Aegypt should be one people of God which in Defence p. 40. you say is all one with one Church another nation another people of God and Israel shal be so far from being alone a National Church that she shal not be the chiefest but other Nations shal be before her Isa 19.25 So Abraham became the father of many nations Rom. 4.17 the Jewish Nation and the Nations of the Gentiles one its evident was a National Church and why might not a Gentilish Nation converted to Christianity be a sister National Church Paul faith Rom. 3.29 God is not the God of the Iews only but of the Gentiles the word in the Original is of the Nations also his meaning is God is in covenant with beleeving Nations of the Gentiles as wel as with the Jewish nation Now if God call a nation and a nation obey that call and become the daughter of father Abraham and a sister of the Iewish nation and God be in covenant with a nation or the God of a nation Is not that nation a national Church Did not thus much if there had been no more make the Jews a national Church And wil it not make a beleeving nation among the Gentiles so also Have you any so good an argument against a National Church as this for it 7. Moses in Deut. 12. did not tell the Jews that God did intend they should be a national Church for that they were before even as soon as they grew into a nation Acts 7. but only of a peculiar place of some solâ—mn publick worship which was but ceremoniâ—l and because it was so and God hath not intended any such set place for solemn publick worship in the New Testament as more holy then other places therefore he hath prescribed to us no such thing but lâ—ft us at liberty Ioh. 4.8 Of little Iudea much is spoken before and after CHAP. IX Of the universal visible Church and general Councels Sect. 1. Reply ANd if an universal visible instituted Church be acknowledged why are there not then universal representative conventions What a defect is this in Christendom that all Christians do not endeavour it But we conceive that they are so far from the endeavouring of it that if there were any such thought they might make use of them for advice yet they would be loath to subject themselves to the binding decrees of them Rejoyn 1. You being no Scriptures at all against the universal visible Church or the subordination of lesser Judicatories to greater 2. You acknowledg at least implicitely that if there be an universal visible Chuch then there may be a national subordinate to it and a congregational subordinate to it in which you deal fairly and ingenuously for the whole is not subject to a part but the part to the whole and the neerer any part comes to the whole Church the more authority it hath and hence a general Councel is of more authority then a National and a National then a Provincial 3. I assert that the Scriptures do hold out an universal visible Church For 1. the Apostles which were general officers to which a general Church is the adaequate correlative and had the care of all the Churches are said to be put or placed in the Church as speaking but of one 1 Cor. 12.28 2. This is that one body into which all both Iews and Gentiles bond or free are baptized v. 13. whereof Christ is the head v. 12. yea the visible head though he be now removed to heaven as King Iames was visibly the head of Scotland though removed into and residing in England and Paul the Minister Col. 1.25 in which God hath set 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the members 1 Cor. 12.18 viz. he hath set 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apostles Prophets Teachers helps governments v. 28. 3. The same is proved Ephes 4. to the end of the 16. verse for there we find that the whole Catholique Church is but one v. 4. one body one spirit one hope of our calling one Lord one faith one baptism one God and father of all All which are adaequate and commensurate to the Catholique Church unto which he after saith the Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastors and teachers were given v. 11. 4. This Church consisteth of all beleeving Iews and Gentiles Ephes 2.16 3.6 And is contra-distinguisht from and opposite to all other Iews and Gentiles in the world yet uncalled and is called one fould Iohn 10.16 one woman traveling Rev. 12. one city of God Rev. 11. one field one draw net one barn-floor c. 5. This Church was a child and in non-age under the law and at ful age under the Gospel Gal. 4.1.2 One assembly of 24. Elders and foure beasts in allusion to the 24. orders of Priests and the foure camps of Israel bearing in their standards the same beasts Rev. 4. and as all the twelve tribes did but make one Church so the 144000. of all Christian Churches as it were of the twelve tribes are but one Church I omit many more such expressions which signify to us that as the Church was but one amongst the Jews so it is but one amongst the Gentiles one army under Michael one vineyard c. you may object that we read of Churches in the new testament therefore there is not only one Church I answer These are particular Churches of the same name and nature with the whole as the dry land is but one yet being possessed by several nations under several climates divided by hils rivers and other boundaries is called lands as Labans flocks having all one owner and probably all one mark are called one flock and so Iacobs also Gen. 30.31 32 36 38. 33.13 as the freemen of Rome where ever born or bred make but one corporation hence the Church of Ephesus though a compleat particular Church is not called the whole city or houshold but fellow citizens with the Saints viz. of other Churches and of the househould Ephes 2.19 20. As the Iewish Church was certainly but one yet it is called Churches as you shal hear anon as the Antichristian Churches of Italy France Spain Germany are but one whore one Church under one head the Pope so the Christian Churches of England Scotland Holland c. which have their fathers name written in their foreheads having one faith c. are but one woman one Church The one is the army under the Dragon the other under Michael particular Churches and Antichristian conventions are as the several Brigades Regiments or companies of those armyes Hence the Church of God is called Army and Armies Cant. 6.10.13 vineyard and vineyards Cant. 7.12 8.11.12 Garden and Gardens Cant. 6.2 Note Reader that these are not spoken of the invisible Catholique Church but of the visible Church for officers are not set in the invisible Church Iudas was an Apostle but was not a member of the invisible Church nor is baptism a badg of it 2. Whereas some object that my
opposed to any man that is called a Brother but all Christians in Scripture-phrase are called brethren whether they be of the same or of severall congregations yea though one should be unjoyned to any congregation as Paul whom Ananias calleth brother Saul Act. 9 17. And the Apostle writing to severall churches wills them to love as brethren to love the brotherhood 1 Pet. 2.17 3.8 Lastly they are here said to be without which Paul had not to do with by judging them but of this more afterwards Sect. 2. But you reply If this exposition of yours be true then the judgement of the Church of Corinth did extend to the lands-end of Christianity to the confines of Paganisme and consequently any one Church hath power to judge any Believer in the world for he saith Do not ye judge them that are within V. 12. Rejoynd Nothing so for Ye there is to be understood of the Corinthians as members in part of the universall visible church 1 Cor. 12.27 28. Your selves tell us p. 65. that the Epistles do respect persons according to their capacities so this judging those that are within respects only the church of Corinth suppose he writes only to one church for we would not mingle questions lest we should darken the light according to her capacity viz. You judge all within your limits all of the city of Corinth the Cenchrean church all within that town and other Churches pari ratione authoritate within theirs So ye are Gods husbandry and Gods building 1 Cor. 3.9 that is ye are part of Gods husbandry of Gods building So 1 Cor. 12.27 Ye are the body of Christ viz. as he immediately by way of correction doth interpret himselfe Members in part And in 1 Cor. 3.21 22. he