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 〈◊〉
tables or love-feasts and is so generally interpreted Acts. 2.42 Acts 20.7 And for teaching and preaching Acts 5.42 contradistinct to preaching in the temple and in publique it being as is by it self evident the Apostles custome to preach both in the temple Synagogues markets court-houses and the like publike places to all promiscuously beleevers and others that would heare and in houses to the beleevers only in their Church-assemblies so that publiquely or in the temple which tearms expound one another and from house to house and in every house note two kinds of Assemblies sc promiscuous meetings and Church-meetings 2. That these were distinct several Congregations and not the same kept successively at several houses may be gathered 1. by the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 duly rendred which signify house by house distributively or in every house as it is translated Acts 5.42 That is not in every house in the city nor in every beleevers house in the city for there were thousands probably of these but in every house designed for a Church-meeting 2. By the opposition the text in Acts 2.46 Makes between their meeting in the temple and their breaking of bread house by house the former its sayd was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with one accord implying they all met together in the temple but distributively in their private houses or Church-meetings for the celebration of the Lords Supper the Iews probably not permitting this new ordinance in the temple and other Church ordinances 3. Learned Mr. Beza on that of Acts. 2.46 Saith that procul dubie the number of Christians at Ierusalem did require that more commodious houses should be chosen for their living together in common as we see the Church in every populous city distributed into several Parishes as the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sheweth so he And of these several meeting houses we may very fitly understand that of Saul his entring into every house Acts 8.3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 house by house that is he watched and assaulted them at their meeting times and places and thence halling men and women committing them to prison for into every private house of Christians it cannot be conceived that he entred for them how could the Apostles themselves remain at Ierusalem and escape him as they did v. i. But he entered the ordinary meeting houses which were best known and most noted and where he was likely to meet with them for his purpose by great numbers and both interrupt their exercises and find most occasion against them to punish them he therefore possibly with reference to this confesseth that he persecuted this way Acts 22.4 And is said to make havock of the Church c. 8 3. And to get authority to bind all that call on the name of the Lord Iesus c. 9 14. 4. Mr. Burton an eminent man of your way confesseth that the Christians of that Church were constrained to sever themselves into divers companies to communicate which probably they did every Lords day and consequently they did every Lords day enjoy other ordinances accompanying the Sacrament as preaching prayer singing and yet saith Mr Burton these several companies which we call congregations were but so many branches of one and the same particular Church no properly several Churches but one Church 2. Where there were so many preachers that they could not all nor the most of them be imployed in preaching every Lords day to one particular congregation there was more then one congregation this consequence is good and firm both by reason for God did not ordain preachers to be idle or negligent or to preach seldom but to be instant in season and out of season he appointed not many shepheards over a little flock any by scripture which affirms that the increase of the disciples was the occasion of the encrease of those officers and that there were so many officers in that Church is also evident 12. Apostles Math. 9.35 with 10.1 and 70. disciples Luc. 10. 2. besides Elders mentioned Acts 11.30 as being extant we know not how long before that time and others having immediate commission to preach Luc. 9.60 If those Elders were not the same with the 70. disciples seeing we read not of the institution of any other and if so then there was twelve Apostles answerable to the twelve Princes of the tribs Num. 1.16 and 70 Elders in the Christian Church answerable to the 70 Elders amongst the Jews Num. 11. 16. which could not be imployed in preaching every Lords day in one congregation 3. The Church that prayed for Peter Acts 12. 5. Met many of them in the house of Mary v. 12. and others of them viz. Iames and his bretheren else where v. 17. And yet the text calls them the Church of Jerusalem though met in several places 4. Again it is said that Paul abode in Ierusalem with Peter 15 days Gal. 1.18 And doubtless Peter and he frequented the publique meetings yet he saw no other of the Apostles save Iames the Lords brother he saith not that they were not in Ierusalem but he saw them not which had bin very improbable if not impossible seeing the Apostles were diligent in preaching if there had bin but one Church-meeting in Ierusalem another instance may be given in Samaria where the generallity of the city which had before given heed to Simon Magus imbraced the Gospel in outward profession Acts 8.6 9 10 11 12 14. Now all these mâ—st needs be more then could orderly in one place receive the Sacrament and they were not baptized into several Churches for then Church and city could not expound one another as the scripture witnesseth and you acknowledg therefore they met ordinarily in several places So now to omit other Instances til a fitter occasion I have given you two Instances in the new Testament of Christians ordinarly meeting in divers places which yet