And if it be not so how can it be said to be Canonicall Scripture And how comes it to be the foundation of our Sermons that wee preach out of it Besides doth all in every place and Saints in all Achaia expound one another What Commentator hath ever said so And doth 1 Cor. 5.1 compared with 2 Cor. 2.1 inforce such an exposition That which you would suggest is that hee writes to the same Corinthians in the second Epistle that he writes unto in the first for more your Scriptures import not and wee grant it But the inference you draw is this ergo all in every place here and Saints in all Achaia are all one a strange consequence If the second Epistle be written to the same persons as the first Why do you not expound the subject persons of the second by the subject persons of the first and say though the Saints in all Achaia be mentioned only yet under them the Salnts every where in the world are meant as in the first Epistle it is expressed This would have been a more naturall exposition But we shall declare the Apostles naked scope as we understand it The Corinthians not the Achaians in generall for the Cenchreans joyned not with them that wee reade of had written to Paul Chapt. 7.1 and Paul had received sundry reports concerning them not concerning all the Saints in Achaia for of the Cenchreans hee had heard nothing that wee reade of chap. 1.11 5.1 and hereupon he writes unto them but because this letter might be of common use and profit and especially to the Saints which bordered next upon them therefore he would have the Achaians their neighbours to peruse it yea the Saints every where to reade it for their edification Therefore in both his Epistles hee mentioneth the Corinthians as the proper subject thereof but the Achaians he mentioneth but in one and the Saints every where in another And he brings them in collaterally rather then directly it is to the church of Corinth but with the Saints in Achaia and withall that in every place call on the name of the Lord Jesus as it were on the bye And this is Pareus his exposition upon 1 Cor. 1.2 and he takes occasion of confuting the vain conceit of Pighius and other Jesuits because they would have Pauls Epistles to extend to the particular uses of those times and not to Saints in all places and ages And therefore those words Answer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 besides that being but a supposition they put nothing in being and may fitly be translated in id ipsum for the same or in one which though they met in an hundred places they might do Acts 4.26 with Psal 2.2 1 Chron. 12.17 prove no more that those to whom Paul writ were of one congregation then James calling the twelve tribes seattered abroad one Assembly Synagogue or Church Jam. 1.1 with 2.2 5.14 or Pauls mentioning the Hebrewes assembling themselves together Heb. 10.25 doth prove that the scattered Hebrewes were no more then one particular congregation which might and did meet in one place 1. Reply You give us another exposition of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and would referre them to an identity of things and not of place they were together in one thing but not together in one place But 1. These words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are sometimes conjoyned with the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as 1 Cor. 11.20 14.23 and then I hope it will not be denied but that place is principally meant 2. Except the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do hold forth a coming together into one place their meeting at all any of them together though in an hundred places will come to be overthrown For what gives more light to the coming together of any of them at all into one place then these words If the words do carry any respect to place then seeing it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the whole church they will be in force to prove that the whole church came together into one place 3. When these words are found without 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Act. 2.44 is not the sense darkned if not overthrown by such an interpetation And all that believed were together and had all things common shall it be thus rendered And all that believed were in one thing or minde So they might be though every one were in his own house and none of them together in the same place But how doth it cohere with the next words and had all things common if they met not together in the same place Besides will those words bear such an exposition in Acts 3.1 Now Peter and John went up together into the Temple shall it be thus translated They went up to the Temple for the same thing not together in company but for one end then they might go one after another if they only met in an onenesse of businesse and not of place but severall passages in the story do flatly contradict it and do shew that they ascended together in company one of another into the Temple But Acts 4 26. compared with Psal 2.2 is alledged to confirm