saith all things are yours Paul Apollos Cephas Now Paul and Cephas were officers of all churches his meaning therefore is that they are yours viz. yours amongst others and All things are yours viz. all things belong to the Universall church of which the Apostles were properly officers and to you as members And so it is no more but this Ye are amongst those that judge them that are within So Calvin and Beza might have written to one or two English Bishops and said You silence all Nonconformists and yet might well enough have been understood that they had but silenced all within their Diocesses and other Bishops had done the like in theirs Sect. 3. Reply p. 74. Suppose the Apostle had known a member of the Church of Corinth whatever he appeared outwardly in the frame of his conversation to be indeed without God and in a state of enmity with God if this man had committed a grosse sin might not the Apostle have judged such a one to be excommunicated and why should a Church-unbeliever be subject to the Apostles judgement and an Heathenish unbeliever exempt from it if Church-membership did not make the one obnoxious to that judgement more then the other Rejoynd 1. By your argument p. 36. he ought not to be excommunicated for you say Excommunication supposeth men to be alive in the judgement of charity but such a one as is known to be without Christ is not supposed to be alive 2. We assert that if he have committed some grosse sinne and appear to the Church obstinate therein he may be excommunicated though he be supposed to be truly ingrafted into Christ 3. I dare not say that one known by the Apostle to be without Christ which hath committed some grosse sinne as heresie adultery or some other work of the flesh Gal. 5. if he being admonished do heare the Church and submit himself ought to be excommunicated Tit. 3.10 Mat. 18.17 A member of the visible Church though indeed without Christ and so discerned by an Apostle cannot be judged to be without Christ in foro ecclesiastico he appearing as you put the case outwardly otherwise in the frame of his conversation 4. I never said nor thought but a man must be within the Church before the Apostle could excommunicate him yet it hence follows not that he must be within this or that particular church or within the Church in your sense Of I'resbyterian calculation I shall speak in the last Section Sect. 4. When I urge that the Apostle opposeth fornicators of the world and fornicators that are brethren You reply that Persecution in the Primitive times was levied against those which did joyne themselves to the Churches or otherwise visibly as Paul at his first conversion by preaching declared themselves to be Christs disciples That the brother opposed to the fornicators of the world is not be that by the internall and invisible grace of faith is a brother and dare not â—â—enly professe Christ but a named and professed brother Fervicators of this world are to be understood of it as it stands in opposition to the visible Church Rejoynd The Apostle forbad them to eat not only with scandalous Church-members but with all Brethren not those which are brethren only in foro Dei conscientiae suae by the internall and invisible grace of faith whereof it is impossible the Church should take notice De non existentibus non apparentibus eadem est ratio But those that were brethren in foro ecclesiae did make profession of Christianity were called brethren and yet were scandalous I am not so senslesse as to think that the Church was bound to take notice of the internall invisible and unprofessed grace of faith in a mans heart why do you so largely disprove it 2. A man may be a brother that is a Christian and disciple of Christ as Paul was it is your own instance at his first conversion before any such enchurching yea every visible Christian is so for by priority of nature every Christian is first of the universall visible Church and so in that respect called a brother and secondarily of a particular congregation An Heathen is not first converted into this or that or the other Congregation but first into the Church catholique then into this or that Congregation Now the Apostle saith not if any man that is called a brother and is a member of a particular Congregation with such a one eat not but you contrary to the rule Non restringendum ubi lex non restringit say if a man be called a brother and be not of a particular congregation he is without as well as an Heathen and the Church hath no power to censure him nor doth the Apostle forbid us to eat with such an one And so you make scandalous Church-membership not scandalous professorship of Christianity to be the formall objective cause of our separation and withdrawing from them Sect. 5. When I say Without are dogs sorcerers Rev. 12.15 such as Paul had not to do with What have I to do c. v. 12. And yet he had to do with all Christians by his illimited Apostolique power whether they belong to that or any other Congregation on no
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
cornfloor and to a City but as for the comparing of a visible Church to a garrison town 1. Is a similitude invented by your selves for your own purpose 2. You cannot shew so good warrant for your examination as souldiers have for theirs 3. It is neither necessary nor ordinary that each man that is admitted into a garrison should give satisfaction to all the souldiers therein that he is a real frend 12. Mr. Noyes a N. E. man saith p. 6. p. 10. Our facility of admitting members must give testimony to the Lords dispensation of grace in the embracing of invisible members The gates of Ierusalem do stand open Rev. 21.25 The Elders of the City of Refuge did not expostulate with such as fled before the avenger of bloud in way of any explicite covenant or exquisite examination Iosh 20. Excess of complements insolemnities formalities punctualities are unsuitable to the simplicity and spirituality of the Gospel and also fully forbidden in the 2. Commandment Sect. 2. Reply p. 34. If the Church be not a common receptacle but must consist of selected then there are certain rules of reception and rejection and tryal must be made by some whether persons be so qualifyed according to those rules and this the light of nature and rule of reason leads to though there should be nothing in Scripture expresly mentioning it Rejoyn 1. When the rule of reason and light of nature is alledged by some for episcopacy by others more cleerly necessarily for subordination of Ecclesiastical judicatories and the remedy of appeals then you decline tryal by those judges but now you do appeal to them 2. Your argument is a meer non-sequitur The Church is not a common receptacle there are rules of reception and rejection a tryal must be by some therefore the Church must examine all those that come to be admitted whether the work of grace be wrought in their hearts or no. For 1. The Iewish Church the Christian Church in the days of the Apostles were not common receptacles yet they did receive and admit into them respectively many whom they did not examine whether the truth of grace was wrought in their hearts or no. 2. The rules of reception and rejection are set down in Scripture but amongst them this rule is not to be found that the Church must examine c. If it be why do you not shew it 3. If some may try persons that come to be admitted it follows not that the Church must do it 4. If there may be examination of something it follows not that it must be of the truth of grace wrought in the heart and that all are to be rejected which cannot give satisfactory arguments thereof Sect. 3. Reply p. 34. It was lawful and commendable in the Ephosians to try false Apostles which professed in words to be true Apostles Rev. 2.2 Rejoyn 1. You do here much qualify your tener signifying you would accept of verbal profession of faith and repentance if there be any thing which may though but probably give witness to the reality thereof 2. That those Apostles did desire member-ship with the Church of Ephesus and were tryed upon that occasion is not expressed or implyed in the text but rather they that said they were Apostles did in effect say that they ought not to be set members of any Church but had the care of all the Churches 3. This tryall was