prove him to be in Church-Covenant as wel as Circumcision did all that were baptized by Iohn Baptist or the Disciples and Apostles of Christ and Paul himself before he did assay to joyn to the Disciples was in Church-Covenant because he was baptized by Ananius and all those that were baptized in our Churches were in your judgment in Church-Covenant with us and if you perswade them to leave us how do you clear your self of being accessary to their breach of Church-Covenant I add How prove you That Melchisedeck a Priest and Lot which were not of his seed nor of his family were out of Church-state That a beleever is not a sonne of Abraham nor an heire of the promise and Covenant made to Abraham if he be not in Church-state by Covenant all which you seem to imply when you say the Jewish Church was constituted in Abrahams family by Church-Covenant The family of Shem was the Church of God long before this Gen. 9.25 26 27. You Reply p. 43. We assert not that they were out of Church-state but if they were not Circumcised they were not of Abrahams Church nor could they have partaked of the passover had it bin on foot any more then other beleevers not joyned to Abrahams family as Cornelius Rejoyn 1. You have not yet proved that Abraham was not in Church-state before Gen. 17. This demand you answer with a deleatur 2 If Melchisedeck and Lot were of another Church then Abrahams can you prove that that Church also was made by Covenant if it was not then every Church is not as you assert founded in a Church-Covenant 3. If Melchisedeck was not a Jew as I beleeve he was Lot certainly was one Cornelius was certainly a Gentile Melchisedeck if he was Shem was Abrahams progenitor and Lot was his kinsman and so neerer to the family of Abraham then Cornelius was but of Melchisedeck and Lot see before You Reply further It is one thing to be a sonne of Abraham as a beleever and heire of promise another thing to be the sonne of Abraham as a professed Covenanter with God and bearing the symbol in his flesh in the former sense Abraham was the father of all beleevers though uncircumcised in the later of the Circumcised which were also of his faith as the Apostle shews Rom. 4.11 12. Rejoyn Rom. 4.11 12. Shews that Abraham was the father of all that beleeve whether Circumcised or uncircumcised that is in Scripture language you know Iews or Gentiles the Jews had the symbol in their flesh the Gentiles had not but what is this to the purpose you assert the Covenant Gen. 17. to be a Church-Covenant then I conceive it follows from your opinion that beleevers which are not now in Church-state by Covenant are not heires of that promise and put you to prove it or if you had pleased to renounce it your text doth rather prove that he was the father of all beleeving Gentiles whether joyned to an instituted Church or no and that such beleevers are heires of that promise and Covenant 2. You say every beleever is the sonne of Abraham as a beleever and heire of promise But what promise mean you if not that Gen. 17. my demand was and is whether a beleever out of Church Covenant be not an heire of that promise and Covenant Gen. 17 If you grant he is then it wil follow that it was not a Church-covenant if you say he is not I pray you speak plainly I sometimes find it more difficulty to discern the strength of your Reply then to confute it 3. A single person two or three persons may undoubtedly be professed covenanters with God and so may be children of Abraham in that but to be the children of Abraham as bearing the symbol of that covenant in his flesh no beleeving Gentiles whether in Church-covenant or no baptized or unbaptized can for the Scripture yea common sense tels us that neither baptism nor Church-membership do leave any symbol in the flesh you are able enough to express your selves if you would make your meanings more plain our discourses would be more profitable to the Reader Lastly you reply p. 43. Though it be probable there was a Church in the family of Shem yet that place proves it not and that Church might be of another constitution then this in Abrahams family this hinders not but that the Church in Abrahams family was constituted by covenant Rejoyn 1. If there were a Church in Shems family it is less matter whether that text proves it and yet if the thing had bin denyed I could have proved it 2. You take too much delight in multiplying Churches and diversifying their constitutions one Church whereof Melchisedeck was for you wil not assert that he was out of Church-state another Church where Lot was for I imagin you wil not assert that Melchisedeck and Lot were both of one Church 3. A third might be in the family of Shem if you hold him not to be Melchisedeck and a 4. in Abrahams family what three or foure Churches at once and that before Christ too and those or some of those of different constitutions and yet all agreeable to the wil of God I suppose if necessity had not driven you to seek Churches to take Sanctuary in you would not upon so little ground of Scripture have deserted the received and most rational opinion That there was but one Church at once before Christs time But surely the more Churches you find out the more work you have to do to prove they were as you say all Churches are founded in Covenant especially if you should prove that a solemn express verbal covenant was necessary to the strength and purity of each of those Churches or if you wave that that subscription signals silence it self as a sign were used CHAP. XIIII Of members promising at their admission