one city easily and conveniently as your selves say of Herod and Pilate p. 19. And I hold that several congregations in the countries if they may conveniently meet and govern in common not only may but ought so to do as wel as several congregations in a city 5. You cannot shâ—w so express a pattern of Christians in a city making two Churches as I have shewed of Christians of one Church meeting ordinarily in several places and therefore this pattern is more uncontrouled then the other and consequently by your own doctrin more to be followed 6. You presume that there were Churches in some other parts of Iudea besides Jerusalem though the particular assemblies of the Church of Jerusalem might wel enough be called the Churches of Judea and you cannot shew where one Church was in Judea save at Jerusalem and it is improbable to suppose any Churches in Judea but what were in Jerusalem seeing at Jerusalem the Apostles resided held their constant assemblies and occasional councells and there they of Galilee which was beyond Judea that beleeved in Christ continued Luke 23.49 Acts 1.15 2.1 7. 13.31 And the converts of the Apostles closely adhered to them in fellowship at Jerusalem and sold their possessions goods lands houses and had all things common in the Church Acts 2.42 44 46 47. 4.34 Some of which were of remoter places far then any part of Judes cap. 4.36 7. If you should prove there were Churches elsewhere in Judea besides Jerusalem yet it could not thence be gathered that they were all congregational and only such for as little and final as Judea was 1. It had cities in it and great ones too besides Jerusalem as Lidda Azotus c. And you acknowledg that city and Church do explain one another 2. Judea through the blessing of God multiplying the inhabitants as the sand of the sea according to his promise to Abraham contained an innumerable multitude of people for ought I know more then in England In Ata's tune out of Juda and Benjamin alone there was an army of almost 600000 men besides women and children valiant men besides impotent aged persons now you know the multitude or paucity of the people not the largness or littleness of the of the place or country is in this case most considerable London may fitter be a providence then the same circuit of ground in some parts of the kingdome a parish 3. There was a vast multitude of Christians in Iudea converted by the Ministry of Iohn Baptist Iesus Christ the 12 Apostles the 70 disciples all raiâ—ed up to gather Gods chosen ones out of Iudaea and which were very successful in their Ministry so that the littleness of Judea is no let but that there might be ten or 20. several Churches and each of them dividid into 5 or 6 several assemblies as also the county of Midlesex one of the least counties in the kingdome and far less then the Province of Judea and having no city in it save one might also contain so many and such Churches Concerning the term Churches see more afterwards CHAP. VI. Whether the Epistles to the Corinthians were writ only to those that met ordinarily in one place Sect. 1. WHen I alledg that Paul writs to them that in every place not throughout the world as appears 2 Cor. 1.1 Writen to the same persons 1 Cor. 5.1.2 with 2 Cor. 2.1 2. Nor is this a Catholique Epistle but in all Achaja call upon the name of the Lord. You Reply p. 16. That Paul writes sends and applyes this to the Corinthians alone for all along proper and peculiar things belonging to the Corinthians and not to the Achaians nor Saints in all the world are spoken of in commendation and discommendation and proper reproofs directions c. Yet he intended it for use and benefit of all Achaia and of the whole world also And it may as properly be called a Catholique Epistle as an Achaian Epistle for the use redound to all the world as wel as to Achaia else how can it be Canonical scripture and the foundation of our sermons that we preach out of it Rejoynder 1 Certainly you know that the Epistle may be canonical and yet the use of it not redound to all the world as wel as to Achaia if by as wel you mean equally in all the particular contents of this Epistle The Epistle to Philemon is canonical and the 2. to Timothy though the use of it in point of Onesimus and Pauls cloak do not as wel or equally concern all the world as Philemon Timothy 2. The use of these Epistles I dare say redounds not to Corinth only nor to all the world as wel as Achaia for there are divers passages in both these Epistles which cannot be limited to Corinth nor enlarged to the whole world as 2 Cor. 11.1 2. Forwardness of Ministring to the Saints was not only in the Corinthians but in the Achaians Paul boasteth of them to whom he writes in these words I boasted of you that Achaia was ready a year ago now it is improper for any man that writes to London and not to England more then all the world to say I boasted of you that England was ready a year ago The house of Stephanas he commends to them under the notion of being the first fruits of Achaia The contribution for the Saints at Jerusalem was the contribution of Achaia Rom. 15.26 And part of his drift and scope is to get a liberal contribution not from Corinth only but from all Achaja and he doth not desire the Church of Corinth to communicate this letter to the other Saints of Achaia because he writs to them all in the second person 3. The Apostle doth not write to the Saints in Ephesus and in all Asia Ephes 1.1 Or the Saints at Philippi or the Church of Thessalonica and to all Macedonia nor any where else doth he write to the Saints or to the Church in such a city with all the Saints in such a province or country or in every place though every Epistle be of common use and profit both to the borderers and to strangers yea to all the world yet he writes to the Church of Corinth with the Saints in every place or in all Achaia Which words are not vainly and impertinently put here and not in any other Epistle and what can they else import but that this Epistle is more an Achaian pardon your own improper term then a Catholique Epistle 4. I put you to prove that the reproofs directions exhortations commendations were proper to them that schisms fornications were only amongst them that the exhortation to a liberal contribution on the first day of the week was proper to Corinth yea that the Incestuous person was a member of the Church of Corinth though we presume and commonly speak so yet it is not necessary for he might be a member of the Church of Cenchrea or some other Church in Achaia for ought we
the words in sensu distributive is no more figurative then yours If it be I pray you what figure is it wil you make a new Rhetorick too 2. What the holy Ghost saith we must beleeve but you should not beg the question and say the holy Ghost saith what he doth not mean all the Hebrews did assemble themselves together in the sense he means viz. in several companies and so may this be understood and beleeved 3. You for your advantage translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when the whole Church comes together but you should translate if the whole Church come together and I told you in my answer that suppositions put nothing in being and you know they do not Gal. 1.8 Though you take no notice of it yet you are willing to lay aside the conditional expression which is both in the original and sundry translations and take up a more absolute one this dealing is not candid should the Apostle have said which you know may without any impropriety be said now in London if two or three whole Churches shal meet together in one place would you have collected thence that two or three whole Churches may orderly convene and that there ought to be no more in two or three Churches then may so convene when we say if the whole County of Lancaster or York respectively come together into the Castleyard of Lancaster or York doth this prove that the whole County doth ordinarily meet in one place though upon some special occasion as choosing of a Knight c. They may meet together or at least a great part of them in the name and power of the rest And so when he faith if the whole Church come together in one place it cannot be thence rationally concluded that every member of the Church was at any time much leâ—s ordinarily in one place some were infants some no doubt were sick and weak 1 Cor. 11.30 Some abroad about necessary negotiation some women in travel some in childbed so we read Ioshua 22.12 And Ezra 2.64 That the whole Church or all the Church was gathered together and yet you know there were many thousands of men in the Church of the Jews besides women and children and sick persons which were not in that assembly so far are such texts as these from proving that the Church must consist of no more then may meet in one place 4. That same thing which now you alledg to me was alledged by a Protestant revolted to Popery concerning hoc est corpus meum viz. The holy Ghost saith it and Protestants have bin convinced with the evidence of that text to grant a corporal presence in the Sacrament Sect. 7. When I urge that the Apostles writes to the Saints in all Achala and that there were other Churches in that Region at least two Corinth and Cenchrea which was oppiduÌ„ CorinthioruÌ„ c. You Reply p. 20. That he doth not write to them as making one Church with the Corinthians for he mentions them with a note of distinction from the Corinthians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rejoynder 1 You fight with your own shaddow I said not that he writes to them all as one Church but plainly asserted with Beza Piscator and others that he writes to the Churches in that region 2. Your criticism is worth nothing if one should say Paul writes not to the Bishops and Deacons as Saints at Philippi for he mentions them with a note of distinction to the Saints at Philippi with the Bishops and Deacons yourselves would laugh at it 3. He might have a scope that the other Churches in Achaia from the Epistle he sent to Corinth which they were to peruse as the Laodicean Church was to read the Epistle written to the Colossians should be stirred up to the same duty of contribution c. Thus you But the Apostle had not a scope to stir up all other Churches at least not all alike to that duty of contribution to the poor Saints at Ierusalem and therefore you now in effect acknowledg what before you did deny viz. That the Apostle writes more properly to the Achaians then to the whole world Besides you know your paralel is not suitable for 2 Cor. inscribed to the Achaians and so is not that Epistle to Coloâ—s inscribed to the Church of Laodicea 4. You demand why then doth not the Apostle say to the Churches of Judea Macedonia Asia Why is the Church of Corinth mentioned and the Church at Cenchrea wholy silenced in the first Epistle and not mentioned directly and by name in the second You are as good at asking questions as any I pray you answer me one question and then if need be I wil answer yours Why doth not Paul cal the Romans Ephesians Philippians by the name of Saints and the Corinthians and Thessalonians by the name Church Why doth not Paul James and Jude inscribe their Epistles to the Churches of Iudea or the Hebrew Churches though all of them write to Churches and famous ones too far more famous then Cenchrea probably was yet they make no mention of them directly or by name The answer is 1. We must not teach the Apostle in what phrase to speak Nor 2. can we render a reason why he inscribes his Epistle to the. Saints at Ephesus whom elsewhere he calleth the Church of Ephesus no more then we shew a reason why the Church of Cenchrea may be included under the name of Saints in Achaia 3. The Church of Corinth may be mentioned and not any other Church by name because the Church of Corinth was the most famous best-gifted Church Or to use the words of Mr Banes Diac. tryal p. 16. because it was the most illustrious and conspicuous Church 5. Where Iurge that the women he writes too did resort to Churches else how could they keep silence in the Churches 1 Cor. 14.34 You reply p. 21. That these Epistles were written for universal direction of the women of all Churches 2. That women were wort to go from ove Church to another as Phebe and were to keep silence in all Churches 3. That though he saith your wome he saith not your Churches Rejoyn It was indeed for universal direction of the women of all Churches in a secundary and mediate way but primarily and immediately it was for direction of those he writes to and hence he saith not set women or all women but your women 2. Phaebe's going from Cenchrea to Rome doth not prove that women had such a wont to go from one Church to another and that they were so forward speakers that the Apostle had need to silence them not only in their own Church but in strange Churches 3. If it had been said your Churches which phrase being not found in any place of Scripture is not here to be expected it had been somewhat more plain but as it is it is plain enough viz. that the women he writes to did resort to Churches and therefore I conclude they were
