calculation of Ecclesiasticall power For Classicall Provinciall and Nationall Synods have a power of judging or excommunicating those only that are within the combination Now these being representative Churches he that is of no particular Congregation is without the verge of Presbyteriall power or else it will follow that the Presbyteriall Church hath power to excommunicate a person that is not within their combination and if one by the same reason a thousand ten thousand in every quarter and corner of the world But say you The Apostle opposeth Fornicators of the World Answer and Fornicators that are Brethren Persecution in the Primitive times as it is at this day was chiefly if not only levied against those who did joyn themselves to the Churches to the enjoyment of Ordinances Reply or at least otherwise visibly as Paul at his first conversion by preaching declared themselves to be Christs Disciples Hence those to whom God had given so much faith and constancy as to be willing to expose themselves to persecution these did inlist themselves in the Churches frequented their meetings which were observable by the Persecutors and professed themselves of the fraternity of the Church the Church looked on them as her members and accordingly dispensed ordinances and censures to them as they had need Others there were who like Nicodemus came to Christ by night or like those chief Rulers spoken of Joh. 12.42 who though they believe in Christ yet they dare not confesse him by publike joyning of themselves to run all hazards with the Church Hence it is that no politick visible Church doth look upon these as of her fraternity or doth dispence all ordinances and censures to them Now the Brother that is opposed to the fornicators of the world is not he that by the internall and invisible grace of faith is a Brother and of the mysticall body of Christ though peradventure he dare not openly professe Christ But such a one is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Church of Corinth who is a named and professed Brother so looked upon not only by the motherly eye of the Church but oft times by the malitious eye of the world though peradventure they be not truly brethren united with the rest of the faithfull people of God as members of the mysticall body of Christ 2. With such a one not to eat presupposeth in an orderly way a forbearing of voluntary civil and spirituall communion with the party upon this ground that he is under censure in the Church Now the power of Church-censures is not to be executed by the church-mysticall but by the church-visible as such neither is it to be executed upon the members of the Church-mysticall as such but upon the members of the visible church whether they be in truth or only in appearance members of the mysticall church So then Fornicators of the world are to be understood of the world as it stands in opposition to the visible church and so those that are of the mysticall church may be fornicators of the world in that sense And though by the lawes of Christ concerning Church-discipline every man be forbidden to eat with those that are known Fornicators under church-censure in their own church and by vertue of church-communion with those that are fornicators under censure in any other church yet if one that is a member of the mysticall but dares not professe his subjection to Christ in that particular of joyning himself to some visible church shall be a fornicator we know no law of Christ precisely concerning church-discipline that interdicts a man to eat in point of voluntary civill communion with such a man any more then if he were a Pagan or Heathen But Answer say you without are Dogs and Sorcerers such as the Apostle had not to do with What have I to do c. vers 12. and yet he had to do with all Christians by his illimited apostolike power whether they belong to that or any other Congregation or no such as God judgeth or are left to the immediate judgement of God But this is not the case of Believers not joyned especially in your sense of joyning to a particular Congregation nor do you I hope judge it to be the case of Believers in England and Scotland 1. Reply There might be Dogs in the Apostolike Churches as well as without Phil. 3.2 and with such dogs Paul had to do with Nay he had to do with the dogs of the Gentiles he received a key of knowledge by which he was to open the Kingdome of heaven to them in case they would repent and believe and to binde them under the guilt of impenitencie and infidelity in case they would not repent and believe Matth. 28.19 with Mark 16.16 But those that Paul had not to do to judge who are said to be without in this place are all such as are contradistinguished to those that are within with whom the Church had to do by way of Ecclesiasticall judgement Now the church of Corinth had power of Ecclesiasticall judgement over all and only those which were within the combination of that church and therefore Paul had nothing to do to judge them that is to say with the judgement mentioned in this place which were out of this combination Now what was this judgement Answ The judgement whereby the Apostle decrees that the church of Corinth shall excommunicate fornicators and consequently shall not eat with them Now the Apostle had received no such power to judge those persons to excommunication and that by the ministery of a church that were never in fellowship with the church But such persons though for their crimes they may be subject to the judgement of the civill Magistrate yet in respect of Ecclesiasticall judgement they are left to the immediate judgement of God And if this be not the case of Believers not joyned to a particular congregation by whom shall those Believers be judged Why shall this Congregationall Classicall Provinciall National-church judge them rather then that May they be judged by all or any one Certainly they stand no more related to one then to another which are members of none at all Where shall the fault be charged if judgement be not passed We said before if a church may judge one out the combination why not a thousand why not ten thousand c. yet we are far from judging those Believers in England and Scotland which are not joyned in our Way of joyning to a particular Congregation therefore to be altogether out of Church-combination not capable of the Ecclesiasticall judgement of their Churches and consequently subject to the immediate judgement of Christ POSITION XVIII The Elders are not Lords over Gods heritage 1 Pet. 5.3 nor do exercise authority as the Kings and Princes of the earth do remembring our Saviours lesson Matth. 20.25 26 Luke 22.25 26. They are not so many Bishops striving for preeminence Answer as Diotrephes did 3 Joh. vers 9 10. (a) These Scriptures