the exposition of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To which wee answer that wee see nothing but that the conspirators against Christ met in one place For Psal 2. saith They took counsell together and how can that better be done then by meeting in one place Acts 4.27.5 saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which without 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies they came together into one place and they might do it easily because all the persons mentioned were in one city and the story makes it plain that the Rulers and the people of Israel and Pontius Pilate and the Gentiles gathered together and there is nothing repugnant but that Herod might meet with them especially seeing that we reade that Pilate and he were made friends 4. Wee do not stand in need of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to prove that the churches of the Gospel met in one congregation frequently for there are other words that carry it cleerly as may appear from Acts 2.46 5.12 14.27 15.22.30 1 Cor. 5.4 and 1 Cor. 11.17 2. Though you yeeld the translation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it respecteth place yet you say it proves no more that those that Paul writ to were of one congregation then James's calling the twelve Tribes scattered one Assembly To which we reply that there is a palpable difference betwixt the places alledged by us to prove a meeting in one place and those alledged by you against it from James and from the Hebrewes For 1. Your places are not so full for a meeting in one place and 2. James 1.1 contradicts and makes impossible such a meeting of all the Hebrewes in one place And therefore we must take it in a distributive sense If there come into your Assemblie that is into any of your Assemblies send for the Elders
you be so soolish prophane presumptuous superstitious A stranger comes to the gate of a Garrison town professeth to be a friend yet except there be something to witnesse the truth of that profession he is examined over and over again and it is strictnesse that shewes faithfulnesse to the State And shall we be more remisse and carelesse when we receive persons into the Church then we are when we receive them into a town Our too much credulity may shew too little fidelity in the matters of Christ as well as in the businesse of men Besides if the Church be not a common receptacle of all persons but that it consist of a selected number and some are received and others rejected then there are certain rules of reception and rejection And then there must be a triall made by some whether persons be qualified according to those rules and this the light of nature teacheth and the rules of Reason lead to it though there should be nothing in the Scripture expresly mentioning it The most sutable means serving most fitly to atchieve such ends are alwayes enjoyned in the ends though they be not particularly expressed But what think you Is it not as lawfull to try persons that would be Church-members and make some profession in words of saith and repentance but hold forth nothing which may probably give witnesse to the reality thereof as it was lawfull and commendable in the Ephesians to try false Apostles which professed in words to be true Apostles Rev. 2.2 And is it not as reasonable for a Church to seek satisfaction concerning the reality and sincerity of sanctity from persons of whom they doubt as it was just and equall for the Church at Jerusalem to seek satisfaction concerning Saul whether he were a Disciple in truth or in pretence only Acts 9.26 27. But you will say there was cause of suspicion and jealousie in them concerning him because they knew him formerly to be a destroyer of the Church And may not we say there is cause of jealousie when we know externall profession of faith and repentance to be so common and the fruits which are worthy of it Mat. 3.8 to be so rare and scarce to be found If the Gospel and Christian Religion was brought into England in the Apostles times then it was like it was constituted of Saints Answer Church-covenant p. 37. as well as the Church of Corinth c. Because it is uncertain what Congregation was at first constituted of Saints within this kingdome and what was not Reply we neither justifie nor condemn the constitution of any but judge according to the present state of them And if we see any visible Saints as doubtlesse there are many in some Congregations and united also amongst themselves we could wish they were all such and in the mean time for the sake of those few whom we see so united we acknowledge them a Church and in all things so farre as they carry the ordinances uncorruptly we desire to have fellowship with them The Text in 1 Cor. 1. rather shewes what the members of the Church of Corinth were at the time of Pauls writing to them Answer then that they were on ought to have been visible Saints at the first erection of that Church yet it shewes not that all the Church-members he writes to were