders deriving power from the Church is no hindrance but that they may have it from Christ to another congregation upon their request as to their own 4. Let me ask you 1. How can the Church according to you delegate its power to persons out of it self 2. Whether is this act of deriving power to the Elders of another church an act of authority or no If it be then the Church acts authoritatively to persons of another church and if the Church may why may not also the Ministers If it be not then the Ordination performed by them is either done by no authority or by an authority underived from the church to which they are intreated 5. If the Church may derive power to Elders of another church in point of Ordination why may she not translate it to the Elders of two three or four churches why not to a classis of Elders and why not her interest in other acts of power as well as this You haue thus a power to become Presbyterians with us if you will You further reply p. 117. And if they act as officers in another congregation then they may in all congregations R. So they may act in any positis omnibus requisitis ad agendum but they act not formally as officers of another congregation but as officers of the same classical provincial or national church and as joyned in government with that church Part of this and the whole 35. Chapter of the Preaching of gifted men Waits a farther occasion FINIS
A Rejoynder To Master Samuel Eaton and Master Timothy Taylor 's REPLY OR AN ANSWER TO Their late Book called A Defence of sundry Positions and Scriptures c. With some occasionall Animadversions on the Book called the Congregational way justified For the satisfaction of all that seek the Truth in love especially for his dearly beloved and longed for the Inhabitants in and neer to Manchester in Lancashire Made and Published by Richard Hollinworth Mancuniens The Lord will shew who are his and who are holy LONDON Printed by T. R. and E. M. for Luke Fawne and are to be sold at the signe of the Parrot in Pauls Church-yard 1647. Some of the principall CONTENTS of this Book OF gathering Churches out of true churches Cap. 1. Sect. 1. c. Of separation from a true church because of corruption S. 6. Presbyterial-Classical National and Oecumenical church c 1 s 2. p. 6. the citation in l. 12 being misprinted for it read c 7 s 1 c. c 8 s 2 3 c 9 s 1 c 10 s 2 c 28 s 3 c 15 c 18 Of Parishes how jure divino and how not c. 2. s 1 c. Of the heathen and christian Magistrate c. 3. s 3. No toleration in New-England c. 3. s 3 4 5. Whether seven or eight can make a church c. 4. s 1 c. Whether Adam's family Noah's Christ's and the 12 Disciples of Ephesus and the 120 at Jerusalem were each of them particular churches ibid. The church of Jerusalem did not ordinarily meet in one place c. 5. s 2. Churches were planted in cities and great towns not in villages c. 5. s 5 Judaea was not so little but it might have many classical churches in it ibid. The Epistle to the Corinthians written to the churches of Achaia c. 6. s 1.7 E 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what it signifies c. 5. s 4. Church taken as properly in a distributive sense as for one assembly The word Churches notes not Independencie it is given to the Jewish church c 10. c. 1. Combination of churches c. 8. s 2. c. 10. s 2 3. Whether and how the church consists of visible Saints c. 11. s 1. Edification whether the only end of church-fellowship and not conversion c. 11. s 7. Who are to be excommunicated c. 11. s 8 9. The Jewish church a church of Saints c. 11. s 10 Of the Church covenant c. 12. s 1 2 c. Church-fellowship whether a part of the covenant of Grace c. 13. s 5 The Authors just Apology for pretended abusing of the Authors out of which the Positions seem to be taken c. 14. s 1 Whether Christians without Officers be properly called a church c. 15 1. Of election of Officers c. 16 Ordination by Bishops and popular Ordination compared c 18 s 4 Ordination and Election compared c. 18. s 8 Neither Tythes nor setled maintenance are unlawfull c. 20 21 Of Lords dayes contributions for maintenance of Ministers and the designe of it c. 21 s 1 c 9 Deacons not to take care of Ministers maintenance c 21 s 3 Distinction whether between Pastors and Teachers c 23 Each church Assembly is not Zion c 24 Of the word without in 1 Cor. 5. c 25 Of Anarchy worse then tyranny c 26 s 2 Marks of Malignancy c 26 s 3 Presbyteriall Government not Prelaticall c 26 s 3 The difference between the Prelaticall Presbyterian way c 26 s 3 What was the sin of Diotrophes c 26 s 4 Independents likenesse and unlikenesse to Corah c. c 27 s 1 c. Differences between the Christian church and the Jewish c 27. s 1 c 28 s 2 3 4 Of the Key of Liberty and of the necessity of the churches consent to excommunication c 29 s 1 The Keyes how given to Peter c 29 Whether Excommunication and delivering to Satan be all one c 30 The supposed sad condition of the Presbyterian churches c 31 s 3 A Definition of Discipline and Essentials examined c. 33 s 6. The Independents Model promised c 33 s 7 Of Ministeriall acting in another congregation c 34 Why men may preach to Heathens and before Ordination and not administer the Sacraments c 34 s 2 Recommendation of Ministers and Members c 34 s 11 Christian Reader I intended to have reprinted in this Book the Positions my Answer to them and Mr. E. and Mr. T. Reply to it and a large Rejoynder but that course my wife friends judged tedious and chargeable not profitable I have therefore taken up the pith of their Reply especially of that part of it which pretends to Scripture or Reason and of my Rejoynder omitting prefaces personal matters repetitions impertinencies My style is plain and modest Not victory but Gods truth the Churches peace thy good yea their good who in this are my adversaries is really intended and endeavoured by Thine in the service of Truth and Peace R. H. A Rejoynder to Master Samuel Eaton's and Mr Timothy Taylor 's Reply CHAP. I. Of Gathering Churches I Asserted in my answer That the Apostles never taught or practised to gather or separate some Christians from others one part of this true Church and another part of that especially persons which themselves converted not to make a purer Church neither with nor without the Magistrates Authority To this you Reply The Apostles both taught and practised the separating of some Jews from other Jews and gathering them into a Christian Church while yet the Jewish Church was not dissolved for they ceased not to be a Church of God till the body of them pertinaciously and desperatly rejected Christ Therefore they preached to the Jews first and thought themselves bound so to do because they were the people of God Acts 11.19 13.46 And yet they had commanded some to separate from the rest as your self acknowledg Acts 2.40 And their communion they had with them in Iewish worships shews that they counted them a true Church And some think that their Church state ceased not while their Temple stood And yet before that time many Iews were gathered into many Christian Churches as both the Acts of the Apostles and their Epistles do declare And if they might gather out of one Church they might as lawfully have gathered out of twenty or an hundred had there been so many at that time Rejoynder 1. Suppose at present that the Jewish Church was then a true Church and not yet dissolved yet it was then in dissolving and ceasing to be a true Church your own words Yet the Iewish Church was not dissolved do intimate so much and the thing is undeniable that Church was but to continue for a time and then to be dissolved by Gods appointment As it was said of the two covenants that the first was taken away that the other might be established Heb. 1◠So it was with those two Churches that legal this Evangelical the first was taken away that the other might be established and therefore separation from the then Jewish Church
was more warrantable then from our Churches unless you count them true Churches only in the sense you speak of viz. the body of them have not pertinaciously and desperatly rejected Christ come in the flesh and that as the Jewish Church then they now are to be dissolved yea that they are in dissolving by Gods appointment and ceasing to be true Churches notwithstanding the progress that is made in Reformation 2. You do not reply directly and pertinently but obliquely and evadingly though in your last book called the Congregational way justifyed P. 17. You are bold to say that no reply can more front or diametrically oppose my Answer then yours doth yea I dare appeal to your selves whether a precept or president of gathering or separating a Church out of the Churches of Galatia Corinth Laodicea because of their many and great corruptions would not have more fronted and bin more point-blank opposite to that part of my as your wisdoms stile it confused answer then this instance of the Jewish Church For first Did ever any man deny that there might then be separation from the Jewish Church Could you think I did deny it Your selves cite me acknowledging it and you could not but know after I had published my Epistle and Quere's what ever you did before that an instance of separation from true Christian Churches would most diametrically have opposed my answer which speaks not of separation of Christians from Jews as your instance doth but of some Christians from others and I dare witness thus much for you that if you had such a one you would have preferred it before the other Secondly Whereas you say in your last P. 18. That you do not consider that Church as Iewish but under the notion of truth you acknowledg that you do not consider it as you ought to have considered it for the seperation was from that Church as it was Jewish having officers and ordinances different from the Christian Church which hath Ministers in stead of Priests which hath not bodily sacrifices of beasts nor such Sacraments and Ceremonial services nor the presence of God in one place especially as the Jews had and the lawfulness of separation from that Church if it were then a true Church and had not been Jewish is stil uncleared 3. The Reformed Churches and Ministers are not to be compared to the then Jewish Church and the Priests thereof as you seem to compare them by pleading that the Reformed Churches and Ministers may be separated from because the then Jewish Church and Preists were to be separated from nor is this concerning the Ministers impertinently shuffled in as in your last P. 18. You most untruly alledge for they which separate from a Church do withdraw from the officers of it they that separated from the Jewish Church did withdraw from the obedience of their Priests and they that separate from the Reformed Churches do withdraw from the obedience of their Ministers and withdrawing your selves tell us Pag. 60. is a negative Excommunication and therefore the Ministers have as much or more injury then so many members have in every unjust separation from them as your selves would say were it your case but this must serve in stead of a better reply Surely you have either too much charity to the then Jewish Church and Preists thereof or too litle to our Churches and Ministers 4. That Church was but one and you should shew gathering out of several Churches for whereas you alledge they might have gathered out of twenty or an hundred had there been so many at that time I answer that it may be there were twenty possibly an hundred Churches while the Jewish Temple stood your selves say there were many Christian Churches and yet I doubt not but you will acknowledg both that no Churches were gathered or separated out of those or any other true Christian Churches and also that it is more lawful and orderly to separate the pretious of one Christian Church from the vile therein and the Godly party to cast out the incurable sinfull party 1 Cor. 5.12 Then to separate some persons of severall Churches into one distinct Church the former being not a gathering of a Church but a reforming and purging of it which is warranted by Scripture 3. Whereas you speak much both in your former and latter Book of the truth of the then Jewish Church I pray you what trueness mean you A naturall trueness as a thief or a lyar is a true man id est truly a man and Sathan a true spirit that is truly a spirit or a morall trueness viz. that it held and taught the way of salvation dare you say that the Jewish Church then did hold and teach the way of salvation Did they not pertinaciously and desperatly reject Christ No not while their Temple stood as you say some think The Scripture calls them an untoward generation from which it exhorts tho e that were pricked in their hearts which were but few in respect of the body of the Jews to save themselvs and from amongst which the Lord converted and added to the Christian Church such as should be saved Acts 2.40.47 And they did put the word from them being filled withenty contradicting and blaspheming Acts 13.45.46 Again the Apostle Rom. 11.11 12 15 19. Plainly implyeth that the Jewish Church ceased to be a true Church did fall was broken off cast away before salvation came to the Gentiles Nor do your Scriptures or reasons solidly prove that the Jewish Church was then a true Church for one of your texts Acts 11. which you produce for that purpose saith That they that were scattered whom in this place you call Apostles contrary to Scripture Acts 8.1 and your own assertion elsewhere Defence P. 4. Preached some to the Jews only and some when they were come to Antioch to the Grecians also Acts 11.20 Now the Grecians were not then a Church of God nor gathered yourselvs say into Church state til Barnabas was sent to them Defence p. 4. The other text mentions their Preaching to the Jews first but that they thought themselves bound to Preach to the Iews first because they were the people of God is your gloss which cannot be inferred from your texts joyntly or severally you know Gods command might make it necessary they should Preach to the Jews first whether they were at that very time the people of God or no and that was the true reason of it as you may see by comparing Acts 13.46.47 with Math. 10.1.5.6 But neither their Preaching first to the Jews nor afterwards to the Gentiles doth evince that either of them were then the people of God As for the Communion the Apostles had with the Jews which is your second argument to prove the trueness of the then Jewish Church I would you had expressed what Communion what worships you mean if that which you count properly church-Church-Communion then the Apostles did not as you say they did teach and practise
