taken it includes both 2. The word Church in Acts 20. is but distinguished only from Elders not from all the officers and from feeding not ruling Elders for that the ruling Elders are said to be made Bishops by the holy Ghost is not probable 3. Phil. 1.1 wil prove that there were Saints in Philippi distinct from Bishops and Deacons but not that they were a Church without them much less that they were a Church properly so called Lastly If you can shew by Scripture that any company of people without officers did or ought to exercise church-Church-power or that they might receive in or cast out members our of the Church it shal suffice we wil not contend about names nor wil the name of the Church avail if this power cannot be proved by Scripture CHAP. XVI Of Election of Ministers and other officers Sect. 1. Reply p. 47. THe Position saith not that a particular Congregation hath full and free power without seeking the help of advise and direction of a Synod Classis or Presbytery but without the authoritative help thereof Rejoyn 1. Then you allow both that there should be Synods Classes and Presbyteries and that they should be advised with about election prove you that any Congregation did ask or seek the direction or advice of any Synod Classis or Presbytery in election of officers which you press as a duty and holy ordinance and I will shew you that they used authoritative help of a Synod Classis c. 2. I approve your approbation of Mr Cottons modesty in not taking on him hastily to censure the many notable presidents of ancient and latter Synods which have put forth the acts of power in ordination c. Which Author though he speak not expresly of election yet if acts of power may be put forth in another Congregation in one thing they may be put out in another 3. When I say we hold it a priviledg of the people especially if they proceed wisely and piously to elect their officers 1. You vainly ask Reply p. 47. What people Is it a people-priviledg or a Church-previledg to choose Ecclesiastical officers R. You are too willing to contend Scripture warrants me to cal un-officed men Church-members or others by the name of people Heb. 7.5 and your selves p. 59. yea in the last line of this very page use the same word in the same sense which you quarrel at that a Church viz. a company of people knit together by express publick covenant or agreement hath the only power of choosing officers I put you to prove 4. You ask What if they do not proceed wisely and piously is their priviledg lost Would it then be no injury to intrude any officer on them Is the priviledge of a Church-officer or Master of a family lost if he use it not wisely and piously Must they not be directed and exhorted to use it rightly and the priviledg remaine still with him we have Junius of our mand Rejoyn Then I conceive the Presbyters ought to keep the charge of the Lord and not to ordain hastily though the people should elect suddenly 1 Tim. 5.22 Least they should be partakers of other mens sins viz. of that unwise and ungodly Election 2. A master of a family may rule his house so unwisely and impiously that his priviledge of Governing it yea his liberty and his life may by the Magistrate be taken away from him A Church officer your selves assert may be censured yea deposed for unwise and ungodly managing his trust 3. Your selves hold not I suppose that it is the priviledge of the people to have an unwise and ungodly election confirmed but rather an injury to them 4. The Church of Boston in New England did chuse or would have chosen a notorious familist to have been co-teacher with Mr C. would you have the Elders to have ordeined him or the Synod to have approved him 5. If you grant that whensoever a people do chuse unwisely and ungodlity the Presbytery or Synod should oppose and refuse to ordain them and that without such ordination they may not lawfully officiate it is enough as to my present purpose and this at least if not more you seem to grant by equalling the case of a Church mis-electing to the case of a Mr of a family or a Church-officer mis-governing both which may loose their priviledg and power by a. busing it especially for a time til they be more wise Sect 2. I ingenuously confess I have always and stil do in my opinion and practise propend that people should elect their Minister they being thereby engaged the more to love and obey him and his cal to them made more unquestionable yet the Scriptures you bring though as I conceive as perument as any other and your defence of them upon the matter as strong as the cause wil suffer are unsatisfactory to me To your first text I answered that it is likely that Assembly was not a body politick but occasional only no part of Church-government being as yet on foot here were not all but some of the sounder members of the Jewish Church and they had no commission to separate from the Jews before Act. 2.44 The company was not without Elders The Apostles if not the 70 were present all the Churches and Elders that were at that time in the world were present in respect whereof it may be called an acumenical councel The Apostles being Elders of all Churches rather then a particular Congregation If there had been any more Elders and Churches they must have convened upon that occasion to choose an Apostle who is a Pastor of all Churches The choise was limied by the Apostle Peter 1. To the persons present 2. To those that had accompanied the Apostles all the time that the Lord Jesus went and out amongst them and by God the director of the lot to whom properly the election of an Apostle doth belong to Matthias You reply p. 48.1 There is a contradiction if they were but the sounder parts of the Jewsh Church then they were not a Christian Church and if no Christian Church how were the Apostles Elders of it how was it an â—cumenical Councel the Churches and Elders in all the world being present Rejoyn I do not at all contradict my self for 1. To he Christian and to be the sounder members of the Jewish Church was then all one 2. The Apostles being members of the then Iewish Church hinders not but that they might be Elders of all the Churches in the world as Christ was a member of the Jewish Church yet head of the whole Church Christian or Jewish in several respects 3. If you wil have it to be a Christian Church as you affirm it was liker to a general Councel then a particular Congregation You further reply 1. Is there not some mistake in point of truth There were added to them 3000 souls to them to whom To those who were yet members of the Iewish Church then these
to Officiate in Gal. 2.9.2 Cor 10.13.14.15.16 as souldiers and watchmen of any regiment to which Ministers 1. Tim 2.3 Isa 62.6 are compa'rd have their severall wards limits and gates which they looke to and take care of yet so as they all are the Souldiers and Watchmen of the whole city and ministers may teach and Governe severall congregations in common by consent of all parties Interessed if it shal be found most for their edification as it is in some reformed churches at this day for all Ministers and officers of the Church are given to the whole church for the gathering and building of it 1. cor 12.28 Ephes 4.11.12 and they are to teach and rule and performe all ministrations with reference to it and the best advantage of it And yet that I may prevent an usuall objection there is difference enough between Apostles and Ordinary Elders for the Apostles were to teach and rule not onely Churches and Flocks but Pastors and Ministers also being men of an higher Order 1 Cor. 12.28 Eph. 4.11 they were immediately called of God Gal 1.1 Infallible in their Doctrine Gal. 1.7.8 5.2 endowed with extraordinary gifts Act 2.1 2 8.18 were enjoyned ordinarily to travell abroad to plant Churches Math 28.19 they might act authoritatively any where without a call or consent and might shake of the dust of their feet against such Ministers or others as did not receive them Math. 10.14 their Commission was irrepealable their limits were large Gal. 2.9 one Apostle had authority over all the Churches whether he were present or absent But a Minister is not of an higher order nor hath power over his fellow-Fellow-Ministers nor hath an immediate unrepealable call is not infallible nor in these times extraordinarily gifted he cannot act authoritatively either in an ordinary or occasionall way either inpreaching administring the sacraments or the like without the call or consent of persons Interested 6. You cannot shew any one Elder that was ordeined by those that were only of that particular congregation where he was to officiate byvertue of the said ordination Sect. 5. Lastly if it be unlawfull for unofficed men to ordaine then at least in case a congregation have no Elders the Elders of other congregations must ordaine Elders there or else they can have no ordination without sinfull surpation of Presbyterian Power now for the unlawfullness of unofficed men's ordination of Elders consider first what ordination is It is the solemne setting apart of a Person to a publike church-office so it was voted in the Assembly nemine contradicente or it is in Scripture phrase an appointment of men over some church-business Act 6.3 Imposition of hands the usuall and most approved ceremony of ordination notes 1. a visible designation of persons to be in office 2. a separation of them to God in that office or work Act. 13.1.3 Rom. 1.1.3 a putting of that worke and service upon them as laying hands on the sacrifices did put sin upon them 4. A benediction of them that their labor may be to the glory of God and good of the Church 5. a signification to them in Gods name that his hand is with them in all that they doe in his name and by his Authority to guid strengthen and protect them 2. Let us consider who hath the power and Authority to ordaine viz. Officres only for first The Apostles which did where ever they came leave the Elders and people to the exercise of that right which belonged to them did not leave to non-Elders the power of ordaining though it had been much easier to have writ to the churches that they should ordaine their own Elders then to have come themselves as Act. 14.23 or to have sent Timothy or Titus for that purpose 1. Tim. 5.22 Tit. 1.5 2dly There can no Instance no not one be given in all the New Testament of any Officer upon whom an unofficed man did impose hands in ordaining him 3. They that do ordaine do put some of their worke upon the person ordained but Preaching Baptizing c. Is it not the worke of any non-officed men 4. He that ordaines blesseth him that is ordained and without all contradiction the less is blessed of the greater Heb. 7.7.5 Ordination vou confess is an Act of authority but non-officed men have no rule or authority Cotton Keyes p. 5.6 The two Brethren in their answer to Mr. Herle page 48. do allow that a Church wanting Elders may request the Elders of other Churches to ordaine Elders for her and they that are so requested have a calling to come 7. Your selves say p. 110. It is essentiall that ordination be done by the right Subjectum capax of that ordinance and alledge 1 Tim. 4.14 laying on of hands of the Presbytery Tit. 1.5 Act. 14.23 to which I add Act. 6.2.6 13.1.2.1 Tim. 5.22 2. Tim. 2.2 which texts do not only prove that Ordination is to be done by the right Subjectum capax but also that Elders are that Subjectum capax 8. their being deputed by a Congregation or not deputed varies not the case till it be made to appeare that though no other non-Officer may ordain yet the Church may lawfully depute a man and a man so deputed may lawfully ordaine Where hath the Congregation any charter for this Sect. 6. When I alledge that you tell us that it is a maine Pillar of Popery to proportion the church now to the outward policy in Israell and that Christs faithfullness above Moses consists in as full determination of Gods worship in the New Testament as in the old that we are as strictly tied to the Gospell Patterne as the Jewes were to the old Testament you reply p. 55. The foundation of the Antichristian Hierarchy is laid in the proportion betwixt the Iewish policy the policy of the christian church yet use may be made of the Old Testament where the new is silent do not you conclude Infants must be baptised not because the new expresly saith so but because you find in the old Testament that Infants were circumcised Rejoyn 1. Then the foundation of the Antichristian hierarchy and of Popular ordination is one and the same viz. the proportion between the Iewish church and the christian 2. Your selves confess that the New Testament is not silent in this matter for it shewes say you p. 110 that ordination must be done by the right subjectum capax of it of which I spake in the next precedent Section 3. The covenant of grace to which the controversie of Paedobaptisme hath reference is the same in the old and new Testament but ordination is an Act of Government and policy and you tell us p. 86. That Christ hath not appointed the Iewish Church in matters of Government to be a Patterne to Gospel Churches but that they should be conformed to spirituall Patterns and Precepts left by Christ and his Apostles amongst which this is not to be found that the people may ordaine 4.
abhominate Anarchy which is far worse then tyranny These four or five years hath brought forth more blasphemies heresies errors schismes phrensies strong delusions proceeding from the spirit of lying and giddinesse then four or five Ages before And also that you should abhominate popular usurpation of Church-government which God did abhominate in Corah Dathan and Abiram and their congregation and did severely punish as also he did the men of Bethshemesh 1 King 6. for but looking into the Ark. 2. To say that Presbyteriall government implies usurpation of exorbitant ecclesiasticall domination is a bearing false witnesse against the Reformed churches of Scotland France Holland c. and tends to exasperate the Civil Magistrate against them as usurpers of undue power And the same may much more truly be said of Independnt churches Sect. 3. When I answer that Diotrophes being but one was liker to a Prelate then a Presbytery yet S. John doth not blame him simply for accepting or having preheminence or for taking upon him to answer in behalf of the Church to which S. John writ or for taking to him the power of commanding forbidding excommunicating but for loving preheminence as Mat. 23.6 7. for not receiving the Apostles and brethren and prohibiting what he should have required and encouraged and excommunicating such as were the best members of the Church You reply 1. p. 82. Brother a horse in the abstracted notion of unity being but one is liker a Prelate then a Presbytery which are many but Prelacie doth not consist in unity but in usurpation of undue unscripturall power over their brethren A Classicall Presbyterie may be as like to Diotrophes as a Prelate 't is alike if not equally Prelaticall when fourteen or fifteen exercise a Jurisdictional power over their brethren as when one man doth exercise it in two or three severall Counties Rejoynd What mean you Brother a horse It s well you said not an Asse Let us be grave and serious Though Prelacie do not consist in unity yet in a Prelate unity and usurpation meet together so they do not in an horse 2. Prelacie in the most usuall sense and in the sense of our Nationall Covenant is neerer to Monarchical then to Aristocratical government so also in the sense of the Reformed Churches and the old godly Nonconformists which did not esteem Presbyterian government to be Prelatical 3. You jump notably with the Malignants which say that a Parliament may be as tyrannicall as a King and when answer is made that it cannot be thought that a Community will destroy it self they reply Yes a Representative kingdome may endeavour to destroy the Collective and then the power is in the body of the people and you mutato nomine say little lesse And no wonder if you should as some do speak as expresly against representative Civil as Ecclesiastical judicatories seeing many Independents have the undoubted marks of reall malignancie upon them viz. they have as truly laboured to divide the Kingdomes to divide the King and his people to make divisions in Parliament City and Kingdome to nourish and foment those divisions to hinder help from Ireland to retard the work of Reformation as Canterbury and Strafford did to pick and pack Parliament-men for their purpose and to awe his Majesties liege people by an Army to the destruction both of priviledge of Parliament and liberty of the Subject 4. You told us p 47. That you did approve of Mr. Cottons modesty who would not hastily censure ancient and latter Synods for putting forth acts of power in Ordination and Excommunication Surely now you may say what I when I search and try my own wayes find cause to say Video meliora proboque deteriora sequor Is the preserving the government and discipline of Scotland preserving of Prelacie Is setting Presbyterian government the reviving of Prelacie Are all the Reformed churches all the old Nonconformists save you and the Brownists Anabaptists Familists Prelatical Are they covenanted against and ought each in his place endeavour their utter extirpation Doctor Ames saith The Reformed Churches of France have their association and combination without any Hierarchy Fresh suit against Cerem p. 91 Which is as much as to say without any Prelacie 5. May a Classical Presbyterie exercise undue unscripturall power over their brethren and in that capacity be as like to Diotrophes as a Prelate and may not a Congregation in that respect be as like to Diotrephes as a Classical Presbyterie for she may also exercise undue unscripturall power as the Church of Roterodam did in deposing her Minister and every Congregation doth that doth depute a Non-Elder to Ordain for the Scripture gives not a Church of believers that power and when a Non-Elder doth ordain a Pastor he is Prelatical in the highest degree For first one man ought not to ordain a Minister but a company 1 Tim. 4.14 Act. 13.1 2.2 They that ordain Elders should themselves be first ordained Elders which he is not Also when a Congregation without officers do exercise the power of the Keyes she is Prelatical yea super-Prelatical for the Prelate by office as a Presbyter hath some power of the Keyes which Non-Elders have not and the Prelate had Presbyters to assist in ordination of Ministers and to joyn in Imposition of hands which somtimes in Congregational churches is not observed 5. I need not tell you of some of N.E. which call their godly Ministers Baals Priests Popish factors Scribes Pharisees Legal preachers persecutors and the Church of Boston there the whore and strumpet of Boston as well as you call us Prelaticall Nor need I to tell you that extraordinary courses may be taken in extraordinary cases and that some things are necessary to be done when Reformation is in fieri that are not fit when it is in facto esse But I must needs minde you that I shewed in my Epistle before the Quares which you pretend to answer the differences between Prelatical and Presbyterian government which though you did not take so much notice of it as to transcribe it nor can the Reader of your books perceive that there was any such thing in it yet because it is safe for the Reader it shall not be tedious to me to repeat it for the further clearing of that Government from the aspersion of Prelacie In the Prelatical government the Prelate onely called and counted himself a Bishop a name common to Elders Act. 20.17.28 Tit. 1.5.7 he challenged Ecclesiastical jurisdiction above his fellow-fellow-Ministers to belong to him as a man of a higher rank challenged to one what doth belong to a Colledge did not associate Congregations but subjugate them to him and himself would be subject to no Presbytery he made the Cathedral and mother-mother-Church superior in power to the rest but the Presbyterian way is a social way as between friends confederates brethren where all judge and all are judged all things done communi Presbyterorum consilio where no Congregation is above another
act with the Key of power wherein only he resembles a Magistrate or to exercise jurisdiction in any other That he is at all times and cases fixed to such a circuit but as a Colonel Captain c which possibly somtimes may be the governour of such such a castle defender of such a country c. or any Martial commander may do acts of government whereever his Camp removes so may he do his office by your own confession wheresoever his Congregation is present but a Magistrate may not do justice no not to his own citizens no more then to strangers out of his liberties 2. Acts of justice and judgement by Majors or other Magistrates our of their territories are not only unlawfull but null in Law but sure you hold not that if a Minister preach in another congregation by vertue of office baptize administer the Sacraments Ordain or the like that those acts are altogether null and void as if they had not been baptized or ordained and that they ought to be rebaptized or reordained Lastly the County-Magistrates power is bounded by expresse laws or orders of the King or State but you can shew no Divine Law for the bounding of a Minister to a particular assembly yea whether there be any such laws or no is the question which you must not beg Reply p. 116. We grant that not one only of another Church but two three six eight which it may be are the whole Church may be received to the holy Communion but we demand who shall recommend them and without recommendation they cannot orderly be received or suppose they commend themselves they are now swallowed up in the fellowship of the other Church and counted pro tempore members of it and have not the consideration of a distinct church And though it be lawfull for a Minister to dispense the Sacrament to them with his own people yet not lawfull to go forth from his own people and give it to them alone If a whole Town should come and live in another Town they might have the justice of that Town from the Magistrate which cannot dispense justice to them abiding in their own place Rejoynd 1. If you grant that a Pastor may administer the Sacrament to another Church comming into his assembly as you say you do then first May not a Pastor and his Church upon some occasion go to the meeting-place of another Church and there perform the same ministeriall acts by consent of all parties interessed as he may do if that other Church come to his Churches meeting-place Doth the place make any difference in your opinion Secondly May a Pastor if his flock be present administer the Sacrament to another Church which possibly may be an hundred times bigger then his own and may he not if his flock be absent doth the presence of his church add so much to his power over another church Sure these things are gratis dicta without Scripture without reason 2. As for recommendation I answer first M. Cotton the Elders of N.E. as I shewed before yield another way of communicating betwixt Churches besides Recommendation so that this barre is needlesse and untrue if they must be Judges Secondly if Recommendation be so needfull for a whole Churches communicating with another Church it may be had from its officers from other neighbour-churches or from members of that church to which they come and joyn which are able to testifie of them Thirdly whereas you suppose they may commend themselves this is of all other reliefs the weakest as good as nothing a meer formality sure Recommendation with you is very needfull that must be thus patched up rather then wanted when it is thus helpt out it stands you in great stead 3. As for comming of one Church to another I rejoyn first If they communicate with this other church by vertue of communion of churches they must needs be considered as a distinct church Communion is at least between two and imports plurality and distinction betwixt the parties Identity destroyes communion which consists in the conveniencie or agreement of persons or things in aliquo tertio and not in a coalescencie of them in one Secondly whatsoever they are counted howsoever considered by you this temporary fellowship makes them not indeed one church with that they communicate with Your way of constituting churches and your everlasting covenant Cottons Way p. 104. wild noc brook such an easie and interchangeable putting together into one and parting again of churches your considering them as one then when they are not such is the error of your Conceptus and salves not the matter in hand in this case deny it if you can A Minister acts ministerially to another church and now you have brought two churches together in communion let me enquire May not their Elders act in common to both are the Eldert of either suspended in this conjunction and if so of which are they that are to be suspended and why not a third and a fourth church come to them after the same manner and the Elders of all joyn interests in ruling what will lack to make up here a Classis or Presbyterie of many churches Thus you are unawares comming into our tents Thirdly by this you plainly teach a Minister acts not ministerially but in the presence of his Congregation and the authoritativenesse of his acting and lawfulnesse of his authoritative acts depends on their being assembled with him But first it is the presence of Christ which gives authority and efficacy to his Ministry Mat. 18.20 which is promised to him alway and with no such limitation Mat. 28.20 Secondly some Ministeriall acts are required of him in private Jam. 5.14 2 Tim. 2.15 1 Tim. 4.13 14 15 16. He is to charge privately the people that they live not inordinately Cottons keyes p. 21 22. and he may act authoritatively in a Synod of churches where his Church is not collectively which is your sense present Of the difference as to this between a Magistrate and a Minister see Sect. 12. Reply p. 117. The Scripture alloweth the recommendation of the members of one Church to another Rom. 16.1 2 Cor. 3.1 But can you produce any place where the Minister of one church hath acted ministerially in another church Rejoynd 1. Neither of the places you cite for recommendation of members mentions any thing of meer members but both speak of officers Phaebe in Rom. 16.1 is termed a servant of the Church Mr. Cotton calls her a Deaconesse of that church Way p. 103. Keys p. 17. And that in 2 Cor. 3.1 speaks of Paul himself as not needing recommendation to or from them as do other teachers for of such he had immediately before discoursed c. 2. ult and much in this Epistle the Apostle useth this collation as c. 10. 