yea kinds of contribution You say further That the word there used signifies often Church-communion and that the Apostles meaning may well be that it should be upon dayes when the Church meets in communion Hence it is that Deacons are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1. Cor. 12.28 which being interpreted may import a person that receives something for another and it may beare receiving of a just reward for another and so not for the poor Saints alone but for the Labourers also But what then Is it your meaning that every day the Church meets in communion they are bound by the law of God to contribute to their Ministers whether they be Lords-dayes or no 2. Is Church-communion any whit violated if the Minister himself do receive his own maintenance from others besides the Deacon and some other day besides the Lords day Your selves confesse you would not be understood to exclude private distributing or communicating to the Ministers or Members 3. As for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1. If it may import such a person that doth not prove it doth so in this place 2. The most proper signification of the Word is help or holding up a man or thing that is weak and ready to fall and so it is taken for relief of weak poor and miserable persons Luk. 1.54 He bath holpen his servant Israel And the properest acceptation of a word is first to be cleaved to unlesse there be as here there is not some convincing reason to the contrary Now the Deacons were to help the poor and needy 3. Beza conceiveth the Ministry of the widowes is also meant I Cor. 12.28 as well as of the Deacons Did the widow also receive a just reward for another And whereas you alledge that this communicating or distribution is called a Sacrifice Heb. 13.16 and that sacrisice was wont to be brought to the door of the tabernacle and that it comes most freely when it is brought c. I answer 1. If contribution and communication be called a sacrifice Heb. 13.16 as it may well be for first it should be freely offered secondly it is in stead of the sacrifices required of the Jewes which were very chargeable thirdly it is as pleasing to God as sacrifice Yet that proves not that the intent of the Holy Ghost is in calling it a sacrifice as you would make your Reader believe that it should be brought to the publike assemblies every Lords day If a man from that appellation should inferre that only Ministers should communicate or distribute because they only might offer sacrifice That distribution is not to be made to men because sacrifice were only to God That a man must contribute morning and evening as they did offer sacrifice That contributions are propitiatory as s ome sacrifices were your selves would cry out Non sequitur Nonsequitur and so do I for you know that private distributing or communicating to Saints or Ministers is a sacrifice as well as publike so also is Prayer Psal 140. I. Praise Psal 50.23 Righteousnesse Psal 4.5 2. The Church may have a stock by contributions gathered on the week-day from house to house or otherwise or by monethly quartetly yearly contributions and many other wayes besides weekly contributions 3. The Church may have a stock by weekly contributions and yet that stock not be for the Ministers maintenance Surely I cannot think that your selves do think you have solidly proved this manner of maintenance out of Gods word Sect. 5. Reply p. 64. You confesse that the occasion of this Institution I Cor. 16. ' was collection for the poor Saints at Jerusalem that there are no other Churches mentioned upon whom this institution was injoyned but Corinth and the Churches of Galatia Notwithstanding if we consider severall particulars of the Injunction we may probably conjecture that be had a further scope in the commandement then the occasion doth import He brings a great many of Churches not to the doing of the duty alone but to the same way of doing it the Churches of Galatia were many and that at Corinth and there cannot be a reason rendred why all other Churches that were called to the duty Rom. 15.26 27. should not be bound to the same manner of doing also and so the Churches of Macedonia and that at Rome will be brought under this injunction Rejoynd 1. That there is an institution here of a Church-stock for the maintenance of Ministers occasioned by the collection for the Saints at Jerusalem is fancied by you but not confirmed 2. You can shew no Church which was not required to contribute in the said extraordinary case that was appointed to have such collections nor can you shew that all those which did contribute as the Churches of Macedonia 2 Cor. 8.1 or Antioch Act. 11.29 did do it every Lords day And you may observe the Apostle faith not So I have ordained in the Churches of Macedonia nor So I have ordained in all Churches but only As I have ordained in the Churches of Galatia 3. You meerly presume but prove not that there were many Churches a great many of Churches in Galatia Though it were as big as England can you shew any more Churches in Galatia then two Antioch and Laodicea 4. The reason why we believe not that other Churches were bound to the same manner of doing is because we read it n t. Shew where we may read it that we may believe it Sect. 6. Reply p. 65. The Apostle binds this contribution to the Lords day in all these Churches if he had no scope to make this an Ordinance in all the Churches be might have pitcht upon some other day He saith every first day of the week that is every Lords day so it is translated in the Geneva Bible and so the Preposition â—grâ— is often rendred as Scapula observes and gives instances abundantly c. Why must this contribution be every Lords day inreference to the Church of Jerusalem alone for they might have given what they could have spared at once or if it were a great deal they might have had the longer time allotted them and yet have given it at once or the richer and abler might have given it at once and the rest at wice or thrice or four times but they must give it Lords-day by Lords-day without missing one Lords-day this seems to hold forth that Paul meant it for a standing Ordinance and that his scope was by weekly contributions to raise a stock in the Churches out of which might be taken without gathering Rejoynd 1. Amongst us Collections for the Palatinate for Ireland c. have been appointed on the Lords day as being the fittest day most people meeting the Minister might exhort and excite them to this duty and yet you know we account it not an Ordinance in all Churches and so it might be with that collection which might be appointed on the Lords day without any such scope as you pretend 2. The preposition 〈◊〉
your selves acknowledg were of the Church of Ierusalem Suppose therefore these 500. were Galilaeans or dispersed into Iudaea and Galilee this doth not hinder but they might be of the Church of Jerusalem 4. If Christ did appear in Galilee they had notice of it in Ierusalem Math. 28.7 And questionless they would go out of Ierusalem to see him 5. The choosing of an Apostle concerning which see before in Sect. 3. was of general concernment and why then should not the 500 brethren though in Galilee or Iudea have bin there at the choosing of an Apostle who was to be an officer to them as wel as to those in Ierusalem Sect. 6. When I alledg that Adam and Noah with their families if they were Churches were but domestical Churches not congregational some houshoulds are called Churches in the new testament many whereof may be within a congregational Church and specially within a national To this you Reply pag. 11.12 That Domestical Churches enjoying Congregational ordinances and Congregational Churches differ not in their nature and kind but in quantity as a smal country Chappel differeth from a numerous Town-Church That many domestical Churches may be in one Congregational in my sense not in yours that you deny that two or three concerted in a family enjoying no Church-ordinances are called a Church that you acknowledg not any such distinction of Congregational Church and Domestical But say the foundation of a congregationall Church may be layd in one family and spread into many It may be layd in 7 or 8. and grow up to as many as can meet together constantly unto edification in one place as the Church in Abrahams family which afterwards grow up into a nation and though the Go pel-Church is not now national yet a Congregation of many families may spring out of a Church in one family more easily then a nation did Rejoynder 1. you do not express whether you mean that one or two or all or none of the three families mentioned in the position did enjoy Congregational ordinances Nor. 2. What you mean by Congregational ordinances but the Reader may conceive that you mean election of officers partaking Sacraments and censures 3. You tax me to hard to require me to prove that two or three converted in a family enjoying no Church-ordinances are called a Church for neither you nor I know the number of persons in the families called Churches whether it was 2. or 3 7 or 8 11 or 12 19 or 20. more or less nor is it as to this any whit material 4. Mr Weld a congregational man doth acknowledg a domestical Church to be spoken of in scripture as distinguished from a particular visible Church and cites Philâ—m 2. and so do Zanchy and very many good interpreters and Mr Cottons words cited Sect. 1. import the same And indeed these families might be called Churches because they were more eminently Religious or more numerous or for some other reason besides the enjoyment of Congregational ordinances 5. You say p. 16. That city and Church do expound one another and p. 113. You say we do not read of more Congregations of Saints constantly meeting for the Worship of God in any City then one But if these were Congregational Churches then you must acknowledg that there was more Congregations then one in a City for you read of the Church of Rome Rom. 1.7 And of the Church in the house of Aquila and Priscilla Rom. 16.3 of whose being in Rome you spake even now Sect. 7. When I cite new-England men to say that Christ did not make a new Church but lived and dyed a member of the Iewish Church and therefore he and his family were not a Church distinct from the Iewish Church you reply p. 12. Whether Christ dyed a member of the Iewish Church or no is questionable but that he gathered certain persons to him and instituted baptism and the Lords supper amongst them is most certain which were ordinances of the Gospel Church and he either thereby prepared them for or layd the foundation of a Gospel Church before his death for immediatly after his ascention they were a Gospel-Church as appeareth from Acts. 1.14.15 Rejoynder 1. The Elders of new England confidently assert it Answer to 32. q.p. 14. Though you question it 2. If it be questionable whether Christ dyed a member of the Jewish Church or no then it is questionable whether he his disciples made a Cospel Church or no and then what becomes of that instance in the Position 3. To prepare for and to lay the foundation of the Gospel Church are much different yet you tel us not whether of these two Christ did as though either would serve your turn but you know he might prepare them for a Gospel Church and himself dye a member of the Iewish Church David did prepare for building the Temple but did not build it nor lay the foundation of it 4. What you mean by gathering certain persons to himself or who were those certain persons you do not tell us if you mean the 12. how prove you that he instituted baptism amongst the 12 if others how do you prove that he instituted the Lords supper amongst them were all baptized persons only prepared for the Church or was the foundation of the Church layd in them or only in those to whom he administred the supper or if in both was the foundation of the Church layd in them equally or unequally If the foundation of the Church was layd in all them that were baptized then it was a very large foundation if only in the twelve then it was but a little one and so it makes for the position the other makes against it I pray explian your opinion that the reader may understand it and the reasons of it 5. Was the reality of an Instituted Congregational Church in the family of Christ or no you speak like Apollos oracles very doubtfully if it was not then this instance is impertinent to prove the position if it was for they did partake in the Sacrament to which you wil admit none but such as are in Church-state then it is to be proved that Christ and his Apostles did covenant or agree to be a Christian Church that they did choose Iesus for their officer which seems to contradict Iohn 15.16 or at least that they had power to choose their own officers to ordain them and if need had bin to censure them and that they had power to receive Saints by calling into that society and fellowship and why then was not the blessed Virgin received into that Church 6. It appeareth not to me nor I think to any man from Acts 1.14.16 That they were a Gospel-Church an instituted Congregational Church nor can you by any consequence infer it from those two verses though you say it appears from them Sect. 8. When I argue If seven or eight may make a Church then 200. persons in a City may wel make twenty distinct Churches