to give themselves to the Church 2 Cor. 8.5 Sect. 1. TO shew that 2 Cor. 8.5 doth not uphold that practise I urged that the givers are not the members of the Church of Macedonia as you for your advantage phrase it but the Churches of Macedonia and therefore if this do prove union or Covenant it is of the members of several Churches and not of one only Reply The allegation in answer to 9 Pos pag. 73. runs thus So to the Church according to God to be guided by them these words according to God are left out whether wilfully or by oversight I conclude not Rejoyn I never professed nor intended that the Positions and Scriptures alledged should agree punctually and verbatim to the places set in the margin nor could I effect it without some in mine opinion unfitting alterations of them as they were alledged to me and for evidence that I tyed not my self to the Printed books as at the first coming out of my examinations I advertised one of your brethren I sometimes alledged no book at all even where you know I might as Pos 4. Other times that
Acts 14.23 Sect. 1. TO Acts 6. I answered For the Deacons or Overseers of the poor though people may better discern of mens fitness and ability for that office then the ministery and their liberty of chusing was a good means at that time to abate their discontentments because of former neglect yet at their election there were all the Churches and Elders in the world and more there could not have been in any case such necessity hath no Law Your selves acknowledge Synods an Ordinance of Christ useful in sundry cases as in case a Church being leavened with Popery Arminianism Antinomianism Libertinisâ—s Anabaptism c. should chuse a Minister like themselves If such a case had hapned they could have had no more of a Synod at that time then they had the company Acts I. did nominate 〈◊〉 but they that prayed which is likely was the Apostles did appoint them v. 23 24. The people chose seven such as they were directed to chuse set them before the Apostles which did appoint them over the business prayed and imposed hands You Reply p. 49. Why are Deacons and overseers for the poor made Synonima's have We had Deacons all this while Who ordained or imposed hands upon them according to the pattern R. I added Overseers for the poor to explain and limit the word Deacons which in Scripture phrase is a general word usually signifying and translated Ministers 2. That I might shew that the work of the Deacon was to oversee the poor according to their institution Acts 6. 3. That I might with a learned holy man before me discover in our Churches low at ground those Officers which are specified in Scripture though with some defects Interest of Engl. part 2. p. 33. who also instanceth in Overseers for the poor refined by the late Statutes 43 Eliz 2.3 Car. 4. to be the Deacons You further Reply p. 50. They had direction to iâ—â—ble them to discern aright in chusing Deacons and by direction they 〈◊〉 be able to discern aright in chusing other Officers A godly people or Church rightly constâ—â—uted for the maner wiâ—â— be able to discern of wâ—olesâ—m and powerful Doctrine of humane learning they may wite â—â—â—â—le ado be informed upon this ground the people should chuse Deacons not other Officers and so limit your first grant Rejoynd 1. They had Apostolique direction and all the people were fâ—â—u of the holy Ghost Acts 4.31 but we have not such infallible direction nor extraordinary gifts 2. Even a godly people or Church which you say is rightly constituted and hath good direction cannot sometimes judge of a mans fitness for the Ministery The Church of Boston in New England would have chosen Mr. Wheelright a Familist to have been co Teacher wish Mr. Cotton The Brownists Anabaptists Familists would be esteemed a godly people and rightly constituted especially those which being first Independents do afterwards turn such yet they usually chuse a Pastor or Teacher of their own Way and the manifold Blasphemous Hrretical Schismatical Doctrines of these Times especially amongst those which are for Indepency doth flow from this fountain and their Ministers if they will not lead or at least follow them into those giddy Opinions are despised so unable are some Congregations which in your sense are rightly constituted and Well directed to discern Shepherds from Wolves So the Churches of Galatia counted Paul an enemy and the Church of Coâ—inth was like lier sometimes to entertain a false then a true Teacher 3. However you talk of direction or of information you hold That the Election of a particular Congregation whether she have direction or no will take it or no is valid and cannot be frustrated but by her self 4. You deal not fairly For 1. you untwine those passages which I twisted together placing the strength in all of them joynely and not in any one singly quae non prosent singula juncta juvant that you may break them better when you have sundred them 2. You are too forward in making inferences for me from every of them which I would but make from all of them joyntly considered 3. I desire you to express whether your conscience do not tell you That what I have said is 〈◊〉 most certain truth Thaâ— people may better discern mens fitness and ability for oversight of the poor then for the Ministery and whether your selves judge the cases alike Do you count it necessary to have the advice of other Churches in the one as in the other or that the help of God should be so solemnly craved in the one as in the other Sect. 2. Reply p. 50. Then by your speech the