Gnedah be taken as they may there was but one kinde of Church so combined which was Nationall And in the new Testament we say there is no other combination to enjoy all ordinances and worships instituted in the Gospel but Congregationall and we produce the small countrey of Judea containing a plurality of Churches and thence collect that they must be Congregations and that Congregations are therefore Churches And this is not weakened by what variety of acceptions is brought Furthermore wee do not know that Church or Flock or Lump or Body when referred to God and Christ and is properly taken is used otherwise then in two or three senses either for the mysticall Church Ephe. 5.25 26. or the * 2 Cor. 8.1.19 Congregationall 1 Cor. 1.1 sometimes indeed Rev. 1.4 we reade of it in a sigurative sense as in 1 Cor. 12.28 Gal. 5.9 James 2.2 1 Pet. 5.2 and many more places For though you say That four or five in a Family joyning in the worship of God are the Domesticall Church spaken of by Paul many times in his Epistles yet we conceive otherwise for seeing usually when there were any heads of Families converted some of the houshold were converted with them as we can give many instances wee think that many or the most that Paul saluted had in that sense churches in their Families and therefore Paul would not have singled out and with a note of distinction have spoken of some persons and the churches in their Families for that reason if some other reason had not moved him either then these Families were large and great Families and might be as numerous as some Congregationall Churches or the foundation of a Church might be laid in the persons of a Family but not so to continue but to grow to a Congregation or else some Congregationall Church might meet in such houses which was ordinary in those dayes And for the word Church in Acts 12. either it is to be taken for the mysticall church or else for that particular visible society of Believers which was at Jerusalem though some of them were absent But you proceed to give more particular answers and incounter with a part of the forementioned Position viz. There were Churches in Galatia therefore they were Congregationall Galatia was a large countrey in England a far lesse countrey Answer severall Churches have been heretofore and yet not meerly Congregationall And why are Galatia and Macedonia taken hold of Reply and made use of and Judea left out which in the Position was mentioned as well as they Surely the reason was because in both those countries there was more room for your Nationall Church then in Judea You could not find breadth enough to make a plutality of Diocesan Churches and therefore durst not contend for Nationall But grant wee the largeness of those countries according as you speak were either of them too large to make one Nationall Church wee know you think not so Why then doth not the Apostle knit them all up into one Nationall Church if hee had so intended them But you add The Churches of Galatia might he combined one to another Answer as the Churches of England Scotland Holland France are respectively combined for the Apostle speaks of them as one lump 1 Cor. 5.6 with Gal. 5.9 c. Such a combination wee easily grant to be among the Churches of Galatia as is among the Churches of England Scotland Reply c. and that is none at all or at the most a combination without jurisdiction But if by respectively you mean a combination which each of these Churches hath in it self in all the Congregations of and belonging to it such a combination wee deny to have been in the Churches of Galatia For all our Congregations have been united under one Metropolitane Archbishop of all England and as yet there is none other established and for other combinations such as in Scotland Holland c. without proofe we cannot grant them in Galatia And if Paul had intended by saying A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump that we should gather thence that they were all one Church hee would never have called them churches in the Preface of his Epistle but in a distributive sense it is to be understood For suppose one speak in a literall sense and say a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump doth he thereby make all the dough in a countrey one lump No but of every lump how many soever they be it is to be understood a little leaven leaveneth each of them so of churches a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump that is the whole Church every Church in which it is this maketh not all the Churches in a countrey to be one And the Churches of Macedonia were not so severall Answer but they joyned in one to choose a Brother which I conceive was an authoritative act to go with Paul for the managing of the Churches contributions 2 Cor. 8.18 19. 1. Reply Then to choose an Officer is much more an authoritative act which you grant to appertain unto the people then the people may act authoritatively which is none of our assertion but yours and the people are beholden to you for it 2. A combination of churches without jurisdiction will enable them to such an act nay if there were no combination at all yet when many churches are alike interessed in a businesse reason shews they ought to joyn alike to promove it 3. They did not make him an Officer by this act of choosing him but they deputed him thereby to a particular work which when accomplished all was ended The churches of Judea Answer consisting of Myriads of people did come together Acts 21.20 21 22. to be satisfied of Paul concerning an accusation that they had received against him and are called a Church Gal. 1.13 Acts 12.1 and an House Heb. 3.4 Not the Jewes of Judea alone did gather together Reply but the Jews of all other parts as appeareth from Acts 21.27 But be it that they gathered alone yet are they called one Church the place alledged is Gal. 1.13 I persecuted the Church of God What Church Churches in Judea No Paul saith hee persecuted them unto strange cities and Damascus was one of them The meaning is them that were of Jerusalem he persecuted to strange cities or he persecuted the Saints in generall Who as they are parts of the mysticall Church may be called by a Synecdoche the Church And Herod stretched out his hands to vex certain of the Church What church Either the mysticall or that at Jerusalem or any Church within his reach And his house Heb. 3.4 to be understood of the churches of Judea What strange mis-interpreting of Scripture is this house in that place is all the churches that were then or ever were to be in the world Christ is the builder of them all POSITION V. When a visible Church is to be erected This is not unlike the Answer to 32. q. p.
are said to be come to one mount Sion If so then the Congregations of the Christian Gentiles may well be another mount Sion And if the Nationall church of the Jewes with the assemblies thereof were mount Sion why may not every Nationall-church of Christians with the assemblies thereof we speak now in your language be Sion also and then there being many Nationall churches as you say there are many Sions And what greater absurdity is it to say there are an hundred or a thousand Sions then to say there are an hundred or a thousand Churches Seeing Sion and Church are all one Now you know there were many visible churches in Judea Galatia Macedonia Asia and many other places and if then so many how many more now therefore many Sions and because those many churches then and these now we believe to have been and still to be Congregationall therefore every Congregationall Church we hold to be Sion But you ask an odde strange needlesse to say no worse of it question with a great deal of vehemency Answer viz. Have you not found God present in our Assemblies Have you not by faith closed with the promises in the use of the Ordinances among us Speak out I know you dare not belie your selves us and God himself c. Reply Your question is bottomed upon a mistake when we say that God hath promised to be present in Sion you give this glosse upon it that we deny all your Assemblies to be Sion and will not grant Gods presence at all to be with you and that we appropriate Sion and Gods presence to our selves which is a great injury to us You also put this sense upon our words that God is so present in Sion that he is present no where else and so not present with holy men and women which are out of Church-fellowship nor present with members of many churches meeting together which either is a foul mistake or a slander For we think God to be present with his people when they meet in his feare whether they be Church-members or not Church-members whether they be of one or many churches whether they be in our assemblies or yours provided that his Ordinances be carried according to his minde yea though there should be some error yet he might give his presence (a) Rev. 2.1 with Rev. 2.14.20 Much rather do we think God will be present with persons whom he sets on work to exalt him in the execution of some office as he did the Apostles and now doth ordinary Elders Neverthelesse we conceive God to be most present with his people gathered into a body and compacted together in an instituted Church which we hold to be Congregationall and the reason is because the more any people do fall into the order of the Gospel and come into the way of Christ which he hath appointed for Saints to walk in the more Christ is ingaged to be present with them Now to joyn to some instituted Church of Christ is that way and order which Christ hath directed to therefore with them in such a way as so united and joyned Christ will more especially be present for he vouchsafeth a speciall presence amongst such Churches Rev. 2.1 he styles himself one that walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks he walks in other places and people but he would intimate thus much that his especiall delightsome walk is among them and the more golden the candlesticks are the more pure they be the more delight he takes to walke in the midst of them But Matth. 18. you say is mis-interpeted Your words are these Answer Christ in Matth. 18. promiseth his presence to those that are not a Church for two or three will not make a Church they vers 17 were to give the second admonition the Church the third There is a figure in the number Reply there is a certain number put for an uncertain two or three are put for a few the paucity that may be in a Church shall be no obstacle of Christs presence Pareus upon this Text hath these words It is an argument that the judgement of the Church shall be ratified because Christ himself will be present in the Church as supreme Judge to ratifie it it is also a generall promise of the presence of the grace of Christ in his Church be it great or small Now surely we shall lesse doubt our exposition having so learned a Commentator so well approved of to stand by us in the same POSITION XVII So long as a Believer doth not joyn himself to some particular Congregation he is without in the Apostles sense 1 Cor. 5.12 Those without Answer of whom the Apostle speaketh were unbelievers Pagans and Heathen without Christ as well as without the visible Church Let it be granted that those whom the Apostle speaks of were both without Christ Reply and without the visible Church yet it may be securely affirmed that the Apostle speaks of them under the notion of such as were without the visible church and not of those that were without Christ 1. Singuli de suâ familia judicant non immittunt consuram in alienam samiliam Ergo in Ecclesia similis servetur ratio ut singulae desuit membris judicent Aretius in 1 Cor. 5. Because those without whom the Apostle had not to do to judge stand in opposition to those within vers 12. the latter part whom the Church of Corinth had to do to judge and consequently if this exposition of yours be true the judgement of the Church of Corinth extended as far as the ultima Thule the lands end of Christianity and only ceased when it came to the consines of Paganisme and consequently any one Church hath power to judge any one Believer in all the world because say you he is not without in the Apostles sense that is to say he is not a Pagan Heathen or unbeliever 2. Suppose the Apostle had known a member of the Church of Corinth what ever he appeared outwardly in the frame of his conversation to be indeed without Christ 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 We suppose you will say he might and if so we demand why should a Church-unbeliever be subject to the Apostles judgement and an Heathenish unbeliever be exempted from the Apostles judgement If Church-membership did not make the one obnoxious to that spirituall judgement more then the other For in the notion of unbelievers and without Christ they both agree and therefore if a Heathen were exempted from judgement because without Christ and not for this reason because without the visible Church why should not a Church-unbeliever be exempted as well as a Heathen 2. If we mistake not a Believer not joyned to any particular congregation is without in reference to Church-judgement and we suppose by vertue of this Text in your Presbyterian
which to affirme were slat against the Scripture Acts 2.47 If there were no more Beleevers in Ephesus then twelve as there was Answer viz Aquila and Priscilla which knew no more then Johns Baptisme Acts 18.26 with 24.25 if not others yet there were more in ferusalem then an hundred and twenty even five hundred brethren at once c 1 Cor. 15.6 First though Aquila and Priscilla were at Ephesus Reply yet they were but sojourners there as they were also in many other places sometimes at Rome sometimes at Corinth as appeares from Acts 18.2 Rom. 16.3 But to what place they did belong is not certain Secondly your five hundred brethren at Jerusalem is as slightly collected from 1 Cor. 15.6 For 1. doth the Apostle say that he was seen of those five hundred in Jerusalem He shewed himselfe in Galilee and some other places as well as in Jerusalem 2. Though the place of manifesting himselfe might be Jerusalem must the persons therefore be of Jerusalem Why not appertaining unto Judea Or suppose of Jerusalem why might they not be dispersed before Christs ascension For present afterwards when they chose an Apostle they were not which was yet a Church action and without doubt the major part of the Church would have been present at it Adam and Noah with their Families Answer if they were Churches they were but Domesticall Churches not Congregationall Domesticall Churches enjoying Congregationall Ordinances Reply and congregationall Churches are not divers species of Churches neither doe they differ in their nature or kind but in quantity as one Congregation differeth from another as one small Countrey Chappell differeth from a numerous Towne Church What will ye make of Christ and his Disciples Answer a Church distinct from the Jewish You know Christ did not make a new Church or gather men into it but lived and died a member of the Jewish Church d Answer to to 32. q. p. 14. Had they been called a Church as some housholds are in the new Testament e Phile. 2. witnes T.W. to W.R. you had had some more pretext and yet they are but a Domesticall Church c. 1. Whether Christ died a member of the Jewish Church Reply is questionable But that he gathered certain persons to him and that he instituted Baptisme and the Supper amongst them is most certain which were Ordinances of the Gospel Church and he either thereby prepared them for or laid the foundation of a Gospel Church before his death For immediatly after his ascension they were a Gospel Church as appeareth from Acts 1.14 15. 2. For the denomination of Church we passe not much whether we meet with it or not provided that we find the reality of a Church among any persons 3. Many Domesticall Churches may be in one Congregationall in your sense but not in ours We deny and put you to prove that two or three converted in a Family enjoying some Christian Ordinances but no Church Ordinances are called a Church It is an Argument you will not own Answer seven eight twelve may make a Domesticall Church therefore they may make a Congregationall We acknowledge not any such distinction of Congregationall Church Reply and Domesticall as you presse after But say That the foundation of a Congregationall Church may be laid in one Family and may spread unto many It may be laid in seven or eight and may grow up to an hundred or a thousand or to as many as can meet together constantly unto edification in one place The Church in Abrahams Family was the same which was in the Families of all his sonnes and in the Families of their children after them which afterwards grew up into a nation And though the Gospel Church is not now Nationall as the Jewish was yet a congregation of many Families may spring out of a Church of one Family more easily then a Nation did formerly And if seven eight or twelve may not make a congregationall Church in our apprehension what have you been consuting all this while If seven or eight may make a Church Answer then two hundred persons in a Citie may well make twenty distinct Churches and by consequence so many Independent Judieatures First this collection is made to bring an Odium upon congregationall Churches but it may be thus retorted foure or five in a house may make a family therefore three hundred in an house may make sixtie distinct families Foure or five in a family may make a Domestick Church say you then three hundred in a family may make sixty Domestick Churches two thousand in a Field may make an Army therefore two hundred thousand in a Field may make ten distinct Armies under so many independent Generals Secondly we have declared our selves before that seven or eight may make a Church in the first foundation and whilst there are no more persons fitted and that as more in that place shall be converted the Church of them is to be increased And we are utterly against the unnecessary multiplication of Churches as conceiving such small Churches inconsistent to Christs ends which is edification by Pastors Teachers Ruling Elders Deacons which he hath given to his Church But that a Church of seven or eight should require so many Officers or be able to maintain them we cannot understand And we perceive from the patternes presented in the New Testament that Churches in cities which at first were small grew great by the daily addition of others to them Acts 1.14.15 with Acts 2.41 19.7 8 9 with 18 19 20. Acts 20.17.28 So that we would not have beleevers of one citie be of so many Churches if one congregation will conveniently hold them except there be some eminent reason for it But though there should be many Churches consisting of a few members yet without Officers amongst them we doe not assert them to be Independent Judicatures POSITION III. A visible Church in the new Testament consists of no more in number then may meet in one place in one Congegation The like you have Answer to 32 q p. 9. 1 Corinth 11.20 14.23 If you seek for Congregations meeting for prayer hearing the Word Answer Sacraments in one place or that they were called by the name of Church or that all Beleevers in some Cities and Countries when they might did meet in one place I will not contend We plead for congregations meeting together Reply not for prayer hearing the Word Sacraments alone but for the executing of censures also 1 Cor. 5.4 which you leave out as if Church censures belonged not to congregations as those Ordinances you mention do And we say that there is no sacred Worship or Institution prescribed in the Gospel which may not be observed to have been exercised in or appertained unto the congregations And these congregations are called Churches in the Scripture And further we say not onely that all beleevers in some cities did meet together in one place but that there can no instance be
