for the contrary appears they had forty eight cities and suburbs which were 2000 cubits from the wall on every side Numb 35.2 Lev. 25.32 33 34. though Judaea as oft times upon other occasions you assert was but a small country Jeremy a Priests sonne buyes a field of his uncle as next a kiâ— Jer. 32.7 9. Barnabas a Levite having land sold it Act. 4.36 Yea for ought you know except you have studied more against tythes then I for them the cities of the Levites though a small tribe might equall yea excell the portion of any tribe in Israel besides their tythes and other their great revenues therefore you cannot say that they had no inheritance at all though they had none such as other tribes had so separate from the rest so bounded so entire together but they had their inheritance by parts and peeces as Jacob had prophesied and God in wisdom disposed both that the land should be but divided into twelve parts and the children of Joseph should be two Tribes Josh 14.4 and that the Levites should for the better instruction of the people be scattered amongst the tribes and have their maintenance also where they lived Sect. 3. Reply p. 61. Tythes were appointed together with Offerings Mat. 3.8 Rejoynd 1. That text saith that they were taken away together God was robbed of them both at once but that they were appointed together it saith not 2. The text mentions them together yet this if you have no better argument proves not that they were of the same nature Fornication eating of blood and things strangled prayer ever the sick and aâ—â—â—inting them with â—yle are not of the same nature nor alike commanded or forbidden and yet the first two are mentioned together Act. 15.29 and the other two Jam. 5.14 3. The text implies they were at the same time due and required of God but not that they both were appointed at the same time and upon the same grounds 4. How do you make it appear that all the Offerings there mentioned were ceremoniall and now unlawfull Is it ceremoniall to offer to the Church-stock or treasury because the Jews did so Your selves for the credit of such offerings say they were used amongst the Jews and I dare say you hold that it is lawfull upon good occasion to keep a Day in the moneth or yeare a Fast or a Feast though we know the Jewes did keep fasts or feasts on the same day Sect. 4. Reply p. 61. Tythes had a particular respect to the Priesthood for the tythe of the Levites was to be tythed and given to the Priests Nehem. 10.38 Rejoynd Here is another mistake The text saith not that tythes were paid to the Priests but to the Priest the sonne of Aaron the successor of Aaron in the high-High-Priests office as the very citation in the margent led me to Num. 18.27 28. which faith that the tenth of the Levites amongst whom the Priests as to that were comprehended was to be given as the Lords heave-offering to Aaron the Priest But tythes were payed by Abraham Gen. 14. vowed by Jacob Gen. 38.22 Asserted by Paul not to be proper to the Leviticall Priesthood Heb. 7 are not that we know of any typical or mystical signification as the High-Priest we know was therefore they are not of the same nature If tythes to the High-Priest be now unlawfull the reason is because there is no High-Priest now Christ hath made that office void it was typical and plainly ceremonial and not because Tythes are unlawfull And these or some of these are the answers we give to them that tell us we might as well keep the Sabbath of the 7. year as of the 7. day Sect. 5. You reply p. 61. That you see no ground for setled stinted maintenance to last from year to year if it must arise from the Church and not come from the State as in some countries it doth because if the Church must maintain the Ministery among them as God blessed them and a more equall rule then that there can none be found then except they could settle Gods blessing and make it to abide with men in an equall manner without increase or decrease the maintenance may not be setled And this also is an argument against Tythes Rejoynd But what if Tythes were ceremoniall and Jewish is set maintenance ceremoniall also Of what mysticall or typicall signification is that or is it grounded on equitie and morall reason Doth not the Scripture Ezek. 45.1.5 allude to a certain and setled maintenance that should be given to the Ministery and in comparing it with servants hire and wages 1 Tim. 5.18 and to a Souldiers pay 1 Cor. 9.7 both which are certain 2. Had God more care of the maintenance of the Ministers of the Old Testament then of the New As the father allotting his sonne some portion of lands and revenues or allowing him to be capable of certain maintenance which none can deprive him of doth expresse more care of him then