not all of one particular Congregation you presume the contrary viz. they were all of one Congregation and that the Apostle speaks of Churches because they did sometimes occasionally resort to other Churches any text may be thus answered let the Reader judge CHAP. VII Of a National Church Sect. 1. IF there ought to be such a national Church then in Reply p. 22. this Church there must be some national combination national place for convention national pastor upon which it must depend and national ordinances for seeing there was no such Church extant when the Gospel was written nor rules left how things must be carried in such a national Church what reason can be shewed if such a Church must be why there should be a departure from the pattern of the national Church among the Jews Rejoyn 1. I expresly distinguished in my Answer between a â—â—â—â—d Church or such a national as the Jewish Church was and therefore your confutation of such a Church might wel enough have been spared for the Jewish Church had an high Priest which was a type of Christ and his office is now ceased to be a national Pastor and a national place of Convention as the Temple or Tabernacle being of divine institution and promise which was also ceremonial and national ceremonial ordinances but that the Church cannot be national except it be such a national except there be a national pastor a set place for convention and national ordinances is unreasonable to assert for then Scotland it self were not a national Church for it hath no national pastor no national place not a certain fixed place for convention no national ordinances but doth justly and necessarily vary from the Jewish Church in tâ—ose things that are ceremonial but subora nation of Ecclesiastical Judicatories and the benefit of appeals is not meerly ceremonial but grounded on natural reason and equity not doth the abrogation of it appear in the New Testament 2. You grant both that the Saints in a nation as destinguished from the Saints of another nation may be call â—â—a national Church and alâ—o that â—ll the Churches in a nation may and in some cases ought to combine together and convene in a Synod or Church of Churches to consuit the good of the whole and to preserve truth and peare in the Churches such was the assembly of the Churches in New England and this their convention is an ordinance of Christ though in the Apostles times there was no pattern of such national Synod no more then there was a national Church when there was no Christian Magistrate nor were Christians so many as to bear the name of a Land or Nation as if but one family had been Christian the Church could not have been more then Domestical the Protestant Church could not be national in the dayes of Henry the 8. and Queen Mary as in the days of King Edward and Queen Elizabeth nor had they liberty safely and freely to meet in such national assemblies nor is there rules left how things must be carried in such a national assembly or Synod considering it as National Yea Mr Cotton groundeth this Synodical combination on Act. 15. and alledgeth the Jewish Church in Ezek. 48.30 to be but one Congregation twelve furlongs and the Church in Rev. 21.16 to be 12000. furlongs many Churches combining together in a Synod Keyes p. 57. the difference then is only about combination in government or whether a lawful national Synod or Assembly may or ought to exercise jurisdiction over particular Churches in that nation I hold assirmatively and in this sense maintain there may lawfully be a National Church and this is not of my framing as you assert but was framed many hundred years before you or I were born and is consonant to the rules of Gods Word you hold the negative 3. You say there is no necessity of Congregational officers to the being of Congregational Churches and then what necessity is there of National officers to National Church Yea it is clear that one Congregation may have more Pastors then one and then what necessity there is that a National Church should only have one officer Sect. 2. Reply p. 22. Then these persons must stand in relation to all and every of the assemblies of the natian under their jurisdiction and so they are national officers every one of them and the whole is the flock of each amongst them as in the representative civil body every Knight and Burgess hath the care of the kingdom upon him and each hath equal authority of inspection and decision of matters concerning cities and countries which he knows not as of those from whence he came Rejoynder 1. Your selves grant not only that Synods are the ordinances of God but also that all the Elders thereof are to be looked upon as the officers of Iesus Christ when they do such synodied acts as they may do in relation to many Congregations you cannot deny that they do those acts of Elders as Elders when a Minister doth administer the Sacrament to another Congregation or to the people of another Congregation he doth it as an Elder and as having special relation to that people at that time and in that work he being called unto it 2. The Knights and Burgesses in Parliament are not each of them severally and singly kingdom-officers though in that body they may do many things in relation to the whole kingdome So Colonells associated in a councel of war So particular heads of Colledges joyned in a consistory So aldermen of several Wards in the Court of Aldermen So in the Jewish common-wealth the heads of the several tribes which were as a Parliament to all Israel might in that associated body do many things which could not be required of particular Elders and heads of the tribes yet it is an unproper and untrue speech to say every head of this or that tribe is an officer of all the tribes every Colonel is a general officer of the whole army and so it is an unjust and incongruous speech to say every member of an authoritative national assembly is a national Church-officer though he with the rest in a body or whole assembly whereof he is a member may in some acts of government relate to the whole Sect. 3. Reply p. 23. Now if it be so the question is whether each be not a Pastor to every purpose as wel as to one and to feed by Doctrine as wel as Discipline all such assemblies which are under his charge which thing is yet impossible to be done why they must joyntly rule al the assemblies but severally teach each man the Congregation to which he is designed without care of the rest Rejoynder 1. What mean you to call each member in a national assembly a Pastor Is each man in a Congregational Presbytery a Pastor 2. We hold not that Pastors may or ought to teach each man his own Congregation without care of the rest because from the one-ness
2.2.14.20 It being also clear that if they were not then duly proceeded against they could not be justly and orderly excommunicated 4. If it be said that this meeting if it was a formal Synod it was only occasional and not a set stated monethly or yearly meeting I answer 1 This is but a circumstance of time which followeth necessarily the substance of the thing if Synods sit they must sit in some time but what time or times they should sit doth depend upon circumstances and as the Churches business requireth the scripture doth not mention any stâ—tâ—d Ecclesiastical meetings for government Synodical or Congrâ—gational that they should meet weekly monethly nor mentioneth it any set Church-meetings except the Lords day for preaching hearing fasting prayer conference yet the Church may upon occasion order weekly or monethly Congregational meetings for those purposes according to the general rules of Gods word your selves grant that the officers of several Churches may meet together as oft as occasion shal require to advise and consult about the ordering of the affaires of the Churches in all difficult cases And that at every meeting the time of the next meeting be determined on and the occasion thereof so far as appears intimated Yea you tel us p. 128. That emimently gifted men may preach for divers moneths together while the occasion lasts And so I say Synods may meet but if it appear there be no just occasion of a Synod I desire not that there should be any in a stated way Sect. 2. Reply p. 23. What is there to warrant combination of assemblies in a Nation more then of all Christian assemblies in the world represented