not of their sanctity or syncerity but of their doctrine and authority not whether they had true grace or no but whether they had the office and doctrine of Apostles or not which two things differ much Indas was a true Apostle and yet the work of grace was not wrought in his heart and the work of grace is wrought in many that are not Apostles 4. They had commission to examine them 1 Iohn 4.1 1 Thes 5.21 And for this the Bereans were commended Acts 17.11 And the Elders or the Angel of Ephesus were in effect put upon that duty by Paul Acts 20.29 30. But you have no such commission for the Church to examine the work of grace and therefore your practise is not so lawful as theirs Sect. 4. The Church of Ierusalem sought satisfaction concerning Saul you wil say there was cause of suspition and jealousy concerning him and we may say there is now also cause of jealousy for profession of faith and repentance is common and the fruits worthy of it Math. 3.8 are rare Rejoyn Your practise is not so reasonable as the practise of that Church in that case for 1. There was just ground of personal exception against Saul and so there is not against every man of whom you doubt the Apostles might suspect him stil to be a Iew a persecutor a spy and that he but assay'd to joyn himself to them to betray them Protestants in Q. Maryes days and Non-conformists in the Prelates days though they held not that they ought to examine each man of the truth of his grace before they admitted them into their society would have bin afrayd to have admitted known persecuting persons into their private meetings though they had pretended to be converted til they had known they had left off their trade of persecution which the Aposties knew not that Paul had done til they heard Barnabas his testimony concerning him which they received without any examination 2. Fruits meet for repentance were ever rare yet Iohn Baptist did not defer baptism til the people brought them forth nor was he or the disciples of Christ afrayd notwithstanding they wel knew the rarity of such fruits to admit thousands at once to baptism against whom they had no just ground of personal exception as they had against Saul and therefore were afraid of him Sect. 5. In Answer I alledg If the Gospel and Christian Religion was brought into England in the Apostles times then it was like it was constituted of Saints as wel as the Church of Corinth If we look upon the latter constitution in Q. Elizabeth's time many Congregations Manchester for example had visible yea doubtless real Saints which were sufferers all Queen Maries time to be the foundationnalls thereof You Reply p. 35. It is uncertain what Congregation was so constituted and what not we neither justify nor condemn the constitution of any but judg according to their present state and if we see any visible Saints as doubtless there are many in some Congregations and united also amongst themselves for the sake of those few so united we acknowledg them a Church and in all things so far as they carry the ordinances uncorruptly desire to have fellowship with them Rejoyn 1. It is as certain as any thing built upon humane faith that God had a faithful people not only in London but in Manchester and neer to it in Queen Maries days witness not only tradition but the letters of Mr. Iohn Bradford and Mr. George Marsh 2. There are also visible Saints stil in it and those as much
united save that a few Anabaptists Brownists and Independents break the union as the Scripture requires a true Church to be 3. You two shew no willingness of joyning with us so far as the ordinances are carried uncorruptly for you hold that without such corruption the godly amongst us may be admitted to your Sacraments and yet you deny to do it we bless God we need not to it 4. It is a fond thing that you should urge your humane inventions as a means to carry Gods ordinances uncorruptly Sect. 6. You say Reply p. 35. 1 Cor. 1.1.2 Shews either what the members of the Church of Corinth were at first or ought to have bin or what some of them were at that time and ought to have bin viz. sanctifyed in Christ c. As Hemingius Gualter Pareus do note and say that a definition of the Church may thence be fetched Rejoyn 1. Though this text doth indeed shew what some of them were and all ought in duty to have bin yet your selves dare not assert either that it proves that the Church of Corinth was constituted wholly of vâ—sible Saints or 2. That then when Paul writ it consisted wholly if mostly of visible Saints were all the carnal Schismaticks 1 Cor. 3.1 2. The Incestuous person and they that were puffed up and gloryed 1 Cor. 5.1 2. The Contentious persons Fornicators Idolaters Drunken Communicants denyers of the Resurrection spoken of 1 Cor. and 6.10 11 15. chapters the false teachers despisers of Paul impenitent persons mentioned Epist 2. Chap. 10 11 12. visible Saints you know they were not or 3. That the Church of Corinth did or ought to have examined all she admitted whether true grace was wrought in their heart or no or 4. That the Church of Corinth had better bin no Church then not constituted of Saints or 5. That it is necessary that a Church should be constituted of visible Saints or else sin is committed I conceive none of those Divines can hence conclude any of the foresaid things by me denyed nor can they rightly gather the definition of a visible Church from these words taking Saints in the same sense that you do for then if a Church should not consist of visible Saints then it wanteth the definition and consequently the being of a Church Surely none of them did judg the way of Independency to be the Scriptural way as you would pretend to the Reader they did at least in this point Sect. 7. Reply p. 35.1 The end of Church-fellowship is not conversion but edification Ephes 4.11 12. Acts 9.31 For if it were all unconverted ones whether they make profession of faith and repentance or no may enter in Rejoyn 1. Conversion is as much the end of Church-fellowship in the time of the Gospel as in the time of the law when all the lews and their seed though not all visible Saints were within the Church conversion to the Iewish Religion was not the end of Church-membership then not conversion to Christianity now but conversion to true sanctity might then and now be one end of Church-membership 2. Your texts say that God hath given Apostles Evangelists Pastors and teachers for the edifying of the body of Christ and then were the Churches edified and walking in the fear of God were multiplied Hence you conclude not only that edification is the end which indeed the Text imports but also that conversion is not the end of Church-fellowship The weakness of which inference doth thus appear 1. The Apostle saith not that edification is the only end or that conversion is not one end of Church-membership 2. The Apostles of whom Paul speaks as wel as of Pastors are acknowledged by your selves to be sent not for edification but for conuersion though that Text by your exposition would as wel prove that their mission as the mission of Pastors was not for conversion contrary to Math. 28. 