calculation of Ecclesiasticall power For Classicall Provinciall and Nationall Synods have a power of judging or excommunicating those only that are within the combination Now these being representative Churches he that is of no particular Congregation is without the verge of Presbyteriall power or else it will follow that the Presbyteriall Church hath power to excommunicate a person that is not within their combination and if one by the same reason a thousand ten thousand in every quarter and corner of the world But say you The Apostle opposeth Fornicators of the World Answer and Fornicators that are Brethren Persecution in the Primitive times as it is at this day was chiefly if not only levied against those who did joyn themselves to the Churches to the enjoyment of Ordinances Reply or at least otherwise visibly as Paul at his first conversion by preaching declared themselves to be Christs Disciples Hence those to whom God had given so much faith and constancy as to be willing to expose themselves to persecution these did inlist themselves in the Churches frequented their meetings which were observable by the Persecutors and professed themselves of the fraternity of the Church the Church looked on them as her members and accordingly dispensed ordinances and censures to them as they had need Others there were who like Nicodemus came to Christ by night or like those chief Rulers spoken of Joh. 12.42 who though they believe in Christ yet they dare not confesse him by publike joyning of themselves to run all hazards with the Church Hence it is that no politick visible Church doth look upon these as of her fraternity or doth dispence all ordinances and censures to them Now the Brother that is opposed to the fornicators of the world is not he that by the internall and invisible grace of faith is a Brother and of the mysticall body of Christ though peradventure he dare not openly professe Christ But such a one is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Church of Corinth who is a named and professed Brother so looked upon not only by the motherly eye of the Church but oft times by the malitious eye of the world though peradventure they be not truly brethren united with the rest of the faithfull people of God as members of the mysticall body of Christ 2. With such a one not to eat presupposeth in an orderly way a forbearing of voluntary civil and spirituall communion with the party upon this ground that he is under censure in the Church Now the power of Church-censures is not to be executed by the church-mysticall but by the church-visible as such neither is it to be executed upon the members of the Church-mysticall as such but upon the members of the visible church whether they be in truth or only in appearance members of the mysticall church So then Fornicators of the world are to be understood of the world as it stands in opposition to the visible church and so those that are of the mysticall church may be fornicators of the world in that sense And though by the lawes of Christ concerning Church-discipline every man be forbidden to eat with those that are known Fornicators under church-censure in their own church and by vertue of church-church-communion with those that are fornicators under censure in any other church yet if one that is a member of the mysticall but dares not professe his subjection to Christ in that particular of joyning himself to some visible church shall be a fornicator we know no law of Christ precisely concerning church-discipline that interdicts a man to eat in point of voluntary civill communion with such a man any more then if he were a Pagan or Heathen But Answer say you without are Dogs and Sorcerers such as the Apostle had not to do with What have I to do c. vers 12. and yet he had to do with all Christians by his illimited apostolike power whether they belong to that or any other Congregation or no such as God judgeth or are left to the immediate judgement of God But this is not the case of Believers not joyned especially in your sense of joyning to a particular Congregation nor do you I hope judge it to be the case of Believers in England and Scotland 1. Reply There might be Dogs in the Apostolike Churches as well as without Phil. 3.2 and with such dogs Paul had to do with Nay he had to do with the dogs of the Gentiles he received a key of knowledge by which he was to open the Kingdome of heaven to them in case they would repent and believe and to binde them under the guilt of impenitencie and infidelity in case they would not repent and believe Matth. 28.19 with Mark 16.16 But those that Paul had not to do to judge who are said to be without in this place are all such as are contradistinguished to those that are within with whom the Church had to do by way of Ecclesiasticall judgement Now the church of Corinth had power of Ecclesiasticall judgement over all and only those which were within the combination of that church and therefore Paul had nothing to do to judge them that is to say with the judgement mentioned in this place which were out of this combination Now what was this judgement Answ The judgement whereby the Apostle decrees that the church of Corinth shall excommunicate fornicators and consequently shall not eat with them Now the Apostle had received no such power to judge those persons to excommunication and that by the ministery of a church that were never in fellowship with the church But such persons though for their crimes they may be subject to the judgement of the civill Magistrate yet in respect of Ecclesiasticall judgement they are left to the immediate judgement of God And if this be not the case of Believers not joyned to a particular congregation by whom shall those Believers be judged Why shall this Congregationall Classicall Provinciall National-church judge them rather then that May they be judged by all or any one Certainly they stand no more related to one then to another which are members of none at all Where shall the fault be charged if judgement be not passed We said before if a church may judge one out the combination why not a thousand why not ten thousand c. yet we are far from judging those Believers in England and Scotland which are not joyned in our Way of joyning to a particular Congregation therefore to be altogether out of Church-combination not capable of the Ecclesiasticall judgement of their Churches and consequently subject to the immediate judgement of Christ POSITION XVIII The Elders are not Lords over Gods heritage 1 Pet. 5.3 nor do exercise authority as the Kings and Princes of the earth do remembring our Saviours lesson Matth. 20.25 26 Luke 22.25 26. They are not so many Bishops striving for preeminence Answer as Diotrephes did 3 Joh. vers 9 10. (a) These Scriptures
yet they may be performed by a gift without Office to another people and are not authoritative to them To this purpose speak the Elders in answer to the 8th Position and the reason will be good to us till you yeeld a better The relation of Ministers and People is mutuall Answer if the people my receive the Sacrament from another that is not their Minister then the Minister may administer it to them that are not of his flock In one sense all that you say is true Reply people may receive the Sacrament from one that is not their Minister being recommended to him and the Minister may administer the Sacrament to such as are so recommended to him but then this recommendation is as it were a dismission differing not really but only in time recommendation commends them for a time to fellowship with that Church and dismission commends them for continuance without returning See Cottons Keys a Cottons Keys pag. 17 18. which you make so much use of against us When persons of another Church do orderly intermingle themselves with this or that Church then they are as members and the Pastor is as their Pastor and so he may dispence the Sacraments to them But it will not follow that therefore he may act Ministerially out of his own Church and People in and maong another Church and People nor will relation of Ministers and People being mutuall bring such a conclusion about Magistrates and Subjects are Relatives and if any Subjects of one county come to another county and be wronged in the county whither he is come he may request justice from the Magistrate of the county where the wrong is done him and receive it But yet this will not draw on another thing that hereupon because a Magistrate may dispence justice to a stranger coming among his people he may therefore go from among his people to another county and dispence justice among them so of Ministers it may be said They are Pastors to their own people and perform Pastorall acts to their own and to those that orderly are recommended to them as theirs but when they leave their own they are not Pastors to other Congregations to dispence Pastorall acts to them By vertue of communion of Churches you may Answer and do receive known approved recommended members of another Church to the holy Communion If you may receive one why not two three six seven eight which it may be are the whole Congregation Where doth the Scripture allow the one and not the other We grant all you say Reply in this also that if one two seven eight do come by recommendation they must be received by vertue of communion of Churches yet we demand if these seven or eight be the whole Congregation who shall recommend them For without recommendation they cannot orderly be received Or suppose they commend themselves to the Communion of another Church they are now sallowed up in the fellowship of the other Church and counted pro tempore as members thereof and have not the consideration of a distinct Church And though it be lawfull for a Minister to dispence the Sacrament to them with his own people yet not lawfull to go forth from his own people and to give it to them alone If a whole town should come to live in another town they might have the justice of that town and yet the Magistrate though he might do justice to them in the town being mingled with his own people cannnt notwithstanding dispence it unto them abiding in