in an oecumenical Councel For if a Congregational Church must depend upon a National Church then a National Church must depend upon the universal as the lesser upon the greater What a Nation is to a Congregation that the Universal is to a Nation Rejoyn I wil also ask you one question what is there more to warrant the Elders of New England to convene in a Synod or Assembly of the Churches then the Elders of all the world to convene in a general Councel Surely no more warrant save that they had a better call and more power and encouragement by the Civil Magistrates and their mutual consent and might with more conveniency ease expedâ—tion and safety meet together in Cambridge in N. E. then all the Elders in the world could and yet you account that Assembly an Ordinance of God 2. There is not the same necessity of combination of all Churches in the world as there is of all Churches in a Nation for peace and government Is there as good reason that all kingdoms should be subject to one general meeting o the Kings and supreme Magistrates as that in every Kingdom there should be subordination of Judicatories and appeals from the less to the greater 3. How much greater distance there is between particular Churches so much the less needs the visible communion of those Churches to be because danger of scandal and infection and the opportunity of mutual edification is less or more according as the distance of place is greater or less therefore there is or ought to be a more strict ordinary visible Ecclesiastical communion within a Classis then within a Province within a Nation then in all the world 4. Your selves must either acknowledg that a particular Church hath power to elect an officer for other Churches for you oft alledg Acts 1. for the Churches power of Election as wel as their own or else grant that that was a general Church or Councel which did choose an Apostle a general officer 5. As for your conceit that the members of a general Councel must be universal Pastors it hath been before confuted in a democracy or popular government the power is in all the people joyntly but to say that every one of the people is an universal officer is ridiculous Sect. 3. When I say shew me a Nation of Magistrates and people converted and I wil shew you a National Church You reply p. 24. that I might have said Shew me a Nation converted and I wil shew a National Church framed like the Iewish Church with one National Bishop over it one National Cathedral in it Rejoyn 1. The Jewish was rather the Universal then a National Church if God should have called any or all other Nations they must have been proselyted into it 2. If there were no better arguments against the Pope and Prelatical men then you bring against a National Church and if the Nationalness of the Church was as truly Ceremonial and abrogated as the high Priest and Temple were which you odly cal a National Bishop and Cathedral are then that form of speech should I use it were irreprehensible 3. I retort shew me an Assembly of the Churches in a Nation like that of New England and I wil shew you a National Church You further say Reply p. 24. Though there was no Nation converted yet Christ's mind in that matter might easily have been dictated in the Scriptures had he intended any such Church afterwards as Moses tels the Iews Deut. 12.8 9 10. And though there were not Nations converted yet there were so many in a Nation converted as made many Assemblies In little Iudea there were Congregation and why together with the Church at Ierusalem might tâ—ere not have been a Diocesan or Classical Church The foot-stets of a Diocesan or Classical Church shal serve the turn then we wil yeeld there might in time be a National Rejoyn You hold a National Synod to be a lawful and useful Ordinance of God if one should deny it and say shew me a lesser Synod of all the Churches within such or such a circuit and I wil grant there may be a National Synod consider wel what ye would answer 2. It is either weakness or worse to intimate to the world that Presbyterians do plead for a Diocesan Church you know I suppose that Mr Rhuterfurd and others do professedly reject and refute it 3. I have shewed that the Church of Ierusalemâ— did consist of many Congregations and that the Elders of that Church did convene for acts of government you cannot deny and this you know is a Presbyterial Church which we cal a Classis 4. I have shewed a pattern of an authoritative Synod exercising jurisdiction over particular Churches and cleared it from your greatest and strongest exceptions against it 5. In Chap. 9. I have shewed from holy Scripture that there is an Vniversal visible Church which is greater then a National and doth include and justifie it and to which it is subordinate in a regular way These you know are more then footsteps of a Presbyterial or Classical Church 6. The Scriptures do prophecy of the cal of a Nation I. a. 55.5 and also of a Nations answer to that call and that Israel should be one of the three which may import three National Churches One Nation as
your selves acknowledg were of the Church of Ierusalem Suppose therefore these 500. were Galilaeans or dispersed into Iudaea and Galilee this doth not hinder but they might be of the Church of Jerusalem 4. If Christ did appear in Galilee they had notice of it in Ierusalem Math. 28.7 And questionless they would go out of Ierusalem to see him 5. The choosing of an Apostle concerning which see before in Sect. 3. was of general concernment and why then should not the 500 brethren though in Galilee or Iudea have bin there at the choosing of an Apostle who was to be an officer to them as wel as to those in Ierusalem Sect. 6. When I alledg that Adam and Noah with their families if they were Churches were but domestical Churches not congregational some houshoulds are called Churches in the new testament many whereof may be within a congregational Church and specially within a national To this you Reply pag. 11.12 That Domestical Churches enjoying Congregational ordinances and Congregational Churches differ not in their nature and kind but in quantity as a smal country Chappel differeth from a numerous Town-Church That many domestical Churches may be in one Congregational in my sense not in yours that you deny that two or three concerted in a family enjoying no Church-ordinances are called a Church that you acknowledg not any such distinction of Congregational Church and Domestical But say the foundation of a congregationall Church may be layd in one family and spread into many It may be layd in 7 or 8. and grow up to as many as can meet together constantly unto edification in one place as the Church in Abrahams family which afterwards grow up into a nation and though the Go pel-pel-Church is not now national yet a Congregation of many families may spring out of a Church in one family more easily then a nation did Rejoynder 1. you do not express whether you mean that one or two or all or none of the three families mentioned in the position did enjoy Congregational ordinances Nor. 2. What you mean by Congregational ordinances but the Reader may conceive that you mean election of officers partaking Sacraments and censures 3. You tax me to hard to require me to prove that two or three converted in a family enjoying no Church-ordinances are called a Church for neither you nor I know the number of persons in the families called Churches whether it was 2. or 3 7 or 8 11 or 12 19 or 20. more or less nor is it as to this any whit material 4. Mr Weld a congregational man doth acknowledg a domestical Church to be spoken of in scripture as distinguished from a particular visible Church and cites Philâ—m 2. and so do Zanchy and very many good interpreters and Mr Cottons words cited Sect. 1. import the same And indeed these families might be called Churches because they were more eminently Religious or more numerous or for some other reason besides the enjoyment of Congregational ordinances 5. You say p. 16. That city and Church do expound one another and p. 113. You say we do not read of more Congregations of Saints constantly meeting for the Worship of God in any City then one But if these were Congregational Churches then you must acknowledg that there was more Congregations then one in a City for you read of the Church of Rome Rom. 1.7 And