liberty of choosing Deacons was granted to them of courtesie Doth any thing appear to make this a Reason that this liberty was would not they have been as well pleased if the Apostles had done it all magnified the Apostles would the Apostles nourish a sinful 〈◊〉 of discontent in the people by giving them that prividedge which belonged not to them these are dangerous glosses Rejoynd 1. That which you conceive so absurd in me your selves say in effect p. 96. It was sutable to the holy and self denying frame of the Apostles Spirit jure suo cedere to remit something of his own right And the Apostles concurrence with the Church you mean the Churches concurrence with the Apostle seems to make more for the Churches peace who are now more likely to subscribe to the equity of those proceedings of which themselves have the cognizance then if it were carried by a transcondent and superior motion of Apostolique power That you speak of Excommunication and may not I speak the same of Election of Deacons which if the Apostles with whose managing of the contributions the Grecians were displeased should have nominaeted the Grecians might still have suspected some fraud or partiality and therefore they might allow the people to nominate some whom they might appoint over the business as they were ever careful to avoid suspition of wronging any this way which made them for satisfaction of such as contributed to the poor Saints at Jerusalem to desire them to approve some man to carry it 1 Cor. 16.3.2 Cor. 8. 19.20 That the Apostles did somewhat condescend to the multititude and that there was a peculiar reason for it especically in that tenderness of the Church and to put off from themselves all sinister suspition is asserted also by Bucerus diss de gub Ecclesiae apud Apoll. p. 104. 2. You much wrong your selves and your Reader in calling that assertion of mine which you cannot deny to be true and pertitent a dangerons gloss You adde p. 50. Your meaning in saying there were all the Churches and Elders in the world is there was but one Church and the Elders thereof at the time in the world 'T is true the Apostles and Members were there for these elected and the Apostles directed But did they interpose their authority in election Did they take it out
put for the temple and the people that repaired thither and assembled there and so for the Church of the Jewes which consisted of many assemblies and yet was but one Church and the Temple was but one which was called Sion and so Sion was but one But in the times of the Gospel there were to be no visible temples where God would dwell but the visible Church 2 Cor. 6.16 and the visible Church is Congregationall not Nationall much lesse Vniversall as hath been proved therefore the Congregationall Church is Sion the speciall place of Gods presence Rejoynd 1. A question of names and words is of no great moment yet in opposition to that which is most common with Congregational men yea with confessed Heretiques and Schismatiques to call each of their Congregations by the name of Sion which in their sense imports that it is an entire visible church Independent of any Ecclesiastical judicature and that the greatest presence of God is there to be found and that combination of many Sions is unnecessary yea sinfull I truly observed that there was but one Sion in the Old and New Testament and that the Scripture warrants not the expression of an hundred or a thousand Sions 2. The Temple is one expression and Sion another the Scripture may yea doth acknowledge many temples of God not many Sions every Christian is a temple not a Sion yet if you do betake your selves into the temple I will follow you thither rnd fetch you thence 3. The visible Church in 2 Cor. 6.16 is not called a temple but every Christian in whom the spirit of God dwels 1 Cor. 3.16 yea his body is the temple of the Holy Ghost 1 Cor. 6.20 even that body which may be joyned to an harlot which is especially sinned against and abused by fornication viz. his naturall body as Christ called his naturall body a temple Joh. 2.19 and that body which might be unequally yoked with unbelievers 2 Cor 6.6 one way whereof was by unequall marriages and of it the Apostle chiefly speaks and not of any visible Church or Society as such 4. It hath been shewed that the visible Church may not only be Congregationall but Nationall yea that there is an universall visible Church And in Ephes 2.20 21 22. which your selves interpret of the visible Church the Church of Ephesus is not said to be the whole city house or temple but to be built together with other Churches and Christians and all the building groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord. Of this temple all the Churches to which Peter writes 1 Pet. 1.1 are living stones not so many living temples 1 Pet. 2. Thus many Nations shall in the day of the Gospel be joyned to the Lord and shall be Gods people and he will dwell amongst them Zach. 2.11 so Antichrist is said to sit in the temple of God viz. in the Church universall 2 Thess 2.2.4 See also Rev. 11.1 and Mr. Cotton Keyes p. 56. saith The new Jerusalem is many particular churches combined all which are yet but one city one tabernacle Rev. 21. Sect. 2. Reply p. 71. Yet this hinders not but that the language of the Old Testament when it speaks of things of the New Testament may be used in the Old Testament yea in the New also as in Zach. 14. 