if he should make him uncapable of such maintenance and assigne him to his friends at large to be maintained as they thought fit 3. When the Minister hath set-maintenance he knowes better how to proportion his living his alms his expences for the publike his provision for his children and how to keep hospitality as the Scripture requires he should 4 Tythes are not in one sense setled or stinted maintenance for they are more or lesse according as the husbandman soweth and God prospereth as Corn is little or much good or bad well or ill gotten dear or cheap they that receive Tythes do rise and fall with them from whom they receive them 5. Where do you see ground in Scripture for setled and stinted maintenance to last from year to year if it come from the State how prove you that the State may lawfully settle such maintenance and the Church may not Can the State settle Gods blessing to make it abide with them in an equall manner without increase or decrease any more then the Church can 6. Do you see ground for set stinted maintenance for a time as a quarter of a year or half a year or a year as you intimate you do only you say you see not ground it should last from year to year Can the blessing of God be setled and made to abide with men in an equal manner without increase or decrease a year or half a year or a quarter 7. When maintenance is given from the State must it not come out of the Subjects purses You would not have the Parliament men out of their proper purses to maintain all the Ministers in the kingdome And out of whose purses can it so fitly come as from those which are bound by Gods law to maintain their Ministers 8. Do not Tythes come from the State or from the King which as to this is all one Did they not voluntarily at first give them and when some by Law did fall again into
before he did assay 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to joyn himself to the Disciples 3. You cannot shew of what Congregation all those that were baptized by John Baptist by the Disciples of Christ were or that they were of any and if they were of none then the seal of Baptism in reference to a principal part of the Covenant of grace was set to a blank 4. Baptism doth admit us into that one body consisting of Jews and Gentiles 1 Cor. 12.13 else if Baptism do admit only into one Congregation then a person so baptized is an alien to other Congregations as he that is a member only of one Corporation is a stranger to all the rest 5. Whereas you ask how those that are many become one amongst themselves and distinct from others of the same kind as Corinth was one in it self and distinct from Cenchrea for parish bounds were not then on foot so that the members and officers of one were not the members and officers of another what can it be but some agreement or covenant explicite or implicite I answer the same way of uniting and distinguishing Congregations and Churches which the Scripture holds out to be practised in the primitive times cannot be denyed to be sufficient now a days partly by local bounds and limits and partly by an implicite Covenant which here you confess to be sufficient or an agreement implyed in actions submitting to the same officers frequenting the same Sacraments c. of which we have spoken more Chap. 2. 6. Whereas you demand p. 41. Did not the joyning of the beleeving Gentiles to the family of Abraham by circumcision make them more truly members of the Church then they were before Were they not afterwards accounted of the Jewish common-wealth and invested into all their spiritual privileages which they had no right unto before though they were converted persons and Gods servants Rejoyn 1. That Passage of mine their Covenants did not make a Church more truly a Church or more truly members had apparent reference to the Covenant in Deut. 29. pretended to be a Church-covenant the beleeving Gentiles were not a Church or members at all before their beleeving and therefore not capable in propriety of speech of being made more truly such 2. You shew not that the joyning of the Gentiles to the Iewish Church was by solemn express verbal Covenant that they would be a Church together 3. That beleeving Gentiles after Circumcision were always accounted of the Iews common-wealth viz. under their civil government had a portion of their land I deny and put you to prove and if they all were of that Church it was but per accidents because there was then no other Church to which they might joyn had God pleased to have erected several Independent Churches amongst the Iews their circumcision had sealed them no more into one of these Churches then into the other Sect. 6. Reply p. 41. We conceive that Abraham and his family were not in Church-state and