their own place But you ask Where the Scripture alloweth the one and not the other We answer 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 You grant that Elders have a calling to ordain Elders in other Churches whereof themselves are neither Elders nor Members Answer by request of that Church where the Elders are to be ordained (k) R. M. W. T. to C.H. p. 48. Reply While Mr. Mather saith they may intreat help he holds by consequence that the Elders of other Congregations have no proper right of their own to ordain in other Congregations and that their power is derived to them from those Congregations that intreat them and then it wil follow that the help that such Elders do afford is not as they are Elders in reference to their Office but as better gifted and in reference to greater ability which such Elders have to carry on such a businesse The reason is because if such Elders acted in Ordination as Officers in another Congregation then they would have proper power so to act without intreaty for intreaty makes not them Officers which were none before and if they were Officers before intreaty is not needfull to inable them And if they act as Officers in another Congregation then they may in all Congregations for they are Elders alike in all as in any save only where they are fixed Now this is against Mr. Mathers principles his meaning therefore was that as if in case a Church want Elders to preach to them they may intreat Elders of other Churches to preach to them not because they conceive that an Elder only may preach but because they judge an Elder to be more able to do it so it must be understood in the businesse of Ordination In this sense we wholly concurre with Mr. Mather but in your sense cannot grant it Whereras the 26. and 27th Sections concerne one and the same head of controversie we shall make one defence for both POSITION XXVI Gifted men This is but a little altered from Answ to 32. q. p. 80. 73. T. W. to W. R. p 44. 56. viz. so reputed by competent Judges though not called to the Ministery nor intended for it may preach They that were scattered abroad upon the Persecution which arose about Stephen were not Church-officers at least not all of them yet these men did preach the Word and Philip which was but a Deacon preached without the calling or privity of the Apostles Acts 11.19 8.14 POSITION XXVII Iehosaphat sent Princes who were neither Ministers nor intended so to be See Answ to 32. Quest to teach with the Priests and Levites viz. at least to incourage the people to hearken to the Priests and Levites 2 Chron. 17.7 8 9. as Iehosaphat did 2 Chron. 20.20 yea and was their mouth to God in Prayer vers 2.5 to 13. As we conceive something in that prophecying 1 Cor. 14. to be extraordinary So we conceive it to be ordinary that some private men grown Christians of able gifts who may have received a gift of Prophesie need no more extraordinary calling for them to prophesie in the Churches then for Iehosaphat and his Princes to prophesie in the Church of Israel These Positions thus laid down are by you accused of injury
from other Jewes Reply 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 Jewes first and thought themselves bound so to doe 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 selfe acknowledge Acts 2.40 And their communion they had with them in Jewish 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 Jewes were gathered into many Christian Churches as both the Acts of the Apostles and their Epistles doe 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 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 Matth. 18.17 Tell the Church of a Presbyterian Church which consists of the Elders of many Churches Thirdly why may not one Church be gathered of the members of many Churches as well 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 Fourthly such a Church which consists of the members of many other true Churches hath formerly been without exception in the dayes of the Prelates how comes it now to be questioned For at least fourteen yeares since such a Church was extant in Wiâ—â—all in Cheshire the vocall covenant being onely wanting which consisted of the choycest Christians of many Parishes who met constantly together upon the Lords day and enjoyed the Word and Seales of the Covenant and maintained a Pastor to dispense the same unto them and never or very rarely repaired to such Parishes where their habitations were And we think it cannot be denied but Mr. John 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 happinesse to have liberty to make such a Church but was never accounted by the godly sinfull before But if you should answer That the Church consists of such as lived within such a Parish or Chappell and that the rest were strangers We reply If assembling constantly together and participating in all the Ordinances that the rest doe 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 if all these together make members of a Church then these persons of other Parishes were not strangers but members and with the rest made such Churches except it shall be said that habitation alone in other Parishes when all the other are wanting makes membership and constitutes Churches which some of our brethren who are Presbyterians have and doe deny 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 Yet this hath been judged pious at least honest sometimes upon one ground and somtimes upon another some to have liberty of conscience in such places whither they have removed others to have better preaching others to meet with better society and others for better worldly accommodation What Christian knoweth not well that this hath been common 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 will be granted of all For none hold Church-membership to be undissolveable The question then will be Whether the members of Churches may depart without consent 1. According to the present constitution of Churches they may For they come in without consent meerly by removing their habitations therefore they may so depart 2. If consent must be had from whom must it be sought From the people or from the Minister That the people have any power either to give or with-hold their consent hath not been granted heretofore That the Ministers consent should be necessary for the departing of every member when yet himselfe it may be hath had his entrance amongst them without their consent seemes to be unreasonable 3. Suppose consent hath been sought and cannot be obtained may not members withdraw their membership in some cases without consent Suppose some Ordinance be corruptly dispensed without all hope of redresse and that men must partake therein without having any power so much as to witnesse against such corruptions unlesse they will be accounted factious 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 1 Cor. 5.6 what must they now doe 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 evill 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 evill 2 Cor. 13.10 Church membership is for edification of the members not for destruction But you stumble at this because they converted them not To which we 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 But you will say This must be orderly
8 9. the matter of it should be visible Saints and Believers 1 Cor. 1.2 True so it should when an Army is to be raised a City begun Answer a Family set up much more when a Church is to be erected or continued the matter of them should be visible yea reall Saints beloved of God elect blessed Deut. 38.14 Isai 1.21.26 Acts 16.34 Rom. 1.7 Ephes 1.1.2 3.4 And we heartily wish they were all such 1. The meaning of the Position is this Reply Visibility of Saintship is requisite to warrant the setting upon such an action as erecting of a Church else the action for the nature of it is naught might not be performed Better no Church erected then not of visible Saints The rule is broken sin committed Is this granted by you If so why is the position quarrelled at seeing it is all that is asserted 2. But why do you jumble these actions together The raising of an Army the erecting of a City the setting up of a Family and the erecting of a Church As if they were actions of a like nature As if visibility of Saintship to them all were of like necessity Do you conceive that the matter of an Army must either be visible Saints or there must be no Army raised The matter of a city visible Saints or no city erected Doth the nature of those actions necessarily require any such qualification in the subject persons performing them that without such qualifications the subject persons are in a state of incapacity according to Gods true scope and intention to set upon such actions Wee know you hold it not Heathens may raise Armies and wage war and not sin because they do so if the cause be just They may erect cities and remain Heathens still and not sin because they do so for it may be their duty so to do but may they erect a Church to God and remain Heathens and not sin in doing so An Atheist and prophane wicked person may buy and sell and labour in his Calling and not sin because he doth so because it is his duty but may he be one to erect a Church of and to partake in the seal of the Lords Supper and be an Atheist and visible person still without sin Men need not be Believers and Saints to warrant them to perform civill actions or some religious actions for irreligious wicked persons while in that state are called to them but to do them with acceptation and so as to be accounted righteous in the doing of them they must be Believers and Saints But to erect a Church which is Christs body and is called to have communion with Christ in his body and blood in that Supper which he instituted is an action of another nature and requires faith and holinesse in the persons that constitute it to warrant the constitution of it For Church state being holy and the Ordinance of it holy either the subject persons must be holy also or all will be grievously prophaned and God foully dishonoured But why do you say They should not only be visible but reall Saints except it be to cast another