visible Saints for many known evill livers were known Members The denomination of Saints is a parce meliore that is from the better part c. The Text shewes what they either were at first Reply or ought to have been or what some of them were at that time and ought all of them to have been viz. sanctified in Christ called to be Saints as Hemingius Gualter Pareus upon that place do note for they say a definition of a Church may thence be fetched And what rule soever there is in Scripture requiring that any be Saints the same rule requires that all be Saints And there may many Arguments be brought to hold it forth 1. The end of Church-fellowship is not conversion but edification Ephes 4.11 12. Acts 9.31 For if it were conversion then all uncoverted ones whether they make profession of faith and repentance or no might enter in that thereby they might attain one end for which they enter as we know Because one end of the preaching of the Word is conversion therefore all may partake of it Jewes Turks Heathens because they may attain one end whereto it serves It is supposed then that the persons that enter into the Church are converted already 2. Excommunication is an ordinance in the Church and one end of it is to recover persons that are desperately sick and ready to die it is in the use of it as physick 1 Cor. 5.5 and therefore supposeth the persons to whom applied to be alive therefore all Church-members are to be reputed in the judgement of charity to be living stones 1 Pet. 2.5 3. If excommunication be an ordinance to throw forth visible sinners of all sorts then the Church should consist of visible Saints 1. It appeareth that all scandalous grosse sinners ought to be cast out from 1 Cor. 5. and that all other sinners which are not seandalous if they will not be healed of their lesser faults and brought to repentance ought to be duly proceeded against untill at last it come to an excommunication Matth. 18.15 16 c. He writes to the Church called to be Saints Answer or called Saints not to the Saints called to be a Church or to the Church constituted of Saints which expression rather of the two proves there was a Church before they were Saints See vers 1. Paul called to be an Apostle then that they were Saints before they were a Church He writes to the Church of God Reply and can there be a Church of God before there be Saints What a Church of God is that which had no visible Saints in it when it was first constituted Surely except you will say they were a Church of God while they were Heathens you must confesse that professing to be turned by the power of the Gospel in a time of persecution from the service of Idols to imbrace the living God in Christ they must be judged visible Saints at the first when they were a Church of God And these words Paul called to be an Apostle will not avail you for Paul was a man and a Christian too before an Apostle but what would you have the Church of God to be before they were visible Saints But how appeareth it that all the honourable Titles and Epithets given Paul Answer are given with relation to Church-members The Corinthians were enriched by God in all utterance c. Will you thence conclude that all Church-members must be so c. There are some names which shew the intrinsecall nature of the things to which they are given Reply and they do agree to all of that kinde As if one should write to the Army of
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
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.
8 9. the matter of it should be visible Saints and Believers 1 Cor. 1.2 True so it should when an Army is to be raised a City begun Answer a Family set up much more when a Church is to be erected or continued the matter of them should be visible yea reall Saints beloved of God elect blessed Deut. 38.14 Isai 1.21.26 Acts 16.34 Rom. 1.7 Ephes 1.1.2 3.4 And we heartily wish they were all such 1. The meaning of the Position is this Reply Visibility of Saintship is requisite to warrant the setting upon such an action as erecting of a Church else the action for the nature of it is naught might not be performed Better no Church erected then not of visible Saints The rule is broken sin committed Is this granted by you If so why is the position quarrelled at seeing it is all that is asserted 2. But why do you jumble these actions together The raising of an Army the erecting of a City the setting up of a Family and the erecting of a Church As if they were actions of a like nature As if visibility of Saintship to them all were of like necessity Do you conceive that the matter of an Army must either be visible Saints or there must be no Army raised The matter of a city visible Saints or no city erected Doth the nature of those actions necessarily require any such qualification in the subject persons performing them that without such qualifications the subject persons are in a state of incapacity according to Gods true scope and intention to set upon such actions Wee know you hold it not