11. 2. Your demand annexed should in equity and correspondency to your own attestation be Can you produce one place where the Ministers of one church are recommended to another And this I can though your places for Members recommendation be not found and may as strongly therefore inferre their acting ministerially in other churches upon their recommendation to them as you with Mr. Cotton conclude for the communicating of members in other churches from such supposed recommendation of them thereunto See for the recommendation of Ministers 2 Cor. 8.16 18 19 22 23. Act. 15.22 25 26 27 32. Col. 4.7 8 10 11. Ephes 6.21 22. Phil. 2.19 20 21. and your own place 2 Cor 3.1 Sect. 4. When I produce Mr. M. Mr. T. granting that Elders have a power to ordain Elders in other churches by request of that church where the Elders are to be ordained You reply p. 117. Not by their own proper right not as Elders or Officers but as of better gifts and greater abilities and their power is derived to them from those congregations which entreat them if they acted as officers then they might act without entreaty for entreaty makes them not officers and if they were officers before entreaty is not needfull to enable them Rejoynd This reason is not good 1. A man may be intreated to do that which he hath office and authority to do Act. 16.9 2 Cor. 8.4 with 19. Mar. 9.23 2. When there is an office and calling to do a work there is requisite on the part of them to or for whom it is to be done a consent and whether it be signified in the form of an intreaty or otherwise is nothing materiall In censures you give some proper power to the Elders and yet require the peoples consent in passing them In this matter of Ordination you hold the Churches consent necessary though their own Elders did transact it and their acting therein you will grant to be authoritative 3. You say the same of Elders acting in their own congregations therefore the Elders deriving power from the Church is no hindrance but that they may have it from Christ to another congregation upon their request as to their own 4. Let me ask you 1. How can the Church according to you delegate its power to persons out of it self 2. Whether is this act of deriving power to the Elders of another church an act of authority or no If it be then the Church acts authoritatively to persons of another church and if the Church may why may not also the Ministers If it be not then the Ordination performed by them is either done by no authority or by an authority underived from the church to which they are intreated 5. If the Church may derive power to Elders of another church in point of Ordination why may she not translate it to the Elders of two three or four churches why not to a classis of Elders and why not her interest in other acts of power as well as this You haue thus a power to become Presbyterians with us if you will You further reply p. 117. And if they act as officers in another congregation then they may in all congregations R. So they may act in any positis omnibus requisitis ad agendum but they act not formally as officers of another congregation but as officers of the same classical provincial or national church and as joyned in government with that church Part of this and the whole 35. Chapter of the Preaching of gifted men Waits a farther occasion FINIS
such there have been besides And it was accounted an high happiness to have liberty to make such a Church but was never accounted by the godly sinful before If assembling constantly together and participating in all the Ordinances that the rest do partake of and contributing with the rest in the maintenance of the Minister of such a place and an adhering rather to such a Minister and people then to any other in affection and action make members of a Church then these persons of other Parishes were members and with the rest made such Churches Rejoynder 1. If all this were granted it is but an humane testimony not divine nor can you though you should produce a 1000 more instances as you might 2 I am informed and in part know that these were not gathered separated Churches for those members of other Churches did not refuse communion in Parish-assemblies they grieved when they were deprived of it for non-conformity they did not exclude all that were not visible Saints much less the known godly of other Churches from their Sacraments they aimed not principally it at all at a purer Church but a better Ministry they possibly having no Ministry at their parish Churches or a bad one and it may be dwelling neerer to those then to their own parochial assemblies and you confess they wanted the vocal Covenant and I suppose also they wanted subscription and signals of their mutual consent that they would be a Church together and they resorted sometimes to their parish meetings and if they had had such Ministers there and liberty of conscience in point of gesture as in other places it may be thought they would not have sought else where 3 Suppose there were such a Church in the days of the Prelates and that it was then lawful too can you thence infer that it is still lawful though Innovations and scandalous Ministers and other offensive things be removed have you as great occasion still of withdrawing as they then had 4 That such a separation was never accounted sinful by the godly before is too large a speech if you mean That the separation which then was used by them that used it and possibly by some others was approved I contend not but that no godly man accounted it sinful ordinarily to frequent another assembly especially if they had a Minister of ordinary parts and piety I cannot think As for your separation many godly did account it sinful yea the most eminent non-conformists yea they which did best affect congregational government yea you two have often told me and others of my godly brethren That you are free in your judgment to baptize my child or the children of any godly Minister or member of our Church or to receive us to the Sacrament amongst you now if you would act according to your own Principles which I should conceive my self bound in conscience to do in this case and would inform your Churches of their duty herein your separation would be less offensive but how you can account admission of us to your Sacraments lawful and yet the denyal of it not sinful I see not Sect. 5. Reply P. 3. Fifthly are not some parish Churches constituted sometimes of members of other parish Churches when many persons have left their own places and removed into other Parishes without any consent Sixthly that a Church may consist of persons that have been members of other Churches if such persons have been orderly dismissed from such Churches and have come away with consent wil be granted of all Rejoynder 1. What then wil you thence conclude that the Apostles taught or practiced to gather or separate some Christians from others c Did your selves ever before call this gathering of Churches or separating Christians into Churches is this the common acceptation of the words Gathering of Churches or separating Christians into Churches Did your selves dream that was my meaning or the thing I put you to prove Doth remooval from one parish to another imply the forsaking of or separating from the communion of the former parish and refusal to receive the Sacraments with the godly of the former parish If not how doth it can it justifie your kind of separation from all our parish-assemblies And yet you argue thus remooval from one parish to another hath bin judged pious or at least honest therefore your separation is pious and honest and you should conclude therefore the Apostles taught and practised your separation For you know the question is not what is judged pious and honest by men but what is so judged by the spirit of God Truly I might as well argue some separation from our parish-assemblies is sinful as that of the Papists Brownists c. Therefore yours is so And indeed whether your separation be with consent or no it is not much material for it is sinne to consent sent to such a separation and sinne to separate whatsoever consent you have shew that your gathering of Churches with consent or without consent is justifyed by the doctrin and practise of the Apostles and it shal serve your turn Sect. 6. Reply p. 3. Suppose some Ordinances be corruptly dispensed without all hope of redress and that men must partake therein without having any power so much as to witness against such corruptions unless they wil be accounted factions and disturbers of the Churches peace or that by remaining where such corruptions are they be in danger to be leavened with the corrupt lump of such a Church of which they be members what must they now do Doth not that Rule that bids a Church purge out one person that may endanger the leavening of the whole lump when there are no other means to prevent such an evil give warrant to every member that is endangered to be leavened by the lump to withdraw from such a lump because power to purge out the lump they have none when there is no other means to prevent the evil Church-membership is for edification of the members not for destruction Rejoynder 1. These passages and your practise of gathering seperating Churches from amongst us do pass an harsh and heavy censure on our Churches viz. that there are amongst us not only smaller faults but greater corruptions and those obstinately persisted in without all hope of redress and that there is no other means left to prevent the evil but separation a censure so void of truth and charity that it is worthy to be exibilated rather then confuted 2. When there is indeed such a case as you put a particular member may and ought humbly to admonish the Ministers and members plead with the Church Hose 2.2 Bear witness against her sinnes and errors and act to his utmost in his place for her reformation both by exciting quantum inse the power of that particular Congregation and complaining to superior judicatories but not presently to separate The Apostle Paul notwithstanding the incestuous person was in communion with the Church and they were
5.28 I answered that the Apostles were immediatly called Gal. 1. 1. You reply Pag. 6. That the ordinary Pastors and teachers of those times did so as wel as the Apostles and Pag. 7. That the warrantableness ariseth not from the immediatness of the commission but from the truth and reality of it I rejoyn 1 You should produce those ordinary Pastors and teachers which did so and prove it by scripture which proof the reader may expect as being only able to satisfy conscience your selves dis-allow many things reported in Ecclesiastical history 2. You cannot make out so true and real a Commission for gathering Churches amongst us as the Apostles had amongst the Jews and Gentiles as hath bin largely shewed Cap. 1. If you could yet surely had you as immediate a commission now as they then had you might more boldly imitate them therein which is the thing I asserted 3. Mr. Weld a Congregational man calleth this an opposition to Magistracy yea saith he what pen can express a greater latitude of opposition as you acknowledg in your last P. 22. And promise to annex a more pertinent answer Sect. 2. When I assert that you hold not that ministers deposed by their Churches ought to preach or that Mr. Ward deposed by the Church at Roterodam was hound to officiate there before his restauration you reply P. 7. That Ministers censured by a lawful power where ever it lyes whether in their own Congregational Churches or in a Presbytery whether the censure be inflicted justly or unjustly ought to submit and forbear the execution of their Ministry in that place til they be restored c. But what say you makes this against the position Rejoynder 1. Then you plainly intimate that either the Presbytery or the Congregational Church hath lawful power to depose their Minister 2. Your grant here makes much against the Position as it relateth to the Apostles For 1. The Apostles immediate Commission could no more be called in or curbed by the Church then by the Magistrate 2. Nor had the Churches power to silence them as they had ordinary Elders you confess no more then the Magistrate 3. Those whom Peter and Iohn refused to obey if they were not meerly an Ecclesiastical Court yet there was amongst them Ecclesiastical Persons Acts 4.5 6 23. Acts 5.17 24 27. 4. That they had lawful power is not denyed nor questioned by the Apostles but granted rather Acts 4.8 And you assert it was a true Church then and if these things be so and you do hold up to your rule it wil follow as wel that Ministers deposed specially if unjustly by lawful Ecclesiastical judges ought not to desist from their Ministry but say to them as wel as to the Magistrate as the Apostle said to the high Priest Acts 5.20 We ought to obey God rather then man Ecclesiastical judges being but men no more then civil which would tend to the undermining and subverting of the Government by pretence of unrighteousness in the managing of it and disturb the Churches peace as you ingenuously acknowledg Sect. 3. When Iurge that the Apostles had infallible direction of the holy Ghost you reply nothing at all to it though you know 1. That he which is infallible may more safely resist the laws of the Magistrate then he that is not 2. That opposition made by men so infallibly inspired is rather made by the holy Ghost then by them 3. The points which the Apostles were forbidden to preach were of themselves of more absolute necessity and undoubted certainty as your selves wil acknowledg then your tenets of discipline and therefore the Magistrate is not to be so peremptorily disobeyed in the one as in the other When I further answer That the case of living under a Christian Magistrate Intending indevouring I might now add and having in measure effected Reformation and of living under an Heathen Magistrate and a professed publike enemy of the Church is much different you reply That the case is not different in my sense for the Christianity of the Magistrate or his piety and sedulity for Reformation cannot take any person or persons off their duty which they would be bound unto if a Heathen Magistrate bore sway The Magistrate Minister and the people stand ingaged each for himself to Iesus Christ unto the work of his own place The impediments that come from any unto other cannot be a discharge to any Rejoynder but. 1. The question is whether it be private mens duty to set up Churches or to make publike Reformation can a precept or president be shewed in Gods Book for such a practise we must keep within the compass of our callings 1 Cor. 7.17 When things were amiss in Israel the people made no Reformation nor did the Prophets call them to it or blame them for not doing it when they were opposed by soveraign authority the Iews omitted to build the Temple and the City being forbidden by the Kings of Persia yea Christ and his Apostles shifted from place to place and left the execution of their Ministry in places where they were persecuted at least to avoyd offence or to escape danger 2. It is the right and dury of every Magistrate to be the Churches nursing Father and to reform it if there be need as also it is the duty of every family-governer to reform his family Now a godly Christian Magistrate and houshholder have both jus and aptitudinem the right as also Heathens may have and fitness so to do A wife may be more bold to order the family if her husband be distracted then if he be solidwitted for though he be an husband stil and it is his duty to do it yet he wants fitness to do it It is not orderly for some companies of an army to engage while their faithful and valiant General and Councel of war are consulting and deliberating how they may best do it yea possibly have determined another course shal no more respect be shewed nor obedience in matters of God yeelded by a wife child servant to a conscionable Christian husband Father Master then if they were professed Heathens you would not take it wel if you should catechize your children command them to come to family-duties and to keep the way of the Lord. Gen. 18.19 And they should answer an Heathen father is as truly a father as you and you are no more to be obeyed in matters of Religion then he 3. The General Court civil in N. England hath made a law that no Church should be set up there without the consent of the Magistrate T. W. to W. R. and were you in N. E. I suppose you durst not preach or print that that law is against Gods law or that any ought to set up Churches there against the consent of the Magistrates And hath not the civil Magistrate in old England from whence theirs is but derived as much power there being the same or greater occasion to make a law to the same
conceive you doe but only aske a question and make a supposition 3. I pray you resolve mee who were the Ecclesiastical Elders in Exod 12. before Aaron and his Sons were made Priests or dare you assert it to be your opinion how soever you wrigle that the Congregation had no Ecclesiasticall Elders at that time when the Passeover was instituted or that those Elders I meane the first-borne were put out of Office before the Levites were put in I would think you dare not assert so groundless a thing Sect. 3. I Answered that the Levites were seperated to their work and taken from amongst the Children of Israel cleansed and offered before the Lord by Moses and Aaron respectively according to Gods express appointment v. 6.7.8.11.13.14 therefore this laying on of hands was either only obediential for approbation of Gods Election or for Oblation of the Levites to God in stead of their first borne v. 16.17.18 as they lay'd hands on sacrifices which was a speciall reason and peculiar to those times if the people did ordaine the Levites they did not choose them If this be a binding patterne you will lose Election while you contend for a popular Ordination You Reply p. 54. It was obedientiall but principally for another reason the service of the Levites was the service of the Children of Israel which formerly the first borne performed therefore Israel must lay hands on them that is put that work upon them which was theirs for as the laying on of hands on the sacrifice did put the sins on the sacrifice so the laying on of hands did put the service upon the Levites Num. 3.7 Num. 8.18.19 and herein is a parity for the service of the ministry is the service of the Church and the Officers performe it for the Church Yet this reason would not have been nor is good in the presence of Officers had there not been a speciall reason because the Officers are to transact her affaires for her As for Election we have examples enough in the New Testament for such a priviledge we need not fly to the old Rejoyn That the service performed by the Levites was formerly performed by the first borne That the first borne did sacrifice for Israel I grant The Priests did sacrifice first for their owne sins then for the sins of the people Heb. 7.27 but that Israel did sacrifice by their Priests or that the power or authority of sacrificing was in the Congregation or that the Priests did sacrifice by any power they had from the Congregation is an unjustifiable opinion The Priests were neither chosen nor ordained nor authorized by the people God alway did single out whom he pleased to the Priesthood The Elders not all the People did lay hands on the Sacrifice even when the whole Congregation had sinned Levit. 4.14.15 It was never the service of the whole Congregation to offer sacrifice to God but of the first borne of Aaron and his Sons no more then Saul might Sacrifice That the service of the Ministry is performed for the Church I grant finaliter for the good of the Church and all good Ministers do make themselves as Christ himselfe did in this sence servants of the Church and are willing to spend and be spent for them acknowledging that they are for the Church and not the Church for them equally but if you meane that the service of the Ministry is vice Ecclesiae and by authority received from the people or that they do the peoples worke when they baptize or administer the Sacrament or when the Priest did offer Incense or that your people may be said to baptise administer Sacraments preach to themselves by you their Pastor and Teacher or Rule over themselves by their Elders that is a phrase of speech and a tenet not warranted by the word Ministers are in the New Testamen called the Ministers of God of Iesus Christ of the Gospell of the Word of the New Testament but not servants of the Church of this or that Congregation 2. I Demand why this should be a Patâ—ern in Ordination and not in Election you almost tell us you have no Examples for Ordination by people in the New Testament and therefore you fly to the Old when you say of Election you have Example enough in the New Testament to settle it on the people you need not fly to the Old your principall examples have been already weighed Sect 4. IF you can but produce one Instance from the New Reply p. 54. Testament that ever Elders of one Church ordained Officers in another or any good reason for it grounded thence the conâ—roversy about ordination shall be ended and the pattern of Numb 8 waved Rejoynd 1. By the Words In Another Congregation I suppose you meane not in the presence of another Congregation but for the use and benefit of another Congregation to officiate there your selves say the 120 Act 1. were to be considered only as a Particular Congregation and yet they did choose an Apostle which was Pastor of all Churches why might they not have ordained him 2. Your selves say that the Presbytery of Antioch did Ordeine Paul an Apostle which if so then they did ordaine an Officer for other Churches yea even for Rome to which he Writing calls himself with reference you say to that ordination an Apostle separated Rom. 1 1. and the truth is they did not by this imposition of hands inable Paul and Barnabas to officiate in the Church of Antioch for that Paul had done a Twelve-Month before nor were they to stay there but to be sent thence 3. The Presbytery that Ordained Timothy was not the Presbytery of the Church of Ephesus that Church was not founded your selves say till Act 19. yet Timothyâ— exercised his function before and Paul wisheth him not to neglect the gift viz. to use it in the Church of Ephesus which was given by the laying an of hands of the Presbytery some say at Lystra 4. If sundry Congregations in Ierusalem were under one Presbytery which is clearely proved Cap. 5. If there be an Vnivers all Visible Governing Church If a Synod have authoritative power of which see cap. 8.9 then it is a cleere case that Elders may have power of Ordination in severall Congregations 5. Division of the Church into Congregations and fixing particular Elders to them is no further of Divine Institution then order and edification did fiâ—st occasion and doe still require it should be so as the whole Tribe of Levy fed all the Iewes in common for ought wee know while they were together and afterwards when the tribes of Israell came to be fixed in their severall divisions the Levitess alo were scattered and fixed amongst them so the Apostles notwithstanding theri generall commission did feed the church in common while there was but one particular Church and afterward when Churches were multiplied did for edifictaion and orders sake agree upon a division of themselves and had their severall places Ordinarily