know Why do you so strongly assert things and yet leave them naked without the least shew of proof Sect. 2. You Reply p. 17. I Ask what commentator ever sayd that all in every place and Saints in all Achaia expound one another doth 1 Cor. 1.1 compared with 2 Cor. 2.1 Inforce such an exposition you would suggest that he writes to the same Corinthians in the 2. Epistle that he writes to in the first more your scriptures import not and we grant it But the inference you draw is this ergo all in every place and all the Saints in all Achaja are all one a strang consequence If the 2. Epistle be written to the same persons as the first why do ye not expound the subject persons of the second by the subject persons of the first and say though the Saints in all Achaja be mentioned only yet under them the Saints every where in the world are meant Rejoynder 1. I observe you say not no commentator hath sayd so or that you know not any commentator hath sayd so possibly you knew that Reverend and Iudicions Beza Annot in 1 Cor. 1.1 Expounds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est in quavis Achaiae Ecclesia asserting also that though this inscription is made properly and specially to the Corinthians yet next it is writen to the rest of the Churches in all Achaja as appears by the beginning of the 2 Epistle as the Epistle to the Galatians was to all the Churches of that nation for that it is not absolutely Catholâ—que directed to the Churches in all the world appears saith he by the Inscription and matter of the Epistle Thus he 2. I would suggest not only that the 2. Epistle is written to the same Corinthians that the first as you strangely interpret me but that it is written to the same persons as I plainly expressed my self Corinthians or others 3. I have not read any one that makes so loose an interpretation of the Saints in all Achaja 2 Cor. 1.1 As to say that under them the Saints every where in the world are meant for so they might have bin under the name of the Corinthians alone as wel as under the name of the Romans alone Rom. 1.7 Ephesians alone Gal. 1.1 And that the use of them redounds to all the world as wel as to all Achaia against which I have formerly given some reasons to which I add that the Apostle might have said as wel to the Church of Corinth and to all the Saints in Indea if this Epistle had concerned them being a part of the world or any other province as wel as Achaia Sect. 3. Reply p. 17. The Corinthians not the Achaians had written to Paul c. 7 1. And Paul had received sundry reports concerning them not concerning all the Saints in Achaja for the Cenchreaus had not writ to him nor he heard any thing of them that we read of Chap. 1.11 5.1 And hereupon he writes unto them but because this letter might be of common use and profit and especially to the Saints which bordered next upon them therefore he would have the Achajans their neighbours to peruse it yea the Saints every where to read it in both his Epistles he mentioneth the Corinthians as the proper subject thereof the Achajans he mentioneth in one and the Saints every where in another And he brings them in Collaterally rather then directly it is to the Church of Corinth but with all the Saints in all Achaja and with all that in every place as it were on the by And this is Pareus his exposition upon 1 Cor. 1.2 Rejoynder 1. You first presume that the Epistles are written to the Corinthians only which is the thing denyed and then tel us that the Corinthians had written to Paul and he had heard some reports of the Corinthians but it is evident that those he writes to did write to him and that he had received some reports concerning them but that these were only Corinthians and no other Saints in Achaia to whom he writes and which did write to him and concerning whom he had received some reports you cannot evidence 2. I grant there might be some special aym at the Church of Corinth in some things at least rather then any other Church of Achaia possibly in other things other Saints were more aymed at then the Corinthians and doubtless the Churches then could better tell when this Church or that was more specially aimed at by the Apostles then we which are more ignorant of the then state of those Churches can yet your collection is very sleighty and infirm concerning the bringing the Saints in every place and in all Achaia in collaterally rather then directly Do your selves think that he that in his prayer mentioneth Christ and saith To whom with the Father and the holy Ghost be glory doth give glory to God the father and the holy Ghost collaterally rather then directly if you do think so I hope you wil hold him accursed that useth it the phrase is the same the Reader can apply it Sect. 4. When I answer that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 11.20 14.23 may fitly be translated in idipsum for the same and in one you reply p. 18. That the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are conjoyned with with the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 11.20 14.23 and then you say it will not be denyed but that place is principally meant Rejoynder 1. If the Apostle doth write to more Churches then one as is alledged and proved from 1 Cor. 14.34 Then I hope your selves will not interpret this of the identity of place for you hold not as I told you though you blotted it out of my answer that two three or more Churches in the new Testament must consist of no more then may meet in one place 2. You begge the question and would perswade the Reader there is something in the Greek which possibly he understands not to force my assent to your opinion but the words import no more then convenire in unum as the Lords and Commons may be said to do which are but one Parliament though met in two houses and if there be no incongruity of applying the phrase to those which we know do meet in severall places then the Apostle might apply the phrase to the Corinthians though he kn ew that they did meet in severall Assemblies on a day of a publike fast or of thanksgiving all the Churches in Holland yea all in New England may be said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. It is at least very probable that the Church of Corinth it self suppose he write to no more was more then one particular congregation for 1. Not onely Crispus the chief Ruler but many of the Corinthians hearing the Word beleeved and were baptized Act. 18.8 And God told Paul that he had much people in that City v. 10. And Paul tarried there a long time which he would not have done if his
Aegypt should be one people of God which in Defence p. 40. you say is all one with one Church another nation another people of God and Israel shal be so far from being alone a National Church that she shal not be the chiefest but other Nations shal be before her Isa 19.25 So Abraham became the father of many nations Rom. 4.17 the Jewish Nation and the Nations of the Gentiles one its evident was a National Church and why might not a Gentilish Nation converted to Christianity be a sister National Church Paul faith Rom. 3.29 God is not the God of the Iews only but of the Gentiles the word in the Original is of the Nations also his meaning is God is in covenant with beleeving Nations of the Gentiles as wel as with the Jewish nation Now if God call a nation and a nation obey that call and become the daughter of father Abraham and a sister of the Iewish nation and God be in covenant with a nation or the God of a nation Is not that nation a national Church Did not thus much if there had been no more make the Jews a national Church And wil it not make a beleeving nation among the Gentiles so also Have you any so good an argument against a National Church as this for it 7. Moses in Deut. 12. did not tell the Jews that God did intend they should be a national Church for that they were before even as soon as they grew into a nation Acts 7. but only of a peculiar place of some solâ—mn publick worship which was but ceremoniâ—l and because it was so and God hath not intended any such set place for solemn publick worship in the New Testament as more holy then other places therefore he hath prescribed to us no such thing but lâ—ft us at liberty Ioh. 4.8 Of little Iudea much is spoken before and after CHAP. IX Of the universal visible Church and general Councels Sect. 1. Reply ANd if an universal visible instituted Church be acknowledged why are there not then universal representative conventions What a defect is this in Christendom that all Christians do not endeavour it But we conceive that they are so far from the endeavouring of it that if there were any such thought they might make use of them for advice yet they would be loath to subject themselves to the binding decrees of them Rejoyn 1. You being no Scriptures at all against the universal visible Church or the subordination of lesser Judicatories to greater 2. You acknowledg at least implicitely that if there be an universal visible Chuch then there may be a national subordinate to it and a congregational subordinate to it in which you deal fairly and ingenuously for the whole is not subject to a part but the part to the whole and the neerer any part comes to the whole Church the more authority it hath and hence a general Councel is of more authority then a National and a National then a Provincial 3. I assert that the Scriptures do hold out an universal visible Church For 1. the Apostles which were general officers to which a general Church is the adaequate correlative and had the care of all the Churches are said to be put or placed in the Church as speaking but of one 1 Cor. 12.28 2. This is that one body into which all both Iews and Gentiles bond or free are baptized v. 13. whereof Christ is the head v. 12. yea the visible head though he be now removed to heaven as King Iames was visibly the head of Scotland though removed into and residing in England and Paul the Minister Col. 1.25 in which God hath set 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the members 1 Cor. 12.18 viz. he hath set 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apostles Prophets Teachers helps governments v. 28. 3. The same is proved Ephes 4. to the end of the 16. verse for there we find that the whole Catholique Church is but one v. 4. one body one spirit one hope of our calling one Lord one faith one baptism one God and father of all All which are adaequate and commensurate to the Catholique Church unto which he after saith the Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastors and teachers were given v. 11. 4. This Church consisteth of all beleeving Iews and Gentiles Ephes 2.16 3.6 And is contra-distinguisht from and opposite to all other Iews and Gentiles in the world yet uncalled and is called one fould Iohn 10.16 one woman traveling Rev. 12. one city of God Rev. 11. one field one draw net one barn-floor c. 5. This Church was a child and in non-age under the law and at ful age under the Gospel Gal. 4.1.2 One assembly of 24. Elders and foure beasts in allusion to the 24. orders of Priests and the foure camps of Israel bearing in their standards the same beasts Rev. 4. and as all the twelve tribes did but make one Church so the 144000. of all Christian Churches as it were of the twelve tribes are but one Church I omit many more such expressions which signify to us that as the Church was but one amongst the Jews so it is but one amongst the Gentiles one army under Michael one vineyard c. you may object that we read of Churches in the new testament therefore there is not only one Church I answer These are particular Churches of the same name and nature with the whole as the dry land is but one yet being possessed by several nations under several climates divided by hils rivers and other boundaries is called lands as Labans flocks having all one owner and probably all one mark are called one flock and so Iacobs also Gen. 30.31 32 36 38. 33.13 as the freemen of Rome where ever born or bred make but one corporation hence the Church of Ephesus though a compleat particular Church is not called the whole city or houshold but fellow citizens with the Saints viz. of other Churches and of the househould Ephes 2.19 20. As the Iewish Church was certainly but one yet it is called Churches as you shal hear anon as the Antichristian Churches of Italy France Spain Germany are but one whore one Church under one head the Pope so the Christian Churches of England Scotland Holland c. which have their fathers name written in their foreheads having one faith c. are but one woman one Church The one is the army under the Dragon the other under Michael particular Churches and Antichristian conventions are as the several Brigades Regiments or companies of those armyes Hence the Church of God is called Army and Armies Cant. 6.10.13 vineyard and vineyards Cant. 7.12 8.11.12 Garden and Gardens Cant. 6.2 Note Reader that these are not spoken of the invisible Catholique Church but of the visible Church for officers are not set in the invisible Church Iudas was an Apostle but was not a member of the invisible Church nor is baptism a badg of it 2. Whereas some object that my
cornfloor and to a City but as for the comparing of a visible Church to a garrison town 1. Is a similitude invented by your selves for your own purpose 2. You cannot shew so good warrant for your examination as souldiers have for theirs 3. It is neither necessary nor ordinary that each man that is admitted into a garrison should give satisfaction to all the souldiers therein that he is a real frend 12. Mr. Noyes a N. E. man saith p. 6. p. 10. Our facility of admitting members must give testimony to the Lords dispensation of grace in the embracing of invisible members The gates of Ierusalem do stand open Rev. 21.25 The Elders of the City of Refuge did not expostulate with such as fled before the avenger of bloud in way of any explicite covenant or exquisite examination Iosh 20. Excess of complements insolemnities formalities punctualities are unsuitable to the simplicity and spirituality of the Gospel and also fully forbidden in the 2. Commandment Sect. 2. Reply p. 34. If the Church be not a common receptacle but must consist of selected then there are certain rules of reception and rejection and tryal must be made by some whether persons be so qualifyed according to those rules and this the light of nature and rule of reason leads to though there should be nothing in Scripture expresly mentioning it Rejoyn 1. When the rule of reason and light of nature is alledged by some for episcopacy by others more cleerly necessarily for subordination of Ecclesiastical judicatories and the remedy of appeals then you decline tryal by those judges but now you do appeal to them 2. Your argument is a meer non-sequitur The Church is not a common receptacle there are rules of reception and rejection a tryal must be by some therefore the Church must examine all those that come to be admitted whether the work of grace be wrought in their hearts or no. For 1. The Iewish Church the Christian Church in the days of the Apostles were not common receptacles yet they did receive and admit into them respectively many whom they did not examine whether the truth of grace was wrought in their hearts or no. 2. The rules of reception and rejection are set down in Scripture but amongst them this rule is not to be found that the Church must examine c. If it be why do you not shew it 3. If some may try persons that come to be admitted it follows not