Heathens may raise Armies and wage war and not sin because they do so if the cause be just They may erect cities and remain Heathens still and not sin because they do so for it may be their duty so to do but may they erect a Church to God and remain Heathens and not sin in doing so An Atheist and prophane wicked person may buy and sell and labour in his Calling and not sin because he doth so because it is his duty but may he be one to erect a Church of and to partake in the seal of the Lords Supper and be an Atheist and visible person still without sin Men need not be Believers and Saints to warrant them to perform civill actions or some religious actions for irreligious wicked persons while in that state are called to them but to do them with acceptation and so as to be accounted righteous in the doing of them they must be Believers and Saints But to erect a Church which is Christs body and is called to have communion with Christ in his body and blood in that Supper which he instituted is an action of another nature and requires faith and holinesse in the persons that constitute it to warrant the constitution of it For Church state being holy and the Ordinance of it holy either the subject persons must be holy also or all will be grievously prophaned and God foully dishonoured But why do you say They should not only be visible but reall Saints except it be to cast another mist before the eyes of the ignorant For if an Army were to be raised to fight on the Purliament side against the Cavaliers you would say it must consist of visible friends which seem sincere and cordiall else let it not be raised at all but you would not say it must consist of reall friends for then it would not be raised at all For if it must consist of reall friends God must be the raiser of it and not man who alone knoweth who are reall friends So of a Church if it must consist only of reall friends God alone must erect it and man must not meddle with it And though we reade these phrases Beloved of God Elect blessed yet either they received these denominations from the judgement of Charity because they seemed to be such as Phil. 1.7 or if there were infallibility it was applicable only to a party within the Churches whom the Apostle discerned to be such and not to the whole Church Yet we dare not use unscripturall wayes and means for the procuring and preserving of Church-members sanctity Answer To be wise and holy above the rule is to be foolish prophane presumptuous superstitious Could you shew us out of Scripture that the Church must examine persons that come to be admitted and that they must make any other declaration then professing of faith and repentance and that the Congregation ought to reject such of whose sincerity and sanctity they are not satisfied and that the want of this care in the first constitution of a Church doth nullifie it or make it unlawfull for men to joyn to it or continue in it and that it is necessary to know that a Church was constituted of visible Saints before he can in faith joyn to it we should not differ about the sanctity of the members Here is a deep charge of some things practised by us Reply to preserve the Churches sanctity and purity to be foolish prophane superstitious and presumptuous And there are instances given in examination of persons whether there be the works of Grace wrought in their hearts or no c. We answer for our selves First there are some things fathered upon us which we hold not as 1. That there must be some further declaration besides profession of faith and repentance We contend for no such thing but conceive profession of faith and repentance if in the judgement of charity it may be accounted reall if there be any thing that may serve to give witnesse unto it that it is not meerly verball may be judged sufficient 2. That the want of care to try the sincerity and sanctity of men doth nullifie the Church This is an opinion which we renounce as none of ours 3. That we must know that a Church was constituted of visible Saints before we can in faith joyn to it We hold flatly against such an assertion and do believe a judgement may be made from the present faith and order which any Church holds forth whether it be safe or unsafe to joyn to it or to continue in it Secondly there are other things which some Churches hold and practise which we think cannot be condemned As that a Church must examine persons that come to be admitted whether the work of grace be wrought within them or not Your self will now admit none of whom you doubt to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper till you have first examined them of their knowledge and why may not we examine them of their grace Is the Lords body discerned by knowledge most or by grace Faith is a grace and faith is the best discerner of the Lords body and if we can but finde grace we shall be sure to finde knowledge The Scripture saith Let a man examine himself yet you think not that sufficient unlesse you examine him if it be no Scripturall way to examine others why will