puffed up and gloried 1 Cor. 5.1.2 Allows worthy receivers to Communicate in it 1 Cor. 11. 28. 10.16 He blames their schismes in it which are less then separation from it 1 Cor. 11.18 12.25 And prescribes the putting away of the old leaven as a means of making a new lump especially by casting out the grossest offender as the incestuous person first 3. Those members which in their place laboured to reform the gross prophanation of the Sacrament by the Incestuous man as it s like some few did and mourned for what they could not mend were not leavened or corrupted no more then those of Thyatira were leavened with the false doctrin of Iezabel by being co-members with her which had not that dostrin c. Whom the spirit of God acquits Revel 2.24 But they that were puffed up and neglected to use the means which they had be it less or more to the putting of him away If Iosua and his house serve the Lord and do what in them lies to reform the rest they are not guilty of all the sinnes and wickedness of their tribe much less of all the tribes or of all that were in communion with the Jewish Church some of your Churches have Brownists whose errors the Apologists call fatal shipwracks Anabaptists Antinomians and possibly some other erroneous persons amongst them can no member be free from being corrupted and leavened by these unsound opinions for false doctrin leaveneth as much and in some respects more dangerously then prophaness except he separate from you if he hath not power to cast them out 4. Separation from a true Church and refusing to partake the Sacrament in it or with the godly of it which is your practise of which we speak all along savours much of faction and more disturbs the Churches peace then witnessing against the corruptions of the Church while we are in her communion and using means to reform her and is indeed sinful being a remedy of your own devising the scripture doth require that the bad should be cast out not that the good should cast out themselves every person should inform the Church of a brother that wil not be gained by private admonition and the Church should cast such a one out but that every person should cast off the Church if the Church doth not heare him is a step beyond our saviours direction and we should not be wise above what is written 5. Your selves when it is your case wil not approve it suppose seven or eight should separate from your Congregation and would not admit either of you to the Sacrament because you want the Ordinance of prophesying of singing himnes of annointing with oyl holy kiss c. Or because some are admitted to your Sacraments which they judg not fit or because Pedobaptism is retained or because you make not as they think separation enough from our Churches which is the case of some Congregational Churches though they pretend to worship God in a purer way would or could your Church approve worship God in a purer way would or could your Church approve of their doings Lastly in 2 Cor. 13.10 Paul speaks of the power which God had given him over the Church and over every member of it not of power given to the Church as distinct from officers not of power given to any member to withdraw from it not of Church-membership at least not in your sense But if he did speak of Church-membership it wil not serve your turn unless you could prove as you can never do that destruction only and not edification is found in our assemblies and edification only and not destruction in yours nor can I think that you hold that every Corinthian if in his judgment the Apostle did use his power for destruction and not for edification was bound to withdraw from him which they were too apt to do and for which he reprehends both them and the Galatians Gal. 1.6.1 Cor. 4.10.11.13.14.15 2 Cor. 10.2 Cor. 11. Sect. 7. But you say that I stumble at this because they converted them not and to this you Reply Persons whom the Apostles converted were ordinarily committed to others to be further edified and the ordinary Pastors and Elders of the primitive times did almost perpetually build upon anothers foundation The persons that watered for the most part were not the same that planted In Acts 11.20.21 We read of a great conversion wrought by the preaching of the scattered Disciples but we read not that they were gathered into Church-state till Barnabas was sent unto them and both Barnabas and Paul assembled with that Church and taught it which yet they converted not And in Acts 19.1.9 Paul found twelve Disciples converted to his hand though not fully instructed and gathered them into the Church which he planted at Ephesus But Brother how comes this to be a stone to stumble at If you hold a succession of pastors in the same Church the successors may feed a flock which their predecessors converted and not themselves And if you hold transplantation of members from one Church to another then they may feed the members which were of other Churches which themselves converted not Bejoynder 1. I stumble not but only discover your stumbling and falling I never denyed or doubted that some might plant and others water why do you trifle away time to prove it 2. I brought in by a parenthesis an aggravation of the great wrong done by separation unto Pastors which are not only robbed of their sheep but of their children in that they are gathered into such societies as will not eat or have Church-communion in the Sacrament with their spiritual fathers 3. Did it not grieve Paul himself when those which God had called by his Ministry were withdrawn from him Gal. 1. 6.1 Cor. 4.15 2 Cor. 11.2.4 And yet they I suppose never proceeded so far as to deny him communion If they had and should have prooved to him as you do to us that some plant and some water which he knew wel enough would this have given him satisfaction or excused their withdrawing from him If a father should complain that some Iesuite Monke or Nunn had seduced his children from his family into their scieties the sayd Iesuite Monke or Nunn might make as solid and just Apology for themselves as this is viz. That oftimes one begetts and another brings up and upon occasion of the death of parents removall c. Children are to be disposed of and transplanted into other famlies therefore they did the father no wrong surely their reasoning and yours too is very weak Sect. 8. You suppose I may object That this separation must be orderly done and with consent an to this you answer P. 4. No such order can be expected where no such order hath been wont to be exercised If any godly person hath removed from one Country to another and planted himself in Manchester have the Ministers or people whom he left sent after him or
challenged him as theirs Or have the Ministers or people whom he hath come to rejected him as none of theirs because not orderly delivered into their hands Suppose the end of his removall was communion with a better people or better Ministry Doth this make it the worse or more unwarrantable Is it lawful to remove to a fatter soil to a purer aire And not to a purer Church The purer any Church is doth not Christ the more delight in it And desire to be there most And why may not persons desire to plant themselves where Christ gives most of his presence And if one man may unite to such a Church may not many agree together to make such a Church And this is all the gathering of Churches that we know of that is either taught or practised Rejoynder 1. You play with your own fancy for it is not acknowledged that your gathering of Churches is at any time orderly done whether it be with consent or no. 2. You assert what I think your selves approve not that order is not to be expected where it hath not bin wont to be exercised as though custome were the guide of conscience 3. You take it for granted 1 That your Churches are purer Churches as if humane inventions sundry whereof I have discovered in Quare's to which contrary to my caution given you in my Epistle you sent me censures in stead of answers would make a Churth more pure 2. That Christ doth delight in your Churches more then in ours as the Anabaptists boast that they have more of Christs presence in their Churches then you in yours 3. That your manner of gathering and separating Christians into Churches is as justifiable as the removal of one or many to dwel in a fatter soyl clearer aire and under a better Ministry that they may be a purer Church yea this you say is all the gathering of Churches you know of I pray you consider better of it Lastly your selves are not determined when a Church is pure enough to live in Hence many of you do fly from one Church to another under pretence of attaining more purity though they are usually mistaken as those Corinthians were which sleighted Paul accounting him one of the foolish things of the world his bodily presence weak and his speech contemptible and those foolish Galatians which accounted him their enemy because he told them the truth CHAP. II. Of Parishes how they are jure Divino and how not Sect. 1. YOu say the exception is That there is a removall of persons to other Churches without the removall of their habitations This exception you take off by saying why should this be blamed 1. If distinction of Parishes by bounds and limits be not Iure Divino where then is the fault Rejoynder 1. The Parishes now are some too great some to little some unfitly and incommodiously divided and where they are most fitly divided these or those limits are of politique and not of divine constitution and are alterable upon just occasion and the law if there be any such whereby all that dwel within such a line are accounted of the Church there proceeds from a supposition that a due profession of Christianity is made by all the inhabitants I say if there be any such law because many Jews Pagans Papists have formerly and yet may dwel within the percinct of some Parish as many Heathen did dwel amongst the Church-members of Jerusalem Corinth c. though no Christians of other Churches did and so may many ignorant and scandalous persons which by the laws of the land and orders of the Church are to be kept from our Sacraments 2. It is most agreeable to the law of nature and scripture that there should be Parishes that is that Churches should be confined within convenient local limits For first else the members of one Congregation might live each of them 10.20.50 an 100. miles asunder without blame 2. The Scripture usually denominates Churches from places as the Churches of Ierusalem of Rome Antioch Corinth and Cenchrea are denominated respectivly from the Cities of Ierusalem Rome c. So that for ought we know Churches were then so exactly distinguished by local bounds that a man might have stood in some place between Corinth and Cenchrea and have said no member of the Church of Corinth dwels on this side and no member of the Church of Cenchrea on that side 3. In constant scripture-phrase the Christian inhabitants of such a town city or place were the Church in that city or place The Christian Corinthians Smyrnaeans Laodicaeans were the Church of Corinth Smyrna Laodicea 1 Cor. 1.1 2 Cor. 6.11 Col. 2.1 4.16 Rev. 2.8 3.14 4. Cities and Churches in scripture-phrase do expound one another as you confess defence P. 16. Which could not be if all the members of the Church were not in the city for certainly all the citizens many being Heathens were not of the Church Acts chap. 16. verse 4 5. Acts chap. 14. ver 23. cum Tit. c. 1. v. 5. 5. The way of Christ all along in Scripture is That Christians dwelling together should together make one Congregation and the converting of many Christians in a place to be a Church was all the gathering of Churches that then was 6. They that did remove from place to place did it is very probable as your selves acknowledge page 2. in the case of the scattered disciples fall into membership with those Churches where they did reside so Aquila and Priscilla might fall into membership sometime of the Church of Rome sometime of the Church of Corinth c. Acts 18.2 24 25 26. Rom. 16.3 and so many persons removing their places may well be of other Churches and yet transgress no scripture Rules as your separation doth 7. If Church-members should not cohabite how can Pastors feed the flock that is amongst them and be resident with them if they be not resident amongst themselves 8 This is a pattern uncontrouled by preceps and other patterns which kind of pattern your selves say Defence p. 15. hath doctrine in it for no instance can be given either that any dwelt in a Town or City where there was a Church though very corrupt as Corinth Laodicea Sardis c. and was a member of a Church in another City or Town as Cenchrea c. Or that any dwelt neerer to one Church and was a member of a remoter Church Or that any Christians dwelling remote one from another were united into one particular Church This hath also the consent of godly learned men as Mr Carwright Mr Parker and others non-conformists which agree against the Brownists in the lawfulness and expediencie of confining for orders sake particular Churches within the bounds of distinct Parishes and in New England it self as I hear Congregations are divided and bounded by the divisions and boundings of Towns and Parishes as Cambridge New Plimouth Boston c. 3 Suppose distinction of Parishes by bounds and limits were but