professedly and openly separated from the world till the Covenant in Gen. 17. at which time by a mark in his flesh he was distinguished from all the Nations and became Gods houshold if this be so then Church-state is founded in Covenant if otherwise let it appear that he was in Church-state before that time and we shal look for a Covenant before that time We read nothing of Abrahams family that they were a professed people to God before that time Rejoyn 1. You speak but doubtingly you know that if it be not certain that the Church was now constituted it is impossible to demonstrate hence what the Position asserts that the Church of the Iews was constituted in Abrahams family by Covenant no more then it can be certain that A. B. sold his land for ready money if it be uncertain that A. B. did sell his land 2. But for ought you say they were in Church-state before though not professedly and openly separated yea they might be one of them and yet your words be true if they were not both 3. I conceive they were in Church-state before for God called Abraham and blessed him with a promise of Christ Gen. 12.1 2 3. and Abraham beleeved the Lord c. built altars called on the name of the Lord God appeared to him and made him promises was blessed by and payd tythes to Melchisedeck the Priest 4. Was not Lot a professed servant of the Lord and Sarah and Hagar one of the worst in Abraham's family Gen. 16.9 10 11 Abraham was the Priest of his family and when he offered sacrifices upon the altars he builded did he not offer sacrifice for his family as wel as himself Doubtless Abraham before circumcision as wel as after did command his chidren and household to keep the way of the Lord Gen. 18.19 his family willingly for ought appears even 300 and more left their own Country and Idolatrous kindred at Gods cal Gen. 17.4 5. Iosh 24.23 Isa 41.2 and came into the land of Canaan and this they did visibly and professedly bringing no Idols with them that we read of were none of these arguments of Church-state and of real profession and seperation from the world 5. You tell us p. 28. that usually when any heads of families were converted some of the houshold were converted with them and was Abrahams family to be excepted 6. You reply p. 42. We read not of any symbole of Church-state by which they were seperated from the rest of the world before circumcision Rejoyn But would you have any symbole of Church-estate which God hath not instituted You assert that Adam's and Noahs family was a Church You say p. 43. there might be a Church in Sem's family You cannot deny that there was a Church before Abraham's time Had that Church any symbole of Church-estate which Abraham's family wanted What was that I beleeve you cannot shew any and if he had all the symboles of Church-state which God had then instituted or any Church before him had it was enough take heed lest by your reasonings against the Family of Abraham being a Church you utterly overthrow the Church of God before his time every where else also 7. You say This distinguisheth him and his family not from the world alone but from the beleevers of his time Melchisedeck and Lot though holy men were not in his state nor had his priviledges Rejoyn Melchisedeck and Lot might be circumcised though we do not read they were and if he was Sem then by vertue of a natural precedency in age as Mr Noyes supposeth he was a Priest of Abraham's family as wel as his own and they were sons of the same Church and if Melchisedeck and Lot were of one Church with Abraham before Abraham receiving of circumcision could not thrust them out of that Church which they were of before though they did not suppose lie under the same command of circumcision that Abraham and his family did if God required them to be
ask who hath read or heard I answer Mr E. and Mr T. have I suppose read the N. E. Elders apology for Church-covenant out of which that phrase and most part of the sentence is taken why do you quarrel with me or rather with the Elders of N. E. beating them on my back 2. Your selves wil say A covenant to serve God to endeavor after the enjoyment of all Gods ordinances A covenant to perform Church-duties is not a Church-covenant except they covenant to enjoy Gods ordinances and perform Church-duties together a man promiseth to marry a woman promiseth to marry this doth not make them many and wife except they promise to marry one another and do so Surely you do not think these expressions ridiculous 3. I speak as you might discern by my phrase of the Churches and people of the new testament not of the old and so did the Elders of N. E. for they speak of distinguishing one Church from another a speech proper to the new testament 4. Suppose there had bin before