which it was the sign and seal and we would demand whether Isaac were not in covenant before he was circumcised and whether his circumcision did not seal so much and alwayes this order is supposed First Gods promise Secondly mans faith Thirdly the sign and seal of both in some Symbole of Gods institution so in Baptisme How prove you that Melchisedeck a Priest and Lot Answer which were not of his seed nor family were out of Church-state That a believer is not a son of Abraham if he be not in Church state by covenant which things you seem to imply when you say the Jewish Church was constituted in Abrahams family by Church-covenant the family of Sem was the Church of God long before this 1. We assert not that they were out of Church-state Reply but this we say if they were not circumcised as we read not that they were they were not of Abrahams Church nor had the Passeover been on foot could they have partaked of it any more then Believers could afterward who joyned not to Abrahams family Cornelius may be an example 2. It is one thing to be a son of Abraham as a Believer and heire of promise for so all Believers are and an Heathen is when converted before joyned to any instituted Church and another thing to be the son of Abraham as a professed Covenanter with God and bearing the Symbole of it in his flesh in the former sense Abraham was the father of all Believers though uncircumcised and in the latter a father of the circumcised which were also of his faith as the Apostle shewes Rom 4.11.12 3. Though it be probable that there was a Church in the famimily of Sem yet that place Gen. 9.26 27. proves it not for first it is propheticall of the posterity of Sem and Japhet and respects not so far as we can discern the persons of Sem and Japhet at least not at that time being both as is probable in the family of their father Noah Secondly there might be a Church in Sems family and yet of another constitution then this in Abrahams family this hinders not but that the church in Abrahams family might be constituted by covenant POSITION VII Every Member at his admission See the like allegation in Answer to Pos 9. p. 73. doth promise to give himself as to the Lord to be guided by him so to the Church to be guided by them which is no more then the Members of the Church of Macedonia did in a parallel case 2 Cor. 8.5 The givers are not the Members of the Church of Macedonia Answer as you for your advantage phrase it but the Churches of Macedonia and therefore if this do prove Union or Covenant it is of the members of severall churches and not of one only 1. The allegation in answer to the 9th Position Reply pag. 73. runs in these words As to the Lord to be guided by him so to the Church according to God to be guided by them these words according to God are lest out whether wilfully to make the practice of our Churches the more odious or by oversight we conclude not 2. There was no intent to prove Vnion or Covenant of a Church but subjection of each member to the Church to which he is joyned himself and the officers thereof and the practice of the Churches of Macedonia by way of allusion is made use of it is said it is no more then the members of the Church of Macedonia did in a parallel case The Argument is fetcht à comparatis the members of the Church of Macedonia did as much in a like case they gave themselves to the Lord and to the Apostle and Timothy according to Gods will to be guided by the Lord and directed by them a whole Church or Churches to one or two persons gave themselves and an Argument is fetcht thence thus then may one person that is to joyn to a Church as fitly give himself to the Lord to be guided by him and to the whole Church and the Officers thereof to be directed by them according to the will of God and it is urged that a member should therefore promiseit and to call it Church of Macedonia or churches is neither advantagious nor disadvantagious for though many Churches gave themselves to be guided by one Paul because he was Officer to them all yet a members subjection will be only required to his own Church and the Officers thereof because there is no superiority of jurisdiction of one Church over another and the members thereof We believe you would be ready enough to make use of this pattern to prove that the members of a Congregation must submit to the guidance of their Pastors and why do you except against it because subjection of each member to the Church is endevoured to be proved thence seeing that the Church compriseth the Officers thereof POSITION VIII This particular Congregation is a Church before it have Officers Acts 2.47 In a generall sense a few private men without Officers yea Answer a few women without men yea twenty members of severall Churches may be called a Church but a governing Church they are not the Church hath not received an office of rule without her Officers (b) Cottons Keyes p. 16. Reply We take Churches for such churches Reply as the Apostles