calculation of Ecclesiasticall power For Classicall Provinciall and Nationall Synods have a power of judging or excommunicating those only that are within the combination Now these being representative Churches he that is of no particular Congregation is without the verge of Presbyteriall power or else it will follow that the Presbyteriall Church hath power to excommunicate a person that is not within their combination and if one by the same reason a thousand ten thousand in every quarter and corner of the world But say you The Apostle opposeth Fornicators of the World Answer and Fornicators that are Brethren Persecution in the Primitive times as it is at this day was chiefly if not only levied against those who did joyn themselves to the Churches to the enjoyment of Ordinances Reply or at least otherwise visibly as Paul at his first conversion by preaching declared themselves to be Christs Disciples Hence those to whom God had given so much faith and constancy as to be willing to expose themselves to persecution these did inlist themselves in the Churches frequented their meetings which were observable by the Persecutors and professed themselves of the fraternity of the Church the Church looked on them as her members and accordingly dispensed ordinances and censures to them as they had need Others there were who like Nicodemus came to Christ by night or like those chief Rulers spoken of Joh. 12.42 who though they believe in Christ yet they dare not confesse him by publike joyning of themselves to run all hazards with the Church Hence it is that no politick visible Church doth look upon these as of her fraternity or doth dispence all ordinances and censures to them Now the Brother that is opposed to the fornicators of the world is not he that by the internall and invisible grace of faith is a Brother and of the mysticall body of Christ though peradventure he dare not openly professe Christ But such a one is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Church of Corinth who is a named and professed Brother so looked upon not only by the motherly eye of the Church but oft times by the malitious eye of the world though peradventure they be not truly brethren united with the rest of the faithfull people of God as members of the mysticall body of Christ 2. With such a one not to eat presupposeth in an orderly way a forbearing of voluntary civil and spirituall communion with the party upon this ground that he is under censure in the Church Now the power of Church-censures is not to be executed by the church-mysticall but by the church-visible as such neither is it to be executed upon the members of the Church-mysticall as such but upon the members of the visible church whether they be in truth or only in appearance members of the mysticall church So then Fornicators of the world are to be understood of the world as it stands in opposition to the visible church and so those that are of the mysticall church may be fornicators of the world in that sense And though by the lawes of Christ concerning Church-discipline every man be forbidden to eat with those that are known Fornicators under church-censure in their own church and by vertue of church-communion with those that are fornicators under censure in any other church yet if one that is a member of the mysticall but dares not professe his subjection to Christ in that particular of joyning himself to some visible church shall be a fornicator we know no law of Christ precisely concerning church-discipline that interdicts a man to eat in point of voluntary civill communion with such a man any more then if he were a Pagan or Heathen But Answer say you without are Dogs and Sorcerers such as the Apostle had not to do with What have I to do c. vers 12. and yet he had to do with all Christians by his illimited apostolike power whether they belong to that or any other Congregation or no such as God judgeth or are left to the immediate judgement of God But this is not the case of Believers not joyned especially in your sense of joyning to a particular Congregation nor do you I hope judge it to be the case of Believers in England and Scotland 1. Reply There might be Dogs in the Apostolike Churches as well as without Phil. 3.2 and with such dogs Paul had to do with Nay he had to do with the dogs of the Gentiles he received a key of knowledge by which he was to open the Kingdome of heaven to them in case they would repent and believe and to binde them under the guilt of impenitencie and infidelity in case they would not repent and believe Matth. 28.19 with Mark 16.16 But those that Paul had not to do to judge who are said to be without in this place are all such as are contradistinguished to those that are within with whom the Church had to do by way of Ecclesiasticall judgement Now the church of Corinth had power of Ecclesiasticall judgement over all and only those which were within the combination of that church and therefore Paul had nothing to do to judge them that is to say with the judgement mentioned in this place which were out of this combination Now what was this judgement Answ The judgement whereby the Apostle decrees that the church of Corinth shall excommunicate fornicators and consequently shall not eat with them Now the Apostle had received no such power to judge those persons to excommunication and that by the ministery of a church that were never in fellowship with the church But such persons though for their crimes they may be subject to the judgement of the civill Magistrate yet in respect of Ecclesiasticall judgement they are left to the immediate judgement of God And if this be not the case of Believers not joyned to a particular congregation by whom shall those Believers be judged Why shall this Congregationall Classicall Provinciall National-church judge them rather then that May they be judged by all or any one Certainly 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 We said before if a church may judge one out the combination why not a thousand why not ten thousand c. yet we are far from judging those Believers in England and Scotland which are not joyned in our Way of joyning to a particular Congregation therefore to be altogether out of Church-combination not capable of the Ecclesiasticall judgement of their Churches and consequently subject to the immediate judgement of Christ POSITION XVIII The Elders are not Lords over Gods heritage 1 Pet. 5.3 nor do exercise authority as the Kings and Princes of the earth do remembring our Saviours lesson Matth. 20.25 26 Luke 22.25 26. They are not so many Bishops striving for preeminence Answer as Diotrephes did 3 Joh. vers 9 10. (a) These Scriptures
doth 2. We allow the case to be much different For when we live under a Christian Magistrate inteuding and endeavouring Reformation we are raised up unto an expectation of having all the wayes of Christ countenanced and confirmed by his authoritie which would be a very blessed thing which we have no such ground to look for living under a Heathen Magistrate But how the case is different in your sense we understand not For the Christianity of the Magistrate or his piety and sedulity in intending and endeavouring Reformation cannot take any person or persons off from their dutie which they would be bound unto if a Heathen Magistrate bore sway The Magistrate and the Ministers and the people must each doe their part because each stands engaged for himselfe to Jesus Christ unto the work of his own place The impediments that come from any unto other cannot be a discharge unto any Would our Brethren in New England allow a Presbyterian Church Answer or but a new Independent Church to be erected in New England against the will and mind of the Magistrates and Churches there 1 T. W. to W.R. p. 31. 1. The question is not what they would allow Reply but what a company of people planted there which cannot without unfaithfulnesse to their own light be subject to any other government save the Presbyterian ought to doe Whether if their livelihood lie there and that they cannot remove they are not bound to keep Faith and a good Conscience what ever it be that they suffer for it 2. Our beliefe of New England is this that they would suffer the godly and peaceable to live amongst them though they disser in point of Church-government from them Because so farre as we could ever learn they never banished any but unpeaceablenesse together with desperate erroneousnesse was the cause of it Our Brethren at London I heare doe hold it at least unseasonable Answer to gather Churches now how their opinion and yours are reconcileable I see not If you had said Reply some of them did once think it unseasonable you had not much missed it But what crossing is in this which should need a reconciliation The Position saith it cannot be unlawfull the Brethren say it was unseasonable for that time Many things may be unseasonable at least in opinion and yet not unlawfull It may be the Brownists Answer Anabaptists Antinomians Familists and other grosse Hereticks and Schismaticks in old or new England doe also pretend the Doctrine and practice of the Apostles for the setting up of their Churches yet our godly and conscientious Divines doe therein oppose them If grosse Heretikes and Schismaticks doe so pretend Reply they must be found to be liers and so their practice will be found to be unwarrantable whether they have or have not the commandement of man yet this will hinder nothing but that those which not in pretence but in truth have the Doctrine and practise of the Apostles with them may lawfully practise according to it though they want the commandement of man to warrant it The false Apostles pretended to be true Apostles but the Church of Ephesus tried them and found them liers and rejected them and yet accepted of those that were Apostles of Christ indeed POSITION II. Seven eight or nine may make a Church In Adams and Noahs time there was not above seven or eight will you deny them the being of a Church What will you make of Christ and of his Family which were not above twelve besides himselfe and of the first foundationals of the Church of Ephesus which were about twelve The number in the first beginning of the greatest Church was small enough in comparison Acts 1.15 The case of Adam and Noah was extraordinary Answer there were no more in the world and therefore could be no more in the Church You grant in an extraordinary case seven eight Reply or nine may make a Church The Position saith not that more may not make a Church but if there be but so many the truth and being of a Church cannot be denied them We say further that such a number may but make a Church in the first foundation or while there be no more persons sitted for membership For when more Saints by calling offer themselves they are to be received and so the Church will be increased Acts 19.7 8 9 18.19 20. Adam and his wife Answer and first sonnes yea Adam himselfe was the Church if then there was any yet you hold not that two or three yea one may make a Church We conceive that the Church is Christs body Reply and that every body consists of members If all were one member where were the body How therefore one Adam could have been a Church we understand not Put this we hold that look how few have ever made a Church since the beginning of the world the same number may still make a Church And the reason is because God hath not precisely determined what number doth make a Church Cain lawfully married his own sister may other men doe the like Answer Have we not a manifest prohibition of such marriages in the Scripture Reply so that though sometimes they were lawfull yet now they are not lawfull But what Scripture have you against this that what number of beleevers have formerly been a Church such a number may yet be a Church And no greater number is required to the simple being of a Church Twelve are more then seven or eight Answer and an hundred and twenty are a competent number yet it appeareth not that they were called or counted a Church till they were more increased First Reply though twelve be more then seven or eight yet twelve is not more in the truth of constitution of a Church then seven or eight Is there more of the essence of a Church in twelve then in seven or eight Except you mean it so you declare onely in saying so that you can number twelve And if you so understand it we shall demand proof of you for it Secondly the Scripture determines not what number is competent and what not competent to the being of a Church How come you then so to passe your verdict about it when further you adde That it appeares not they were called or accounted a Church till they were more increased that is till those three thousand persons were added to them Acts 2.41 If so are you not then the more presumptuous in saying that an hundred and twenty are a competent number to make a Church Notwithstanding if you will you may see them a Church before they were so increased 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 three thousand be added to no Church and they are still no Church
given in all the new Testament that Christians ordinarily meeting together in divers places are yet called one Church except where Church is taken improperly in a distributive sense And therfore in cities where they might and did meet together they are called a Church and in countries where they could not all meet in one but in divers places they are called Churches Many such Churches or Congregations we have in England Answer We say so too Reply and add that either we have such in England or none at all For what other besides such can you shew us And the Beleevers in every Christian Church Answer even in the Church of England and in the Jewish Church also might and did at first meet 1. Reply Can you shew that the Beleevers of any Christian church met onely at first in one place and then afterwards being increased they met not in one place but many places except at some time of hot persecution 2. If Beleevers in England ever met together in one place it was when there was but one congregationall Church in England As for the Jewish Church in it Exo. 34.23.24 Deut. 16.2.16 both at first and afterwards all the males wore to meet by speciall appointment in one place at some seasons though not alwayes and in some ordinances though not all to shew that they were but one Church To say nothing that all the people of the Jewes being about six hundred thousand Answer are called one Congregation and are frequently in the old Testament said to come together and that * One Myriade is 10000. Myriads did come together Act. 21.22 They were one church and therefore did and ought to congregate together and are therefore called one congregation Reply and yet neither they nor those Myriads spoken of Acts 21.22 did then nor can such a number now ordinarily come together Now our Position is to be understood that a Gospel visible church consists of no more then can ordinarily come together into one place nor of so many as sometimes in an extraordinary way have met together How will you make out this Inference The Church of Corinth did meet in one place and so did Antioch Jerusalem Answer therefore no Church in the new Testament must consist of more then can meet in one place You must take the Argument in the scope of it Reply such and such Churches did meet constantly in one place and there is no mention of any Church which did not meet together in one place therefore no Church in the new Testament doth consist of more then can meet in one place the Consequent is now good For we think that patterns that are uncontrolled either by precepts or other patterns have doctrine in them and do teach how things ought to be carried To say there was a Church in Adams house and in Noahs Answer and also in Philemons Aquila's and Priscilla's houses therefore the Church in the old and new Testament must be domesticall is an inconsequent illation contrary to plain Scripture We confesse it and for the reason you render Reply because contrary to plain Scripture Now if you could have shewed us the repugnancy to plain Scripture of the inference which you oppugne wee should have confessed a great oversight in it It is one thing and more warrantable to derive an inference from patterns when they all run one way and be patterns of one kind and another thing and lesse safe to draw an inference from patterns when there is diversity of kinds of them about the same thing Is not the Argument as good if it run thus All the believing Corinthians were of the Church of Corinth 1 Cor. 1.1 2 Cor. 6.11 Answer The Smyrnians and Laodiceans of the Church of Smyrna and Laodicea Col. 2.1 4.16 Rev. 2.8 3.14 Whether they were more or fewer Hence in every city and every church seem to expound one another Acts 14.21.23 with Tit. 1.5 Acts 16.4 5. And it cannot be shewed that any church how numerous soever it grew was divided into two or more churches therefore the believers in any one city or town may be but one church whether they can meet in one place or no. No brother not so Reply because as appeares to us there is light of Scripture gain-saying it For though all the believing Corinthians were of the church of Corinth which yet you seem to contradict in the after part of your Answer while you say that Gaius the Corinthian was the host of another church besides that of Corinth which if true then all believing Corinthians were not of the church of Corinth and though in all other cities all the believers of them were of the church in each of them yet such an inference would be naught because it was so for a speciall reason and in regions and countries where that reason took not place it was otherwise All the Believers in Jerusalem were of one church there because they were not so many but that they might come constantly together into one place and did so But all the Believers in Judea were not of one church there but of many churches because they could not meet constantly in one place And if believers in cities meeting in divers places are yet but one church for this reason because they were of one city as you would seem to inferre then shew but any probable reason why believers meeting in divers places in countries may not be one church because they were of one countrey especially the believers of Judea being but a small countrey and under the same civil government The reason why city and church expound one another was this because there was not more converted in a city then could meet together in a congregation or church And when you can shew us out of the new Testament that believers were so multiplied in any city as that they could not all meet in one place then will we shew you that such churches were divided into more churches Paul writes not only to them which might Answer and did meet in one place but to all that in every place not throughout the world at appeares 2 Cor. 1.1 written to the same persons 1 Cor. 5.1 2. with 2 Cor. 2.1 2. neither is this a Catholique Epistle but that in all Achaia call upon the Name of the Lord. Paul writes and sends this Reply and applieth it to the Corinthianss and to them alone as appears almost in every chapter of the Epistle and in many of the verses of each chapter For all along proper and peculiar things belonging to the Corinthians and not to the Achaians nor Saints in all the world are spoken of in commendation and discommendation and proper reproofes directions exhortations are given yet he intended it for the use and benefit of all Achaia and of the whole world also And it may as properly be called a Catholique Epistle as an Achaian Epistle for the use redounds to the world as well as to Achaia
of the Church that is of the church he is of Not forsaking the assembling of your selves together that is no one with his own church that he is of or each church with it self But there is no need of any such figure in the Texts which wee alledge but the literall sense may passe and in some places must passe or there will be no sense For 1. The persons which wee say came together they might do it they were neither so many nor so remote but they might And if the Holy Ghost say they did wee must believe it and not seek a figure when wee are not enforced to it 2. The Text in 1 Cor. 14.23 saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when the whole church comes together Now let the Reader judge whether any of your Texts have any such fulness of words in them to sway to a meeting in one place as this one Text hath which we have brought Some of your own side have been convinced with the evidence of this Text that the church of Corinth was but one congregation and came together into one place Especially Answer seeing the Apostle writes to the Achaians 2 Cor. 1.1 1 Cor. 16.1 with 2 Cor. 9.2 11.10 Now there were other churches in that Region at least two Corinth and Cenchrea Rom. 16.1 To say nothing of the church whereof Gaius the Corinthian was the Host 1. Reply Paul writes to the Achaians no otherwise then hee doth to the Saints which call on the name of the Lord Jesus every where 1 Cor. 1.1 with 2 Cor. 1.1 2. Hee writes not to them as making one church with the Corinthians for hee mentioneth them with a note of distinction from the Corinthians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The places which you would have compared will not enforce any such thing For hee might have a scope that the other churches in Achaia from the Epistle hee sent to Corinth which they were to peruse as the Laodicean church was to reade the Epistle written to the Colossians should be stirred up to the same duty of contribution c. So that the onenesse of the Congregation of the church of Corinth is not yet infringed 4. Doth the Apostle write to the Achaians and were there in that Region two churches at least Corinth and Cenchrea why then doth not the Apostle say To the Churches of Achaia as in all other such cases he doth To the churches of Galatia The churches of Judea Macedonia Asia Why is the church of Corinth mentioned and the church at Genchrea wholly silenced in the first Epistle and not mentioned directly and by name in the second Hence there is mention of churches to which the women hee writes to for he saith Your women not women or all women did resort Answer Or how else could they keep selence in the churches 1 Cor. 14.34 1. These Epistles were written for the use and direction of all churches and therefore the Apostle nameth churches Reply because this was to be a standing rule for all churches and by your women the Corinthian women were primarily meant to whom the Epistle was sent yet in regard of use not they alone but they with the women of Achaia and all that call on the name of the Lord Jesus in every place It was a command intended for universall direction for the women of all other churches 2. Women were wont to go from one church to another upon occasion as Rom. 16.1 Phebe from Cenchrea went to Rome so might the Corinthian women go to other churches and in all churches must keep silence 3. Though it he said your women yet it is not said your churches but in the churches that is churches every where and the verse before gives some light hereto For hee had said As in all the churches of the Saints And he addes Let your women keep silence in the churches What churches The churches of the Saints every where POSITION IV. The visible Church in the new Testament is not Nationall as the Iewes was hence we reade of the Churches of Galatia Macedonia ludea not Church of Galatia 1 Cor. 16.1 2 Cor. 8.1 We say not that the Christian Church is Nationall Answer as was the Jewish church viz. that it hath a nationall Tabernacle Temple or House of God and solemne worship peculiar to it to which all the members or all the males must sometimes resort towards which the absent are to pray and in which the Priests in their courses do minister unto God 1. Why do you yet find fault with the Position Reply when you agree with us in the same 2. Why do you not lay down in what sense the Christian church is nationall and in what sense not nationall 3. If in any proper manner of speaking you will have the Christian church nationall meaning by nationall the Saints that live within such a nation as distinguished from the Saints of another nation in countrey and place of habitation without any othertie amongst them being all of them parts only of the Mysticall or Catholique church as wee know the Sea that washeth the British shores is called the British Sea and that which washeth the Belgick shores is called the Belgick Sea though they be not distinct Seas but parts of the great Ocean yet in reference to an adjunct of place they run by they receive distinct denominations and by a Synecdoche the parts carry the names of the whole in this sense we do yeeld the exposition or phrase of nationall church But if you mean by nationall church an instituted church of nationall extent in point of power and jurisdiction upon which particular congregations within that nation do depend wee want light that there is or ought to be any such church in the times of the Gospel For if there ought to be such a nationall church for patterns we have none as your self do confesse then in this church there must be some nationall combination nationall place for convention nationall Pastor upon which it must depend and nationall Ordinances For seeing there was no such church extant when the Gospel was written nor rules left for you would have alledg'd them we suppose had there been any how all things must be carried in such a nationall church what reason can be shewed if such a church must be why there should be a departing from the pattern of the nationall church among the Jewes in which they had all these things Therefore those seem to do best that in thir moulding of their nationall church come neerest to the example of the Jewish church Or if you will have another modell of this nationall church of your owne framing viz. a nation of Assemblies combined together and represented in their officers meeting in one place and consulting the good of the whole and executing authority over the whole then these persons must stand in relation to all and each one of the Assemblies of the Nation under their jurisdiction and so they are Nationall Officers