19 20. Acts 26.18 3. The word which we translate edifying is building and in common phrase signifies as wel the rearing of a new house as the repairing strengthning and amending of an old house And yet 4. there can be no repairing of an old house without some addition of new materials not can it be conceived how the Church a collective dying body can be built or preserved without conversion of souls 5. To be builded in Scripture-phrase is to have children Gen. 16.2 30.3 So Sarah and Rachel are said to be builded See Ainsworth in Gen. 16. And God made the midwives houses Exod. 1.21 that is gave them children and so Pastors are given to build the Church viz. to beget children hence they are said to plant also Jer. 1.10 Persons converted are the joy and crown of their Pastors and an argument of their mission from God 6. Acts 9.31 saith the Churches were multiplied 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which cometh of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now how I pray you could they be multiplied without conversion of some new souls 7. One of your texts sheweth the end of giving Apostles Pastors Teachers of which we have spoken before The other shews the fruit of the Churches rest and peace but neither of them doth at least not directly and plainly tell the end of Church-fellowship 3. As for the entrance of unconverted ones and persons not professing saith and repentance into the Church I answer 1. Infants do enter into the Church though they neither profess faith nor repentance and these must either be converted in the Church or not at all 2. Though conversion be one end of Church-membership yet it follows not that Jews Turks Pagans may enter because a profession of Christianity is required by Gods law before admission and so much care as God prescribes ought to be taken 3. Though one end of conversion be hearing yet if God have secluded excommunicate persons from hearing as I conceive he hath Excommunication being vltimum remedium then he must not be admitted to the Word So though one end of Church-fellowship be conversion to true sanctity yet none but they that are converted to the profession of Christianity can partake in it and so Turks and Jews are excluded Sect. 8. Reply p. 36 Excommunication is to recover persons desperately sick and ready to dye it is in the use of it as Physick 1 Cor. 5.5 and therefore supposeth the persons to whom applied to be alive therefore all Church-members are to be reputed in the judgement of charity living stones 1 Pet. 2.5 Rejoynd 1. Excommunication and Physick are not alike in point of the life of the object for no man gives physick to one whom he knows to be dead but though one spiritually alive being scandalous or erroneous may be excommunicated yet the more certainly yea suppose infallibly a man is known to be spiritually dead the more liable and fit he is to be excommunicated for Excommunication looks upon a man as sinful and erroneous yea as incurably such
first they met together in one place 4. The primitive times were times of hot persecution when Peter and Iohn as they were preaching were apprehended threatned again and again halled to the common jaol and beaten Acts 4.1 2 3 17 21. Acts 5. 18 40. Saul also persecuted for a time Acts 8.1 and Herod Acts 12.1 Your selves tel us page 6. that the ordinary Pastors and teachers of those times were martyred for preaching against the peremptory commands of Magistrates yet I suppose you intend not that the Primitive paterns of Churches meeting in several places produced or to be produced should hereby be evaded because those were times of persecution seeing it is not possible that in the Churches greatest prosperity such a vast number cannot orderly and edifyingly conveene Sect. 4. When I put you to make good your inference viz. Scripture saith such such a Church did meet in one place therefore the Church must consist of no more then can meet in one place You say Reply p. 15. You must take the argument in the scope of it such and such churches did meet constantly in one place and there is no mention of any Church which did not meet together in one place therefore no church in the new testament doth consist of more then can meet in one place the consequent is now good for we think that patterns that are uncontrouled by percepts and other patterns have Doctrine in them and do teach how things ought to carryed It is one thing more warrantable to derive an inference from patterns when they all run one way and be patterns of one kind and another thing and less safe to draw an inference from patterns when there is diversity of kinds of them about the same thing Rejoynder 1. Your selves dare not say that all the patterns in the new testament do run one way in point of gathering of Churches out of Churches of having 7 or 8 to be a Church of ordination by non-officers of the Church censuring her officers of maintenance by contributions or out of the Church-stock c. And therefore your reasoning is less safe and warrantable by your own confession in these points in which you have much adoe to find one pattern for each of them so far are you from proving that they all run one way 2. It is repugnant to plain Scripture or to neer and necessary consequence from it to assert that no Church in the new testament doth consist of no more then may meet in one place as is instanced and proved in the Church of Jerusalem and of Samaria Sect. 2. and in the Church of Corinth ch 6. 3. Christians dwelling in a vicinity or neighbourhood together do alway in scripture make a Church together this is a pattern uncontrouled by precepts or other patterns therefore by your own rule it hath doctrin in it but your practiles are not conformable to this doctrin 4. Suppose that in the new testament only one family in a city had received the faith could it thence have bin concluded that no Church should consist of more then of the members of one family I beleeve you wil not own such a conclusion Sect. 5. When I urge that all the beleevers in such or such a city were of the Church in that city whether they were more or fewer hence every city and every Church expound one another Acts 14.21 2 cum Tit. 1.5 Acts 16.4 5. And that it cannot be sheâ—ed that any Church how numerous â—oeâ—er it grew was divided into two or more Churches or that there Were more Churches then one in any city or town therefore the beleevers in any one city or town may be but one Church whether they can meet in one place or no. You Reply p. 16. Not so because as appears to us thene is light of scripture gainsaying it for though in all cities all the beleevers of them were of the Church of each of them yet such an inference would be â—aught because it was so for a special reason and in regions and countries where that reason took not place it was â—therwise All the beleevers of Ierusalem were of one Church there because they were not so many but that they might come constantly together into one place and did so But all the beleevers in Indea were not of one Church there but of many Churches because they could not meet constantly in one place And if beleevers in cities meeting in divers places are but one Church for this reason because they were of 〈◊〉 city as you would form to infer than shew but a probable reason why beleevers meeting in divers places in countries may not be one Church because they are of one country especially the beleevers of Indea being but a smal country and under the same civil Government The reason why city and Church expound one another was this because there was not more converted in a city then could meet together in a congregation or Church And when you can shew us out of the new testament that beleevers were so multiplyed in any city is that they could not all meet in one place then Wil we shew you that such Churches were divided into more Churches Rejoynder 1 Here are patterns of the new Testament uncontrouled by precepts and other patterns rejected by you upon pretence of special reason and that special reason is your begging of the question viz. there were no more converted in any city then might constantly meet together in one place 2. I have shewed out of the new testament and light of reason that beleevers in Ierusalem were so multiplyed that they could not meet together constantly for edification to receive the Sacrament of the Lords supper Sect. 2. 3. we read of Churches planted by the Apostles in cities and in great townes Cenchrea the least was oppidum valde frequens populosum navium statione celeberrimum Gualter in Rom a wel-frequented populâ—â— town most famous for the station of the ships and that they usually preached in cities Math. 10.23 11 1 23 34. Ierusalem Rome Corinth Coloss were all cities so were Philippi and Thessalonica Antioch Laodicea c. Hence cities not countries or villages and Churches do in scripture-phrase expound one another and Paganus which signifies a Country-man signifies in our common acceptation an Heathen and yet you tell us of Churches in the countries as distinct from Churches in cities and never offer to prove that there were such Churches That the Apostles in their journeyes did preach sometime in villages I grant but that they planted any Church in a village I put you to prove by scripture and if you cannot prove it then your distinction of country Churches and city Churches and the observation there upon which you make so much use of falls to the ground 4. I did not hold them bound to be out Church only because they were in one city but because their Elders or commissioners might come together being all of