were but one Church properly so called Sect. 3. in Reply p. 14. You say Can you shew that the beleevers of any Christian Church met only at first in one place and afterwards being increased they met not in one place but many places except at sometime of hot persecution Rejoynder 1. Reason teacheth that when a land is Heathenish the conversion of it from Heathenish to Christianity must begin somewhere first it may be one or two or moe are converted and baptized and then as leaven to which the Gospel is compared Mat. 13. It spreadeth further and further some say the first Christian Church in England was planted at Glastenbury by Ioseph of Arimathea and if so then at first beleevers in England meet in one place 2 Of the Jewish Church the thing is evident that they at first were altogether both in the family of Abraham and in the wilderness though they never all met together again after their setlling in the land of Canan 3. I have manifested that the Church of Jerusalem did ordinarily meet in several places and yet you doubt not but that at
A Rejoynder To Master Samuel Eaton and Master Timothy Taylor 's REPLY OR AN ANSWER TO Their late Book called A Defence of sundry Positions and Scriptures c. With some occasionall Animadversions on the Book called the Congregational way justified For the satisfaction of all that seek the Truth in love especially for his dearly beloved and longed for the Inhabitants in and neer to Manchester in Lancashire Made and Published by Richard Hollinworth Mancuniens The Lord will shew who are his and who are holy LONDON Printed by T. R. and E. M. for Luke Fawne and are to be sold at the signe of the Parrot in Pauls Church-yard 1647. Some of the principall CONTENTS of this Book OF gathering Churches out of true churches Cap. 1. Sect. 1. c. Of separation from a true church because of corruption S. 6. Presbyterial-Classical National and Oecumenical church c 1 s 2. p. 6. the citation in l. 12 being misprinted for it read c 7 s 1 c. c 8 s 2 3 c 9 s 1 c 10 s 2 c 28 s 3 c 15 c 18 Of Parishes how jure divino and how not c. 2. s 1 c. Of the heathen and christian Magistrate c. 3. s 3. No toleration in New-England c. 3. s 3 4 5. Whether seven or eight can make a church c. 4. s 1 c. Whether Adam's family Noah's Christ's and the 12 Disciples of Ephesus and the 120 at Jerusalem were each of them particular churches ibid. The church of Jerusalem did not ordinarily meet in one place c. 5. s 2. Churches were planted in cities and great towns not in villages c. 5. s 5 Judaea was not so little but it might have many classical churches in it ibid. The Epistle to the Corinthians written to the churches of Achaia c. 6. s 1.7 E 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what it signifies c. 5. s 4. Church taken as properly in a distributive sense as for one assembly The word Churches notes not Independencie it is given to the Jewish church c 10. c. 1. Combination of churches c. 8. s 2. c. 10. s 2 3. Whether and how the church consists of visible Saints c. 11. s 1. Edification whether the only end of church-fellowship and not conversion c. 11. s 7. Who are to be excommunicated c. 11. s 8 9. The Jewish church a church of Saints c. 11. s 10 Of the Church covenant c. 12. s 1 2 c. Church-fellowship whether a part of the covenant of Grace c. 13. s 5 The Authors just Apology for pretended abusing of the Authors out of which the Positions seem to be taken c. 14. s 1 Whether Christians without Officers be properly called a church c. 15 1. Of election of Officers c. 16 Ordination by Bishops and popular Ordination compared c 18 s 4 Ordination and Election compared c. 18. s 8 Neither Tythes nor setled maintenance are unlawfull c. 20 21 Of Lords dayes contributions for maintenance of Ministers and the designe of it c. 21 s 1 c 9 Deacons not to take care of Ministers maintenance c 21 s 3 Distinction whether between Pastors and Teachers c 23 Each church Assembly is not Zion c 24 Of the word without in 1 Cor. 5. c 25 Of Anarchy worse then tyranny c 26 s 2 Marks of Malignancy c 26 s 3 Presbyteriall Government not Prelaticall c 26 s 3 The difference between the Prelaticall Presbyterian way c 26 s 3 What was the sin of Diotrophes c 26 s 4 Independents likenesse and unlikenesse to Corah c. c 27 s 1 c. Differences between the Christian church and the Jewish c 27. s 1 c 28 s 2 3 4 Of the Key of Liberty and of the necessity of the churches consent to excommunication c 29 s 1 The Keyes how given to Peter c 29 Whether Excommunication and delivering to Satan be all one c 30 The supposed sad condition of the Presbyterian churches c 31 s 3 A Definition of Discipline and Essentials examined c. 33 s 6. The Independents Model promised c 33 s 7 Of Ministeriall acting in another congregation c 34 Why men may preach to Heathens and before Ordination and not administer the Sacraments c 34 s 2 Recommendation of Ministers and Members c 34 s 11 Christian Reader I intended to have reprinted in this Book the Positions my Answer to them and Mr. E. and Mr. T. Reply to it and a large Rejoynder but that course my wife friends judged tedious and chargeable not profitable I have therefore taken up the pith of their Reply especially of that part of it which pretends to Scripture or Reason and of my Rejoynder omitting prefaces personal matters repetitions impertinencies My style is plain and modest Not victory but Gods truth the Churches peace thy good yea their good who in this are my adversaries is really intended and endeavoured by Thine in the service of Truth and Peace R. H. A Rejoynder to Master Samuel Eaton's and Mr Timothy Taylor 's Reply CHAP. I. Of Gathering Churches I Asserted in my answer That the Apostles never taught or practised to gather or separate some Christians from others one part of this true Church and another part of that especially persons which themselves converted not to make a purer Church neither