saying if all were one member where is the body is not to be understood so much that the Church must be a Collective body as that it must be an Organical Heterogeneal body if all were one member id est if all were one sort of members all eye all eare all feet as is plain by the Coherence 1 Cor. 12.14.15 c. 4. Your Reply leaves the reader very doubtful in that you say God hath not precisely determined what number doth make a Church for he may question first how you dare precisely determine either that 7.8 or 9. may make a Church that a Church may consist of so many as may with edification meet in one place and of no more which doth determine the number materialiter though not formaliter seeing God himself hath not precisely determined it as your selves confess 2. You do not possitively must be found to be lyers him what number did at any time make a Church whether 7. or 8. or 10.20.40 or 100. but send him to seek it 5. Mr. Cotten saith though there might be a domestical Church in Adam and Eve at the beginning yet such a Church as Christ hath instituted in the new Testament consisteth of a greater number then two or three way of the Churches P. 53. And if you do assert that Adam and Eve did then make a Church which seems to be your opinion for you argue only against one person being a Church then you have scripture produced by mee and cited by you Defence P. 73. And Reverend Mr. Cotton against such a number making a Church now And indeed in the beginning of the world there was defectus physicus but now if a defect be it is defectus moralis If there were no woman in the world an incontinent person could not many but now it is a sin for him not to marry 6. I beleeue your selves do not conceive that those 7. or 8. in Adams or in Noahs family might be now an instituted Church if they were alive though the reader may think you contend for it can one man one woman foure or 5 children the eldest whereof must needs be very young make a Church should the man sin the Woman reproves him or e contra and he wil not be gained where must she have one or two more or a Church to complain to seeing little children as reason tells us and your selves grant are neither meet for nor capable of that imployment Can foure men and their Wives make a Church Cham sins Noah rebukes him he wil not be gained he according to rule takes with him one or two more as Sem and Iaphet then they have a goodly Church left viz foure women their four wives which you know are disabled by their sex 7. Suppose in a Church of 7. or 8. a man and a woman should be suspected by their brother of Committing adultery as David and Bathsheba did or incest and their brother admonish them and they deny it he takes one or two with him to charge sin upon them and they yet deny it and complain of wrong and take one or two with them to charge sin upon him or them that admonished them then all these are parties who is left to judg this business if the Church consist but of 7. 8. or 9 8. You say a particular Church is called a City an Army a Kingdom which titles do imply multitudes now it were strange to say that two or three or 7. 8. 9. may make a City an Army a Kingdom 9. It is inconvenient and of dangerous consequence that 7. or 8. should be able to cast out of Communion any person not only with themselves but the whole Catholique visible Church and deliver him to Sathan especially if they be illiterate and unexperienced in the wayes of God and apt to be byased as so few men though visible Saints may easily be Sect. 2. When I say that Twelve are more then seven or eight and an hundred and twenty a competent number yet it appeareth not that they were called or counted a Church til they were more increased If there were no more beleevers in Ephesus then twelve as there was viz. Aquila and Priscilla which knew more then Iohns Baptiâ—m Acts 18.26 with 24.25 If not others Yet there were more in Jerusalem then an hundred and twenty 1 Cor. 15.6 You reply P. 10. That twelve is not more in the truth of the constitution of a Church then 7. or 8. Rejoynder 1. My meaning was that you cannot prove that 7. or 8. may make a Church though twelve might for 12. is almost double to â— 2. Twelve men your selves wil acknowledg are rather capable of being a Church then 7. or 8. in Adams family or in Noahs where were so many women and children for here if a man sin and his brâ—ther admonish him and he wil not be gained and he take two or three with him yet there is some remaining to take cognizance of the thing which in the precedent instances there was not you see I dispute upon your own principles though I grant them not 3. You say P. 13. Smal Churches are inconsistent with Christs and which is edification by Pastors from whence it follows that the more smal the more inconsistent and the less smal the less inconsistent and in this sense I might say that twelve is more then 7 or eight and so declare some what else then that I can number twelve Sect. 3. You Reply P. 10. That the scripture determines not what number is competent and what not competent to the being of a Church that I am the more presumptuous in aring that an 120 are a competent number to make a Church that if I wil I may see them a Church before they were so encreased for they performed one great act of a Church in electing an officer to be over the Church Acts. 1. 23. And when three thousand were added to them they came into their state and if their state were not Church-state then neither were they made a Church by this addition for let 3000. be added to no Church and they are stil no Church which to affirm were flat against the Scripture Rejoynder 1. Pardon me I pray you I thought I had bin no more presumptuous to say an 120. is a competent number then you are in saying 7. or 8. is a competent number to the being of a Church seeing God hath as wel determined that an 120. as that 12. or 7. or 8. is a competent number and 120. is more capable of all officers and of a flock then 7. or 8. The truth is as you sayd that an 120. was smal enough in comparison you mean of what it was afterward so I sayd that it was a competent number comparatively to 12. which yet is more then 7. or 8. the number which you should prove competent to the being of the Church or else forgoe the position 2. Election of an Apostle is not properly a Church act
for then other Churches might have done it as wel as that for other Churches may do all Church acts but it was an occasional extraordinary act and the power of doing it did not result from the combination of them into a particular Church but from an immediate extraordinary commission from God for that time only and therefore noteth not any Church-ship in them nor that any other Church might do it any more then Ananias his laying of hands on Saul proves that every single disciple or Minister may ordinarily do it It is the honour of Apostles and Apostolique men not to be of men or by men but of God God himself elected the first twelve and after there were Christian Churches God without the intervention of all or any of them chose Paul to be an Apostle And in this place he confined them to some sort of men that had conversed with our Saviour amongst whom I suppose an unfit man could not be found and if he had bin unfit the gifts of the holy Ghost which they were then immediatly to receive would have made him fit he gave them no power to nominate the particular man but himself determined it by Lot and he might have chosen a third man not nominated by them yea one that had not accompanied the Apostles as Paul if he had so pleased 3. That election so far as it was the act of man might aswel be the Apostles as the peoples act for though Peter stood up in the midst of the Disciples and told them that in the room of Iudas one must be ordeined yet he doth not bid them nominate or elect one or two or more nor doth the text convincingly decide who did appoint those two Bucerus saith The Apostles named two and it is likely it was they the same parties that prayd and cast lots And though all persons present did not joyn in the election Peters speech unto them might be of use lest they should conceive as they might wel enough that none should have succeeded an Apostle an extraordinary Officer no more then any succeeded Iohn Baptist before or Iames afterward and that they might submit to such an one and joyn with more understanding and faith in prayer with them and in approbation of their act 4. If you can see them a Church you mean a particular Church because they elected an officer then I may say you if you wil may see them an universal Church because they performed one great act of the universal Church in electing an universal officer 5. It is strange that men of your strength should make so weak work for 1. The words to them upon which you build are not in the original text but only in the translation and therefore it may be read they were addâ—d to the Lord as Acts 5.14 2. The words to them if they were in the text as they are not may be meant of Peter and the rest of the Apostles spoken of v. 37.42 as Acts 9.26.27 which were not set members of any particular congregation 3. If one Apostle only had bin there and 3000. had added themselves to him receiving his word being baptized and continuing in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship they might have bin a Church of themselves though that one Apostle to whom they were added was not nor could be a Church 4. Those that were dayly converted to the faith baptized are said to be added dayly to the Church meaning the general visible Church into which the Eunuch was baptized and Paul also before he did so much as assay 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to joyn to any particular Church Sect. 4. You Reply P. 11. Though Aquila and Priscilla were at Ephesus yet they were but sojourners there as they were also in many other places sometimes at Rome sometimes at Corinth as appears from Acts 18.2 Rom. 16.3 But to what place they did belong it is not certain Rejoynder 1. If it be uncertain to what place they did belong how dare you say peremptorily they were but sojourners there why might they not be inhabitants of Ephesus and members of the Church there 2. They had an house in Rome and in that house a Church Rom. 16.5 Therefore they remained there for one season Pareus thinks they dwelt at Ephesus another while and removed from one place to another as occasion was offered 3. The dissenting brethren in their reasons P. 18. do affirm that many of the members of the Church of Hierusalem were but sojourners there and if so why might not Aquila and Priscilla be members of the Church of Ephesus though suppose they were but sojourners there 4. If their being but sojourners in a place did hinder them from being members of the Church in that place then how can they which are not so much as sojourners in a place but meer strangers and inhabiting 5.8.10.20 miles from it be members of the Church in that place 5. Those twelve which you call the foundationals of the Church of Ephesus When the holy Ghost came on them they not only spake With tongues but prophesyed Acts 19. Now though tongues were a sign to them that did not beleeve yet Prophesying served not for infidells but beleevers 1 Cor. 14.4.22 Yea Beza signifieth that they were called unto the Ministry and then these may well be those Elders mentioned Acts 20.28 Which the holy Gâ—ost in a special manner made Bishops now that 12. men should prophesie yea to be made Ministers at Ephesus and there be no other beleevers to heare that prophesie or to submit to their Ministry your selves wil judge very improbable Sect. 5. Reply p. 11. Your five hundred brethren at Ierusalem is as sleightly collected from 1 Cor. 15.6 For first doth the Apostle say that he was seen of those 500. in Ierusalem He shewed himself in Galilee and some other places as wel as in Ierusalem 2. Though the place of manifesting himself might be Ierusalem must the persons therefore be of Jerusalem why not appertaining to Iudea Or suppose of Ierusalem why might they not be dispersed before Christs ascention for presently afterwards when they chose an Apostle they were not there which yet was a Church action and without doubt the major part of the Church would have bin present at it Rejoynder 1. Those 500 might wel be of Ierusalem seeing that Iâ—rusalem which could be no less then a considerable part if not the major part of that City were baptized by Iohn See more Cap. 5. Sect. 2. 2. You render no reason why it might not be at Ierusalem as wel as any other place 3. Imagine the place to be Galilee or Iudaea and indeed you do but imagine it not prove it and those 500 to appertain to Galilee or Iudaea might they not be of the Church of Ierusalem was there yet any other Church to which they did belong would they not desire the society of the Apostles were there not men of Galilee amongst the 120. Acts 1.11.15 2.7 which
one city easily and conveniently as your selves say of Herod and Pilate p. 19. And I hold that several congregations in the countries if they may conveniently meet and govern in common not only may but ought so to do as wel as several congregations in a city 5. You cannot shâ—w so express a pattern of Christians in a city making two Churches as I have shewed of Christians of one Church meeting ordinarily in several places and therefore this pattern is more uncontrouled then the other and consequently by your own doctrin more to be followed 6. You presume that there were Churches in some other parts of Iudea besides Jerusalem though the particular assemblies of the Church of Jerusalem might wel enough be called the Churches of Judea and you cannot shew where one Church was in Judea save at Jerusalem and it is improbable to suppose any Churches in Judea but what were in Jerusalem seeing at Jerusalem the Apostles resided held their constant assemblies and occasional councells and there they of Galilee which was beyond Judea that beleeved in Christ continued Luke 23.49 Acts 1.15 2.1 7. 13.31 And the converts of the Apostles closely adhered to them in fellowship at Jerusalem and sold their possessions goods lands houses and had all things common in the Church Acts 2.42 44 46 47. 