all the dough in a Country one lump No but of every lump how many soever they be it is to be understood a little leaven leaveneth each of them so of Churches a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump that is the whole Church every Church in which it is this maketh not all the Churches in a Country to be one Rejoyn 1. Suppose it were granted that there were no combination for jurisdiction in those Churches doth it thence follow that such combination never ought to be If a national assembly of the Churches of Galatia cannot be shewed wil you thence conclude that therefore there ought to be no national assemblies and that the present assembly in England and the late assembly in New England is unlawful possibly there might have been a special reason why the Churches of Galatia could not be combined either because they lived too remote or under several civil Magistracies which would not or could not have entercourse one with another or the Magistrates being enemies would not suffer such meetings or combinations or the like peculiar reasons which now binde not 2. I omit your needless cavils you uncandid intimations and to this which is the solidest part of your Reply I say Suppose Paul had been alive before the coming of Christ in the flesh and should have writ to the Churches a speech used by the Psalmist as hath been shewed and the phrase Churches of Indea which were in Christ 1 Thes 2.14 Gal. 1.22 seem to imply that even after the time of Christ there were some Churches it Indea which were not in Christ as I urged in my Answer though you put it out by and Index expurgatorius or suppose he were now alive and should write to the Churches of Holland or of France as wel he might without deserting the ordinary stile and one should gather thence that there were before Christ Independent Churches uncombined in government or that now every Congregation in France or Holland were Independent and uncombined your selves would deny the warrantableness of that inference and yet could justifie the propriety of Paul's speech wel enough If we may call those which we know are combined by the name of Churches why might not Paul cal them by the name of Churches though they were combined So that if you wil maintain that the Churches of Galatia were each of them an Independent judging Church you must seek out a better argument for there is nothing in the proof made in the position that infers so much and this Answer doth serve for the Câ—urches of Indea and Macedonia as wel as of Galatia 3. There was one special man amongst the false teachers which the Apostle aims at Gal. 5.10 Now this mâ—n could not be of every Church of Galatia but of one of the Churches yet he writes not only no not so much as principally to that Church of which he was but to all the Churches of Galatia and declareth what censure he wisheth might be dispensed to use Mr Cottons own words Keyes p. 59. against him and other corrâ—â—â— teachers Now the strength of my Argument is this Those which are wished to dispense censures against a false teacher or to do any acts of discipline must needs be combined but the Churches of Galatia are wished to dispense censures against a false teacher and to do acts of discipline therefore they were combined 4. Let me ask you as sometimes you ask me 1. What Commentator before you did explicate the word lump as you do denying the combination of those Churches 2. Why it should not be taken distributively in 1 Cor. 5. as wel as here 3. Do you indeed hold what your exposition imports that false doctrine doth only leaven and corrupt the lump in which it is and one particular Congregation and not other Congregations in any case I should have ended this business 〈◊〉 you would tell me of leaving Indea as you did p. 29. though 〈◊〉 was but deferred to its proper place and no text of Scripture 〈◊〉 produced in the position for it I alledging therefore that 〈◊〉 Churches of Indea were so combined that they did come together Acts 20.20 21 22. to be satisfied of Paul concerning an accusaetion they had received against him and are called a Church Gal. 1.13 Acts 12.1 and an house Heb. 3.6 which title you say is not given to loose stones and timber but imports joynting and knitting one to another You Reply 1. These were not the Iews of Iudea alone that did gather together but of all other parts Act. 21.27 Rejoyn 1. You deal too cunningly for though the Jews of other parts might be there gathered yet they are apparently distinguished from the other beleeving Jews which had received the information of which I spake v. 20 21. The Iews amongst the Gentiles were they whom Paul was said to teach and it may be some of those Jews did inform but the persons informed you know were different from them both and could be no other then the beleeving Jews or Churches of Iudea and yet that they came together to be satisfied of Paul is plain and that Iames and all the Elders perswaded Paul to give them satisfaction You further Reply p. 31. That the Church Which Paul persecuted and Herod vexed is meant either of that of Ierusalem or of the Saints in general and not of the Churches of Indea Rejoyn Why not the Churches of Indea seeing Ierusalem was one of them which you acknowledg he persecuted and not it only for they that were scattered abroad durst not stay in Iudea no more then in Ierusalem Acts 11.19 20. which implies that his persecution reached all Iudea over and the Churches of Iudea were within Herods reach and the ground of his killing Iames and proceeding to take Peter also was because it pleased the Iews Now it would please the Jews that he should vex any Christian Church amongst them in Iudea as wel as the Church of Ierusalem and Paul also being a Jew his main envy was at the Christians of Iudea 2. How dare you say Paul persecuted not the Churches of Iudea Why might not they be persecuted to Damascus which was in Samaria as wel as the Saints of Ierusalem Compare Gal. 1.13 with v. 22 23. Paul saith I persecuted the Church of God and the Churches of Judea heard that he that persecuted us viz. the said Churches of Indea now preacheth the faith which makes it clear that the Church of God in one place and Churches of Iudea in the other are the same thing as I asserted Finally advertising the Reader that the Printers error not mine putting Heb. 3.4 for 3.6 hath given you some advantage I conclude that the title of Churches of Galatia c. doth not prove that they were each of them distinct governing Independent uncombined Churches CHAP. XI Whether and how the visible Church must consist of visible Saints Sect. 1. THe state of the question is this First it is to be meant of Iews
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
yea kinds of contribution You say further That the word there used signifies often 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 〈◊〉
such as God judgeth or are loft to the immediate judgement of God You reply p. 76. There might be dogs in the Apostolique churches as well as without Phil. 3.2 and with such dogs Paul had to do A strange speech to proceed from you who elsewhere maintain that the Apostolick Churches did consist of visible Saints and that Paul in the judgement of charity did thinke all the Philippians to be Saints Phil. 1.7 and if I grant that there might be dogges as well within the Churches as without what gaine you by it you further reply that Paul had to doe with the dogges of the Gentiles he received a Key of knowledge to open the Kingdome of Heaven to beleevers and to bind them that would not repent and beleeve under the guilt of impenitency but Paul had nothing to do to judge with the judgement mentioned in this place viz. by the Ministery of the Church of Corinth those that were without the combination of that Church the Apostles had received no such Power to judge those persons to excommunication by the Ministry of a Church that were never in fellowship with the Church Rejoynd 1. Master Cotton tels us that the key of knowledge saving knowledge or which is all one the key of faith is common to all beleevers and he distinguisheth it from the