that the Church must do it 4. If there may be examination of something it follows not that it must be of the truth of grace wrought in the heart and that all are to be rejected which cannot give satisfactory arguments thereof Sect. 3. Reply p. 34. It was lawful and commendable in the Ephosians to try false Apostles which professed in words to be true Apostles Rev. 2.2 Rejoyn 1. You do here much qualify your tener signifying you would accept of verbal profession of faith and repentance if there be any thing which may though but probably give witness to the reality thereof 2. That those Apostles did desire member-ship with the Church of Ephesus and were tryed upon that occasion is not expressed or implyed in the text but rather they that said they were Apostles did in effect say that they ought not to be set members of any Church but had the care of all the Churches 3. This tryall was not of their sanctity or syncerity but of their doctrine and authority not whether they had true grace or no but whether they had the office and doctrine of Apostles or not which two things differ much Indas was a true Apostle and yet the work of grace was not wrought in his heart and the work of grace is wrought in many that are not Apostles 4. They had commission to examine them 1 Iohn 4.1 1 Thes 5.21 And for this the Bereans were commended Acts 17.11 And the Elders or the Angel of Ephesus were in effect put upon that duty by Paul Acts 20.29 30. But you have no such commission for the Church to examine the work of grace and therefore your practise is not so lawful as theirs Sect. 4. The Church of Ierusalem sought satisfaction concerning Saul you wil say there was cause of suspition and jealousy concerning him and we may say there is now also cause of jealousy for profession of faith and repentance is common and the fruits worthy of it Math. 3.8 are rare Rejoyn Your practise is not so reasonable as the practise of that Church in that case for 1. There was just ground of personal exception against Saul and so there is not against every man of whom you doubt the Apostles might suspect him stil to be a Iew a persecutor a spy and that he but assay'd to joyn himself to them to betray them Protestants in Q. Maryes days and Non-conformists in the Prelates days though they held not that they ought to examine each man of the truth of his grace before they admitted them into their society would have bin afrayd to have admitted known persecuting persons into their private meetings though they had pretended to be converted til they had known they had left off their trade of persecution which the Aposties knew not that Paul had done til they heard Barnabas his testimony concerning him which they received without any examination 2. Fruits meet for repentance were ever rare yet Iohn Baptist did not defer baptism til the people brought them forth nor was he or the disciples of Christ afrayd notwithstanding they wel knew the rarity of such fruits to admit thousands at once to baptism against whom they had no just ground of personal exception as they had against Saul and therefore were afraid of him Sect. 5. In Answer I alledg If the Gospel and Christian Religion was brought into England in the Apostles times then it was like it was constituted of Saints as wel as the Church of Corinth If we look upon the latter constitution in Q. Elizabeth's time many Congregations Manchester for example had visible yea doubtless real Saints which were sufferers all Queen Maries time to be the foundationnalls thereof You Reply p. 35. It is uncertain what Congregation was so constituted and what not we neither justify nor condemn the constitution of any but judg according to their present state and if we see any visible Saints as doubtless there are many in some Congregations and united also amongst themselves for the sake of those few so united we acknowledg them a Church and in all things so far as they carry the ordinances uncorruptly desire to have fellowship with them Rejoyn 1. It is as certain as any thing built upon humane faith that God had a faithful people not only in London but in Manchester and neer to it in Queen Maries days witness not only tradition but the letters of Mr. Iohn Bradford and Mr. George Marsh 2. There are also visible Saints stil in it and those as much
united save that a few Anabaptists Brownists and Independents break the union as the Scripture requires a true Church to be 3. You two shew no willingness of joyning with us so far as the ordinances are carried uncorruptly for you hold that without such corruption the godly amongst us may be admitted to your Sacraments and yet you deny to do it we bless God we need not to it 4. It is a fond thing that you should urge your humane inventions as a means to carry Gods ordinances uncorruptly Sect. 6. You say Reply p. 35. 1 Cor. 1.1.2 Shews either what the members of the Church of Corinth were at first or ought to have bin or what some of them were at that time and ought to have bin viz. sanctifyed in Christ c. As Hemingius Gualter Pareus do note and say that a definition of the Church may thence be fetched Rejoyn 1. Though this text doth indeed shew what some of them were and all ought in duty to have bin yet your selves dare not assert either that it proves that the Church of Corinth was constituted wholly of vâ—sible Saints or 2. That then when Paul writ it consisted wholly if mostly of visible Saints were all the carnal Schismaticks 1 Cor. 3.1 2. The Incestuous person and they that were puffed up and gloryed 1 Cor. 5.1 2. The Contentious persons Fornicators Idolaters Drunken Communicants denyers of the Resurrection spoken of 1 Cor. and 6.10 11 15. chapters the false teachers despisers of Paul impenitent persons mentioned Epist 2. Chap. 10 11 12. visible Saints you know they were not or 3. That the Church of Corinth did or ought to have examined all she admitted whether true grace was wrought in their heart or no or 4. That the Church of Corinth had better bin no Church then not constituted of Saints or 5. That it is necessary that a Church should be constituted of visible Saints or else sin is committed I conceive none of those Divines can hence conclude any of the foresaid things by me denyed nor can they rightly gather the definition of a visible Church from these words taking Saints in the same sense that you do for then if a Church should not consist of visible Saints then it wanteth the definition and consequently the being of a Church Surely none of them did judg the way of Independency to be the Scriptural way as you would pretend to the Reader they did at least in this point Sect. 7. Reply p. 35.1 The end of Church-fellowship is not conversion but edification Ephes 4.11 12. Acts 9.31 For if it were all unconverted ones whether they make profession of faith and repentance or no may enter in Rejoyn 1. Conversion is as much the end of Church-fellowship in the time of the Gospel as in the time of the law when all the lews and their seed though not all visible Saints were within the Church conversion to the Iewish Religion was not the end of Church-membership then not conversion to Christianity now but conversion to true sanctity might then and now be one end of Church-membership 2. Your texts say that God hath given Apostles Evangelists Pastors and teachers for the edifying of the body of Christ and then were the Churches edified and walking in the fear of God were multiplied Hence you conclude not only that edification is the end which indeed the Text imports but also that conversion is not the end of Church-fellowship The weakness of which inference doth thus appear 1. The Apostle saith not that edification is the only end or that conversion is not one end of Church-membership 2. The Apostles of whom Paul speaks as wel as of Pastors are acknowledged by your selves to be sent not for edification but for conuersion though that Text by your exposition would as wel prove that their mission as the mission of Pastors was not for conversion contrary to Math. 28. 19 20. Acts 26.18 3. The word which we translate edifying is building and in common phrase signifies as wel the rearing of a new house as the repairing strengthning and amending of an old house And yet 4. there can be no repairing of an old house without some addition of new materials not can it be conceived how the Church a collective dying body can be built or preserved without conversion of souls 5. To be builded in Scripture-phrase is to have children Gen. 16.2 30.3 So Sarah and Rachel are said to be builded See Ainsworth in Gen. 16. And God made the midwives houses Exod. 1.21 that is gave them children and so Pastors are given to build the Church viz. to beget children hence they are said to plant also Jer. 1.10 Persons converted are the joy and crown of their Pastors and an argument of their mission from God 6. Acts 9.31 saith the Churches were multiplied 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which cometh of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now how I pray you could they be multiplied without conversion of some new souls 7. One of your texts sheweth the end of giving Apostles Pastors Teachers of which we have spoken before The other shews the fruit of the Churches rest and peace but neither of them doth at least not directly and plainly tell the end of Church-fellowship 3. As for the entrance of unconverted ones and persons not professing saith and repentance into the Church I answer 1. Infants do enter into the Church though they neither profess faith nor repentance and these must either be converted in the Church or not at all 2. Though conversion be one end of Church-membership yet it follows not that Jews Turks Pagans may enter because a profession of Christianity is required by Gods law before admission and so much care as God prescribes ought to be taken 3. Though one end of conversion be hearing yet if God have secluded excommunicate persons from hearing as I conceive he hath Excommunication being vltimum remedium then he must not be admitted to the Word So though one end of Church-fellowship be conversion to true sanctity yet none but they that are converted to the profession of Christianity can partake in it and so Turks and Jews are excluded Sect. 8. Reply p. 36 Excommunication is to recover persons desperately sick and ready to dye 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 living stones 1 Pet. 2.5 Rejoynd 1. Excommunication and Physick are not alike in point of the life of the object for no man gives physick to one whom he knows to be dead but though one spiritually alive being scandalous or erroneous may be excommunicated yet the more certainly yea suppose infallibly a man is known to be spiritually dead the more liable and fit he is to be excommunicated for Excommunication looks upon a man as sinful and erroneous yea as incurably such
therefore to be cut off Immedicabile vulnus ense recidendum ne pars syncera trabatur Math. 18.15 16. Tit. 3.10 that the other members be not leavened or corrupted by it And yet 2. one end of Excommunication may be the saving of the soul of the excommunicate and yet not suppose him to be already in the state of grace for as a known unconverted man may be admonished if not apparently and obstinately wicked and when God sets in with the admonition we gain our brother and he is converted and his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus so if God set in with the Excommunication he may be gained by it though before he was not gained 3. The Apostle supposeth not the incestuous person to be alive but to be a wicked person and spiritually dead 1 Cor. 5.12 and yet would have him cast out 4. In the Churches of Asia and Galatia were some that were bewitched Gal. 3.1 and turned to another Gospel Gal. 1.6 and counted Paul their enemy for telling them the truth Gal. 4.16 And some that were of the Synagogue of Sathan Nicolaitans Balaamites Jezebelians many that had defiled their gariments viz. were visibly wicked that were luke-warm neither hot nor cold Rev. c 2. c. 3. Therefore Peter writing to the strangers scattered through Pautus Asia Galatia c. could not repute them all in the judgment of charity living stones or visible Saints but this denomination is given a meliori parte as if a man should call a Parliament godly wise faithful Senators he is to be understood that the better part of them are such but not that all of them are such no not in the judgment of charity Sect. 9. Reply p. 36. If Excommunication be an ordinance to throw forth visible sinners both all scandalous sinners 1 Cor. 5. and all other which will not be healed of their lesser faults being duly proceeded against Math. 18.15 16. Rejoyn 1. I doubt whether every one that is not healed of lesser sins after due admonitions be to be excommunicated Suppose of passionate speaking of vain merriment c. if he be not otherwise blameable The censure of excommunication in Scripture is read to pass for grosser crimes but no example of passing it for lesser faults we complained of this very thing in the Prelates Beza affirms Math. 18. to be meant of private scandals which differ only from publick scandals that the one is less known then the other we must not saith Doctor Sibbs kil a fly on a mans forehead with a beetle If every one that is not healed of every sin must be proceeded against so far as to excommunicate him the purest Churches would have nothing to do but excommunicate one another 2. Suppose they were to be cast out can you shew as good warrant to keep such out before due course of admonition as to cast them out when you perceive that admonitions and other due proceedings wil not work upon them 3. Suppose you had good warrant to cast out all such you cannot hence infer that all that are not visible Saints are to be kept out nor cast out for there are thousands that are not scandalous and it may be if they were admonished of their lesser faults would strive to amend them Herod did many things