of the Church in the house of Aquila and Priscilla Rom. 16.3 of whose being in Rome you spake even now Sect. 7. When I cite new-England men to say that Christ did not make a new Church but lived and dyed a member of the Iewish Church and therefore he and his family were not a Church distinct from the Iewish Church you reply p. 12. Whether Christ dyed a member of the Iewish Church or no is questionable but that he gathered certain persons to him and instituted baptism and the Lords supper amongst them is most certain which were ordinances of the Gospel Church and he either thereby prepared them for or layd the foundation of a Gospel Church before his death for immediatly after his ascention they were a Gospel-Church as appeareth from Acts. 1.14.15 Rejoynder 1. The Elders of new England confidently assert it Answer to 32. q.p. 14. Though you question it 2. If it be questionable whether Christ dyed a member of the Jewish Church or no then it is questionable whether he his disciples made a Cospel Church or no and then what becomes of that instance in the Position 3. To prepare for and to lay the foundation of the Gospel Church are much different yet you tel us not whether of these two Christ did as though either would serve your turn but you know he might prepare them for a Gospel Church and himself dye a member of the Iewish Church David did prepare for building the Temple but did not build it nor lay the foundation of it 4. What you mean by gathering certain persons to himself or who were those certain persons you do not tell us if you mean the 12. how prove you that he instituted baptism amongst the 12 if others how do you prove that he instituted the Lords supper amongst them were all baptized persons only prepared for the Church or was the foundation of the Church layd in them or only in those to whom he administred the supper or if in both was the foundation of the Church layd in them equally or unequally If the foundation of the Church was layd in all them that were baptized then it was a very large foundation if only in the twelve then it was but a little one and so it makes for the position the other makes against it I pray explian your opinion that the reader may understand it and the reasons of it 5. Was the reality of an Instituted Congregational Church in the family of Christ or no you speak like Apollos oracles very doubtfully if it was not then this instance is impertinent to prove the position if it was for they did partake in the Sacrament to which you wil admit none but such as are in Church-state then it is to be proved that Christ and his Apostles did covenant or agree to be a Christian Church that they did choose Iesus for their officer which seems to contradict Iohn 15.16 or at least that they had power to choose their own officers to ordain them and if need had bin to censure them and that they had power to receive Saints by calling into that society and fellowship and why then was not the blessed Virgin received into that Church 6. It appeareth not to me nor I think to any man from Acts 1.14.16 That they were a Gospel-Church an instituted Congregational Church nor can you by any consequence infer it from those two verses though you say it appears from them Sect. 8. When I argue If seven or eight may make a Church then 200. persons in a City may wel make twenty distinct Churches
Aegypt should be one people of God which in Defence p. 40. you say is all one with one Church another nation another people of God and Israel shal be so far from being alone a National Church that she shal not be the chiefest but other Nations shal be before her Isa 19.25 So Abraham became the father of many nations Rom. 4.17 the Jewish Nation and the Nations of the Gentiles one its evident was a National Church and why might not a Gentilish Nation converted to Christianity be a sister National Church Paul faith Rom. 3.29 God is not the God of the Iews only but of the Gentiles the word in the Original is of the Nations also his meaning is God is in covenant with beleeving Nations of the Gentiles as wel as with the Jewish nation Now if God call a nation and a nation obey that call and become the daughter of father Abraham and a sister of the Iewish nation and God be in covenant with a nation or the God of a nation Is not that nation a national Church Did not thus much if there had been no more make the Jews a national Church And wil it not make a beleeving nation among the Gentiles so also Have you any so good an argument against a National Church as this for it 7. Moses in Deut. 12. did not tell the Jews that God did intend they should be a national Church for that they were before even as soon as they grew into a nation Acts 7. but only of a peculiar place of some solâ—mn publick worship which was but ceremoniâ—l and because it was so and God hath not intended any such set place for solemn publick worship in the New Testament as more holy then other places therefore he hath prescribed to us no such thing but lâ—ft us at liberty Ioh. 4.8 Of little Iudea much is spoken before and after CHAP. IX Of the universal visible Church and general Councels Sect. 1. Reply ANd if an universal visible instituted Church be acknowledged why are there not then universal representative conventions What a defect is this in Christendom that all Christians do not endeavour it But we conceive that they are so far from the endeavouring of it that if there were any such thought they might make use of them for advice yet they would be loath to subject themselves to the binding decrees of them Rejoyn 1. You being no Scriptures at all against the universal visible Church or the subordination of lesser Judicatories to greater 2. You acknowledg at least implicitely that if there be an universal visible Chuch then there may be a national subordinate to it and a congregational subordinate to it in which you deal fairly and ingenuously for the whole is not subject to a part but the part to the whole and the neerer any part comes to the whole Church the more authority it hath and hence a general Councel is of more authority then a National and a National then a Provincial 3. I assert that the Scriptures do hold out an universal visible Church For 1. the Apostles which were general officers to which a general Church is the adaequate correlative and had the care of all the Churches are said to be put or placed in the Church as speaking but of one 1 Cor. 12.28 2. This is that one body into which all both Iews and Gentiles bond or free are baptized v. 13. whereof Christ is the head v. 12. yea the visible head though he be now removed to heaven as King Iames was visibly the head of Scotland though removed into and residing in England and Paul the Minister Col. 1.25 in which God hath set 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the members 1 Cor. 12.18 viz. he hath set 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apostles Prophets Teachers helps governments v. 28. 3. The same is proved Ephes 4. to the end of the 16. verse for there we find that the whole Catholique Church is but one v. 4. one body one spirit one hope of our calling one Lord one faith one baptism one God and father of all All which are adaequate and commensurate to the Catholique Church unto which he after saith the Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastors and teachers were given v. 11. 4. This Church consisteth of all beleeving Iews and Gentiles Ephes 2.16 3.6 And is contra-distinguisht from and opposite to all other Iews and Gentiles in the world yet uncalled and is called one fould Iohn 10.16 one woman traveling Rev. 12. one city of God Rev. 11. one field one draw net one barn-floor c. 5. This Church was a child and in non-age under the law and at ful age under the Gospel Gal. 4.1.2 One assembly of 24. Elders and foure beasts in allusion to the 24. orders of Priests and the foure camps of Israel bearing in their standards the same beasts Rev. 4. and as all the twelve tribes did but make one Church so the 144000. of all Christian Churches as it were of the twelve tribes are but one Church I omit many more such expressions which signify to us that as the Church was but one amongst the Jews so it is but one amongst the Gentiles one army under Michael one vineyard c. you may object that we read of Churches in the new testament therefore there is not only one Church I answer These are particular Churches of the same name and nature with the whole as the dry land is but one yet being possessed by several nations under several climates divided by hils rivers and other boundaries is called lands as Labans flocks having all one owner and probably all one mark are called one flock and so Iacobs also Gen. 30.31 32 36 38. 