mist before the eyes of the ignorant For if an Army were to be raised to fight on the Purliament side against the Cavaliers you would say it must consist of visible friends which seem sincere and cordiall else let it not be raised at all but you would not say it must consist of reall friends for then it would not be raised at all For if it must consist of reall friends God must be the raiser of it and not man who alone knoweth who are reall friends So of a Church if it must consist only of reall friends God alone must erect it and man must not meddle with it And though we reade these phrases Beloved of God Elect blessed yet either they received these denominations from the judgement of Charity because they seemed to be such as Phil. 1.7 or if there were infallibility it was applicable only to a party within the Churches whom the Apostle discerned to be such and not to the whole Church Yet we dare not use unscripturall wayes and means for the procuring and preserving of Church-members sanctity Answer To be wise and holy above the rule is to be foolish prophane presumptuous superstitious Could you shew us out of Scripture that the Church must examine persons that come to be admitted and that they must make any other declaration then professing of faith and repentance and that the Congregation ought to reject such of whose sincerity and sanctity they are not satisfied and that the want of this care in the first constitution of a Church doth nullifie it or make it unlawfull for men to joyn to it or continue in it and that it is necessary to know that a Church was constituted of visible Saints before he can in faith joyn to it we should not differ about the sanctity of the members Here is a deep charge of some things practised by us Reply to preserve the Churches sanctity and purity to be foolish prophane superstitious and presumptuous And there are instances given in examination of persons whether there be the works of Grace wrought in their hearts or no c. We answer for our selves First there are some things fathered upon us which we hold not as 1. That there must be some further declaration besides profession of faith and repentance We contend for no such thing but conceive profession of faith and repentance if in the judgement of charity it may be accounted reall if there be any thing that may serve to give witnesse unto it that it is not meerly verball may be judged sufficient 2. That the want of care to try the sincerity and sanctity of men doth nullifie the Church This is an opinion which we renounce as none of ours 3. That we must know that a Church was constituted of visible Saints before we can in faith joyn to it We hold flatly against such an assertion and do believe a judgement may be made from the present faith and order which any Church holds forth whether it be safe or unsafe to joyn to it or to continue in it Secondly there are other things which some Churches hold and practise which we think cannot be condemned As that a Church must examine persons that come to be admitted whether the work of grace be wrought within them or not Your self will now admit none of whom you doubt to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper till you have first examined them of their knowledge and why may not we examine them of their grace Is the Lords body discerned by knowledge most or by grace Faith is a grace and faith is the best discerner of the Lords body and if we can but finde grace we shall be sure to finde knowledge The Scripture saith Let a man examine himself yet you think not that sufficient unlesse you examine him if it be no Scripturall way to examine others why will
such a Generall called to be souldiers this name shewes the intrinsecall nature of the thing to which applied Such is the name Saint when applied to the Church of God but there are other names which are extrinsecall and superadditionall to the nature of the things given to and separable and may be in some and not in other of that kinde As if one should write to the Army of such a one enriched with gold and silver apparell this is extrinsecall and casuall and may agree to some Armies and not to others such are the Epithets 1 Cor. 5. inriched with wisdome utterance c. Concerning the names Elect c. we have answered them before POSITION VI. The form of a Church is the gathering together of these visible Saints and combining and uniting them into one body by the form of a holy Covenant Deut. 29 1.10 11 12. by which is plainly shewed that a company of people become Gods people that is a Church by entring into Covenant with God If it be said they were a Church before yet that was when the Church of the lewes was constituted in Abrahams Family by Covenant You intend not that this Covenant doth make a true Church Answer but a pure Congregationall Church as it is refined according to the platform of the Gospel We intend that the combination of Saints into one body by some kinde of Covenant either expresse or implicite Reply or by some kinde of speciall bond as Dr. Ames calls it doth make a true Church The seed of Jacob and the Sechemites could not make a Church together Gen. 34.15 16. but by becoming one and they could not become one but by coming into the same Covenant therefore they say though deceitfully for they never meant it yet therein they shew how such a thing could only be done if you will be as we be that every male be circumcised then we will become one people and we would demand had those Sechemites been Believers and had this businesse been carried without guile whether they had not by this doing become one Church We conceive relation or combination into one unto domestick ends and purposes is the form of a Family and relation and combination into one unto politick and civill ends and purposes is the form of a Commonwealth and relation and combination of one man and one woman unto conjugall ends and purposes is the form of matrimoniall state and that covenant alwayes makes this relation and combination into onenesse where the persons are free from each other and no naturall tie amongst them and so relation and combination of so many Saints as do or may well meet in one place unto religious ends 〈◊〉 the enjoyment of Church-ordinances doth make a church and because the persons are free from one another therefore covenant or agreement together which is all one must make the relation A solemne expresse and verball covenant or agreement we assert to be necessary unto the purity and strength of a Church and so consequently unto the welbeing of a Church for how Saints and they alone living promiscuously in the world should yet be severed from the world with which they be in habitation mingled and how they even they alone should have communion together in all holy ordinances without expresse verball consent we cannot conceive which yet we judge ought to be if the rule be well attended which saith Nothing shall enter into the holy city which defileth Rev. 21.27 22.14 And how such loosenesse which is in our parish-Parish-churches from which any may depart to another Parish-church without rendering any reason removing their habitation it may be but a stones cast which we conceive to be a great evill For the members in a naturall body are not so loosly joynted nor stones in any house so loosly set unto which yet a particular Church is compared Eph. 2.22 and 1 Cor. 12.27 How this evill may be prevented but by expresse agrement we cannot apprehend and therefore conceive such a covenant to be necessary to such purposes A Church-covenant s especially in relation to Church-estate Answer and Church duties as a marriage-covenant is with relation to the marriage state and marriage duties but the Covenant here enentioned was not entered into in reference to Church estate and Church duties rather then to other duties of the morall Law and may be taken by two or three though they be too few to make a Church or by persons of severall Churches in a ship or a journey and yet leave them in the same Church-state they were before and not make them members of a distinct Church A Church-covenant is especially in relation to Church duties Reply but not only so for Christian duties are comprehended under it and the Covenant in Deut. 29.1.10 11 12. respects principally Church-duties more then other duties of the morall Law as appeares from vers 16 17 18. for he warns them of Heathenish worships such which they had seen in Egypt and among the Nations and would ingage them by holy covenant to all Gods holy worships which were of his own institution of which were the worship and service of the Passeover and all the offerings of Gods prescription which were to be brought to the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation and the covenant of two or three to perform such duties might not be taken because some of them did seal their union and communion with that body and were to be celebrated when the whole body was assembled And though a covenant binding to the performance of some of the duties of the morall Law may be made by two or three and by persons of severall Churches and yet leave them in the same Church-state and not make them members of a distinct Church from what they were of before yet not so a covenant that binds to Church-duties as if a company of persons of divers churches should covenant to meet together to pray one with another this would not make them a Church nor change their state but if they covenant to walk together in the constant enjoyment of all Church-ordinances which God requires of a Church this would make them a Church and change their state that afterwards they could not be of divers Churches but of the same Church and Body A Covenant in generall doth not make a Church nor a marriage Answer a Covenant betwixt this man and that woman makes it but a Covenant with appropriation and application to this or that Pastor or people but the Scripture covenants are not with appropriation and application to this Pastor or people viz. that they would serve God with this people or Pastor rather then with that therefore they are not Church-covenants Who ever read or heard of any Covenant in generall of duties to be done Reply without application to persons mutually ingaged to perform such duties As a covenant of duties in a marriage would be ridiculous without application to persons this man or that woman to be