planted in all places when they had converted any considerable number of persons into which Saints were wont to be gathered that they might be built up and edified by the Ordinances Acts 9.31 and unto which Pastors were given to reside with them and to oversee them Acts 20.28 and these must be Congregationall Churches for Pastors cannot constantly feed any other Or we take Church as Amesius defines it * A company of faithfull ones by speciall bond betwixt themselves joyned together to exercise the communion of Saints constantly amongst themselves Coetus sidelium speciali vinculo inter se conjunctorum ad communionem sanctor um inter se constanter exercendam such an united company is the Church before it have Officers for it is their priviledge to choose their Officers as you confesse in your Answer to the next Position in which sense if in any sense at all a few private men or a few women or twenty members of severall churches have never been called a Church Now whether this Congregationall church be a Governing church or not because it is not asserted in the Position we have no occasion here of discussing it The Church in Acts 2. had Officers Answer and better Officers then any Church now hath even the Apostles which were the Elders of all Churches 1 Pet. 5.1 2 Cor. 11.28 (d) The Apostles were as Elders and Rulers of all Churches Cotton Keys p. 48 and particularly of the Church of Jerusalem and did act therein as Elders it is not all one to want Elders now they are instituted as before ordinary Elders were not appointed at that time There is a
the work of feeding now whether there were more Congregations in Ephesus or but one yet no Elder could then or can now feed any more then one Congregation therefore they are Overseers only each of them to one Congregation Your selves will grant that they cannot feed in a constant way by word and doctrine and the Sacraments which are the principall works of feeding any more then one Congregation therefore one Congregation bounds their Commission and consequently if they feed ministerially other Congregations they go beyond their Commission and are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. It is more then probable that the flock at Ephesus was but one Congregation First Ephesus was a City and we do not reade of more Congregations of Saints constantly meeting for the worship of God in any City then one Secondly we cannot think but that the Church of Jerusalem Corinth and Antioch were as numerous as Ephesus and yet none of them were more then one Congregation if we be bound to rest upon the Holy Ghosts own testimony who witnesseth that they ordinarily met in one place as before was shewed 3. They are called one flock one Church now we have declared before that one instituted Church and a Congregation are all one when Church is properly taken and without a figure and in this place there is no necessity of a figure for there is no improbability but that they might meet in one place therefore the charge runs to the Elders at Ephesus to feed the Church viz. the Congregation at Ephesus and to that they are so limited The Text in 1 Pet. 5.1 2. gives this charge Feed the flock that is among you Now neither the Elders to whom he writes were together nor the Saints whom they were to feed but both the one and the other scattered abroad through many countries Pontus Galatia Asia c. therefore flock in this Text is to be taken in a figurative sense and distributively of necessity and the charge of feeding the flock is to be limited by the words among you And thus it must be understood you Elders in Pontus feed the flock among you and you Elders in Galatia feed the flock among you and you Elders in Asia feed the flock among you and each of you in every place feed the flock where you be in each place And more distributively yet because neither all the Elders nor all the Saints in Galatia Asia c. were together therefore it is thus to be interpreted ye Elders in this City of Asia feed the flock among you and ye Elders in that City feed the flock among you and so of all the rest so that the restriction in the Commission is in these words among you Now the Saints in Galatia were not with the Elders of Asia nor the Saints of one City of Asia with the Elders of another City of Asia therefore the Elders were by Commission to look to the Saints in every City and place where themselves were and not to others where themselves were not So that if the Elders in Asia should take authoritative inspection over the Saints in Galatia and in other countries they should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishops medling in others Dioces not belonging to them because all Elders are bounded to the Saints among themselves Peter bids the Elders of Pontus Answer Galatia c. to feed the flock of God that is amongst them therefore you say the Elders of one Church of Galatia must not feed the people of another Church of Galatia A communicant must examine himself will you thence inferre that none