33.13 as the freemen of Rome where ever born or bred make but one corporation hence the Church of Ephesus though a compleat particular Church is not called the whole city or houshold but fellow citizens with the Saints viz. of other Churches and of the househould Ephes 2.19 20. As the Iewish Church was certainly but one yet it is called Churches as you shal hear anon as the Antichristian Churches of Italy France Spain Germany are but one whore one Church under one head the Pope so the Christian Churches of England Scotland Holland c. which have their fathers name written in their foreheads having one faith c. are but one woman one Church The one is the army under the Dragon the other under Michael particular Churches and Antichristian conventions are as the several Brigades Regiments or companies of those armyes Hence the Church of God is called Army and Armies Cant. 6.10.13 vineyard and vineyards Cant. 7.12 8.11.12 Garden and Gardens Cant. 6.2 Note Reader that these are not spoken of the invisible Catholique Church but of the visible Church for officers are not set in the invisible Church Iudas was an Apostle but was not a member of the invisible Church nor is baptism a badg of it 2. Whereas some object that my
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
nor inflict any civil punishment 2. The rest of the things as time place statednesse are but circumstantial or ceremoniall things in which no one ever said that Church-government in time of the Gospel shonld bear conformity with the Jewish church-government or are elswhere spoken of and some of them are impossible now to be had 3. I remember when you find but one Expositor interpreting a Text according to your minde as p. 74. you say Surely we shall lesse doubt of our exposition having so learned a Commentator so well approved of to stand by us in the same Now you know we have a cloud of faithfull witnesses which argue for Classes and Synods from this text year Mr. Cotton himself Keyes p. 24. Churches faith he have a brotherly communion amongst themselves look then as one brother offended by another and not able to heale him by the mouth of two or three brethren privately is to carry the matter to the whole Church so by proportion if one Church see matter of offence in another and be not able to heal it in a more private way it will behove them to procure the assembly of many Churches that the offence may be orderly heard judged and removed Mr. Parker also in his Politacclesiast l. 3. c. 24. and multitude of other Non-conformists and forraign Divines cited by Mr. Paget in his defence of Church-government in the Presbyterial Classical and Synodal assemblies p. 44 45 46. Sect. 4. Reply p. 87. The Synagogues might be under a superior Judicatory for they were but parts of a Church a Positique Nationall church but particular Congregations are entire and compleat Churches and may transact all Gods ordinances walking in truth and peace amongst themselves Rejoynd 1. What if the Synagogues were as compleat and entire Churches in all matters of perpetuall and morall concernment as particular Christian congregations are For 1. there were Assemblies there 2. Those assemblies are called Churches Psal 26.12 3. In them was reading Act. 15.21 Preaching Act. 18.20 Ruling yea rulers at whose request Paul preached Act. 13.15 Censures as excommunication or casting out of the Synagogue Joh. 12.42 9.34 16.1 2. What moral ordinance waa wanting in the Synagogue which was to continue in time of the Gospel 2. That Congregations are entire and compleat Churches you can never prove in your sense nor that they can transact all Church-ordinances the contrary hath been proved 3. Power of Church-government is not left to every or to any Nation as it is a Nation but to the Church not because it is National simply for a Provincial or Presbyterial Church yea a Congregational may have power of government only the neerer any Church is to the Vniversall church the more authority it hath and the further off the lesse Sect. 5. I cannot but minde you that p. 88. you deal unjustly 1. In that you would make the Reader to believe that from that single proposition The Gospel was writ principally for the Jewes some say in Hebrew I conclude that Congregationall men do not apply it rightly yea that the Christians that are Gentiles may not make a right use of them You know my purpose was only to shew the great probability of taking the word Church in Mat. 18. in the same sense that it is taken amongst the Iewes and in the Hebrew tongue 2. In that you divide the argument and then encounter with the severall peeees of it and say of the severall peeces of it We cannot but despair of ever seeing the premises delivered of the conclusion and How shall we do to get the conclusion willingly to follow these premises Rejoynd 1. Seeing you want help to make a Syllogisme and cry out What shall we do it is an act of charity to direct you Do but joint the Premises together put them in form do not wrong them strangle not the child in the place of bringing forth and they will very easily deliver themselves of the genuine and naturall conclusion viz. that this Text doth not prove that the Church in the time of the Gospel must be only Congregationall not Nationall Provinciall c. and that they which thus alledge this Text do abuse it and this was my scope 2. Notwithstanding this was my scope yet by the providence of God some arguments are couched in my answer which imply that by the word Church the Presbyterie is meant because he speaks to the Disciples v. 1. or Apostles which elswhere are said to have the power of binding and loosing Mat. 16.19 Ioh. 20.23 and were not ordinary believers but Elders 1 Pet. 5. See my answer 2. That he rather meant a Church with subordination then a single Independent assembly it is thus covertly argued The notion of a particular Congregation is not agreeable to the Jewish church which you say is here spoken of in the first place but the notion of a Church with distinct judicatories is agreeable to it and these two arguments might incline you to judge that he speaks of the Presbytery and of a Church with distinct judicatories but in your Reply you take no notice of them Sect. 6. Reply p. 89. Though this place be not understood of the people only no nor chiefly as they stand in opposition to their guides yet this place may lawfully be understood of the Congregationall church as it is contradistinct to Classical Provincial National c churches because we have presidents in the Word of God for the one as in the Churches of Jerusalem Corinth Cenchrea c. and rules prescribed to such a Church Act. 6.3 1 Cor. 5.4 c. 11 12 14 16. but of any stated Classicall Provinciall Nationall and Occumenical churches there is deep silence in the Scriptures of the New-Testament no precept for erecting of such and no lawes nor officers provided for churches Christ sends the people to such a Church as hath a charter from heaven Rejoind 1. You implicitely acknowledge that the word Church is not understood only nor chiefly of the people as they stand in opposition to their guides then if a Church have but one guide and he sinne can the Church proceed against him or no 2. You also in saying this place may lawfully be understood of the Congregationall church do imply that there is no necessity it should be so understood 3. All these chapters are cited only to prove two presidents viz. that the Church of Jerusalem and the Church of Corinth were only two particular Congregations and we have fully cleared that the Church of Ierusalem consisted of many assemblies 4. Act. 6.3 will not prove the contrary for 1. That meeting was for the choosing of Officers wherein I suppose you require not the presence of women and children though possibly others of your way do 2. They had severall tables possibly 7. for every Deacon one and not one table only v. 3. The word table is the plurall number now severall tables to receive the collection of one Congregation are neither