which it was the sign and seal and we would demand whether Isaac were not in covenant before he was circumcised and whether his circumcision did not seal so much and alwayes this order is supposed First Gods promise Secondly mans faith Thirdly the sign and seal of both in some Symbole of Gods institution so in Baptisme How prove you that Melchisedeck a Priest and Lot Answer which were not of his seed nor family were out of Church-state That a believer is not a son of Abraham if he be not in Church state by covenant which things you seem to imply when you say the Jewish Church was constituted in Abrahams family by Church-covenant the family of Sem was the Church of God long before this 1. We assert not that they were out of Church-state Reply but this we say if they were not circumcised as we read not that they were they were not of Abrahams Church nor had the Passeover been on foot could they have partaked of it any more then Believers could afterward who joyned not to Abrahams family Cornelius may be an example 2. It is one thing to be a son of Abraham as a Believer and heire of promise for so all Believers are and an Heathen is when converted before joyned to any instituted Church and another thing to be the son of Abraham as a professed Covenanter with God and bearing the Symbole of it in his flesh in the former sense Abraham was the father of all Believers though uncircumcised and in the latter a father of the circumcised which were also of his faith as the Apostle shewes Rom 4.11.12 3. Though it be probable that there was a Church in the famimily of Sem yet that place Gen. 9.26 27. proves it not for first it is propheticall of the posterity of Sem and Japhet and respects not so far as we can discern the persons of Sem and Japhet at least not at that time being both as is probable in the family of their father Noah Secondly there might be a Church in Sems family and yet of another constitution then this in Abrahams family this hinders not but that the church in Abrahams family might be constituted by covenant POSITION VII Every Member at his admission See the like allegation in Answer to Pos 9. p. 73. doth promise to give himself as to the Lord to be guided by him so to the Church to be guided by them which is no more then the Members of the Church of Macedonia did in a parallel case 2 Cor. 8.5 The givers are not the Members of the Church of Macedonia Answer as you for your advantage phrase it but the Churches of Macedonia and therefore if this do prove Union or Covenant it is of the members of severall churches and not of one only 1. The allegation in answer to the 9th Position Reply pag. 73. runs in these words As to the Lord to be guided by him so to the Church according to God to be guided by them these words according to God are lest out whether wilfully to make the practice of our Churches the more odious or by oversight we conclude not 2. There was no intent to prove Vnion or Covenant of a Church but subjection of each member to the Church to which he is joyned himself and the officers thereof and the practice of the Churches of Macedonia by way of allusion is made use of it is said it is no more then the members of the Church of Macedonia did in a parallel case The Argument is fetcht à comparatis the members of the Church of Macedonia did as much in a like case they gave themselves to the Lord and to the Apostle and Timothy according to Gods will to be guided by the Lord and directed by them a whole Church or Churches to one or two persons gave themselves and an Argument is fetcht thence thus then may one person that is to joyn to a Church as fitly give himself to the Lord to be guided by him and to the whole Church and the Officers thereof to be directed by them according to the will of God and it is urged that a member should therefore promiseit and to call it Church of Macedonia or churches is neither advantagious nor disadvantagious for though many Churches gave themselves to be guided by one Paul because he was Officer to them all yet a members subjection will be only required to his own Church and the Officers thereof because there is no superiority of jurisdiction of one Church over another and the members thereof We believe you would be ready enough to make use of this pattern to prove that the members of a Congregation must submit to the guidance of their Pastors and why do you except against it because subjection of each member to the Church is endevoured to be proved thence seeing that the Church compriseth the Officers thereof POSITION VIII This particular Congregation is a Church before it have Officers Acts 2.47 In a generall sense a few private men without Officers yea Answer a few women without men yea twenty members of severall Churches may be called a Church but a governing Church they are not the Church hath not received an office of rule without her Officers (b) Cottons Keyes p. 16. Reply We take Churches for such churches Reply as the Apostles planted in all places when they had converted any considerable number of persons into which Saints were wont to be gathered that they might be built up and edified by the Ordinances Acts 9.31 and unto which Pastors were given to reside with them and to oversee them Acts 20.28 and these must be Congregationall Churches for Pastors cannot constantly feed any other Or we take Church as Amesius defines it * A company of faithfull ones by speciall bond betwixt themselves joyned together to exercise the communion of Saints constantly amongst themselves Coetus sidelium speciali vinculo inter se conjunctorum ad communionem sanctor um inter se constanter exercendam such an united company is the Church before it have Officers for it is their priviledge to choose their Officers as you confesse in your Answer to the next Position in which sense if in any sense at all a few private men or a few women or twenty members of severall churches have never been called a Church Now whether this Congregationall church be a Governing church or not because it is not asserted in the Position we have no occasion here of discussing it The Church in Acts 2. had Officers Answer and better Officers then any Church now hath even the Apostles which were the Elders of all Churches 1 Pet. 5.1 2 Cor. 11.28 (d) The Apostles were as Elders and Rulers of all Churches Cotton Keys p. 48 and particularly of the Church of Jerusalem and did act therein as Elders it is not all one to want Elders now they are instituted as before ordinary Elders were not appointed at that time There is a
often signifies church-Church-communion and the Apostles meaning may well be that it should be upon dayes when the Church meets in communion and giving and receiving are actions of communion Phil. 4.15 and therefore sutable to such meetings in communion in the interim we would not be understood as though we meant to exclude all private distributing or communicating to the necessities either of Saints or Ministers though we conceive publike contributions to be principally intended Hence it is that Deacons are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 12.28 which being interpreted may import a person that receives some thing for another and it may beare receiving of a just reward for another and so a receiving not for the poor Saints alone but a reward for the labourers also * See Scap. Lex 6. But how must the Deacons receive the Churches contribution must they gather it from house to house that would be an endlesse toil and dishonourable also Contribution or communication is called a sacrifice Heb. 13.16 Now sacrifice was wont to be brought to the door of the Tabernacle and it comes most freely when it is thus brought but when must it be brought when the Church meets and when meets the Church constantly upon the Lords Day therefore these contributions must be brought upon the Lords Day but upon which Lords days must this be done upon those only upon which there is occasion of distributing something or at other times surely at other times else it might come to passe that they might have nothing in deposito nothing in the stock then many a person that needs can many times have nothing for the case may be such that the need cannot tarry till the Lords Day come and the person may be gone that needs before that time come now there ought alwayes to be something in readinesse to supply needs in cases of such urgencie therefore this contribution ought to be every Sabbath day that as there may be daily occasions of distributing there may be constant supply in contributing To prove this we have alledged 1 Cor. 16.1 2. and so far as we have made use of this Text we conceive we have not wrested it 1. We confesse that the occasion of this institution was collection for the poor Saints and not their own poor Saints neither but the poor Saints at Jerusalem 2. We confesse that there are no other Churches mentioned upon whom this institution was injoyned but the Church at Corinth and the Churches of Galatia which our brother saith was larger then England Notwithstanding if we consider severall particulars of the Injunction we may probably conjecture that he had a further scope in the commandement then the occasion doth import 1. 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 which were many and that at Corinth and there cannot be a reason rendered why all other Churches that were called to the duty 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 for they were called to the same work of relieving the Saints at Jerusalem as well as the Churches of Galatia and Corinth * Rom. 15.26.27 2. The Apostle bindes the performance of this contribution to the Lords Day in all these Churches if he had had no scope to make this an Ordinance in all the Churches he might have pitcht it upon some other day 3. 