key of Power Cot. keyes p. 6.7 but it may be this is not the key of knowledge you mean but you have made another 2. Paul opening the Kingdome of Heaven to the Gentiles in case they would beleeve and repent and binding them under the guilt of impenitency and obstinacy if they would not repent though you prove not that her did so bind any Gentiles was done by Doctrine not by Discipline by preaching not by censures of which this 1 Cor. 5. evidently speaks Had Paul any thing to doe to judge or censure the Heathens to be excommunicated which were never within the universall or particular Church 3 Paul had not to doe indeed to excommunicate out of the Church them that were never in the Church for that is impossible how can hee bee excommunicated that is not within the universall visible Church for excommunication is a casting out of the Church not out of the invisible Church for that cannot bee nor out of a particular visible Church onely but out of the universall visible Church as Baptisme doth admit into it so excommunication doth cast out of it and as they may be received to Baptisme and not admitted into a particular Church as Saul and the Eunuch so they may be excommunicated though they were not set Members of a particular Congregation but if they were never within the universall Church they cannot be cast out of it for that imployes a contradiction 4. The judgement mentioned in this place is not the judgement of Paul by the Ministery of the Church of Corinth as you assert for hee doth expressely distinguish them what have I to do Do not yee judge Paul saith not what have you to do to judge nor what have wee to doe to judge for so it may seeme that he included the judgement of Corinth with his owne but what have I to doe c. Now though the Church of Corinth could onely judge those that were within her limits as other Churches could also within theirs and therefore might judge the Incestuous Person suppose hee was one of them and lived amongst them yet the Apostle did deliver to Sathan Hymeneus and Philetus without the Ministery of any Church that wee read of and certainly the Apostle had Power to judge all Christians all of the universall visible Church whether within a particular Congregation or no for which I alledged the Authoritie of the Elders of New England in the marginal citation which you leave out Sect. 6. Reply p. 77. Such Persons though for their Crimes they may be subject to the judgement of the Civil Magistrate yet in respect of Ecclesiasticall judgement they are left to the immediate judgement of God else by whom shall beleevers not joyned to any particular Congregation be judged why shall this Congregational Classicall Provincial National Church judge them rather then that may they be judged by all or any one they stand no more related to one then to another which are members of none at all where shall the fault be charged if judgement be not passed if a Church may judge one out of the combination why not 1000.10000 Yet we are farre from judging those beneevers in England and Scotland which are not joyned in our way to a particular Congregation therefore to be altogether out of Church combination and not crpable of the Ecclesiasticall judgement of their Churches Rejoynd Every Christian is to be accountable to the Church or Churches where he doth reside and that Congregation or classis of Congregations is to receive him to such Ordinances as he is meet for and to censure him if he doe offend As in the time of the Law if a man was found slaine the next city must expiate the Murther if the Murtherer was not known Deut. 21.1 2 3. or punish him if knowne for first It is the duty of every Christian to joine to that particular Church of God where hee doth reside on neere unto him and those with whom hee doth reside are to admonish him so to doe but if he shall obstinately refuse they may order that the brethren of those Churches should not eate nor have familiar society with such an offender 2. Members of that Congregation or classis of Congregations within which an Heretick or Scandalous man doth reside are in most danger to be infected with Heresie or Scandall You will say hee hath not consented to be of that Congregation and therefore is not subject to her judgement I Answer 1. If it bee his sin he hath not joyned then one sinne cannot free another from being censured If a Malefactor at an Assize shall refuse to be tryed by God and the Bench or by God and the Countrey shall hee therefore bee left to the immediate judgements of God 2. It may be hee hath consented to it 1. In Parliament hee and we all are included which hath set bounds and limits 2. Hee possibly was borne and baptized in it and 3. It may be hee received the Sacrament in it frequents prayer and preaching there or at least 4. hee voluntary sits downe in that Parish or Vicinity the inhabitants whereof by Law or custome in generall consent of Ministers and Members doe belong to that Congregation and so may bee interpreted to have consented in his deeds though in words he deny it A Cambridge man that dwels within the City of London doth by deeds professe he is a Londoner though in words he may deny it no Christian dwelling in Corinth could escape the censure of the Church of Corinth by pretending to be of the Church or Cenchrea 2. If there should yet be a question what Congregation should judge such an
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
out of doors The withdrawing of people from an outlawed person is no part of the Judicature or of power but of obedience Briefly he that executes an authoritative command may be said to be authorized to that act as to execute a malefactor though himself be not a governour And so I have read your ridle and Oedipus may save his labour unlesse he come to observe but any ingenious Reader that minds the scope and drift of the Position and of your discourse may do it that while you have been catching at this or that shadow you have not given us one solid argument to prove what you should prove from 1 Cor. 5. viz. that the Brethren must concurre with the Presbyterie by way of authority or by way of power Or unlesse he will judge whether that which you put out of my answer as guilty of a grand misprision be guilty or no viz. Numb 5.2 The children of Israel are commanded to put out of the Camp every Leper yet the Elders did judicially make clean or unclean Lev. 13.3 Deut. 17.13 yea sometimes they alone did put the Leper as Vzziah 2 Chron. 26.20 from amongst them The allusion to the Leaven is not to be too far strained for every woman or child in their private house without the consent of the Church might cast out leaven but yet they cannot excommunicate The Apostle 1 Cor. 14.31 bids them all prophesie one by one yet our brethren do not hold that all sanctified persons which in any place call upon the name of the Lord Jesus Cor. 1.1 2. were by this precept bound to prophesie Also in 1 Thess 5.12 he beseecheth the Thessalonians to know them that are over them c. which he speaks to Believers and not to the Elders So when he speaks of the acts of governing power it is to be understood of Elders not of Believers Rejoynd I now adde that the Priest wanted not authority to pronounce judgement of excluding the Leper untill he had consent of the people The Priests alone did make him polluted or clean viz. did authoritatively declare him so The Priest alone might shut him up seven dayes Lev. 13.3 4 5 6. and yet all the children of Israel are commanded to put away the Leper from amongst them as well as the Church of Corinth is commanded to purge out the old leven and to put away every wicked person though this punishment was inflicted by many 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Elders which were many and not by all the whole Church in your sense CHAP. XXXI Whether REV. 2.11 4.14 prove that Church-Members have power and authority Sect. 1. WHen you say the Lord Jesus reproving the Angel of Pergamus sends his Epistle not to the Angel but to the Church I adde not to the Church but to Churches And As you gather that the suffering of corrupt persons and practices was the sin of the Church and not of the Angel only so I may gather that it was not the sin of one Church only but the neighbouring churches 〈◊〉 But this you