every one of them and the whole is the flock of each amongst them and each of them hath as full power over the assemblies that he never saw as over that from which he came and which sent him as in the representative civill body every Knight and Buegesse hath the care of the kingdome upon him and each hath equall authority of inspection and decision of matters concerning cities and countries which hee knowes not as of those whence hee came Now if it be so the Question is whether each be not a Passor to every purpose as well as unto one And whether hee be not to feed by doctrine as well as by the rod of discipline all such assemblies which are under his charge Which thing is yet impossible to be done And what warrant there is of non-residencie with the flock unto purposes that do most concern the flock seeing themselves are Christs Ministers and substitutes and have not power of appointing Ministers and substitutes under them and what ground there is why they must joyntly rule all the assemblies but severally teach each man the congregation to which he is designed without care of the rest Or if there be any such combination of assemblies in a Nation what is there to warrant it more then the combination of all Christian assemblies in the world represented in an oecumenicall councell the members of which must be universall Pastors having power over and care of all churches under them For if a Congregationall church must depend upon a Nationall church as the lesser upon the greater then a Nationall church must depend upon the universall as the lesser upon the greater For look what a Nation is to a Congregation that the universall is to a Nation and if Nations may be independent of the universall Congregations may be independent of the Nationall And if an universall visible instituted church be acknowledged why are there not universall representative conventions What a defect is this in Christendome And what a fault that all Christian nations do not endeavour it But we conceive that they are so farre from the endeavouring it that if there were any such though they might make use of them for advice yet they would be loth to subject themselves to the binding decrees of them Nor say wee that the Scriptures do mention a Nationall church Answer for the supreme Magistrate was an enemy to Christian Religion and Regis ad exemplum c. Believers it is like were not so many as to beare the name of a Land or Nation nor could they have liberty safely to meet in Nationall Synods Shew mee a Nation of Magistrates and people converted and I will shew you a Nationall church Ultra posse non est esse whether Nationall churches be lawfull or unlawfull 1. Reply You might have said Shew me a Nation of Magistrates and people converted and I will shew you a Nationall Christian church framed like the Jewish church with one Nationall Bishop over it one Nationall Cathedrall in it c. for so would Prelaticall men and the Pope himself argue No one Nation was converted then and therefore there could be no Nationall Pastor Many nations were not converted then therefore there could be no universall Pastor But what hinders but that there might be afterwards when a Nation and when the world should come to be converted 2. Though there was no Nation converted wholly and therefore as you say no nationall church could be yet Christs will and minde in that matter might easily have been dictated in the Scriptures had he intended any such Church afterwards as Moses tells the Jewes Deut. 12.8 9 10. That they should not do when they should come to Canaan every man what he listeth as they did in the Wildernesse but there should be a place appointed and thither should they bring their offerings and tythes and though there were not Nations converted yet there were so many in a Nation converted as made many Assemblies In little Judea there were Congregations and why together with the Church at Jerusalem might there not have been a Diocesan or Classicall Church There were enough converted for such a purpose But shew the sootsleps of a Diocesan or Classicall Church and it shall serve the turn then wee will yeeld there might in time be a Nationall Arguments taken from the appellation of the word Church Answer or Churches are very unsatisfactory because of the various acceptations of the words Kahal Gnedah Ecclesia Synagoga which we sometimes translate Church but should alwayes translate Convocation or Congregation a company called out or gathered together In this answer you labour to overthrow our Argument Reply for Congregationall churches setched from the appellation of the Apostle when he speaks of Countries and Provinces where more Congregations were he calls them perpetually churches in the plurall number and not church by these suggestions rather then arguments 1. That the words Kahal Gnedah Ecclesia Synagoga should alwayes be translated Convocation a company called out or gathered together if this be yeelded wherein it will advantage you we know not A nationall Convocation or Congregation or gathering together will sound harsher then a nationall Church for every one knows that we have no Nationall Congregation in England But 2. You suggest The English word church Saxon Cyrick and Scots Kirk Answer are derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Cambd. Rem or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Sr. Hen. Spelm. which as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth the place of meeting Hence we reade of robbers of Churches or Temples Acts 19.37 Kahal whence our English word call is sometimes Metonymically understood of the place The Heathen enter into the Sanctuary which God hath forbidden to enter into the Church Lam. 1.10 with Deut. 23.3 Nehem. 13.1 To come together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is if it be rightly translated to come together in one place and so Ecclesia is opposed to the buildings or houses in which they did eat and drink 1 Cor. 11.19 20 21 22. Synagoga is evidently taken for the place of meeting Luke 7.5 Acts 18.7 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the proper signification Reply is appertaining to the Lord and may more properly relate to people appertaining to the Lord then to place because the people do more appertain to the Lord then the place 2. Though Kahal once perhaps and Synagoga oftener may be understood of the place yet Ecclesia never That place in Acts 19.37 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 robbers of Temples not Churches That place in 1 Cor. 11.18 When yee come together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not to be rendered in one place Pareus upon those words utterly denies it And there is good reason why they should rather be referred to the people as a church then to the place For the meaning is when yee meet in the church when yee meet as the church that is to perform Church-work For they
might meet in the place even those very persons and yet not meet as a Church as it might be said when such meet in a Synod it 's meant as a Synod to act some thing as a Synod * As convenire in Senatum is to meet as a Senate not so much referring to the place as to the persons so meeting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 misacrum conventum Beza ibid. i. for a holy meeting Musculus in coetu sacro queÌ„ liâ—vocat Ecclesiam i. in a holy Assembly which he calleth the Church Item Pet. Mart. bid It referres not to the place nor to the persons barely meeting but to the persons meeting as a Synod to act Synodically Besides though Kahal and Synogoga may by a Metonymy be referred to place because there were places built and set apart for Church-services yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the new Testament cannot be so taken because they had no set stated appointed places for the Christian churches to meet in your self assert so much p. 26. Nor is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 opposed to the buildings and houses in which they did eat and drink in 1 Cor. 11.19 20 21. The words are or despise yee the Church of God which respects the people the godly amongst them which told them of their fault and other Churches also as Pareus upon that place observes Unlesse you will say there must be a reverent observance of the place where the Church meets more then of all other places They met in Woods Dens Caves many times in times of persecution and must those places be more respected then mens houses where they did eat and drink in But what would you inferre if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Church were taken for the place Would it profit you Yes for you say afterwards The Scripture calls them Church or Congregation often Answer and sometimes in respect of their severall Synagogues Psal 74.4.8 No wonder therefore if that Christians of one countrey meeting in severall Synagogues James 2.2 Heb. 10.25 Acts 19.8 9. 22.19 Acts 13.15 16 43. and houses Acts 12.12 Rom. 16.5 do receive the denomination of Churches which in Scripture phrase is all one with Assemblies many whereof we confesse were in Galatia Macedonia The place you bring from Psal 74.4.8 is impertinently alledged Reply for the Church of the Jewes which was one is not called Congregations in vers 4. in reference to divers Synagogues they met in vers 8. But Congregations there is Metonymically used and is all one with Synagogues and signifieth the place and not the people at all They roare in the midst of the Congregations that is in the midst of those places where the Congregation met which places were many but the Congregation but one having one high Priest for their chief Pastor though meeting in its parts in many places So that the Church of the Jewes is not called Congregations as Mollerus shewes upon that place Neither can you shew as wee suppose that ever any one Church was called churches in the plurall number either in the old or new Testament in reference to plurality of places they met in For if it were so how comes it that a Church in a city such as Jerusalem Corinth Ephesus and Rome which met and assembled in many places as our Brethren of the Presbyterie say are never called Churches but alwayes Church And yet a Church in the countrey meeting and assembling in many places are called Churches and not Church And you say there is no wonder of it for this reason because the Houses and Synagogues in the countrey were many in which they met See brother whether you do not in this assertion crosse your self In the city you can finde many meeting houses and but one Church but in the countrey you can finde so many Churches as meeting houses But the truth is it is not place but the combination of a Christian people to meet together for Ordinances that makes a Church For the same Church may meet sometimes together in one place for Church worship and sometimes asunder in many places for Christian worship but they are not therefore divided into sundry Churches And many distinct Churches or parts of them may meet occasionally in one place yet they become not one Church hereby but combination to enjoy Church ordinances together in a constant way makes a Church and all in a city were in this combination to enjoy ordinances together therefore they were a Church But all in a countrey could not be in such a combination to meet together constantly therefore they were not a Church but churches But you go on and say The word Kahal and Gnedah do signifie a dispersed multitude Answer that never met together that the people of Israel though divided into severall domesticall assemblies to keep the Passeover are called one Church That an Assembly is all one with Kahal Ecclesia whether it be good or bad lesse or greater that when the Israelitish men women and children were together they were but one Congregation And when all did not meet though searce half or a third part met yet they were called all the Congregation And when there was a great Assembly then the Scripture tells us there was a great Church accounting no more persons of the Church but those that were then assembled Yea Simeon and Levi's assembly is called a Church and those many which were gathered to pray in the house of Maty are called the Church though many were absent Yea four or sive in a Family joyning in the worship of God are called a Church But suppose there be truth in all that is said what are all these acceptions of the words Kahal and Ecclesia to the purpose Reply Among all these can you finde that ever any one Church is called two or more Churches For except there can be brought instances of this nature the air is but beaten all the while and our assertion stands immovable We find many churches in little Judea in which of the ennumerations of acceptions of those words Kahal Ecclesia doth it appeare that a Church that is really but one multiplies into many and is called churches and yet is but one If you finde not this we cannot believe that a whole Nation or Province of Believers are but one Church in the dayes of the Gospel Besides is your scope to confound and lose your Readers in the various acceptions of the word Assembly or Church so that when they reade the word Church or Churches they shall not be able to know what to make of it How then will they understand your Nationall Church at which your Discourse drives It had been your part to have taken your Reader by the hand and to have shewed him when the word Church is taken properly and when improperly Both you in your Nationall and wee in our Congregationall understand a people combined together into one body to worship God And in the old Testament let the words Kahal
such a Generall called to be souldiers this name shewes the intrinsecall nature of the thing to which applied Such is the name Saint when applied to the Church of God but there are other names which are extrinsecall and superadditionall to the nature of the things given to and separable and may be in some and not in other of that kinde As if one should write to the Army of such a one enriched with gold and silver apparell this is extrinsecall and casuall and may agree to some Armies and not to others such are the Epithets 1 Cor. 5. inriched with wisdome utterance c. Concerning the names Elect c. we have answered them before POSITION VI. The form of a Church is the gathering together of these visible Saints and combining and uniting them into one body by the form of a holy Covenant Deut. 29 1.10 11 12. by which is plainly shewed that a company of people become Gods people that is a Church by entring into Covenant with God If it be said they were a Church before yet that was when the Church of the lewes was constituted in Abrahams Family by Covenant You intend not that this Covenant doth make a true Church Answer but a pure Congregationall Church as it is refined according to the platform of the Gospel We intend that the combination of Saints into one body by some kinde of Covenant either expresse or implicite Reply or by some kinde of speciall bond as Dr. Ames calls it doth make a true Church The seed of Jacob and the Sechemites could not make a Church together Gen. 34.15 16. but by becoming one and they could not become one but by coming into the same Covenant therefore they say though deceitfully for they never meant it yet therein they shew how such a thing could only be done if you will be as we be that every male be circumcised then we will become one people and we would demand had those Sechemites been Believers and had this businesse been carried without guile whether they had not by this doing become one Church We conceive relation or combination into one unto domestick ends and purposes is the form of a Family and relation and combination into one unto politick and civill ends and purposes is the form of a Commonwealth and relation and combination of one man and one woman unto conjugall ends and purposes is the form of matrimoniall state and that covenant alwayes makes this relation and combination into onenesse where the persons are free from each other and no naturall tie amongst them and so relation and combination of so many Saints as do or may well meet in one place unto religious ends 〈◊〉 the enjoyment of Church-ordinances doth make a church and because the persons are free from one another therefore covenant or agreement together which is all one must make the relation A solemne expresse and verball covenant or agreement we assert to be necessary unto the purity and strength of a Church and so consequently unto the welbeing of a Church for how Saints and they alone living promiscuously in the world should yet be severed from the world with which they be in habitation mingled and how they even they alone should have communion together in all holy ordinances without expresse verball consent we cannot conceive which yet we judge ought to be if the rule be well attended which saith Nothing shall enter into the holy city which defileth Rev. 21.27 22.14 And how such loosenesse which is in our parish-Parish-churches from which any may depart to another parish-Parish-church without rendering any reason removing their habitation it may be but a stones cast which we conceive to be a great evill For the members in a naturall body are not so loosly joynted nor stones in any house so loosly set unto which yet a particular Church is compared Eph. 2.22 and 1 Cor. 12.27 How this evill may be prevented but by expresse agrement we cannot apprehend and therefore conceive such a covenant to be necessary to such purposes A Church-covenant s especially in relation to Church-estate Answer and Church duties as a marriage-covenant is with relation to the marriage state and marriage duties but the Covenant here enentioned was not entered into in reference to Church estate and Church duties rather then to other duties of the morall Law and may be taken by two or three though they be too few to make a Church or by persons of severall Churches in a ship or a journey and yet leave them in the same Church-state they were before and not make them members of a distinct Church A Church-covenant is especially in relation to Church duties Reply but not only so for Christian duties are comprehended under it and the Covenant in Deut. 29.1.10 11 12. respects principally Church-duties more then other duties of the morall Law as appeares from vers 16 17 18. for he warns them of Heathenish worships such which they had seen in Egypt and among the Nations and would ingage them by holy covenant to all Gods holy worships which were of his own institution of which were the worship and service of the Passeover and all the offerings of Gods prescription which were to be brought to the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation and the covenant of two or three to perform such duties might not be taken because some of them did seal their union and communion with that body and were to be celebrated when the whole body was assembled And though a covenant binding to the performance of some of the duties of the morall Law may be made by two or three and by persons of severall Churches and yet leave them in the same Church-state and not make them members of a distinct Church from what they were of before yet not so a covenant that binds to Church-duties as if a company of persons of divers churches should covenant to meet together to pray one with another this would not make them a Church nor change their state but if they covenant to walk together in the constant enjoyment of all Church-ordinances which God requires of a Church this would make them a Church and change their state that afterwards they could not be of divers Churches but of the same Church and Body A Covenant in generall doth not make a Church nor a marriage Answer a Covenant betwixt this man and that woman makes it but a Covenant with appropriation and application to this or that Pastor or people but the Scripture covenants are not with appropriation and application to this Pastor or people viz. that they would serve God with this people or Pastor rather then with that therefore they are not Church-covenants Who ever read or heard of any Covenant in generall of duties to be done Reply without application to persons mutually ingaged to perform such duties As a covenant of duties in a marriage would be ridiculous without application to persons this man or that woman to be