notwithstanding what is said of Hierarchical and Prelatical men is more lawful and valid then ordination by non-officers for the Prelates were Preshyters and so more enabled by the word to ordain then any non-Presbyters Prelacy though an humane Institution did no more annihilate their being Presbyters then Pharrisaism did the Jewish Priesthood and they did ordain as Presbyters for Bishops and Presbyters are but made one order by the very Papists which also judg that if a Deacon should be made Bishop par saltum he hath no power to ordain Presbyters and although the Prelates partly through their own usurpation partly through the sloth or Pusillanimity of the Presbyters partly by law and cannon were invested with too much power yet they did not ordain Presbyters without the assistance of other Elders and their ordination comes neerer to the Scripture-way of ordination by the Presbytery then ordination by non-Elders especially by one can do and is by the Scripture-rules by the present Parliament as formerly also by the reformed Churches and godly non-conformists notwithstanding their opposition to Prelacy judged valid and not to be changed for any popular ordination When the Church was in the wilderness when Antichrist most reigned and raged God did preserve some foundamental Doctrines and the essence of Baptism and Ministry and they that is her Pastors did feed her there Rev. 12.6 14. before there was any Popular ordination If you deny these things shew the contrary of them CHAP. XIX Of the Churches power to Censure her officers from Col. 4.17 Sect. 1. VVHen I alledg that the Church of Coloss had other Elders besides Archippus You reply p. 58. 1. What officers there were therein and with that Church appears not 2. Though they had officers yet the command is directed to the Church without express consideration of any officers amongst them and the brethren are not excluded from joyning with the officers in that which is commanded Col. 4.17 Rejoyn 1. You dare not say there was no ruling nor preaching Elders besides Archippus though you seem to argue that there was not It may be Philemon to whom Paul writes as to a fellow labourer was there seeing Onesimus his servant is said to be one of the Colossians Col. 4.9 Epaphras was also an officer though absent v. 12. If they had no officers with them but Archippus which is not credible yet Tychicus a Minister and Onesimus might from Paul joyn with the Church in that admonition 2. I might as wel say it doth not appear that Archippus was of the Church of Coloss for the Apostle seems to have done with the Colossians only wils them to salute them in Laodicea and Nymphas who its like was a Laodecean and then to cause this Epistle to be read in the Church of Laodicea and read the Epistle from Laodicea and say to Archippus who as one writes was Bishop or Pastor of Laodicea and not unlikely that a cold Church might have a cold Minister nor unagreeable to the context But it is as probable that Philemon and he were joint Pastors or Coloss Phil. 1.1 Bullinger saith that Philemon was Bishop or Pastor of Coloss and then it is probable Archippus was his partner But if it be denyed that Philemon was of Coloss it wil hardly be proved that Archippus was 3. If there be not express consideration of officers yet an implicite consideration may serve the turn 4. That brethren in their sphere may joyn with the officers is not questioned but that the brethren of a Church distinct from Elders have power to censure their Elders I deny 1. Elders have authority but such brethren have none as you acknowledg now that they which have no authority should have power to censure such as have authority is a strange and new tenet 2. The Apostle which doth all things fitly directs Timothy about receiving accusations against Elders but he doth not direct any brethren in that matter Now every Apostle as also Timothy and Titus were as it were an Eldership of the Churches extraordinarily combined in one man 3. When the Prophets speak by two or three the other Prophets not the body of the people were appointed to judgâ—â—â— and in that sense as wel as in any other The Spirit of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets 4. The power of ordaining and making Elders is not in hands of Non-Elders therefore jurisdiction over Elders to to censure depose excomunicate them is not in their hands Sect. 2. I answer Paul bids Timothy fulfil his Ministry 2. Tim. 4.5 This doth not suppose Timothy to be faulty or to be under censure and it may be Archippus Pauls fellowlaborer was not faulty and then this admonition was no censure and therefore it is alledged to no purpose You Reply p. 58. 1 Expositors do judge him faulty as Zanchy 2 There is a difference between Make full proof of thy Ministery which respects persons himself and others And fulfill thy ministry which respects the work it self in the duties of it 3. It is one thing when the Apostle a superior writing to a person and inferiour gives him good Councel and amongst other things injoyns him to make full proof of his ministery and another thing when he writes to a people without any occasion and without mingling it with other exhortations of like nature and excites them in an abrupt manner to say to Archippus see to the ministry of the former there are many patterns which imply not faultiness 1 Pet. 5.1 2 3. Tit. 2. ult for the latter where is there a parallel place therefore there is a strong presumption that Archippus whom the people ordinarily must heare in silence are now put upon it to admonish him was not faulty Congregationall way justified p. 7. You argue thus Paul bids Timothy fulfill his ministry 2 Tim. 4.5 yet this doth not suppose Timothy to be faulty and then this admonition was no censure and thence you infer therefore it s alledged to no purpose it had bin more tolerable if you had said therefore it may be it is alledged to no purpose Rejoynd 1. My meaning is plainly this It may be Archippus was not faulty and then viz. if he was not faulty this was no censure and if this was no censure it is alledged to no purpose These are hypotheticall propositions and are not grounded upon a possibility but upon supposall of Archippus his faultlesness and that being supposed they are not onely tolerable but justifiable without it may be 2. The authority of Zanchy you do not much regard nor any other humane authority which is not to your mind you know well if matters between us should be put to the arbitrement of Commentators they would not cast them on your side 3. Notwithstanding your criticall difference of the Greek words our translators conceived that fulfil or make full proof are either of them consistent with the Originall therefore they put one in the text the other in the margent 4. Was it not
puffed up and gloried 1 Cor. 5.1.2 Allows worthy receivers to Communicate in it 1 Cor. 11. 28. 10.16 He blames their schismes in it which are less then separation from it 1 Cor. 11.18 12.25 And prescribes the putting away of the old leaven as a means of making a new lump especially by casting out the grossest offender as the incestuous person first 3. Those members which in their place laboured to reform the gross prophanation of the Sacrament by the Incestuous man as it s like some few did and mourned for what they could not mend were not leavened or corrupted no more then those of Thyatira were leavened with the false doctrin of Iezabel by being co-members with her which had not that dostrin c. Whom the spirit of God acquits Revel 2.24 But they that were puffed up and neglected to use the means which they had be it less or more to the putting of him away If Iosua and his house serve the Lord and do what in them lies to reform the rest they are not guilty of all the sinnes and wickedness of their tribe much less of all the tribes or of all that were in communion with the Jewish Church some of your Churches have Brownists whose errors the Apologists call fatal shipwracks Anabaptists Antinomians and possibly some other erroneous persons amongst them can no member be free from being corrupted and leavened by these unsound opinions for false doctrin leaveneth as much and in some respects more dangerously then prophaness except he separate from you if he hath not power to cast them out 4. Separation from a true Church and refusing to partake the Sacrament in it or with the godly of it which is your practise of which we speak all along savours much of faction and more disturbs the Churches peace then witnessing against the corruptions of the Church while we are in her communion and using means to reform her and is indeed sinful being a remedy of your own devising the scripture doth require that the bad should be cast out not that the good should cast out themselves every person should inform the Church of a brother that wil not be gained by private admonition and the Church should cast such a one out but that every person should cast off the Church if the Church doth not heare him is a step beyond our saviours direction and we should not be wise above what is written 5. Your selves when it is your case wil not approve it suppose seven or eight should separate from your Congregation and would not admit either of you to the Sacrament because you want the Ordinance of prophesying of singing himnes of annointing with oyl holy kiss c. Or because some are admitted to your Sacraments which they judg not fit or because Pedobaptism is retained or because you make not as they think separation enough from our Churches which is the case of some Congregational Churches though they pretend to worship God in a purer way would or could your Church approve worship God in a purer way would or could your Church approve of their doings Lastly in 2 Cor. 13.10 Paul speaks of the power which God had given him over the Church and over every member of it not of power given to the Church as distinct from officers not of power given to any member to withdraw from it not of Church-membership at least not in your sense But if he did speak of Church-membership it wil not serve your turn unless you could prove as you can never do that destruction only and not edification is found in our assemblies and edification only and not destruction in yours nor can I think that you hold that every Corinthian if in his judgment the Apostle did use his power for destruction and not for edification was bound to withdraw from him which they were too apt to do and for which he reprehends both them and the Galatians Gal. 1.6.1 Cor. 4.10.11.13.14.15 2 Cor. 10.2 Cor. 11. Sect. 7. But you say that I stumble at this because they converted them not and to this you Reply Persons whom the Apostles converted were ordinarily committed to others to be further edified and the ordinary Pastors and Elders of the primitive times did almost perpetually build upon anothers foundation The persons that watered for the most part were not the same that planted In Acts 11.20.21 We read of a great conversion wrought by the preaching of the scattered Disciples but we read not that they were gathered into Church-state till Barnabas was sent unto them and both Barnabas and Paul assembled with that Church and taught it which yet they converted not And in Acts 19.1.9 Paul found twelve Disciples converted to his hand though not fully instructed and gathered them into the Church which he planted at Ephesus But Brother how comes this to be a stone to stumble at If you hold a succession of pastors in the same Church the successors may feed a flock which their predecessors converted and not themselves And if you hold transplantation of members from one Church to another then they may feed the members which were of other Churches which themselves converted not Bejoynder 1. I stumble not but only discover your stumbling and falling I never denyed or doubted that some might plant and others water why do you trifle away time to prove it 2. I brought in by a parenthesis an aggravation of the great wrong done by separation unto Pastors which are not only robbed of their sheep but of their children in that they are gathered into such societies as will not eat or have Church-communion in the Sacrament with their spiritual fathers 3. Did it not grieve Paul himself when those which God had called by his Ministry were withdrawn from him Gal. 1. 6.1 Cor. 4.15 2 Cor. 11.2.4 And yet they I suppose never proceeded so far as to deny him communion If they had and should have prooved to him as you do to us that some plant and some water which he knew wel enough would this have given him satisfaction or excused their withdrawing from him If a father should complain that some Iesuite Monke or Nunn had seduced his children from his family into their scieties the sayd Iesuite Monke or Nunn might make as solid and just Apology for themselves as this is viz. That oftimes one begetts and another brings up and upon occasion of the death of parents removall c. Children are to be disposed of and transplanted into other famlies therefore they did the father no wrong surely their reasoning and yours too is very weak Sect. 8. You suppose I may object That this separation must be orderly done and with consent an to this you answer P. 4. No such order can be expected where no such order hath been wont to be exercised If any godly person hath removed from one Country to another and planted himself in Manchester have the Ministers or people whom he left sent after him or
for then other Churches might have done it as wel as that for other Churches may do all Church acts but it was an occasional extraordinary act and the power of doing it did not result from the combination of them into a particular Church but from an immediate extraordinary commission from God for that time only and therefore noteth not any Church-ship in them nor that any other Church might do it any more then Ananias his laying of hands on Saul proves that every single disciple or Minister may ordinarily do it It is the honour of Apostles and Apostolique men not to be of men or by men but of God God himself elected the first twelve and after there were Christian Churches God without the intervention of all or any of them chose Paul to be an Apostle And in this place he confined them to some sort of men that had conversed with our Saviour amongst whom I suppose an unfit man could not be found and if he had bin unfit the gifts of the holy Ghost which they were then immediatly to receive would have made him fit he gave them no power to nominate the particular man but himself determined it by Lot and he might have chosen a third man not nominated by them yea one that had not accompanied the Apostles as Paul if he had so pleased 3. That election so far as it was the act of man might aswel be the Apostles as the peoples act for though Peter stood up in the midst of the Disciples and told them that in the room of Iudas one must be ordeined yet he doth not bid them nominate or elect one or two or more nor doth the text convincingly decide who did appoint those two Bucerus saith The Apostles named two and it is likely it was they the same parties that prayd and cast lots And though all persons present did not joyn in the election Peters speech unto them might be of use lest they should conceive as they might wel enough that none should have succeeded an Apostle an extraordinary Officer no more then any succeeded Iohn Baptist before or Iames afterward and that they might submit to such an one and joyn with more understanding and faith in prayer with them and in approbation of their act 4. If you can see them a Church you mean a particular Church because they elected an officer then I may say you if you wil may see them an universal Church because they performed one great act of the universal Church in electing an universal officer 5. It is strange that men of your strength should make so weak work for 1. The words to them upon which you build are not in the original text but only in the translation and therefore it may be read they were addâ—d to the Lord as Acts 5.14 2. The words to them if they were in the text as they are not may be meant of Peter and the rest of the Apostles spoken of v. 37.42 as Acts 9.26.27 which were not set members of any particular congregation 3. If one Apostle only had bin there and 3000. had added themselves to him receiving his word being baptized and continuing in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship they might have bin a Church of themselves though that one Apostle to whom they were added was not nor could be a Church 4. Those that were dayly converted to the faith baptized are said to be added dayly to the Church meaning the general visible Church into which the Eunuch was baptized and Paul also before he did so much as assay 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to joyn to any particular Church Sect. 4. You Reply P. 11. Though Aquila and Priscilla were at Ephesus yet they were but sojourners there as they were also in many other places sometimes at Rome sometimes at Corinth as appears from Acts 18.2 Rom. 16.3 But to what place they did belong it is not certain Rejoynder 1. If it be uncertain to what place they did belong how dare you say peremptorily they were but sojourners there why might they not be inhabitants of Ephesus and members of the Church there 2. They had an house in Rome and in that house a Church Rom. 16.5 Therefore they remained there for one season Pareus thinks they dwelt at Ephesus another while and removed from one place to another as occasion was offered 3. The dissenting brethren in their reasons P. 18. do affirm that many of the members of the Church of Hierusalem were but sojourners there and if so why might not Aquila and Priscilla be members of the Church of Ephesus though suppose they were but sojourners there 4. If their being but sojourners in a place did hinder them from being members of the Church in that place then how can they which are not so much as sojourners in a place but meer strangers and inhabiting 5.8.10.20 miles from it be members of the Church in that place 5. Those twelve which you call the foundationals of the Church of Ephesus When the holy Ghost came on them they not only spake With tongues but prophesyed Acts 19. Now though tongues were a sign to them that did not beleeve yet Prophesying served not for infidells but beleevers 1 Cor. 14.4.22 Yea Beza signifieth that they were called unto the Ministry and then these may well be those Elders mentioned Acts 20.28 Which the holy Gâ—ost in a special manner made Bishops now that 12. men should prophesie yea to be made Ministers at Ephesus and there be no other beleevers to heare that prophesie or to submit to their Ministry your selves wil judge very improbable Sect. 5. Reply p. 11. Your five hundred brethren at Ierusalem is as sleightly collected from 1 Cor. 15.6 For first doth the Apostle say that he was seen of those 500. in Ierusalem He shewed himself in Galilee and some other places as wel as in Ierusalem 2. Though the place of manifesting himself might be Ierusalem must the persons therefore be of Jerusalem why not appertaining to Iudea Or suppose of Ierusalem why might they not be dispersed before Christs ascention for presently afterwards when they chose an Apostle they were not there which yet was a Church action and without doubt the major part of the Church would have bin present at it Rejoynder 1. Those 500 might wel be of Ierusalem seeing that Iâ—rusalem which could be no less then a considerable part if not the major part of that City were baptized by Iohn See more Cap. 5. Sect. 2. 2. You render no reason why it might not be at Ierusalem as wel as any other place 3. Imagine the place to be Galilee or Iudaea and indeed you do but imagine it not prove it and those 500 to appertain to Galilee or Iudaea might they not be of the Church of Ierusalem was there yet any other Church to which they did belong would they not desire the society of the Apostles were there not men of Galilee amongst the 120. Acts 1.11.15 2.7 which
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-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
of the Catholique Church there ariseth to every particular Church and person such a relation to and dependance on the Church Catholique as parts have to the whole and neither of them are to work as several divided bodyes by themselves which is the ground of all Schisms but as parts conjoyned to the whole and members of the Common-wealth for the edification of it having care of and exercising their power to other as their call occasion and necessity doth require Eph. 4.11 Epaphras Pastor of Coloss had a zeal and therefore a care also for them in Laodicea and Hierapolis Col. 4.13 3. Your argument is a meer non sequitur it runns thus If Colonels in a Councel of war may exercise some acts of power over the whole army then one Colonel should teach train and lead up the souldiers of other Regiments as wel as he with the rest may rule them Now this inference is evidently weak and so is yours for as the Colonel doth not singly and severally by himself govern the whole army but joyntly with others and therefore cannot be expected to train every Regiment so a Pastor which is a member of a national assembly doth not separatim govern all the Congregations but joyntly with others and therefore it cannot be concluded that he should separatim feed them 4. All that can be concluded wil be but this that he must feed them by Doctrine as wel as by the rod of Discipline and so he doth he with the rest do lawfully as you confess upon occasion put forth Doctrinal power to bring light to the Churches 5. Seeing Mr. Burroughes not only as his own opinion but as the judgment of other Congregational men doth hold that Elders in a Synod are to be looked upon as the officers of Iesus Christ your argument may be thus retorted upon your selves The question is whether each be not an Elder or officer of Iesus Christ to every purpose as to one they as officers may feed by doâ—trine as you acknowledg and why not by discipline They may you say by authority from Iesus Christ admonish men or Churches and this admonition is a censure why then may they not proceed to other acts of censure 6. Elders receive their power for the whole Church of Christ and may having a call preach administer the Sacraments or rule in any Congregation or do one of these and not the other where their call and necessity of the Church requireth one and not the other Your selves as Elders do administer the Sacrament to some of other Churches which you have no power to censure and so you become a Pastor to them for one purpose and not for another 7. Acts the 15. doth hold out the authoritative power of a Synod as you may see in the next section and then your arguments against it are nothing worth CHAP. VIII Of Councels especially of that Acts 15. Sest 1. THere is a pattern of a Synod of Churches Acts 15. of two evidently and probably of many more as of the Churches of Syria and Cilicia which were alike troubled and their soules subverted and the letters of the councel directed to them rather then to other Churches as more peculiarly binding them which intimates they had commissioners there but if there were but 2 Synod of two Churches Ierusalem and Antioch for those that were sent from Antioch were certainly members of that meeting Acts 15.12.22 a Synod of two Churches warranteth a Synod of three foure or five Churches for where must it stay even of as many as shâ—l combine and associate Synodicatry else it could not be proved hence that Synods are an ordinance of Christ and that the assembly of the Elders of the Churches in N. E. was a lawful assembly 2. This meeting is not to be looked upon as Apostolical but as Synodical for though the Apostles were present and acted in it yet they acted not as Apostles Paul as an Apostle needed not to have gone up to Ierusalem to the Apostles and Elders Gal. 1.16 17. Peter Iames and Iohn added nothing to him Gal. 2.6 much less ordinary Elders I Paul say unto you had bin enough Gal. 5.2 And all preachers of another Gospel should have bin accursed Gal. 1.7 8. Nor had the Church of Antioch any power to send out Paul as he was an Apostle but only as an Elder and member of their Presbytery there Acts 13.1 15.1 2. Had they acted as Apostles they needed not to have stated the question and debated it from scripture in an ordinary way having deliberative discourses before the decisive suffrage v. 7. Nor should the ordinary Elders have gone hand in hand with them as they did for the Elders were sent unto as wel as the Apostles v. 2. They came together to consider of the matter v. 6. The Decrees were ordained by the Elders Acts 16.4 The Elders did write and conclude Acts 21.25 where the word Eldâ—rs may and ought to include the Apostles but cannot include any un-officied men though it be supposed that some such were present and did joyn in the inscription of the Synodical Epistle as Sylvanus and Timotheus did in the Inscriptions of some of Pauls Epistles 1 Thes 1.1 2 Thes 1. 1. The Apostles may be pretended to act as Apostles in other cases as wel as this and then nothing done by them is to be drawn by us into imitation 3. This Synod was an authoritative Synod not only consultative they put forth doctrinal power confuting the heresy vindicated the truth v. 1 7 8 9. And this power was above the power of a single Pastor or the Presbytery of a single Church 2. They made a practical canon for avoiding the Scandal and the occasion of it v. 20.29 and they ordeined Decrees Acts 16.4 not doctrines but decrees or laws for so the word dogma is taken in the new testament Luk. 2.1 Acts 17.7 Ephe. 2.15 Col. 2.14 Of these decrees they say It seemeth good to the holy Ghost and to us as any Synod upon assurance of scripture warrant may say to impose upon you no other burthens now it is an act of the binding power of the keyes to impose burthens and this binding power ariseth not only materially from the weight of the matter imposed though that ought to be warranted by the word of God but also formally from the authority of the Synod which being an ordinance of God bindeth more for the Synods sake 3. They put forth an act of Critick power v. 24. Branding them with the black mark of lyars subverters of soules troublers of the Church They needed not to summon the false teachers for they were present at least some of them to whom else doth Peter say v. 10. Why tempt ye God Neither was it necessary they should make mention of excommunication it being a clear case of it self that those Hereticks and Schismaticks which could not by admonition and other due means be reclaimed were to be excommunicated Tit. 3 1â—.11 Rev.