else must examine himself The Thessalonians were to know them that were over them and laboured among them and esteem them very high in love for their works sake therefore must they not heare at all or at least not esteem highly for their works sake the Pastors of other Congregations 2 Thes 5.12 13. Your reasoning is not good Reply nor candid by comparing things disparate you would cast an absurditie upon us but it will light upon your self You argue from works of common Christian duty unto works of Office very improperly As suppose the matter were thus laid down The Parliament writes to the Colonels of Lancashire to look well to and rule and govern the souldiers and people that is amongst them an inference is drawn hence the Colonels of Lancashire are not to govern and rule the souldiery and people of Cheshire for their charge is over the souldiery and people amongst themselves this inference is good But you to overthrow it would bring such an argument as this The Colonels of Lancashire must agree amongst themselves must they not therefore agree with the Colonels of Cheshire The souldiers and people of Lancashire must respect and honour their own Commanders must they not therefore respect and honour the Commanders in other counties also This is a weak argumentation to overthrow the former inference the fallacy lieth in this you would extend duties of authority and office in such manner as duties of love and reverence and honour which respect all men all superiours are to be extended Therefore seeing that it is a feeding of office and an authoritative feeding that is enjoyned in those Texts alledged it is limited to the people over whom they are Officers and may not be extended further And yet the people of such Congregations must love their own members so as withall they must love the members of other Congregations and they must reverence their own Officers so as withall they must reverence the Officers of other Congregations yet their own most because relation there is strongest And the reason is because love and reverence are not actions annexed to Office but of a common nature appertaining to men and Christians Take heed to the flock and feeding it Answer doth include administration of the Word and Prayer as well as of Sacraments yet you hold he may notwithstanding this Text preach and pray in another Congregation Taking heed to the flock and feeding it Reply doth include the administration of the Word and Prayer of the Sacraments and the exercise of Discipline and yet your self doth not place a parity in all these For you are apprehensive of a further liberty in preaching and praying then in performing the other actions You will preach to the Heathens as Heathens but not give Sacraments to them you may preach before Ordination for approbation but not dispence the Sacraments before Ordination You may preach to a Congregation in Scotland and yet not act authoritatively in their Synods among them And now what the reason of this should be we cannot imagine unlesse you grant with us a difference betwixt some acts of feeding and other acts of feeding and say some acts are so annexed to Office and are so authoritative that they cannot be performed but where Office is and authority is and other acts of feeding though they they be authoritative to that people over whom the persons performing them are Officers
Princes might preach but as King and Princes gifted and singularly stirred up to the work by Almighty God That a King and Princes eminently gifted and stirred up by an internall prothumie and desire wrought upon their spirits to preach is of perpetuall use in all such cases of defection as was in Jehosaphats time Nor will this confound the matters of God and the Kings matters But still the Priests and Levites shall preach ordinarily by vertue of Office and the King and Princes only occasionally by vertue of gifts And as they may preach themselves in all such cases so they may send forth eminently gifted men though the Churches through corruption should neglect or refuse to call them and this belongs to Civill Magistrates as they are custodes utriusque tabulae Neither are Kings or those sent out by them limited to particular Congregations but may call the people to such places and at such times as they shall judge most to tend to edification Thus Joshua called all Israel to Sechem Josh 24.1 and preached unto them before his death They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD as the waters cover the Sea Isaiah 11.9 Thus saith JEHOVAH Stand ye in the wayes and see and ask for the old paths where is the good way and walk therein and ye shall find rest for your souls Jeremiah 6.16 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing nor uncircumcision but a new creature And as many as walk according to this rule Peace be on them and mercy and upon the Israel of God Gal. 6.15 16. A TABLE of the Texts of Scriptures cited Discussed and cleared from mis-interpretations in this BOOK GENESIS 9. vers 26 