with nor without the Magistrates Authority To this you Reply The Apostles both taught and practised the separating of some Jews from other Jews and gathering them into a Christian Church while yet the Jewish Church was not dissolved for they ceased not to be a Church of God till the body of them pertinaciously and desperatly rejected Christ Therefore they preached to the Jews first and thought themselves bound so to do because they were the people of God Acts 11.19 13.46 And yet they had commanded some to separate from the rest as your self acknowledg Acts 2.40 And their communion they had with them in Iewish worships shews that they counted them a true Church And some think that their Church state ceased not while their Temple stood And yet before that time many Iews were gathered into many Christian Churches as both the Acts of the Apostles and their Epistles do declare And if they might gather out of one Church they might as lawfully have gathered out of twenty or an hundred had there been so many at that time Rejoynder 1. Suppose at present that the Jewish Church was then a true Church and not yet dissolved yet it was then in dissolving and ceasing to be a true Church your own words Yet the Iewish Church was not dissolved do intimate so much and the thing is undeniable that Church was but to continue for a time and then to be dissolved by Gods appointment As it was said of the two covenants that the first was taken away that the other might be established Heb. 1◠So it was with those two Churches that legal this Evangelical the first was taken away that the other might be established and therefore separation from the then Jewish Church
was more warrantable then from our Churches unless you count them true Churches only in the sense you speak of viz. the body of them have not pertinaciously and desperatly rejected Christ come in the flesh and that as the Jewish Church then they now are to be dissolved yea that they are in dissolving by Gods appointment and ceasing to be true Churches notwithstanding the progress that is made in Reformation 2. You do not reply directly and pertinently but obliquely and evadingly though in your last book called the Congregational way justifyed P. 17. You are bold to say that no reply can more front or diametrically oppose my Answer then yours doth yea I dare appeal to your selves whether a precept or president of gathering or separating a Church out of the Churches of Galatia Corinth Laodicea because of their many and great corruptions would not have more fronted and bin more point-blank opposite to that part of my as your wisdoms stile it confused answer then this instance of the Jewish Church For first Did ever any man deny that there might then be separation from the Jewish Church Could you think I did deny it Your selves cite me acknowledging it and you could not but know after I had published my Epistle and Quere's what ever you did before that an instance of separation from true Christian Churches would most diametrically have opposed my answer which speaks not of separation of Christians from Jews as your instance doth but of some Christians from others and I dare witness thus much for you that if you had such a one you would have preferred it before the other Secondly Whereas you say in your last P. 18. That you do not consider that Church as Iewish but under the notion of truth you acknowledg that you do not consider it as you ought to have considered it for the seperation was from that Church as it was Jewish having officers and ordinances different from the Christian Church which hath Ministers in stead of Priests which hath not bodily sacrifices of beasts nor such Sacraments and Ceremonial services nor the presence of God in one place especially as the Jews had and the lawfulness of separation from that Church if it were then a true Church and had not been Jewish is stil uncleared 3. The Reformed Churches and Ministers are not to be compared to the then Jewish Church and the Priests thereof as you seem to compare them by pleading that the Reformed Churches and Ministers may be separated from because the then Jewish Church and Preists were to be separated from nor is this concerning the Ministers impertinently shuffled in as in your last P. 18. You most untruly alledge for they which separate from a Church do withdraw from the officers of it they that separated from the Jewish Church did withdraw from the obedience of their Priests and they that separate from the Reformed Churches do withdraw from the obedience of their Ministers and withdrawing your selves tell us Pag. 60. is a negative Excommunication and therefore the Ministers have as much or more injury then so many members have in every unjust separation from them as your selves would say were it your case but this must serve in stead of a better reply Surely you have either too much charity to the then Jewish Church and Preists thereof or too litle to our Churches and Ministers 4. That Church was but one and you should shew gathering out of several Churches for whereas you alledge they might have gathered out of twenty or an hundred had there been so many at that time I answer that it may be there were twenty possibly an hundred Churches while the Jewish Temple stood your selves say there were many Christian Churches and yet I doubt not but you will acknowledg both that no Churches were gathered or separated out of those or any other true Christian Churches and also that it is more lawful and orderly to separate the pretious of one Christian Church from the vile therein and the Godly party to cast out the incurable sinfull party 1 Cor. 5.12 Then to separate some persons of severall Churches into one distinct Church the former being not a gathering of a Church but a reforming and purging of it which is warranted by Scripture 3. Whereas you speak much both in your former and latter Book of