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
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
express themselves for these reasons 1. The Church is not one member but many viz. not one sort of members but composed of variety as hath bin said Chap 4. Hence the Church is described as an organical body of divers members Rom. 12.4 5. And if all were one member that is beleevers only then where were the body A corporation an army properly so called doth consist of governers as wel as governed 2. Word Sacraments censures yea all sacred worships you say may be observed to belong to the Church but none but professed Anabaptists and Morellians hold that Christians united without officers have power to preach and to administer Sacraments or censures 3. The Churches we read of in Scripture were organical Churches yea those by you spoken of Acts 9.31 might be such for ought appears they were edified how but by officers which elsewhere you say were given for their edification Ephes 4.11 or by ordinances by the word and Sacraments which they could not regularly enjoy without out officers if you mean by prayer reading hearing conference this you wil acknowledg they might have had without enchurching 4. That the Apostles taught Christians to unite themselves together without officers and to call themselves a Church or do any any act of church-Church-power or that they planted Churches any other wayes then to convert many Christians in a City and to ordain Elders over them it cannot be shewed 5. As for Amesius his definition of a Church if it be to your mind I am sure it is not in your usual language for he speaks of communion of Saints which you use to distinguish from Church-communion if Church-communion be not included then you in effect tell us p. 39. that such a bond wil not make them a Church and if Church-communion be included how Church-communion in Sacraments and censures can be lawfully had without officers and what that is I cannot see 6. A man may have a priviledg to choose a wife and yet not be an husband nor she a wife till they be married a free State may have a priviledg to choose a King yet they cannot be a Kingdom till they have chosen him so it may be the privâ—lâ—dg of the people to choose their officers and yet not be a Church properly so called till they have them for it is their priviledg to be a Church together yet they are not a Church before they are one Lastly it is a contradiction to say the Apostles planted Churches and yet those Churches were without officers for the Apostles that planted them were officers of them if they had no other Sect. 2. Reply p. 46. You grant that the Church Act. 2. had no ordinary officers for none were then appointed Act. 14.23 shews they were Churches before the Apostle ordained Elders in them Rejoyn 1. You take full as much as I granted and possibly I granted more then I needed but I in a Parenthesis which you leave out spake of the 70 which might be ordinary officers or extraordinary and their commission might be in force or no for ought I determined but it is as like they were Elders of that Church as no seeing Act. 11.30 we read of Elders in that Church as extant we know not how long before that time and we read not of the institution of any officers amongst them save the 12 Apostles 70 Disciple and 7 Deacons 2. In the first plantation of Churches the Elders that planted them must needs be before the plantation and the spiritual fathers before their children 3. Acts 14.23 proves not your assertion for Apostoles and Apostolick men did ordain Elders in some Churches where Elders were before yea they joyned with Elders in the ordaining of other Elders as 1 Tim. 4.14 cum 2 Tim. 1.5 and 1 Tim. 15.22 cum Acts 20.28 Acts 19. Yet grant they were without Elders that only proves that they were called by the name of Church and so are officers sometimes so called as distinguished from the members but neither of them are properly called by the name of Church Sect. 3. Reply p. 46. And though there were general Elders yet neither these nor any other Elders do ingredi essentiam Ecclesiarum nor is it any formal reason why a company of beleevers are a Church because they have Elders then their priviledg to choose their officers would be when they have them and they cannot choose them when they want them for then they are not a Church and so can have no such power and this is uncomfort able for the death of an officer might be the unchurching of a people members mentioned apart from the officers are called the Church Act. 20.28 Phil. 1.1 Rejoyn 1. Though they were general officers yet as I told you they were Elders particularly of the Church of Jerusalem and acted therein as Elders for that Church then was the universal Church the Apostles or 70 had no present exercise of their pastoral authority any where but there they did preach administer Sacraments ordain there and only there Can a regiment complain of want of a Colonel May it not rather say it hath a good one if a faithful and wise General which hath no other soldiers but that regiment become a Colonel to it 2. I suppose your selves dare not assert that the Church of Ierusalem was then an incompleat Church and yet you account every Church wanting officers to be an incompleat Church 3. If officers be not essential to a visible Church properly so called then neither authoritative preaching the Word dispensation of Sacraments and discipline are not essential to such a Church or they are in the hand of Church-members 4. Concerning the unchurching of a people by the death of an officer 1. You say Pos 2. that 7 or 8 may make a Church What if 4 or 5 of these dye and leave but two or three What if the men dye and leave the women These that are best make not a Church 2. The Pastor may dye and yet the Church not dissolved at his death they may have other officers if they have none at present but the shepherd being smitton the sheep are scattered yet they may have ere long In an elective Kingdom if the King dye the Kingdom is actually dissolved till another King be set up 3. If all the officers of a Church do dye this doth not so un church it as to deprive them of Gods love nor divorce them from God or from the ordinances in other Congregations but only so that for the present they are uncapable of the Sacraments and other Church-ordinances amongst themselves till others be set over them and this you must needs acknowledg 5. Acts 20.28 Phil. 1.1 will give no certain satisfaction for 1. It is granted that the name Church may be given to officers or to people as distinguished from one another as also you acknowledg that the word Covenant is sometimes taken for Gods part to man sometimes for mans part to God but when it is properly
separated ones who were added were members of the Iewish Church for they came into their state to whom they added and so they were separated aâ—d not separated which agrees not toy 47. where they are all called a Church R. Here is indeed a mist ake yea a great one too in you for the words to them or which you build are not in the original but in the translation only but of the whole matter see cap. 4. sect 3. 2. Though they were unseparated in Act. 1. it follows not that they were unseparated Act. 2. but if the Christians had stil been members of the Jewish Church yet the 3000 Christians could not be said to be added to the Iewish Church whereof they were members before their conversion to Christianity but to the professors of Christianity You further reply p. 49. That the company was not straituod in their liberty but acquainted with their privileds in this matter by these Elders that their limiting was nothing lut necessary direction that it was but in one thing for ought that appears â—â—l that accompained them were present and who could be so fit to be as Apostle as one of those 1 Joh. 1.1 Rejoynder To that which hath been largely said to this before I adde 1. That a hundred and twenty were not all the believers of Jerusalem not the major part of them though taking in only men of note and Disciples of the longest standing in Christs school even those that had accompanied with the Apostles all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out amongst them begenning from the Baptism of John unto the day of our Saviors ascension of whom v. 21 22. which were the twelve the seventy and some others which Christ sent to preach as Luke 9.60 it is very probable the number of these did not exceed an hundred and twenty And this was a different meeting from that spoken of v. 14. as is evident by the transcision And in those days for no impartial man which reads and considers the wonderful operations of the Sermons of John Baptist Jesus Christ the Apostles and the Seventy as in other places so in Jerusalem can conceive that an hundred was the total number of the believers there or the major part of them 2. You tell us p. 15. That it is less safe and warrantable to draw inferences from paterns where there are diversity of kinds of them about the same thing Now in this point of election there are diversities of kinds The 12 Apostles and the Seventy were chosen by Christ himself Luke 6.13 10.1 others appointed to preach by Christ himself Luke 9.60 The people chose seven whom the Apostles appointed over the business Acts 6. Paul was chosen by God immediately Acts 9. The Presbytery separated Paul and Barnabas by Imposition of hands Acts 13.1 2. and Timothy 1 Tim. 1.14 1.18 The Elders of Ephesus made by the Holy Ghost Acts 19.6 with 20.28 Lastly in this Text they were not only limited and restrained in election but they were limited and restrained from election of any they were only allowed to present two which also had they not had an extraordinary particular warrant at that time for it had been high presumption for them to have done and to offer them to the choice of the Lord and the very way and means of tendring them to Gods choice was limited and restrained to lots a course not now pactised Sect. 3. Reply p. 49. They proceeded as far as they could therein and agreed in the denomination of two and when the lot determined whether of the two should be the man the Text saith v. 26. by the common suffrage of them all Matthias was numbred c. Rejoynd 1. If they were all or but almost all Officers as hath been in part proved before the Apostles the Seventy and others what will this advantage you that by the common voice of the Officers Matthias was so numbred 2. You know that they did not ordain or elect Matthias rather then Justus and they had no more to do when God had chosen Matthias then to accept him by an orderly subjection to Christs will as people do or ought to do to a Governor made by supreme Authority and yet their acceptation of him is not an act of power but of obedience You Reply farther p. 39. We reade but of one Church and the Elders thereof present at the ordaining of Paul Acts 13.1 2 3 23. Whereupon Paul calleth himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rejond 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 11. I doubt whether Paul calls himself and Apostle separated with reference to Acts 13. possibly it was rather with respect to the Pharisees one of which he was which were said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I doubt also whether Paul was then ordained an Apostle for he was chosen by God and Ananias laid hands on him that he might receive the holy Ghost Acts 9.15.17 some years before Gal. 1.15 and he preached Acts 9.15 17 20 28 29. yea he had fulfilled his ministery Acts 11.26 12.25 even at Antioch where hands were imposed on him Therefore I conceive the holy Ghost minding to have Paul and Barnabas preach in other Churches as well as they had done in Antioch willeth the Prophets and Teachers there to let him go for so the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may signifie and the words following import so much that they laying their hands on them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sent them away and Paul and Barnabas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being sent forth by the holy Ghost went to Seleucia Cyprus c. and therefore Paul is not considered as an Apostle but as an Elder of Antioch one of that Presbytery which may be the reason why they are immediatly before said to be in that Church v. 1. and amongst the Presbyters thereof And this rite of Imposition of hands was a solems commending them to the grace of God Act. 14.26 and as Elders they returned gave account to the Church which an Apostle was not bound to do Your selves say p. 123. Paul and Barnabas did not now go forth by vertue of their Apostolique Commission for so they needed not to have been separated by fasting and prayer and imposition of the hands of the Eldership for they had Apostolique commission long befo rt How will you reconcile your selves with your selves but if you can and do maintain That Paul was then ordained an Apostle then it will infallibly follow That the Eldership of Antioch did administer Ordination which you grant is an authoritative act with reference to other Congregations As also if the One hundred and twenty did chuse an Apostle whether they were a particular Church or the Eldership thereof they did an act of church-Church-power with reference to other Churches if you do not consider them under the notion of being then the universal Church or all the Officers of it CAP. XVII Of the choice of Deacons Acts 6. And of the Elders
Acts 14.23 Sect. 1. TO Acts 6. I answered For the Deacons or Overseers of the poor though people may better discern of mens fitness and ability for that office then the ministery and their liberty of chusing was a good means at that time to abate their discontentments because of former neglect yet at their election there were all the Churches and Elders in the world and more there could not have been in any case such necessity hath no Law Your selves acknowledge Synods an Ordinance of Christ useful in sundry cases as in case a Church being leavened with Popery Arminianism Antinomianism Libertinisâ—s Anabaptism c. should chuse a Minister like themselves If such a case had hapned they could have had no more of a Synod at that time then they had the company Acts I. did nominate 〈◊〉 but they that prayed which is likely was the Apostles did appoint them v. 23 24. The people chose seven such as they were directed to chuse set them before the Apostles which did appoint them over the business prayed and imposed hands You Reply p. 49. Why are Deacons and overseers for the poor made Synonima's have We had Deacons all this while Who ordained or imposed hands upon them according to the pattern R. I added Overseers for the poor to explain and limit the word Deacons which in Scripture phrase is a general word usually signifying and translated Ministers 2. That I might shew that the work of the Deacon was to oversee the poor according to their institution Acts 6. 3. That I might with a learned holy man before me discover in our Churches low at ground those Officers which are specified in Scripture though with some defects Interest of Engl. part 2. p. 33. who also instanceth in Overseers for the poor refined by the late Statutes 43 Eliz 2.3 Car. 4. to be the Deacons You further Reply p. 50. They had direction to iâ—â—ble them to discern aright in chusing Deacons and by direction they 〈◊〉 be able to discern aright in chusing other Officers A godly people or Church rightly constâ—â—uted for the maner wiâ—â— be able to discern of wâ—olesâ—m and powerful Doctrine of humane learning they may wite â—â—â—â—le ado be informed upon this ground the people should chuse Deacons not other Officers and so limit your first grant Rejoynd 1. They had Apostolique direction and all the people were fâ—â—u of the holy Ghost Acts 4.31 but we have not such infallible direction nor extraordinary gifts 2. Even a godly people or Church which you say is rightly constituted and hath good direction cannot sometimes judge of a mans fitness for the Ministery The Church of Boston in New England would have chosen Mr. Wheelright a Familist to have been co Teacher wish Mr. Cotton The Brownists Anabaptists Familists would be esteemed a godly people and rightly constituted especially those which being first Independents do afterwards turn such yet they usually chuse a Pastor or Teacher of their own Way and the manifold Blasphemous Hrretical Schismatical Doctrines of these Times especially amongst those which are for Indepency doth flow from this fountain and their Ministers if they will not lead or at least follow them into those giddy Opinions are despised so unable are some Congregations which in your sense are rightly constituted and Well directed to discern Shepherds from Wolves So the Churches of Galatia counted Paul an enemy and the Church of Coâ—inth was like lier sometimes to entertain a false then a true Teacher 3. However you talk of direction or of information you hold That the Election of a particular Congregation whether she have direction or no will take it or no is valid and cannot be frustrated but by her self 4. You deal not fairly For 1. you untwine those passages which I twisted together placing the strength in all of them joynely and not in any one singly quae non prosent singula juncta juvant that you may break them better when you have sundred them 2. You are too forward in making inferences for me from every of them which I would but make from all of them joyntly considered 3. I desire you to express whether your conscience do not tell you That what I have said is 〈◊〉 most certain truth Thaâ— people may better discern mens fitness and ability for oversight of the poor then for the Ministery and whether your selves judge the cases alike Do you count it necessary to have the advice of other Churches in the one as in the other or that the help of God should be so solemnly craved in the one as in the other Sect. 2. Reply p. 50. Then by your speech the liberty of choosing Deacons was granted to them of courtesie Doth any thing appear to make this a Reason that this liberty was would not they have been as well pleased if the Apostles had done it all magnified the Apostles would the Apostles nourish a sinful 〈◊〉 of discontent in the people by giving them that prividedge which belonged not to them these are dangerous glosses Rejoynd 1. That which you conceive so absurd in me your selves say in effect p. 96. It was sutable to the holy and self denying frame of the Apostles Spirit jure suo cedere to remit something of his own right And the Apostles concurrence with the Church you mean the Churches concurrence with the Apostle seems to make more for the Churches peace who are now more likely to subscribe to the equity of those proceedings of which themselves have the cognizance then if it were carried by a transcondent and superior motion of Apostolique power That you speak of Excommunication and may not I speak the same of Election of Deacons which if the Apostles with whose managing of the contributions the Grecians were displeased should have nominaeted the Grecians might still have suspected some fraud or partiality and therefore they might allow the people to nominate some whom they might appoint over the business as they were ever careful to avoid suspition of wronging any this way which made them for satisfaction of such as contributed to the poor Saints at Jerusalem to desire them to approve some man to carry it 1 Cor. 16.3.2 Cor. 8. 19.20 That the Apostles did somewhat condescend to the multititude and that there was a peculiar reason for it especically in that tenderness of the Church and to put off from themselves all sinister suspition is asserted also by Bucerus diss de gub Ecclesiae apud Apoll. p. 104. 2. You much wrong your selves and your Reader in calling that assertion of mine which you cannot deny to be true and pertitent a dangerons gloss You adde p. 50. Your meaning in saying there were all the Churches and Elders in the world is there was but one Church and the Elders thereof at the time in the world 'T is true the Apostles and Members were there for these elected and the Apostles directed But did they interpose their authority in election Did they take it out
of the brethrens bands Did they not put it into their bâ—â—ds in commanding them to look out seven men Rejoynd If you had faithfully transcribed all my foresaid answer it might have prevented these exceptions for 1. That if they had been the stricteâ—â— Presbyterians in the world they could have had Elders of no more Churches present then there was 2. The people did not set them before the Apostles that the Apostles might give direction but that the Apostles might ordain them which your selves yield to be an authoritative act 3. Though the people did nominate and propound some persons which they had looked out according to the direction yet those so nominated were not Officers by their election before the Apostles approved them prayed and imposed hands on them for the Text expresly saith That the Apostles it saith not that the people did appoint them over the business therefore it was but clectio oblata preparatoria not perfecta these seven had not been Officers had they not been appointed by the Apostles nor were the Apostles any way bound to approve whomsoever they should have chosen 4. Your selves do not dare not assert That the people did do any authoritative act for you elswhere expresly yield That the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Authority doth not hang at their girdle and if that be true then all the authority which was interposed in that Election was by the Officers and not my by the people 5. Did not the Apostles interpose their authority when they prescribed the number of seven and neither more nor less Acts 6.3 had it not been a sin against authority if they would not have chosen so many or twice thrice as many 6. The authority of Synods by way of Inrisdiction bâ—â—h been proved Cap. 8. Sect. 3. To Acts 14.23 I answered Paul and Barnabas ordained Elders by suffrages given by lifting up or stretching out of hands for so the Greak word usually signifies though not always Acts 10.41 but that the peâ—ple did ordain Eiders by Election without the Aposiles it saith not buâ—â—â—ther the contrary viz. that they stayed from Election and Ordination of Elders till the Apostles came to advise and assist therein The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—â—gnifieth rather to give then to gather suffrages As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth imply the Election of more Churches then one and year imports 〈◊〉 Election of â—o more Churches then those there spoken of S. thâ— pâ—raâ—e Paul and barnabas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dâ—â—h not imply that any Church or other persons besides Paul and Barnahas did elect there â—resbytâ—rs To this you Reply p. 51. We do not affirm That the coopie did it without the Apostles the Aposiles guided them Rejoynd But do you not affirm That they might have done it with the Apostles The Position speaks of a Congregation without Officers that she hath full and free power to elect them yea though she hath no Officer to guide or assist You adde p 51. Concerning their staying from Election and Ordination we reade not of it their advising we grant what other assitance the Apostles afforded we understand not unless they led the people by their own suffrage and so they night give their suffrage as you say the word signifies and yet gather the peoples also But that they should give their own suffrage by lifting up their own hands with out the peoples seems unreasonable When hath it been known that two persons alone in the presence of many others have gone to voting by lifting up of hands the one must say to the other If thou be for such a man to be an Elder in this Church left up thy hand a most ridiculous course one man to gather and another to give they two might better have gone apart and agreed for two persons can and nothing by vote if they be contrary one to another Rejoynd 1. You do reade of Churches which were as your selves hold without Officers till the Apostles came and you reade not that any Church without Officer did elect or ordain their first Officer what call you this if it be not a staying from Election and Ordination till the Apostles came 2. As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not always signifie suffrages as would have appeared to the Reader of your Book had you fully transcribed my Parenthesis so there was no necessity I should grant that it doth so signifie there for as God who is but One in the forenamed place is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so Paul and Barnabas being Two may in this place be said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without absurdity Stephanus in bis Treasure of the Greek tongue upon the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith That when it governs an Accusative case as in this place it signifieth not to give suffrage but to ordain create elect The Text doth manifestly restrain it to Paul and Barnabas as well as the other Text doth restrain the chusing of the brother to the Churches there spoken of for the substantive of this participle is Paul and Barnabas not the people But if you can shew that the word is taken in any good Writer for gathering suffrages or taking the consent of others which I believe you cannot then I will grant that they did lead the people by their suffrage but if it signifies only chusing or ordaining or giving their own voices they might do that as well by stretching out their hands which with Ecclesiastical Writers imports as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to lay on hands as by lifting up of hands for I reade it disjunctively though you by altering my word Or into the word And do read it copulatively and then what is here to note That the people did concur with Paul and Barnabas in that action yea That that action was whelly the peoples and that Paul and Barnabas did but direct them in it or at most lead them by their suffrage 3. Those passages If thou be for such a man to be an Elder hold up thy hand which you say was a ridiculous course for Paul and Barnabas were not I easily believe used by them nor by any Primitive Church either when Officers or Members were admitted for who hath read or doth believe That the One hundred and twenty did lift up their hands when each of the Three thousand were added or that when Matchias as seven Deacons were chosen they lift up their hands though I have read of such a practise amongst the Heathens if you think they did shew when and where they did it The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not only in Scripture Acts 10.41 but in Ecclesiastical Writers is used where the suffrage of the people is not intended nor included but it may be professedly excluded Lastly bethink your selves if these Elders were made by the holding up of the hands of the people and this be the sence of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then the sence of it cannot be that they were