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often rendered as Scapula observes and give instances abundantly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in every yeer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is every moneth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is every word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is every person 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is vicatim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is domesticatim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is viritim street by street house by house man by man we have twice together the Preposition so taken Acts 2. ult 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 day by day 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 house by house now what reason can be rendered why this contribution must be every Lords Day in reference 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 that they were to give they might have had the longer time allotted them and yet have given it at once or the richer and the abler might have given it at once and the rest at twice 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 4. They are bound under this Injunction of first dayes contributions without any time set them of ceasing the same for though our Brother say those gatherings were to cease when Paul should come and alledge vers 2. for it yet we finde no such thing there he saith vers 2. That there may be no gatherings when I come our Brother gives this interpretation that collections may cease when I come but is not he guilty herein of corrupting the Text more then we for the true meaning is that it may be in readinesse when I come and that there may not be need to gather for it when I come for when it is in the stock already there will be no need of gathering for it and the Greek words are against his exposition but agree well with ours 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which words are truly thus translated that not when I come then gatherings be made he is diverse I think from Paul in his exposition of Pauls words he would have gatherings then to cease Paul would not have them then to begin for should they then begin there would be nothing in stock and so nothing in readinesse when use should be made thereof 5. Consider the manner of performing this act every one must put apart somewhat or lay by him What to keep it with him and not part with it not so for he must treasure it up as the Greek carries it or put it into the treasury What treasurie his own private treasury no for then it needed not to have been upon the Lords Day for any other day would have served for such a private act and then there would have been gathering together what every man had put into his own private treasury when Paul came and this would have been unreadinesse which Paul labours to prevent it was then the common treasury which the Church had when they met into which every one did put what he provided for such a businesse thus a stock was raised in all
censures So that reclamante Ecclesiâ there can be no excommunication So then though it 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 Classicall Provinciall Nationall and Oecumenicall Churches The reason is 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 Acts 6.3 1 Cor. 5.4 chap. 11. chap. 12. chap. 1.4 chap. 16. but of any stated Classicall Provinciall Nationall Oecumenicall Churches there is a deep silence in the Scriptures of the new Testament no precept for the erecting of such and no lawes nor Officers provided for such Churches Now Christ Matth. 18. sends the people of God to such a Church as should be in strength by vertue of a Charter from heaven to redresse grievances and heal offences and therefore he sends us to the Congregationall Church as it opposeth those churches I spoke of before for these can shew no such charter I read that the promise of binding and loosing is not given to a particular Congregation when leavened with error and variance Answer But then a Synod of Churches or of their Messengers may judicially convince and condemn errors search out truth c. All that we have to say to that Reply is this If you will acknowledge the power of binding and loosing to be seated in the particular Congregation we shall not contend against it though we cannot say that the Scriptures and reasons brought are convincing to each of us to inforce our grant but that in ease of error or scandall that cannot be healed in the Congregation A Synod of neighbour churches or their Messengers may judicially condemn those errours and schismes c. and impose wayes of peace and truth but yet not assume authority of censuring the delinquents but leave that to particular Churches to be performed Cotton Keys pag. 28. POSITION XX. Matth. 16.19 Christ directeth his Speech not to Peter alone This seems to be taken out of Answer to 32 q p 44. but to all the Disciples also for to them all was the Question propounded by Christ vers 15. Nor to them as generall Officers of the Churches for that Commission was not yet given them but as Disciples and Believers In laying down this Position Reply and making your battery upon it as you do fall short of that ingenuity you professe in your Preface when you say If any of the Brethren amongst whom Mr. Cotton is deservedly the chief seem in my apprehension to come neerer the truth then other Cotton Keys pag. 4. I willingly take notice of it c. Now Mr. Cotton must needs in your judgement come neerer the truth then the Elders for he doth acknowledge that Peter was considered in the severall capacitles of an Apostle an Elder a Brother and so the power of the Keys was promised in him to Apostles Elders and Brethren according to their severall proportions of that dispersed spirituall power Now had you dealt with this doctrine with which we concurre and told us your thoughts of it in reference to the place we should have acknowledged your answerablenesse therein to your profession Now though you cite Mr. Cotton in the margent yet so as that the ordinary sort of readers can hardly guesse what his judgement is and the whole frame of your Discourse is such that may well leave the Reader in this apprehension That the Elders of New-England place all power of the Keys in Believers as such which is contrary to the very expressions of the Elders of New-England and to the judgement of the Congregationall men in generall For the Elders say The ministeriall power of government is given to the Church and consequently not to Believers unlesse they become a Church yea they say expresly That the Keys are committed to all Believers that shall joyn together in the same confession according to the order and ordinance of Christ and consequently except Believers joyn into Church-societies which is the Ordinance of Christ they have no share of the power of the Keys much-lesse do they assert any such power in women who though Believers yet are excluded from any share in Church-government by a positive law 1 Cor. 14.34 35. Peter was an Apostle in Office and Commission Answer though not yet sent out into all the world and an Elder Matth. 10.1 2 c. and doubtlesse the Key of Authority and Rule when it was promised to Peter and given to him with the rest of the Apostles Joh. 20.23 is the same authority which is given to their successors whereby they are called to feed and rule the Church of God as the Apostles had done before c. Let it be granted that the twelve Disciples so called Mat. 10.1 are not called Apostles vers 2. by way of anticipation Reply Mar. 3.13 14. but in reference to their present state and condition yet it will be necessary still to distinguish the equivocall term of Apostle as noting 1. One authorized to dispence doctrine and discipline amongst all nations Matth. 28.19 and in this sense Peter was no Apostle in Office and Commission as your self confesse And what the Elders affirm is true That the Keys were not given to Peter in this capacity i.e. not as to one that was actually in that estate and condition or was hereby put into that estate and condition 2. As one sent forth by a temporary Commission to preach and work miracles amongst the Jews only (a) Mat. 10.23 Now the Promise of the Keys was not made to Peter under this capacity neither was he an Elder invested with authoritative power of government at this time he could neither vote in Synagogues nor in the Sanhedrin but only preach authoritatively and work miracles to confirm his Doctrine and in case that they did not receive him he could not excommunicate them by himself or with all the rest of the twelve with him but must shake (a) Mat. 10 14 15. off the dust of his feet against them and leave them to the great day of Gods immediate judgement for so runs the tenour of his Commission and there is deep silence of any other then meerly a doctrinall power of the Keyes So that the issue is this that though what you say be true in the sense expressed yet it is nothing to the purpose for which it is brought for still the assertion of the Elders may be true that Christ speake not to them as Apostles in Office and Commission whether limited to the Jewes as you would insinuate or extended to all Nations but as Disciples or Believers 2. Neither will it follow the Key of authority promised to Peter and given to him with the rest of the Apostles Joh. 20.23 is the same which is given to their successors therefore Christ directeth his Speech to