Christ some other Church which had worshipped God as purely and enjoyed God as fully as the Jewish Church did would such a covenant as this you speak of Deut. 29. have bound all that took it to be of the Iewish Church and not of the other I think you wil not say it I dare say you cannot prove it 5. However we yet want a solemn verbal express covenant by which the Jews and Gentiles converted bound themselves to be all of one Church though they were one Church and did not want any thing necessary to the strength and purity of the Church for Mr. Cotton himself saith that God propoundeth and giveth a covenant to a people and they accept it though not in express words yet in silent consent and he cites Gen. 17.7 Deut. 29 10. ad finâ—m Cap. 30. Way of the Churches p. 3. Sect. 3. Reply p. 40. There is a covenant between Pastor and people but it groweth out of the covenant amongst the people who must first be one before they can agree in one to choose a Pastor There was a covenant with Abraham and his house by vertue of which Israel was the Lords people in Aegypt before there were Pastors over them and it was so in the wilderness before Aron and his sonnes were chosen Rejoyn My speech was dis-junctive if a Church-covenant imply appropriation either to this or that people or to this or that Pastor or both the speech is true 2. That the covenant between Pastor and people is emergent from a covenant amongst the people is gratis dictum and so stands til you shew a people covenanting to be a Church together before they had officers 3. That Israel was the Lords people before they had any Pastors over them is a gross untruth The first born until Aaron and the sonnes of Levi were separated for that work were unquestionably Priests and Pastors yea Adam was a Priest to himself and family and therefore it is said that Cain brought of the fruits of the ground viz. he brought to his father that he might offer it to the Lord so both ancient and modern Interpreters do expound it and they had Priests before the giving of the law which questionless came with them out of Aegypt Ainsworth in Exod 19.22 and those young men Gen. 24.5 are interpreted to be the first born of the several families and these continued til the Levites were substituted in their places Sect. 4. Reply p. 40. To be one people to God in a professed solemn way by entering covenant with God and to be a Church is all one and this is asserted Deut 29.12.13 Rejoyn Neither the text Deut. 29.11.12 nor my answer had the words one people in them but a people you force in the word one that you may have some pretence for a covenant The Scripture shews us not that a people or a people of God is equivalent to one people 2. England Scotland and Ireland are or may be the Lords people in a professed solemn way by entering into covenant with God wil you hence conclude that they thereby are all made one Church God foretels that many nations shal be joyned to the Lord and be his people Zach. 2.11 The Christian Gentiles are called Gods people and that by covenant Hose 2.23 The Jews scattered in Pout us Asia Cappadocia and Bithinia are called a poculiar people 1 Peter 2.9 And therefore by your logick they are all one Church Sect. 5. Reply p. 41. To prove there was a covenant at the founding of the Iewish Church and so of Christian Churches you urge That all the Proselyted Gentiles entered into the Church by the seal of the covenant which was Circumcision and converted Heathens and the infants of Church-members are brought into the Church by baptism which is the seal of the covenant of grace and especially of that part of it which concerns Church society Rejoyn 1. You know my meaning was not that there was no covenant at all but that there was Church-covenant no solemn express verbal covenant which you assert to be necessary to the strength and purity of the Church The Jewish Church qua Church if not qua Jewish was founded first in Adams family then again in Noahs hence your selves argue from their families that 7 or 8 may make a Church so it continued in Shems family who as some most probably think was Mâ—lâ—hisâ—dâ—ck who being a Priest must needs be within the Church and yet all this while you have no colour for a Church-covenant 2. If the bringing in of converted Heathens and the infants of Church members into the Christian Church by baptism of Circumcision we shal speak afterward be a sufficient evidence that the Church is founded by covenant then the Reformed Churches are founded in covenant as wel as yours yea as wel as the Primitive Apostolick Churches for the same argument you bring why they were founded in covenant suits fits all the Churches for ought I know Gentiles converted and infants of Church-members being