after John Baptist which yet you would not put in the Calender of Saints especially if you should examine them of the work of grace in their heart Sometimes the thing is in medio and we are neither satisfied that this man is a Saint nor dare we censure him to be a sinner Can you shew that the Church ought to examine her members yea those of which she hath no just ground of personal suspition whether they have committed any sin that deserves casting out Then we wil grant she may examine such before she take them in Or could you shew that Non-regeneration or the Churches not being satisfied of their visible Saint-ship she possibly seeing more into them then she did at her admission of them is a just cause of excommunication though they be neither gross offendors nor in foro Ecclesiastico obstinate in their lesser faults then you speak somewhat to the purpose But if this could be shewed then the Apostle needed not to give us a catalogue of divers sorts of sinners with whom we must not eat 1 Cor. 5. for he might have given us a shorter and readier rule saying you shal nos eat with any of whose regeneration you are not satisfied or that are not in your judgments Saints Sect. 10. When I say he writes to the Church called to be Saints or called Saints not to 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 v. 1. Paul called to be an Apostle then that they were Saints before they were a Church though I maintain not the validity of either inference You Reply p. 36. Can there be a Church before there were Saints What a Church was that which had no visible Saints in it when it was first constituted Rejoyn Why do you oppose an inference which I professed I would not maintain the Reader certainly would have discerned the impertinency of this your Reply if you had not in your book left out that Passage of mine 2. That which I said is undeniable that the words Church called to be Saints doth in the grammatical construction rather of the two conclude that they were a church before they were called to be Saints then that they were Saints before they were called to be a Church as if I should write to Mr E. called to be a Pastor it were more rational to conclude that Mr E. was a man before he was a Pastor then that he was a Pastor before he was a man 3. Any company or assembly called together by command to hear some laws and speeches whether they obey them or no are called Ecclesia or Concio but be it as absurd as you can make it to say there was a Church which had no visible Saints in it much more absurd is the other Position that they were Saints before they were a Church considering it as an inference from this Text whatsoever it is in it self 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be read called to be holy which is in Scripture a word of greater latitude then Saintship in English so little children are said to be holy 1 Cor. 7.14 by a faederal holiness which cannot be called Saints or Sainted The Papists invented this substantive Saints which the Scripture useth always as an adjective though possibly sometimes the substantive is not expressed of which also instance may be given in other adjectives and from them we borrow the word 5. There is no more here ascribed to the Corinthian Church then is oft ascribed to the Jewish Church by the Holy Ghost as holiness Deut. 7.6 Deut. 33.2 3.
Psa 79.2 and their Church is said to be a Church of Saints Psa 89.5.7 Psa 149.1 and their seed holy Ezra 9.2 so that in this there is not the least difference between Christians and Jews save that the Jewish Church was called holy and a Church of Saints in the first place and Christian Churches in the second Exod. 19.5 6. with 1 Pet. 2.9 Psa 89.5 7. So that it may as wel be concluded that every member of the Jewish Church was or ought to be a visible Saint or else sin was committed in it and better not to have been a Church at all then not to have consisted of visible Saints and that the Saints should have been separated into a distinct Church from the rest that the Church of the Jews did or ought to have examined persons coming to be admitted whether the work of grace was wrought in their hearts or no and did or ought to have rejected all those of whose sincerity and sanctity she was not satified as these things can be said of the Christian Church Sect. 11. When I say How appears it that all the honourable titles and epithites given by Paul are given with relation to Church-member ship The Corinthians were curiched by God in all utterance and all knowledg and did come behind in no gift c. So when other Saints are called beloved of God elect blessed c. their Life is hid with Christ in God if these things be spoken of them as Church-members then they are true of all Church-members which you know they are not Reply There are some names which shew the intrinsecal nature of the things to which they are given and they do agree to all of that kind so souldier shews the intrinsecal nature of an army and Saint of the Church of God but there are names extrinsecal to and separable from the nature of the things and may be in some not in other such are the Epithites enriched with wisedome utterance c. As if one should write to the army of such an one enriched with gold and silver Rejoyn 1. You have a pretty distinction and similitude here yet they are faulty for 1. You beg the question and presume that to be true which you should prove so to be for the very question is whether Saint-ship satisfactory to the Church is of the Intrinsecal nature of a Church-member and agrees to all Church-members and is inseparable from them so that whosoever hath not given satisfaction to the Church of his Saint-ship or is not a Saint in the Churches judgment cannot be a Church-member 2. You know that if a man be inlisted in an army he is a member of it though he was not examined of his souldier ship before his inlisting yea though he was known not to be a souldier before and is yet but in trayning exercising and learning souldiery If you mean that Church-members are called to be Saints only in such a sense as such a man is called to be souldier you come short of the question 3. The Iewish and Christian Churches are compared to an army in the books of Canticles and Revelation but neither the Jewish nor the then Christian Church did pretend to consist all of Saints nor was this doctrine known at least not practised til separated Churches were erected by Brown Barrow c. 4. As concerning the names Elect blessed beloved of God c. The sum of what you answered p. 42. I take to be this That some of those to whom the Apostle writes might by him be infallibly known to be elect beloved of God c. But all of them were judged such by Paul in the judgment of charity which latter you prove by Phil. 1.7 But the thing is evidently false even in that very instance you bring to prove it true for the Apostle did not account all the Philippians to be Saints for he expresly saith Phil. 3.18 19. that some were enemies to the Cross of Christ and your selves tel us p. 76. That there might be dogs in the Apostolique Churches and alledg Phil. 3.2 which is as much as to say there were dogs in the Church of Philippi and Paul knew it when he writ this Epistle how then could he in the judgment of charity account them all to be Saints So that of necessity you must acknowledg that these titles Saints sanctifyed elect beloved of God faithful were only in truth applicable to a party in the Apostles judgment I demonstrate it thus If in those very Epistles which he writes to Churches by the name of Saints faithful c. He brand some of those he writes to to be wicked Impenitent dogs c. Then he doth not cannot without contradicting himself count all in those Churches to be Saints but the first is true therefore he did not could not account them all visible Saints And if this text do not prove that in the judgment of Paul the Corinthians were Saints when he writ this Epistle then much less doth it prove that they were visible Saints at the first constitution of the Church or that it was necessary they should be such or that they were better no Church then not so constituted or that the Church then did or ought to examine whether men intending or desiting member-ship had the work of grace wrought in their hearts or no which is the practise you did undertake to justify CHAP. XII Of a Church Covenant Sect. 1 YOu say Reply p. 37. That the combination of Saints into one body by some kind of covenant either express or implicite or by some kind of special bond doth make a true Church The Shechemites Gen. 34.15 16. could not become one with the seed of Iacob but by comming into the same Covenant Rejoyn 1. Surely you understand this of adulti persons of age not of infants for that infants born in the Church suppose an Independent Church give any consent to their being or baptizing in that Church it cannot be sayd 2. You hold I suppose that those infants whose parents did voluntarily combine into a Church and are fit matter for a Church and have continued from their child-hood in the fellowship of that Church need not any new agreement or covenant to make them of that Church 3. You deny not it seems that there is an implicite covenant they are your own words though some have no less fondly then confidently carped at the expression as implying a contradiction but now the case is altered your selves do use it 4. This implicite covenant or consent implyed in actions is in our Congregations for amongst us Christians that dwel in a vicinity or neighborhood as hath bin shewed Chap. 2. that they ought are one Congregation they choose or submit unto and maintain the same individual officers as Iohn Thomas frequent the same numerical meeting places Sacraments and other ordinances and so are distinguished from other Congregations of Christians dwelling in other vicinityes submitting to and maintaining other officers as
2. Any seperation or division that is of God may be brought about without our own inventions The Christians did seperate them-themselves from amongst the Iews and Heathens and the Protestants in Queen Maries days from the Papists and yet without any such vocal express covenant that we read of 3. If such looâ—ness in our Parish-Churches be so great an evil then take you heed you be not guilty of that great evil by making that loosness greater then it is or by Gods law ought to be Is it a greater evil for men that remove their habitation then for those that do not remove it all to depart from their Parish-Church without rendering a reason Is it not a greater evil to add to the commandments of God our own carnal and politick devices and to lay a yoke or covenant on our people which God hath not layd on them for preventing of some inconveniences which Gods law doth not enable us to prevent 2. If there be any local bounds as by Scripture rules hath been shewed there ought to be that inconvenience must necessarily happen but to this I have spoken before Chap. 2. 3. The place in Eph. 2.22 is apparently not meant of a particular Congregation but of the universal Church which is called the City the Houshold the Temple and all the Christians of the particular Church of Ephesus were not the whole City but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fellow-citizens with the Saints not the whole houshold but of the houshold not all the temple or building but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are built together with other Saints and Churches which also are part of the City Temple Houshold building as wel as they 4. in Cor. 12.27 when he had said ye are the body of Christ he corrects himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if he should say ye are not the whole body but members in part of that body and others are part of that body as wel as you for into it both Jews and Gentiles are baptized v. 13. viz. into the universal Church and in this sense these Scriptures do not serve your purpose and therefore you say but not rightly that a particular Church is there compared to a body and an house 5. Your selves I know hold not that Church-membership is as in dissolvable as the members of a natural body are one from another which are not separated without ruine of the part separating if not of the whole body nor can that member be willingly separated from its body or joyned with any good effect to another body CHAP. XIII Whether Deut. 29. or Gen. 17. be presidents of a Church-Covenant Sect. 1. THe Covenant in Deut. 29.1.10 11 12. respects Reply p. 39. principally Church-duties more then other duties of the moral law v. 16 17 18. for he warns them of Heathenish worships and would engage them by an holy Covenant to all Gods holy worships of the Passover and all the offerings of Gods prescription which were to be brought to the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation though a Covenant binding to some duties of the moral law may be made by two or three persons of several Churches and yet not make them members of a distinct Church yet if they Covenant to walk together in the constant enjoyment of all Church-ordinances this would change their state and make them a Church Rejoyn 1. Those verses contain in them Moses admonition and exhortation to the people v. 10. Ye stand this day all of you before the Lord your God v. 12. that thou should'st enter into Covenant with the Lord thy God and into his oath which he maketh with thee this day c. that they should not serve the gods of Aegypt or of other Nations least there should be amongst them man or woman or family or tribe whose heart turneth away from God but there is not the least mention of Passover or other Church-duties which you say that Covenant did engage them to and therefore it doth not appear by those verses that the Covenant more principally respects Church-duties more then other duties of the moral law some part of the moral law is mentioned and interpreted viz. the first Commandment but nothing spoken of Church-membership Every