the truth of the then Jewish Church I pray you what trueness mean you A naturall trueness as a thief or a lyar is a true man id est truly a man and Sathan a true spirit that is truly a spirit or a morall trueness viz. that it held and taught the way of salvation dare you say that the Jewish Church then did hold and teach the way of salvation Did they not pertinaciously and desperatly reject Christ No not while their Temple stood as you say some think The Scripture calls them an untoward generation from which it exhorts tho e that were pricked in their hearts which were but few in respect of the body of the Jews to save themselvs and from amongst which the Lord converted and added to the Christian Church such as should be saved Acts 2.40.47 And they did put the word from them being filled withenty contradicting and blaspheming Acts 13.45.46 Again the Apostle Rom. 11.11 12 15 19. Plainly implyeth that the Jewish Church ceased to be a true Church did fall was broken off cast away before salvation came to the Gentiles Nor do your Scriptures or reasons solidly prove that the Jewish Church was then a true Church for one of your texts Acts 11. which you produce for that purpose saith That they that were scattered whom in this place you call Apostles contrary to Scripture Acts 8.1 and your own assertion elsewhere Defence P. 4. Preached some to the Jews only and some when they were come to Antioch to the Grecians also Acts 11.20 Now the Grecians were not then a Church of God nor gathered yourselvs say into Church state til Barnabas was sent to them Defence p. 4. The other text mentions their Preaching to the Jews first but that they thought themselves bound to Preach to the Iews first because they were the people of God is your gloss which cannot be inferred from your texts joyntly or severally you know Gods command might make it necessary they should Preach to the Jews first whether they were at that very time the people of God or no and that was the true reason of it as you may see by comparing Acts 13.46.47 with Math. 10.1.5.6 But neither their Preaching first to the Jews nor afterwards to the Gentiles doth evince that either of them were then the people of God As for the Communion the Apostles had with the Jews which is your second argument to prove the trueness of the then Jewish Church I would you had expressed what Communion what worships you mean if that which you count properly Church-Communion then the Apostles did not as you say they did teach and practise
one city easily and conveniently as your selves say of Herod and Pilate p. 19. And I hold that several congregations in the countries if they may conveniently meet and govern in common not only may but ought so to do as wel as several congregations in a city 5. You cannot shâ—w so express a pattern of Christians in a city making two Churches as I have shewed of Christians of one Church meeting ordinarily in several places and therefore this pattern is more uncontrouled then the other and consequently by your own doctrin more to be followed 6. You presume that there were Churches in some other parts of Iudea besides Jerusalem though the particular assemblies of the Church of Jerusalem might wel enough be called the Churches of Judea and you cannot shew where one Church was in Judea save at Jerusalem and it is improbable to suppose any Churches in Judea but what were in Jerusalem seeing at Jerusalem the Apostles resided held their constant assemblies and occasional councells and there they of Galilee which was beyond Judea that beleeved in Christ continued Luke 23.49 Acts 1.15 2.1 7. 13.31 And the converts of the Apostles closely adhered to them in fellowship at Jerusalem and sold their possessions goods lands houses and had all things common in the Church Acts 2.42 44 46 47. 4.34 Some of which were of remoter places far then any part of Judes cap. 4.36 7. If you should prove there were Churches elsewhere in Judea besides Jerusalem yet it could not thence be gathered that they were all congregational and only such for as little and final as Judea was 1. It had cities in it and great ones too besides Jerusalem as Lidda Azotus c. And you acknowledg that city and Church do explain one another 2. Judea through the blessing of God multiplying the inhabitants as the sand of the sea according to his promise to Abraham contained an innumerable multitude of people for ought I know more then in England In Ata's tune out of Juda and Benjamin alone there was an army of almost 600000 men besides women and children valiant men besides impotent aged persons now you know the multitude or paucity of the people not the largness or littleness of the of the place or country is in this case most considerable London may fitter be a providence then the same circuit of ground in some parts of the kingdome a parish 3. There was a vast multitude of Christians in Iudea converted by the Ministry of Iohn Baptist Iesus Christ the 12 Apostles the 70 disciples all raiâ—ed up to gather Gods chosen ones out of Iudaea and which were very successful in their Ministry so that the littleness of Judea is no let but that there might be ten or 20. several Churches and each of them dividid into 5 or 6 several assemblies as also the county of Midlesex one of the least counties in the kingdome and far less then the Province of Judea and having no city in it save one might also contain so many and such Churches Concerning the term Churches see more afterwards CHAP. VI. Whether the Epistles to the Corinthians were writ only to those that met ordinarily in one place Sect. 1. WHen I alledg that Paul writs to them that in every place not throughout the world as appears 2 Cor. 1.1 Writen to the same persons 1 Cor. 5.1.2 with 2 Cor. 2.1 2. Nor is this a Catholique Epistle but in all Achaja call upon the name of the Lord. You Reply p. 16. That Paul writes sends and applyes this to the