4.34 Some of which were of remoter places far then any part of Judes cap. 4.36 7. If you should prove there were Churches elsewhere in Judea besides Jerusalem yet it could not thence be gathered that they were all congregational and only such for as little and final as Judea was 1. It had cities in it and great ones too besides Jerusalem as Lidda Azotus c. And you acknowledg that city and Church do explain one another 2. Judea through the blessing of God multiplying the inhabitants as the sand of the sea according to his promise to Abraham contained an innumerable multitude of people for ought I know more then in England In Ata's tune out of Juda and Benjamin alone there was an army of almost 600000 men besides women and children valiant men besides impotent aged persons now you know the multitude or paucity of the people not the largness or littleness of the of the place or country is in this case most considerable London may fitter be a providence then the same circuit of ground in some parts of the kingdome a parish 3. There was a vast multitude of Christians in Iudea converted by the Ministry of Iohn Baptist Iesus Christ the 12 Apostles the 70 disciples all raiâ—ed up to gather Gods chosen ones out of Iudaea and which were very successful in their Ministry so that the littleness of Judea is no let but that there might be ten or 20. several Churches and each of them dividid into 5 or 6 several assemblies as also the county of Midlesex one of the least counties in the kingdome and far less then the Province of Judea and having no city in it save one might also contain so many and such Churches Concerning the term Churches see more afterwards CHAP. VI. Whether the Epistles to the Corinthians were writ only to those that met ordinarily in one place Sect. 1. WHen I alledg that Paul writs to them that in every place not throughout the world as appears 2 Cor. 1.1 Writen to the same persons 1 Cor. 5.1.2 with 2 Cor. 2.1 2. Nor is this a Catholique Epistle but in all Achaja call upon the name of the Lord. You Reply p. 16. That Paul writes sends and applyes this to the Corinthians alone for all along proper and peculiar things belonging to the Corinthians and not to the Achaians nor Saints in all the world are spoken of in commendation and discommendation and proper reproofs directions c. Yet he intended it for use and benefit of all Achaia and of the whole world also And it may as properly be called a Catholique Epistle as an Achaian Epistle for the use redound to all the world as wel as to Achaia else how can it be Canonical scripture and the foundation of our sermons that we preach out of it Rejoynder 1 Certainly you know that the Epistle may be canonical and yet the use of it not redound to all the world as wel as to Achaia if by as wel you mean equally in all the particular contents of this Epistle The Epistle to Philemon is canonical and the 2. to Timothy though the use of it in point of Onesimus and Pauls cloak do not as wel or equally concern all the world as Philemon Timothy 2. The use of these Epistles I dare say redounds not to Corinth only nor to all the world as wel as Achaia for there are divers passages in both these Epistles which cannot be limited to Corinth nor enlarged to the whole world as 2 Cor. 11.1 2. Forwardness of Ministring to the Saints was not only in the Corinthians but in the Achaians Paul boasteth of them to whom he writes in these words I boasted of you that Achaia was ready a year ago now it is improper for any man that writes to London and not to England more then all the world to say I boasted of you that England was ready a year ago The house of Stephanas he commends to them under the notion of being the first fruits of Achaia The contribution for the Saints at Jerusalem was the contribution of Achaia Rom. 15.26 And part of his drift and scope is to get a liberal contribution not from Corinth only but from all Achaja and he doth not desire the Church of Corinth to communicate this letter to the other Saints of Achaia because he writs to them all in the second person 3. The Apostle doth not write to the Saints in Ephesus and in all Asia Ephes 1.1 Or the Saints at Philippi or the Church of Thessalonica and to all Macedonia nor any where else doth he write to the Saints or to the Church in such a city with all the Saints in such a province or country or in every place though every Epistle be of common use and profit both to the borderers and to strangers yea to all the world yet he writes to the Church of Corinth with the Saints in every place or in all Achaia Which words are not vainly and impertinently put here and not in any other Epistle and what can they else import but that this Epistle is more an Achaian pardon your own improper term then a Catholique Epistle 4. I put you to prove that the reproofs directions exhortations commendations were proper to them that schisms fornications were only amongst them that the exhortation to a liberal contribution on the first day of the week was proper to Corinth yea that the Incestuous person was a member of the Church of Corinth though we presume and commonly speak so yet it is not necessary for he might be a member of the Church of Cenchrea or some other Church in Achaia for ought we
2.2.14.20 It being also clear that if they were not then duly proceeded against they could not be justly and orderly excommunicated 4. If it be said that this meeting if it was a formal Synod it was only occasional and not a set stated monethly or yearly meeting I answer 1 This is but a circumstance of time which followeth necessarily the substance of the thing if Synods sit they must sit in some time but what time or times they should sit doth depend upon circumstances and as the Churches business requireth the scripture doth not mention any stâ—tâ—d Ecclesiastical meetings for government Synodical or Congrâ—gational that they should meet weekly monethly nor mentioneth it any set Church-meetings except the Lords day for preaching hearing fasting prayer conference yet the Church may upon occasion order weekly or monethly Congregational meetings for those purposes according to the general rules of Gods word your selves grant that the officers of several Churches may meet together as oft as occasion shal require to advise and consult about the ordering of the affaires of the Churches in all difficult cases And that at every meeting the time of the next meeting be determined on and the occasion thereof so far as appears intimated Yea you tel us p. 128. That emimently gifted men may preach for divers moneths together while the occasion lasts And so I say Synods may meet but if it appear there be no just occasion of a Synod I desire not that there should be any in a stated way Sect. 2. Reply p. 23. What is there to warrant combination of assemblies in a Nation more then of all Christian assemblies in the world represented in an oecumenical Councel For if a Congregational Church must depend upon a National Church then a National Church must depend upon the universal as the lesser upon the greater What a Nation is to a Congregation that the Universal is to a Nation Rejoyn I wil also ask you one question what is there more to warrant the Elders of New England to convene in a Synod or Assembly of the Churches then the Elders of all the world to convene in a general Councel Surely no more warrant save that they had a better call and more power and encouragement by the Civil Magistrates and their mutual consent and might with more conveniency ease expedâ—tion and safety meet together in Cambridge in N. E. then all the Elders in the world could and yet you account that Assembly an Ordinance of God 2. There is not the same necessity of combination of all Churches in the world as there is of all Churches in a Nation for peace and government Is there as good reason that all kingdoms should be subject to one general meeting o the Kings and supreme Magistrates as that in every Kingdom there should be subordination of Judicatories and appeals from the less to the greater 3. How much greater distance there is between particular Churches so much the less needs the visible communion of those Churches to be because danger of scandal and infection and the opportunity of mutual edification is less or more according as the distance of place is greater or less therefore there is or ought to be a more strict ordinary visible Ecclesiastical communion within a Classis then within a Province within a Nation then in all the world 4. Your selves must either acknowledg that a particular Church hath power to elect an officer for other Churches for you oft alledg Acts 1. for the Churches power of Election as wel as their own or else grant that that was a general Church or Councel which did choose an Apostle a general officer 5. As for your conceit that the members of a general Councel must be universal Pastors it hath been before confuted in a democracy or popular government the power is in all the people joyntly but to say that every one of the people is an universal officer is ridiculous Sect. 3. When I say shew me a Nation of Magistrates and people converted and I wil shew you a National Church You reply p. 24. that I might have said Shew me a Nation converted and I wil shew a National Church framed like the Iewish Church with one National Bishop over it one National Cathedral in it Rejoyn 1. The Jewish was rather the Universal then a National Church if God should have called any or all other Nations they must have been proselyted into it 2. If there were no better arguments against the Pope and Prelatical men then you bring against a National Church and if the Nationalness of the Church was as truly Ceremonial and abrogated as the high Priest and Temple were which you odly cal a National Bishop and Cathedral are then that form of speech should I use it were irreprehensible 3. I retort shew me an Assembly of the Churches in a Nation like that of New England and I wil shew you a National Church You further say Reply p. 24. Though there was no Nation converted yet Christ's mind in that matter might easily have been dictated in the Scriptures had he intended any such Church afterwards as Moses tels the Iews Deut. 12.8 9 10. And though there were not Nations converted yet there were so many in a Nation converted as made many Assemblies In little Iudea there were Congregation and why together with the Church at Ierusalem might tâ—ere not have been a Diocesan or Classical Church The foot-stets of a Diocesan or Classical Church shal serve the turn then we wil yeeld there might in time be a National Rejoyn You hold a National Synod to be a lawful and useful Ordinance of God if one should deny it and say shew me a lesser Synod of all the Churches within such or such a circuit and I wil grant there may be a National Synod consider wel what ye would answer 2. It is either weakness or worse to intimate to the world that Presbyterians do plead for a Diocesan Church you know I suppose that Mr Rhuterfurd and others do professedly reject and refute it 3. I have shewed that the Church of Ierusalemâ— did consist of many Congregations and that the Elders of that Church did convene for acts of government you cannot deny and this you know is a Presbyterial Church which we cal a Classis 4. I have shewed a pattern of an authoritative Synod exercising jurisdiction over particular Churches and cleared it from your greatest and strongest exceptions against it 5. In Chap. 9. I have shewed from holy Scripture that there is an Vniversal visible Church which is greater then a National and doth include and justifie it and to which it is subordinate in a regular way These you know are more then footsteps of a Presbyterial or Classical Church 6. The Scriptures do prophecy of the cal of a Nation I. a. 55.5 and also of a Nations answer to that call and that Israel should be one of the three which may import three National Churches One Nation as
Heathens and other strangers to the Church not of children born within the Church whose parents are Church-members which are reputed within the Church and baptized as such though no visible Saint-ship doth or can they being infants appear in them and consequently this is not of much if of any concernment to the Reformed Churches of England Scotland France For until it can be proved that a perfect reformation of the Churches cannot be made without a new constitution and that Churches may lawfully be gathered out of Churches the said new constitution is to be judged unnecessary 2. It cannot be denyed that all men are morally bound to be visible Saints yea real Saints yea God requireth that armies should be holy Deut. 13.14 23. 9. And the Instance of Achan for relative guilt is more suitable to the Isralites as a camp the passages of it being military not Ecclesiastical then as a Congregation Cities should be holy Isa 1.21 26. Isa 64.10 families should be holy Psal 101.2 7. That is they ought to be so it is their duty so to be and the words in the position nakedly considered import no more and he that erects a family is bound so far as he may to erect it of such as fear God Church-members should much more be visible and real Saints for a Church-member quâ such makes more profession enjoys more means is in a neerer relation to God then a souldier or a Citizen quâ such 3. I grant that some visibility of Saint-ship is requisite to admission viz. profession of faith and repentance especially if men be not sufficiently known and approved by experience of them acquaintance with them or by sufficient testimony of others that are known or if they have bin known to be Heathenish heretical or wicked and desire of admission 4. I deny not but all means prescribed by the rule that the Church may consist of visible Saints are to be used but I question 1. whether it were better no Church were erected then not of visible Saints as you assert p. 31. That is not wholy of visible Saints for thus I understand you seeing those Churches from which you gather members consist of some if not of many visible Saints 2. I question also whether God doth not require Heathens and irreligious wicked persons to joyn to the Church as wel as to raise armies or wage war erect families and that their joyning to the Church by profession of faith and repentance craving the Sacraments is not a sin no more then raising armies families c. Yea it is a greater sin to neglect the one then the other though indeed their remaining Heathen is a great abomination and more odious in Gods sight after their entrance into the Church then after the erection of Cities But the main question as it is stated by you p. 33. is whether a Church should examine persons which come to be admitted whether the work of grace be wrought in them or not I hold the negative and my reasons are 1. There is no precept for it in the word of God 2. Nor was every member at his admission into the Church in the Apostles times called to give account of the work of grace in his heart Nor. 3. Can any Congregation be named which was appointed to judg or did actually judg whether the work of grace was wrought in such an heart or no and consequently whether he were to be admitted into the Church or no. 4. Nor doth the Scripture prescribe that men should meet together for prayer and mutual conference to be satisfyed of the good estate one of another and to approve themselves to one anothers consciences in the sight of God before they can constitute a Church Nor. 5. Were those three thousands and the Apostles also satisfyed in their consciences of the regeneration of all those they joyned with as Ananias and Sapphira â—or can we think that they could in one day or had any days before used the foresaid means of tryall one oâ— another by prayer conference Nor. 6. That all that were circumcised and admitted into the Jewish Church would upon such examination have bin found visible Saints Nor. 7. That Iesus Christ as man did know those thousands and myriads of Ierusalem and all Iudea and all the region round about Iordan what one man knows the people of London of all Midlesex and of all the Country about Thames or Trent with whom he was baptized