concession that the Church Reply Acts 2. bad no ordinary Officers for none were then appointed and yet they were a church and Acts 14.23 shewes so much they were churches before the Apostles ordained Elders in them and this is all that the Position drives at And though there were generall Elders which had inspection over all Churches yet neither these nor any other Elders do * Come into the essence of Churches ingredi essentiam Ecclesiarum nor is it any formall reason why a Company of Believers are a Church because they have Elders whether extraordinary or ordinary for were it so then their priviledge to choose their Officers would be when they have Officers for then they are a Church and it would follow that they cannot choose Officers when they want them and have most need of them for then they are not a Church and so can have no such power and it is very uncomfortable for the death of an Officer might be the unchurching of a people But that which may give more satisfaction in this matter is the consideration of such Scriptures where the members mentioned apart from the Officers are called the Church of God Acts 20.28 the Elders are the persons spoken to feed the flock over which the holy Ghost hath made you over-seers the believing Ephesians are the flock who are also called the Church of God purchased with his blood * Acts 20. vers 28. So Phil. 1.1 So that a Christian people united together with an intent of constant congregating to enjoy Ordinances for their edification are a church without officers or if they have them yet without consideration of them POSITION IX She hath also full and free power to choose her own Officers without the help of Synod This though not so fully is asserted by R.M. W.T. to C. H. Classis or Presbyterie Act. 1.15 Acts. 6.3 14.23 In Church-affairs Answer of weighty and difficult common concernment as election and ordination of Elders excommunication of an Elder it is safe and wholesome and an boly Ordinance to proceed with consultation and consent of the churches Prov. 11.14 (p) Cottons Keys p. 55. Reply This Position saith not that a particular Congregation or Church of Brethren have full and free power to choose her own Officers without asking or seeking the help of advice and direction from Synod Classis or Presbyterie nor do we think that there is any such meaning in it but without authoritative help of a Synod Classis or Presbyterie for in all those places of the Acts the churches had the help of direction but they were not strengthened by the interposition of the authority of the Apostles or of any other You will not take upon you hastily to censure the many notable precedents of ancient and latter Synods Answer who have put forth the Acts of power in ordination and excommunication (q) Cottons Keys p. 28. Reply 1. The grave Author of this speech meddles not with election in that place quoted but this Position runs of election 2. He keeps himself from an hasty and peremptory censuring of ancient precedents who have put forth acts of power in ordination and excommunication but he declares his opinion against it and we approve as well of his modesty as we do agree with him in his judgement We hold it a priviledge of the people especially if they proceed wisely and piously to elect their Officers Answer and an injury to obtrude any on them without their consent 1. What people are these that have this priviledge Reply Cottons Keys pag. 12. the Author whom you make use of so oft calls them Church of Brethren is it a people-priviledge or a church-priviledge to choose Ecclesiasticall Officers 2. What if they do not proceed wisely and piously is their priviledge lost must it be taken from them and then it would be no injury to obtrude an Officer on them It is an Officers priviledge to rule the Church but what if he do it not wisely and piously is the privilege then lost it is a Master of a Families priviledge to rule his own house but what if he do it not wisely and piously must it now be taken from him or rather must he not be directed and exhorted to do it rightly and the priviledge remain stil with him so of the people we have Junius of our minde herein (a) Junius Eccles p. 1963 Answer But let us view your Scriptures Seeing that you agree with us in the substance of the Position Reply and yet immediatly bring all the Scriptures brought by us to strengthen the same into question and none of them will passe for currant with you it had been convenient that you should have produced the Scriptures which do sway you unto the asserting of the same thing that it might have appeared to the world that you have found out some better bottome to set such a tenet on then we have produced For we conceive that if the Scriptures you oppugn are not pertinent to prove the Position there will be none found in all the new Testament but they will be more liable to exception then these and it is to be noted that all our modern Writers that we know of that grant any liberty to the people of choosing their own Officers they do it upon the evidence of these Scriptures which are excepted against in so much that we know not what should be the reason why you grant the thing alledged and bring no proofes of your own to confirm it and yet allow not of ours which we bring except you be resolved to contradict all that comes from us But what are your exceptions let us prove what weight is in them you say The Assembly Answer Acts 1. it is likely was not a body politick but occasionall only no part of Church-government being as yet set 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 Jewes before Acts 2.40 the Company was not without Elders all the Churches and Elder at that time in the world were present if there had been any more Elders they must have conveened upon that occasion the choice was limited by the Apostle Peter First to the persons present Secondly to those that accompanied the Apostles all the time c. and was determined by God whose it was to choose an Apostle by his directing of the lot The meaning is Reply they were not a Christian Church but some of the sounder members of the Jewish Church and not yet separated from the Jewish Church and then 1. There is a contradiction unto some other of the exceptions which follow If they were no Christian Church how were the Apostles Elders of it and how was it an Oecumenicall councell all the Churches and Elders in the world being at it 2. Is there not some mistake in point of truth For those persons who were commanded to separate Acts
by lifting up thy hand and Barnabas must say to Paul If thou be for him or for any other dielare it by lifting up thy hand a most ridiculous course was ever suffrages so gathered and given when but one man to gather and another to give might not two persons better have gone apart and concluded the businesse by counsell betwixt themselves then to have gone to it by suffrage and stretching out of hands in the presence of so many except there had been some greater plurality of persons There is roome enough without absurdity for Churches though but two or three to go to voting in a businesse that is common to them and therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is applicative to them but there is no place with any colour of reason why two persons should go to voting when any thing is put to vote or lifting up of hands the end of it is that the businesse may that way be cast but two persons may end it by agreement when as by vote they cannot if they be opposite to one another POSITION X. The particular Congregation This Scripture is alledged by R. M. and W. T. to C. H. answ to 32. q. p. 69. though they want Officers have power and authority to ordain Officers as the children of Israel did put their hands upon the Lovites Numb 8.9 10. That Congregation had Officers Answer Aaron the High Priest and many other Priests Numb 3.4 But you hold not that people may ordain in the presence and plenty of Officers 1. Though they had Officers Reply viz. Aaron and his Sons yet those Officers could not lay their hands upon them for a speciall reason and therfore they were as without Officers the reason was this the Levites were given to God and they were given to Aaron and his sons they were given to Gods service they were given to Aarons service and therefore they must be presented not by Aaron and his sons but before them Numb 8.13 Aaron and his sons must be the person that must as it were receive them therefore not lay their bands on them for that was the work of those that offered them and gave them and not the work of those that must receive them this appeares from Numb 3.6 7. and Numb 8.13 with 19.2 Will it not hold à majore from the greater that if in the old Testament the people did ordain in the presence of Officers then they may in the new much more in the want of Officers All the children of Israel being about 600000 Answer did not probably lay hands on the Levites but some in stead of the rest which were more likely to be the Elders then any other You might have said could not possibly at once do it Reply therefore of necessity some in stead of the rest did it and probably the Elders But what Elders Ecclesiasticall Elders there were none but Aaron and his sans and they did it not as is manifest from the Text and for the reason rendred they were therefore Civill Elders but not as Elders For you hold not that it belongs to Civill Elders as Civill Elders to lay on hands in ordination but as they were the chief and principall men of the Congregation and we hold the gravest and wisest and primest of the Congregation ought to do it on the behalf of the rest when there is a want of Ecclesiasticall Officers All the Congregation Answer and all the Elders of the Congregation are all one Exod. 12.3 with vers 21. 1. It doth not appear from the Text alledged Reply that they are all one but distinguished though they all are one body yet these as Officers those as Members For when God saith speak ye unto the Congregation of the children of Israel he meant really that the Congregation of Israel should be spoken to and not the Elders only for the ordinance was as well appertaining to the Congregation as to the Elders and when Moses vers 21. spake to the Elders only yet it was with reference to Gods command in vers 3. that all the Congregation might be spoken to they fulfill Gods commandement speak to the Congregation but not immediatly but by the Elders Doth this confound Congregations and Elders For if God had meant Elders by the Congregation then the Elders killing the Passeover though the people had not done it yet Gods command had been fulfilled which is untrue 2. Though the Congregation and the Elders should be all one yet is the Congregation and the Ecclesiasticall Elders all one if the Text you alledge prove not that it is nothing to your purpose 3. If the Congregation and the Elders should be all one in some places yet in Numb 8.9 10. they are not all one For Aaron and his sons were the only Ecclesiasticall Elders and they are mentioned distinctly from the Congregation of Israel The Levites were separated to their work Answer an t taken from amongst the children of Israel cleansed and offered before the Lord by Moses and Aaron respectively according to Gods expresse appointment vers 6.7.8.11.13.14 therefore this laying on of hands was either only obedientiall for approbation of Gods election or for oblation of the Levites to God in stead of their first born vers 16.17 18. as they laid hands on sacrifices vers 12. which was a speciall reason and peculiar to those times Obedientiall certainly it was Reply but principally for another reason as we conceive which you omit the service of the Levites was the service of the children of Israel which formerly the first born were wont to perform now God had chosen the Levites in stead of the first born to do that service which Israel should have done by their first born therefore Israel must lay their hands upon them that is put that work upon them which was theirs For as the laying on of the hands on the sacrifice did put the sins on the sacrifice and so upon Christ so the laying on of hands did put the service upon the Levites see Numb 3.7 Numb 8.18 19. and herein there is a parity for the service of the Ministery is the service of the Church and the Officers which the Church hath performs it for the Church and the Church when she puts her hands upon the Officers puts the service upon the Officers and yet this reason would neither have been good then in the presence of the Officers had there not been a speciall reason for it nor is it good now when the Church hath Officers because the Officers are to transact her affaires for her If the people did ordain the Levites Answer I am sure they did not choose them If this be a binding pattern you will loose Election while you contend for popular ordination Such a sleight conclusion will not so soon wring away election from the people Reply We have examples enough in the new Testament for such a priviledge to settle it upon them more firmly then so We need not fly to
the old Testament for patterns for it if you can but produce one instance from the new Testament that ever Elders of one Church ordained Officers in another or any good reason for it grounded thence the controversie about ordination shall be ended betwixt us and the pattern of Numb 8. shall be waved You tell us that it is a pillar of Popery to proportion the Church now Answer to the outward policy of Israel It is notoriously known Reply that the foundation of the Antichristian Hierarchy is laid in the proportion which some would have betwixt the Jewish policy and the policie of the Christian Church yet this debarres not but that use may be made of the old Testament where the new is silent Do not you rest upon the new Testament for the change of the Seal of the Covenant and conclude Baptisme is to be imbraced in stead of Circumcision because the new is cleer in that matter and yet run to the old to finde out the latitude and extent in the application of it to the subject and conclude Infants must be baptized not because the new expressly saith so but because you finde it in the old The Jewes children were circumcised therefore Christians children must be baptized You tell us that Christs faithfulnesse above Moses Answer consists in as full determination of Gods worship in the new Testament and that we are as strictly tied to the Gospel-pattern as the Jewes were to the old Testament Why then should we in ordination of Officers be guided by the old Testament and not by the new It is our Argument against those that hold that there is no platform of discipline laid down in the new Testament Reply but that any is lawfull that the State will authorize but it was never asserted by us that all things without limitation are directly determined for we have alwayes restrained it to substantialls neither have we ever said that we have had a perfect knowledge of all things that are revealed And why should we follow the ordination of Levites rather then of Priests for a pattern for the ordination of Elders Answer except to gratifie you You cannot gratifie us by following the one or the other Reply because ye cannot advantage your selves whether of them soever ye betake your selves unto For 1. If the people laid their hands upon the Levites there were no hands at all laid upon the Priests they were anointed and consecrated and holy vestments put upon them but ordained by the imposition of hands they were not but you would not have ordination of Elders turn'd into a consecration after the manner of the Priests 2. What was done to the Priests was not performed by any Ecclesiasticall person but by Moses the chief Magistrate of the people but you are not so weary of ordination as to transferre it from the Presbyterie to the Magistracie 3. The Elders of the new Testament are rather the successors of the Levites then of the Priests because there is no Hierarchie amongst them and therefore the pattern of their ordination is rather to be followed then the ordination of the Priests and yet not to gratifie us Consult better the next time with Scripture before you proceed to such triumphing POSITION XI When the Apostles were sent out by Christ The words of the Answer to 32. q. p. 71. there was no mention of Ordination in that Commission of theirs but only of teaching and baptizing Mark 16.15 Matth. 18.19 20. If Ordination of Ministers had been such a speciall work there would be like have been some mention of it in their Commission Neither is there mention of the celebration of the Eucharist Answer The Eucharist is an ordinance Reply sealing the same Covenant that Baptisme sealeth therefore the Apostles having Commission for the one could not want it for the other though it be not mentioned Preaching and Baptizing were first to be done to the Nations Answer therefore they are there mentioned That is not the sole reason Reply but because they were principall works and in reference to the subject persons about which they were exercised more Apostolicall for they might preach and baptize in all the world whereas ordinary Officers in an ordinary way may not do such works in all the world but only in the Church We find the Apostles did practise ordination Answer and yet we suppose they went not beyond their Commission Acts 6. c. 13. 14. and a Commission to Elders we reade 1 Tim. 5. The Position saith not Reply that ordination was not within their Commission but saith That there is no mention thereof when they first received their Commission and the page out of which the Position is exerted makes mention of some other works within their Commission not mentioned viz. Prayer and Acts 6.4 is quoted for it But indeed Brother you are injurious to the Authors of those words of the Answer to 32. q. p. 71. for Ordination is not denied to be within the Commission of the Apostles but those Reverend men do grapple with Hierarchicall persons in that place and we see no reason why you should take offence thereat if you would not have your self judged to be one of them their words are these Some indeed have so highly advanced ordination that they have preferred it above preaching ministring of Sacraments Prayer making it and the power of excommunication the two incommunicable prerogatieves of a Bishop above an ordinary Minister who are these sons Prelaticall mens against them the Authors of the Position fight And first would beat them with the words of the Apostles first Commission which was to preach and to baptize and afterwards they do shew that preaching was the great work that they were to attend upon and do alledge 1 Cor. 1.17 for it and next after preaching they mention prayer and alledge Acts 6.4 and then they speak of the Sacraments not of Baptisme alone but of the Lords Supper So that Brother you had no reason to take such offence because of the Eucharist for they gave it its due place in the Apostles Commission after this they render another reason why preaching was a greater work then ordaining because Paul went about the work of preaching and left Titus an inferiour Officer to himself to the work of ordaining Indeed afterwards when those Reverend men had proved that ordination was not superiour to Preaching Baptisme c. they then indevour to shew that it is not equall to those works so as that none but those which may perform those works may ordain and they bring this Argument Ordination being nothing else but the accomplishment of Election it may be performed by the people of God who yet have no office even as Election may upon whom it depends and they bring the testimonies of many Protestant Writers among the rest D. Whitakers Answer to Bellarmine If Bellarmine grant the calling of those Bishops to be lawfull there is lesse cause why we should doubt of Ordination For those who