Corinthians alone for all along proper and peculiar things belonging to the Corinthians and not to the Achaians nor Saints in all the world are spoken of in commendation and discommendation and proper reproofs directions c. Yet he intended it for use and benefit of all Achaia and of the whole world also And it may as properly be called a Catholique Epistle as an Achaian Epistle for the use redound to all the world as wel as to Achaia else how can it be Canonical scripture and the foundation of our sermons that we preach out of it Rejoynder 1 Certainly you know that the Epistle may be canonical and yet the use of it not redound to all the world as wel as to Achaia if by as wel you mean equally in all the particular contents of this Epistle The Epistle to Philemon is canonical and the 2. to Timothy though the use of it in point of Onesimus and Pauls cloak do not as wel or equally concern all the world as Philemon Timothy 2. The use of these Epistles I dare say redounds not to Corinth only nor to all the world as wel as Achaia for there are divers passages in both these Epistles which cannot be limited to Corinth nor enlarged to the whole world as 2 Cor. 11.1 2. Forwardness of Ministring to the Saints was not only in the Corinthians but in the Achaians Paul boasteth of them to whom he writes in these words I boasted of you that Achaia was ready a year ago now it is improper for any man that writes to London and not to England more then all the world to say I boasted of you that England was ready a year ago The house of Stephanas he commends to them under the notion of being the first fruits of Achaia The contribution for the Saints at Jerusalem was the contribution of Achaia Rom. 15.26 And part of his drift and scope is to get a liberal contribution not from Corinth only but from all Achaja and he doth not desire the Church of Corinth to communicate this letter to the other Saints of Achaia because he writs to them all in the second person 3. The Apostle doth not write to the Saints in Ephesus and in all Asia Ephes 1.1 Or the Saints at Philippi or the Church of Thessalonica and to all Macedonia nor any where else doth he write to the Saints or to the Church in such a city with all the Saints in such a province or country or in every place though every Epistle be of common use and profit both to the borderers and to strangers yea to all the world yet he writes to the Church of Corinth with the Saints in every place or in all Achaia Which words are not vainly and impertinently put here and not in any other Epistle and what can they else import but that this Epistle is more an Achaian pardon your own improper term then a Catholique Epistle 4. I put you to prove that the reproofs directions exhortations commendations were proper to them that schisms fornications were only amongst them that the exhortation to a liberal contribution on the first day of the week was proper to Corinth yea that the Incestuous person was a member of the Church of Corinth though we presume and commonly speak so yet it is not necessary for he might be a member of the Church of Cenchrea or some other Church in Achaia for ought we
of the Iews is not called Congregations there as Mollerus shews But suppose there be truth in all that is said what are all these â—ceptions of the words Kahal and Ecclesia to the purpose Can you find that ever any one Church is called two or more Churches For except there can be found such an instance the ayr is but beatâ—â— all this while and our assertion stands immoveable You cannot shew as we suppose that ever any one Church was called Churches in the plural number either in the Old or New Testament in reference to plurality of places they met in Rejoyn 1. Doubtleâ—s our Translators did understand v. 4. of 〈◊〉 people and v. 8. of the place else why should they translated 〈◊〉 Congregations and not Synagogues and that is the primary signâ—â—cation of the word and so it is most usually taken in the Old Testament That there were in Davids or in Asaph's time any Synagogues or set stated appointed places to use your own worâ—◠〈◊〉 it is hard to prove the temple it self being not yet built 2. I have shewed that an Assembly or Concio and a Church are often in Scripture phrase all one and therefore seeing it cannot be denyed that there were assemblies in several places it must needs be granted that there were many Congregations in scriptural and ordinary phrase of speech though these were indeed but parts of the Jewish Church and therefore it might be said to be but one congregation having one high Priest c. yet it may be called many congregations because they did meet in several assemblies 3. If it can be shewed that one Church is called Churches in the Old and New Testament then you grant something is done to purpose for the weakning of the position Now besides that the Universal Church is but one and yet called Churches as hath been shewed I alledg that the Jewish Church which you confess was but one is called Churches Ps 26.12 where David promiseth to bless God in the Churches the Original being the properest word to signifie Churches and such as you cannot say is meant of Synagogues or places Also Psal 68.26 which was a Psalm sung at the removal of the Ark Bless ye the Lord in the Churches viz. In the Church-meetings in the several assemblies for the worship of God Mr Ainsworth himself translateth it Churches and paralels it with 1 Cor. 14.34 Now to say that David promised and the Israelites were commanded at the removeal of the Ark to bless God in the Churches of the New-Testament or that those texts are only prophetical or to â—â—ll of Enallage numeri when the strength of the Argument is in the difference of the number are strained and far fetcht evasions and such whereby I might quickly answer you saying The Churches of Galatia are spoken figuratively for the Church of Galatiaâ—â— Thus I have