19. Isa 66.20 21. So in Isa 4 5. we may as well read of the assemblies of Sion though there be no such thing but each assembly is Sion as of the feast of tabernacles when in the dayes of the Gospel there is no such thing but it is spoken by way of allusion because Sion was then but one it is spoken of as one still and yet it is more then one Rejoynd 1. That the language of the Old Testament may be used in the Old Testament or in the New is not denied yet it is considerable if the word Sion be read perhaps two or three hundred times in the Scriptures and never taken for one particular Independent congregation as you frequently use it if you could find Sions in the plurall number you would judge it to be a justification of your appropriating the word to a particular assembly and full as good an argument for the Congregational way as the terme Churches which you say though untruly is not found in the Jewish church 2. If you can prove it to be as ceremoniall that Sion should consist of many assemblies as that the feast of tabernacles should be kept and the one be as evidently abrogated as the other then you say something or otherwise it is nothing If a man should endeavour to prove from Isa 4.5 that the Church should be at least one assembly you would not sure stop his mouth with the feast of tabernacles Now if I alledge that there shall be assemblies of Sion in the New Testament I suppose you can find no ceremony in the plurality of the number 3. That there is but one Sion is the language yea the constant unchanged language of the New as well as of the Old Testament yea when it is applied to the Christian church and no example there is to the contrary but the feast of tabernacles is not constantly not frequently not once that I remember applied to Christian worship in the New-Testament and therefore the case is not alike though you make itso Sect. 3. Reply p. 72. Now that there are many mount Sions your self do really confesse We know you hold 1. That the Church of the Jewes was called Sion 2. That the visible Church in the dayes of the Gospel is Sion is it not manifest therefore that you hold that look how many visible Churches there are in the times of the Gospel so many Sions there are You say the Hebrews which were divided into many Congregations are said to be come to one mount Sion If so then the Congregation of Christian Gentiles may be called another mount Sion Rejoynd 1. All this doth not so much as prove though it confidently affirms much more that there is two Sions one in the Old Testament and another in the New The Jewish church and the Christian notwithstanding may be but one Church one Sion though under a different state and condition 2. I hold not there are as many Sions as particular visible Churches but you grossely misunderstand my words A believing Jew and a believing Gentile may be you will acknowledge of one particular Congregation and so of one Sion much more may I say that they both may come to one mount Sion yea many people all nations may flow unto it Isa 2. â— 3. I never said nor thought that the Hebrews did come to one mount Sion and Christian Gentiles to another but all to one You see you are far enough from proving what you would have us believe that every particular assembly of Sion Isa 4.5 is a distinct Sion 3. Whereas you ask what greater absurdity it is to say there are an hundred Sions then to say
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
for the contrary appears they had forty eight cities and suburbs which were 2000 cubits from the wall on every side Numb 35.2 Lev. 25.32 33 34. though Judaea as oft times upon other occasions you assert was but a small country Jeremy a Priests sonne buyes a field of his uncle as next a kiâ— Jer. 32.7 9. Barnabas a Levite having land sold it Act. 4.36 Yea for ought you know except you have studied more against tythes then I for them the cities of the Levites though a small tribe might equall yea excell the portion of any tribe in Israel besides their tythes and other their great revenues therefore you cannot say that they had no inheritance at all though they had none such as other tribes had so separate from the rest so bounded so entire together but they had their inheritance by parts and peeces as Jacob had prophesied and God in wisdom disposed both that the land should be but divided into twelve parts and the children of Joseph should be two Tribes Josh 14.4 and that the Levites should for the better instruction of the people be scattered amongst the tribes and have their maintenance also where they lived Sect. 3. Reply p. 61. Tythes were appointed together with Offerings Mat. 3.8 Rejoynd 1. That text saith that they were taken away together God was robbed of them both at once but that they were appointed together it saith not 2. The text mentions them together yet this if you have no better argument proves not that they were of the same nature Fornication eating of blood and things strangled prayer ever the sick and aâ—â—â—inting them with â—yle are not of the same nature nor alike commanded or forbidden and yet the first two are mentioned together Act. 15.29 and the other two Jam. 5.14 3. The text implies they were at the same time due and required of God but not that they both were appointed at the same time and upon the same grounds 4. How do you make it appear that all the Offerings there mentioned were ceremoniall and now unlawfull Is it ceremoniall to offer to the Church-stock or treasury because the Jews did so Your selves for the credit of such offerings say they were used amongst the Jews and I dare say you hold that it is lawfull upon good occasion to keep a Day in the moneth or yeare a Fast or a Feast though we know the Jewes did keep fasts or feasts on the same day Sect. 4. Reply p. 61. Tythes had a particular respect to the Priesthood for the tythe of the Levites was to be tythed and given to the Priests Nehem. 