particular servant of God ought to take heed of Heathenish worships which is there required and not a Church only I appeal to you may not ought not every man woman family or tribe to use the words of v. 18. make a Covenant with God that he she or they wil not turn away from the Lord to go and serve the gods of the nations as Jacob covenanted for himself Gen. 28.21 and Ruth cap. 1.16 and Joshuah for himself and his house Josh 24.15 May not any two or three amongst us covenant that they wil keep the first Commandment which in this text is paraphrased on Thou shalt have no other Gods before me viz. not the abominations of Aegypt nor their idols v. 17. of some duties sealing their union and communion with the body of the Jewish Church and celebrated when the whole body was assembled I find mention in your book but not in the book of God in the place cited 3. Suppose it true that persons covenanting to walk together in all Church-ordinances which God requires of a Church would make them a Church and change their state yet it is not to the point for the question is whether two or three of several Christian Churches covenanting in the very words of v. 16 17 18. on which you build That their hearts should not turn away from the Lord their God to go to serve other gods or that they would not serve or worship images would this make them one Church together And if it do not how can you say this was a Church-Covenant 4. This was not an express vocal Covenant on the peoples part which you are to prove necessary to the wel-being of the Church for it was made with them that were absent as wel as with them that were present now they that were absent however they were included did not could not if they that were present did make a solemn express verbal Covenant Mr Cottons opinion you shal hear hereafter Sect. 2. When I answer that a Covenant in general doth not make a Church nor a marriage and that Scripture-Covenants are not with appropriation and application to this Pastor or people viz. that they would serve with this people or Pastor rather then with that therefore they are not Church-Covenants You reply page 40. Who ever read or heard of a Covenant in general of duties to be done without application to persons mutually engaged to perform such duties The Covenants in Scripture were no such Covenants they were applied to Israel and to the Gentiles that should joyn to Israel and so they were a separated people from other nations by Covenant Exod. 12.47 48. The Jews by the Covenant of God were to serve God rather with this people then with that Rejoyn 1. You
express themselves for these reasons 1. The Church is not one member but many viz. not one sort of members but composed of variety as hath bin said Chap 4. Hence the Church is described as an organical body of divers members Rom. 12.4 5. And if all were one member that is beleevers only then where were the body A corporation an army properly so called doth consist of governers as wel as governed 2. Word Sacraments censures yea all sacred worships you say may be observed to belong to the Church but none but professed Anabaptists and Morellians hold that Christians united without officers have power to preach and to administer Sacraments or censures 3. The Churches we read of in Scripture were organical Churches yea those by you spoken of Acts 9.31 might be such for ought appears they were edified how but by officers which elsewhere you say were given for their edification Ephes 4.11 or by ordinances by the word and Sacraments which they could not regularly enjoy without out officers if you mean by prayer reading hearing conference this you wil acknowledg they might have had without enchurching 4. That the Apostles taught Christians to unite themselves together without officers and to call themselves a Church or do any any act of Church-power or that they planted Churches any other wayes then to convert many Christians in a City and to ordain Elders over them it cannot be shewed 5. As for Amesius his definition of a Church if it be to your mind I am sure it is not in your usual language for he speaks of communion of Saints which you use to distinguish from Church-communion if Church-communion be not included then you in effect tell us p. 39. that such a bond wil not make them a Church and if Church-communion be included how Church-communion in Sacraments and censures can be lawfully had without officers and what that is I cannot see 6. A man may have a priviledg to choose a wife and yet not be an husband nor she a wife till they be married a free State may have a priviledg to choose a King yet they cannot be a Kingdom till they have chosen him so it may be the privâ—lâ—dg of the people to choose their officers and yet not be a Church properly so called till they have them for it is their priviledg to be a Church together yet they are not a Church before they are one Lastly it is a contradiction to say the Apostles planted Churches and yet those Churches were without officers for the Apostles that planted them were officers of them if they had no other Sect. 2. Reply p. 46. You grant that the Church Act. 2. had no ordinary officers for none were then appointed Act. 14.23 shews they were Churches before the Apostle ordained Elders in them Rejoyn 1. You take full as much as I granted and possibly I granted more then I needed but I in a Parenthesis which you leave out spake of the 70 which might be ordinary officers or extraordinary and their commission might be in force or no for ought I determined but it is as like they were Elders of that Church as no seeing Act. 11.30 we read of Elders in that Church as extant we know not how long before that time and we read not of the institution of any officers amongst them save the 12 Apostles 70 Disciple and 7 Deacons 2. In the first plantation of Churches the Elders that planted them must needs be before the plantation and the spiritual fathers before their children 3. Acts 14.23 proves not your assertion for Apostoles and Apostolick men did ordain Elders in some Churches where Elders were before yea they joyned with Elders in the ordaining of other Elders as 1 Tim. 4.14 cum 2 Tim. 1.5 and 1 Tim. 15.22 cum Acts 20.28 Acts 19. Yet grant they were without Elders that only proves that they were called by the name of Church and so are officers sometimes so called as distinguished from the members but neither of them are properly called by the name of Church Sect. 3. Reply p. 46. And though there were general Elders yet neither these nor any other Elders do ingredi essentiam Ecclesiarum nor is it any formal reason why a company of beleevers are a Church because they have Elders then their priviledg to choose their officers would be when they have them and they cannot choose them when they want them for then they are not a Church and so can have no such power and this is uncomfort able for the death of an officer might be the unchurching of a people members mentioned apart from the officers are called the Church Act. 20.28 Phil. 1.1 Rejoyn 1. Though they were general officers yet as I told you they were Elders particularly of the Church of Jerusalem and acted therein as Elders for that Church then was the universal Church the Apostles or 70 had no present exercise of their pastoral authority any where but there they did preach administer Sacraments ordain there and only there Can a regiment complain of want of a Colonel May it not rather say it hath a good one if a faithful and wise General which hath no other soldiers but that regiment become a Colonel to it 2. I suppose your selves dare not assert that the Church of Ierusalem was then an incompleat Church and yet you account every Church wanting officers to be an incompleat Church 3. If officers be not essential to a visible Church properly so called then neither authoritative preaching the Word dispensation of Sacraments and discipline are not essential to such a Church or they are in the hand of Church-members 4. Concerning the unchurching of a people by the death of an officer 1. You say Pos 2. that 7 or 8 may make a Church What if 4 or 5 of these dye and leave but two or three What if the men dye and leave the women These that are best make not a Church 2. The Pastor may dye and yet the Church not dissolved at his death they may have other officers if they have none at present but the shepherd being smitton the sheep are scattered yet they may have ere long In an elective Kingdom if the King dye the Kingdom is actually dissolved till another King be set up 3. If all the officers of a Church do dye this doth not so un church it as to deprive them of Gods love nor divorce them from God or from the ordinances in other Congregations but only so that for the present they are uncapable of the Sacraments and other Church-ordinances amongst themselves till others be set over them and this you must needs acknowledg 5. Acts 20.28 Phil. 1.1 will give no certain satisfaction for 1. It is granted that the name Church may be given to officers or to people as distinguished from one another as also you acknowledg that the word Covenant is sometimes taken for Gods part to man sometimes for mans part to God but when it is properly
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often rendred distributively I grant but not alwayes nor necessarily In the first chap. in all the New Testament 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is translated in a dream speaking of one not many dreams 3. When it is taken distributively it is not alway so to be understood of every but of sundry as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 2.46 They brake bread not in every house but in severall houses 4. However you understand it this is certain that Paul would have no gatherings when be came and then he intended to come shortly 1 Cor. 4.19 even when be had passed through Macedonia which journey he then was entring upon 1. Cor. 16.3 5 6 7. and probably there were but few Lords-dayes may be two or three before the intended time of his being with them And we our selves whose people are richer and the time more prosperous have had for the Palatinate or some other extraordinary occasions collections more Lords dayes then one in some places to make the summe more considerable Sect. 7. Reply p. 65. They are bound under this injunction 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 find no such thing there 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 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 exposition of Pauls words he would have gatherings then to cease Paul would not have them then to begin lest there should be nothing in readinesse when use should be made thereof Rejoynd Paul saith that there be no gatherings when I come or if we must pedantically translate the Greek That not when I come then gatherings be made he saith not That there be no gatherings for the Saints of Jerusalem when I come but in the generall that there be no gatherings when I come 2. He saith not That not onely when I come gatherings be made nor saith he That not when I come gatherings begin to be made And therefore you that at first confidently and joyntly said The Greek words are against his exposition and that I am more guilty of corupting the Text then you do afterwards abate of your confidence saying that I am diverse as one of you thinks from Paul in my exposition The Lord knoweth your thoughts and not I. Sect. 8. Reply p. 66. You say Consider the manner of performing this act every one must not keep it with him but treasure it up as the Greek carries it or put it into the Treasury What treasury his own private treasury no for then it needed not to have been upon the Lords day 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 the Churches by an every Sabbaths contribution Rejoynd 1. The words are Let every one lay by him in store which seem to import rather a laying up in private then in publike 2. If it was the common treasury of Church-stock it was only for the relief of the poor Saints of Jerusalem not of the Officers of the Church of Corinth 3. Finally if the Churches own poor do rather require weekly contribution for their relief then the poor of other Churches if the Belgick churches have Lords dayes contributions for their poor if these contributions be according to Scripture yea grounded on this Text wherein doth this stock or treasury of the Church respect Ministers Sect. 9. To prove that it doth respect Ministers you say pag. 66. The stock raised by selling of estates and laying them down at the Apostles feet respecteth the very Apostles why then s hould 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 little set by He tels us The Doctors in Christ 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 joyns the Poor with the Doctors and saith that the Treasury was for both uses See Jonn 8.20 and compare it with Mark 12.41 Rejoynd 1. Now at last you are welcome home for you have been Wandring from the question all this while and I have though somewhat unwillingly followed you with intent to fetch you home 2. If it be conceived that the stock raised by selling estates did respect Ministers there is more warrant for that opinion though it may be though that the Apostles quà Ministers did then take no maintenance but quà needy Act. 4.35 from the Text then there is for Ministers maintenance by Lords-day contributions from this Text. 3. Though I rendred you reasons in my Answer and have taken notice of your Replies in this Rejoynder yet because you still crave more Reasons I will give you some 1. The Apostle saith not any thing of gathering any Church-stock or treasury but that which should be sent to Jerusalem v. 3. Whom you shall approve I will send to bring your gift to Jerusalem not making the least mention of the maintenance of the Ministry or other necessities of the Church of Corinth 2. He sent this Collection to them of Jerusalem under the notion of poor Saints and Brethren and not under the notion of Officers quà such though they if poor were also relieved by it 3. If the Apostle had any further scope of gathering a Church-stock for maintaining the Officers as well as the poor of the Church of Corinth he might plainly have expressed it and doubtlesse he would saying in this or the like manner I have ordained in the Churches of Galatia that not only the poor of Jerusalem but their own Officers should be maintained by contribution seeing the mentioning of the severall uses of the Church-stock viz. 1. for their officers 2. for their own poor 3. for the poor of other churches and other necessities would have provoked them to a more liberall contribution which was the main designe of the Apostle 4. N. E. men do not generally preach or practise the maintenance of Ministers by Lords-day contributions but as Mr Weld saith p. 59. Their weekly contribution is properly intended for the Poor according to 1 Cor. 16.1 yet so as if much be given in some burches do though others do not appoint the overplus towards the Ministers maintenance In which words 1. he