brought into them all by baptism and consequently they that forsake the Reformed Churches are coeteris paribus covenant-breakers as wel as they which forsake your Churches 3. That Congregational society is a part and a principal part of the covenant of grace I understand not For if it were so then 1. It would follow that Adam and Eve While alone til they were so many as would make a Church were not wholly partakers of the covenant of grace 2. That a true beleever excommunicated though for the name of Christ is deprived in part of the covenant of grace Yea that every one that is not a Church-member wants a part of the covenant of grace and a principal part too 4. Nor do I beleeve Paptism to be a seal of Congregational communion principally Because 1. The Apostles as you say p. 56. might baptize in all the world and not only in the Church 2. Paul himself was baptized
Baptisme of Infants hath better ground in the new Testament then your popular ordination 5. you say it is an Essentiall in government that ordination be done by the right subjectum capax therefore that by your own confession must be directly determined And 〈…〉 deny not your selves to have certaine knowledge of Essentiall in government and the people thinke you are assured that it is lawfull for non-officied men in case a church want Officers to ordeine Sect. 7. When I ask why should wee in ordination of Officers be guided by the old-Testament and not by the New and why should we follow the Ordination of Levites rather then of Priests for a pattern of Ordination o◠Elders You Reply I. no hands at all were layd upon the Priests they were anointed and consecrated 8 c. but you would not have ordination of Elders turned into consecration after the manner of Priests Rejoynd No I would not indeed and therefore I would not have the Ordination either of Preists or Levites a pattern for ordination of Elders as you may see by the last question above why should we in c. whereunto you give no direct answer but Popish-Priests will be annointed using such a like argument from the annointing of the Priests as you doe for popular ordination from the ordination of the Levites 2dly you Reply p. 55. what was done to the Priests was not done by any Ecclesiasticall person but by Moses the chiefe Magistrate Rejoyn 1. Surely you know that Moses though he was the chief Magistrate was also an Ecclesiasticall person Psal 99.6 Moses Aaron amongst his Priests and that he did offer sacrifice which had hee been onely a civill Magistrate as Saul hee could not have done at the time of the consecration Exod. 29.11.12.13 12. at it were to shew that he consecrated Aaron as a Priest not as a Magistrate 2ly This puts me in minde that I told you that the Levites were by Moses separated to the work from amongst the Children of Israell cleansed brought before the tabernacl of the congregation and set before Aaron and his Sons and Offered as an offering to the Lord Num. 8.6 7 13 14. which was more to say nothing what Aaron did then was done by the children of Israell towards the consecration of the Levites and your evasion that he was a civil Magistrate will not serve your turne 3dly your reply the Elders of the new Testament are rather the successors of the Levites then of the Priests because there was no Hiearrchy amongst them and therefore the pattern of their ordination is rather to be followed Rejoynd 1. The Levites are often called Diaconi Deacons and the Deacons seem in the Prophesies to be pointed out by Levites and Elders by Priests Isa 66.21 I will take of them for Priests and Levites which as your selves say p. 71. is spoken of the New Testament 2. There was an Hierarchy amongst the Levites hence we read of the Princes and over-seers or Bishops of the Levites 1 Chro. 15.16 22. 1 Chro. 9. 33 34 2 Chron. 35.9 Nehe. 11.22 12.42 when you have consulted better with Scriptures as you bid me do and God-willing I will do in these dangerous times wherein men father their bastard opinions on God and with Bertram de politia Iudaica p. 101. You will find an Hierarchy amongst the Levites as well as amongst the Priests and also that there is no footing for ordination by non-officers no more then for the Antichristian hierarchy Sect. 8. I alledged in my Answer that there was no mention in Mar. 16.15 Mat. 28.19 20. of the celebration of the Eucharist you Reply p. 56. The Apostle having Commission for Baptism could not want it for the Eucharist which sealeth the same Covenant which baptism sealeth Rejoynd Very true therefore Ordination being an Act of Presbyteriall power as well as Baptism the Apostles did not want it though it be not mentioned I further said that preaching and baptizing were first to be done to the nations therefore they