often signifies Church-communion and the Apostles meaning may well be that it should be upon dayes when the Church meets in communion and giving and receiving are actions of communion Phil. 4.15 and therefore sutable to such meetings in communion in the interim we would not be understood as though we meant to exclude all private distributing or communicating to the necessities either of Saints or Ministers though we conceive publike contributions to be principally intended Hence it is that Deacons are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 12.28 which being interpreted may import a person that receives some thing for another and it may beare receiving of a just reward for another and so a receiving not for the poor Saints alone but a reward for the labourers also * See Scap. Lex 6. But how must the Deacons receive the Churches contribution must they gather it from house to house that would be an endlesse toil and dishonourable also Contribution or communication is called a sacrifice Heb. 13.16 Now sacrifice was wont to be brought to the door of the Tabernacle and it comes most freely when it is thus brought but when must it be brought when the Church meets and when meets the Church constantly upon the Lords Day therefore these contributions must be brought upon the Lords Day but upon which Lords days must this be done upon those only upon which there is occasion of distributing something or at other times surely at other times else it might come to passe that they might have nothing in deposito nothing in the stock then many a person that needs can many times have nothing for the case may be such that the need cannot tarry till the Lords Day come and the person may be gone that needs before that time come now there ought alwayes to be something in readinesse to supply needs in cases of such urgencie therefore this contribution ought to be every Sabbath day that as there may be daily occasions of distributing there may be constant supply in contributing To prove this we have alledged 1 Cor. 16.1 2. and so far as we have made use of this Text we conceive we have not wrested it 1. We confesse that the occasion of this institution was collection for the poor Saints and not their own poor Saints neither but the poor Saints at Jerusalem 2. We confesse that there are no other Churches mentioned upon whom this institution was injoyned but the Church at Corinth and the Churches of Galatia which our brother saith was larger then England Notwithstanding if we consider severall particulars of the Injunction we may probably conjecture that he had a further scope in the commandement then the occasion doth import 1. He brings a great many of Churches not to the doing of the duty alone but to the same way of doing it the Churches of Galatia which were many and that at Corinth and there cannot be a reason rendered why all other Churches that were called to the duty should not be bound to the same manner of doing also and so the Churches of Macedonia and that at Rome will be brought under this Injunction for they were called to the same work of relieving the Saints at Jerusalem as well as the Churches of Galatia and Corinth * Rom. 15.26.27 2. The Apostle bindes the performance of this contribution to the Lords Day in all these Churches if he had had no scope to make this an Ordinance in all the Churches he might have pitcht it upon some other day 3. He saith every first day of the week that is every Lords Day so it is translated in the Geneva Bible and so the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often rendered as Scapula observes and give instances abundantly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in every yeer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is every moneth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is every word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is every person 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is vicatim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is domesticatim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is viritim street by street house by house man by man we have twice together the Preposition so taken Acts 2. ult 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 day by day 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 house by house now what reason can be rendered why this contribution must be every Lords Day in reference to the Church of Jerusalem alone for they might have given what they could have spared at once or if it were a great deal that they were to give they might have had the longer time allotted them and yet have given it at once or the richer and the abler might have given it at once and the rest at twice or thrice or four times but they must give it Lords Day by Lords Day without missing one Lords Day this seems to hold forth that Paul meant it for a standing Ordinance and that his scope was by weekly contributions to raise a stock in the Churches out of which might be taken without gathering 4. They are bound under this Injunction of first dayes contributions without any time set them of ceasing the same for though our Brother say those gatherings were to cease when Paul should come and alledge vers 2. for it yet we finde no such thing there he saith vers 2. That there may be no gatherings when I come our Brother gives this interpretation that collections may cease when I come but is not he guilty herein of corrupting the Text more then we for the true meaning is that it may be in readinesse when I come and that there may not be need to gather for it when I come for when it is in the stock already there will be no need of gathering for it and the Greek words are against his exposition but agree well with ours 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which words are truly thus translated that not when I come then gatherings be made he is diverse I think from Paul in his exposition of Pauls words he would have gatherings then to cease Paul would not have them then to begin for should they then begin there would be nothing in stock and so nothing in readinesse when use should be made thereof 5. Consider the manner of performing this act every one must put apart somewhat or lay by him What to keep it with him and not part with it not so for he must treasure it up as the Greek carries it or put it into the treasury What treasurie his own private treasury no for then it needed not to have been upon the Lords Day for any other day would have served for such a private act and then there would have been gathering together what every man had put into his own private treasury when Paul came and this would have been unreadinesse which Paul labours to prevent it was then the common treasury which the Church had when they met into which every one did put what he provided for such a businesse thus a stock was raised in all
these Churches by an every Sabbaths contribution But it will be said still that this respecteth the poor Saints at Jerusalem only But every Church hath or may have poor Saints of her own which way must they be relieved must not they be provided for the same way as the poor Saints of other Churches What reason can be shewed that the poor of other Churches must be provided for by one way or rule and the poor of their own Church by another way or rule or if there be any difference do not a Churches own poor rather require a weekly contribution for their reliefe then the poor abroad of other Churches therefore we said at the beginning that we conceived the Apostle to have a further meaning then the occasion did import Besides seeing there are Lords Dayes contributions throughout the yeer in all the Belgick churches for the poor upon what Scriptures do they bottome them if not upon this there is par ratio like reason without all doubt that look how the Apostle would have reliefe come in to the Saints of Jerusalem so he would have it come in to the Saints of every Church that wants it and that is by raising a stock in the Church for all good uses by first dayes contributions But wherein doth this Stock or Treasury of the Church respect Ministers The stock raised by selling of estates and laying them down at the Apostles feet respecteth not the Saints alone but the very Apostles why then should not the stock raised by an every Sabbaths contribution respect Ministers If we will take Chemnitius his opinion whose harmony upon the Gospel is not a litle set by (a) Chem. har p. 182 period hist de anno Christ 12. he tells us the Doctors in Christs time that preached were maintained by contribution he saith the treasury into which Christ beheld many rich ones casting in much and the poor widow all her substance was to maintain the Doctors he also joynes the poor with the Doctors and saith that the Treasury was for both uses see John 8.20 and compare it with Mark 12.41 Having given an account of our tenent and grounds whereupon built and our conceptions upon 1 Cor. 16.1 2. we need not frame any other Reply unto your Answer Brother for the intelligent Reader will discern what little truth in some things and little substance in other things there is in what you have presented in that matter only because you charge us with unrighteousnesse and partiality in point of our not maintaining our Ruling Elders we shall clear our selves in a few words 1. We conceive all Officers are to have some maintenance the labourer is worthy of his hire provided that he either require it or the Church be able to give it 2. We conceive that there is a difference in the works of Officers some are greater taking up the whole time and strength of the Officers double work being put upon them ruling and labouring in the Word and Doctrine so there should be difference in the maintenance of Officers some ought to have more then others 3. When the Church is not able to maintain her teaching Officers with an honourable maintenance then if the ruling Officers and the Deacons will remit what ever reward from the Church their work calls for 't is no unrighteousnesse nor partiality in the Church to maintain the teaching Officers and not the rest because their works do not so require the whole man but that they may have other Callings to help themselves by which means they may spare the Church in her poverty in point of maintenance 4. Your self may do well to consider whether the ruling Elders and the Deacons be maintained in the Presbyterian Churches and if it be an error not to do it it is good to pull out that beam out of your own eye and then you may see the better to take it out of your brothers eye POSITION XIV The great Mountain burning with fire cast into the Sea upon the sounding of the second Trumpet Rev. 8.8 9. is applied by some good Writers to those times in which Constantine brought settled endowments into the Church If it be so applyed by some good Writers Answer who possibly bad in their eyes the Lordly and almost regall riches and pomp of Prelates it is by as many and as good writers applyed otherwise Our brethren speak modestly and moderately Reply they tell us it is applied so by some good Writers It is not therefore their own novell exposition they present it as probable they force the interpretation upon no man But what are your exceptions against it For my part Answer as I sinde that Constantines donation the foundation of this exposition is but a fiction accounted by Gratian himself to be but palea and what is the chaffe to the wheat So I finde in the Prophecies that Kings and States are called Mountains Zach. 4.7 Casting of Mountains into the Sea implyeth great commotions Psal 46.2 Their burning with sire signifieth their opposition and fiercenesse whereby they become destroying Mountains Jer. 51.25 1. Reply We are not at a little want of books and therefore are not able to make an exact search either after the truth or falshood of this matter But let Constantines donation of the Popes patrimony be a Fiction and Palea yet we suppose it may be cleerly evidenced from credible Authors that Constantine brought in great riches and pomp setled endowments to the Clergie of the Church and that is all that is affirmed in the Position 2. If Kings and States be called Mountains so is prosperity in riches and honours Psal 30. Thou hast made my Mountain so 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 taken in your sense for Kings when almost regall riches and honours were cast upon Prelates of the Church may it not be said a mountain was cast into the Sea And may it not well be said to be a burning Mountain when the ambition of Prelates after Church indowments and honours almost set the Christian world on fire and the hot contestations of Ecclesiasticall persons for Church-livings do testifie that if prosperity in wealth and honour be a mountain then it was a burning mountain and had such effects following it as the Prophecies in the Revelations speak of But you go on and say I finde not that it is unlawfull either for a yeer as in New-England Answer (u) 〈◊〉 to ◠R. p. 19. Reply or for certain yeers or for term of life much lesse do I finde that it is lawfull for one and not for a yeer a quarter or two or three or four yeers Though T. W. speak of maintenance from yeer to yeer yet it is not to be understood that
persons of the same blood Aud therefore if inequality of civill power be forbidden how much more inequality in power Ecclesiasticall which is the spawn and rise of Antichristian tyrannie (a) Pastor Prel p. 23. Answer to Mr. Down See pag. 81. 82. Mr. Pagets Defence part 2. p. 29 The learned Clergie in the dayes of Hen. 8. confessed there was no disparity of Ministers instituted by Christ Act. Mon. Diotrophes being but one was liker to a Prelate then a Prsbyterie c. These words are brought to vindicate 3 Joh. vers 9 Reply 10. from a supposed abuse by these words They viz. the Elders are not so many Bishops striving for preeminence as Diotrephes did We must confesse we had almost said we wonder that your ink did not blush to blot and blur such sweet humble-spirited holy and pertinent expressions as you do in this place Let your self once more and the Reader take a judgement of the passage as it lies in its perfect luster in the Answer to the 32 Quest The Question propounded by the Brethren of Old-Engand is this What authority or eminency have your Preaching-Elders above your Ruling-Elders To which the Elders of New-England frame this Answer It is not the manner of Elders amongst us whether ruling only or ruling and teaching also to strive for preeminence one above another as remembring what lesson our Saviour taught his Disciples when they were at strife among themselves which of them should be the greatest Luke 22.24 25. If Diotrephes strive for preeminence verily we abhor such striving and by the grace of God respect one another as Brethren Brother where lies the fault for which they lie under censure Is it a fault that the Elders in New-England strive not for preeminence If so we suppose it lies in this that their humble and brother-like walking each towards other condemnes the pride of those that will needs be striving for some kinde of preeminence and Prelacy above their Brethren (b) Juvtual Satyr Patriam tamen obruit olim Gloria paucorum laudis titulique cupido This formerly the countrey overthrew The lust for praise and titles and the glory of a few Or are they to blame to insinuate that the Apostles censure upon Diotrephes doth so frown upon those whether Prelates or Presbyters that strive for preeminence that it is a matter of abhorrency to them so to strive Hinc illae lacrymae hence it is that you say Diotrephes being but one is liker to be a Prelate then a Presbyterie Brother Reply a horse in the abstracted notion of unity being but one is liker a Prelate then a Presbytrie that are many But what of that Prelacy doth not consist in unity but in the usurpation of undue that is to say unscripturall spirituall power over their Brethren and in this capacity it is possible that a Classicall Presbyterie may be as like Diotrephes as a Prelate that is to say if they take upon them a preeminence over their Brethren as he did 'T is as truly Prelaticall when fourteen or fifteen exercise a jurisdictionall power over all their Brethren in a County as when one man shall take upon him to exercise the power aforesaid in two or three severall counties Perhaps the fourteen or fifteen being better principled then the other may do it with more gentlenesse and lesse offence but (a) More and lesse do not alter the kind magis minus non variant speciem and they may be both (b) Alike if not equally aequè if not aequaliter Prelaticall Yet John dod not blame him simply for acceping or having preeminence Answer or for taking upon him to answer in the behalf of the Church to which St John writ or for taking to him the power of commanding forbidding excommunicating but for loving preeminence as Mat. 23.6 7. for not receiving the Apostles and Brethren and prohibiting what he should have required and incouraged and excommunicating such as were the best members of the Church Reply You might more properly have said usurping or exercising preeminence for accepting presupposeth an offer made of the thing accepted Now it is more then probable that the Church never offered him preeminence both over the Apostle John and over her self that he should over-rule the Church and cast out her best members at his pleasure neither if she would had she any such power Let it be granted that Diotrephes was an Elder of the Church of Corinth Reply (c) Rom. 16.25 1 Cor. 1.14 and so had a preeminence by vertue of Office over the Body of the Church yet this is not the preeminence here spoken of but an exorbitant preeminence usurped over the whole both the Elders his equalls in power and the fraternity who though his inferiours yet have a share and interest in the passing of excommunication and other weighty affaires of the Church expressed as your self state it in taking upon him to answer in the behalfe of the Church commanding forbidding excommunicating Now say you he is not simply blamed for accepting or having but for loving preembrence and exercising it corruptly in regard of the things done and performed by him It is said of corrupt Princes Isaiah 1.23 Every one loveth gifts by the same reason that Diotrephes is excused from the guilt of solitary excommunication in regard of the materiality of the action by the same reason may these Princes be excused from their bribery and corruption And it may be said the Prophet doth not reprove them for the receiving but for the loving of gifts When the thing is evill there love how moderate soever is faulty in this regard that it is placed upon a wrong object But where the thing is lawfull a moderate and well tempered love of it is lawfull also As for the Scribes and Pharisees so far as they were men of chief rank and place Mat. 23.6 for them to possesse and love to possesse with a well bounded love the uppermost rooms at feasts and the chief seats in Synagogues would not be unlawfull but perhaps their ambition put them upon affectation of places undue to them and then their possessing them and their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Mark 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Matthew and Luke or as Christ speaks Luke 24 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they choose the chief rooms and this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be seen of men being added to their possessing Digito monstrari dicier hic est (a) To be shewed by the singer and to have it said This is such One is that which may justly be condemned by our Saviour But the case which respecteth Diotrephes may be this it is probable that John writ about something that did concern Discipline as the receiving of certain Brethren either to constant membership or by vertue of church communion now this was a businesse in which the fraternity had some interest as well as Diotrephes and the rest of the Elders and therefore