with the question whether the Apostle might or no did or no act in excommunication with the concurrence of the Church though I could answer your arguments for the one and bring as good or better arguments for the other Mr. Cotton whom it most concerns is able to defend himself I leave him and you to end this matter as you shall see cause Of the subject excommunicating we shall speak afterward Sect. 3. When I urge that the Apostle saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have judged or decreed already as if I were present to deliver such a one to Sathan which imports rather that Paul himself would deliver him to Sathan then that he exhorted them to do it Indeed he commands them to put him away as he writes to them to restore him again to see whether they would be obedient in all things 2 Cor. 2.9 and he would have it done when they were gathered together that the people might behold approve and execute what was decreed You reply p. 97. That the words may be said to import the one rather then the other and yet in their proper sense import neither The Publican was justified rather then the Pharisee and yet the words do not positively import that either of them was justified And yet you have a good minde to make the Reader to believe that Paul himself delivers him to Sathan and not the Corinthian Church Rejoynd 1. You can cavill at any expression and turn my words any way When in answ to Pos 5. I say that the words Church called to be Saints do rather of the two import that there was a Church before there were Saints then that they were Saints before they were a Church though I added by way of interpretation of my selfe that I did not maintain the validity of either inference you there argue against mee notwithstanding my said selfe-interpretation as though I had positively asserted that there was a Church before there were Saints and now you say of the very same phrase of speech that it doth positively import neither the one nor the other This is not faire 2. Concerning the Publican I answer 1. You have no ground to the contrary but that hee was justified 2. You cannot shew any place in Scripture where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 implyed or expressed is so indifferent a terme 3. Most if not all Interpreters conceive from that place that hee was justified 4. Our Saviours speech following doth seem to back that exposition he that humbleth himselfe shall be exalted which is to be understood of true humility and true exaltation 5. I dare appeale to you whether the words Matth. 10.28 rather fear him that is able c. doe not positively import that wee must fear God and whether the words John 3.19 they loved darknesse more than light doe not imply that they loved one of them and so may that of the publican and my speech also 3. The Grammaticall Syntaxe of the words will best beare that Paul himselfe had decreed alrealy to deliver him and for this I dare appeal to any that hath competent knowledge of the Greek tongue Camero a learned Critick understands this of some speciall Apostolike power saying the Apostles words are diligently to bee weighed for he would not or could not so speak if he spake of any ordinary power 2 Unto this delivery the Apostles presence was requisite at least that he should bee present in spirit and that is the reason of the phrase as though I were present and of that and my spirit v. 3 and 4. Now the Apostles presence was not necessary to excommunication Sect 4. But you urge that doubtlesse an accusative case importing the subject delevering must bee understood either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not the first for then probably he would have said I have delivered him to Sathan and commanded the Church to take notice of it and abstain from him 2. The Apostles judgement was passed at the writing of this Epistle and therefore his judgement was not an actuall casting of him out but only a judgement that the Church of Corinth should passe the judgement of Excommunication against him Rejoynd 1. The words naturally and genuinely runne I have determined already or I have decreed already to deliver c. and the want of an accusative case is an argument that hee spake of himselfe as if I should say I determine to oppose error and you should say wee determine to defend Independency or as Paul 1 Cor. 2.2 saith I have judged or determined for the originall word is the same both there and here to know nothing save Jesus Christ 2. The Apostle could not say I have delivered him c. for hee had not then done it his determination only was then certified in this Epistle and not the performance of it 3. You strongly runne away with a conceit that it is granted that delivering up to Satan and excommunication are termes equipolent which I grant not because the propriety of the Greek phrase is best preserved by saying Paul was determined to do the one and the church enjoyned to do the other for he saith not I am determined to purge out the old leaven or to put away the incestuous person nor saith he deliver ye such a one to Satan or I appoint you to deliver such a one to Satan as he saith Purge ye out ye away c. and therefore your arguments precedent and consequent which are built upon this supposition are to mee of no weight Sect. 5. Reply p. 98. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 notes such a transaction of an ordinance as Paul could not do being absent for he did nothing by proxie Now must the whole come together and look one upon another and imagine him to be excommunicate because Paul had so judged him and after this dumb show to depart therefore we conceive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be understood as going before the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and relate to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to that rule of Gramarians c. Si infinitivus Participium praecedens pertinent ad â—â—ndem personam non additur accusativus personae sed subintelligitur Rejoynd 1. That the Apostles might deliver to Satan without such a publick solemn transaction publick binding and observable exemplary ejection as you speak of you have heard before 2. That the Apostle did nothing being absent is not true for handker-kiefs and aprons going from him did cure many that were sick and doubtlesse hee might have cast out Sathan as well as deliver to Sathan absent aswell as present though hee did not so usually and commonly practise it 3 you cannot extract out of your grammer rule that a Genitive absolute depending on the nominative to the verb standing as it were in a parenthesis which being left out the sentence would bee perfect should take away the necessary dependance which the infinitive hath on the verb and interest the
overseers in the work of feeding Rejoynd 1. If you mean by their charge the commission and trust which was given them at their Ordination or admission to the Ministry you speak besides the book for here it is not described these Elders were officed and ordained before only here they have an occasionall visit and charge upon Pauls passing by Ephesus and taking leave of them which delivers to them as much as Paul thought fit and necessary to impart to them on that occasion as John the Evangelist upon occasion delivered a young man say the Ecclesiasticall stories to a Bishop or Pastor 2. If by their charge you mean the charge in the Text if that doe extend no further then the flock of Ephesus will it follow that they may not doe any ministeriall act beyond the limits of the flock I cannot judge so 1 Because the Apostle is here delivering them their fixed constant set task and duty and therefore speaks to them under the title of overseers or daily watchmen not simply their whole duty or the utmost bounds of what they have to doe either in ordinary or occasionally and he is urging them to their duty with relation to their particular charge but sets not down their whole duty as Ministers of the Gospel It is an error to take the function or calling of the Ministry and a pastorall charge identically the function of a Minister was attributed to the Apostles and Evangelists Ephes 3.7.2 Tim. 4.5 yea to Tychicus who is for such commended and sent both to the Colossians c. 4.7 and to the Ephesians cap. 6.21 and yet neither the Apostles or Evangelists nor possibly Tychicus had the pastoral charge of any one particular Church only 2. This is an unjustifiable way of argumentation and denyed by that known logick rule Testimonium non valet negativè The Elders must feed this particular flock of Ephesus therefore they must feed none else upon any occasion or this text mentions not that they may feed any other flock then that therefore they may not in any case feed any other Timothy must charge some at Ephesus that they teach no other doctrine c. 1 Tim. 1.3 ergo he must charge none else nor anywhere else he must command and teach these things 1 Tim. 4.13 observe these things cap. 5.21 exhort and teach these things cap. 6.2 keep this commandement v. 14. he must charge the rich that they be not high-minded c. v. 17 18 19. therefore he must command and teach observe exhort keep charge no other things then those respectively yet this is the strain of your argument here and in your following discourse all along Sect. 4. Whether there were more congregations in Ephesus or but one no Elder could then or can now feed by Word and Sacraments in a constant way any more then one Congregation and consequently if they feed ministerially other congregations they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rejoynd 1. If your argument be ab impossibili and that there is a contradiction implied in an Elders feeding more then one congregation I must deny it for some Elders there were that did it viz. the Apostles Evangelists and Prophets and I read of the Elders of some of the German and Belgick churches which do execute their offices promiscuously over many congregations ab acta ad potentiam valet consequentia 2. If you mean your proposition de 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 potestate of authority and warrant that no Elder can warranâ—ably feed more then one Congregation you beg the question the Elders in the Apostles times taught and ruled in common within a certain circuit containing many congregations as it is very probably conceived by some and Division of the church into congregations and fixing particular Elders to them is no further off Divine institution then Order and Edification did first occasion and do still require it should be so as hath been said 3. If it be granted what you say we grant that Elders cannot in a constant way feed any more then one congregation yet if we distinguish as your own words hint to us of a constant fixed quotidian feeding in all the acts of a Pastor and Overseer and of a feeding successive interchangeable occasionall and partiall and yield your Proposition as understood of the former which can only be applied to the Text and deny it if taken of the latter what will you gain hence seeing you cannot conclude by this argument against a Ministers exercising some ministeriall acts sometimes in another Congregation or his being a Minister to severall Congregations successively 4. Your often reiterated brand of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you should take from off us to your selves and that out of your own words and practice compared if the work of feeding by the word and doctrine be one principall work of the Elders then not those Elders which feed by the Word whomsoever and as often as they can are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but those which are no Elders and take on them to feed by Word and those who are Elders and hold they may not act ministerially out of their own congregations yet do feed by the Word yea some in a constant way other congregations are by your own rule 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sect. 5. Reply p. 113. It is more then probable that the flock at Ephesus was but one congregation 1. Ephesus was a city and we do not read of more congregations of Saints constantly meeting in any city then one 2. The Church of Jerusalem Corinth and Antioch were we think as numerous as Ephesus yet none of them more than one congregation the Holy Ghost witnesseth that they ordinarily met in one place as before was shewed Rejoynd 1. If it be more then probable then it is no lesse then necessary but me thinks your selves seem to suspect your proofs will not reach to so much seeing you modifie them thus We do not read We cannot think These are but feeble props for a demonstrable conclusion yet it behoved you to assert this or as I told you now you could challenge no leave to argue from this Text though you would make countenance as if this needed not and now you lay hold on this for a basis but it will not stand by you For first your argument à testimonie negativè is an inartificiall argument and will not hold as was before said if it would we may as well say è contrarie we read not that the Saints in any city were only one congregation 2. You read of more Saints residing in a city then could constantly meet for the worship of God in one congregation and consequentially you road of more congregations unlesse you will say though they could not meet in one yet they met not in divers but were uncongregated which were to impute a great sin to them This hath been formerly evidenced That the Holy Ghost witnesseth that each of those Churches met in one place and that ordinarily I leave you