much less can it be proved that Iesus Iohn Baptist which baptized them or the disciples of Christ which were born and lived amongst them and knew the great wickedness and frequent fained confessions and humiliations oâ— that people did esteem each of them a true Saint of God or that they did examine and try whether their confession of sin or profession of faith and repentance was real or but meerly verbal or that they required them to Walk in Christian fellowship with them some space for tryal and approbation or that they stayd or deferred to baptize any of them til they saw their fruits meet for repentance especially seeing Luke saith Luc. 3.21 that all the people which v. 7. he calls Generations of vipers were baptized if you cannot prove to the contrary of these things I pray you acknowledg it if you can do it hitherto you have not done it 8. This makes the Churches charity the rule of admission which is but a leaden rule no certain one some mens charity being larger some lesser yea the same mens charity being larger at sometimes then at others and more to some men as those that are of theiâ— opinions kindred benefactors c. Then to others whence it followeth that men of larger charity may lawfully admit such as they that have less charity cannot 9. This Tenet makes Communion with all the Apostolique Churches and particularly with the Church of Corinth unlawful whereas the Apostle allows the worthy receivers to communicate in it 1 Cor. 11. he would have no schism in it nor separation from it 1 Cor. 12.25 11.18 10. A man that beleeves he should not communicate with any of whom his Conscience is not satisfyed that they are visible Saints dareth not communicate in any Congregational Church especially not in a great one for if coveâ—ous persons raylers two of the very sins mentioned by the Apostle 1. Cor. 5. or Brownists whose errors the Apologists call fatal shipwracks or Schismaticks which professedly the Apostle speaks of 1 Cor. 11.18 19 20. or Hypocrites and false teachers which the Scripture saith are of a leavening nature idle persons disorderly Walkers 2. Thes 3.6 8 12. or spiritually proud censorious uncharitable persons be unworthy receivers it is an hard thing to be satisfyed that in those Churches especially in the greater of them there is none at all of any of these sorts amongst them no not one 11. The Scripture compares a Church lawfully constituted to a draw-net to a wheat field in which are tares discerned a
Andrew Thomas c. Paul and Barnabas assembling a whole year with the Church at Antioch though they did not covenant themselves into it are sayd to be within that Church Acts 11.26 cum cap. 13.1 And therefore if implicite covenant agreement or combination doth make a true Church we are not deficient therein 5. As for that of the Sichemites being one people that is to say one Church or one people to God as elsewhere you phrase it I conceive that Simeon and Levi did not pretend them to be one Church neither would this have bin an acceptable motion to an Heathenish Idolatrous people nor would Circumcision alone have effected it Edomites and others were Circumcised and yet were not of the Jewish Church except they had renounced their idols and become Proselytes 2. I conceive the poor Sichemites had no thoughts of altering their Religion for a wife nor would the men of the City in all probability have so unanimously consented to it they might look upon Circumcision as a national rite and by being one people they do interpret themselves to mean of a civil union viz. dwelling trading marrying one with another enjoying the cattel and substance one of another Gen. 34.21 Of any overture or pretence of Simeon and Levi or any desire or hope that the Sichem tes had that they should be one Church one people to God partakers of the same Sacrifices and ceremonies there is no mention I conceive therefore it is but your gloss what covenant is involued in Circumcision we shal shew hereafter Sect. 2. Reply p. 38. Relation and combination to domestick ends and purposes is the form of a family unto politick and civil ends is the form of a Common-wealth c. And so relation and combination of so many Saints as may wel meet in one place unto the enjoyment of Church-ordinances doth make a Church Rejoyn 1. Do you not mean that this agreement or covenant is only of them that are sui juris must every member of the Common-wealth as mean men servants women children per se at least implicitly consent to their relation or combination in the Common-wealth and every particular member of a City and family also or he else is not to be judged one in that Common-wealth City or family and do you hold the same of Church-relation 2. Do you mean that this covenant is not only between inferiors and superiors but between equals viz. that all the subjects of the Common-wealth must agree together to be one all the children and servants in a family should agree to be one all the wives of David and all the wives of Solomon did agree to be one and not only that there is an agrrement between Magistrates and subjects Masters and servants as we acknowledg also between Ministers and people but that there must be agreement or covenant of the wives amongst themselves the servants amongst themselves the subjects amongst themselves and that this is the form of a family or of a Common-wealth and so consequently Christians agreement to be a Church is you say the form of a Church 3. Do you mean that any former agreement or covenant made by our parents unto Domestique Politique or Ecclesiastique ends and purposes doth not bind us their children and successors but notwithstanding the same we without a particular and personal consent are not of the same family City Common-wealth or Church that they were of I pray you express your selves plainly Sect. 3. Reply p. 38. A solemn express and verbal covenant or agreement we assert necessary to the purity and strength of a Church how should Saints and they alone living promiscuously in the world have communion together without express verbal consent which yet we judg ought to be if the rule be wel attended Rev. 22.27 22.14 And how else such loosness as in our Parssh Churches from which we may remove into another Parish without rendring a reason the members in a natural body the stones in an house are not so loosly set to which a particular Church is compared Eph. 2.22 1 Cor. 12.27 may be prevented therefore we conceive a covenant necessary for such purposes Rejoyn 1. You assert here more then I can yeeld unto For. 1. The Scripture gives us no precept or president of such a solemn express and verbal covenant which you assert necessary to the strength and wel-being of the Church For. 1. Church-covenant hath reference to Church-state and Church-duties as such as marriage hath to conjugal duties as such Apol. for Church Cov. p. 3. 25. This doth distinguish it from the covenant of grace and other covenants which have no more reference to those duties if so much as to other duties 2. Your Church-covenant binds men to walk in all the ordinances of God which in the known sense of your Church expressed by your confession of faith and by your practise is no other then to walk in the congregational or Independent way now no Scripture doth require that men should covenant to walk in that way 3. Your Church-covenant is not only with God but with a particular Congregation which doth difference it from all those covenants that are made with God only and not with any Church 4. Your covenant is publike vocal express and this doth distinguish it from all those agreements that are only implyed in actions as one that dwels in Manchester joyns in choosing and submitting to the Constables and other officers payes lays and taxes assists officers and bears office if required doth tacitely agree that he is a Manchester man and yet we do not say he hath entered into covenant or that none can be a Manchester man but by covenant 5. Your solemn covenant is before the choosing of officers which distinguisheth it from al such covenants as are made by a Church having officers 6. It binds men not to depart without leave-asking which though it be no ordinance of God but a politique invention yet it doth infringe much the liberties of the Church members w th els in some cases might lawfully depart without leave asking 7. If a man cannot in Conscience consent to your covenant he shal be secluded from the Sacrament though he be never so fit and holy 8. Your covenant doth translate men and remove men out of our Churches into yours and makes them members of a distinct Church whereas Scripture-covenants at the most did but confirm if so much men in their Church-state If you can shew such a Church-covenant as this in Scripture or that hath all the essentials of your Church-covenant then I shal incline to beleeve it not only lawful but necessary to the Churches welbeing but I cannot beleeve any thing to be necessary to the strength and purity of the Church if it cannot be found in Scripture some have sayd If set formes of prayer had bin lawful Christ would have prescribed them I may much rather say if this Church-covenant were so necessary Christ would have prescribed it
2. Any seperation or division that is of God may be brought about without our own inventions The Christians did seperate them-themselves from amongst the Iews and Heathens and the Protestants in Queen Maries days from the Papists and yet without any such vocal express covenant that we read of 3. If such looâ—ness in our Parish-Churches be so great an evil then take you heed you be not guilty of that great evil by making that loosness greater then it is or by Gods law ought to be Is it a greater evil for men that remove their habitation then for those that do not remove it all to depart from their Parish-Church without rendering a reason Is it not a greater evil to add to the commandments of God our own carnal and politick devices and to lay a yoke or covenant on our people which God hath not layd on them for preventing of some inconveniences which Gods law doth not enable us to prevent 2. If there be any local bounds as by Scripture rules hath been shewed there ought to be that inconvenience must necessarily happen but to this I have spoken before Chap. 2. 3. The place in Eph. 2.22 is apparently not meant of a particular Congregation but of the universal Church which is called the City the Houshold the Temple and all the Christians of the particular Church of Ephesus were not the whole City but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fellow-citizens with the Saints not the whole houshold but of the houshold not all the temple or building but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are built together with other Saints and Churches which also are part of the City Temple Houshold building as wel as they 4. in Cor. 12.27 when he had said ye are the body of Christ he corrects himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if he should say ye are not the whole body but members in part of that body and others are part of that body as wel as you for into it both Jews and Gentiles are baptized v. 13. viz. into the universal Church and in this sense these Scriptures do not serve your purpose and therefore you say but not rightly that a particular Church is there compared to a body and an house 5. Your selves I know hold not that Church-membership is as in dissolvable as the members of a natural body are one from another which are not separated without ruine of the part separating if not of the whole body nor can that member be willingly separated from its body or joyned with any good effect to another body CHAP. XIII Whether Deut. 29. or Gen. 17. be presidents of a Church-Covenant Sect. 1. THe Covenant in Deut. 29.1.10 11 12. respects Reply p. 39. principally Church-duties more then other duties of the moral law v. 16 17 18. for he warns them of Heathenish worships and would engage them by an holy Covenant to all Gods holy worships of the Passover and all the offerings of Gods prescription which were to be brought to the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation though a Covenant binding to some duties of the moral law may be made by two or three persons of several Churches and yet not make them members of a distinct Church yet if they Covenant to walk together in the constant enjoyment of all Church-ordinances this would change their state and make them a Church Rejoyn 1. Those verses contain in them Moses admonition and exhortation to the people v. 10. Ye stand this day all of you before the Lord your God v. 12. that thou should'st enter into Covenant with the Lord thy God and into his oath which he maketh with thee this day c. that they should not serve the gods of Aegypt or of other Nations least there should be amongst them man or woman or family or tribe whose heart turneth away from God but there is not the least mention of Passover or other Church-duties which you say that Covenant did engage them to and therefore it doth not appear by those verses that the Covenant more principally respects Church-duties more then other duties of the moral law some part of the moral law is mentioned and interpreted viz. the first Commandment but nothing spoken of Church-membership Every particular servant of God ought to take heed of Heathenish worships which is there required and not a Church only I appeal to you may not ought not every man woman family or tribe to use the words of v. 18. make a Covenant with God that he she or they wil not turn away from the Lord to go and serve the gods of the nations as Jacob covenanted for himself Gen. 28.21 and Ruth cap. 1.16 and Joshuah for himself and his house Josh 24.15 May not any two or three amongst us covenant that they wil keep the first Commandment which in this text is paraphrased on Thou shalt have no other Gods before me viz. not the abominations of Aegypt nor their idols v. 17. of some duties sealing their union and communion with the body of the Jewish Church and celebrated when the whole body was assembled I find mention in your book but not in the book of God in the place cited 3. Suppose it true that persons covenanting to walk together in all Church-ordinances which God requires of a Church would make them a Church and change their state yet it is not to the point for the question is whether two or three of several Christian Churches covenanting in the very words of v. 16 17 18. on which you build That their hearts should not turn away from the Lord their God to go to serve other gods or that they would not serve or worship images would this make them one Church together And if it do not how can you say this was a Church-Covenant 4. This was not an express vocal Covenant on the peoples part which you are to prove necessary to the wel-being of the Church for it was made with them that were absent as wel as with them that were present now they that were absent however they were included did not could not if they that were present did make a solemn express verbal Covenant Mr Cottons opinion you shal hear hereafter Sect. 2. When I answer that a Covenant in general doth not make a Church nor a marriage and that Scripture-Covenants are not with appropriation and application to this Pastor or people viz. that they would serve with this people or Pastor rather then with that therefore they are not Church-Covenants You reply page 40. Who ever read or heard of a Covenant in general of duties to be done without application to persons mutually engaged to perform such duties The Covenants in Scripture were no such Covenants they were applied to Israel and to the Gentiles that should joyn to Israel and so they were a separated people from other nations by Covenant Exod. 12.47 48. The Jews by the Covenant of God were to serve God rather with this people then with that Rejoyn 1. You