through the good hand of God helping me done the task you set me and by bargain your position should fail 4. If your consciences did not tell you the contrary of what you instance concerning my scope and drift when you say Is your scope to confound and lose your Reader in the various acceptions of the word Assembly or Church that when they read the word Church or Churches they shal not know what to under of it yet my rejoying 〈◊〉 this the testimony of my conscâ—â—◠〈◊〉 â—â—d rather extricate my Reader out of diâ—â—â—â—ties that 〈…〉 and the true reason of all my tedâ—â—â— and expâ—â—◠〈…〉 satisfaction and strengthing of Godâ— peoâ—â—◠〈…〉 GOD 〈…〉 speak as becometh Saints in the sight of God are these things nothing to the purpose you to prove that there were several Independent judging Churches in Galatia and in Macedonia alledg the words Churches of Galatia I grant there were several assemblies in Galatia and also in Macedonia and in Iudea The question is whether the texts cited do prove more then I grant I shewed that the words Kahal and Ecclesia in Scripture as wel as prophane Authors signifies Concio or an Assembly whether orderly or disorderly less or greater with government in it or no Whether is be an instituted Church or no a whole governing Church or but a part of it Hence though the Jewish Church was but one yet Churches are said to be in it because there were divers Assemblies in it Hence as I proved in my Answer those that met at such and such a time and place are called the Church the whole Church yet they were not it may be the half or a third part or the tenth part of the Iewish Church and hence it followeth what I would infer that the calling of them Churches of Galatia doth not prove that each of them was an instituted visible Church uncombined is any other in point of government seeing the Assemblies amongst the Jews were certainly combined in point of government and yet are called Churches as wel as the Churches of Galatia It is therefore clear to me and I hope to you too that the word Churches proves no such thing as that they were instituted Independent Churches though it may be other texts do shew that some of them were compleat particular Churches 5. You should not only say but prove that there is no other combination to enjoy all Gospel ordinances but congregational a position which in the latitude of your words your own authors Mr Cotton Mr Mather Mr Tompson and others wil not own nor I think your selves when you have considered wisely of the matter for Synods are some ordinances yea Gospel-ordinances too and a Congregational combination if there be no other cannot enable us to partake of those ordinances as you very wel know Sect. 2. You do but think though you in pag. 28 intimate that you know that those Churches were only Congregational 1 Cor. 1.1.2 Cor. 8.1.19 Rev. 1.4 and that they are properly called Churches and that the word Church in 1 Cor. 12.28 is read in a figurative sense when I say that though the beleevers in Galatia were called Churches yet for ought you alledg to the contrary they might be combined one to another as the Churches of England Scotland Holland are respectively combined for the Apostle speaks of them as one lump 1 Cor. 5.6 with Gal. 5.9 and wisheth the anathematizing or excommunicating of him that troubled them Gal. 1.8 9. 5.10 11. and the restoring with the spirit of meekness both which I take to be acts of discipline and Cottons Keyes p. 8 9. doth so take them of a faln brother Gal. 6.1 You thus reply As for such combination as is in Scotland Holland without proof we cannot grant them in Galatia and if Paul had intended by saying A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump that we should gather thence that they were but one Church he would never have called them Churches in the Preface of his Epistle if one speak in a literal sense and say a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump doth he thereby make
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
offender yet he might be judged by a Provinciall for this is one benefit of combination of Churches or National Assembly or if there were a universall councell all Christians should be subject to its Ecelesiasticall power whether Members of a particular Congregation or no and may be excommunicated upon just occasion not onely out of particular Congregations if they be Members of them but out of the Church universal for though it might be doubted to what Church this or that man doth belong yet it can scarce bee doubted in what province in what Nation an offender doth reside and to which he by right doth belong The Church of Ephesus is commended for trying the false Apostles which did not acknowledge themselves Members of that Church for this had been inconsistent with the aime of Apostleship else grievous Wolves false Teachers might have crept in amongst them and drawne Disciples after them to Blasphemie Idolatrie c. without blame CHAP. XXVI Of the Authority of Elders WHen I say though Elders bee not Lords over Gods heritage yet they are Leaders and Guides yea Shepeards Rulers Overseers Bishops Governours and not onely Presidents of the Congregation Moderators of her actions or as the fore-men of the Iury you thinke your felves wronged and expresse your selves to grant that Elders dos rule as Stewards as Captaines as Guides or Leaders and his grant is large enough for Stewards and Captaines may take or put out Servants and Souldiers without the others of the family or company intermedling by way of Power therein yet I could have wished you had shewed what more Power then of a Moderator or President of a Synod or foreman of a Iury or Speaker of a Parliament House practically you give the Elders in election of Officers receiving in of Members or casting them out or other acts which are properly act of Discipline and Government for a Moderator may put matters to Vote open the doores of speech or silence advise or councell the Assemblie pronounce the sentence keep order c. But why do I put you upon this you say they rule as Stewards and Captains yea as Guides and Leaders which Titles in Scripture Phrase in which I presume you speak doe signifie the Power of civill Magistrates Act. 23.24 Mat. 27.2 and indeed Presbyterian Government in this sense in opposition to Praelaticall and Popular Government you cannot deny seeing the Scripture saith they have the Rule they feede and governe the flock Heb. 13.7 17.1 Tim. 5.17.1 Pet. 5.2 Acts 20.17 28. The Keyes which in the Notion of them doe carry Power and Authoritie properly so called are committed to them Matth. 