year or oftâ—er to consult and determine of the summe to be allowed for that yeare to their Ministers and to raise it Whether it may not be hence inferred that there is a way of setled and stinted maintenance in New-England for a year at least let the Reader judge I will not contend about it That the people in New-England when the work is done do consult and consider the Minister for the year past or that the Minister doth not know till the year be up what he must have in which respect the condition of the meanest servant is usually better then his is scarce agreeable I think to the letter of Mr. Welds words or to the practise of New-England where as Theodore de la Guard p. 39. saith They generally find and practise as the best way That the Ministers have seasonable and honourable maintenance and that certainly stated But our work is to find out the mind of God not of man CHAP. XXIII Of the distinction of Pastors and Teachers on EPHES. 4.11 WHen I say that Ephes 4.11 proves not that Teachers must be distinct from Pastors as Apostles are distinct from Evangelists you reply p. 70. You crosse the opinion of many Orthodox modern Writers whether you translate some Apostles or these Apostles the matter is not weighty nor are you advantaged by it The greater question is who these Teachers be and what their work is whether School-Doctors to train up Youth in the knowledge of Arts and Sciences especially of Divinity or Teachers of the whole Church and their work to doctrinate the Church by words of knowledge which seems more consonant to the Scripture And Zanchy Pareus Bucer and many others are of this judgement whose Reasons your selves in the Congregational way justified p. 9. thus abridge God gives distinct gifts to Pastors from those he gives to Teachers for to one is given a speciall faculty of Exhortation to the other a clearer understanding of doctrine and consequently they are distinct officers And you conclude your Reply p. 70. with these words So that if we do put any false glosse upon the Scriptures by misinterpreting of Ephes 4.11 yet more modest language had becommed you seeing such Reverend and learned men whom your self so much honour have gone before us in this exposition Rejoynd 1. The force of my argument to which you answer not at all was not as you would in both your books make the Reader to believe that the article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was translated some or these but that the said article is not inserted between Pastor and Teacher as it is between every of the rest to shew that there is not the same distinction between them as between each two of the rest as appears plainly by my answer though you take no notice of it having fit occasion and being minded of it by me I would not so deal with you 2. That you have the authority of Zanchy and of some reverend men besides on your part in this Position I do not deny nor do I want such on my part but I would see with mine own eyes not other mens 3. To the reasons alledged as you say by Pareus and Bucer for the distinction of Pastors and Teachers from difference of gifts which is grounded on Rom. 12. I answer 1. It takes not away the exception made against the proof of this by Ephes 4.11 2. I suppose the Apostle did not intend no not in Rom. 12. though he might intend it there and yet Ephes 4.11 be impertinently alleadged for proof of it that each of those severall gifts should constitute a severall officer for then there should be seven officers in the Church viz. Prophets v. 6. Ministers and Teachers v. 7. Exhorters Givers Rulers Shewers of mercy v. 8. For all these are equally by the disjunctive particle Or severed one from another for it is not sufficiently cleared to me that Prophesie and Ministery or Ministery and Teaching or Teaching and Exhortation are in the Apostles sense all one or one the genus and the other the species And yet Mr. Gillespy hath done most learnedly accurately in that point 3. Difference of gifts without an institution from God cannot make a different office James and John it may be had a speciall gift of terrifying sinners and are called sonnes of thunder Mark 3 17. and Joses a speciall gift of comforting weak Saints and called the son of consolation Act. 4.36 Yet no man will upon this ground conclude them to be different officers one Pastor may be excellent in one gift another in another possibly some men may be excellent in both gifts Paraeus himself a little after the place by you cited saith The Apostles did excell in both gifts and they are indeed common parts of the Episcopal or Pastoral office and therefore are conjoyned 1 Cor. 14.4 And it is evident 1. That every Pastor should be apt to teach 1 Tim. 3.3 which word is of the same originall with this in Ephes 4.11 2. That Pastors are called Teachers the very word that is here 1 Cor. 12.28 which runs paralel with this Text may be well fetchr into explicate it and also in Isa 30.20 Act. 13.1 3. The Scripture doth ascribe the work of feeding with knowledge and understanding which upon supposall of the distinction of these officers is the work of the Teacher unto the Pastor Jer. 3.15 And lastly words joyned together by a conjunction copulative are often exegetical and explicative one of another as in the example produced by me 1 Pet. 2.25 And the Apostle purposely omits the distinguishing and dividing particle some inserting it between Apostles and Evangelists but not between Pastors or Shepherds for the word is the same with 1 Pet. 2.25 and Teachers where Teachers tels us what he means by Shepherds as Bishop doth expound Shepherd in the other place And there is no parallel in all the Scripture doth prove that And doth stand for Some From all which jointly considered I conclude That Ephes 4.11 is not sufficient pertinent and full of power to prove that Pastors and Teachers are by Gods institution distinct officers And your selves also seem so to think when you conclude your Reply p. 70. with these words So that if we do put a false glosse upon the Scripture by misinterpreting Ephes 4.11 c. CHAP. XXIV Whether every particular Assembly be Sion the place of Gods speciall presence Sect. 1. WHen I say that every particular Congregation is not Sion but one of the Assemblies of Sion Isa 4.5 That the Hebrewes which were divided into many Congregations are not said to be come to many mount Sions but to mount Sion Heb. 12. And that the Scripture warrants not the expression of an hundred or a thousand Sions You reply p. 71. That Sion was a mountain contiguous to Moriah upon which the Temple was built in which God vouchsafed a speciall presence and unto which the Tribes went up and by a metonymy is frequently
to consider Sect 6. Reply p. 113. They are called one flock one church We have declared that one instituted Church and a Congregation is all one when Church is properly taken and in this place there is no necessity of a figure therefore the charge runs to the Elders to feed the church viz. the congregation at Ephesus and to that they are so limited Rejoynd 1. Those to whom Peter writes are called one flock yet sure you will not say that they were but one congregation the Inscription of that Epistle and your own Interpretation next following will forbid you 2. What you have declared before is I hope sufficiently answered 3. Many churches congregationall associated or combined in one Presbyterie may as properly be called a church as many Christians may which belong to one congregation I would fain see you evince the contrary and know your meaning distinctly in that distinction of properly and improperly with and without a figure you are oftentimes prest with multiplicity of Scripture instances for the word church taken for more then one congregation your distinguishing thus at randome and in generall can satisfie none about these instances Let me give you one instance it is in Act. 15 22 and let me heare what impropriety there is in church there it is a Church assembled and acting in the ordinances of Jesus Christ and it is not a particular congregation your Authors as well as ours acknowledge it to be a Synod of churches and it is as hath been said a Church imposing burthens making decrees for many churches which you will not grant single congregations may do A church made of many particular assemblies was a proper term when the Jewish church stood and in the Old Testament how comes the propriety in this point to be so much altered I had thought there had been fewer figures since and not more but because you will needs put a figure on the word when it is used otherwise then for one congregation I pray you erect your figure and state what it must be you can find none such figures but what will fall upon that acception which you will have to be the only proper one there is as much necessity of a figure in your exposition as in ours but it seems figures are necessary yea and new-coyned ones too for the old ones will not serve to help out your improbabilities 4. What will the conclusion so long looked for be from all these premises certainly but possible which is far from probable and further from more then probable which it was promised to be for that which follows upon no necessity of the contrary and no improbability of the thing will amount to no more Your conclusion should be that the flock at Ephesus was but one congregation but this hath so little strength in the premises that you have thought good to set it aside and only to joyn the Church at Ephesus and the Congregation at Ephesus together with a Viz. presuming that they are both one in the Text but not proving it After all this feeble or fallacious dealing you in the close of all bring in And to that they are so limited whereas if the former assertion of Ephesus being one Congregation had followed soundly on your preâ—â—sâ—â— yet this had still been in controversie so that here you doubly commit that grand solaecisme in argumentation of putting more in the conclusion then was in the premises Sect. 7. Reply p. 113. Flock in 1 Pet. 5.1 2. is to be taken figuratively and distributively of necessity and the charge of feeding the flock is to be limited by the words amongst you and thus it must be understood You Elders in Pontus feed the flock amongst you and you Elders of Galatia amongst you and each in every place feed the flock where you be And yet more distributively Ye Elders in this city feed the flock among you and ye Elders in that city feed the flock amongst you Now the Saints in Galatia were not with the Elders of Asia nor the Saints of one city with the Elders of another city therefore the Elders were by commission to look to the Saints in every city place where themselves were and not to others where they were not if they should take authoritative inspection over other Saints they should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because all Elders are bounded to the Saints amongst themselves Rejoynd 1. This is an ill compacted argument if you did intend it for one and may thus be taken off 1. This toucheth nothing the binding of a Minister to one congregation but onely insists on a tye to one city or region inclusive of many congregations Galatia had churches in it Gal. 1.1 and so had Asia Rev. 1.11 2. This offers not to confine him in all acts to that place but only in authoritative inspection it is your own word which can mean no more then administration of discipline 3. This reacheth no further then to a limitation of him in those acts to that place while he is there present which is naturall and necessary ex parte adjecti â—o that if he should thence remove or but travell for a few dayes to another city or country he might as this argument runs yeâ— he ought to feed the flock in each place where he is 2. Whereas you say the word floâ—k is to be taken distributively and to be limited by the words amongst you let me ask if it be distributive how can it be limited The words amongst you are more properly distinctive then distributive and point out what flock he chargeth them to feed 3. You cannot prove that this charge is the commission of the Elders as you call it nor a full recitâ—â— thereof but a charge insisting on some part of the Ministers duty viz. of feeding or overseeing 4. When you say the Elders must 〈◊〉 look to the Saints in other cities or places where themselves were not you condemn your own practise of Allotriepiscopacy in that you gather and constitute your Churches of Members dwelling in severall towns and countries many miles distant one from another and from your Elders Thus this term you so often bandy rebounds to your selves still 5. Whereas you say that all Elders are bounded c. I demand was not the Apostle himself an Elder as v. 1. and might there not be within the circuit of those countries mentioned c. 1.1 other Apostles and Evangelists amongst them either in Pontus or Asia c and will you say these also were so bounded by this Scripture Sect. 8. You go on to overthrow my exceptions against the Positions arguing à testimonio negativè laid in by two instances A Communicant must examine himself will you thence inferre that none else must examine him You change this word him into himselfe which change alters the sense fits it to be more liable to your answer The Theslalonians are to know them that were over them and laboured amongst them and esteem