express themselves for these reasons 1. The Church is not one member but many viz. not one sort of members but composed of variety as hath bin said Chap 4. Hence the Church is described as an organical body of divers members Rom. 12.4 5. And if all were one member that is beleevers only then where were the body A corporation an army properly so called doth consist of governers as wel as governed 2. Word Sacraments censures yea all sacred worships you say may be observed to belong to the Church but none but professed Anabaptists and Morellians hold that Christians united without officers have power to preach and to administer Sacraments or censures 3. The Churches we read of in Scripture were organical Churches yea those by you spoken of Acts 9.31 might be such for ought appears they were edified how but by officers which elsewhere you say were given for their edification Ephes 4.11 or by ordinances by the word and Sacraments which they could not regularly enjoy without out officers if you mean by prayer reading hearing conference this you wil acknowledg they might have had without enchurching 4. That the Apostles taught Christians to unite themselves together without officers and to call themselves a Church or do any any act of Church-power or that they planted Churches any other wayes then to convert many Christians in a City and to ordain Elders over them it cannot be shewed 5. As for Amesius his definition of a Church if it be to your mind I am sure it is not in your usual language for he speaks of communion of Saints which you use to distinguish from church-Church-communion if church-Church-communion be not included then you in effect tell us p. 39. that such a bond wil not make them a Church and if Church-communion be included how Church-communion in Sacraments and censures can be lawfully had without officers and what that is I cannot see 6. A man may have a priviledg to choose a wife and yet not be an husband nor she a wife till they be married a free State may have a priviledg to choose a King yet they cannot be a Kingdom till they have chosen him so it may be the privâ—lâ—dg of the people to choose their officers and yet not be a Church properly so called till they have them for it is their priviledg to be a Church together yet they are not a Church before they are one Lastly it is a contradiction to say the Apostles planted Churches and yet those Churches were without officers for the Apostles that planted them were officers of them if they had no other Sect. 2. Reply p. 46. You grant that the Church Act. 2. had no ordinary officers for none were then appointed Act. 14.23 shews they were Churches before the Apostle ordained Elders in them Rejoyn 1. You take full as much as I granted and possibly I granted more then I needed but I in a Parenthesis which you leave out spake of the 70 which might be ordinary officers or extraordinary and their commission might be in force or no for ought I determined but it is as like they were Elders of that Church as no seeing Act. 11.30 we read of Elders in that Church as extant we know not how long before that time and we read not of the institution of any officers amongst them save the 12 Apostles 70 Disciple and 7 Deacons 2. In the first plantation of Churches the Elders that planted them must needs be before the plantation and the spiritual fathers before their children 3. Acts 14.23 proves not your assertion for Apostoles and Apostolick men did ordain Elders in some Churches where Elders were before yea they joyned with Elders in the ordaining of other Elders as 1 Tim. 4.14 cum 2 Tim. 1.5 and 1 Tim. 15.22 cum Acts 20.28 Acts 19. Yet grant they were without Elders that only proves that they were called by the name of Church and so are officers sometimes so called as distinguished from the members but neither of them are properly called by the name of Church Sect. 3. Reply p. 46. And though there were general Elders yet neither these nor any other Elders do ingredi essentiam Ecclesiarum nor is it any formal reason why a company of beleevers are a Church because they have Elders then their priviledg to choose their officers would be when they have them and they cannot choose them when they want them for then they are not a Church and so can have no such power and this is uncomfort able for the death of an officer might be the unchurching of a people members mentioned apart from the officers are called the Church Act. 20.28 Phil. 1.1 Rejoyn 1. Though they were general officers yet as I told you they were Elders particularly of the Church of Jerusalem and acted therein as Elders for that Church then was the universal Church the Apostles or 70 had no present exercise of their pastoral authority any where but there they did preach administer Sacraments ordain there and only there Can a regiment complain of want of a Colonel May it not rather say it hath a good one if a faithful and wise General which hath no other soldiers but that regiment become a Colonel to it 2. I suppose your selves dare not assert that the Church of Ierusalem was then an incompleat Church and yet you account every Church wanting officers to be an incompleat Church 3. If officers be not essential to a visible Church properly so called then neither authoritative preaching the Word dispensation of Sacraments and discipline are not essential to such a Church or they are in the hand of Church-members 4. Concerning the unchurching of a people by the death of an officer 1. You say Pos 2. that 7 or 8 may make a Church What if 4 or 5 of these dye and leave but two or three What if the men dye and leave the women These that are best make not a Church 2. The Pastor may dye and yet the Church not dissolved at his death they may have other officers if they have none at present but the shepherd being smitton the sheep are scattered yet they may have ere long In an elective Kingdom if the King dye the Kingdom is actually dissolved till another King be set up 3. If all the officers of a Church do dye this doth not so un church it as to deprive them of Gods love nor divorce them from God or from the ordinances in other Congregations but only so that for the present they are uncapable of the Sacraments and other Church-ordinances amongst themselves till others be set over them and this you must needs acknowledg 5. Acts 20.28 Phil. 1.1 will give no certain satisfaction for 1. It is granted that the name Church may be given to officers or to people as distinguished from one another as also you acknowledg that the word Covenant is sometimes taken for Gods part to man sometimes for mans part to God but when it is properly
to Officiate in Gal. 2.9.2 Cor 10.13.14.15.16 as souldiers and watchmen of any regiment to which Ministers 1. Tim 2.3 Isa 62.6 are compa'rd have their severall wards limits and gates which they looke to and take care of yet so as they all are the Souldiers and Watchmen of the whole city and ministers may teach and Governe severall congregations in common by consent of all parties Interessed if it shal be found most for their edification as it is in some reformed churches at this day for all Ministers and officers of the Church are given to the whole church for the gathering and building of it 1. cor 12.28 Ephes 4.11.12 and they are to teach and rule and performe all ministrations with reference to it and the best advantage of it And yet that I may prevent an usuall objection there is difference enough between Apostles and Ordinary Elders for the Apostles were to teach and rule not onely Churches and Flocks but Pastors and Ministers also being men of an higher Order 1 Cor. 12.28 Eph. 4.11 they were immediately called of God Gal 1.1 Infallible in their Doctrine Gal. 1.7.8 5.2 endowed with extraordinary gifts Act 2.1 2 8.18 were enjoyned ordinarily to travell abroad to plant Churches Math 28.19 they might act authoritatively any where without a call or consent and might shake of the dust of their feet against such Ministers or others as did not receive them Math. 10.14 their Commission was irrepealable their limits were large Gal. 2.9 one Apostle had authority over all the Churches whether he were present or absent But a Minister is not of an higher order nor hath power over his Fellow-Ministers nor hath an immediate unrepealable call is not infallible nor in these times extraordinarily gifted he cannot act authoritatively either in an ordinary or occasionall way either inpreaching administring the sacraments or the like without the call or consent of persons Interested 6. You cannot shew any one Elder that was ordeined by those that were only of that particular congregation where he was to officiate byvertue of the said ordination Sect. 5. Lastly if it be unlawfull for unofficed men to ordaine then at least in case a congregation have no Elders the Elders of other congregations must ordaine Elders there or else they can have no ordination without sinfull surpation of Presbyterian Power now for the unlawfullness of unofficed men's ordination of Elders consider first what ordination is It is the solemne setting apart of a Person to a publike church-office so it was voted in the Assembly nemine contradicente or it is in Scripture phrase an appointment of men over some church-business Act 6.3 Imposition of hands the usuall and most approved ceremony of ordination notes 1. a visible designation of persons to be in office 2. a separation of them to God in that office or work Act. 13.1.3 Rom. 1.1.3 a putting of that worke and service upon them as laying hands on the sacrifices did put sin upon them 4. A benediction of them that their labor may be to the glory of God and good of the Church 5. a signification to them in Gods name that his hand is with them in all that they doe in his name and by his Authority to guid strengthen and protect them 2. Let us consider who hath the power and Authority to ordaine viz. Officres only for first The Apostles which did where ever they came leave the Elders and people to the exercise of that right which belonged to them did not leave to non-Elders the power of ordaining though it had been much easier to have writ to the churches that they should ordaine their own Elders then to have come themselves as Act. 14.23 or to have sent Timothy or Titus for that purpose 1. Tim. 5.22 Tit. 1.5 2dly There can no Instance no not one be given in all the New Testament of any Officer upon whom an unofficed man did impose hands in ordaining him 3. They that do ordaine do put some of their worke upon the person ordained but Preaching Baptizing c. Is it not the worke of any non-officed men 4. He that ordaines blesseth him that is ordained and without all contradiction the less is blessed of the greater Heb. 7.7.5 Ordination vou confess is an Act of authority but non-officed men have no rule or authority Cotton Keyes p. 5.6 The two Brethren in their answer to Mr. Herle page 48. do allow that a Church wanting Elders may request the Elders of other Churches to ordaine Elders for her and they that are so requested have a calling to come 7. Your selves say p. 110. It is essentiall that ordination be done by the right Subjectum capax of that ordinance and alledge 1 Tim. 4.14 laying on of hands of the Presbytery Tit. 1.5 Act. 14.23 to which I add Act. 6.2.6 13.1.2.1 Tim. 5.22 2. Tim. 2.2 which texts do not only prove that Ordination is to be done by the right Subjectum capax but also that Elders are that Subjectum capax 8. their being deputed by a Congregation or not deputed varies not the case till it be made to appeare that though no other non-Officer may ordain yet the Church may lawfully depute a man and a man so deputed may lawfully ordaine Where hath the Congregation any charter for this Sect. 6. When I alledge that you tell us that it is a maine Pillar of Popery to proportion the church now to the outward policy in Israell and that Christs faithfullness above Moses consists in as full determination of Gods worship in the New Testament as in the old that we are as strictly tied to the Gospell Patterne as the Jewes were to the old Testament you reply p. 55. The foundation of the Antichristian Hierarchy is laid in the proportion betwixt the Iewish policy the policy of the christian church yet use may be made of the Old Testament where the new is silent do not you conclude Infants must be baptised not because the new expresly saith so but because you find in the old Testament that Infants were circumcised Rejoyn 1. Then the foundation of the Antichristian hierarchy and of Popular ordination is one and the same viz. the proportion between the Iewish church and the christian 2. Your selves confess that the New Testament is not silent in this matter for it shewes say you p. 110 that ordination must be done by the right subjectum capax of it of which I spake in the next precedent Section 3. The covenant of grace to which the controversie of Paedobaptisme hath reference is the same in the old and new Testament but ordination is an Act of Government and policy and you tell us p. 86. That Christ hath not appointed the Iewish Church in matters of Government to be a Patterne to Gospel Churches but that they should be conformed to spirituall Patterns and Precepts left by Christ and his Apostles amongst which this is not to be found that the people may ordaine 4.