16.19 and Power to remit and retain sins Joh. 20.28 and they are over the People in the Lord 1 Thes 5.12 and the Titles which are given to civill Magistrates at least to subordinate ones are given to the Elders of the Church and they as you say afterwards are Governours to the Church in the descending line of Power though thy be but Ministeriall Governours in an ascending line that leads to Christ the only Monarch or supreme Governour of the Church Sect. 2. when I urge that Matth. 20.25 26. forbids Kingly or Lordly power in the Ministers of the Gospel for the two Apostles still dreaming of a Temporall Kingdome and being Kinsmen to Christ did expect some temporall honour and advancement Christ saith not there was inequality among the Priests of the Iewes or amongst the Priests of the Gentiles or between the Priests and the People but it shall not be so amongst you but very aptly and pertinently to their petition answereth the Princes of the Gentiles c. propounding himself verse 28 whose Kingdome is not of this world for an example to them yet had he no intent to equall them to himselfe in Church Power or other Ministers to the Apostles or the People to the Presbyters You say in your Reply p. 79. Admit that the Apostles were such babes as to imagine that Christ would lay downe his spirituall Kingdome and take up a temporal and that any or all of them desired an eminency one above an other therein yet it will not follow that Christ speakes nothing by way of reproofe of ambitious aspirings in the Spirituall but onely in the temporall Kingdome of Christ hee expresseth the disparity betwixt civill policies where one or more rule with Lordly Power and the rest are in subjection and Spirituall policies where Christ only rules with Lordly Power and one Apostle or Minister hath no Authoritie at all one over another but are fellow servants Rejoind 1. You must needs admit you cannot deny that they did still dream of a temporall Kingdome Matth. 20.21 Acts 1.6 2. The Apostles were not such babes as to imagine that Christ would would lay down his spirituall Kingdome over the soules and consciences of his People but they are babes that imagine as you intimate that hee could not take up a temporall Kingdome except hee did lay downe his spirituall Kingdome for spirituall and civil Government which were confihenti in the person of Moses Eli Samuel were much more consistent in the person of Christ God and Man 3. I said not that it will follow that Christ spake nothing by way of reproofe of ambitious aspirings in the spirituall Kingdome of Christ they may also bee included though ambition in civill matters be the thing here directly and principally intended and I hope the Reader by reading the whole answer in my book which is curtel'd in yours will understand me aright 4. Nor denied I that inequality of men of the same office may be here forbidden save only that reason and order if not Scripture do require presidencie moderatorship one Apostle is not to be above another Apostle one Elder as such above another Elder c. Yet you cannot deny that had Christs main scope been to forbid inequality of the Ministers of the Word an instance of the inequality of the Jewish and Gentilish Priests had been more pat then of the Gentile Princes 5. As our Saviours meaning was not to exclude the Apostles from being in Ecclesiastical power above Elders Elders above Deacons and himself above all so neither was it his meaning to equalize believers in Church-power with their Presbyters or one Elder or the lesser part to many Elders or the major part and consequently he speaks nothing against Presbyterian government or the government of the Church by Presbyters 6. It may be said of Civil policies that one supreme Magistrate is not above another but they are all fellow-servants Lastly whereas you say pag. 80. That corruption of Church-Governours in an usurpation of Ecclesiastical domination is of more dangerous influence to the Church then if they should usurp some branches of Civil power I answer 1. What you can shew to be a corruption of Church-government an usurpation of exorbitant Ecclesiastical domination God forbid that we should not abominate it and I expect that you shall be as willing to
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
supposeth and you should make to appeare to be a mathematical invisible and imaginary line Sect. 5. Reply p. 109. Now lest these things should be conceived of a temporary nature he saith v. 13 14. I give thee charge c. that thou keep this commandement without spot to the comming of Christ i.e. keep them thy self and deliver them in charge to the Church and principally to the Elders to be kept till Châ—ist his second comming And so Dr. Whitaker against Duraeus urgeth it Rejoind 1. This clause till the appearing of Jesus Christ extends in some places as annexed to duty no further then the parties term of life 1 Cor. 11.26 and so far as this command either pointeth at the office of an Evangelist or otherwise obligeth Timothy it can extend no further for Timothy cannot keep that commandement either by doing it himself or by charging others any longer then his own naturall life 2. What if this charge be