a duty for Timothy to make ful proof of his Ministery as well as for Archippus to fulfill it and if so doth not the requiring the one of Timothy suppose a defect in duty as well as requiring the other of Archippus 5. As for the abruptness of the speech nothing is more usuall in the end of Pauls Epistles then abrupt speeches 6 grant they do amount to as much as your selvs reckon them to viz. a strong presumption that Archippus was faulty that is but as if you should say There is strong presumption that the Church is commanded to censure him that is there is but weak proof 7. Strong presumption cannot carry away the cause for there are strong presumptions on the other hand 1. That Paul inscribes an Epistle to Philemon and him at or about the same time Isaacson Chron. and doth not tax Archippus at all 2. That in that Epistle he calls him his fellow-souldier a very honourable Epithet 3. If these words were then understood to imply faultiness then this Epistle being read in the Churches of Coloss and Laodicea would shame Archippus publikly before he had for ought we know any private admonition these considerations with many others may weigh down your strong presumption of the contrary Sect. 3 I answered that admonition doth not alway suppose authority for this may be an act of charity a wel as of authority Paul might admonish Peter and one brother another of the same Church though Paul had no authority over Peter nor fellow-members one over another Gal. 2.11 Math. 18.15 16. You Reply p. 59. Church-admonition is some degree of censure for it is a leading step to an higher censure til it come at last to excommunication call it what you wil consure it is and that is all the Position doth assert R. 1. The Position doth assert that the Church doth not only admonish by way of charity but that she hath power to censure doth admonition imply power can you say properly that Paul had power to censure Peter because he did admonish him or that a woman hath power to censure a Church-member yea a Church-officer because upon occasion she may tel him his fault between him and her and yet this may be a leading step til at last in come to excommunication 2. I would you had expressed whether in your opinion this admonition did suppose authority in the people or no if you say that the people have no authority to admonish their Pastors you as I conceive wave the position 3. When one of your Churches doth admonish another this is Church-admonition and is you say a leading step to an higher censure viz. Non-communion yet I suppose you wil not say one Church hath power to censure another I further answered That Private members cannot censure judicially or un-Church the Congregation though they be bidden plead with their mother plead Hos 2.2 You Reply If they may plead then they may withdraw from the Congregation off from their officers when they wil not be reclaimed Which though it be not a judicial and positive censure yet must be granted to be negative Rejoyn 1. The consequence is naught a wife may plead with her husband in many cases and a child with his parent in which she may not withdraw from them 2. The question is whether we may conclude that they that are bidden plead have power to censure the Church judicially you intimate that we may not so conclude 3. They might plead with the Church before Christ I grant the text bears it but that then they might withdraw not only from her corruptions but from her Communion and that into a distinct Church as the manner of some now is you cannot prove 4. If pleading do by consequence prove withdrawing yet sure it doth not prove that they should withdraw from the Church before they plead with her but that they should first plead with her and if she wil not be healed withdraw from her 5. You might have done wel to have explained and proved by Scripture or sound reason that there is an unjudicial censure as wel as a judicial a negative censure as well as a positive and that they which may only censure negatively and judicially may be said as it is in the Position to have power to censure otherwise the Reader happily may think these distinctions were but invented to help in a strait 6. You hold that women may withraw and indeed they having learned of their great grand-mother are too apt to do it to perswade their husbands also and have women poof the keyes Or is this any key at all Or do you mean that the Churches admonition of Archippus doth prove only a negative unjudicial censure such as private men may have one toward other yea toward the Church or a positive and judicial censure if you hold the former then we differ less if the latter more Sect. 4. I answered the Colloss were as wel to cause that Epistle to be read in the Church of Laodicea as to say to Archippus yea the word cause seems more authoritative then say ye yet our brethren hold not that one Church hath not power over another Church if it had been said of Archippus Cause Archipyus and say to Laodicea you could have made notable use of it You reply p. 59. Cause in the original is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not command ye but work ye effect ye endeavour ye that it be read and so interpreted it is not so authoritative as say ye for say ye take heed seem more imparative The Greek word translated Cause imports no more then endeavor ye R. 1. You tol us p. 99. there is a the fold causing by way of authority or by way of moral swasion this later say you the Apostle speaks of here but if it had been said cause Archippus some would have told us that causing by way of authority is here meant and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to make or cause a thing to be done and that there is no classick Greek writer in which a man is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 any thing which he doth only endeavour and not accomplish 2. You say say ye c. seems more imperative then mak ye or cause eye who ever said so thought so if your selves do you do not shew us that these is a two-fold saying one authoritative and the other swasive as you say there is a two-fold causing nor do you shew us any place of Scripture where saying is taken for authoritative saying and yet if you did it were not good reason a genre ad spâ—ciâ—m affirmative no more then if a man should say causing is sometimes by way of authorits therefore it is so here 3. The word say ye may be translated tell ye to Archippus as wel as Math. 18.17 which is the very same word tell the Church or that place in Mathew may be translated say ye to the Church as wel as this say ye
to Archippus as you being acquainted with the Greek tongue know wel enough now if both of these places had been translated say or tel they would not have sounded so much for your purposes I conclude therefore there is as much or more force in these words to prove the Collossians power to cause an Epistle to be read in another Church as to say Archippus but I maintain not that they had of themselves power in either Sect. 5. I concluded the Church cannot excommunicate their whole Presbytery no more then the Presbytery excommunicate the whole Church the Church hath not received from Christ an office of rule without her officers Cotton Keyes You reply p. 60. This withdrawing is a negative excommunication which is some kind of censure though not so authoritative as the positive Rejoyn 1. I observe that this negative censure is now swelled up to a negative excommunication 2. That it is grown up to be authoritative though not so authoritative as the Positive 3. You deny not but that in case of Apostasy scandal obstinacy of the Church the Elders as Mr. Cotton saith may denounce the judgments of God against the Church and withdraw from it and therefore we may invert the Position and say The officers have power to censure the whole Church if they see just occasion and prove it because they may withdraw 4. A man by the law of nature may withdraw from his crud father or Master or a wife from her husband that seeks to kil her for the safety of their lives and men and women also ought to forsake a Church in the Communion of which they cannot be saved but this is not an authoritative but a natural act yet sure women have no power over their husbands over their Churches and Ministers 5. Is not negative excommunication of the officers by the Church tantamount with Positive excommunication saving the pronouncing of the sentence which is not much material if the thing if self be effectually done without it CHAP. XX. Of Tythes and setled Maintenance Sect. 1. Repl. p. 61. YOu discover your apprehensions thus 1. That Tythes are Jewish maintenance Rejoynd 1. What you or I apprehend is not materiall but what we prove 2. What mean your by Jewish That they were ceremoniall and abrogated by Christ I believe you mean so but then you should shew wherein the Ceremony did consist where what is the analogical resemblance of things prefigured wherein consists the signification of them All ceremonies properly Levitical were either of mysticall signification or typicall of something belonging to Christ and his kingdome 3. If by Jewish you mean used among the Jews I grant it and that they were used amongst the Heathens also Amsworth on Gen. 14.20 but this doth not make them unlawfull your selves being judges for pag. 67. you labour to prove by Chemnitius and by comparing Joh. 8.20 with Mar. 12.61 That the Doctors in Christs time were maintained by contribution and that the treasury of the Temple which sure was no Gospel-ordinance was both to maintain the Doctors and the poor and thence you will gather the lawfulnesse of maintaining Ministers out of the Churches stock Are Contributions lawfull because they are Jewish and Tythes unlawfull because they are Jewish If the manner of maintenance in Christs time be so much looked at then I dare say yea I did say in my Answer though you left it out and now justifie that you might better alleadge Mat. 23.23 for manner of maintenance for there Christ expresly saith of Tythes yea of the smallest tythes of mint annyse and cummin These things ye ought to have done c. Which if it had been spoken concerning Sabbath-day contributions or maintenance out of the Treasure of the Temple or Church-flock that it ought to be done or not to be left undone you would not have fetched such a compasse for proving the Divine institution of such maintenance nor have urged Chemnitius his testimony if you had so plain a one of Christ Sect. 2. Reply p. 61. Because Tythes were setled on the Levites upon consideration of having no inheritance amongst their brethren Rejoynd 1. It is evident that Tythes were not setled on the Levites as Levites nor proper to the Leviticall officers Paul to the Hebrews c. 7. v. 5 6 8. expresly affirmeth that Melchizedek after whose order Christ the greatest Priest was Heb. 5.6 and not of the order of Aaron and who represented Christ did receive Tythes and by his receiving of tythes proves him to be a more excellent and eternall Priest for in the Law men that die receive tythes but Melehisedeck received tythes of whom it is witnâ—ssed that he liveth Paul saith not the Priests and Levites receive tythes but Melchisedeck of whose order Christ was receiveth none This would have been an argument for your purpose but he in effect saith plainly that the payment of tythes was not proper to the Levitical Priesthood but paid also to Melchisedeck the type of Christ for the Apostles purpose was not only nor chiefly to advance 0208 0108 V 3 Melchizedeck's but Christ's Priestheod above Aaron's yea 0208 0108 V above Melchizedeck's which in token of his greatnesse received tythes Heb. 7.4 and was not made after the law of a carnall commandement but after the power of an endlesse life and of whom it is witnessed that he liveth v. 8. as Christ also Rev. 1.18 Secondly you do dictate not prove that Tythes were setled upon the Levites upon consideration of having no inheritance amongst their brethren for the contrary is evident viz. They had no inheritance amongst their brethren upon consideration that they had Tythes c. because God had given them Tythes First-fruits c. and the Lord was their inheritance therefore he said unto them that among the children of Israel they should have no inheritance Num. 18.24 Deut. 18.1 2. and yet you think men should believe it without any pretence of proof Thirdly in the margent you say see John Selden of Tythes but neither cite book chapter nor page nor do you by any letter direct us for what part of this Section you cite him whether for this or some other particular in it nor have I his book I did once see it but was neither then nor am now any further versed in this controversie then your book doth occasion me to be And yet I suppose Mr. Selden being a learned man doth not hold Tythes unlawfull why then do you so abuse him to set him so in the margent of such a section in which as you tell us in your last you prove Tythes unlawfull by the Word of God as though his book did bear witnesse to such an untruth but as I remember he counts it a sinne against Gods law Prov. 20.25 to alien Tythes Consult you again with him I will credit your report of his opinion if you do distinctly and deliberately relate it Fourthly It must not be understood that the Levites had no inheritance at all
expresseth their opinion that the contribution 1 Cor. 16.1 Was properly intended for the poor 2. That some Churches appoint not any part of it towards their Ministers maintenance 3. That those that do it do it but conditionally if much be given in if there be an overplus and in a secundary way which is not the manner of your Churches which or at least some of them make it an ordinance of God 5. The setting up of this way of Ministers maintenance is the grand designe of Hereticks and Schismaticks though some godly men in the simplicity of their hearts may approve it or actin it for some or all of these ends 1. That they may strengthen the hands of Cormorants who under pretence of Reformation and abhorring Idols do now as in the dayes of Henry the 8. commit sacrilege viz. That do take away to private use things deputed to holy uses or maintenance and furtherance of Gods worship for what is the sinne of sacrilege if this be not by the received custome and consent of the Churches by donation of Princes legacie of Testators severall Acts of Parliament and Magna Charta and do alien them from their generall end whose sinne consisting in devouring that which is holy or devoted to the service of God and his Church Prov. 20.5 Lev. 27.28 30. and in abrogating the Testaments of men Gal. 3.15 makes them worse then Ananias and Sappirah which did only with-hold part of that which they had pretended to give to the Church though before they gave it it was in their own power but these do take away that which neither they nor it may be their ancestors did give but others strangers to them and long since dead 2. That they may make way for their own maintenance in their severall separated Congregations as of Divine institution whether they be tolerated or no. 3. That they might put an imputation of covetousnesse and burdensomnesse upon the Ministers of the Gospel as the false teachers did upon Paul who therefore took no maintenance at all though he might but wrought with his hands that he might take off that imputation 4. That they might catch men to their party because this way is for the peoples profit 5. That they might discourage Learning 6. That they might set the People aloft over their Ministers 7. To bring the Ministers which cannot in conscience comply with their unsteddy unsound people to basenesse and beggery and that they might neither have learning nor leisure books nor spirits to oppose their ungodly wayes 6. As for Chemâ—itius I have spoken before and now adde You do not produce him to say that de jure it ought to be so now but only de facto it was so then he saith contributions was the maintenance amongst the Jews not that it ought to be so amongst Christians CHAP. XXII Of the burning Mountain cast into the Sea REVEL 8.8 9. Sect. 1. TO shew that that is not rightly applied to setled endowments brought in to the Church I urge that Kings and States are called mountains Zach 4.7 Casting of mountains into the sea implieth great commotions and troubles Psal 46.2 Their burning with fire signifieth their opposition and fiercenesse whereby they become destroying mountains or as the Septuagint whom the Pen-men of the New Testament much follow 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a mountain on fire Jer. 51.25 But I find not that setled and stinted Maintenance is in any Prophesie understood by a mountain burning with fire cast into the sea You reply p. 68. that Constantine did bring in great riches and setled endowments to the Clergy of the Church and that this may be clearly evidenced from credible Authors But why do you not shew this in your first or second book and that those Authors meant not of Constantines donation which is justly accounted a fiction What other setled endowments did he give to the Clergie and to whom and who are those credible Authors that assert it You further reply If Kings and States be called mountains so is prosperity in riches and honours Psal 30. Thou hast made my mountain to stand strong that is my condition so prosperous And sea in Scripture is the Church sometimes or the Religion of the Church Rev. 13.1 15.2 Therefore casting of a mountain into the sea may be bringing prosperity and casting riches and honours upon the Church and though mountains should be in your sense for Kings when almost Regal riches and honours were cast upon the Prelates and the ambition of Prelates did set the world on fire it might be called a burning mountain Rejoynd You know Kings and States are called mountains The most learned and godly Interpreters of Prophesies Brightman Mede c. tell us so you need not to If it 2. The place Psal 30.7 may be understood of Davids Kingdom in which God had setled him it was a Psalm at the dedication of his house v. 1. 3. Do you hold indeed that Kings may not cast any riches and honour upon the Church how are Kings nursing fathers and mothers if the Church be as poor and beggerly as when they were enemies how can the Kings of the earth bring their glory and honour into it Rev. 21.24 Why might not Constantine bring in setled endowments as well as the State allow setled maintenance are they not both one yet the one you hold lawfull and not the other 4. I had nothing to do with ampla praedia the Position was of setled endowments Even N. E. men bring it against them and I understand it of set maintenance which may be either lesse or more which you deny to be lawfull from the Church therefore the leaving out of ampla praedia minding you alwaies of what is said in answ to Pos 8. was no fault in the producers of the Position 5. You should shew that setled endowments given to the Church are in any prophesie called a burning mountain cast into the Sea but because you cannot do it therefore you acknowledge Congr way justified p. 9 10. that the interpretation is but probable and doubtfull and that you dare not speak definitively of it And so I leave it minding you only that many which seemed most Anti-Prelatical do justifie the Bishops setting the world on fire Sect. 2. You tell me of my misinterpreting and misreporting of T.W. to W.R. p. 59. I shall relate the case and leave the determination of it to any ingenuous indifferent person It is thus New-England men being asked Whether they do allow or think it lawfull to allow and settle any certain and stinted maintenance upon their Ministers do answer But for setled and stinted maintenance there is nothing done that way amongst us except from year to year because the conditions of Ministers may vary c. Mr. Weld saith For a way of setled maintenance there is nothing done that way except mark the exception from year to year And a little before he saith The Church usually meets twice in the
opposed to any man that is called a Brother but all Christians in Scripture-phrase are called brethren whether they be of the same or of severall congregations yea though one should be unjoyned to any congregation as Paul whom Ananias calleth brother Saul Act. 9 17. And the Apostle writing to severall churches wills them to love as brethren to love the brotherhood 1 Pet. 2.17 3.8 Lastly they are here said to be without which Paul had not to do with by judging them but of this more afterwards Sect. 2. But you reply If this exposition of yours be true then the judgement of the Church of Corinth did extend to the lands-end of Christianity to the confines of Paganisme and consequently any one Church hath power to judge any Believer in the world for he saith Do not ye judge them that are within V. 12. Rejoynd Nothing so for Ye there is to be understood of the Corinthians as members in part of the universall visible church 1 Cor. 12.27 28. Your selves tell us p. 65. that the Epistles do respect persons according to their capacities so this judging those that are within respects only the church of Corinth suppose he writes only to one church for we would not mingle questions lest we should darken the light according to her capacity viz. You judge all within your limits all of the city of Corinth the Cenchrean church all within that town and other Churches pari ratione authoritate within theirs So ye are Gods husbandry and Gods building 1 Cor. 3.9 that is ye are part of Gods husbandry of Gods building So 1 Cor. 12.27 Ye are the body of Christ viz. as he immediately by way of correction doth interpret himselfe Members in part And in 1 Cor. 3.21 22. he saith all things are yours Paul Apollos Cephas Now Paul and Cephas were officers of all churches his meaning therefore is that they are yours viz. yours amongst others and All things are yours viz. all things belong to the Universall church of which the Apostles were properly officers and to you as members And so it is no more but this Ye are amongst those that judge them that are within So Calvin and Beza might have written to one or two English Bishops and said You silence all Nonconformists and yet might well enough have been understood that they had but silenced all within their Diocesses and other Bishops had done the like in theirs Sect. 3. Reply p. 74. Suppose the Apostle had known a member of the Church of Corinth whatever he appeared outwardly in the frame of his conversation to be indeed without God and in a state of enmity with God if this man had committed a grosse sin might not the Apostle have judged such a one to be excommunicated and why should a Church-unbeliever be subject to the Apostles judgement and an Heathenish unbeliever exempt from it if Church-membership did not make the one obnoxious to that judgement more then the other Rejoynd 1. By your argument p. 36. he ought not to be excommunicated for you say Excommunication supposeth men to be alive in the judgement of charity but such a one as is known to be without Christ is not supposed to be alive 2. We assert that if he have committed some grosse sinne and appear to the Church obstinate therein he may be excommunicated though he be supposed to be truly ingrafted into Christ 3. I dare not say that one known by the Apostle to be without Christ which hath committed some grosse sinne as heresie adultery or some other work of the flesh Gal. 5. if he being admonished do heare the Church and submit himself ought to be excommunicated Tit. 3.10 Mat. 18.17 A member of the visible Church though indeed without Christ and so discerned by an Apostle cannot be judged to be without Christ in foro ecclesiastico he appearing as you put the case outwardly otherwise in the frame of his conversation 4. I never said nor thought but a man must be within the Church before the Apostle could excommunicate him yet it hence follows not that he must be within this or that particular church or within the Church in your sense Of I'resbyterian calculation I shall speak in the last Section Sect. 4. When I urge that the Apostle opposeth fornicators of the world and fornicators that are brethren You reply that Persecution in the Primitive times was levied against those which did joyne themselves to the Churches or otherwise visibly as Paul at his first conversion by preaching declared themselves to be Christs disciples That the brother opposed to the fornicators of the world is not be that by the internall and invisible grace of faith is a brother and dare not â—â—enly professe Christ but a named and professed brother Fervicators of this world are to be understood of it as it stands in opposition to the visible Church Rejoynd The Apostle forbad them to eat not only with scandalous Church-members but with all Brethren not those which are brethren only in foro Dei conscientiae suae by the internall and invisible grace of faith whereof it is impossible the Church should take notice De non existentibus non apparentibus eadem est ratio But those that were brethren in foro ecclesiae did make profession of Christianity were called brethren and yet were scandalous I am not so senslesse as to think that the Church was bound to take notice of the internall invisible and unprofessed grace of faith in a mans heart why do you so largely disprove it 2. A man may be a brother that is a Christian and disciple of Christ as Paul was it is your own instance at his first conversion before any such enchurching yea every visible Christian is so for by priority of nature every Christian is first of the universall visible Church and so in that respect called a brother and secondarily of a particular congregation An Heathen is not first converted into this or that or the other Congregation but first into the Church catholique then into this or that Congregation Now the Apostle saith not if any man that is called a brother and is a member of a particular Congregation with such a one eat not but you contrary to the rule Non restringendum ubi lex non restringit say if a man be called a brother and be not of a particular congregation he is without as well as an Heathen and the Church hath no power to censure him nor doth the Apostle forbid us to eat with such an one And so you make scandalous Church-membership not scandalous professorship of Christianity to be the formall objective cause of our separation and withdrawing from them Sect. 5. When I say Without are dogs sorcerers Rev. 12.15 such as Paul had not to do with What have I to do c. v. 12. And yet he had to do with all Christians by his illimited Apostolique power whether they belong to that or any other Congregation on no
such as God judgeth or are loft to the immediate judgement of God You reply p. 76. There might be dogs in the Apostolique churches as well as without Phil. 3.2 and with such dogs Paul had to do A strange speech to proceed from you who elsewhere maintain that the Apostolick Churches did consist of visible Saints and that Paul in the judgement of charity did thinke all the Philippians to be Saints Phil. 1.7 and if I grant that there might be dogges as well within the Churches as without what gaine you by it you further reply that Paul had to doe with the dogges of the Gentiles he received a Key of knowledge to open the Kingdome of Heaven to beleevers and to bind them that would not repent and beleeve under the guilt of impenitency but Paul had nothing to do to judge with the judgement mentioned in this place viz. by the Ministery of the Church of Corinth those that were without the combination of that Church the Apostles had received no such Power to judge those persons to excommunication by the Ministry of a Church that were never in fellowship with the Church Rejoynd 1. Master Cotton tels us that the key of knowledge saving knowledge or which is all one the key of faith is common to all beleevers and he distinguisheth it from the key of Power Cot. keyes p. 6.7 but it may be this is not the key of knowledge you mean but you have made another 2. Paul opening the Kingdome of Heaven to the Gentiles in case they would beleeve and repent and binding them under the guilt of impenitency and obstinacy if they would not repent though you prove not that her did so bind any Gentiles was done by Doctrine not by Discipline by preaching not by censures of which this 1 Cor. 5. evidently speaks Had Paul any thing to doe to judge or censure the Heathens to be excommunicated which were never within the universall or particular Church 3 Paul had not to doe indeed to excommunicate out of the Church them that were never in the Church for that is impossible how can hee bee excommunicated that is not within the universall visible Church for excommunication is a casting out of the Church not out of the invisible Church for that cannot bee nor out of a particular visible Church onely but out of the universall visible Church as Baptisme doth admit into it so excommunication doth cast out of it and as they may be received to Baptisme and not admitted into a particular Church as Saul and the Eunuch so they may be excommunicated though they were not set Members of a particular Congregation but if they were never within the universall Church they cannot be cast out of it for that imployes a contradiction 4. The judgement mentioned in this place is not the judgement of Paul by the Ministery of the Church of Corinth as you assert for hee doth expressely distinguish them what have I to do Do not yee judge Paul saith not what have you to do to judge nor what have wee to doe to judge for so it may seeme that he included the judgement of Corinth with his owne but what have I to doe c. Now though the Church of Corinth could onely judge those that were within her limits as other Churches could also within theirs and therefore might judge the Incestuous Person suppose hee was one of them and lived amongst them yet the Apostle did deliver to Sathan Hymeneus and Philetus without the Ministery of any Church that wee read of and certainly the Apostle had Power to judge all Christians all of the universall visible Church whether within a particular Congregation or no for which I alledged the Authoritie of the Elders of New England in the marginal citation which you leave out Sect. 6. Reply p. 77. Such Persons though for their Crimes they may be subject to the judgement of the Civil Magistrate yet in respect of Ecclesiasticall judgement they are left to the immediate judgement of God else by whom shall beleevers not joyned to any particular Congregation be judged why shall this Congregational Classicall Provincial National Church judge them rather then that may they be judged by all or any one they stand no more related to one then to another which are members of none at all where shall the fault be charged if judgement be not passed if a Church may judge one out of the combination why not 1000.10000 Yet we are farre from judging those beneevers in England and Scotland which are not joyned in our way to a particular Congregation therefore to be altogether out of Church combination and not crpable of the Ecclesiasticall judgement of their Churches Rejoynd Every Christian is to be accountable to the Church or Churches where he doth reside and that Congregation or classis of Congregations is to receive him to such Ordinances as he is meet for and to censure him if he doe offend As in the time of the Law if a man was found slaine the next city must expiate the Murther if the Murtherer was not known Deut. 21.1 2 3. or punish him if knowne for first It is the duty of every Christian to joine to that particular Church of God where hee doth reside on neere unto him and those with whom hee doth reside are to admonish him so to doe but if he shall obstinately refuse they may order that the brethren of those Churches should not eate nor have familiar society with such an offender 2. Members of that Congregation or classis of Congregations within which an Heretick or Scandalous man doth reside are in most danger to be infected with Heresie or Scandall You will say hee hath not consented to be of that Congregation and therefore is not subject to her judgement I Answer 1. If it bee his sin he hath not joyned then one sinne cannot free another from being censured If a Malefactor at an Assize shall refuse to be tryed by God and the Bench or by God and the Countrey shall hee therefore bee left to the immediate judgements of God 2. It may be hee hath consented to it 1. In Parliament hee and we all are included which hath set bounds and limits 2. Hee possibly was borne and baptized in it and 3. It may be hee received the Sacrament in it frequents prayer and preaching there or at least 4. hee voluntary sits downe in that Parish or Vicinity the inhabitants whereof by Law or custome in generall consent of Ministers and Members doe belong to that Congregation and so may bee interpreted to have consented in his deeds though in words he deny it A Cambridge man that dwels within the City of London doth by deeds professe he is a Londoner though in words he may deny it no Christian dwelling in Corinth could escape the censure of the Church of Corinth by pretending to be of the Church or Cenchrea 2. If there should yet be a question what Congregation should judge such an