to Archippus as you being acquainted with the Greek tongue know wel enough now if both of these places had been translated say or tel they would not have sounded so much for your purposes I conclude therefore there is as much or more force in these words to prove the Collossians power to cause an Epistle to be read in another Church as to say Archippus but I maintain not that they had of themselves power in either Sect. 5. I concluded the Church cannot excommunicate their whole Presbytery no more then the Presbytery excommunicate the whole Church the Church hath not received from Christ an office of rule without her officers Cotton Keyes You reply p. 60. This withdrawing is a negative excommunication which is some kind of censure though not so authoritative as the positive Rejoyn 1. I observe that this negative censure is now swelled up to a negative excommunication 2. That it is grown up to be authoritative though not so authoritative as the Positive 3. You deny not but that in case of Apostasy scandal obstinacy of the Church the Elders as Mr. Cotton saith may denounce the judgments of God against the Church and withdraw from it and therefore we may invert the Position and say The officers have power to censure the whole Church if they see just occasion and prove it because they may withdraw 4. A man by the law of nature may withdraw from his crud father or Master or a wife from her husband that seeks to kil her for the safety of their lives and men and women also ought to forsake a Church in the Communion of which they cannot be saved but this is not an authoritative but a natural act yet sure women have no power over their husbands over their Churches and Ministers 5. Is not negative excommunication of the officers by the Church tantamount with Positive excommunication saving the pronouncing of the sentence which is not much material if the thing if self be effectually done without it CHAP. XX. Of Tythes and setled Maintenance Sect. 1. Repl. p. 61. YOu discover your apprehensions thus 1. That Tythes are Jewish maintenance Rejoynd 1. What you or I apprehend is not materiall but what we prove 2. What mean your by Jewish That they were ceremoniall and abrogated by Christ I believe you mean so but then you should shew wherein the Ceremony did consist where what is the analogical resemblance of things prefigured wherein consists the signification of them All ceremonies properly Levitical were either of mysticall signification or typicall of something belonging to Christ and his kingdome 3. If by Jewish you mean used among the Jews I grant it and that they were used amongst the Heathens also Amsworth on Gen. 14.20 but this doth not make them unlawfull your selves being judges for pag. 67. you labour to prove by Chemnitius and by comparing Joh. 8.20 with Mar. 12.61 That the Doctors in Christs time were maintained by contribution and that the treasury of the Temple which sure was no Gospel-ordinance was both to maintain the Doctors and the poor and thence you will gather the lawfulnesse of maintaining Ministers out of the Churches stock Are Contributions lawfull because they are Jewish and Tythes unlawfull because they are Jewish If the manner of maintenance in Christs time be so much looked at then I dare say yea I did say in my Answer though you left it out and now justifie that you might better alleadge Mat. 23.23 for manner of maintenance for there Christ expresly saith of Tythes yea of the smallest tythes of mint annyse and cummin These things ye ought to have done c. Which if it had been spoken concerning Sabbath-day contributions or maintenance out of the Treasure of the Temple or Church-flock that it ought to be done or not to be left undone you would not have fetched such a compasse for proving the Divine institution of such maintenance nor have urged Chemnitius his testimony if you had so plain a one of Christ Sect. 2. Reply p. 61. Because Tythes were setled on the Levites upon consideration of having no inheritance amongst their brethren Rejoynd 1. It is evident that Tythes were not setled on the Levites as Levites nor proper to the Leviticall officers Paul to the Hebrews c. 7. v. 5 6 8. expresly affirmeth that Melchizedek after whose order Christ the greatest Priest was Heb. 5.6 and not of the order of Aaron and who represented Christ did receive Tythes and by his receiving of tythes proves him to be a more excellent and eternall Priest for in the Law men that die receive tythes but Melehisedeck received tythes of whom it is witnâ—ssed that he liveth Paul saith not the Priests and Levites receive tythes but Melchisedeck of whose order Christ was receiveth none This would have been an argument for your purpose but he in effect saith plainly that the payment of tythes was not proper to the Levitical Priesthood but paid also to Melchisedeck the type of Christ for the Apostles purpose was not only nor chiefly to advance 0208 0108 V 3 Melchizedeck's but Christ's Priestheod above Aaron's yea 0208 0108 V above Melchizedeck's which in token of his greatnesse received tythes Heb. 7.4 and was not made after the law of a carnall commandement but after the power of an endlesse life and of whom it is witnessed that he liveth v. 8. as Christ also Rev. 1.18 Secondly you do dictate not prove that Tythes were setled upon the Levites upon consideration of having no inheritance amongst their brethren for the contrary is evident viz. They had no inheritance amongst their brethren upon consideration that they had Tythes c. because God had given them Tythes First-fruits c. and the Lord was their inheritance therefore he said unto them that among the children of Israel they should have no inheritance Num. 18.24 Deut. 18.1 2. and yet you think men should believe it without any pretence of proof Thirdly in the margent you say see John Selden of Tythes but neither cite book chapter nor page nor do you by any letter direct us for what part of this Section you cite him whether for this or some other particular in it nor have I his book I did once see it but was neither then nor am now any further versed in this controversie then your book doth occasion me to be And yet I suppose Mr. Selden being a learned man doth not hold Tythes unlawfull why then do you so abuse him to set him so in the margent of such a section in which as you tell us in your last you prove Tythes unlawfull by the Word of God as though his book did bear witnesse to such an untruth but as I remember he counts it a sinne against Gods law Prov. 20.25 to alien Tythes Consult you again with him I will credit your report of his opinion if you do distinctly and deliberately relate it Fourthly It must not be understood that the Levites had no inheritance at all
yea kinds of contribution You say further That the word there used signifies often church-Church-communion and that the Apostles meaning may well be that it should be upon dayes when the Church meets in communion Hence it is that Deacons are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1. Cor. 12.28 which being interpreted may import a person that receives something for another and it may beare receiving of a just reward for another and so not for the poor Saints alone but for the Labourers also But what then Is it your meaning that every day the Church meets in communion they are bound by the law of God to contribute to their Ministers whether they be Lords-dayes or no 2. Is Church-communion any whit violated if the Minister himself do receive his own maintenance from others besides the Deacon and some other day besides the Lords day Your selves confesse you would not be understood to exclude private distributing or communicating to the Ministers or Members 3. As for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1. If it may import such a person that doth not prove it doth so in this place 2. The most proper signification of the Word is help or holding up a man or thing that is weak and ready to fall and so it is taken for relief of weak poor and miserable persons Luk. 1.54 He bath holpen his servant Israel And the properest acceptation of a word is first to be cleaved to unlesse there be as here there is not some convincing reason to the contrary Now the Deacons were to help the poor and needy 3. Beza conceiveth the Ministry of the widowes is also meant I Cor. 12.28 as well as of the Deacons Did the widow also receive a just reward for another And whereas you alledge that this communicating or distribution is called a Sacrifice Heb. 13.16 and that sacrisice was wont to be brought to the door of the tabernacle and that it comes most freely when it is brought c. I answer 1. If contribution and communication be called a sacrifice Heb. 13.16 as it may well be for first it should be freely offered secondly it is in stead of the sacrifices required of the Jewes which were very chargeable thirdly it is as pleasing to God as sacrifice Yet that proves not that the intent of the Holy Ghost is in calling it a sacrifice as you would make your Reader believe that it should be brought to the publike assemblies every Lords day If a man from that appellation should inferre that only Ministers should communicate or distribute because they only might offer sacrifice That distribution is not to be made to men because sacrifice were only to God That a man must contribute morning and evening as they did offer sacrifice That contributions are propitiatory as s ome sacrifices were your selves would cry out Non sequitur Nonsequitur and so do I for you know that private distributing or communicating to Saints or Ministers is a sacrifice as well as publike so also is Prayer Psal 140. I. Praise Psal 50.23 Righteousnesse Psal 4.5 2. The Church may have a stock by contributions gathered on the week-day from house to house or otherwise or by monethly quartetly yearly contributions and many other wayes besides weekly contributions 3. The Church may have a stock by weekly contributions and yet that stock not be for the Ministers maintenance Surely I cannot think that your selves do think you have solidly proved this manner of maintenance out of Gods word Sect. 5. Reply p. 64. You confesse that the occasion of this Institution I Cor. 16. ' was collection for the poor Saints at Jerusalem that there are no other Churches mentioned upon whom this institution was injoyned but Corinth and the Churches of Galatia Notwithstanding if we consider severall particulars of the Injunction we may probably conjecture that be had a further scope in the commandement then the occasion doth import He brings a great many of Churches not to the doing of the duty alone but to the same way of doing it the Churches of Galatia were many and that at Corinth and there cannot be a reason rendred why all other Churches that were called to the duty Rom. 15.26 27. should not be bound to the same manner of doing also and so the Churches of Macedonia and that at Rome will be brought under this injunction Rejoynd 1. That there is an institution here of a Church-stock for the maintenance of Ministers occasioned by the collection for the Saints at Jerusalem is fancied by you but not confirmed 2. You can shew no Church which was not required to contribute in the said extraordinary case that was appointed to have such collections nor can you shew that all those which did contribute as the Churches of Macedonia 2 Cor. 8.1 or Antioch Act. 11.29 did do it every Lords day And you may observe the Apostle faith not So I have ordained in the Churches of Macedonia nor So I have ordained in all Churches but only As I have ordained in the Churches of Galatia 3. You meerly presume but prove not that there were many Churches a great many of Churches in Galatia Though it were as big as England can you shew any more Churches in Galatia then two Antioch and Laodicea 4. The reason why we believe not that other Churches were bound to the same manner of doing is because we read it n t. Shew where we may read it that we may believe it Sect. 6. Reply p. 65. The Apostle binds this contribution to the Lords day in all these Churches if he had no scope to make this an Ordinance in all the Churches be might have pitcht upon some other day He saith every first day of the week that is every Lords day so it is translated in the Geneva Bible and so the Preposition â—grâ— is often rendred as Scapula observes and gives instances abundantly c. Why must this contribution be every Lords day inreference to the Church of Jerusalem alone for they might have given what they could have spared at once or if it were a great deal they might have had the longer time allotted them and yet have given it at once or the richer and abler might have given it at once and the rest at wice or thrice or four times but they must give it Lords-day by Lords-day without missing one Lords-day this seems to hold forth that Paul meant it for a standing Ordinance and that his scope was by weekly contributions to raise a stock in the Churches out of which might be taken without gathering Rejoynd 1. Amongst us Collections for the Palatinate for Ireland c. have been appointed on the Lords day as being the fittest day most people meeting the Minister might exhort and excite them to this duty and yet you know we account it not an Ordinance in all Churches and so it might be with that collection which might be appointed on the Lords day without any such scope as you pretend 2. The preposition 〈◊〉
nor inflict any civil punishment 2. The rest of the things as time place statednesse are but circumstantial or ceremoniall things in which no one ever said that Church-government in time of the Gospel shonld bear conformity with the Jewish church-government or are elswhere spoken of and some of them are impossible now to be had 3. I remember when you find but one Expositor interpreting a Text according to your minde as p. 74. you say Surely we shall lesse doubt of our exposition having so learned a Commentator so well approved of to stand by us in the same Now you know we have a cloud of faithfull witnesses which argue for Classes and Synods from this text year Mr. Cotton himself Keyes p. 24. Churches faith he have a brotherly communion amongst themselves look then as one brother offended by another and not able to heale him by the mouth of two or three brethren privately is to carry the matter to the whole Church so by proportion if one Church see matter of offence in another and be not able to heal it in a more private way it will behove them to procure the assembly of many Churches that the offence may be orderly heard judged and removed Mr. Parker also in his Politacclesiast l. 3. c. 24. and multitude of other Non-conformists and forraign Divines cited by Mr. Paget in his defence of Church-government in the Presbyterial Classical and Synodal assemblies p. 44 45 46. Sect. 4. Reply p. 87. The Synagogues might be under a superior Judicatory for they were but parts of a Church a Positique Nationall church but particular Congregations are entire and compleat Churches and may transact all Gods ordinances walking in truth and peace amongst themselves Rejoynd 1. What if the Synagogues were as compleat and entire Churches in all matters of perpetuall and morall concernment as particular Christian congregations are For 1. there were Assemblies there 2. Those assemblies are called Churches Psal 26.12 3. In them was reading Act. 15.21 Preaching Act. 18.20 Ruling yea rulers at whose request Paul preached Act. 13.15 Censures as excommunication or casting out of the Synagogue Joh. 12.42 9.34 16.1 2. What moral ordinance waa wanting in the Synagogue which was to continue in time of the Gospel 2. That Congregations are entire and compleat Churches you can never prove in your sense nor that they can transact all Church-ordinances the contrary hath been proved 3. Power of Church-government is not left to every or to any Nation as it is a Nation but to the Church not because it is National simply for a Provincial or Presbyterial Church yea a Congregational may have power of government only the neerer any Church is to the Vniversall church the more authority it hath and the further off the lesse Sect. 5. I cannot but minde you that p. 88. you deal unjustly 1. In that you would make the Reader to believe that from that single proposition The Gospel was writ principally for the Jewes some say in Hebrew I conclude that Congregationall men do not apply it rightly yea that the Christians that are Gentiles may not make a right use of them You know my purpose was only to shew the great probability of taking the word Church in Mat. 18. in the same sense that it is taken amongst the Iewes and in the Hebrew tongue 2. In that you divide the argument and then encounter with the severall peeees of it and say of the severall peeces of