are there mentioned you Reply That was not the sele reason but because they were principall works and in reference to the subject persons about which they were to be exercised more Apostolical for they might preach and Baptize in all the world whereas ordinary Officers in an Ordinary way may not do such works in al the world but onely in the Church Rejoynd 1. You allow my reason to be good though it be not the sole reason 2. The reason you adde is not good for the Administring of the Supper is as principal a work as Apostolicall as Baptism it seals the same Covenant as you confesse requires as much if not more Authority might have been Administred in all the world by the Apostles as well as Baptism and so might ordination also 3. If the Apostles might Baptise any that were not in the Church then how could their Baptism be a seal principally of Church-Communion as you have asserted I further urged That the Apostles did practise Ordination and we suppose that they went not beyond their Commission Act. 6. c. 13. 14. And a Commission to Elders we read as well as practise 1 Tim. 4. You reply That the Position saith not that Ordination is within their Commission but that there is no mention thereof when they first received their Commission and the page out of which the Position is exerted makes mention of some works within their Commission not mentioned viz. prayer and Act. 6.4 is quoted for it But indeed you are injurious to the Authors of the Answ to 32. q. p. 71. Rejoynd 1. You are injurious to me to accuse me of injury to the Authors of the Answ to 32. q. 2 What ever their meaning be if your selves will plainly acknowledge what you seem to do covertly that those words in that position will not justifie Ordination by non officers I have attained my end 3 That passage of yours That Ordination is nothing else but the accomplishment of Election I must take notice of it here it may be I shall not meet with it els-where and in direct opposition of it I say That Ordination is more then the accomplishment of Election yea it is of more moment then election for 1. laying on of hands not lifting up of hands as you speak is reckoned amongst the Principles Heb. ◠3.2 The charge is more expresse that Ordination rather then election should not be hastily and suddenly done ◠The description of persons fit for Office is much more large in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus which were to ordein then in any or all the Epistles written to the Churches to whom Election is conceived to belong 4. The Apostles by Ordination rather then the people by Election are said Act. 6. to uppoint the 7 over the business 5. Fasting and Prayer was specially with reference to the ordination of the seven rather then to the Election Act. 6. Sect. 9. Ordination by the Prelates
them in the Lord for taking too much upon them be not the gainsaying of Corah You in the Cong-way justified p. 38. say Your reasons to prove our way is the gainsaying of Corah are weak For first this schismatical company would utterly have taken away the Power of Moses and Priesthood of Aaron and so when they had officers would have destroyed their officers We only in the extraordinary case of an utter want of an Eldership hold it fit to ordain by persons deputed by Preachers such as have been Ministers as deputed or by Elders elected Rejoynd I could wish for your sakes the reasons were weaker then they are 2. That Schismatical company did not oppose Moses as a Magistrate but as a Minister and therefore they said All the people of God are holy Not all the people of God are wise valiant true-hearted which are the vertues of the Magistrate Sympsons Sermon before Parl. July 26. 1643. And they did not claim to rule the State but to offer incense Num. 16.3.5.10 Hence Aarons rod budded not Moses his rod. 3. That they would have destroyed their officers is more then I know or you prove only they did usurp upon the office of the Priests yet here you grant that if you should endeavour to take away the power of the Magistrate or to destroy their officers then you were like to Corah indeed 4. Your extraordinary case is now too ordinary viz. at the erection of each of the Churches of Independents Brownists Anabaptists Familists 5. The case of Vzzah in staying the Arke 2 Sam. 6.6.8 and of Sauls sacrificing 1 Sam. 13.9 10 11. might seem to be extraordinary yet the Lord was very angry 6. If any Preachers do ordain that have been Ministers they do renounce their Ministery before they do ordain And as for the elect Elders they are when they do ordain but persons elected to be Elders for election of the people doth not make the officer as hath been shewed 7. That the Church hath any commission to depute a man to ordain I