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
Congregation no Minister above another Minister though the major part of them as of Congregational members though equall one to another be above the minor part where every Elder is left to enjoy the office of an Elder and each Congregation left to the freedome of the Congregation in what belongs to them and they able to perform The Prelates power was altogether extrinsecal to those Congregations that were under it they did not consent unto it nor sent Commissioners to assist or concur in it but Classes and Synods are aggregates made up out of their mutuall associations into one and do in matters of common concernment strengthen and help particular Congregations walking according to rule and reduce such as walk not in truth and peace but are leavened with error and variance The Prelates urged Subscription Ceremonies had civil power to imprison fine were Barons and so had votes in Parliament they had their Chancellors Commissaries Surrogates Deans Chapters Archdeacons Rural Deans Proctors Apparitors Singing-men Choristers Summoners Their Courts were remote from many of the people they were expensive oppressive by exaction of Fees they or some of them promoted Tyranny Popery Arbitrary government suffered ignorant profane Popish Arminian Socinian Ministers which the Presbyterian Government where it is in full strength as in Scotland doth not Sect. 4. Reply p. 8. You might more properly have said that John did not blame him simply for usurping or exercising preheminence for accepting presupposeth an offer made of the thing accepted now it is more then probable that the Church never offered him that preheminence nor if shee would had shee any such power exorbitant preheminence usurped over the whole both the Elders his equals and the fraternity which yet have a share and interest in the passing of Excommunication is here spoken of not any lawfull preheminence for then a moderate and well-tempered love of it were lawfull By the same reason that Diotrophes is excused in regard of the materiality of his action may the corrupt Princes of whom it is said Isai 1.23 Every one loveth gifts be excused from their bribery and corruption 3. You say It is probable that John writ somewhat concerning Discipline as the receiving of certaine brethren a businesse in which the fraternity had some interest as well as Diotrophes and the rest of the Elders and therefore he wrote not to Diotrophes or to the Elders alone but to the whole Church But Diotrophes riseth up he alone commands forbids excommunicates and yet say you or else you say nothing to purpose be is not blamed for it If Diotrophes were not to blame being a particular Elder to take upon him the power of the whole Eldership yea and the whole Church why may not a brother do that which belongeth to the fraternity an Elder do that which belongs to the Presbytery or to the Classis or Province and yet blamelesse Rejoynd 1. You grant Diotrophes was an Elder of the Church of Corinth and is it not probable he had a primacy of order or some preheminence amongst the Presbyters by reason of parts or age c whereunto he was chosen by his brethren and whereupon he made answer when John writ to the Church as Presidents Moderators use to do when Colledges Synods Societies are writ unto and if so the word accepting is not an unmeet expression 2. That the text speaks of an exorbitant preheminence usurped over the whole you assert but prove not the expresse words of the text are loving preheminence or primacy not having preheminence the word I used not usurping it the word you use The preheminence might be lawfull and yet the love of it be blamed in Scripture as money pleasure uppermost roomes long clothing salutations may be lawfull Prov. 21.17 Mat. 23.6 Mark 12.38 as your selves confesse yea the Prophet doth not reprove Princes for receiving of gifts or rewards notwithstanding your instance to the contrary but for corrupt inordinate loving or receiving of them Saul did lawfully receive gifts and they were men of Belial that brought him none 1 Sam. 10.27 though to love gifts or rewards or to receive them so as to delay or pervert judgement be a great sinne Isa 1.23 3. By what logick do you conclude Diotrophes is not here blamed ergo he is excused from the guilt of solitary excommunication in regard of the materiality of the action or he is not here blamed therefore he is not to blame c. Are all men in Scripture blamed yea and simply blamed for that was my word for every thing in which they were to blame 4. I indeed had no thought of excusing him from guilt in solitary excommunication or exercise of any Ecclesiastical authority which I have publikely witnessed against both lately and long since nor well know I whether he was solitary or only principall in that work nor how far the Church was guilty of it That he alone did rise up and command and forbid and excommunicate the Scripture saith not neither did I say it or think it much lesse did I say he is not to blame if he did so They for ought I know might joyn with him and yet he only be blamed by name as being the head of the faction and they doing it by his inducement and instigation as the rebellion of many yea in a sort of all the congregation of Israel is from the principal actor called the gainsaying of Corah Jud. v. 12. for how one man in the very Apostles times could excommunicate members out of a Church so great well gifted and fully furnished with officers as Corinth was if the Elders and people had been against him or have hindred John from comming to them I cannot see Might they not have received John and have some one or all of them writ to him to that purpose whether Diotrophes would or no seeing the Elders certainly had and you say the fraternity also had a share in those weighty businesses But possibly this was one of those false teachers which brought the Corinthians into great dislike of the Apostle Paul their spirituall father 1 Cor. 4.13 14. 2 Cor. 10.1 and was of an ambitious spirit v. 12.18 your selves take it for granted he was of that Church and if so then he might very easily bring them into dislike of John 5. Suppose any church-Church-power which you esteem most lawfull should have loved preheminence should not have received John nor the brethren and have forbidden them that would and have cast them out of the Church might not John have writ on this manner and sharply have rebuked them without any intent on his part of reflecting upon the lawfulnesse of their power but only upon their ambitious and corrupt use of it CHAP. XXVII Of Independents likenesse and unlikenesse to Corah Dathan and Abiram Sect. 1. WHen I desire you calmly to consider whether investing Non-Elders with Ministerial power placing Church-power in the body of the Congregation complaining of the Elders that rule over
them in the Lord for taking too much upon them be not the gainsaying of Corah You in the Cong-way justified p. 38. say Your reasons to prove our way is the gainsaying of Corah are weak For first this schismatical company would utterly have taken away the Power of Moses and Priesthood of Aaron and so when they had officers would have destroyed their officers We only in the extraordinary case of an utter want of an Eldership hold it fit to ordain by persons deputed by Preachers such as have been Ministers as deputed or by Elders elected Rejoynd I could wish for your sakes the reasons were weaker then they are 2. That Schismatical company did not oppose Moses as a Magistrate but as a Minister and therefore they said All the people of God are holy Not all the people of God are wise valiant true-hearted which are the vertues of the Magistrate Sympsons Sermon before Parl. July 26. 1643. And they did not claim to rule the State but to offer incense Num. 16.3.5.10 Hence Aarons rod budded not Moses his rod. 3. That they would have destroyed their officers is more then I know or you prove only they did usurp upon the office of the Priests yet here you grant that if you should endeavour to take away the power of the Magistrate or to destroy their officers then you were like to Corah indeed 4. Your extraordinary case is now too ordinary viz. at the erection of each of the Churches of Independents Brownists Anabaptists Familists 5. The case of Vzzah in staying the Arke 2 Sam. 6.6.8 and of Sauls sacrificing 1 Sam. 13.9 10 11. might seem to be extraordinary yet the Lord was very angry 6. If any Preachers do ordain that have been Ministers they do renounce their Ministery before they do ordain And as for the elect Elders they are when they do ordain but persons elected to be Elders for election of the people doth not make the officer as hath been shewed 7. That the Church hath any commission to depute a man to ordain I read not and Non credimus quia non begimus If Corah Dathan and Abiram had had a deputation from the Church of Israel to have offered incense as it may be they might have had this would have made the sinne of the Church greater not theirs the lesse 8. But if you may here be excused à tanto or à toto yet the Anabaptists with whom you close too much which ordinarily do place the power of administring the Sacraments in disciples that are no officers cannot be excused Sect 2. Cong way just If placing Church-power in the body of the Congregation were the gainsaying of Corah then because election of Officers Act. 6. is a branch of Church-power and was placed in and acted by the body of the Church then that Church was guilty of the gainsaying of Corah Rejoynd 1. You do not answer my argument but make a counter argument 2. Placing of Church power in the Body is undoubtedly the gainsaying of Corah Num. 16.3 All the Church is holy viz. hath power to do the Priests office Wherefore lift ye up your selves above the Church of the Lord 3. That election Act. 6. was but a nomination of some officers and a setting them before the Apostles who appointed them over the businesse and made them officers and that this was an act of church-Church-power placed in the body of the people the text saith not But of this more in its proper place Sect. 3. Cong way justified It is not true that our cause allowes or enjoyns complaining of the regular exercise of the power of the Elders that rule over us we honour and obey the Elders of our severall Churches and also the Elders and Members deputed of severall Churches meeting occasionally to rectifie disorders c. But for stated Classicall Elderships and your severall graduall Judicatories swallowing the Votes of the Elders of particular congregations Ordaining Depriving c. these are not Powers ordained of God Rejoynd Corah Dathan and Abiram did not nor I believe would confesse that they did oppose any Ordinance of God but only the pride and usurpation of the Priests 2. If Classicall Elderships and graduall Judicatories be powers ordained of God as hath been shewed they are then you are guilty as you implicitely confesse of the sinne of Corah and do resist lawfull authority as they did 3. That which makes me to suspect your Way of this sin is 1. This is a sinne of the New-Testament as well as of the Old Jude v. 11. 2. It was not so much a sedition against Moses the Magistrate as a schisme against Moses the Minister and Aaron the Priest 3. They did gather a Gnedah out of a Gnedah a Congregation out of a Congregation Num. 16.1 the Chaldee understands it of taking that is of withdrawing of himself saying And Corah separated himself and Salomon Jarchi also expounds it He took himself aside to be apart from the congregation and Dathan and Abiram also took men and separated themselves or Corah took them all into a distinct Gnedah or congregation v. 5.16 Psal 106.17 Now who they are that plead for withdrawing separating gathering themselves from a true Church into a distinct Congregation you very well know 4. As also to whose opinion the gainsaying of Corah is most sutable in the very expressions of it All the church or congregation is holy you Elders take too much upon you wherefore lift ye up your selves above the church of the Lord The church hath the power of the Keyes the church may depose and excommunicate if she see just occasion all her Elders 5. The authors of that Schisme were no blasphemers hereticks or fundamentally erroneous no adulterers nor grossely vitious any way that we know of but in likelihood they were men of good report and repute the Text saith they were famous in the church and though they be called wicked men v. 26. that was but in relation to their Schisme which is a work of the flesh Gal. 5.20 and shewes men to be carnall 1 Cor. 3.1 2 3. and the originall word signifies restlesse turbulent men the Greek hath it hard men 6. That schisme pretending power and liberty and questionlesse profit too for if the Priests work might be taken of them why not their tythes and wages took mightily for 1. 250 Senators called to the Assembly the Greek translates it Councel of the Governours Statesmen famous and renowned joyned themselves to these Schismatiques 2. The Congregation yea many doubtlesse religiously affected in the simplicity of their hearts favoured them v. 19.22 And though God appeared in an unheard of way against them yet all the congregation judged that Moses Aaron did oppose the people of the Lord appropriating that title to Corah and his company as though Moses and Aaron were not Gods people but enemies for which murmuring God sent a plague v. 41. 45 46 47. The Lord preserve the Parliament and people of the land from this
abhominable sinne and grant that the dream may be to our common enemies and the interptetation to them that hate us CHAP. XXVIII Whether the Church appear to be a particular Congregation MAT. 18. Sect. 1. IN Cong way justified you professe your selves to hold that the exercise of church-Church-power by the Congregational church is founded upon this text as the observation of the Christian sabbath is upon the 4. Commandement I joyn issue with you and observe that you grant 1. As the 4. Commandement did at the first promulgation of it and afterward command the keeping of the seventh-day Sabbath so this Text did first send the offended party of the Jewish church to the Jewish church while that Church remained in power as you acknowledge 2. As the 4. Commandement doth equally command any day in the week which God by other Texts doth require to be kept after the expiration of the Jewish sabbath so this Text sends the people of God to any Church which after the dissolution of the Jewish church should be in strength by vertue of a charter from heaven 3. That he that shall affirm that the first day of the week is to be kept holy rather then the 7. or 6. is enjoyned by the fourth Commandement other Texts set aside doth abuse and wrest the 4. Commandement so he that asserts that this Text doth so prove that the Church must be only Congregationall not Nationall and Oecumenicall doth wrong this Text. 4. Hence also may be inferred That if a day or time of the same extent was there commanded to the Jewes and after the expiration of the Jewish sabbath to Christians then a Church of the same extent as was amongst the Jews which was a Church consisting of subordinate Judicatories and was Nationall assoon as it was capable of being such and in a sense Occumenicall is here prescribed to the Christians after the expiration of the Jewish church And this is as much or more then I intended for it my professed work was only to vindicate the Text from the Congregationall way not to urge it for the Presbyterian as you would make the Reader to believe If I at this time do solidly vindicate the said text I do as much as I desired the chief of your other texts on which your opinions are pretended to be built have been and shall be examined Though I might spare my labour in this point your selves confessing that Mat. 18. doth not prove that the Church must be congregationall which I would have persons concerned to take notice of yet I will give the Reader a taste of your Reply Sect. 2. Reply p. 86. The sinew and strength of your reason is this It is necessary that the judging Church in the times of the Gospel should answer in the manner of its judicature to the judging church in the time of the Law therefore the Gospel-Church ought to have gradual judicatories and appeals as the Jewish church had The main hypothesis whereof is unsound for it is necessary that the Judging church in the time of the Gospel should be conformed to spirituall precepts and patterns left us by Christ and his Apostles and Christ hath not appointed the Jewish church to be a pattern to Gospel churches so then Churches of Presbyterian complexion are not here understood for there is a vast difference between them and the Jewish church Rejoynd 1. The sinew and strength of my reasoning is not that which you pretend it is plain in the words to be this If Kahal and Ecclesia with the 70 signifie the company of Elders as well as the body of the People and a Church with graduate Judicatories and Appeals then this Text doth not prove whatsoever others do or do not that the Church must be a particular Congregation as opposed to Classical Provincial National c. But the first is true therefore the second And this argument is good and strong your selves being judges 2. It is enough for me to shew that it doth not conclude for the Congregationall way though I should not shew that it makes against it or for the Presbyterians The argument you propound is your own not mine nor would I put the matter of it into fuch forme did I use the argument 2. You shew a vast difference between our Churches and the Jewish but doth this prove that the subordination of Ecclesiastical judicatories amongst the Jews was ceremoniall or that we may not reason for it from the analogie of the Jewish church Anabaptists may and do render many differences between Judaisme and Christianity Baptisme and Circumcision and yet notwithstanding from them all we may conclude from analogie the lawfulnesse of Paedobaptisme and Christian Magistracie There is a vast difference between the Priests of the Law and Ministers of the Gospel yet the Apostle by analogie reasons from the one to the other in point of maintenance In things most like it is easie to find some difference none of your differences do cleer that subordination of Ecclesiastical judicatories was ceremoniall amongst the Jewes or unlawfull amongst Christians and therefore they are not pertinent But what are those differences Sect. 3. Reply p. 87. 1. The Sanhedrim did not consist of chosen men sent out by the Synagogues but of Priests and Levites R. If it did not consist of chosen men which you say but do not prove yet God hath appointed us to chuse men for the Synod Act. 15.2 The Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 determined or ordered to send Paul and Barnabas and certain others with them This is as truly an ordinance of God as that was then 2. That the Sanhedrim did consist of none but Priests and Levites you too barely and boldly affirm It is said that Jehosaphat did set of the Levites and Priests and of the chief of the fathers of Israel 2 Chron. 19.8 for the judgement of the Lord and for controversies You reply further p. 87. that there was one chief by office 2 Chron. 19.11 but in the Classicall way all are equall in point of office R. The High-Priesthood was ceremoniall and therefore it must be abrogated but that the Sanhedrim quà a superior Judicatory was ceremonial is the thing you should prove 2. If in the Classicall way all be equall in point of office how comes it to passe that you charge that way to be Prelatical 3. So far as the high Priest Amariah or any other was but a President of the Sanhedrim so far reason and light of nature if not of Scripture shewes us that we may follow the pattern Reply p. 87. Thirdly you reply The Sanhedrim dealt with civil matters Deut. 21.5 Synods with ecclesiasticall Rejoynd 1. Their civil lawes were divine not drawn up by Princes or Parliaments but by God himself and so as being Gods lawes the Priests were the Lawyers and did interpret them and tell de jure what of right ought to be done yet de facto the Ecclesiastical Sanhedrim did put no man to death
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
usuall nor needfull 3. How 8000. or suppose but 5000. new Converts and the many thousands converted by John Baptist Christ and the 12 Apostles and 70 Disciples before Christs death could at that meeting upon the Apostles motion all of them know the seven men and so unanimously agree upon this new businesse without considering and consulting apart especially seeing they were of divers languages is a thing incredible most probable it is that the Grecians that murmured against the Hebrewes did apart choose one or more of of the Deacons as suppose Nicolas the Proselyte of Antioch 4. Whereas you name Cenchrea though you bring nothing to prove it was only one particular assembly and your men pretend that it was but a little town I read that it was a very well frequented populous town most famous for the station of the ships and so might be large enough to contain in it many Church-assemblies as well as many Haven-towns in England do 5. There are no officers appointed by God for National churches but the same that are for lesser churches surely there may be National churches without National officers as in Scotland The office of a President Register c. nature may teach it National Synods which your selves hold lawfull as well as Congregationall Judicatories 6. For Lawes there are some lawes for Synods whether National Provincial or Oecumenical and there are some acts of Church-government which by the lawes of Christ every particular Congregation is unable to performe as I have formerly shewed 7. Seeing there is deep silence in the Scripture of this Position that every Church must be only Congregational and Independent in opposition to Classical Provincial c. and seeing also there is a charter from heaven for combination of Churches into Classes Synods and for the authoritative power thereof therefore they which say that Mat. 18. must needs be meant only of the former and cannot be rightly applied to the latter do abuse and wrest that Scripture Lastly Mr. Cotton himself saith Keyes 47. that the promise of binding and loosing is not given to a particular Congregation when it is leavened with error and variance Ecclesia litigans non ligat Clavis errans non ligat But then a Synod of Churches or of their messengers may judicially convince and condemn error search out truth determine declare and impose the way of truth and peace upon the Church You say a Synod must not assume authority of censuring Delinquents Wherein you oppose Mr. Cotton for how can a Synod of Churches impose wayes of truth and peace upon a litigating erring Church if she have no authority to censure the said delinquent Church nor any member of it except she her self will do it I leave you three to consider of the matter CHAP. XXIX Of the power of the Keyes in MAT. 16.19 Sect. 1. Reply p. 89. The power of the Keys we seat not in the people as contradistinguisht to their Elders but in the whole Church by a most wise and divine dispersion of power into the dissimilar parts of the Church Elders have an authoritative power the people have a power of liberty in point of Censures so that reclamante ecclesia there can be no excommunication Rejoynd 1. Who made these Keyes especially this key of Liberty cannot they that make Keyes make Locks too If God have made these Keyes I pray shew me when and where If the Scripture do not witnesse that they are true Keyes I shall think them to be picklocks and fit with the Popes keyes to be thrown into Tyber 2. A Key in all mens judgements was wont to imply office and authority they that have no office have no keys that I know of at their girdle In a family or in a corporation or city servants and citizens have some liberties priviledges and interests which yet have no stroke in ordering the Keyes in city or family 3. Do not your selves give the people without officers or as distinct from them a Key of authority Tell me I pray you is not Ordination an authoritative act an act of government And yet you say Pos 10. the brethren may ordain Is not Church-admonition as a step to an higher censure an authoritative act an act of government and yet you say the brethren may admonish their officers yea and excommunicate them at least negatively which you say is not so authoritative as the positive but yet you imply it is authoritative Do you hold that Elders do receive their authority from the Church of Believers or no If you do then the Church of believers hath authority else she could not give authority If you do not you forsake your own principles If ye hold that the peoples denyal of consent when a case is voted doth bind the Elders and the Elders denyal of consent doth not bind the people then the people have more authority then the Elders If you say the Elders and body of Members have each a negative voyce then you make the Church to consist of two co-ordinate societies which you cannot prove by Scripture 4. Your speech Reclamante ecclesia c. must be rightly understood or else it is not true the sentence of Excommunication may be valid in foro though not in facto in respect of right though it cannot take due effect as an Outlawry may be good in law though the people will not withdraw from the person out-lawed if the people had a negative voice which might illegitimate and disanull the act of the Presbyterie then they had greater authority then the Presbyterie A necessity of the Members consent doth constitute Church government in a Democratical frame in Rome Athens c. they had Magistrates yet the government was democratical But certainly it belongs to the Elders which are stewards of the mysteries of God 1 Cor. 4.1.2 Tit. 1.7 and not to the whole family next under the Lord and by his direction to take in and turn away servants and Elders have full power to baptize upon making of a disciple without any intervening act of the Church Mat. 28.19 and this power was exercised by John Baptist Mat. 3.6 Luk. 3.7 and the Disciples of Christ Joh. 4.1 2. and the Apostles Act. 2.37 38 41. Act. 4. 5. 8. c. no mention being made of a Church or Congregation voting for their admission into the Church by baptisme Sect. 2. When I answer that Peter and the rest to whom Christ directs his speech were Apostles in office and commission though not yet sent out into all the world you tell us that the terme Apostle is equivocall as noting 1. One authorised to dispence Doctrine and Discipline amongst all Nations Mat. 28.19 and in this sense Peter was no Apostle 2. As one sent out by a temporary commission to preach and work miracles amongst the Jewes only Rejoynd .. 1. That they were not called Apostles by Anticipation only is very clear as any historicall thing is for the Text saith hee chose made and