10.38 Rejoynd Here is another mistake The text saith not that tythes were paid to the Priests but to the Priest the sonne of Aaron the successor of Aaron in the High-Priests office as the very citation in the margent led me to Num. 18.27 28. which faith that the tenth of the Levites amongst whom the Priests as to that were comprehended was to be given as the Lords heave-offering to Aaron the Priest But tythes were payed by Abraham Gen. 14. vowed by Jacob Gen. 38.22 Asserted by Paul not to be proper to the Leviticall Priesthood Heb. 7 are not that we know of any typical or mystical signification as the High-Priest we know was therefore they are not of the same nature If tythes to the High-Priest be now unlawfull the reason is because there is no High-Priest now Christ hath made that office void it was typical and plainly ceremonial and not because Tythes are unlawfull And these or some of these are the answers we give to them that tell us we might as well keep the Sabbath of the 7. year as of the 7. day Sect. 5. You reply p. 61. That you see no ground for setled stinted maintenance to last from year to year if it must arise from the Church and not come from the State as in some countries it doth because if the Church must maintain the Ministery among them as God blessed them and a more equall rule then that there can none be found then except they could settle Gods blessing and make it to abide with men in an equall manner without increase or decrease the maintenance may not be setled And this also is an argument against Tythes Rejoynd But what if Tythes were ceremoniall and Jewish is set maintenance ceremoniall also Of what mysticall or typicall signification is that or is it grounded on equitie and morall reason Doth not the Scripture Ezek. 45.1.5 allude to a certain and setled maintenance that should be given to the Ministery and in comparing it with servants hire and wages 1 Tim. 5.18 and to a Souldiers pay 1 Cor. 9.7 both which are certain 2. Had God more care of the maintenance of the Ministers of the Old Testament then of the New As the father allotting his sonne some portion of lands and revenues or allowing him to be capable of certain maintenance which none can deprive him of doth expresse more care of him then if he should make him uncapable of such maintenance and assigne him to his friends at large to be maintained as they thought fit 3. When the Minister hath set-maintenance he knowes better how to proportion his living his alms his expences for the publike his provision for his children and how to keep hospitality as the Scripture requires he should 4 Tythes are not in one sense setled or stinted maintenance for they are more or lesse according as the husbandman soweth and God prospereth as Corn is little or much good or bad well or ill gotten dear or cheap they that receive Tythes do rise and fall with them from whom they receive them 5. Where do you see ground in Scripture for setled and stinted maintenance to last from year to year if it come from the State how prove you that the State may lawfully settle such maintenance and the Church may not Can the State settle Gods blessing to make it abide with them in an equall manner without increase or decrease any more then the Church can 6. Do you see ground for set stinted maintenance for a time as a quarter of a year or half a year or a year as you intimate you do only you say you see not ground it should last from year to year Can the blessing of God be setled and made to abide with men in an equal manner without increase or decrease a year or half a year or a quarter 7. When maintenance is given from the State must it not come out of the Subjects purses You would not have the Parliament men out of their proper purses to maintain all the Ministers in the kingdome And out of whose purses can it so fitly come as from those which are bound by Gods law to maintain their Ministers 8. Do not Tythes come from the State or from the King which as to this is all one Did they not voluntarily at first give them and when some by Law did fall again into
sufficient pertinent and full of power to prove it And in this I praise your modesty 2. Your applying of the commendation of Jugurtha to your selves in your last That he did plâ—rimum facere minimum de se loqui is no act of your modesty The Independent Answerer of Mr. Prynnes Quaere's saith Independents are the meekest men upon earth and you by your own report are men that do much and say little Surely few think so but your selves You say p. 62.1 We considered how Christ and the Apostles were maintained in the work of the Ministery and we find that they had a Stock of monies which came partly at least by Contribution Luke 8.2 3. and out of this stock was taken for the Poor also as from Joh. 13.29 appears See Junius Ecclesiast p. 1954. Rejoynd The one Text saith The women ministred to Christ of their substance The other faith that Judas had the bag But that the womens contribution was given every Lords day or that it was put into the publike treasury Or that Judas bag out of which Christ gave somewhat to the poor had not Christs proper goods in it but the Churches stock that Judas was a kind of Deacon or Church-officer it saith not 2. That Christs maintenance was wholly out of a stock that was raised by contribution your