read not and Non credimus quia non begimus If Corah Dathan and Abiram had had a deputation from the Church of Israel to have offered incense as it may be they might have had this would have made the sinne of the Church greater not theirs the lesse 8. But if you may here be excused à tanto or à toto yet the Anabaptists with whom you close too much which ordinarily do place the power of administring the Sacraments in disciples that are no officers cannot be excused Sect 2. Cong way just If placing Church-power in the body of the Congregation were the gainsaying of Corah then because election of Officers Act. 6. is a branch of Church-power and was placed in and acted by the body of the Church then that Church was guilty of the gainsaying of Corah Rejoynd 1. You do not answer my argument but make a counter argument 2. Placing of Church power in the Body is undoubtedly the gainsaying of Corah Num. 16.3 All the Church is holy viz. hath power to do the Priests office Wherefore lift ye up your selves above the Church of the Lord 3. That election Act. 6. was but a nomination of some officers and a setting them before the Apostles who appointed them over the businesse and made them officers and that this was an act of Church-power placed in the body of the people the text saith not But of this more in its proper place Sect. 3. Cong way justified It is not true that our cause allowes or enjoyns complaining of the regular exercise of the power of the Elders that rule over us we honour and obey the Elders of our severall Churches and also the Elders and Members deputed of severall Churches meeting occasionally to rectifie disorders c. But for stated Classicall Elderships and your severall graduall Judicatories swallowing the Votes of the Elders of particular congregations Ordaining Depriving c. these are not Powers ordained of God Rejoynd Corah Dathan and Abiram did not nor I believe would confesse that they did oppose any Ordinance of God but only the pride and usurpation of the Priests 2. If Classicall Elderships and graduall Judicatories be powers ordained of God as hath been shewed they are then you are guilty as you implicitely confesse of the sinne of Corah and do resist lawfull authority as they did 3. That which makes me to suspect your Way of this sin is 1. This is a sinne of the New-Testament as well as of the Old Jude v. 11. 2. It was not so much a sedition against Moses the Magistrate as a schisme against Moses the Minister and Aaron the Priest 3. They did gather a Gnedah out of a Gnedah a Congregation out of a Congregation Num. 16.1 the Chaldee understands it of taking that is of withdrawing of himself saying And Corah separated himself and Salomon Jarchi also expounds it He took himself aside to be apart from the congregation and Dathan and Abiram also took men and separated themselves or Corah took them all into a distinct Gnedah or congregation v. 5.16 Psal 106.17 Now who they are that plead for withdrawing separating gathering themselves from a true Church into a distinct Congregation you very well know 4. As also to whose opinion the gainsaying of Corah is most sutable in the very expressions of it All the church or congregation is holy you Elders take too much upon you wherefore lift ye up your selves above the church of the Lord The church hath the power of the Keyes the church may depose and excommunicate if she see just occasion all her Elders 5. The authors of that Schisme were no blasphemers hereticks or fundamentally erroneous no adulterers nor grossely vitious any way that we know of but in likelihood they were men of good report and repute the Text saith they were famous in the church and though they be called wicked men v. 26. that was but in relation to their Schisme which is a work of the flesh Gal. 5.20 and shewes men to be carnall 1 Cor. 3.1 2 3. and the originall word signifies restlesse turbulent men the Greek hath it hard men 6. That schisme pretending power and liberty and questionlesse profit too for if the Priests work might be taken of them why not their tythes and wages took mightily for 1. 250 Senators called to the Assembly the Greek translates it Councel of the Governours Statesmen famous and renowned joyned themselves to these Schismatiques 2. The Congregation yea many doubtlesse religiously affected in the simplicity of their hearts favoured them v. 19.22 And though God appeared in an unheard of way against them yet all the congregation judged that Moses Aaron did oppose the people of the Lord appropriating that title to Corah and his company as though Moses and Aaron were not Gods people but enemies for which murmuring God sent a plague v. 41. 45 46 47. The Lord preserve the Parliament and people of the land from this