named the Apostles Luc. 6.13 Mark 3.13 Mat. 10.1 and that hee sent them Mark 6.7 Mat. 10.5 Luk. 9.1 2. The terme of Apostle is not equivocall for if your selves do not equivocate in the word equivocall but take it in a logicall sense it importes nomen commune and diversas rationes or essentiales definitiones so canis a dog is an equivocal terme being taken for the dog-starre or a living dog or a painted dog now sure you know that Peter had more of an Apostle than the dog-starre or paiâ—ted dog hath of a living dog nor do you think I beleeve whatsoever you pretend that Peter was an Apostle of one kind one while and another while of another that Judas was of one kind of Apostles and Matthias of another The Apostles without equivocation had the same office at first they had at last only their limits were enlarged you father your distinction upon mee but I own it not Peter was authorised to dispence doctrine and discipline any where the Apostleship included a generall commission in it but Christ immediately after hee made them Apostles prohibited them from going to the Gentiles or Samaritans Mat. 10.2 and so I meant they were not yet sent out into all the world as neither they were long after they undoubtedly had commission to teach all Nations nor was James all the time of his life that we read of sent out into all the world but abode in Jerusalem to his death and yet was as truly and fully an Apostle as any of the rest 3. The 70. which were not Apostles were sent forth by a temporary commission to preach and work miracles amongst the Jewes only by your definition they should be Apostles all the life time of Christ as well as the twelve And whereas you say Reply p. 91 that the promise of the keyes was not made to Peter as authorized to dispence doctrine and work miracles among the Jewes nor was bee an Elder invested with authoritative power of government he could not Excommunicate by himselfe or all the rest of the twelve with him but must shake off the dust of his feet against them Mat. 10. I answer the Apostles were then sent forth to baptize and did actually baptize which you acknowledge to be the work of an Elder and allowed to receive maintenance 2. The Apostles had authoritative power of government immediately after they were Apostles as also Jesus himselfe more fully had though it is not mentioned that they did much exercise it either because the power of the high Priest and of the tribe of Levi was not to cease till the death of Christ or because Christ the great shepheard was then upon earth authoritatively to governe all his disciples as hee thought good but indeed hee himselfe did neither vote in Synagogues nor in Sanhedrin that I know of or for some other speciall reason yet when one was casting out Devils in Christs name the Apostles forbade him the word imports either a forcible or authoritative Prohibition as the Church of Rome forbids meates and marriages 1 Tim. 4.2 Luc. 9.49 Mar 9.38 and Christ doth not blame them for taking on them to forbid but for forbiding what they should not Lastly the shaking the dust off their feet was a renouncing of their communion a reall pronouncing of them to bee unclean unworthy that the Apostles should tread upon any dust of their land a delivery up to Gods judgement and was only prescribed to men in office Sect. 2. Reply p. 92. The thing promised may be considered two wayes 1. As a reward in generall of grace and mercy and so it was promised to Peter as making such a glorious confession which he did not make as a generall officer but as a beleever I say unto thee 2. As importing a power of opening and shutting and so it is promised to Peter as a beleever and in him to all those that make the same holy confession yet not to bee executed by any under the notion of a beleever only but imports an office or state under the capacity whereof it was to be executed and Christ doth herein promise that capacity viz. that Peter should bee as a member as an Elder as an Apostle no beleever at this day meerly as a beleever though externally confessing Christ with the mouth may have any share in executing the power of keyes unlesse he be a brother joyned to some Church or an Elder Rejoynd 1. This distinction was made I think for this present purpose and you can make more of them if there bee cause but the Position in the Grammatical sense of the words doth not expresse nor imply such a thing 2. If the power of the keyes considered as a reward of grace and mercy was promised or given to Peter as making such a glorious confession then it was not profession of faith nor in churching that moved God to give him the keyes but sincerity and sanctity whence it followes 1. That Peter did not speak in the name of the rest of the Apostles for his personal sanctity and sincerity of profession could not procure a reward of grace and mercy to them all but by the context it appears that hee spake in the name of them all for v. 15. Christ saith to them not to Peter only and v. 20. hee charged the disciples not Peter only that they should tell no man that hee was Jesus the Christ implying that they did know it and Christ knew they knew it which as man hee could not do without their confession of him and this wee hold against the Papists nor can you deny it 2. If the keyes were promised as a reward of grace and mercy then Judas could not partake of the keyes in that respect for to him being an hypocrite there belonged no reward of grace and mercy 3. Nor can any Minister or member that is not a vessel of grace and mercy receive any part of the power of the keyes under that notion 3. The Position imports that Christs speech to Peter I will give thee the keyes c. conceives Peter in some present capacity and not only in a promised capacity for it argues that the Apostles were not considered as generall officers because that commission was not yet given them And Peter and the rest did actually baptise which doth imply they were already officers and therefore your speech that Eldership Apostleship were then but promised them cannot bee true 4. The Text is so far from asserting that Peters church-member-ship made him capable of the execution of the power of the keyes which you say it did that â— it doth expressly distinguish the Church from Peter for having named the Church v. 18. say not And I will give to it the keyes but I will give to thee the keyes 2. The Church here spoken of is not any particular congregation against which the gates of hell may prevaile as they have prevailed against Rome Hierusalem c. but either the universal
visible church or the visible church neither of which the gates of hell can utterly overthrow 5. Keyes in Scripture phrase doe import office and authority either Magisteriall Rev. 1.18 and 3.7 Or Ministeriall Isay 22.22 But all church-members are not officers and you sometimes say that unofficed men have no authority Sect. 3. When I say If the keyes bee given to Peter aâ— a beleever then they are given to all beleevers making Peters confession whether in chuch-convenant or no whether church-members or no whether males or females for a quatenus ad omne valet consequentia you having first granted that the power of the keyes is promised to every beleever making Peters confession though it cannot bee executed by them except they bee in such a capacity of state or office You reply p. 93. That axiome will not hold when wee speak of a soveraign Lord acting in a transcendent way of liberty nor of a raâ—ional creature moving according to choyce and election If one looking upon a servant as faithfull should promise him all the keyes of the house that hee should open and shut to all the rest it will not follow that every other faithfull servant may execute that power or that hee may execute it as a faithfull servant Rojoynd I knew well before you told mee that it is one thing to promise to give the keyes to a servant because hee is faithfull and another thing for that servant to execute the power of the keyes quâ a faithfull servant everlasting Priesthood was promised as you truly alleadge to Phineas because hee was zealous for God his zeale and especially Gods own free love moved God to give it him but did not enable him to exercise the Priestly functions only his calling to the Priesthood did thereunto enable him 2. That the words in the Position as disciples and beleevers are to bee interpreted by because they were disciples and beleevers therefore as a reward of grace and mercy a further office was promised to them you strangely presume yet your selves hold not that God did look upon Judas of whom the Position must needs bee understood as well as of the rest of the Apostles as faithful and did therefore promise him the keyes as a reward of grace and mercy 3. What the opinion is of the Elders of New-England out of whose book the Position seemed to mee to bee taken though I meddle not with it as such but take it in terminis the Reader may see Answ to 32. q. p. 44. and p. 49. c. Where they expresly affirme that church-power church-government the keyes are committed to the whole Church and that some exercise of it is in the whole Church as distinct from the officers yea over the officers themselves if they offend and therefore I wonder that you should say in your last clause that the Elders of New-England do not give authoritative power to the Ruled but to the Elders seeing in the 22. position set down by your selves the thrones and Crownes Answ to 32. q. p. 45. are by them aleadged as I upon supposal the position might originally bee theirs noted in the margin to bee ensignes of authority and governing power in church-members and in your last you assert this to bee the allegation of the Elders of New-England and that it may be they are able to maintain it though you by reason of your weaknesse dare not undertake it you have need to come with another distinction to reconcile your selves and to shew how that Position can be asserted by them and yet give authoritative power to the Elders and not to the members CHAP. XXX Of Excommunication Delivering to Sathan In 1 COR. 5. WHen I urge that Paul's blaming of the Believers as well as the Elders doth not prove that they had power to put away the incestuous man for he blames the women that did not mourn but were puffed up as well as the men and yet the women by your confession had no such power You reply When an Epistle is writ to a whole Church it doth respect particular persons according to their severall capacities Now women are not in a capacity of dispensing Church-censures therefore the reproof extends not to them If things indefinitely spoken to a whole Church because they cannot be verified of one who is not in a capacity to receive them may not therefore be affirmed of another then because a liberty in cutting off offenders by vertue of Gal. 5.9.12 13. doth not belong to women neither doth it belong to Elders or brethren Rejoynd 1. Your rule is good and sound but gains you nothing for hence it followes that whosoever by Scripture rules is in capacity to administer Church-censures is only blamed for not dispensing them whether Elders brethren and sisters or Elders and brethren or Elders alone and they that are not in that capacity are not blamed for not dispensing censures though they may be blamed for being puffed up and not rather mourning That Elders are in such capacity we both agree that brethren are in it I deny if therefore Scriptures do not affirm that Brethren are in such capacity then this place which respects particular persons according to their severall capacities and puts none into a new capacity doth not blame the Brethren for not dispensing Church-censures no more then it doth blame women You beg the question and take that for granted which I deny and you should prove and interim you prove that which was never denied 2. If you call cutting off of offenders an act of liberty I pray you what is an act of authority Sect. 2. When I cite Mr Cotton speaking of Pauls excommunicating alone 1 Tim. 1.20 you leave out the citation and would make the Reader believe it was only my speech and yet you do not professe to deny it nor to argue strongly against it only you say If we should deny it we could argue probably for the negative R. I will not justifie Mr. Cotton at least not in that expression Paul did excommunicate For 1. as in my Answer I left it in medio whether Excommunication and delivering up to Sathan were the very same thing or no propending rather to the opinion which differenceth them So now I know not any necessity why they should be the very same for though every Excommunication Clave non errante be a kind of delivering up to Sathan yet every Delivering up to Sathan especially in those times was not Excommunication Job was delivered up to Sathan Job 2.6 so were those that were possessed with Devils and yet were not excommunicated When the Apostle saith hee hath in readinesse to revenge all disobedience 2 Cor. 10.6 That he hath a rod 1 Cor. 4.21 That when he comes he will not spare 2 Cor. 13.2 he doth not I conceive mean it of sharp rebukes or of excommunication which were not so proper and peculiar to the Apostle but the Church might have done that before Paul came 2. I will not meddle
action of the infinitive in another person having no other ground but only Rhetoricall placing by which it stands nearer to the Infinitive then the verb doth 4. There might bee good reason to require the assembling of themselves together though hee only did deliver to Sathan 1. That the Church might behold it and bee afraid might repent of their glorying and being puffed up and take heed of the same sinne least they should meet with the same punishment 2. That there might be more shame and confusion upon the Incestuous mans spirit as when a Malefactor is openly punisht 3. That they which were in capacity to dispense church-censures might more solemnly excommunicate hiâ— 4. That the rest if they also must bee gathered might give a popular consent and approbation to the sentence and execute it in withdrawing from him some of these reasons were given by mee in my answer by way of prevention but you left them out that your objection might bee more plausible 5. If the Church of Corinth by an extraordinary commission had been enabled in Pavl's absence of body and presence of his spirit to deliver the Incestuous person to Sathan that cannot bee drawn into ordinary imitation 6. As for your other passages I find you mis-aprehension of my opinion to bee the ground of all or the greatest part of your discourse you conceive I grant that delivering up to Sathan and excommunication of the incestuous person is all one possibly I did not so clearly in my answer expresse my conceptions as I might and ought to have done out of a feare of multiplying questions Whereas you say in p. 96. The Church in 1 Cor. 5.7.4.5 is made by the holy Ghost the subject excommunicating I grant you that the Church in v. 7 8. 13. was the subject purging out or putting away if you will the subject excommunicating with this proviso that as imposition of the hands of the Presbytery is by your selves p. 96. called the concurrence of the Church in Ordination so the acting only of the Presbytery in excommunication may be called the concurrence of the Church As the whole Church which Act. 15.22 is said to send messengers and decrees to Antioch was in the judiciall passing of those decrees only the Apostles and Elders Acts 15.2 and 16.4 and 21.5 3. I assert not that Paul did command the Church to deliver the Incestuous person to Sathan nor that excommunication was an act belonging to the Apostolique function I know it may and ought in cases requiring it bee transacted by the Church I assert not that there were no other grounds of Paul's writing to them to put away the wicked person but to try their obedience I only say if Paul did write to them to deliver him to Sathan as you strongly affirme some other way then by church-censure then the Church of Corinth was in obedience to Paul and by his spirit to deliver him up and every Church hath not the same power and this was the reason of those passages Paul by Apostolique authority bids the Colossians cause an Epistle to bee read in Laodicea c. I grant that whatsoever power the fraternity and the Presbytery of the Church of Corinth had the fraternity and Presbytery of all such Churches as Corinth was hath to the end of the world but deny that the fraternity of that or any other Church hath power to dispence church-censures and that it is that you should prove Sect. 4. When I say that bidding them purge out the old leaeven and put away from them that wicked person c must not bee understood as if Elders and people were equally authorized thereunto c. You reply p. 100. Is not this to insinuate that the Elders of New-England and Mr. Cotton affirme that the Elders and people are equally authorized to cast out the incestuous person there is nothing in the place by you alleadged that doth import thus much the King for a mis-carriage in a cause may reprove the Jury as well as the Judge and not imply that Judge and Jury are equally authorized c. Rejoynd 1. The Position in the letter saith that he did reprove the brethren of the Church of Corinth as well as the Elders that they did no sooner put him away implying that the brethren were to put him away as well as the Elders 2. The Position in the scope of it seems not to me if I understand it to make any difference between the power of Elders and of Brethren Mr. Cottons words are There is no word in the Text that attributes any power to the Presbyterie apart or singularly above the rest but as the reproof is directed to them all so is the commandement directed to them all Cottons way p. 99. You bring in Mr. Cotton expresly giving all authority properly so called to the Eldership allotting only popular power of interest and liberty to the people I would suppose he doth not contradict himself and yet me thinks in his late book called the Keyes he comes neerer to the truth then in the former called the Way I know not how to reconcile him I leave it to you to do which are better acquainted with his manner of speaking 3. If N. E. men may interpret the Position which I conceive might be and you assert was taken out of them they do hold that the Members of the Church have authority and governing power I will not glosse on their words or meaning or on your distinction of authority properly so called and not properly so called let the Reader judge as he pleaseth I count these unnecessary unprofitable debates 4. Your comparison of Elders and people to Judge and Jury is not proper for the Jury is not all the County or Corporation but only some select dozen of men out of many and so the Ruling Elders are liker to the Jury then all the Congregation 2. The judgement of the Jury is a judgement I think of authority properly so called for they condemne or acquit the party in some degree though not compleatly Sect. 5. Reply p. 100. And lastly A man would think you did acknowledge that the People in suo gradu were authorized to purge out the old leven and put away the wicked person which questionlesse is some act of governing power and yet in the Catastrophe of your Discourse you wipe the Fraternity clearly of all such acts This is is a ridle Rejoynd 1. I do acknowledge that the people yea the women are authorised in suo gradu to put away the wicked persons viz. by withdrawing from them being excommunicated yet sure Womens withdrawing is no act of governing power but of obedience to it for you say Women are prohibited by positive law from having any Church-power though it is said women do exercise power in some of the new Churches in London When the Steward of a family hath discharged a naughty servant all the servants are authorized to withdraw from him yea if need be to turn him
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
misgovernment of his family in his absence which he prayes against mourns for and endeavours what he can at such a distance to amend Surely God will be to him a more equall and mercifull Judge Lastly your selves do hold communion of Churches too for counsel though not for jurisdiction yea you hold that Churches ought to have a 〈◊〉 one of another are you thereupon guilty of all those heresies and blasphemies that are broached by men which at first were Independents if you do admonish them of their error and renounce communion with them and use what means you can to reclaime them Sect. 4. I read in Rev. 4. that four and twenty Elders distinguished from believers c. 7.8.11.13.14 not four and twenty Saints or members were clothed and crowned by which I understand the officers of the Church alluding to the four and twenty orders of the Priests and the four beasts represent the Christian churches through the four quarters of the world alluding to the foure camps of Israel bearing in their standards the same beasts By your exposition the Elders which you say are signified by the four beasts are excluded from governing power for they sit not on thrones nor have crowns on their heads Their crowns and thrones are no more ensignes of power and authority then their white raiment of Priesthood Cot keyes p. 16. But they are not Priests by office they cannot do Pastorall acts as baptize c. neither have they authority to govern Every Christian man or woman Church-member or other hath a crown and sitteth on a throne viz. is spiritually a King and Priest to God Rev. 5.10 Finally governing power properly so called you acknowledge none but in the Elders alone 1 Cor. 12.28 Rom. 12.8 Heb. 13.17 The peoples power you say is more fitly called liberty and priviledge too mean a thing to be represented by crowns and thrones This my answer to Rev. 4. you blot out by an Index expurgatorius and being justly taxed for it in my Epistle before my Quaere's you say That in the copying out of your Reply for the Presse it was omitted but whether casu or consilio casually or purposely we cannot say I pray you whom should I ask if you know not You tell us how godly and able men having proved a thing by plain texts of Scripture do adde probable ones though more obscure But I pray you where are those plain texts which do solidly prove that Church-members are to sit on thrones or that they have authority and governing power You expresse your selves unwilling to defend the Position by vertue of the Text at least in that expression viz. of authoritative and governing power Why then do you not ingenuously confesse that the Text doth not prove the Position You say that it may be N. E. men are able to maintain it by vertue of the Text. Then it may be authority and governing power may be duly setled on Church-members as distinct from officers by Gods word You say that the exposition that I give in my answer seemed probable to one of you yet upon further inspection you have some exceptions against it though you do not absolutely reject it But if my exposition seem probable and you do not reject it why do you except against it 1. You say the four Beasts are full of eyes Revel 4.8 but you read not of any eyes that the Elders had I answer it was convenient to mention the beasts with eyes that it may not be thought the Churches were bruitishly ignorant but to mention Elders with eyes was superfluous seeing they are men and of the gravest and wisest of men and you may presume they had eyes for the Text tels us not that they were blind 2. You say the four beasts do lead the 24 Elders in the worship and service of God Rev. 4 9 10. c. 5.8 11. Now Churches do not lead their Officers but Officers the Churches I answer 1. The Elders are sometimes set before the four beasts Rev. 7.11 2. If I should say When the Society of Duckenfield doth communicate the Elders do break the bread therefore the Church of Duckenfield doth lead her Officers you would laugh at that consequence The cafe is the same When those beasts give glory and honour you may read shall give glory and honour the 24 Elders fell down therefore say you the Church doth lead her Officers 3. You say As for your allegation Rev. 7.9 11 13 14. that Elders are distinguished from believers we discern not that they are any more distinguished then the four beasts are I answer You may discern more distinction for one of the Elders not any of the four beasts speaks of them as of another sort then themselves in some respects v. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These are they not We are they c. 4. You say Mr. Conon asserts some priviledges of Church-members which are priviledges of Kings wearing crowns viz. to transact nothing by themselves but by their officers 2. Their consent is requisite to the judgements that passe in the Church I answer 1. I thought that a Church viz. the non-officed members had nor transacted things by their Officers to expresse their royalty but for want of authority per se to administer Sacraments 2. That their consent had not been a royall consent as to Acts of Parliament but a popular consent 3. No exposition can be given of the words but some exceptions may be made against it 4. All your exceptions together are not of such weight no not with your selves as that you daâ—e because of them reject the exposition I gave Lastly if you do maintain the position that Church-members have authority and governing power you contradict your selves CHAP. XXXII Of taking Christ for their onely spirituall Prophet Priest and King Deut. 18.15 Act. 7.37 Psal 110.4 Heb. 5.4 Isa 9.6 7. Rev. 15.3 YOu professe that you do not appropriate this to the Congregational churches as if in these offices Christ were so only hers that no five or six or one particular Saint out of Church-fellowship no Classical Presbyterial or National Church may take him for their only Prophet Priest and King You condemn any that have thus expressed themselves you call it a cup of abomination and say in whose sack soever it be found let him suffer according to his dâ—â—â—rits Yea that all the churches of God yea all the people of God may deservedly condemn such that it favours of most detestable pride and censoriousnesse that it is a thing of greatest abhorrency to our thoughts if it fall on this side blasphemie against the holy Ghost Rejoynd 1. The texts cited prove that Christ is a King a Priest and Prophet but not that Congregational churches do only so take him 2. You insinuate that it may be found in the writings of some on your right hand you may mean the rigid Seperatists which if it bee I am sure it is found in the writings of those that in point of
government are Congregational men and Independents and neither Presbyterians nor Prelatists but some of them members of your Churches 3. I read in one that is meerly a Congregational man viz. Mr. B. that our Ministers and those that are converted by them do deny Christs Kingly Government and that a main thing is wanting viz. Christs Kingly Office and that they refuse Christ for their only King and other words to that effect 4. That this is a doctrine devised by my selfe and Scriptures fixed to it to make you odious as you say in your last is a most uncharitable ungrounded surmise yet you are as peremptory in i◠as if you infallibly knew that never any one of the Congregational way had ever in speech or writing vented such a thing I will not bring against you a rayling accusation only I say you know not of what spirit you are it is well if your selves bee not guilty of such practises 5. You own the Position in terminis and do I doubt not apply it to your society but as it is by mee controverted you say you own it not what do ye not hold that a Congregational Church rather than a Presbyteriall doth acknowledge Christ to bee the only King c. You say little lesse when you say that our way as you conceive is not suitable to the will of God delivered by Christ as a Prophet nor to the Lawes of Christ as King and yours is conformed to that will and lawes but I asked you what Scripture doth so witnesse and you returne no answer I dare say you cannot make your speech good 6. Your selves in your last p. 36. do complain of me for such divulging to the world the doubts of brethren wanting light and addressing themselves to mee for satisfaction and say it will make them tender how they seek satisfaction from mee for the future and yet you often call upon mee to name my authors but as the brethren were not displeased but some of them desirous of the publishing of the first book so I will notwithstanding all your provocations bee tender of their names as of mine own and bee willing to spend and be spent for them humbly hoping that as heretofore I have been hereafter I more fully may be Gods Instrument for their settlement and satisfaction in the way of God CHAP. XXXIII Whether 1 TIM 6.13 14. proves the unchangeablenesse of the Discipline of Christ Sect. 1. WHen I say it seems by the words Thou O man of God I give thee charge that thou keep this commandement viz. which immediately precedes concerning faith holinesse in the Ministrie of the Word to be directed to Timothy himselfe or if to his successors then it must be to the ordinary Elders for Evangilists which succeeded him wee know none not to the churches for example not to the Church of Ephesus to whom Paul writes nothing of government though in his Epistles to Tymothy hee writes almost of nothing else and chargeth the Elders to take heed to the flock and look to the wolves Act. 20.28 You Reply p. 107. Doe these words Ephes 4.11 12. nothing concern Church-Government Rejoind Yes in generall termes but they are not spoken to the Church as the proper subject or party to act in or manage government which was the sense I spake in nor do they tend to invest any but Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastors Teachers with church-Church-power only they make the Church the object about which and for the good whereof that power is to bee used whom the Apostle would stir up to a good esteem and profitable enjoyment of the ministeriall power but not to assume or challenge it to or execute it by Non-elders Reply p. 107. If you will acknowledge that the things written to Timothy concerne Elders Deacons beleevers out of office according to their severall capacities then we will grant that all the things contained in the whole Epistle are directed to Timothy himselfe but not for his own personall use but for the use of the Church Rejoynd I expressly excluded that large and laxe sense which you here mention in saying not to the Churches not to the Church of Ephesus in opposition to that hint which I had good reason to suspect was in the position that churches in your sense and not the Elders only are the subjects actors executors in the rules given and so you should mean speaking to purpose nor can I admit it for some things in this Epistle are meerly and solely for his personall use I mean in opposition to the Church and all ordinary persons in it as these cap. 1.2 3 4.18 cap. 4.14 and cap. 5 23. and some things are for the use of some and not of others in the Church cap. 2.9 10. and cap. 3.2 3. and 8.9 and cap. 5.2 3 4 5. and cap. 6.1 2. and 17. 2. If you mean that the things in the whole Epistle are not for Timothies personall use but for the use of the whole Church objectivè or finaliter for the good and benifit of the whole Church in their severall capacities in and about which they are exercised you say the truth but what is this to prove that all the commandements concerning Timothy are directed to the whole Church to bee executed by her and not by Timothy or the officers only Sect. 2. Reply p. 107. If by these words to be directed to Timothy himselfe you mean that the commandement immediately preceding concerns none by way of obligation but only Timothy you beat upon a harsh string for must none flee these things fight the good fight of faith lay hold on eternal life by vertue of this Text but only Timothy or if to his successors then it must be the ordinary Elders not the Church you mend non the matter must Elders only and not beleevers follow after godlinesse righteousnesse faith c Rejoynd 1. I might without any harshnesse or absurdity argue that the commandement preceding concerns none by way of obligation but only Timothy himselfe or if any else his successors the ordinary Elders and that none are to performe the duties of v. 11 12. in the sense here used by vertue of this Text but hee or they for what harshnesse and absurdity cannot it bee to say that Bishops only are to bee blamelesse to have but one wife to bee vigilant sober c. by vertue of cap. 3. v. 2 3 4. or that Deacons only must bee grave not double-tongued not given to much wine c. by vertue of v. 8 9. and that their wives should bee grave v. 13. though other men besides Bishops are to be blamelesse the husband of one wife c. for that which is spoken in Scripture to or of one particular person is sometimes appliable to others 1. When the subiect matter is of common concernment and a generall duty as Mark 13.37 or secondly when there is a parity of persons as what is commanded to one as a father Magistrate Minister