know Why do you so strongly assert things and yet leave them naked without the least shew of proof Sect. 2. You Reply p. 17. I Ask what commentator ever sayd that all in every place and Saints in all Achaia expound one another doth 1 Cor. 1.1 compared with 2 Cor. 2.1 Inforce such an exposition you would suggest that he writes to the same Corinthians in the 2. Epistle that he writes to in the first more your scriptures import not and we grant it But the inference you draw is this ergo all in every place and all the Saints in all Achaja are all one a strang consequence If the 2. Epistle be written to the same persons as the first why do ye not expound the subject persons of the second by the subject persons of the first and say though the Saints in all Achaja be mentioned only yet under them the Saints every where in the world are meant Rejoynder 1. I observe you say not no commentator hath sayd so or that you know not any commentator hath sayd so possibly you knew that Reverend and Iudicions Beza Annot in 1 Cor. 1.1 Expounds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est in quavis Achaiae Ecclesia asserting also that though this inscription is made properly and specially to the Corinthians yet next it is writen to the rest of the Churches in all Achaja as appears by the beginning of the 2 Epistle as the Epistle to the Galatians was to all the Churches of that nation for that it is not absolutely Catholâ—que directed to the Churches in all the world appears saith he by the Inscription and matter of the Epistle Thus he 2. I would suggest not only that the 2. Epistle is written to the same Corinthians that the first as you strangely interpret me but that it is written to the same persons as I plainly expressed my self Corinthians or others 3. I have not read any one that makes so loose an interpretation of the Saints in all Achaja 2 Cor. 1.1 As to say that under them the Saints every where in the world are meant for so they might have bin under the name of the Corinthians alone as wel as under the name of the Romans alone Rom. 1.7 Ephesians alone Gal. 1.1 And that the use of them redounds to all the world as wel as to all Achaia against which I have formerly given some reasons to which I add that the Apostle might have said as wel to the Church of Corinth and to all the Saints in Indea if this Epistle had concerned them being a part of the world or any other province as wel as Achaia Sect. 3. Reply p. 17. The Corinthians not the Achaians had written to Paul c. 7 1. And Paul had received sundry reports concerning them not concerning all the Saints in Achaja for the Cenchreaus had not writ to him nor he heard any thing of them that we read of Chap. 1.11 5.1 And hereupon he writes unto them but because this letter might be of common use and profit and especially to the Saints which bordered next upon them therefore he would have the Achajans their neighbours to peruse it yea the Saints every where to read it in both his Epistles he mentioneth the Corinthians as the proper subject thereof the Achajans he mentioneth in one and the Saints every where in another And he brings them in Collaterally rather then directly it is to the Church of Corinth but with all the Saints in all Achaja and with all that in every place as it were on the by And this is Pareus his exposition upon 1 Cor. 1.2 Rejoynder 1. You first presume that the Epistles are written to the Corinthians only which is the thing denyed and then tel us that the Corinthians had written to Paul and he had heard some reports of the Corinthians but it is evident that those he writes to did write to him and that he had received some reports concerning them but that these were only Corinthians and no other Saints in Achaia to whom he writes and which did write to him and concerning whom he had received some reports you cannot evidence 2. I grant there might be some special aym at the Church of Corinth in some things at least rather then any other Church of Achaia possibly in other things other Saints were more aymed at then the Corinthians and doubtless the Churches then could better tell when this Church or that was more specially aimed at by the Apostles then we which are more ignorant of the then state of those Churches can yet your collection is very sleighty and infirm concerning the bringing the Saints in every place and in all Achaia in collaterally rather then directly Do your selves think that he that in his prayer mentioneth Christ and saith To whom with the Father and the holy Ghost be glory doth give glory to God the father and the holy Ghost collaterally rather then directly if you do think so I hope you wil hold him accursed that useth it the phrase is the same the Reader can apply it Sect. 4. When I answer that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 11.20 14.23 may fitly be translated in idipsum for the same and in one you reply p. 18. That the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are conjoyned with with the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 11.20 14.23 and then you say it will not be denyed but that place is principally meant Rejoynder 1. If the Apostle doth write to more Churches then one as is alledged and proved from 1 Cor. 14.34 Then I hope your selves will not interpret this of the identity of place for you hold not as I told you though you blotted it out of my answer that two three or more Churches in the new Testament must consist of no more then may meet in one place 2. You begge the question and would perswade the Reader there is something in the Greek which possibly he understands not to force my assent to your opinion but the words import no more then convenire in unum as the Lords and Commons may be said to do which are but one Parliament though met in two houses and if there be no incongruity of applying the phrase to those which we know do meet in severall places then the Apostle might apply the phrase to the Corinthians though he kn ew that they did meet in severall Assemblies on a day of a publike fast or of thanksgiving all the Churches in Holland yea all in New England may be said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. It is at least very probable that the Church of Corinth it self suppose he write to no more was more then one particular congregation for 1. Not onely Crispus the chief Ruler but many of the Corinthians hearing the Word beleeved and were baptized Act. 18.8 And God told Paul that he had much people in that City v. 10. And Paul tarried there a long time which he would not have done if his
first argument for an universal visible Church The Apostles were universal officers to which an universal visible Church is the adaequate correlative were good if the Apostles had bin universal ordinary officers but they were universal extraordinary officers therefore the Adaequate correlative is an extraordinary universal visible Church I answer 1. I have not heard til now of an extraordinary visible Church which continued til the death of Iohn and then breathed its last 2. If there were then an universal visible Church whether ordinary or extraordinary as to this it matters not it followes necessarily that all those presidents which are brought for Iuda poâ—â—â—â—â—â— Churches in Galatia Asia Iudea do not so much as prove de facto that the Churches then were Independent much less do they prove de jure that then and ever after all Churches ought to be such 3. God hath set Pastors teachers helpes governments which are ordinary officers and offices in the very same Church in which â—e set Apostles Evangelists Prophets extraordinary officers and therefore the same Church doth continue to the end of the world 4. Ordinary Pastors baptized the Corinthians into this universal visible Church for Paul baptized none of them but Crispus and Gajus and the houshold of Stephanus 1 Cor. 1.14 16. with 1 Cor. 12.13 And ordinary Pastors now do baptiz into the same body that ordinary Pastors then did viz. into the universal visible Church as hath bin shewed before therefore the universal visible Church continues to the end of the world 5. The arguments and illustrations I have brought to hold out the universal visible Church do suite all or most of them not only with the Church in the Apostlique times but in after