27. Whether a Church in Sems family page 43 Gen. 12.3 22.16.18 with Gal. 3.17 as Acts 3.25 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 42 Gen. 17.1.9 Whether it was a covenant only on Gods part p. ibid. EXODUS 12.3.21 Whether the word Congregation and Elders are all one there p. 53 Exod. 12.47 Ingaged by covenant to serve God together page 40 Exod. 34.23 24. All the Churches males must meet together for worship in one place page 14 NUMBERS 8.9 10. with vers 6 7 13 14 18 19. All the Congregation must lay hands on the Levites how page 52 44 55 Numb 11.29 I wish all could prophesie page 125 128 Numb 25. Phinehas his zeal Hence Gods covenant with him and his ergo page 49 DEUTERONOMY 16.2.16 See Exod. 34.23 All males to meet page 14 Deut. 29.1.10.12 Whether a covenant makes a Church page 37 39 40 2 KINGS 2.3.5 Gods will revealed by Prophets and others page 122 2 CHRONICLES 17.7 Princes sent to teach the people page 118 2 Chron. 20.25.20 King Jehosaphat prayeth and teacheth Israel page 118 NEHEMIAH 10.38 Levites were tythed Tythes are a Jewish maintenance page 61 PSALME 30.7 My Mount so strong What page 68 Psal 46.2 Mountains into Sea what it signifieth ibid. Psal 74.4.8 Burnt up Synagogues What page 26 ISAIAH 4.5 Gospel-church is called Sion page 71 Isai 61.20 Gospel in Old-Testaments language ibid. Isai 9.6 7. Christ is the churches King page 104 JEREMIAH 51.25 Fire signifies oppositions page 68 HOSEAH 2.2 Members may plead with the Church page 59 ZACHARIAH 4.7 What is that great Mountain page 68 Zach. 14.19 Gospel in Old Testaments language page 71 MALACHI 3.8 Tithes as offerings are Jewish page 61 MATTHEW 16.19 Of Church-binding and loosing page 89 90 Mat. 18.17 Tell the Church What Church it is p. 2 36 Not a Classicall nor Nationall church c. page 86-89 Mat. 18.20 A Church is Sion and hath the promises to it page 71 73 Mat. 20.25 26. Ministers are not Lords page 78 79 Mat. 28.19 20. In that Commission to the Apostles is no mention of ordination nor in that Mar. 16.15 16. page 56 57 Was not given to them as Apostles page 91 MARK 12.41 The use of the Church treasurie page 67 LUKE 8.2 3. Christ received contribution page 62 Luke 22.25 26. Ministers are not as Lords page 78 79 81 JOHN 8 20. Church treasury for what page 67 Joh. 13.29 From contribution was distribution page 62 Joh. 20.23 The Key given Peter with the rest page 92 ACTS 1.15 A few begin a Church page 9 12 13 Act. 1.15.23 A Church hath full power to choose her own officers page 46 11 9 Act. 1.26 By common vote or suffrage page 49 Act. 2.4.10 Gifts make not officers page 128 V. 40. The Church was separated page 2 48 Vers 41. Whether they they were a church before page 10 13 V. 45. Whole estates put into the common stock page 62 V. 47. A Church before Officers page 45 Act. 4.35 Selling whole estates not binding to all times but extraordinary page 62 Act. 4.17.19.21 5.28 29. Preaching when men forbid to obey Christ page 6 Act. 4.26 Took counsell together how page 19 Act. 5.28 29. Obey and hearken to God most page 1 2 3 4 6 Act. 6.1 Of the Deacons office page 62 Vers 3. The Church must look out seven men page 46 51 Act. 6.4 Prayer one work of a Minister page 57 62 Act. 8.4.12 Preaching without office page 119 Act. 9.26 27. Satisfaction of members before they be received in page 34 Vers 31. The head of Church-fellowship is not conversion but edification page 35 Act. 11.19 Jews were first preached to page 2 Ver. 19. Some not in office may preach page 118 V. 20.21 Some converted others gathered them page 4 Act. 13.2 3. Paul set apart by God and the Church page 49 Act. 14.23 Churches before officers to them page 46 Act. 14.27 Paul and Barnabas sent by Church also page 123 Officers ordained by peoples election page 46 51 Act. 18.2.26 Aquila and Priscilla at Corinth page 11 Act. 19.1.9 Paul separated such at himself converted not page 4 Vers 37. Robbers of Temples not of churches page 25 Act. 20.28 Elders must see to the flock page 107 112 Act. 21.22 Myriads What not all those of one Church but of many churches page 14 15 30 31 ROMANS 4.11 12. Abraham father of the faithfull circumcised and uncircumcised page 43 Rom. 12.6 Of prophecy page 125 Rom. 12.7 8. Teacher and Pastor are distinct page 70 Vers 13. Distribute to the necessity of Saints page 63 Rom. 15.26 Romans to contribute to Jerusalem page 64 Rom. 16.1 2. Recommending members to another church to receive them page 117 1 CORINTHIANS 1. v. 1. All Saints of Corinth of one Church page 15 16 Qu. Whether this be writ to all Saints or no page 16 20 1 Cor. 1.1 2. Church-members to be visible Saints and what triall of Saints herein page 31 Vers 17. Preaching is a Ministers great work page 57 1 Cor. 5.5 6. Purge out the old leaven page 29 30 36 Vers 5. Excommunicating there whether done by Paul or to be by the Churches power page 95 97 98 1 Cor. 5.12 Whether some
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-churches from which any may depart to another 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