the Apostle writes not to Diotrephes or the Elders alone but to the whole Church also because Quod omnes tangit ab omnibus tractari debet that which concerns all must be handled by all But Diotrephes riseth up and he alone commands forbids excommunicates and what can be more destructive of the power of the Presbyterie and liberty of the people then such a course and yet say you or else you say nothing to the purpose he is not blamed for it If Diotrephes were not to blame being but a particular Elder to take upon him the power of the whole Eldership yea and the whole Church why may not a particular brother take upon him the power to elect an Officer which belonge to the fraternity or one Elder to ordain an Officer which pertains to the whole Presbyterie Or in your Classick Way why may not a particular Elder a member of the Classis exercise the jurisdiction of the whole Classis why may not a Classis exercise the power of a Provinciall Synod that of a Nationall and the Nationall of the Oecumenicall Synod and yet be blamelesse the reason is the same proportion that an Elder hath to the whole Eldership the same or far greater have a brother to the whole fraternity an Elder to the Classick a Classick to the Provinciall a Provinciall to the Nationall and that to the Oecumenicall Synod But peradventure it was not unwittingly done by you to put in the word simply for a retreat in case you should be hotly charged for pleading the cause of Prelacie under the notion of Presbyterie and so you will say you affirm not that John doth not blame Diotrephes for having preeminence but he doth not simply blame him for having preeminence Now if this be your meaning and that you indeed grant that Diotrephes was blamed for striving for preeminence why do you blame the Elders of New-England for saying that the Elders are not i. ought not to be so many Bishops striving for preeminence as Diotrephes did But if it be said that the force that is offered to the Text lies not in this that the Elders of New-England say that if Diotrephes strive for preeminence verely they abhor such striving for these are their words but in this that it is said The Elders are not so many Bishops striving for preeminence as Diotrephes did which peradventure may have an oblique insinuation that Classick Presbyters are so many Bishops striving for preeminence and it may be said the text affords no such conclusion We answer those words so many Bishops are no expression of the Elders of New-England neither is the Text applied by them to prove that Classick Presbyters are so many Bishops striving for preeminence I but M. D. saith a Classick Presbyterie sets up many Bishops in stead of one Peccat Aemilius plectitur Rutilius M. D. offends if it be an offence and the Elders of New-England are beaten Or suppose that reverend learned and holy man M. D. have let fall words which reflect with some blemish upon the Presbyterie from the sense of what himself had suffered yet your professed businesse is not to vindicate Presbyterie but the Text. Now M. D. we conceive for we have not his book doth not urge 3 John vers 9 10. to prove that the Classicall Presbyterie sets up many Bishops in stead of one and therefore what thing soever he hath said which offends in reference to the Presbyterie yet he is not guilty of wrong-doing in reference to the Text. I will not tell you who said All the Church is holy Answer ye take too much upon you c. Our consciences are unto us a thousand witnesses Reply that we have and by the assistance of grace hope ever to carry it with all gentlenesse and meeknesse toward our godly Brethren that are guided by a different light in point of Government from us and therefore it is lesse grievous to us to be parallel'd with Corah Dathan and Abiram those grand incendiaries of the Congregation of Israel yet it is not unworthy your serious consideration whether it might not be with good cause said to you as sometimes Christ said to one of the twelve when he asked Master is it I and he answered Thou hast said POSITION XIX The Power of Government is expressly given to the Church where we are bidden Heare the Church which is a particular Congregation Matth. 18. Brother we could wish you had signified the Author by whom Reply and the place where this wrong at least as you suppose is done to the Text as you have done in other Sections who those be that presume that Christ did no more respect the Jewish then they do the Church of England As your margent doth not inform us so in searching those few books we have we cannot finde among all the Congregationall men therefore we take it as an unjust aspersion thrown upon them The Church in the first and primary intent of these words Answer was a Church then in being which did abominate the Gentiles for Heathens and Gentiles were all one viz. the Jewish church which was not aparticular Congregation but a Nationall-church having graduall judicatories and appeales of which the Apostles were at that time and Christ lived and died an actuall member c. Whilest you your self say Reply that the Church in the primarie intent of these words was a Nationall church then in being do you not imply that these words tell the Church have reference to a Church or churches that were not yet in being which should afterward be invested with power of judging and therefore giving it for granted that Christ saying Tell the Church sends them to the Jewish Synagogues or Sanhedrin whilest their authority did continue and so Peter needs not stay three yeeres before he can acquaint the Church with his offence yet still the Congregationall church may be competitresse with Classicall Provinciall Nationall and Oecumenicall churches for the power of judging and if she should come off victricious then the guilt of wresting this place for you urge it to prove the power of your judging church would rest among your selves and the Congregationall men and their Way be guiltlesse Now for our parts we cannot see the title of Congregationall churches any way invalidated by what hath been hitherto said by your self or others 2. Whilest you say that the Church in the first and primarie c. I suppose your inference must be this Ergo those words Matth. 18. Tell the Church cannot be rightly applied to a Congregationall Church which hath no such graduall judicatories and appeals but Classicall Provinciall and Nationall Churches for amongst these are found such graduall judicatories and appeals The sinew and strength of this reason is this It is necessary that the judging Church in the times of the Gospel should answer in the manner of its judicature the judging Church in the time of the Law and ergo if that Church which was to judge then had graduall
judicatories and appeals such ought to have the judging Church in the dayes of the Gospel This main hypothesis upon which the strength of all depends is unsound For 1. It is necessary that the judging Church in the times of the Gospel should be conformed to spirituall precepts and patterns left us by Christ and his Apostles but Christ hath not appointed the Jewish church in matter of government to be a pattern to Gospel Churches For if so then are not the Churches that are of Presbyterian complexion to be understood in this place for there is a vast difference betwixt your Churches and the Jewish Church For First there is disparity in the manner of the calling of persons for Synods are made up of men chosen and sent forth by particular Churches but the Sanhedrin did not consist of chosen men sent out by the Synagogues but of Priests and Levites which the Synagogues did neither choose nor send forth Secondly there is disparity in matter of power In the Jewish Sanhedrin the chief Priest was chief by vertue of Office 2 Chron. 19.11 but in the Classicall Way all are equall in point of Office Thirdly in respect of the causes judged the Sanhedrin dealt with matters of civill nature Deut. 21.5 but Synods only with Ecclesiasticall Fourthly in respect of the time of judicature The Sanhedrin was a standing constant court but Classicall Provinciall Nationall and Oecumenicall Synods meet but once in a moneth once in half a yeer once in twelve moneths or it may be not once in many ages is an Oecumenicall Synod gathered and so those appeals that are made from a Nationall are in little hope to finde relief from an Oecumenicall Synod 2. If it were necessary that Church-government in the times of the Gospel should beare conformity with the Jewish Government then they must not only have graduall judicatories and appeals but they must have First a stated Oecumenicall judicature constantly to judge all hard controversies between blood and blood plea and plea stroke and stroke into all Churches in the world Secondly that this stated Oecumenicall judicature must have some stated place which God should choose Deut. 17.8 that so appellants might know whither to repaire for redresse of their grievances Thirdly that there must be one chief by vertue of office over all met in this universall court 2 Chron. 19.4 That he that shall do presumptuously and will not hearken to that Catholike councell that man must die Deut. 17.12 3. There may be good reason rendered why the Synagogues should be under a Juperiour judicatory and the same cause there is why Congregationall-churches should be under a Superiour judicatory The Synagogues were parts of a church that had not power to dispence all Gods Ordinances amongst themselves and were branches of a politick Nationall-church endued with power of government as Nationall The Promise and Covenant of God extended to the whole Nation But there is no such power of government left to every or to any Nation in the world neither are particular Congregations parts of a Church as the Synagogues of the Jewes were but they are entire and compleat Churches and may transact all Gods Ordinances walking in truth and peace amongst themselves otherwise all Gods Ordinances could not be transacted unlesse a whole Nation were converted and brought into Church-society This Gospel was writ principally for the Jews some say in Hebrew Answer c. Admitting the Proposition were true Reply which yet we have much cause to doubt of may not Congregationall men that are Christians use this place aright in applying it to Congregationall churches because the whole Gospel was writ principally for the Jews Certainly the undiscernible strength of this reason at least by us will levie war against the Presbyterians except they will professe themselves Jews for applying this place to Presbyterian Churches The Epistles to the Hebrews and James were writ principally for the Jewes and yet Christians that are Gentiles may make a right use of them In it the spirit of God useth much the language and dialect of the old Testament Answer in which Kahal and Ecclesia with the Seventy do sometimes signifie the company of Elders as well as the body of the people a Nationall Church with graduall judicatories and appeals as well as a particular assembly We cannot but despaire of ever seeing the premises delivered of the conclusion Reply Let it be granted that Kahal c. signifies in the old Testament sometimes a company of Elders sometimes the People sometimes a Nationall sometimes a Congregationall Church yet it will not follow that the Congregationall men in applying Mat. 18.17 to the Congregationall Church have offered any violence to the Text. For it will not follow Kahal sometimes signifies a Nationall Church in the old Testament no though to make it more strong you adde that the Spirit useth much the language and dialect of the old Testament I say it will not follow therefore it signifies a Nationall Church in Matth. 18.17 for the Spirit may use by your own confession the language and dialoct of the old Testament and yet it may be understood of a particular Assembly Neither will it follow Kahal sometime in the old Testament Ergo Ecclesia signifies a company of Elders Ergo it signifies a company of Elders in Matth. 18.17 Now there is not a word in the Text Answer to shew either that the Church is not here taken for the Presbyterie but for the People seeing when Christ saith whatsoever ye shall binde c. he speaks to the Disciples vers 1. or Apostles which are elsewhere said to have the power of binding and loosing Matth. 16.19 Joh. 20.23 and were not ordinary Believers but Elders 1 Pet. 5.1 or that it is meant of a parcular Congregation without graduall judicatories and appeals c. These are the Premises Reply but how shall we do to get the conclusion willingly to follow these Premises which must be this Ergo when the Congregationall men affirm that the particular Congregation is the Church to which God hath given the power of government and urge Matth. 18. to prove the exercise of such power by the Church aforesaid they abuse that Text. For the Congregationall men may very securely affirm that those words Tell the Church send the offended Brother to the Congregationall Church in the time of the Gospel even as they sent the Jewés to the Sanhedrin whilest that was in force and yet not send him to the people as they stand in opposition to the Presbyterie which are the most noble organicall parts of the integrally perfect Church For we do not seat the power of the Keys in the people as they are contradistinguished to their Elders but in the whole Church by a most wise and divine dispersion of power unto the dissimilar parts of the Church according to their severall capacities For as the Elders have an authoritative power so the people have a power of liberty in point of
censures So that reclamante Ecclesiâ there can be no excommunication So then though it 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 Classicall Provinciall Nationall and Oecumenicall Churches The reason is 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 Acts 6.3 1 Cor. 5.4 chap. 11. chap. 12. chap. 1.4 chap. 16. but of any stated Classicall Provinciall Nationall Oecumenicall Churches there is a deep silence in the Scriptures of the new Testament no precept for the erecting of such and no lawes nor Officers provided for such Churches Now Christ Matth. 18. sends the people of God to such a Church as should be in strength by vertue of a Charter from heaven to redresse grievances and heal offences and therefore he sends us to the Congregationall Church as it opposeth those churches I spoke of before for these can shew no such charter I read that the promise of binding and loosing is not given to a particular Congregation when leavened with error and variance Answer But then a Synod of Churches or of their Messengers may judicially convince and condemn errors search out truth c. All that we have to say to that Reply is this If you will acknowledge the power of binding and loosing to be seated in the particular Congregation we shall not contend against it though we cannot say that the Scriptures and reasons brought are convincing to each of us to inforce our grant but that in ease of error or scandall that cannot be healed in the Congregation A Synod of neighbour churches or their Messengers may judicially condemn those errours and schismes c. and impose wayes of peace and truth but yet not assume authority of censuring the delinquents but leave that to particular Churches to be performed Cotton Keys pag. 28. POSITION XX. Matth. 16.19 Christ directeth his Speech not to Peter alone This seems to be taken out of Answer to 32 q p 44. but to all the Disciples also for to them all was the Question propounded by Christ vers 15. Nor to them as generall Officers of the Churches for that Commission was not yet given them but as Disciples and Believers In laying down this Position Reply and making your battery upon it as you do fall short of that ingenuity you professe in your Preface when you say If any of the Brethren amongst whom Mr. Cotton is deservedly the chief seem in my apprehension to come neerer the truth then other Cotton Keys pag. 4. I willingly take notice of it c. Now Mr. Cotton must needs in your judgement come neerer the truth then the Elders for he doth acknowledge that Peter was considered in the severall capacitles of an Apostle an Elder a Brother and so the power of the Keys was promised in him to Apostles Elders and Brethren according to their severall proportions of that dispersed spirituall power Now had you dealt with this doctrine with which we concurre and told us your thoughts of it in reference to the place we should have acknowledged your answerablenesse therein to your profession Now though you cite Mr. Cotton in the margent yet so as that the ordinary sort of readers can hardly guesse what his judgement is and the whole frame of your Discourse is such that may well leave the Reader in this apprehension That the Elders of New-England place all power of the Keys in Believers as such which is contrary to the very expressions of the Elders of New-England and to the judgement of the Congregationall men in generall For the Elders say The ministeriall power of government is given to the Church and consequently not to Believers unlesse they become a Church yea they say expresly That the Keys are committed to all Believers that shall joyn together in the same confession according to the order and ordinance of Christ and consequently except Believers joyn into Church-societies which is the Ordinance of Christ they have no share of the power of the Keys much-lesse do they assert any such power in women who though Believers yet are excluded from any share in Church-government by a positive law 1 Cor. 14.34 35. Peter was an Apostle in Office and Commission Answer though not yet sent out into all the world and an Elder Matth. 10.1 2 c. and doubtlesse the Key of Authority and Rule when it was promised to Peter and given to him with the rest of the Apostles Joh. 20.23 is the same authority which is given to their successors whereby they are called to feed and rule the Church of God as the Apostles had done before c. Let it be granted that the twelve Disciples so called Mat. 10.1 are not called Apostles vers 2. by way of anticipation Reply Mar. 3.13 14. but in reference to their present state and condition yet it will be necessary still to distinguish the equivocall term of Apostle as noting 1. One authorized to dispence doctrine and discipline amongst all nations Matth. 28.19 and in this sense Peter was no Apostle in Office and Commission as your self confesse And what the Elders affirm is true That the Keys were not given to Peter in this capacity i.e. not as to one that was actually in that estate and condition or was hereby put into that estate and condition 2. As one sent forth by a temporary Commission to preach and work miracles amongst the Jews only (a) Mat. 10.23 Now the Promise of the Keys was not made to Peter under this capacity neither was he an Elder invested with authoritative power of government at this time he could neither vote in Synagogues nor in the Sanhedrin but only preach authoritatively and work miracles to confirm his Doctrine and in case that they did not receive him he could not excommunicate them by himself or with all the rest of the twelve with him but must shake (a) Mat. 10 14 15. off the dust of his feet against them and leave them to the great day of Gods immediate judgement for so runs the tenour of his Commission and there is deep silence of any other then meerly a doctrinall power of the Keyes So that the issue is this that though what you say be true in the sense expressed yet it is nothing to the purpose for which it is brought for still the assertion of the Elders may be true that Christ speake not to them as Apostles in Office and Commission whether limited to the Jewes as you would insinuate or extended to all Nations but as Disciples or Believers 2. Neither will it follow the Key of authority promised to Peter and given to him with the rest of the Apostles Joh. 20.23 is the same which is given to their successors therefore Christ directeth his Speech to