deny You reply p. 101. If you should unto this inference of the Elders adde an hundred more of your own yet this will not prove that the Inference is injurious to the Text for still it may be doubted whether theirs or yours any of them all of them or none of them be true inferences from the text It is harsh to say John wrote to all the seven churches ergo not to Pergamus if the suffering of Balaamites in the church of Pergamus was the sin of the neighbouring churches then it may be securely affirmed it was the sin of that church Rejoind 1. Revel 2.11 being brought to prove that the church may concurre by way of power with the Elders to cast out Balaamites according to your opinion because the Spirit speaketh not to the Angel to whom the Epistle is inscribed but to the whole church I demanded whether they held that Churches might joyn by way of power to cast out the Balaamites They denied that Then I said the Text doth as well prove the joyning together of Churches by way of power as the joyning of one Church with her Elders your selves shall be judges in this case between me and the alledgers of the Position speak conscionably I pray you may not I as well infer from Rev. 2.11 that the suffering of corrupt persons and practises is the sinne of Churches and that Churches may authoritatively or by way of power concurre for the casting out of Balaamites out of the Church of Pergamus as you or any other can infer it was the sin of one Church and that one Church only must concurre authoritatively or by way of power with the Angel have you warrant for the help of the Independent way to vary from the text and to turne Churches into Church the plural number into the singular number and have I no warrant to keep close to the words in opposition of it 2. I told you in my answer that Congregational men do deny that Churches should exercise such power as the scope of the Position would inferre from these words that our Church should exercise with her Elders I plainly shewed that they cannot inferre the one and deny the other as they do now you very strangely leave out those words But this you deny whereby my answer builded upon that deniall doth not appear to your Reader so pertinent and strong as it is indeed For you count it absurd and too like the Presbyterian way that Churches should concurre by was of power to cast out offenders out of any Church and thither therefore I brought the alleadgers of the Position and there I left them 3. Your selves do not vindicate the inference made in the scope of the Position but say it may be still doubted whether theirs or mine or any or all or none be true inferences 4. I neither affirmed that the suffering of the Balaamites was not the sinne of the Church of Pergamus nor that it was the sinne of neigboring Churches but I said and you cannot deny it to bee true that I may gather from the text aswell that it was the sinne of Churches as of one Church yea better then that it was the sinne of one Church only Sect 2. Reply p. 102. When you say Christ reproving the Angell sends the Epistle to the churches we suppose you mean the other sixe churches the seven Epistles were of immediate concernment in a distributive sense to seven severall churches it is undeniably manifest that the Church of Pergamus was guilty of suffering Balaamites and other wicked persons but to have so much faith to beleeve that all the rest of the sixe churches were guilty of suffering Balaamites and Nicholaitans yea even Ephesus and Philadelphia to prove that the seven Churches were governed by a joynt and common Presbytery hic labor hoc opus est But suppose such a common Presbytery and that the Presbyters
government are Congregational men and Independents and neither Presbyterians nor Prelatists but some of them members of your Churches 3. I read in one that is meerly a Congregational man viz. Mr. B. that our Ministers and those that are converted by them do deny Christs Kingly Government and that a main thing is wanting viz. Christs Kingly Office and that they refuse Christ for their only King and other words to that effect 4. That this is a doctrine devised by my selfe and Scriptures fixed to it to make you odious as you say in your last is a most uncharitable ungrounded surmise yet you are as peremptory in i◠as if you infallibly knew that never any one of the Congregational way had ever in speech or writing vented such a thing I will not bring against you a rayling accusation only I say you know not of what spirit you are it is well if your selves bee not guilty of such practises 5. You own the Position in terminis and do I doubt not apply it to your society but as it is by mee controverted you say you own it not what do ye not hold that a Congregational Church rather than a Presbyteriall doth acknowledge Christ to bee the only King c. You say little lesse when you say that our way as you conceive is not suitable to the will of God delivered by Christ as a Prophet nor to the Lawes of Christ as King and yours is conformed to that will and lawes but I asked you what Scripture doth so witnesse and you returne no answer I dare say you cannot make your speech good 6. Your selves in your last p. 36. do complain of me for such divulging to the world the doubts of brethren wanting light and addressing themselves to mee for satisfaction and say it will make them tender how they seek satisfaction from mee for the future and yet you often call upon mee to name my authors but as the brethren were not displeased but some of them desirous of the publishing of the first book so I will notwithstanding all your provocations bee tender of their names as of mine own and bee willing to spend and be spent for them humbly hoping that as heretofore I have been hereafter I more fully may be Gods Instrument for their settlement and satisfaction in the way of God CHAP. XXXIII Whether 1 TIM 6.13 14. proves the unchangeablenesse of the Discipline of Christ Sect. 1. WHen I say it seems by the words Thou O man of God I give thee charge that thou keep this commandement viz. which immediately precedes concerning faith holinesse in the Ministrie of the Word to be directed to Timothy himselfe or if to his successors then it must be to the ordinary Elders for Evangilists which succeeded him wee know none not to the churches for example not to the Church of Ephesus to whom Paul writes nothing of government though in his Epistles to Tymothy hee writes almost of nothing else and chargeth the Elders to take heed to the flock and look to the wolves Act. 20.28 You Reply p. 107. Doe these words Ephes 4.11 12. nothing concern Church-Government Rejoind Yes in generall termes but they are not spoken to the Church as the proper subject or party to act in or manage government which was the sense I spake in nor do they tend to invest any but Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastors Teachers with Church-power only they make the Church the object about which and for the good whereof that power is to bee used whom the Apostle would stir up to a good esteem and profitable enjoyment of the ministeriall power but not to assume or challenge it to or execute it by Non-elders Reply p. 107. If you will acknowledge that the things written to Timothy concerne Elders Deacons beleevers out of office according to their severall capacities then we will grant that all the things contained in the whole Epistle are directed to Timothy himselfe but not for his own personall use but for the use of the Church Rejoynd I expressly excluded that large and laxe sense which you here mention in saying not to the Churches not to the Church of Ephesus in opposition to that hint which I had good reason to suspect was in the position that churches in your sense and not the Elders only are the subjects actors executors in the rules given and so you should mean speaking to purpose nor can I admit it for some things in this Epistle are meerly and solely for his personall use I mean in opposition to the Church and all ordinary persons in it as these cap. 1.2 3 4.18 cap. 4.14 and cap. 5 23. and some things are for the use of some and not of others in the Church cap. 2.9 10. and cap. 3.2 3. and 8.9 and cap. 5.2 3 4 5. and cap. 6.1 2. and 17. 