Gnedah be taken as they may there was but one kinde of Church so combined which was Nationall And in the new Testament we say there is no other combination to enjoy all ordinances and worships instituted in the Gospel but Congregationall and we produce the small countrey of Judea containing a plurality of Churches and thence collect that they must be Congregations and that Congregations are therefore Churches And this is not weakened by what variety of acceptions is brought Furthermore wee do not know that Church or Flock or Lump or Body when referred to God and Christ and is properly taken is used otherwise then in two or three senses either for the mysticall Church Ephe. 5.25 26. or the * 2 Cor. 8.1.19 Congregationall 1 Cor. 1.1 sometimes indeed Rev. 1.4 we reade of it in a sigurative sense as in 1 Cor. 12.28 Gal. 5.9 James 2.2 1 Pet. 5.2 and many more places For though you say That four or five in a Family joyning in the worship of God are the Domesticall Church spaken of by Paul many times in his Epistles yet we conceive otherwise for seeing usually when there were any heads of Families converted some of the houshold were converted with them as we can give many instances wee think that many or the most that Paul saluted had in that sense churches in their Families and therefore Paul would not have singled out and with a note of distinction have spoken of some persons and the churches in their Families for that reason if some other reason had not moved him either then these Families were large and great Families and might be as numerous as some Congregationall Churches or the foundation of a Church might be laid in the persons of a Family but not so to continue but to grow to a Congregation or else some Congregationall Church might meet in such houses which was ordinary in those dayes And for the word Church in Acts 12. either it is to be taken for the mysticall church or else for that particular visible society of Believers which was at Jerusalem though some of them were absent But you proceed to give more particular answers and incounter with a part of the forementioned Position viz. There were Churches in Galatia therefore they were Congregationall Galatia was a large countrey in England a far lesse countrey Answer severall Churches have been heretofore and yet not meerly Congregationall And why are Galatia and Macedonia taken hold of Reply and made use of and Judea left out which in the Position was mentioned as well as they Surely the reason was because in both those countries there was more room for your Nationall Church then in Judea You could not find breadth enough to make a plutality of Diocesan Churches and therefore durst not contend for Nationall But grant wee the largeness of those countries according as you speak were either of them too large to make one Nationall Church wee know you think not so Why then doth not the Apostle knit them all up into one Nationall Church if hee had so intended them But you add The Churches of Galatia might he combined one to another Answer as the Churches of England Scotland Holland France are respectively combined for the Apostle speaks of them as one lump 1 Cor. 5.6 with Gal. 5.9 c. Such a combination wee easily grant to be among the Churches of Galatia as is among the Churches of England Scotland Reply c. and that is none at all or at the most a combination without jurisdiction But if by respectively you mean a combination which each of these Churches hath in it self in all the Congregations of and belonging to it such a combination wee deny to have been in the Churches of Galatia For all our Congregations have been united under one Metropolitane Archbishop of all England and as yet there is none other established and for other combinations such as in Scotland Holland c. without proofe we cannot grant them in Galatia And if Paul had intended by saying A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump that we should gather thence that they were all one Church hee would never have called them churches in the Preface of his Epistle but in a distributive sense it is to be understood For suppose one speak in a literall sense and say a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump doth he thereby make all the dough in a countrey one lump No but of every lump how many soever they be it is to be understood a little leaven leaveneth each of them so of churches a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump that is the whole Church every Church in which it is this maketh not all the Churches in a countrey to be one And the Churches of Macedonia were not so severall Answer but they joyned in one to choose a Brother which I conceive was an authoritative act to go with Paul for the managing of the Churches contributions 2 Cor. 8.18 19. 1. Reply Then to choose an Officer is much more an authoritative act which you grant to appertain unto the people then the people may act authoritatively which is none of our assertion but yours and the people are beholden to you for it 2. A combination of churches without jurisdiction will enable them to such an act nay if there were no combination at all yet when many churches are alike interessed in a businesse reason shews they ought to joyn alike to promove it 3. They did not make him an Officer by this act of choosing him but they deputed him thereby to a particular work which when accomplished all was ended The churches of Judea Answer consisting of Myriads of people did come together Acts 21.20 21 22. to be satisfied of Paul concerning an accusation that they had received against him and are called a Church Gal. 1.13 Acts 12.1 and an House Heb. 3.4 Not the Jewes of Judea alone did gather together Reply but the Jews of all other parts as appeareth from Acts 21.27 But be it that they gathered alone yet are they called one Church the place alledged is Gal. 1.13 I persecuted the Church of God What Church Churches in Judea No Paul saith hee persecuted them unto strange cities and Damascus was one of them The meaning is them that were of Jerusalem he persecuted to strange cities or he persecuted the Saints in generall Who as they are parts of the mysticall Church may be called by a Synecdoche the Church And Herod stretched out his hands to vex certain of the Church What church Either the mysticall or that at Jerusalem or any Church within his reach And his house Heb. 3.4 to be understood of the churches of Judea What strange mis-interpreting of Scripture is this house in that place is all the churches that were then or ever were to be in the world Christ is the builder of them all POSITION V. When a visible Church is to be erected This is not unlike the Answer to 32. q. p.