it We cannot but despair of ever seeing the premises delivered of the conclusion and How shall we do to get the conclusion willingly to follow these premises Rejoynd 1. Seeing you want help to make a Syllogisme and cry out What shall we do it is an act of charity to direct you Do but joint the Premises together put them in form do not wrong them strangle not the child in the place of bringing forth and they will very easily deliver themselves of the genuine and naturall conclusion viz. that this Text doth not prove that the Church in the time of the Gospel must be only Congregationall not Nationall Provinciall c. and that they which thus alledge this Text do abuse it and this was my scope 2. Notwithstanding this was my scope yet by the providence of God some arguments are couched in my answer which imply that by the word Church the Presbyterie is meant because he speaks to the Disciples v. 1. or Apostles which elswhere are said to have the power of binding and loosing Mat. 16.19 Ioh. 20.23 and were not ordinary believers but Elders 1 Pet. 5. See my answer 2. That he rather meant a Church with subordination then a single Independent assembly it is thus covertly argued The notion of a particular Congregation is not agreeable to the Jewish church which you say is here spoken of in the first place but the notion of a Church with distinct judicatories is agreeable to it and these two arguments might incline you to judge that he speaks of the Presbytery and of a Church with distinct judicatories but in your Reply you take no notice of them Sect. 6. Reply p. 89. Though this place be not understood of the people only no nor chiefly as they stand in opposition to their guides yet this place may lawfully be understood of the Congregationall church as it is contradistinct to Classical Provincial National c churches because we have presidents in the Word of God for the one as in the Churches of Jerusalem Corinth Cenchrea c. and rules prescribed to such a Church Act. 6.3 1 Cor. 5.4 c. 11 12 14 16. but of any stated Classicall Provinciall Nationall and Occumenical churches there is deep silence in the Scriptures of the New-Testament no precept for erecting of such and no lawes nor officers provided for churches Christ sends the people to such a Church as hath a charter from heaven Rejoind 1. You implicitely acknowledge that the word Church is not understood only nor chiefly of the people as they stand in opposition to their guides then if a Church have but one guide and he sinne can the Church proceed against him or no 2. You also in saying this place may lawfully be understood of the Congregationall church do imply that there is no necessity it should be so understood 3. All these chapters are cited only to prove two presidents viz. that the Church of Jerusalem and the Church of Corinth were only two particular Congregations and we have fully cleared that the Church of Ierusalem consisted of many assemblies 4. Act. 6.3 will not prove the contrary for 1. That meeting was for the choosing of Officers wherein I suppose you require not the presence of women and children though possibly others of your way do 2. They had severall tables possibly 7. for every Deacon one and not one table only v. 3. The word table is the plurall number now severall tables to receive the collection of one Congregation are neither
supposeth and you should make to appeare to be a mathematical invisible and imaginary line Sect. 5. Reply p. 109. Now lest these things should be conceived of a temporary nature he saith v. 13 14. I give thee charge c. that thou keep this commandement without spot to the comming of Christ i.e. keep them thy self and deliver them in charge to the Church and principally to the Elders to be kept till Châ—ist his second comming And so Dr. Whitaker against Duraeus urgeth it Rejoind 1. This clause till the appearing of Jesus Christ extends in some places as annexed to duty no further then the parties term of life 1 Cor. 11.26 and so far as this command either pointeth at the office of an Evangelist or otherwise obligeth Timothy it can extend no further for Timothy cannot keep that commandement either by doing it himself or by charging others any longer then his own naturall life 2. What if this charge be taken in your extension of this clause so far as by it any perpetuall office in the church or duty is commanded and further you contend not to lengthen it yet if the commandment take not in the body of the Epistle as I have I hope sufficiently and shall yet more evidently evince it nothing serves your turn 3. The expounding of this clause so extensively will make against you and help to prove that by this commandment v. 14. cannot be understood all the rules of discipline in Gods word no not all the rules in this Epistle For. 1. in this Epistle many things concern Timothy's person and office as he was an Evangelist which office you will grant is not now in the Church Now if this commandement is to be kept in the Church in all ages then those many things must remain out of the verge of this commandement and by consequence it extends not to all particulars of discipline in the Epistle 2. There are some things in the Epistle about Discipline of a temporary nature besides as the office of widows and their washing feeâ— c. 5.9 10. I conceive you dare not assert that either of these are perpetually necessary unto the second comming of Christ and of such unchangeable obligation as you make the words to import 3. Some things in this Epistle are either incompetible or unsuitable to Timothy himself to whom this commandement and all contained in it is given as the Womens duty c. 2.9 10. the Wives duty c. 3.11 the Widows duty c. 5.4.9 the Servants lesson c. 6.1 2. though these things he might give in charge to them they concern yet he could not keep them in person as you even now paraphrased on keeping nor can it be conceived that such things should be imposed on Timothy with such a deep obtestation either as the onely or as a principal or as a representative subject of them 4. The word this commandement might me thinks be enough to have kept you in from such a wide acception Can so many things as are packed up in this Epistle so miscellaneous in nature so manifold in form of speech commands prohibitions declarations assertions admonitions exhortations instructions consolations all be reduced to this one word of the singular number 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 especially if the observation of severall authors David Heinsius exercit sa in Ephes 6.1 Critica sacra Graeca in vocab apud illum alii do hold viz. that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies only an affirmative precept not a negative of which sort besides those things which are not precepts at all there are divers in the Epistle Sect. 6. Reply p. 110. You define or describe Discipline to be the whole System of and comprehension of Divine rules precepts or presidents for the externall order of the Church which are not of a temporary but of perpetuall use and equity till the appearing of Christ and by essentials we mean such particulars included in this System as if any thing be wanting something is detracted from the perfect and compleat order of the Gospel But your definitions of Discipline and of Essentials are throughout one and the same and although you make the genus of Essentials some particulars included in the systeme of Discipline importing there are other particulars non-Essentials yet in the speciall forme and differences ye make Discipline and Essentials equipollent for if Essentials be such particulars of the System of divine rules for the order of the Church as if any of them be wanting something is detracted from the perfect and compleat order of the Gospel and if Discipline be the whole system of divine rules for the externall order of the Church which are of a perpetuall use and equity Are not these two of equall limits That which will admit of no detraction from the perfect order is as comprehensive as the whole system of such orders 2. In these your definitions you implicitely contradict the Position which you pretend to defend for it saith The essentials of Discipline are unchangeable importing both that some things in Discipline are not Essentials and that Non-essentials are changeable but your definitions do make all things in Discipline essentiall and of perpetuall use and equity You further say That onely persons rightly qualified should be admitted to society in the Church is an essential Isa 56.6 7. 1 Cor. 1.1 Phil. 1.1 This in the generall is not in controversie yet whether this or that be a right qualification is in controversie and so an error in an essential is contended for and made by the erring party either by taking in visibly false or excluding visibly true matter Rejoynd 1. You say whether this or that but you should have named the right qualification and shewed it to be such else we are as far to seek as before For if it be not a right qualification which you do not affirm but a suppositious one an Essentiall is not in controversie the attributing essentiality to that which it belongs not to makes not that which is truly essentiall to be indifferent so that we are never the neerer for this instance 2. You cite three Scriptures in your margent to prove that onely persons rightly qualified to be admitted to Church-society is an Essential To which I answer 1. to Isa 56. It is questionable whether it speak of Church-communion for 1. The Eunuchs doubtles were already in Church-communion 2. The sonnes of the stranger are said to be joyned to the Lord already and joyning to the Lord you usually interpret of being in church-Church-communion by covenant Act. 5.14 11.24 Jer. 50.5 6. Zach. 2.11 3. The Proselytes which were already in the Church are called Levim copulati adhaesores to the Lord the very term here given to the sonnes of the stranger 2. If Church-communion were unquestionably one of the things yet your selves dare not say that it is the principall thing here promised for which those qualifications are required the chief things are To be made joyfull in Gods house to have
our sacrifices and burnt offerings accepted to have a name better then of sonnes c. For the attainment of which all agree those qualifications are required but to conclude thence that the Church must require all those qualifications to church-Church-communion is as much as to say whatever qualification God requires to make us capable of three or four priviledges the Church must require them all to one though that one be the least and lowest and an outward priviledge which a reprobate may be capable of and the other inward speciall spirituall priviledges proper to the elect 3. That is a promise and Gods promises are not the rule for such as have the exhibition of the things promised to be guided by meat drinke lodging safety from the plague admission to the Word Prayer Fasting each good thing is by God somewhere or other promised to persons so and so qualified see for instance Isa 33.15.16 Psal 91.1.2.14 Psal 25.8 Must therefore men see that persons must be so and so qualified before they give them meat drinke cloaths or preserve them from the plague or admit them to pray heare the word or to fast with them But of the qualification of Church-members as also of your other two Texts I have spoken before You further reply p. 110. That the members of the Church be united by a right medium is essentiall to Discipline but whether this right medium be I know not what implicite Covenant or whether it be an expresse Covenant or the legall bounds of the Parish is no small question R. That is not an Essential of discipline that is before it and can be without it but such is this union by a right medium union or coalition of a society must needs in time as well as in nature precede the ordering and regulating of the said society if it may be called essentiall to discipline yet then it is not within the Position for that speaks of the essentials of discipline It is essential to discipline that the Members should be reasonable creatures but you will not say that this is an essentiall of discipline within the verge of the Position 2 If you know not an implicite covenant Mr. E. and Mr. T. will teach you and bring in Dr. Ames to teach you also p. 37 38. and see this Rejoynd 3. Whereas you stand for the explicite covenant to be the right medium c. and so essentiall to discipline let me minde you to keep to your definition of essentials which as ye say are such particulars in the system of divine rules either precepts or presidents as if any of them be wanting somewhat is detracted from he compleat order of the Gospel Now you having yet given neither precept nor president out of the Script how can you put it among the essentials 4. None that I know do hold that the legal bounds of the Parish are the right medium of uniting a Church nor that they are the necessary limits of a Congregational church though the cohabitation of comembers hath been shewed to have ground on the Scripture and reason c. 2. But say they do I do not cannot make those bounds to be a medium uniting the Church common reason saith that Puncta terminantia non sunt continuantia 5. Whereas you cite three Scriptures in your margent I suppose for an explicite covenant I answer Act. 2.41 5.13 speak of adding to and joyning of those that had before been Jewes by profession to the Apostles and the rest but of joyning by covenant and that an explicite one too into a Congregationall church to which the Apostles themselves were never so joyned they speak not one word What 1 Cor. 12. should do in your margent you that set it there can best rell I know not You adde that Ordination Excommunication c. be done by the right subjectum capax of these Ordinances 1 Tim. 4.14 Tit. 1.5 Act. 14.23 is an essentiall part of discipline But whether Churches in some cases may ordain by deputies no Church-Elders or whether in an ordinary way the power must be in the Eldership of particular Congregations or in a compound Chassique Eldership is a great controversie Rejoynd It had been contended by you that the text 1 Tim. 6.13 14. relates to the rules of Church-government in this Epistle and therein bottoms the assertion of a discipline in essentials unchangeable and to be kept till the appearing of Christ Now one of those rules you have about Ordination 1 Tim. 4.14 delivered by president a rule in your definition of discipline and others also cited by your in margent Tit. 1.5 Act. 14.23 and no other way of Ordination can you find out in the Gospel therefore by your own confession Ordination to be only by a Presbyterie is an unchangeable perpetuall law 2. That Ordination is not in an ordinary way in the Presbyterie of a particular Congregation but in a compound Classick Presbyterie is no such great controversie but whether it may be or in some cases must be that not only neighbouring Elders should be present and advise which your selves require but also that they should anthoritatively act in Ordination this thing is spoken of before 3. You may possibly hold Holy kisse Oyle c. lawfull and covenient though you hold them not essentiall if you do not others are of opinion they are ordinances of God and do act accordingly Sect. 7. Reply p. 110. The remainder of your examination drawn out into seven particulars though we cannot assent to every thing in them yet we shall passe them over because though they were all granted yet it may be clearly deduced from 1 Tim. 6.13 that Christ hath left but one way of Discipline for all Churches for these are no parts of the discipline left by Christ to the Church which in the essentials of it is unchangeable Rej. You do not onely not transcribe nor answer the seven particulars nor leave them quietly out but passe a scornfull censure upon them let the Reader read them and what you except against them in this and your last and judge between us 2. But I pray you is not the office of an Apostle and Evangelist to omit sundry other things in those 7 particulars a part and an essentiall part of the discipline left by Christ to the Church 1 Cor. 12.28 Eph. 4.11 and mentioned too in the Epistles to Timothy 1 Tim. 1.1 2 Tim. 4.5 and yet they were but temporary not perpetuall though the Seekers expect such officers now also but indeed if Discipline were by you rightly defined a System of Divine rules which are not a temporary nature but of perpetuall use equity then it were impossible and would imply a coutradiction that it should be changeable Lastly when I aske a narrative of your way especially of what you count essentialls you answer we thought to have satisfied you herein but that work is done to our hands by Reverend Mr. Cotton and we be are a work of the same