ages 6. Every Apostle was as it were an Eldership of the Churches extraordinarily combined in one man and so one Apostle being an Elder of all Churches had universal authority in all Churches but that so much authority in all the Churches as was to be perpetual should be in the Elders of all the Churches was not temporary or extraordinary but is ever useful and necessary Sect. 2. As for the defect of general Councels c. I answer 1. You seem to assert that that doctrine which supposeth a great defect in Christendome is not to be entertained or is not likely to be the way of God which if true I am sure the Independent way is not likely to be the way of God for that supposeth a far greater defect in Christendome the Churches of Christ far more generally opposing it then the other way 2. There have bin some general representative conventions as the Councel of Nice Ephesus c. The Protestant Churches a great part of this body met at the Synod of Dâ—rt 3. There is nothing intrinsecal to the Church but that they may meet so stil the lets are but extrinsecal viz. division amongst Kings and Countries c. The deadly enmity or great reâ—â—teness of the several nations in which Christians do respectively dwel Had you but one Independent Congegation in England another in Spaiâ— another in Turky you could not gather an assembly or Synod of these Churches though it were never so needful and though you did much desire it as being an ordiâ—â—â— of God yea in that 〈◊〉 suppose you were Presbyterians you could not have so much as a Class and yet such a defect you would esteem your affliction not your sin 4. The fault is not so great as you make it For 1. every Prince and State doth come as neer a general assembly as they can encouraging the Churches within their territories to combine and be as it were one body or Church of Churches 2. That is supream authority to us which is the highest authority we can get pro hic nunc we hold that supream Ecclesiastical power may be in a National or in a Provincial Church if God shut the door of higher appeals and he by his providence and not we through our default do break the line of subordination yea in a particular Church which same thing we hold also of supream civil power that in some necessary cases it may be exercised in one Assembly yea in one Family the same thing might in some cases be said of a Jewish Synagogue when they could not have the benefit of any superior Judicatory 3. A general Councel hath in this last age been desired and endeavoured by sundry famous Christians though in vain 5. If there were such a lawful general Councel we should be as willing to submit to their godly decrees as to follow their advise though the question is not what we would do but what we should do CHAP. X. Of the word Churches whether it evince Independency of Congregations I Omit some things less pertinent and profitable as 1. That the English word Church did anciently signifie the place for the Saxons Germanes Dutch Nations from whence this word is deriued do usually cal their temples or meeting places by the name of Cyrick Kirich Kerck and they cal the people the Gemeine and the Gemeint as is acknowledged by one of your friends Guide to Sion p. 4. Hence our Translators turn the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into Church Acts 19.37 and our meeting places are properly and truly called Churches 2. That Ecclesia commonly translated Church is not necessarily so translated but convocation or a people called oâ—â— though it may be at least metoâ—â—â—mically undâ—â—â—ood of the place of ordinary publick worship as Mr Mede Mr Fuller and of late Mr Bifield do interpret 1 Cor. 11. which ought not to be despised a negative civil reverence being due unto it as to a Court-house Senate-house Parliament-house c. 3. That the words Kaâ—â—l and Gnedah do sometimes signifie a dispersed multitude or company that possibly never did nor could meet together Hence we read of a Church of Nations Gen. 35.11 Church of evil doers Psa 26.5 Church of the dead Prov. 21.16 Church of the righteous Ps 1.5 And the people of Israel though divided into several Domistied Assemblies to keep the Passover are called one Church Exod. 12.46 47. when I urge and prove that usually an Assemby or Coâ—cio is all one with Kahal or Ecclesia and that in this sense there were many Churches amongst the Iews the Scripture cals them Church or Congregation often and sometimes in respect of their several Synagogues Tribes and Families Congregations Psa 74.4.8 No wonder therefore if the Christians of one Country meeting in several Synagogues and houses do receive the dommination of Churches which in Scripture-phrase is all one with assemblies many whereof we confess were in Galatia Macedonia c. You reply p. 26 27. Psa 74.4.8 is impertinently aledged for Congregations there is metonymically used and is all on with Synagogues and signifies the place and not the people at all the Congregation was but one having one high Priest for their chief Pastor though meeting in its parts in many places the Church
2. Any seperation or division that is of God may be brought about without our own inventions The Christians did seperate them-themselves from amongst the Iews and Heathens and the Protestants in Queen Maries days from the Papists and yet without any such vocal express covenant that we read of 3. If such looâ—ness in our Parish-Churches be so great an evil then take you heed you be not guilty of that great evil by making that loosness greater then it is or by Gods law ought to be Is it a greater evil for men that remove their habitation then for those that do not remove it all to depart from their Parish-Church without rendering a reason Is it not a greater evil to add to the commandments of God our own carnal and politick devices and to lay a yoke or covenant on our people which God hath not layd on them for preventing of some inconveniences which Gods law doth not enable us to prevent 2. If there be any local bounds as by Scripture rules hath been shewed there ought to be that inconvenience must necessarily happen but to this I have spoken before Chap. 2. 3. The place in Eph. 2.22 is apparently not meant of a particular Congregation but of the universal Church which is called the City the Houshold the Temple and all the Christians of the particular Church of Ephesus were not the whole City but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fellow-citizens with the Saints not the whole houshold but of the houshold not all the temple or building but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are built together with other Saints and Churches which also are part of the City Temple Houshold building as wel as they 4. in Cor. 12.27 when he had said ye are the body of Christ he corrects himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if he should say ye are not the whole body but members in part of that body and others are part of that body as wel as you for into it both Jews and Gentiles are baptized v. 13. viz. into the universal Church and in this sense these Scriptures do not serve your purpose and therefore you say but not rightly that a particular Church is there compared to a body and an house 5. Your selves I know hold not that Church-membership is as in dissolvable as the members of a natural body are one from another which are not separated without ruine of the part separating if not of the whole body nor can that member be willingly separated from its body or joyned with any good effect to another body CHAP. XIII Whether Deut. 29. or Gen. 17. be presidents of a Church-Covenant Sect. 1. THe Covenant in Deut. 29.1.10 11 12. respects Reply p. 39. principally Church-duties more then other duties of the moral law v. 16 17 18. for he warns them of Heathenish worships and would engage them by an holy Covenant to all Gods holy worships of the Passover and all the offerings of Gods prescription which were to be brought to the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation though a Covenant binding to some duties of the moral law may be made by two or three persons of several Churches and yet not make them members of a distinct Church yet if they Covenant to walk together in the constant enjoyment of all Church-ordinances this would change their state and make them a Church Rejoyn 1. Those verses