taken in your extension of this clause so far as by it any perpetuall office in the church or duty is commanded and further you contend not to lengthen it yet if the commandment take not in the body of the Epistle as I have I hope sufficiently and shall yet more evidently evince it nothing serves your turn 3. The expounding of this clause so extensively will make against you and help to prove that by this commandment v. 14. cannot be understood all the rules of discipline in Gods word no not all the rules in this Epistle For. 1. in this Epistle many things concern Timothy's person and office as he was an Evangelist which office you will grant is not now in the Church Now if this commandement is to be kept in the Church in all ages then those many things must remain out of the verge of this commandement and by consequence it extends not to all particulars of discipline in the Epistle 2. There are some things in the Epistle about Discipline of a temporary nature besides as the office of widows and their washing feeâ— c. 5.9 10. I conceive you dare not assert that either of these are perpetually necessary unto the second comming of Christ and of such unchangeable obligation as you make the words to import 3. Some things in this Epistle are either incompetible or unsuitable to Timothy himself to whom this commandement and all contained in it is given as the Womens duty c. 2.9 10. the Wives duty c. 3.11 the Widows duty c. 5.4.9 the Servants lesson c. 6.1 2. though these things he might give in charge to them they concern yet he could not keep them in person as you even now paraphrased on keeping nor can it be conceived that such things should be imposed on Timothy with such a deep obtestation either as the onely or as a principal or as a representative subject of them 4. The word this commandement might me thinks be enough to have kept you in from such a wide acception Can so many things as are packed up in this Epistle so miscellaneous in nature so manifold in form of speech commands prohibitions declarations assertions admonitions exhortations instructions consolations all be reduced to this one word of the singular number 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 especially if the observation of severall authors David Heinsius exercit sa in Ephes 6.1 Critica sacra Graeca in vocab apud illum alii do hold viz. that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies only an affirmative precept not a negative of which sort besides those things which are not precepts at all there are divers in the Epistle Sect. 6. Reply p. 110. You define or describe Discipline to be the whole System of and comprehension of Divine rules precepts or presidents for the externall order of the Church which are not of a temporary but of perpetuall use and equity till the appearing of Christ and by essentials we mean such particulars included in this System as if any thing be wanting something is detracted from the perfect and compleat order of the Gospel But your definitions of Discipline and of Essentials are throughout one and the same and although you make the genus of Essentials some particulars included in the systeme of Discipline importing there are other particulars non-Essentials yet in the speciall forme and differences ye make Discipline and Essentials equipollent for if Essentials be such particulars of the System of divine rules for the order of the Church as if any of them be wanting something is detracted from the perfect and compleat order of the Gospel and if Discipline be the whole system of divine rules for the externall order of the Church which are of a perpetuall use and equity Are not these two of equall limits That which will admit of no detraction from the perfect order is as comprehensive as the whole system of such orders 2. In these your definitions you implicitely contradict the Position which you pretend to defend for it saith The essentials of Discipline are unchangeable importing both that some things in Discipline are not Essentials and that Non-essentials are changeable but your definitions do make all things in Discipline essentiall and of perpetuall use and equity You further say That onely persons rightly qualified should be admitted to society in the Church is an essential Isa 56.6 7. 1 Cor. 1.1 Phil. 1.1 This in the generall is not in controversie yet whether this or that be a right qualification is in controversie and so an error in an essential is contended for and made by the erring party either by taking in visibly false or excluding visibly true matter Rejoynd 1. You say whether this or that but you should have named the right qualification and shewed it to be such else we are as far to seek as before For if it be not a right qualification which you do not affirm but a suppositious one an Essentiall is not in controversie the attributing essentiality to that which it belongs not to makes not that which is truly essentiall to be indifferent so that we are never the neerer for this instance 2. You cite three Scriptures in your margent to prove that onely persons rightly qualified to be admitted to Church-society is an Essential To which I answer 1. to Isa 56. It is questionable whether it speak of Church-communion for 1. The Eunuchs doubtles were already in Church-communion 2. The sonnes of the stranger are said to be joyned to the Lord already and joyning to the Lord you usually interpret of being in Church-communion by covenant Act. 5.14 11.24 Jer. 50.5 6. Zach. 2.11 3. The Proselytes which were already in the Church are called Levim copulati adhaesores to the Lord the very term here given to the sonnes of the stranger 2. If Church-communion were unquestionably one of the things yet your selves dare not say that it is the principall thing here promised for which those qualifications are required the chief things are To be made joyfull in Gods house to have