2. If you mean that the things in the whole Epistle are not for Timothies personall use but for the use of the whole Church objectivè or finaliter for the good and benifit of the whole Church in their severall capacities in and about which they are exercised you say the truth but what is this to prove that all the commandements concerning Timothy are directed to the whole Church to bee executed by her and not by Timothy or the officers only Sect. 2. Reply p. 107. If by these words to be directed to Timothy himselfe you mean that the commandement immediately preceding concerns none by way of obligation but only Timothy you beat upon a harsh string for must none flee these things fight the good fight of faith lay hold on eternal life by vertue of this Text but only Timothy or if to his successors then it must be the ordinary Elders not the Church you mend non the matter must Elders only and not beleevers follow after godlinesse righteousnesse faith c Rejoynd 1. I might without any harshnesse or absurdity argue that the commandement preceding concerns none by way of obligation but only Timothy himselfe or if any else his successors the ordinary Elders and that none are to performe the duties of v. 11 12. in the sense here used by vertue of this Text but hee or they for what harshnesse and absurdity cannot it bee to say that Bishops only are to bee blamelesse to have but one wife to bee vigilant sober c. by vertue of cap. 3. v. 2 3 4. or that Deacons only must bee grave not double-tongued not given to much wine c. by vertue of v. 8 9. and that their wives should bee grave v. 13. though other men besides Bishops are to be blamelesse the husband of one wife c. for that which is spoken in Scripture to or of one particular person is sometimes appliable to others 1. When the subiect matter is of common concernment and a generall duty as Mark 13.37 or secondly when there is a parity of persons as what is commanded to one as a father Magistrate Minister
c. is obliging to other Fathers Magistrates c. in this sense Pastors and Elders so farre as they are called to the same publick charge that Timothy was are by vertue of this text to follow righteousnesse c. but other Christians are obliged to the same things no further then they are of common concernment and required of them by other texts of Scripture 2. That it may appeare that the Apostle is here dealing with Timothy as an Evangelist or Elder of the Church it is easily observable 1. That some things are in this Epistle directed by Paul to Timothy for him to convey over communicate and procure to be observed by others under his charge such are those in cap. 2.1 8 9. c. cap. 3.2 3. c. v. 8. c. cap. 5.4 5 8. c. cap. 6.1 2 17. in his laying down these things the parties whom the duties concern are particularly nominated to Timothy and hee is willed to put them in remembrance of these things to command teach and give them-in charge cap. 4.6 11. and cap. 5.7 and 6 2 17. 2. That other things are directed to him for himselfe to execute and observe in his own person hee bearing a particular office different from and superior to all others in that Church of Ephesus and that which had for its object all the officers and members in that Church with the duties of them all and this appears to bee the principall part and his Instruction in this the principal end of this Epistle cap. 3.14 15. cap. 1.2 3 4. Of these things some are so personall that they cannot be applyed to any in that Church but himselfe as cap. 1.2 18. and cap. 4.14 and cap. 5.23 Others are for his instruction and excitation to the discharge of his office as cap. 1.19.4.6 7 11 12 ad finem cap. 5.1 2 3 7 19 20 21 22. cap. 6.2 5 11 12 13 14 7 20. and although many of these for the matter of them and in part are the duty of others and particularly of Elders yet in a sort they are personall and in their formall and full consideration can be only obliging to Timothy which may bee ' yet more evident 1. By the singular compellations and personall addresses to him in them as Thou thou my sonne sonne Timothy thou O man of God O Timothy 2. The limiting circumstances of time and place c. 1.3 c. 4.13 3. The nature of the office he was here set to execute viz. that of an Evangelist 2 Tim. 4.5 1 Cor. 16.10 by vertue of which he had a peculiar way of performing the said duties not competible to others of which none of the rest were capable of and therefore they could not be obliged to the acts and rules of it as he was for whose direction this Epistle was written c. 3.13 14. 4. The deep and reiterated charges given him by name about these things without any partners adjoyned to him c. 1.18 5.21 6.13 14 20. which to those which then were not in being could not formally be delivered nor could they with any congruity be taken hold of by or pressed upon others then in the Church of Ephesus 5. Had these things as well as others concerned all or any besides he would in all likelihood have ordered him to have published the whole to all as he doth in such a case Col. 4.16 1 Thess 5.27 and not have directed him to impart some things in particular as he doth c. 1.3 4.6.11 5.7 6.2.17.18.19 What I have said of all that in this Epistle is spoken to Timothy by name as his duty and of peculiar obligation to him may be applied to the Text in hand and there are yet in it some things more which may be noted as characters of appropriation to him as an Evangelist or Minister viz. 1. The way of expressing the command Fight the good fight of faith v. 12. which agrees with what he had said c 1.18.19 This charge I commit unto thee son Timothy c. It is evident that the charge there is the office of an Evangelist or Minister as appears by the designment of him to it by Prophesies which is further witnessed by that in c. 4.14 the executing of this office is there termed warring a good warfare and holding faith and a good conscience which expression the Apostle when he speaks of the Ministry of the Gospel takes up often and seemes to affect as 2 Tim. 2.3 4 5. 1 Cor. 9.26 2 Tim. 4.7 and as Beza notes Moses useth the same metaphor Num. 4.3 Now minde the agreement of these two places viz. c. 1.18.19 and this of c. 6.12 and you may discerne they both deliver the same thing and the one is a repetition of the other As there Timothy is spoken to by name son Timothy so here Thou O man of God There a charge is given so here v. 13. There mention is made of his designment to his office by Prophesies so here of his calling to the same Whereunto thou art also called As there the matter commanded is to war a good warfare for the custody of the faith so here Fight the good fight of faith So that as face answereth to face in water so do these places each to other both looking upon the work of the Ministery committed to him 2. The reasons he urgeth him withall to this in the same verse Whereunto thou art also called s◠by Ministeriall vocation for to understand it of his calling to Christianity common to all other Christians would make it of no such speciall force And the words Hast professed a good profession before many witnesses do point at the publique discharge of his Ministery or else may reslect upon his solemn vow made at his ordination wholly to dedicate himself unto and imploy his uttermost endeavours in the service of God as is noted in the late learned Annotations 3. The occasion upon which he brings in this commandement and the charge added viz. the heterodoxe teaching of others v. 3. in opposition to whose corrupt doctrine he requires him to decline in his Ministery their errors and to propagate and propugne the truth 4. The title or notion under which he is now speaking to Timothy Thou ô man of God v. 11. a stile proper to Ministers 2 Tim. 3.17 vid. Beza in locum as to the Prophets in the Old Testament 1 Sam. 2.27 1 King 13.1 17.19 By all which it doth appear I hope that that the Apostle is here dealing with Timothy as an Evangelist or Elder of the Church But say you Sect. 3. Reply p. 108. It is not necessary that the words Fight the good fight of faith lay hold c. should be understood of faith and holinesse in the Ministery of the Word which is but one part of the good fight of faith the other part is fought in the universall conflict of an Evangelists conversation against the world flesh and devil Rejoynd The words taken out or