contain in them Moses admonition and exhortation to the people v. 10. Ye stand this day all of you before the Lord your God v. 12. that thou should'st enter into Covenant with the Lord thy God and into his oath which he maketh with thee this day c. that they should not serve the gods of Aegypt or of other Nations least there should be amongst them man or woman or family or tribe whose heart turneth away from God but there is not the least mention of Passover or other Church-duties which you say that Covenant did engage them to and therefore it doth not appear by those verses that the Covenant more principally respects Church-duties more then other duties of the moral law some part of the moral law is mentioned and interpreted viz. the first Commandment but nothing spoken of Church-membership Every particular servant of God ought to take heed of Heathenish worships which is there required and not a Church only I appeal to you may not ought not every man woman family or tribe to use the words of v. 18. make a Covenant with God that he she or they wil not turn away from the Lord to go and serve the gods of the nations as Jacob covenanted for himself Gen. 28.21 and Ruth cap. 1.16 and Joshuah for himself and his house Josh 24.15 May not any two or three amongst us covenant that they wil keep the first Commandment which in this text is paraphrased on Thou shalt have no other Gods before me viz. not the abominations of Aegypt nor their idols v. 17. of some duties sealing their union and communion with the body of the Jewish Church and celebrated when the whole body was assembled I find mention in your book but not in the book of God in the place cited 3. Suppose it true that persons covenanting to walk together in all Church-ordinances which God requires of a Church would make them a Church and change their state yet it is not to the point for the question is whether two or three of several Christian Churches covenanting in the very words of v. 16 17 18. on which you build That their hearts should not turn away from the Lord their God to go to serve other gods or that they would not serve or worship images would this make them one Church together And if it do not how can you say this was a Church-Covenant 4. This was not an express vocal Covenant on the peoples part which you are to prove necessary to the wel-being of the Church for it was made with them that were absent as wel as with them that were present now they that were absent however they were included did not could not if they that were present did make a solemn express verbal Covenant Mr Cottons opinion you shal hear hereafter Sect. 2. When I answer that a Covenant in general doth not make a Church nor a marriage and that Scripture-Covenants are not with appropriation and application to this Pastor or people viz. that they would serve with this people or Pastor rather then with that therefore they are not Church-Covenants You reply page 40. Who ever read or heard of a Covenant in general of duties to be done without application to persons mutually engaged to perform such duties The Covenants in Scripture were no such Covenants they were applied to Israel and to the Gentiles that should joyn to Israel and so they were a separated people from other nations by Covenant Exod. 12.47 48. The Jews by the Covenant of God were to serve God rather with this people then with that Rejoyn 1. You
put for the temple and the people that repaired thither and assembled there and so for the Church of the Jewes which consisted of many assemblies and yet was but one Church and the Temple was but one which was called Sion and so Sion was but one But in the times of the Gospel there were to be no visible temples where God would dwell but the visible Church 2 Cor. 6.16 and the visible Church is Congregationall not Nationall much lesse Vniversall as hath been proved therefore the Congregationall Church is Sion the speciall place of Gods presence Rejoynd 1. A question of names and words is of no great moment yet in opposition to that which is most common with Congregational men yea with confessed Heretiques and Schismatiques to call each of their Congregations by the name of Sion which in their sense imports that it is an entire visible church Independent of any Ecclesiastical judicature and that the greatest presence of God is there to be found and that combination of many Sions is unnecessary yea sinfull I truly observed that there was but one Sion in the Old and New Testament and that the Scripture warrants not the expression of an hundred or a thousand Sions 2. The Temple is one expression and Sion another the Scripture may yea doth acknowledge many temples of God not many Sions every Christian is a temple not a Sion yet if you do betake your selves into the temple I will follow you thither rnd fetch you thence 3. The visible Church in 2 Cor. 6.16 is not called a temple but every Christian in whom the spirit of God dwels 1 Cor. 3.16 yea his body is the temple of the Holy Ghost 1 Cor. 6.20 even that body which may be joyned to an harlot which is especially sinned against and abused by fornication viz. his naturall body as Christ called his naturall body a temple Joh. 2.19 and that body which might be unequally yoked with unbelievers 2 Cor 6.6 one way whereof was by unequall marriages and of it the Apostle chiefly speaks and not of any visible Church or Society as such 4. It hath been shewed that the visible Church may not only be Congregationall but Nationall yea that there is an universall visible Church And in Ephes 2.20 21 22. which your selves interpret of the visible Church the Church of Ephesus is not said to be the whole city house or temple but to be built together with other Churches and Christians and all the building groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord. Of this temple all the Churches to which Peter writes 1 Pet. 1.1 are living stones not so many living temples 1 Pet. 2. Thus many Nations shall in the day of the Gospel be joyned to the Lord and shall be Gods people and he will dwell amongst them Zach. 2.11 so Antichrist is said to sit in the temple of God viz. in the Church universall 2 Thess 2.2.4 See also Rev. 11.1 and Mr. Cotton Keyes p. 56. saith The new Jerusalem is many particular churches combined all which are yet but one city one tabernacle Rev. 21. Sect. 2. Reply p. 71. Yet this hinders not but that the language of the Old Testament when it speaks of things of the New Testament may be used in the Old Testament yea in the New also as in Zach. 14. 19. Isa 66.20 21. So in Isa 4 5. we may as well read of the assemblies of Sion though there be no such thing but each assembly is Sion as of the feast of tabernacles when in the dayes of the Gospel there is no such thing but it is spoken by way of allusion because Sion was then but one it is spoken of as one still and yet it is more then one Rejoynd 1. That the language of the Old Testament may be used in the Old Testament or in the New is not denied yet it is considerable if the word Sion be read perhaps two or three hundred times in the Scriptures and never taken for one particular Independent congregation as you frequently use it if you could find Sions in the plurall number you would judge it to be a justification of your appropriating the word to a particular assembly and full as good an argument for the Congregational way as the terme Churches which you say though untruly is not found in the Jewish church 2. If you can prove it to be as ceremoniall that Sion should consist of many assemblies as that the feast of tabernacles should be kept and the one be as evidently abrogated as the other then you say something or otherwise it is nothing If a man should endeavour to prove from Isa 4.5 that the Church should be at least one assembly you would not sure stop his mouth with the feast of tabernacles Now if I alledge that there shall be assemblies of Sion in the New Testament I suppose you can find no ceremony in the plurality of the number 3. That there is but one Sion is the language yea the constant unchanged language of the New as well as of the Old Testament yea when it is applied to the Christian church and no example there is to the contrary but the feast of tabernacles is not constantly not frequently not once that I remember applied to Christian worship in the