text that women have a power in Church-censures because women are reproved in this place as being part of the Church We answer when an Epistle is writ to a whole Church it doth respect particular persons according to their severall capacities 1 Cor. 14.34 35. Now women are not in a capacity of dispensing Church-censures therefore the reproof is not extended unto them If things indefinitly spoken to a whole Church because they cannot be verified of one who is not in a capacity to receive them may not therefore be affirmed of another then because a liberty in cutting off offenders by vertue of Gal. 5.9.12.13 doth not belong to women neither doth it belong to Elders or Brethren for the Apostle speaketh to all Likewise because the Holy Ghost writes to the whole Church of Pergamus females as well as males and blames them for not casting out the Balaamites and the Nicolaitans which women have no power to do therefore neither doth the reproof import any such power either in Elders or Brethren This it may be you intended but as a light velitation with these lusorious expressions Sed remove ista luforia decretoriis opus est i. remove these Toyes there is need of Decrees Paul himself say you did excommunicate Alexander Answer and Hymeneus 1 Tim. 1.20 and it is not mentioned that he took the consent of the Church or Presbyterie That Paul alone did excommunicate Alexander and Hymeneus is not so cleare Reply but if we should deny it we could argue probably for the Negative Paul saith to Timothy 2 Tim. 1.6 Stir up the gift of God which is in thee by the putting on of my hands and yet Paul did but lay on hands with the Presbyterie 1 Tim. 4.14 Now if the Apostle did not act in ordination how much lesse in excommunication without the concurrence of the Church the rather because Apostles concurrence with the Church seems to make more 1. For Gods glory in the universall humiliation of the whole Church 2. For the Churches peace who are more likely to subscribe to the equity of those proceedings of which themselves have the cognizance then if they were carried on by a transcendent and superiour motion of Apostolicall power 3. For the edification of the Church in seeing and hearing and concurring in the whole businesse 4. For the attainment of the end of excommunication both the more immediate viz. Non-communion with the party and the more nemote noble end viz. the healing of the party and of the offence 2. Let what is assumed be granted yet we suppose you will make no gain of it For 1. It will not necessarily follow Paul did excommunicate Hymeneus and Alexander himself therefore Paul did without the consent of the Church of Corinth excommunicate the incestuous person For it was but sutable to the holy and self denying frame of the Apostles spirit Jure suo cedere to remit something of his own right 2. Neither is it so much as probablely convincing if we consider that the Holy Ghost makes the subject excommunicating to be the Church of Corinth 1 Cor. 5.4 5. 'T is the Church of Corinth whom the Apostle requires to purge out the old leaven vers 7. 'T is the Church of Corinth in which the Apostle states the power of judging vers 12. do not ye judge them that are within The Apostle saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Answer I have judged as though I were c. which imports rather that Paul himself would deliver him to Satan then that he exhorts them to do it Indeed he commands them to put him away as he writes to them to restore him again to see if they would be obedient in all things 2 Cor. 2.9 Brother we cannot but observe Reply that you manage this argument something tenderly as if you did suspect the ground you tread on for you say not that the words import that Paul would deliver him to Satan himself and not that he exhorts the Corinthians to do it but you say that they import rather the one then the other and this amounts to as much as nothing to the purpose For in regard of the affinity the words may have with the one importment more then the other they may be said to import the one rather then the other and yet in their proper sense import neither Luke 18.14 The Publican is said to go away justified rather then the Pharisee and yet the words do not positively import that either of them were justified And yet you have a good minde to make your Reader believe that Paul himself delivers him to Satan and not the Corinthian Church by their authority and this you prove From the Gammaticall Syntax of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Answ Doubtlesse there must be an Accusative case importing the subject delivering understood and this must be either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with reference to the Apostle or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with relation to the Church Not the first as we conceive 1. For if so it is probable the Apostle would have said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have delivered him that hath so done this thing to Satan and have commanded the Church only to take notice of it and to abstain from communion with him 2. The Apostles judgment was such a judgement as was passed at the writing of the Epistle and therefore the Apostle saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have judged or I have judged already him that hath done this thing and therefore his judgement of the man was not the actuall casting out of him but only a judgement that the Church should passe the judgement of Excommunication against him assuring them that not only his spirit but the power of Christ should go along with them 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To deliver to Satan notes such a publike and solemn transaction of an Ordinance as Paul was in no possible capacity to do for he did nothing by proxie being absent For it notes 1. A publike binding of the person under the guilt of sin by the Key of Faith 2. An observable exemplary ejection of the person out of the fraternity of the Church and a shutting of the door of communion against him untill he repent by the Key of Church order Now must the whole come together and look one upon another in silence and upon the incestuous person imagining him to be thus excommunicate because Paul had judged to have him excommunicate and so after this dumb shew depart one from another Therefore we conceive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be understood as going before the Infinitive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to relate to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the rule of Grammarians Si infinitivus Participium praecedens pertinent ad eandem persmam non additur accusativus personae sed subintelligitur But it may be you will say Objection that you affirm that the Church is commanded to do it and therefore
the world all the Churches in the world are guilty of it The reason is the same obligation that lies upon a Classicall Church to reform the severall Congregations in the Classis the same lies upon a Provinciall Church to reform the severall Classis in the Province and the same lies upon a Nationall Church to reform the severall Provinciall Churches in the Nation and the same lies upon the Oecumenicall Church to reform the severall Nationall Churches in the world and therefore though all the inferiour Churches should fail yet the Oecumenicall is bound to see it reformed and if the Oecumenicall fail all in the line of Oecumenicall communion that is to say all Churches in any Nation in the world are guilty POSITION XXIII The particular Congregation takes Christ for her only spirituall Prophet Priest and King Deut. 18.15 Acts 737. Psal 110.4 Heb. 5.4 Isai 9.6 7. Rev. 15.3 To make good this charge you say Answer Seven or eight you say are the fewest will make a Church but five or six yea any one particular Saint though out of Church-fellowship by excommunication may take Christ for his only spirituall Priest Prophet and King c. How comes it to passe Brother that your margent that hath in most places born witnesse to your Text reserves it self in deep silence Reply as if it were afraid to be accessary to this wrong offered to the Brethren of the Congregationall Way That the Congregationall Way eatenus in that it is Congregationall is conformed to the will and lawes of Christ appoined by him as King of the Church delivered by him in his Word as Prophet of the Church we constantly affirm and shall be ready to justifie before all the word till we be convinced of our errour in that particular That the stated Classicall Provinciall Nationall and Oecumenicall Way of Church-government importing a power of jurisdiction in point of Ordination Excommunication c. over particular Congregations is not sutable to the Will of God delivered by Christ as Prophet nor to the Laws of God delivered by Christ as King of the Church as it is sutable to our light So we shall endeavour pro virili nostro according to our power with all meeknesse and brotherlike affection to defend as God shall give opportunity But that ever we have read in the writings of any Congregationall man truly so called as they stand in opposition to others of a different judgement both upon the right hand and on the left with whom alone you professe in your Preface to have to do I say that ever we have read in the writings of any Congregationall man these places applyed to prove the Position as it is by you controverted that is to say that the particular Congregationall Church takes Christ for her only Prophet Priest and King as if in these his Offices he were so only hers that no five or six or one particular Saint though out of Church-fellowship no Classicall Presbyteriall or Nationall Church no not the Nationall Church of the Jewes it self doth or notwithstanding some failings in government may take Christ as their only spirituall Priest Prophet and King as we do not remember so in whose Sack soever this cup of abomination be found yea though it be in Benjamins let him suffer according to his demerits But if any of us have thus expressed our selves whereby we have made all particular Believers not joyned to some Congregationall Church the renowned Scotish and Belgick Churches and all other reformed Churches not Congregationall yea the Nationall Church of the Jews it self at least as you would insinuate strangers from the Common-wealth of Israel yet are we unjustly condemned by you we mean in that sense in which Salvian saith a L. 7. de Gub. Dec. p. 282. Socrates when he writ a book perswading that all mens wives should be common was unjustly condemned by the Judges Injustè damnatus dicitur à judicibus verum est Rectius vuim haec talia praedicantem genus damnaret humanum In like manner we say we should be unjustly condemned by you for all the Churches of God yea all the people of God might deservedly condemne us 2. But suppose it cannot be made out by you that ever any Congregationall man truly so called held the Position you