selves do not assert nor were the Apostles maintained in the work of the Ministery out of that bag save only when they were at home as being of Christs own family Sect. 2. Reply p. 62. We consider what was done in the Apostles times Act. 2.45 4.35 there was a Stock then but raised after an extraordinary way and yet by free contribution they brought their whole estates and put them into a common stock which was but a temporary businesse and not astrictive unto all times Now out of this common stock the Apostles and all others that had need were maintained and the Apostles had at first the oversight of this stock Rejoynd 1. They could not have any other way of Church-maintenance at that time 2. Your selves acknowledge First that a setled maintenance may come from the State And must it come from the State and the Church-stock too Secondly that that was but a temporary businesse and not astrictive to all times else it would hold that there must be a community of all things in the Church 3. What is this to Lords-day contributions for the Ministers maintenance of which the Position speaks Sect. 3. Reply p. 62. You say There were Deacons chosen which had the oversight of the treasure of this Church for the Apostles gave themselves to the ministery of the Word to Prayer Act. 6.4 and neither medled with receiving nor with disposing of what was contributed The Deacons took that burden from off them so that now they received all and disposed of all if any brought their estate they laid it down at the Deacons feet and if any distribution was made the Deacons made it the Apostles medled with nothing So then the work was the same which the Deacons managed with that which the Apostles had before managed only it was in other hands the Deacons came into the Apostles place hence it follows that if the distribution was made as every one had need when the Apostles had the oversight and if themselves had a share as their need required and other Labourers with them then it was so afterwards when the Deacons were intrusted in it so then the Deacons office was to dispose as the Labourers had need and their office was not to oversee the Poor alone Rejoynd 1. That the Deacons came so into the Apâ—stles place that the Apostles medled with nothing but received their maintenance from the Deacons or that men laid their money at the Deacons feet it appears not in Scripture 2. The contrary rather appears for not only Paul took great care of the poor divers times and in divers places and James Cephas and John not the Deacons did desire him to remember the poor Gal. 2.10 but the Antiochians Act. 11.30 sent the relief for the poor brethren which dwelt in Judaea to the Elders not to the Deacons Now Agabus and other Prophets came lately thither from Hierusalem v. 27 28. and Barnabas and Paul that went with it knew to whom to deliver it yet they lay it down at the feet of the Elders not of the Deacons which imports that Agabus the Prophets Barnabas and Saul did know that the Apostles and Elders had somewhat to do with it at least to take for their own necessity as they did before and not to be at the disposall of the Deacons and if Barnabas and Saul had conceived it to be Gods ordinance that the Apostles and Elders should not meddle with reception they would have brought it to the Deacons whose office they knew well enough nor would the Elders have received it at their â—hands but have sent them to the Deacons 3. That the charge of the poor belongs to Pastors is the judgement of Pareus and others which do hold that the greater and higher office doth include in it the lesse and lower 4. By this doctrine Pastors if they have meanes of their own ought not to receive maintenance out of the Churches stock except they have need in the judgement of the Deacons or of the Church as other poor Saints have Sect. 4. P. 63. You tell us That the office of the Deacons is not temporary but perpetuall But what is this to prove Ministers maintenance by Lords-day contributions or out of the Church-stock Yes say you In the Commandment which respects the necessity of the Ministers Gal. 6.6 the word is the same in the Greek which is in the commandment to distribute to the necessity of the Saints Rom. 12.13 Heb. 13.16 and signifies to communicate But what then 1. The word communicating is a generall word and compriseth all duties whereby men do mutually help one another Calv. on Heb. 13.16 Can there be no communicating except the Deacons do receive it and pay it over to the Minister except there be Lords-day contributions and a Church-stock You know the contrary 2. That place in Gal. 6. which only speaks expresly of Ministers maintenance is understood of private as well yea rather then of publike contribution 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of all his goods by which is meant not only money which may be fitly brought to the Congregation but other good things according as there is opportunity ability and necessity some of which cannot be fitly brought into the Congregation 3. Your own Texts do declare that the Scripture distinguisheth communicating to the necessity of the Saints and communicating to their Ministers and that these two are not both one fâ—r then Paul might have said Give unto the Church-treasury for publike uses for the maintenance of the Ministery and of the poor to both which if there were a Church-stock they might contribute in one act but he speaks of severall acts
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
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