New-Testament and therefore the case is not alike though you make itso Sect. 3. Reply p. 72. Now that there are many mount Sions your self do really confesse We know you hold 1. That the Church of the Jewes was called Sion 2. That the visible Church in the dayes of the Gospel is Sion is it not manifest therefore that you hold that look how many visible Churches there are in the times of the Gospel so many Sions there are You say the Hebrews which were divided into many Congregations are said to be come to one mount Sion If so then the Congregation of Christian Gentiles may be called another mount Sion Rejoynd 1. All this doth not so much as prove though it confidently affirms much more that there is two Sions one in the Old Testament and another in the New The Jewish church and the Christian notwithstanding may be but one Church one Sion though under a different state and condition 2. I hold not there are as many Sions as particular visible Churches but you grossely misunderstand my words A believing Jew and a believing Gentile may be you will acknowledge of one particular Congregation and so of one Sion much more may I say that they both may come to one mount Sion yea many people all nations may flow unto it Isa 2. â— 3. I never said nor thought that the Hebrews did come to one mount Sion and Christian Gentiles to another but all to one You see you are far enough from proving what you would have us believe that every particular assembly of Sion Isa 4.5 is a distinct Sion 3. Whereas you ask what greater absurdity it is to say there are an hundred Sions then to say
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
of all the other six Churches did endeavor the casting out of these Balaamites c. why were they then not cast out Could the Elders of Pergamus over-vote the Elders of the neighouring churches in a Synod and if all or the major part of the Elders of the 7 Churches did neglect why are the Elders of Pergamus only reproved Rejoynd I pray you tell us whether the words The spirit saith to the Churches doth prove that only one Church and not Churches are spoken to by the spirit 2. Whereas you suppose I mean the other sixe churches of Asia and tell of a common combined Presbytery amongst them all Episcopall men make each of those Churches an Episcopall Sea having other Churches under it's jurisdiction and you fancy to bring them all under one combined Presbytery both which are extreams had I meant either of them I could have so expressed my selfe I meant only churches in the same sense that the text means and determined not what that meaning may bee but say once again if it could bee proved from Rev. 2.8 that the Epistle directed to the Angel of the Church of Ephesus was of immediate concernment to one Church then it may bee thence proved that it is of immediate concernment to churches sic de caeteris v. 11.17 and one is as cleer as the other and your selves I hope mean not to contradict the sacred Text whatsoever be the meaning of it 3. Mr. Brightman a godly learned man doth conceive that each of those seven churches did typifie one or more Nationall Churches for instance Laodicea doth typifie England Philadelphia in which the spirit of God finds nothing reprehensible Scotland Geneva c. each of which have severall Congregationall Churches within their combination 4. My thoughts I shall deliver in these propositions 1. The Church of Ephesus did consist of more congregations then one I evince it first by the muâ—titude of beleevers there Paul continuing Preaching there for the space of three years Act. 20.31 God gave special successe to his Ministry so that many beleeved and there were many also which used curious Arts who brought their books and burned them before all men the price of which was 50000. pieces of silver so mightily grew the Word of God and prevailed Act. 19.18 19 20. and a great and effectuall dore was opened to him 1 Cor. 16.8 9. 2. By the number of Elders Act. 20.17 the terme All being again and again given them v. 36 37. Paul setled there about twelve disciples which Prophesied Act. 19.1.6.7 and doubtlesse in any single Congregation many Elders and Prophets especially in those times of extraordinary gifts could not finde imployment The second Proposition is that the Church of Ephesus had but one Presbytery Rev. 2.1 Act. 20.17 28. The third Proposition is that congregations and assemblies are in Scripture phrase called Churches so the Jewish Church which unquestionably was but one is called Churches as hath been shewed and the severall assemblies were ruled by one Presbytery and so the meaning of this place is that the spirit speaketh not only to the Angell of the Church of Ephesus but to the severall assemblies of the Church As Church and city do expound one another so there was but one Church comprising all the Christians within Ephesus if they were 40000. as Church and Assembly doe explain one another so they were many churches 10.20.30 it may bee and your selves will acknowledge that if this bee true of Ephesus it may bee true of Smyrna Pergamus c. that they also consisted of more Congregations then one though perhaps it bee not so evident 5. Your large discourse to prove that the seven Churches were not under a common combined Presbyterie is not only impertinent for no one holds that opinion that I know but also in part insufficient if it were to any purpose I could discover the weaknesse of it but I shall take notice only of your last thing Sect. 3. Reply p. 104. The sad condition of Presbyterian churches is such that if wicked men bee suffered in any congregation in the world all the churches in the world are guilty of it for the same obligation that lies upon a classicall church to reform the congregation lyes upon a Provinciall church to reform the classis upon the Nationall to reform the Provinciall Synod upon the Oecumenicall to reform the Nationall though inferior churches should faile the Oecumenicall should see it reformed and if the Oecumenicall faile all the churches of the world are guilty Rejoynd 1. That there is or ought to be the same obligation in all respects between all the Churches in the world as there is between the Churches of a Nation Province or Classis I never asserted but the contrary why then do you let such a proposition as this go naked without any proof What are all the Churches in the world guilty if wicked men be suffered in any particular Congregation and doth Presbyterianisme bring such guilt Oh if you wrong it and the glorious Churches of God what can you answer when they rise up against you at that Day 2. If the Angel of the Church of Thyatyra suffer that woman Jezabel God will indeed cast them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation but the rest in Thyatyra as many as have not this doctrine and which have not known the depths of Sathan be will lay upon them no other burden but to hold fast what they have already Rev. 2.22.24 but you it seems will lay upon them the burden of all those fornications idolatries seductions impenitencies which any of those with whom they were in communion were guilty of though they mourned for it and laboured to amend it but could not 3. The faithfull in Pergamus are said to hold fast Gods name and not deny his faith and yet they had amongst them such as held the doctrine of Balaam and of the Nicolaitans which did not hold fast Gods name and faith Rev. 2.13.14 Dare you say that the godly and orthodox were guilty of these abominations because they were comembers with them of the same church 4. If one of your Church be a Brownist whose errors the five Apologists call fatall shipwracks or an Anabaptist which goes beyond the Brownists or hold some other error or is fit to be cast out for some sinne do you hold your selves guilty of that error or sinne though you should do your best to reform them or to cast them out and could not do it And if a member of a particular Church may be guiltlesse of the sinnes of his fellow-members yea of the Churches suffering wicked men if he do the duty of his place against them then why I pray you may not a particular Church be guiltlesse of the sins of other Churches 5. The externall impediments why an Oecumenical church cannot meet you have heard before If an English-man should be taken prisoner in Turkie and cannot return shall he be guilty of all the