Peter not as a Believer but as an Apostle in Office and Commission for what ever the import of the thing promised may be yet that hinders not but the promise may be made to Peter under the respect and consideration of a Believer For the thing promised in this place may be considered two wayes First as a reward in generall of grace and mercy Secondly as such a reward which importeth a power of opening and shutting the Kingdome of heaven Now the Power of the Keys considered as a reward of grace and mercy is promised to Peter as making such a glorious confession 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and I say unto thee q. d. thou hast made such a holy confession of me that I say unto thee I will not suffer thee to go unrewarded but I do promise that I will give thee the Keys of the Kingdome of heaven c. Now Peter did not confesse Christ as a generall Officer but as a Believer and therefore the reward which is the promise is made to him not as a generall Officer but as a Believer 2. As importing a power of opening and shutting and so though it be promised to Peter as a Believer and in him to all those that shall make the same holy confession of Christ that he did yet is it not to be executed either by Peter himself or any other under the notion and consideration of a Believer only but imports also an Office or State under the capacity and consideration of which it is to be executed Thus when Christ saith to Peter I will give to thee Keys c. he doth thereby promise that Peter shall be as a Member as an Elder as an Apostle in the Gospel-churches and in all these capacities shou'd have some share in the dispensation of the power of the Keys The consequent whereof is this No Believer at this day meerly as a Believer nay nor yet as a Believer externally confessing Christ with the mouth may have any share in executing the power of the Keys unlesse he be a Brother joyned to some Church or an Elder set over some Church for children for their weaknesse and women for their sex are excluded by a positive law For as the power of the Keys is promised so the State under the consideration of which they shall exercise such power yea and a Commission from Christ by which they shall exercise that power is also promised And thus Mr. Cotton may say that Peter may he considered as an Apostle an Elder a Brother because together with the power of the Keys the state of an Apostle of an Elder of a Brother is promised and yet not clash with the Elders of New-England who affirm that the power of the Keys is promised to Peter i. e. as a reward of grace and mercy as a Believer Neither need the Elders of New-England dread your three-fold consequence viz. First That the Keys are not given to any visible Church And Secondly That they are given to all Believers in covenant or no whether males or females Thirdly That Apostles and Pastors have no more power of the Keys then ordinary Believers which as they are false and absurd so it may easily appear by that which hath been said that they cannot shelter themselves under any thing in the Position of the Elders of New-England Neither will that Axiom à quatenus ad omnevalet consequentia i. from as such to all such a consequence is of force how beare you out in so unjust a charge For though it be true in such Propositions where the specificall difference is predicated of the Species or proper Accident of the Subject the proper effect of the immediate cause yet it will not hold when you speak of a Soveraign Lord acting in a transcendent way of liberty no nor of a rationall creature moving according to choyce and election Suppose you should have a servant that should prove faithfull in his place though one of the meanest places and therefore you should promise to give into his hand all the Keys of the house that he should open and shut to all the rest and this you should do looking upon him as faithfull A quatenus ad omne non valet consequentia in such a case it will not follow that every faithfull servant in your house hath the power of the Keys neither will it follow that the faithfull servant to whom the promise of the Keys much lesse every other faithfull servant as such may execute the power of the Keys For though the promise be made to that servant under the capacity of a faithfull servant yet the promise it self carries an Office by implication viz. the office of Steward under which consideration and not under the consideration of a faithfull servant he is to manage the power of the Keys Phineas the son of Eleazar the son of Aaron was zealous for God Numb 25. and God gives him the covenant of an everlasting Priesthood because he was zealous will you say that A quatenus ad omnia valebat consequentia in this case i. e. because an everlasting Priesthood was promised to Phineas because he was zealous therefore every zealous person hath an everlasting Priesthood Lastly that it was far from the purpose of the Elders of New-England to assert any such Doctrine as you would draw from their words may appeare in this Answer and elsewhere in this booke wherein they place the power of the Keys not in the body as contradistinct to the guides but in the whole consisting of Rulers and ruled giving to the Rulers an authoritative power which they give not to the ruled POSITION XXI 1 Cor. 5. Paul himself though an extraordinary Officer yet would not take upon him to excommunicate the incestuous person without the Church but sends to them exhorting them to do it (a) See also answ to 23. q. pag. 49. and reproves the Brethren of the Church of Coriuth as well as the Elders that they did no sooner put him away (b) Cotton Keys pag. 13. To prove that this Doctrine is injurious to the Text you thus reason He blames all women as well as men Answer that notwithstanding the notorious fornication which was amongst them they were puffed up and gloried c. 1. We suppose this battery is raised against those words Reply and reproves the Brethren as well as the Elders c. Now if it might be any gratification of strength to your Argument we will grant that the Apostle blames all in generall and yet the Elders may without any shew of wrong to the Text affirm that he blames the Brethren as well as the Elders for it will not follow Paul reproves the whole Church Ergo he reproves not the Brethren which are a part of the Church 2. If it be said that the wrong lies in the scope of the words For hence we go above to prove that the Brethren have ashare in the power of Church-censures Now the same argument will prove from this
Paul alone did not do it Doth Paul command the Church to deliver the incestuous person to Satan Answer and yet reserve the whole power to himself as he must needs do if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 have reference to himself These things being spoken by you in reference to one individuall act under one and the same consideration expressed in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must needs be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 altogether inconsistent one with another or with the truth 2. If the Elders abuse the Text by saying that Paul exhorts the Church of Corinth to excommunicate the incestuous person how will you wash your hands from all wrong offered to the Text whilst you affirm that Paul commanded them to excommunicate him Yes say you Paul writes to them to see if they would be obedient in all things Is this your meaning that Paul writes not to them requiring them to put forth a power given unto them and all other Churches by Jesus Christ but only to exercise an act of power which did not of right belong unto them but to his Apostolicall Function And why by the same reason might not the Apostle then and the Ministers now in their Churches call out one or more and command them to preach or administer Baptisme or the Supper meerly to try their obedience Now this must be your meaning or else your argument will never conclude the thing you professe to conclude For we willingly grant that Paul writ unto them to try their obedience but the very Text imports that there were other grounds of his writing as well as this for he saith not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore for this I write much lesse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for this therefore only writ but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for this therfore also I writ unto you to try your obedience intimating that there were other grounds And therefore that Paul writ unto them to try their obedience will never afford such a conclusion therfore he writ not to them to exercise an ordinary power purchased for them by the blood of Christ for obedience may be tried by that which is both a priviledge and a duty Paul bids the Colossians cause an Epistle to be read in Laodicea Answer they its like did it in obedience to Apostolicall authority yet it will not bence follow that a Church hath ordinarily the same power over another Church There is a twofold causing by way of authority Reply or by way of morall swasion or endeavour this latter the Apostle speaks of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he work or use your endeavour and the same power hath every Church over other at this day for their good 2. Suppose you could obtain what you desire in all these that Paul did excommunicate not the Church or if the Church did yet it is a wrong to the text to plead for the like power at this day Do you not all this while fight against the Presbyterians whose Cause you pretend to advocate as well as against the Congregationall men whom you professedly oppose For if it will not follow The Church of Corinth whether particular or representative is commanded to deliver the incestuous person to Satan therefore every true Courch hath the same power then whilest the Presbyterian Brethren urge this place to prove the power of a Classicall Presbyterie they wrong the Text For though it may be a question whether this Text gratifie the fraternity of the Church with so much power as we would state upon them by vertue of this Text yet Presbyterians and Congregationall men all except your self that we know agree That whatsoever power the Fraternity and Presbyterie of the Church of Corinth had that the Fraternity and Presbyterie of all true Churches have to the end of the world He bids them purge out the leaven Answer and put away from them the wicked person c. which must not be understood as if Elders and People were equally authorized thereunto c. 1. Reply Is not this to insinuate that the Elders of New-England and Mr. Cotton affirm that the Elders and People are equally authorized to cast out the incestuous person and not only quilibet in suo gradu every one in their degree There is nothing in the place by you alledged that doth import thus much They say the Apostle reproves the one as well as the other The King for a miscarriage in a Cause may reprove the Jury as well as the Judge and yet there is no such implication that Elders and People Judge and Jury are equally authorized to the respective acts of Judicature The Elders of New-England infer from hence that all Church-power is not in the Officers alone do they therefore affirm that there is as much in the people as in the Elders Whereas in answer to Q. 15. p. 60. they shew certain acts of power in the Eldership which are not in the people and Mr. Cotton (a) Cotton Keys cap. 4. and 5. expresly gives all authority properly so called to the Eldership allotting only a popular power of interest and liberty to the people 2. And lastly for the rest of your expressions about this matter I take to be but of the train and retinue of this grand misprision and so passe them over lastly I say when you say that he bids them purge out the old leaven and put away the wicked person which must not be understood as if Elders and People were equally authorized thereunto but quilibet in suo gradu a man would think you did acknowledge that the People in suo gradu are authorized to purge out the old leaven and put away the wicked person which questionlesse are acts of some kinde of governing power and yet in the Catastrophe of all this Discourse you wipe the Fraternity of the Church cleerly of all acts of governing power when you say So when he speaks of acts of gouerning power it is to be understood of Elders and not of Believers Are not these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Are purging out the old leaven and putting away the wicked person acts of governing power And are Believers authorized in suo gradu to perform these acts and yet doth no act of governing power belong to the Believers of the church Let him assoyle this Riddle that is an Oedipus able to do it for our parts we cannot Thus much of your 21. Section POSITION XXII The Lord Jesus reproving the Angel of Pergamus for suffering Balaamites sends his Epistle This is alledged by Answ to 32. q. 45. and 49. not only to the Angel but to the Church The Spirit saith not only to the Angel but to the Churches Rev. 2.11 And the Church members are seen by Iohn in a vision sitting on Thrones clothed with white raiment having on their heads Crownes of gold Rev. 4.14 Now Thrones and Crownes are ensignes of Authority and governing power To make good your charge against the Elderss of wrong offered to these Texts
alledged you say The Lord Jesus reproving the Angel of Pergamus Answer sends his Epistle say you not to the Angel but to the Church I adde not to the Church but to the Churches 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 the sin not of the Church only but the neighbouring Churches also It is like you intended a consutation Reply but it hath befalne you as it did the Potter in the Poet Horat. de Art Poet. amphora coepit Institui currente rota cur urcens exit qui amphoram instituens currente rota effingit urcoum For in stead of a consutation you have brought forth an addition otwo other inferences Now if you should unto this inference of the Elders adde a hundred more of your owne yet this will not prove that the inference of the Elders 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 true inferences from the Text yea or no especially considering that the inferences you bring are of friendly compliance with that that you pretend to confute For you say not to the Church I suppose you mean the Church only for else you harp upon a harsh string in the ears of rationall men to say John writ to all the seven Churches of Asia Ergo he writ not to Perganus one of the seven but to the churches Now can you say the Lord Jesus writing to the Angel of the Church of Perganus sends his Epistle to all the seven Churches and not abuse the Text and yet must we believe it when you tell us that the Elders of New-England in saying Christ writ not to the Angel of the Church of Pergamus only but to the whole Church of Pergamus also do abuse the Text Again if the suffering of Balaamites in the Church of Pergamus was the sin of all the neighbouring Churches and that this may be affirmed by you without wrong to the Text then the suffering of them in the Church of Pergamus it self was the sin of that Church and this may be affirmed by the Elders of New-England without wrong to the Text. 2. But let us look upon the words not as they may afford matter of an argument ad hominem but as they are in themselves Two things you affirm 1. That Christ reproving the Angel of the Church of Pergamus sends the Epistle to the Churches We suppose you mean the other six Churches of Asia 2. That suffering Balaamites which is reproved in the Church of Pergamus was the sin of the neighbouring Churches also For the first 1. The book of the Revlation contains seven Epistles which were of immediate concernment in a distributive sense to seven severall Churches and many other glorrious mysteries that were of equall concernment to all the people of God These all being molded into one book as we said are sent to the seven Churches of Asia Now the Elders of New-England affirm that the Epistles sent to the Angels of Pergamus and Thyatira are sent by way of immediate appropriation and concernment for that is their meaning to the whole Churches of Pergamus and Thyatira Now if in this sense you affirm that Christ reproving the Angel of the Church of Pergamus sends his Epistle to all the Churches you speak to the purpose but not according to truth For 1. What a Pleonasme and redundancy if not a grosse Soloecisme in discourse and absudity it is in a book sent as an Epistle to seven Churches two severall times to mention them together vers 4. John to the seven Churches of Asia vers 11. What thou seest Rev. 1.4.11 write it in a book and send it to the seven Churches of Asia and afterwards to write severall things of a Heterogeneall nature to those seven severall Churches distributively To the Church of Ephesus write thus to the Church of Pergamus thus c. commend one condemn another admonish a third extoll a fourth threaten a fifth c. and yet that these severall Epistles should be of as immediate a concernment to all the rest as to those to which they are particularly directed 2. It will follow that Philadelphia was lukewarm with Laodicea dead with Sardis and of these two lukewarm dead Churches may be verified the Encomiasticks of Ephesus Pergamus and Philadelphia with many such consequences But if your meaning be that the Epistle sent to the Church of Pergamus in respect of that remore and generall concernment whereby it may be of use to all Christians is sent together with the rest of the Book of the Revelations to the seven Churches This though a truth will afford no contribution towards the making good of your charge against the Elders of New-England being that which they deny not 2. For the second it is undeniably manifest that the assertion of the Elders viz. that the Church of Pergamus was guilty of suffering Balaamites and other wicked persons is true yea the truth of this Text. But to have so much faith as to believe that all the rest of the six Churches of Asia if that be the utmost extent of neighbouring Churches in your account were guilty of suffering Balaamites and Nicolaitans yea even Ephesus and Philadelphia that are commended for not suffering those that are evill hating the deeds of the Nicolaitans and keeping the Word of Gods patience would require some further proof then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 your bare assertion for the manifestation of it For if the rest were guilty why are they not blamed Why is the burthen laid only though it might be laid chiefly upon one Church when as the rest are guilty I suppose the building upon which you lay the weight of this roof is this These seven Churches were a combined Presbyterie and therefore as the government so the neglect thereof concernes all Answ If you may assume the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the thing in question as if it were the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a thing out of question you may in time perswade the world that the Elders of New-England have forced this and many other Texts But to prove that the seven Asian Churches were governed by a joynt and common Presbyterie hic labor hoc opus est this is the businesse But suppose that such a common Presbyterie there were and that the Presbyters of all the other six Churches did endeavour the casting out of these Balaamites c. why were they then not cast out Could the Elders of Pergamus over-vote the Elders of all the neighbouring churches in a Synod And if all or at least the major part of the Elders of these seven Churches neglect why are the Elders of Pergamus only reproved Lastly we cannot choose upon this consideration but condole the sad condition of Presbyterian Churches which is such if wicked men be suffered in any particular Congregation in
the world all the Churches in the world are guilty of it The reason is the same obligation that lies upon a Classicall Church to reform the severall Congregations in the Classis the same lies upon a Provinciall Church to reform the severall Classis in the Province and the same lies upon a Nationall Church to reform the severall Provinciall Churches in the Nation and the same lies upon the Oecumenicall Church to reform the severall Nationall Churches in the world and therefore though all the inferiour Churches should fail yet the Oecumenicall is bound to see it reformed and if the Oecumenicall fail all in the line of Oecumenicall communion that is to say all Churches in any Nation in the world are guilty POSITION XXIII The particular Congregation takes Christ for her only spirituall Prophet Priest and King Deut. 18.15 Acts 737. Psal 110.4 Heb. 5.4 Isai 9.6 7. Rev. 15.3 To make good this charge you say Answer Seven or eight you say are the fewest will make a Church but five or six yea any one particular Saint though out of Church-fellowship by excommunication may take Christ for his only spirituall Priest Prophet and King c. How comes it to passe Brother that your margent that hath in most places born witnesse to your Text reserves it self in deep silence Reply as if it were afraid to be accessary to this wrong offered to the Brethren of the Congregationall Way That the Congregationall Way eatenus in that it is Congregationall is conformed to the will and lawes of Christ appoined by him as King of the Church delivered by him in his Word as Prophet of the Church we constantly affirm and shall be ready to justifie before all the word till we be convinced of our errour in that particular That the stated Classicall Provinciall Nationall and Oecumenicall Way of Church-government importing a power of jurisdiction in point of Ordination Excommunication c. over particular Congregations is not sutable to the Will of God delivered by Christ as Prophet nor to the Laws of God delivered by Christ as King of the Church as it is sutable to our light So we shall endeavour pro virili nostro according to our power with all meeknesse and brotherlike affection to defend as God shall give opportunity But that ever we have read in the writings of any Congregationall man truly so called as they stand in opposition to others of a different judgement both upon the right hand and on the left with whom alone you professe in your Preface to have to do I say that ever we have read in the writings of any Congregationall man these places applyed to prove the Position as it is by you controverted that is to say that the particular Congregationall Church takes Christ for her only Prophet Priest and King as if in these his Offices he were so only hers that no five or six or one particular Saint though out of Church-fellowship no Classicall Presbyteriall or Nationall Church no not the Nationall Church of the Jewes it self doth or notwithstanding some failings in government may take Christ as their only spirituall Priest Prophet and King as we do not remember so in whose Sack soever this cup of abomination be found yea though it be in Benjamins let him suffer according to his demerits But if any of us have thus expressed our selves whereby we have made all particular Believers not joyned to some Congregationall Church the renowned Scotish and Belgick Churches and all other reformed Churches not Congregationall yea the Nationall Church of the Jews it self at least as you would insinuate strangers from the Common-wealth of Israel yet are we unjustly condemned by you we mean in that sense in which Salvian saith a L. 7. de Gub. Dec. p. 282. Socrates when he writ a book perswading that all mens wives should be common was unjustly condemned by the Judges Injustè damnatus dicitur à judicibus verum est Rectius vuim haec talia praedicantem genus damnaret humanum In like manner we say we should be unjustly condemned by you for all the Churches of God yea all the people of God might deservedly condemne us 2. But suppose it cannot be made out by you that ever any Congregationall man truly so called held the Position you speak of in the sense insinuated in your examination where then is your ingenuity that you professe in your Preface viz. If any of the Brethren seem in my apprehension to come neerer the truth then others I willingly take notice of it Is this your willing taking notice of our neerest approaches to the truth to fasten upon us an imputation of wresting so many Scriptures to the maintenance of an opinion that never entered as we verely believe into the hearts and we are confident is not to be found in the works of any Congregationall man which if it be said and that you cannot make out the contrary it is well for you that you lived not in that over rigorous age spoken of by Ludovicus Vives in Commentary upon Augustine Lud. Vives in August de Civit. Dei l. 2. c. 9. de Civitate Dei in which it was a capitall fault and punishable with death to write or act any thing derogatory to the good name of any man For you have indeavoured to cast the odium of the most detestable pride and censoriousnesse upon many thousands Ministers and People that are of a precious anointing for learning or piety or both and in particular of a singular eminency for that rich grace of humility yea such a blot have you laid upon them whilest you say that we cleerly him that Christ doth exercise his Kingly Priestly and Propheticall Office only in Churches meerly Congregationall yea that Christ did offer himself a sacrifice for all the members of a Congregationall Church and only for such a thing of the greatest abhorrency to our thoughts if it fall on this side blasphemy against the Holy Ghost such a blot I say you have laid upon them that you will not easily wipe off for Machiavels rule is too true Calumniate fortiter saltem aliquid adhaerebit Slander boldly at least somewhat will cleave POSITION XXIV Christ left but one way of Discipline for all Churches This is found in Answ to 32. q. p. 72.73 and the like is in R. M. and W. T. to C. H. pag. 8. which in the essentialls of it is unchangeable and to be kept till the appearing of Christ 1 Tim. 6.13 14. To prove that these words are injurious to the Text alledged you say It seems by the words Thou O man of God I give thee in charge Answer that thou keep this Commandement viz. which immediatly precedes concerning faith and holinesse in the Ministery of the Word to be directed to Timothy himself or if to his successours then it must be to the ordinary Elders for Euangelists that succeeded him wee know none not to the Churches for example not to the