our sacrifices and burnt offerings accepted to have a name better then of sonnes c. For the attainment of which all agree those qualifications are required but to conclude thence that the Church must require all those qualifications to Church-communion is as much as to say whatever qualification God requires to make us capable of three or four priviledges the Church must require them all to one though that one be the least and lowest and an outward priviledge which a reprobate may be capable of and the other inward speciall spirituall priviledges proper to the elect 3. That is a promise and Gods promises are not the rule for such as have the exhibition of the things promised to be guided by meat drinke lodging safety from the plague admission to the Word Prayer Fasting each good thing is by God somewhere or other promised to persons so and so qualified see for instance Isa 33.15.16 Psal 91.1.2.14 Psal 25.8 Must therefore men see that persons must be so and so qualified before they give them meat drinke cloaths or preserve them from the plague or admit them to pray heare the word or to fast with them But of the qualification of Church-members as also of your other two Texts I have spoken before You further reply p. 110. That the members of the Church be united by a right medium is essentiall to Discipline but whether this right medium be I know not what implicite Covenant or whether it be an expresse Covenant or the legall bounds of the Parish is no small question R. That is not an Essential of discipline that is before it and can be without it but such is this union by a right medium union or coalition of a society must needs in time as well as in nature precede the ordering and regulating of the said society if it may be called essentiall to discipline yet then it is not within the Position for that speaks of the essentials of discipline It is essential to discipline that the Members should be reasonable creatures but you will not say that this is an essentiall of discipline within the verge of the Position 2 If you know not an implicite covenant Mr. E. and Mr. T. will teach you and bring in Dr. Ames to teach you also p. 37 38. and see this Rejoynd 3. Whereas you stand for the explicite covenant to be the right medium c. and so essentiall to discipline let me minde you to keep to your definition of essentials which as ye say are such particulars in the system of divine rules either precepts or presidents as if any of them be wanting somewhat is detracted from he compleat order of the Gospel Now you having yet given neither precept nor president out of the Script how can you put it among the essentials 4. None that I know do hold that the legal bounds of the Parish are the right medium of uniting a Church nor that they are the necessary limits of a Congregational church though the cohabitation of comembers hath been shewed to have ground on the Scripture and reason c. 2. But say they do I do not cannot make those bounds to be a medium uniting the Church common reason saith that Puncta terminantia non sunt continuantia 5. Whereas you cite three Scriptures in your margent I suppose for an explicite covenant I answer Act. 2.41 5.13 speak of adding to and joyning of those that had before been Jewes by profession to the Apostles and the rest but of joyning by covenant and that an explicite one too into a Congregationall church to which the Apostles themselves were never so joyned they speak not one word What 1 Cor. 12. should do in your margent you that set it there can best rell I know not You adde that Ordination Excommunication c. be done by the right subjectum capax of these Ordinances 1 Tim. 4.14 Tit. 1.5 Act. 14.23 is an essentiall part of discipline But whether Churches in some cases may ordain by deputies no Church-Elders or whether in an ordinary way the power must be in the Eldership of particular Congregations or in a compound Chassique Eldership is a great controversie Rejoynd It had been contended by you that the text 1 Tim. 6.13 14. relates to the rules of Church-government in this Epistle and therein bottoms the assertion of a discipline in essentials unchangeable and to be kept till the appearing of Christ Now one of those rules you have about Ordination 1 Tim. 4.14 delivered by president a rule in your definition of discipline and others also cited by your in margent Tit. 1.5 Act. 14.23 and no other way of Ordination can you find out in the Gospel therefore by your own confession Ordination to be only by a Presbyterie is an unchangeable perpetuall law 2. That Ordination is not in an ordinary way in the Presbyterie of a particular Congregation but in a compound Classick Presbyterie is no such great controversie but whether it may be or in some cases must be that not only neighbouring Elders should be present and advise which your selves require but also that they should anthoritatively act in Ordination this thing is spoken of before 3. You may possibly hold Holy kisse Oyle c. lawfull and covenient though you hold them not essentiall if you do not others are of opinion they are ordinances of God and do act accordingly Sect. 7. Reply p. 110. The remainder of your examination drawn out into seven particulars though we cannot assent to every thing in them yet we shall passe them over because though they were all granted yet it may be clearly deduced from 1 Tim. 6.13 that Christ hath left but one way of Discipline for all Churches for these are no parts of the discipline left by Christ to the Church which in the essentials of it is unchangeable Rej. You do not onely not transcribe nor answer the seven particulars nor leave them quietly out but passe a scornfull censure upon them let the Reader read them and what you except against them in this and your last and judge between us 2. But I pray you is not the office of an Apostle and Evangelist to omit sundry other things in those 7 particulars a part and an essentiall part of the discipline left by Christ to the Church 1 Cor. 12.28 Eph. 4.11 and mentioned too in the Epistles to Timothy 1 Tim. 1.1 2 Tim. 4.5 and yet they were but temporary not perpetuall though the Seekers expect such officers now also but indeed if Discipline were by you rightly defined a System of Divine rules which are not a temporary nature but of perpetuall use equity then it were impossible and would imply a coutradiction that it should be changeable Lastly when I aske a narrative of your way especially of what you count essentialls you answer we thought to have satisfied you herein but that work is done to our hands by Reverend Mr. Cotton and we be are a work of the same
nature by the Congregational men of the Assemblie is upon the anvile we are not obliged to give forth a narrative of our way more then the Presbyterians are of theirs Rejoynd 1. I would you had bestowed that pains not so much for my satisfaction though I doe desire it as for the satisfaction of many hundreds and the rather because Mr. Cottons way and keyes cannot both bee a true narrative for the keyes lye crosse the Way and whether of them you fully owne if either of them I know not in this your Reply you question or deny that which is asserted in them both and the Publishers of both of them were not of the same judgement with the book they published 2. As for the work of the Congregationall men of the Assembly which you say was then on the anvile I wonder when it will come off ever or never the Assembly hath long long expected it your party hath promised it they were once made a Committee for that end and some made that businesse a pretence to excuse their not so frequent comming to the Assembly that hitherto as Mr. Duraeus and Mr. Apollonius complain of their unwillingnesse to declare their opinions they have refused to give up a narrative either because any one of them is not at a point in his own judgement nor resolved where to fixe they having professed to keep as a reserve liberty to alter and retract which if their model were given in they could not so fairly and honorably doe or possibly they are not all fixed in one and the same point possibly they cannot agree amongst themselves for it is easier to agree in dissenting then in affirming or possibly if they seven agree some other brethren may not like it or others that at present are a strength to them and expect shelter from them and they would not discontent any party Brownists Anabaptists c. or for some other reason which wee know not but sure there is none yet 3. For the Presbyterian government you have sundry books of the Scotish Discipline of the French and Dutch Churches yea the Assembly hath given up to the Parliament an intire platforme of Church-government which we hope they will at least when they are petitioned by the Kingdome so to doe command to be printed for my part I shall not stick God thereunto enabling mee to doe any thing for our way which I desire you to doe in behalfe of yours I prae sequar CHAP. XXXIV Whether a Minister may act Ministerially in another Congregation Sect. 1. WHen I say 1 Pet. 4.15 speaketh not of the Church or of the Elders more then of any other men nor medling with the affairs of other Churches but with other mens matters and such medling for which they suffered from the heathens in those dayes Let no man suffer c. and is of no more strength against the power of a Presbytery over particular Congregations then against the power of Parliaments above other Courts You Reply p. 112. You say true the place meddleth neither with the one nor with the other nor was produced to any such purpose Rejoynd I said in my margent the like words are found Answ to 32. q. and you dare not say they are not found there 2. As for the Position whether it be the same with the saying of the Elders it maketh no matter unto me I have at once answered all these imputations 3. Yet surely upon second thoughts you will cleer me of doing any grosse wrong to the Elders yet though the Position should be acknowledged to be taken out of them in adding to the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Pet. 4. because 1. That is the only place of Scripture where that word is used 2. Your selves confesse the Elders doe allude to that place and you justifie their so doing 3. Either the Elders doe bring this as a proof of the Position or they affirme it gratis without proof 4. That they bring it as a proof the particular for doth witnesse 5. You may beleeve that this Text was produced against the Presbytery by others if not by N. E. men in the place cited and seeing you acknowledge that it can witnesse no such thing I have my full end Sect. 2. When I assert your Inference from Acts 20.28 1 Pet. 5.1 2. supposeth that the flocks mhere mentioned were two particular Congregations which is impossible to be proved You reply it supposeth no such thing only implieth that there is something in those Texts against Ministers performing ministeriall acts to other Congregations Rejoynd The position speaks of a particular Congregation and your tenet confines Ministerial power within a particular Congregation and pleads the Elders restraint to the flocks in the Acts and Peter respectively for a Ministers restraint to his particular Congregation if then it be not granted that those flocks are particular Congregations as I said that is impossible to be proved so now I say it is impossible to prove the position from them you know it would be a silly argument to say the Elders in Ephesus Pontus Galatia c. are tyed within their flocks of Ephesus Pontus Galatia respectively which were or might be many congregations apiece therefore a Minister may not act ministerially beyond his particular Congregation and therefore as I suppose when you come in your next page to argue severally from these Texts you put this for a Postulatum that the flock at Ephesus was but one Congregation 2. If this be not taken for granted that the flock of Ephesus and the other may each of them contain severall Congregations there is much more for a combined Presbytery to govern joyntly many Congregations and for a Minister to act beyond the verge of a particular Congregation then is against either of them therein for 1. Those at Ephesus are called one flock one church as also they in Peter are called one flock now if this one flock was many congregations they must needs have a medium a way of union or something wherein they are one as the same fould pasture guides viz Church-ordinances Pastors 2. The Elders in both the places have a joynt adequate generall and promiscuous charge without any parcelling or limitation that can import a distribution of the flock spoken of the words over which in the one and amongst you in the other place being termes distinctive of the flock spoken of from other flocks not distributive of the flock into severall flocks and in Acts 20. it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 take heed to all the flock which flock if it contained many Congregations as you say the Inference supposetth not the contrary then they have a call and warant to act ministerially out of the bounds of one Congregation Sect. 3. Reply p. 112. The Texts in Acts 20.28 gives this charge Take heed to your selves and to all the flock c their charge extends to none of them beyond the flock over which the holy Ghost made them
saying if all were one member where is the body is not to be understood so much that the Church must be a Collective body as that it must be an Organical Heterogeneal body if all were one member id est if all were one sort of members all eye all eare all feet as is plain by the Coherence 1 Cor. 12.14.15 c. 4. Your Reply leaves the reader very doubtful in that you say God hath not precisely determined what number doth make a Church for he may question first how you dare precisely determine either that 7.8 or 9. may make a Church that a Church may consist of so many as may with edification meet in one place and of no more which doth determine the number materialiter though not formaliter seeing God himself hath not precisely determined it as your selves confess 2. You do not possitively must be found to be lyers him what number did at any time make a Church whether 7. or 8. or 10.20.40 or 100. but send him to seek it 5. Mr. Cotten saith though there might be a domestical Church in Adam and Eve at the beginning yet such a Church as Christ hath instituted in the new Testament consisteth of a greater number then two or three way of the Churches P. 53. And if you do assert that Adam and Eve did then make a Church which seems to be your opinion for you argue only against one person being a Church then you have scripture produced by mee and cited by you Defence P. 73. And Reverend Mr. Cotton against such a number making a Church now And indeed in the beginning of the world there was defectus physicus but now if a defect be it is defectus moralis If there were no woman in the world an incontinent person could not many but now it is a sin for him not to marry 6. I beleeue your selves do not conceive that those 7. or 8. in Adams or in Noahs family might be now an instituted Church if they were alive though the reader may think you contend for it can one man one woman foure or 5 children the eldest whereof must needs be very young make a Church should the man sin the Woman reproves him or e contra and he wil not be gained where must she have one or two more or a Church to complain to seeing little children as reason tells us and your selves grant are neither meet for nor capable of that imployment Can foure men and their Wives make a Church Cham sins Noah rebukes him he wil not be gained he according to rule takes with him one or two more as Sem and Iaphet then they have a goodly Church left viz foure women their four wives which you know are disabled by their sex 7. Suppose in a Church of 7. or 8. a man and a woman should be suspected by their brother of Committing adultery as David and Bathsheba did or incest and their brother admonish them and they deny it he takes one or two with him to charge sin upon them and they yet deny it and complain of wrong and take one or two with them to charge sin upon him or them that admonished them then all these are parties who is left to judg this business if the Church consist but of 7. 8. or 9 8. You say a particular Church is called a City an Army a Kingdom which titles do imply multitudes now it were strange to say that two or three or 7. 8. 9. may make a City an Army a Kingdom 9. It is inconvenient and of dangerous consequence that 7. or 8. should be able to cast out of Communion any person not only with themselves but the whole Catholique visible Church and deliver him to Sathan especially if they be illiterate and unexperienced in the wayes of God and apt to be byased as so few men though visible Saints may easily be Sect. 2. When I say that Twelve are more then seven or eight and an hundred and twenty a competent number yet it appeareth not that they were called or counted a Church til they were more increased If there were no more beleevers in Ephesus then twelve as there was viz. Aquila and Priscilla which knew more then Iohns Baptiâ—m Acts 18.26 with 24.25 If not others Yet there were more in Jerusalem then an hundred and twenty 1 Cor. 15.6 You reply P. 10. That twelve is not more in the truth of the constitution of a Church then 7. or 8. Rejoynder 1. My meaning was that you cannot prove that 7. or 8. may make a Church though twelve might for 12. is almost double to â— 2. Twelve men your selves wil acknowledg are rather capable of being a Church then 7. or 8. in Adams family or in Noahs where were so many women and children for here if a man sin and his brâ—ther admonish him and he wil not be gained and he take two or three with him yet there is some remaining to take cognizance of the thing which in the precedent instances there was not you see I dispute upon your own principles though I grant them not 3. You say P. 13. Smal Churches are inconsistent with Christs and which is edification by Pastors from whence it follows that the more smal the more inconsistent and the less smal the less inconsistent and in this sense I might say that twelve is more then 7 or eight and so declare some what else then that I can number twelve Sect. 3. You Reply P. 10. That the scripture determines not what number is competent and what not competent to the being of a Church that I am the more presumptuous in aring that an 120 are a competent number to make a Church that if I wil I may see them a Church before they were so encreased for they performed one great act of a Church in electing an officer to be over the Church Acts. 1. 23. And when three thousand were added to them they came into their state and if their state were not Church-state then neither were they made a Church by this addition for let 3000. be added to no Church and they are stil no Church which to affirm were flat against the Scripture Rejoynder 1. Pardon me I pray you I thought I had bin no more presumptuous to say an 120. is a competent number then you are in saying 7. or 8. is a competent number to the being of a Church seeing God hath as wel determined that an 120. as that 12. or 7. or 8. is a competent number and 120. is more capable of all officers and of a flock then 7. or 8. The truth is as you sayd that an 120. was smal enough in comparison you mean of what it was afterward so I sayd that it was a competent number comparatively to 12. which yet is more then 7. or 8. the number which you should prove competent to the being of the Church or else forgoe the position 2. Election of an Apostle is not properly a Church act
that question were propounded to any Minister so exercising in another Church which was once to our Saviour by the high Preists and Elders by what authoritie dost thou doe these things and who gave thee this authoritie let that Minister whosoever he be study to make an answer and retort them thus on you you say here there are some acts of feeding which though they be authoritative to that people over whom the persons performing them are officers yet they may be performed without an office c. let him that holdes or exercises any such acts in such manner suppose preaching which was the subject of that question of the high Priests Matth. 21.23 study to make answer to it If he say by no authoritie but by a gift then 1. He answers not the Elders question which demandeth by what authoritie c nor can hee positively answer it 2. Either this giftednesse is a sufficient warrant and then he hath authority and so doth it authoritatively or else its insufficient and then he is convinced as a transgressor and presumptuous and hee and you must quit this and find out another distinction to salve your disparityes which can hardly be so strange and incongruous as this Sect. 11. When I urge If the relation of Ministers and people be mutual If the people may receive the Sacrament from one that is not their Minister then the Minister may administer it to them that are not of his flock you reply p. 115. In one sense all that you say is true they may so doe by recommendation but then this recommendation is as it were a dismission differing not really but only in time Recommendation commends them for a time into the fellowship with that Church and dismission for continuance when persons of another Church doe orderly intermingle themselves with this or that Church then they are as Members and Pastor is as their Pastor and so hee might dispence the Sacraments to them Rejoynd In New-England members well known and approved doe mutually without exception communicate each of them at other Churches even so often as Gods providence leads them thereto and they desire it and this is done by virtue of communion of Churches and sometimes without letters of recommendation See Answ to Pol. 9. p. 78. Cottons keyes p. 17. way p. 103. F.W. to W.R.p. 10. 2. We stil ask why may not a Minister officiate inanother church recommended or as it were dismissed by his own aswel as a member of another communicate in his by recommendation 3. Belike you are pinched with the argument that you are glad to use such amphibolous termes as it were a dismission as his member as his Pastor but observe 1. Your Author Master Cotton gives a reason of this both more genuine and crosse to this of yours for we saith he receive the Lords Supper not onely as a seale of our communion with the Lord and with his members in our Church but also in all the Churches of the Saints if so then what need you or how can you say truly that a member of another Church comming to receive at yours is as it were dismised or dismembred from the other Church and is become as a member of yours and you are as his Pastor 2. I aske is he not still really a member of the Church he comes from is he not under another Pastor of another Church if you deny these things it would overthrow that communion of Churches which Master Cotton reduceth this mutual receiving one of another to and would make membership and Pastorship like a cloake to cast off and put on alternation upon every slight occasion of going from home and eturne and if you yeeld or affirme the said things then you must recal those words wâ—erein you say Recommendation differs not really from dismission for if it doe not then is hee really dismissed from the Church he comes from and is not as one of them he comes from but as one of them to whom he is resigned and recommended Cottons way p. 104. In what Church then to place him or whether he be in either according to you I cannot resolve and I am sure to say he is a member of both would be incongruous to your Principles and to reason 3. In saying Recommendation differs not from dismission really but in time is a contradiction for things that differ in time must needs differ really ut res res quorum incipiente vel desinente uno non incipit vel desinit alterum else you must needs say eadem res est non est but you are not happy in your distinctions the lesse wonder it is that in some things you erre for qui bene distinguit bene docet 4. The Argument for all this that you have said must still presse you if this man a member of another Church may come to your Church why may not the Pastor of his Church come and if hee as a member may receive why may not his Pastor as a Minister preach and administer the Lords Supper is not the one as strictly tyed in by his Church-Covenant in his relation as the other in his is not recommendation of a Minister as truely a dâ—smission of him as recommendation of a Member Sect. 12. Reply p. 110. But it will not follow that therefore hee may act ministerially out of his owne Church and people in and among another Church and people Magistrates and Subjects are Relatives and if any Subjects of one County come to another County and be wronged there he may require justice from the Magistrate of the County where the wrong is done him and receive it but the Magistrate may not therefore goe from among his people to another County and dispense justice amongst them So of Ministers Rejoynd 1. The similitude is not truly laid down for a Magistrate of this County and a Subject of the Kingdome are not relata as such a County-Magistrates correlative is a Subject and Inhabitant of the said County And if you had so put your comparison what could you have inferred from it 2. The similitude is unfit even in that for which you bring it For first a County-Magistrate is tyed within locall bounds in administrations whether to his country-men or to strangers but the case of a Pastor is not so especially with you which admit of no Parochial or locall bounds which we think requisite in some cases not possible in all to the circumscribing of a Church or the Pastorship of it but enlarge the Pastors leave to officiate any where in the world if his Church remove thither and the Church may remove whithersoever Secondly a Magistrate as he may do a stranger justice in his own County so he may as well execute justice on him within the same but you will not allow another Churches member to be censured in this Church though he may communicate there Thirdly I should easily grant that a Pastor may not go from his own congregation to