speak of in the sense insinuated in your examination where then is your ingenuity that you professe in your Preface viz. If any of the Brethren seem in my apprehension to come neerer the truth then others I willingly take notice of it Is this your willing taking notice of our neerest approaches to the truth to fasten upon us an imputation of wresting so many Scriptures to the maintenance of an opinion that never entered as we verely believe into the hearts and we are confident is not to be found in the works of any Congregationall man which if it be said and that you cannot make out the contrary it is well for you that you lived not in that over rigorous age spoken of by Ludovicus Vives in Commentary upon Augustine Lud. Vives in August de Civit. Dei l. 2. c. 9. de Civitate Dei in which it was a capitall fault and punishable with death to write or act any thing derogatory to the good name of any man For you have indeavoured to cast the odium of the most detestable pride and censoriousnesse upon many thousands Ministers and People that are of a precious anointing for learning or piety or both and in particular of a singular eminency for that rich grace of humility yea such a blot have you laid upon them whilest you say that we cleerly him that Christ doth exercise his Kingly Priestly and Propheticall Office only in Churches meerly Congregationall yea that Christ did offer himself a sacrifice for all the members of a Congregationall Church and only for such a thing of the greatest abhorrency to our thoughts if it fall on this side blasphemy against the Holy Ghost such a blot I say you have laid upon them that you will not easily wipe off for Machiavels rule is too true Calumniate fortiter saltem aliquid adhaerebit Slander boldly at least somewhat will cleave POSITION XXIV Christ left but one way of Discipline for all Churches This is found in Answ to 32. q. p. 72.73 and the like is in R. M. and W. T. to C. H. pag. 8. which in the essentialls of it is unchangeable and to be kept till the appearing of Christ 1 Tim. 6.13 14. To prove that these words are injurious to the Text alledged you say It seems by the words Thou O man of God I give thee in charge Answer that thou keep this Commandement viz. which immediatly precedes concerning faith and holinesse in the Ministery of the Word to be directed to Timothy himself or if to his successours then it must be to the ordinary Elders for Euangelists that succeeded him wee know none not to the Churches for example not to the
believers may be said to be WITHOUT in that sense page 74 75 76 1 Cor. 7.16 Gifted men or women may convert page 120 1 Cor. 11.19 The Church whether it is the place page 25 26 Vers 20. A church meeting in one place page 13-31 1 Cor. 14.1 2.3.33 All must covet the gift of prophecy page 121 124 V. 12.31 Such may page 128 1 Cor. 14.23 This is discussed fully there page 13 to 31 V. 32. Spirit of Prophets subject page 126 1 Cor. 12.8 Pastor and Teachers gifts distinct page 70 1 Cor. 12.9.29 All had not all gifts page 125 V. 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Helps put for Deacons page 63 1 Cor. 14.1.3 Prophecying hath something ordinary something extraordinary p. 118 Vers 34. Women to be silent in your churches What churches means he p. 21 Not to use power in churches page 91 95 1 Cor. 15.6 Christ appeared to five hundred brethren at once in Jerusalem page 11 1 Cor. 16.1 2 Cor. 8.1 Churches whether Nationall churches page 21 to 31 1 Cor. 16.1 Ministers to be maintained by the churches contributions every first day scanned page 60 61 Vers 1.2 Every first dayes contribution proved page 64 Qu. Whether those collections were to cease page 65 Hence for maintaining the Ministers proved page 66 2 CORINTH 2.9 Church excommunicates and not Paul alone page 97 2 Cor. 3.1 Letters of recommendation to others page 117 2 Cor. 6.16 A Church is Gods Temple page 71 2 Cor. 8.5 Such give themselves to the Lord and to them page 44 2 Cor. 8.18 19. Many churches may choose one to do them service page 30 GALATIANS 3.16 17. And in thy seed not to page 42 Gal. 5.9.12.15 Church to cut off offenfenders page 95 Gal. 6.6 Opening the communicating to Ministers page 63 EPHESIANS 2.22 A house of stones united page 38 Eph. 4.11 Teachers and Pastors are distinct page 69 Eph. 5.25 26. Is of the Church mysticall page 28 PHILIPPIANS 1.7 Churches to be of reputed Saints page 32 Phil. 4.15 Giving and receiving are acts of communion page 63 COLOSSIANS 4.17 A Church hath power to censure her officers page 58 59 1 TIMOTHY 1.20 Whether Paul alone excommunicated Hymeneus page 96 1. Tim. 3.8 Deacons office is not temporary page 63 1 Tim. 3.10 One unofficed may preach page 58 1 Tim. 4.14 Elders laid on hands page 96 1 Tim. 5.17 Whether ruling Elders must be maintained by the Church page 60 1 Tim. 6.13 14. That Christ left but one way of Church discipline which must be kept to the end of the world page 107 2 TIMOTHY 1.6 Whether Paul laid on hands alone page 96 JAMES 1.1 with Jam. 2.2 Whether all the twelve Tribes were one Church or how called your Synagogues page 18 19 1 PETER 2.5 A Church of living stones page 36 1 Pet. 2.25 Shepheard and Bishop there are one and the same page 69 1 Pet. 4.14 Ministers not to be Bishops in anothers Dioces page 111 1 Pet. 5.1 Apostles were Elders of all Churches page 46 1 Pet. 5.3 Elders are not Lords over Gods Heritage page 78 3 d. Epist JOHN vers 9. Diotrephes that loved preeminence how blamed page 78 81 REVELATIONS 1.6 Kings and Priests distinguished page 127 Rev. 2.11 The Spirit speaks not to the Angel alone but also to the churches page 101 Rev. 4.14 The Church hath Crownes which implies it hath authority ibid. Rev. 8.8 9. A great Mountain cast into the Sea what it means page 68 Rev. 13.1 15.2 Sea put for the Church or the Churches Religion page 68 Rev. 15.3 Christ is the King of the Church page 104 Rev. 21.27 Rev. 22.14 Nothing shall enter into the Holy City the Church that defileth page 38 Some Greek words and phrases opened herein 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whether in one place or in one minde page 18 20 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Kak Synagoga and Hebrew Gnedah Kahal What page 24 25 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Every first day cleared 1 Cor. 16.1 2. page 65 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have judged to deliver What page 97 98 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For this I wrote page 99 Errata PAge 35. line 4. à fine reade converted p. 36. l. 5. à fine given Paul r. given by Paul p. 37. l. 9. r. 1 Cor. 1.5 p. 49. l. 10. à fine 2 3 23. dele 23. p. 52. l. 4. à fine 19.2 W. r. 19.2 p. 65. l. 9. Matth. 18. r. 28. p. 83. circa med Luke 24. r. 14. p. 110. l. 4. r. presidents p. 114. circa med 2 Thes r. 1 Thes p. 121. r. 1 Cor. 14.1.3 FINIS
persons of the same blood Aud therefore if inequality of civill power be forbidden how much more inequality in power Ecclesiasticall which is the spawn and rise of Antichristian tyrannie (a) Pastor Prel p. 23. Answer to Mr. Down See pag. 81. 82. Mr. Pagets Defence part 2. p. 29 The learned Clergie in the dayes of Hen. 8. confessed there was no disparity of Ministers instituted by Christ Act. Mon. Diotrophes being but one was liker to a Prelate then a Prsbyterie c. These words are brought to vindicate 3 Joh. vers 9 Reply 10. from a supposed abuse by these words They viz. the Elders are not so many Bishops striving for preeminence as Diotrephes did We must confesse we had almost said we wonder that your ink did not blush to blot and blur such sweet humble-spirited holy and pertinent expressions as you do in this place Let your self once more and the Reader take a judgement of the passage as it lies in its perfect luster in the Answer to the 32 Quest The Question propounded by the Brethren of Old-Engand is this What authority or eminency have your Preaching-Elders above your Ruling-Elders To which the Elders of New-England frame this Answer It is not the manner of Elders amongst us whether ruling only or ruling and teaching also to strive for preeminence one above another as remembring what lesson our Saviour taught his Disciples when they were at strife among themselves which of them should be the greatest Luke 22.24 25. If Diotrephes strive for preeminence verily we abhor such striving and by the grace of God respect one another as Brethren Brother where lies the fault for which they lie under censure Is it a fault that the Elders in New-England strive not for preeminence If so we suppose it lies in this that their humble and brother-like walking each towards other condemnes the pride of those that will needs be striving for some kinde of preeminence and Prelacy above their Brethren (b) Juvtual Satyr Patriam tamen obruit olim Gloria paucorum laudis titulique cupido This formerly the countrey overthrew The lust for praise and titles and the glory of a few Or are they to blame to insinuate that the Apostles censure upon Diotrephes doth so frown upon those whether Prelates or Presbyters that strive for preeminence that it is a matter of abhorrency to them so to strive Hinc illae lacrymae hence it is that you say Diotrephes being but one is liker to be a Prelate then a Presbyterie Brother Reply a horse in the abstracted notion of unity being but one is liker a Prelate then a Presbytrie that are many But what of that Prelacy doth not consist in unity but in the usurpation of undue that is to say unscripturall spirituall power over their Brethren and in this capacity it is possible that a Classicall Presbyterie may be as like Diotrephes as a Prelate that is to say if they take upon them a preeminence over their Brethren as he did 'T is as truly Prelaticall when fourteen or fifteen exercise a jurisdictionall power over all their Brethren in a County as when one man shall take upon him to exercise the power aforesaid in two or three severall counties Perhaps the fourteen or fifteen being better principled then the other may do it with more gentlenesse and lesse offence but (a) More and lesse do not alter the kind magis minus non variant speciem and they may be both (b) Alike if not equally aequè if not aequaliter Prelaticall Yet John dod not blame him simply for acceping or having preeminence Answer or for taking upon him to answer in the behalf of the Church to which St John writ or for taking to him the power of commanding forbidding excommunicating but for loving preeminence as Mat. 23.6 7. for not receiving the Apostles and Brethren and prohibiting what he should have required and incouraged and excommunicating such as were the best members of the Church Reply You might more properly have said usurping or exercising preeminence for accepting presupposeth an offer made of the thing accepted Now it is more then probable that the Church never offered him preeminence both over the Apostle John and over her self that he should over-rule the Church and cast out her best members at his pleasure neither if she would had she any such power Let it be granted that Diotrephes was an Elder of the Church of Corinth Reply (c) Rom. 16.25 1 Cor. 1.14 and so had a preeminence by vertue of Office over the Body of the Church yet this is not the preeminence here spoken of but an exorbitant preeminence usurped over the whole both the Elders his equalls in power and the fraternity who though his inferiours yet have a share and interest in the passing of excommunication and other weighty affaires of the Church expressed as your self state it in taking upon him to answer in the behalfe of the Church commanding forbidding excommunicating Now say you he is not simply blamed for accepting or having but for loving preembrence and exercising it corruptly in regard of the things done and performed by him It is said of corrupt Princes Isaiah 1.23 Every one loveth gifts by the same reason that Diotrephes is excused from the guilt of solitary excommunication in regard of the materiality of the action by the same reason may these Princes be excused from their bribery and corruption And it may be said the Prophet doth not reprove them for the receiving but for the loving of gifts When the thing is evill there love how moderate soever is faulty in this regard that it is placed upon a wrong object But where the thing is lawfull a moderate and well tempered love of it is lawfull also As for the Scribes and Pharisees so far as they were men of chief rank and place Mat. 23.6 for them to possesse and love to possesse with a well bounded love the uppermost rooms at feasts and the chief seats in Synagogues would not be unlawfull but perhaps their ambition put them upon affectation of places undue to them and then their possessing them and their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Mark 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Matthew and Luke or as Christ speaks Luke 24 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they choose the chief rooms and this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be seen of men being added to their possessing Digito monstrari dicier hic est (a) To be shewed by the singer and to have it said This is such One is that which may justly be condemned by our Saviour But the case which respecteth Diotrephes may be this it is probable that John writ about something that did concern Discipline as the receiving of certain Brethren either to constant membership or by vertue of church communion now this was a businesse in which the fraternity had some interest as well as Diotrephes and the rest of the Elders and therefore
the Apostle writes not to Diotrephes or the Elders alone but to the whole Church also because Quod omnes tangit ab omnibus tractari debet that which concerns all must be handled by all But Diotrephes riseth up and he alone commands forbids excommunicates and what can be more destructive of the power of the Presbyterie and liberty of the people then such a course and yet say you or else you say nothing to the purpose he is not blamed for it If Diotrephes were not to blame being but a particular Elder to take upon him the power of the whole Eldership yea and the whole Church why may not a particular brother take upon him the power to elect an Officer which belonge to the fraternity or one Elder to ordain an Officer which pertains to the whole Presbyterie Or in your Classick Way why may not a particular Elder a member of the Classis exercise the jurisdiction of the whole Classis why may not a Classis exercise the power of a Provinciall Synod that of a Nationall and the Nationall of the Oecumenicall Synod and yet be blamelesse the reason is the same proportion that an Elder hath to the whole Eldership the same or far greater have a brother to the whole fraternity an Elder to the Classick a Classick to the Provinciall a Provinciall to the Nationall and that to the Oecumenicall Synod But peradventure it was not unwittingly done by you to put in the word simply for a retreat in case you should be hotly charged for pleading the cause of Prelacie under the notion of Presbyterie and so you will say you affirm not that John doth not blame Diotrephes for having preeminence but he doth not simply blame him for having preeminence Now if this be your meaning and that you indeed grant that Diotrephes was blamed for striving for preeminence why do you blame the Elders of New-England for saying that the Elders are not i. ought not to be so many Bishops striving for preeminence as Diotrephes did But if it be said that the force that is offered to the Text lies not in this that the Elders of New-England say that if Diotrephes strive for preeminence verely they abhor such striving for these are their words but in this that it is said The Elders are not so many Bishops striving for preeminence as Diotrephes did which peradventure may have an oblique insinuation that Classick Presbyters are so many Bishops striving for preeminence and it may be said the text affords no such conclusion We answer those words so many Bishops are no expression of the Elders of New-England neither is the Text applied by them to prove that Classick Presbyters are so many Bishops striving for preeminence I but M. D. saith a Classick Presbyterie sets up many Bishops in stead of one Peccat Aemilius plectitur Rutilius M. D. offends if it be an offence and the Elders of New-England are beaten Or suppose that reverend learned and holy man M. D. have let fall words which reflect with some blemish upon the Presbyterie from the sense of what himself had suffered yet your professed businesse is not to vindicate Presbyterie but the Text. Now M. D. we conceive for we have not his book doth not urge 3 John vers 9 10. to prove that the Classicall Presbyterie sets up many Bishops in stead of one and therefore what thing soever he hath said which offends in reference to the Presbyterie yet he is not guilty of wrong-doing in reference to the Text. I will not tell you who said All the Church is holy Answer ye take too much upon you c. Our consciences are unto us a thousand witnesses Reply that we have and by the assistance of grace hope ever to carry it with all gentlenesse and meeknesse toward our godly Brethren that are guided by a different light in point of Government from us and therefore it is lesse grievous to us to be parallel'd with Corah Dathan and Abiram those grand incendiaries of the Congregation of Israel yet it is not unworthy your serious consideration whether it might not be with good cause said to you as sometimes Christ said to one of the twelve when he asked Master is it I and he answered Thou hast said POSITION XIX The Power of Government is expressly given to the Church where we are bidden Heare the Church which is a particular Congregation Matth. 18. Brother we could wish you had signified the Author by whom Reply and the place where this wrong at least as you suppose is done to the Text as you have done in other Sections who those be that presume that Christ did no more respect the Jewish then they do the Church of England As your margent doth not inform us so in searching those few books we have we cannot finde among all the Congregationall men therefore we take it as an unjust aspersion thrown upon them The Church in the first and primary intent of these words Answer was a Church then in being which did abominate the Gentiles for Heathens and Gentiles were all one viz. the Jewish church which was not aparticular Congregation but a Nationall-church having graduall judicatories and appeales of which the Apostles were at that time and Christ lived and died an actuall member c. Whilest you your self say Reply that the Church in the primarie intent of these words was a Nationall church then in being do you not imply that these words tell the Church have reference to a Church or churches that were not yet in being which should afterward be invested with power of judging and therefore giving it for granted that Christ saying Tell the Church sends them to the Jewish Synagogues or Sanhedrin whilest their authority did continue and so Peter needs not stay three yeeres before he can acquaint the Church with his offence yet still the Congregationall church may be competitresse with Classicall Provinciall Nationall and Oecumenicall churches for the power of judging and if she should come off victricious then the guilt of wresting this place for you urge it to prove the power of your judging church would rest among your selves and the Congregationall men and their Way be guiltlesse Now for our parts we cannot see the title of Congregationall churches any way invalidated by what hath been hitherto said by your self or others 2. Whilest you say that the Church in the first and primarie c. I suppose your inference must be this Ergo those words Matth. 18. Tell the Church cannot be rightly applied to a Congregationall Church which hath no such graduall judicatories and appeals but Classicall Provinciall and Nationall Churches for amongst these are found such graduall judicatories and appeals The sinew and strength of this reason is this It is necessary that the judging Church in the times of the Gospel should answer in the manner of its judicature the judging Church in the time of the Law and ergo if that Church which was to judge then had graduall