by Essentials we mean such particulars included in this System or Comprehension as if any of which be wanting something is detracted from the perfect and compleat order of the Gospel In this sense we say that there are certain Essentials in controversie That only persons righly qualified should be admitted to society in the Church is an Essentall a Isai 5.6.6.7 1 Cor 1.1 Phil. 1.1 Now though this in the generall be not in controversie yet whether this or that be a right qualification is in controversie and so an error in an Essentiall is contended for and made by the erring party either by taking in visibly false or excluding visibly true matter That the members of the Church be united by a right medium is Essentiall b Acts 2.41 Acts 5.13 1 Cor. 12. to Discipline but whether this right medium be I know not what implicit covenant or whether it be an expresse covenant or the legall bounds of the Parish is no small Question at this day That ordination excommunication c. be done by the right Subjectum capax c 1 Tim. 4.14 Titus 1.5 Acts 14.23 of these ordinances is certainly an Essentiall part or discipline But whether the Churches in some cases may ordain by Deputies no Church-Elders or whether in an ordinary way this power be in the Eldership of the particular Congregation or in a compound Classick Eldership is a great controversie But that the holy kisse oyle washing of feet are Essentials we hold not The remainder of your examination though drawn out into seven particulars seems to us to be like the hornes of the Beast called Bonassus Aristot de Nat. Animal which are big enough but yet they are ad pugnam inutilia unusefull to fight withall For though we cannot assent to every thing in your seven particulars yet shall passe them over because they are all peaceably conditioned to the Doctrine of the Elders of New-England For though they were all granted yet it may be cleerly deduced from 1 Tim. 6.13 14. that Christ hath left but one way of Discipline for all Churches c. the reason is because these are no parts of the discipline left by Christ to the Church which in the Essentials of it is unchangeable spoken by Paul in the Epistle to Timothy Horat. de Art Poet. Non semper feriet quodeunque minabitur Areus Lastly whereas you call for a Narrative of our Church-way especially of what we count Essentials we had thought to have taken some pains to have satisfied you herein but that in the nick of time that work is done to our hands by Reverend Mr. Cotton And further we hear that a work of the same nature by the Brethren of the the Congregationall-way members of the Assembly is upon the Anvile and that by the request of the Assembly of Divines at London and we make no doubt but the gleaning of the grapes of Ephraim are and wil be better then would be the vintage of Abiezer Yet we know not by what obligation we stand bound to give forth a Narrative of our Way more then the Brethren of the Presbyterian judgement do of theirs who though to this day they call earnestly for a Narrative from us yet have not gratified us with any Narrative of what themselves hold And therefore vouchsafe to touch at least with one of your fingers that which you are pleased to lay though we count it not so as a burden upon us POSITION XXV The Church or the Ministers thereof The like words are found answ to 32. q. p. 11.15 answ to 9. Pos p. 76.77 28. must not be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Pet. 4. and therefore the Minister must not perform a Ministeriall act to another Congregation Acts 20.28 1 Pet. 5.1 2. The Text in Peter speaketh not of the Church or of the Elders Answer more then of any other men nor of meddling with the affairs of other churches but with other mens matters nor yet every meddling with them but such a meddling as for which they suffered from the Heathens in those dayes Let no man suffer as a busie-body in other mens matters c. Neither do the Elders say that the Apostle speaks of the Church Reply or the Elders thereof when he doth dehort them from suffering as busie-bodies in other mens matters nor is the Text in Peter so much as mentioned in any of the quotations presented in the margent nor once intended to be made use of to prove the thing they were spoken of therefore is it not a grosse wrong to make the world believe that they made use of 1 Pet. 4. to any such purpose Only in p. 11. they make use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Peter makes use of in 1 Pet. 4. but of that Text they make not use when their scope was to appear against dispensing censures Church-priviledges to Christians joyned to no particular Church they say they must not be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alluding to that place of 1 Pet. 4. where that word is used but not intending to give the meaning of the place Now they might well apply the word to Ministers intermedling without the bounds of their calling because the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though it signifie an Over-seer yet usually it is applied by the Holy Ghost to a person over-seeing in spirituall matters and so to a Minister of the Gospel and is translated Bishop therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a person that playes the Bishop in anothers Dioces out of his own bounds most properly therefore might be made use of in a way of application to Ministers though the Apostle speak not of Ministers in that place But what inference do you inferre after you have resuted your own fiction It is of no more strength meaning 1 Pet. 4. Answer against a Presbyterie over particular Congregations then against the power of Parliament over other Courts of Judicature You say true Reply the place which neither meddles with the one nor the other nor was produced unto any such purpose may have no more strength against the one then against the other but there are other Scriptures brought which deny to Ministers that power over other Congregations which the Parliament hath over other Courts of Judicature within their own territories The inference supposeth that the flocks mentioned in these two Texts Answer viz. Acts 20.28 1 Pet. 5.1 2. were two particular Congregations which is impossible to be proved The inference supposeth no such thing Reply only implieth that there is something in those Texts against Ministers their performing ministeriall acts to other Congregations the truth of which we shall make to appear The Texts in Acts 20.28 gives this charge Take heed to your selves and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers to feed the Church of God i. their charge extends to none of them beyond the flock over which they were made over-seers in
universall for sometimes God raised up extraordinarily from amongst the people Thus Amos was a Heardsman and yet chosen to be a Prophet And this hath been done in an ordinary way in the Churches that men that have made great proof in holinesse and knowledge have been called to publike Office Spyridion a Shepheard was called to be Bishop of Trimithous Socrates Eccl. Hist l. 1. c. 8. p. 232. a City of Cyprus Ambrose a Consul being yet but a Catechumenist came into the Church Assembly at Millain and spake much and very powerfully by way of exhortation to the dissenting Brethren and was by an unanimous vote chosen for their Bishop at that instant before he was Baptized Socrat. Eccles Hist l 4. c. 24 25. p. 335. So when God was pleased to make known his Will by immediate revelation he was pleased many times to make use of the sons of the Prophets The sons of the Prophets that were at Bethel 1 King 2.3 5. and Jericho could tell Elisha that his Master should be taken from him yet sometimes God was pleased to reveale his will to those that were not sons of the Prophets Thus though none were to be designed by the Church as one of these two or three that must prophesie in a Church-meeting but Prophets yet if any thing were revealed to him that sate by he had the liberty to expresse it so that it is well observed on the one hand by W. Musculus upon the place that the Apostle saith not Duo vel tres prophetent sed Prophetae duo vel tres prophetent that is he doth not say Let two or three prophesie but let two or three Prophets prophesie So on the other hand upon these words If any thing be revealed to him that sits by let the first hold his peace he hath these words Non dicit significet loquenti ut ille hoc Ecclesiae proponat sed dicit surgat ipse loquatur neque dicit servet sibiipsi sed prior taceat ne videlicet illicitum putetur ei loqui in Ecclesia qui non sit in ordine Prophetarum sed de numero sedentium auditorum i.e. He saith not Let him signifie it to him that is speaking that he may prophesie the thing to the Church but he saith Let himself also arise and let him speak neither saith he let him keep it to himself but let the first hold his peace viz. lest it should be thought unlawfull for him to speak in the Church who is not in the order of the Prophets but in the number of those that sit by Aretius in 1 Cor. 14.26 and are auditors In like manner Aretius Inde fieri potest ut quos Ecclesia deputavit ad munus interpretandi non habent revelationem loci propositi sed alius in turba sedens Hence it may come to passe that those whom the Church hath deputed to the Office of interpreting may not have the revelation of the place propounded but some other fitting among the multitude 4. That now that extraordinary revelations are ceased yet it may be lawfull for some members of the Church which are not Officers to preach or prophesie publikely and 1. To those that are not in Church-fellowship 2. To those that are in Church-fellowship and want Officers 3. To those that are in Church-fellowship and have all Officers compleat For the first First it may be lawfull for a Church having persons indowed with parts fit for the work to send them forth as Messengers to preach to Heathens for their conversion Reas 1. By the same reason that the Church of Antioch sent forth Paul and Barnabas to preach in Salamis Paphes Pergo Antiochia c. for the conversion both of Jewes and Gentiles by the same reason a true Church may send forth men of excellent parts to preach for the conversion of Heathens For Paul and Barnabas did not now go forth by vertue of their Apostolicall Commission by which they were inabled to preach to all Nations for so they should have had no need to have been separated by fasting prayer and imposition of the hands of the Eldership for that Commission they had long before this separation but they went as Messengers sent out of God by the Ministery of the Church of Antioch and when they returned they render an account to the Church of their service in the work to which they were recommended by the Church Acts 14.27 Now if Paul and Barnabas who without the recommendation of the Church of Antioch might have preached in all these places were sent forth by the Church what doth this but demonstrate unto us a power in the Churches to send forth Messengers though they be neither Apostles Pasters nor Teachers who shall preach as gifted men sent forth by the Church for that purpose For if Paul and Barnabas who were Apostles did preach as Messengers sent of God by the Ministery and recommendation of the Church to such a work by the same reason may persons gifted preach by vertue of such a recommendation Reas 2. God hath left a power to the Church to propagate the Gospel by using means for the conversion of those that are unconverted Now because all unconverted persons cannot come to heare in the Church-assemblies therefore Christ hath left power to the Churches to send out Messengers for this purpose to preach the Gospel to them otherwise there were no means left by Christ to be used by the Church for the conversion of those that lie in a state of Heathenisme and cannot or will not be at the charge and pains of repairing to Church-assemblies If it be said Let the Church send forth some of her teaching Officers Objection The work of the Officers is properly to attend the flock Answer and therefore though a Church in the want of other fit persons may send out one of her officers for a time yet if she have those that are not in office that are indowed with eminent abilities for the work they are never the lesse fit because not in Office For if they were Officers they should act amongst Heathens not as Officers to such a Congregation but as men sent out by such a Church in the name of Jesus Christ 2. Gifted persons not in the Ministery may preach to Churches wanting Officers That they may preach by way of probation in reference to a Call you your self will grant and there is the same reason in case the teaching Officers should die Suppose an eminent gifted member that hath been bred at School and Vniversity for many yeers should be desired by the Congregation to exercise his gifts amongst them till God would inable them to choose another Pastor and Teacher this gifted person though not in the Ministery nor intending it might exercise his gift amongst them upon this ground which shall appear in the confirmation of the third thing which is yet of a higher nature 3. Gifted persons not in the Ministery may preach in a
it in a definite latitude especially since no reason is or we suppose can be by you brought why we may not take it in a limited sense and yet deny it to be taken in an unlimited sense Is not this an ignorance of the Elench Can you ever inferre contradictorium propositionis negatae with this medium St John saith Christ hath made us Kings and Priests c. Because these words Rev. 1.6 Kings and Priests taken in their indefinite latitude will inferre that the people of God are temporall kings having Soveraign power over others and Priests to offer up corporall sacrifices to God as the Priests of the Law did Will it therefore follow that he that shall expound these words in a definite latitude as importing only that in Christ they have overcome the Law Death Sin the World and do triumph over them that they are Priests by a speciall sequestration of themselves from the world to offer up spirituall sacrifices to God the Father do pervert and abuse this Text Questionlesse there were Elders amongst them Answer it may be the Seventy Disciples were not quite out of Commission certainly Philip was amongst them who was an Euangelist c. Suppose that amongst those that were scattered and preached Reply some were Elders yea preaching Elders Suppose the Commission of the Seventie by vertue of which they were to carry neither purse nor scrip nor shoes neither were to salute any man by the way Luke 10.1 2. Nullos dum habes hic Apostolos sed Discipulos illorum Discipuloriâ— Discipulos sic quovis medio utiliter Deus uti potest Aretius in Acts 11. but to go before the face of Christ two and two into every city and place whither Christ himself would come were in full force at this time Lastly Suppose that Philip were an Euangelist amongst them Will it from hence follow that all that preached were Church-officers and that none of them were gifted persons out of Office and consequently that those that say that all were not Officers that went preaching do abuse the Text certainly this is a wide consequence But you say They were all filled with the Holy Ghost Answer Acts 2.4.10 and 4.31 which made them Doctors the first day and gave both ability and a call to speake the Word c. Reply But did their extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost make them all Officers yea or no for you suppose that all received the Holy Ghost If so then there was a Church of Officers and none over whom those Officers were set and that were under the authority of Office If the gifts did not make them Officers then we have what we assume viz. Gifted persons not in Office may preach yea if all the members of a Church had gifts fit for the work all might preach Numb 11.29 1 Cor. 14.12.31 If it be said Objection these were extraordinary gifts by immediate inspiration So were the gifts of the Officers in those times Answer Now by the same reason you deny Church-members though orderly called to the work we mean not to the Office because eminently gifted for it a liberty to exercise their gift because their gifts are not extraordinary as were those of the Primitive Christians By the same reason you may deny Officers though both orderly called and competently gifted a liberty to exercise their gift because their gifts are not extraordinary as were the gifts of the Primitive Officers Again if a Brother gifted by immediate inspiration might preach or prophesie publikly in those Churches where the Officers were gifted by immediate inspiration then a Brother eminently gifted by Gods blessing upon his labour and industry being orderly called thereunto may preach in those Churches where the Officers are gifted only by Gods blessing upon their labour and industry without any immediate inspiration That these did preach ordinarily Answer and usually to the Churches like to Pastors and receive maintenance for the same as some do in London and elsewhere is impossible to be proved That which is not affirmed by the Elders Reply need not be proved by them We have already proved that eminent gifted persons being orderly called thereunto may lawfully preach though not in Office and if by ordinarily and usually you mean that toties quoties as oft as the Church shall have need suppose by reason of the sicknesse death or just absence of the Pastor or any other lawfull ground and occasion and his calling and condition will permit we suppose the person eminently gifted may preach though for divers moneths together And if he do the work why may he not receive the wages not in the capacity of a Pastor but of one that hath done the work that deserves wages Suppose he hath spent his means in many yeers painfull study in the Vniversity may he lawfully preach and yet must he necessarily famish because he is not in the Pastorall relation May he lawfully dispence unto them his spirituall things and may he not lawfully receive of them a dispensation of their temporall things May he nay must he by a conflux and concentering of all things that make up his Call to such a work for such a time usually and ordinarily tread out the corn and yet his mouth be muzzled during all that space May he lawfully communicate unto them by teaching them in the Word and may he not lawfully communicate with them in receiving who are freely willing to communicate with him in giving all good things In the Church of Israel none besides the Priests and Levites Answer did ordinarily prophesie either in the Temple or in the Synagogues unlesse they were either furnished with extraordinary gifts of prophecy as the Prophets of Israel or were set apart and trained up to prepare for such a Calling c. In case that either those whose Office it is in an ordinary way to prophesie be unable many of them to the work Reply or the people grown bold in sinfull courses so that they sleight and contemn them If the King and certain choyce men of the Princes of the Realm be able and in parts no way inferiour to those able men whose Office it is to preach unto the people they may they ought to prophesie as well as Kings Princes Noble-men being gifted may sit in Ecclesiasticall Synods and declare what they conceive to be the minde of God therein And this Jehosaphat and his Princes did by vertue of that generall equity which is of perpetuall use whereby eminent gifts are to be put forth upon just occasion for the Publike good though by men not in Office Luther and the first Preachers in the beginning of Reformation were not Church-officers nor could be unlesse we will say that the Antichristian Hierarchie could institute a Christian Ministery and yet they preached lawfully as gifted persons stirred up by God in a time of defection and apostasie And so Jehosaphat and his Princes preached not meerly as King and Princes for then all Kings and