alledged you say The Lord Jesus reproving the Angel of Pergamus Answer sends his Epistle say you not to the Angel but to the Church I adde not to the Church but to the Churches As you gather that the suffering of corrupt persons and practices was the sin of the Church and not of the Angel only so I may gather that it was the sin not of the Church only but the neighbouring Churches also It is like you intended a consutation Reply but it hath befalne you as it did the Potter in the Poet Horat. de Art Poet. amphora coepit Institui currente rota cur urcens exit qui amphoram instituens currente rota effingit urcoum For in stead of a consutation you have brought forth an addition otwo other inferences Now if you should unto this inference of the Elders adde a hundred more of your owne yet this will not prove that the inference of the Elders is injurious to the Text For still it may be doubted whether theirs or yours any of them all of them or none of them be true true inferences from the Text yea or no especially considering that the inferences you bring are of friendly compliance with that that you pretend to confute For you say not to the Church I suppose you mean the Church only for else you harp upon a harsh string in the ears of rationall men to say John writ to all the seven Churches of Asia Ergo he writ not to Perganus one of the seven but to the churches Now can you say the Lord Jesus writing to the Angel of the Church of Perganus sends his Epistle to all the seven Churches and not abuse the Text and yet must we believe it when you tell us that the Elders of New-England in saying Christ writ not to the Angel of the Church of Pergamus only but to the whole Church of Pergamus also do abuse the Text Again if the suffering of Balaamites in the Church of Pergamus was the sin of all the neighbouring Churches and that this may be affirmed by you without wrong to the Text then the suffering of them in the Church of Pergamus it self was the sin of that Church and this may be affirmed by the Elders of New-England without wrong to the Text. 2. But let us look upon the words not as they may afford matter of an argument ad hominem but as they are in themselves Two things you affirm 1. That Christ reproving the Angel of the Church of Pergamus sends the Epistle to the Churches We suppose you mean the other six Churches of Asia 2. That suffering Balaamites which is reproved in the Church of Pergamus was the sin of the neighbouring Churches also For the first 1. The book of the Revlation contains seven Epistles which were of immediate concernment in a distributive sense to seven severall Churches and many other glorrious mysteries that were of equall concernment to all the people of God These all being molded into one book as we said are sent to the seven Churches of Asia Now the Elders of New-England affirm that the Epistles sent to the Angels of Pergamus and Thyatira are sent by way of immediate appropriation and concernment for that is their meaning to the whole Churches of Pergamus and Thyatira Now if in this sense you affirm that Christ reproving the Angel of the Church of Pergamus sends his Epistle to all the Churches you speak to the purpose but not according to truth For 1. What a Pleonasme and redundancy if not a grosse Soloecisme in discourse and absudity it is in a book sent as an Epistle to seven Churches two severall times to mention them together vers 4. John to the seven Churches of Asia vers 11. What thou seest Rev. 1.4.11 write it in a book and send it to the seven Churches of Asia and afterwards to write severall things of a Heterogeneall nature to those seven severall Churches distributively To the Church of Ephesus write thus to the Church of Pergamus thus c. commend one condemn another admonish a third extoll a fourth threaten a fifth c. and yet that these severall Epistles should be of as immediate a concernment to all the rest as to those to which they are particularly directed 2. It will follow that Philadelphia was lukewarm with Laodicea dead with Sardis and of these two lukewarm dead Churches may be verified the Encomiasticks of Ephesus Pergamus and Philadelphia with many such consequences But if your meaning be that the Epistle sent to the Church of Pergamus in respect of that remore and generall concernment whereby it may be of use to all Christians is sent together with the rest of the Book of the Revelations to the seven Churches This though a truth will afford no contribution towards the making good of your charge against the Elders of New-England being that which they deny not 2. For the second it is undeniably manifest that the assertion of the Elders viz. that the Church of Pergamus was guilty of suffering Balaamites and other wicked persons is true yea the truth of this Text. But to have so much faith as to believe that all the rest of the six Churches of Asia if that be the utmost extent of neighbouring Churches in your account were guilty of suffering Balaamites and Nicolaitans yea even Ephesus and Philadelphia that are commended for not suffering those that are evill hating the deeds of the Nicolaitans and keeping the Word of Gods patience would require some further proof then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 your bare assertion for the manifestation of it For if the rest were guilty why are they not blamed Why is the burthen laid only though it might be laid chiefly upon one Church when as the rest are guilty I suppose the building upon which you lay the weight of this roof is this These seven Churches were a combined Presbyterie and therefore as the government so the neglect thereof concernes all Answ If you may assume the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the thing in question as if it were the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a thing out of question you may in time perswade the world that the Elders of New-England have forced this and many other Texts But to prove that the seven Asian Churches were governed by a joynt and common Presbyterie hic labor hoc opus est this is the businesse But suppose that such a common Presbyterie there were and that the Presbyters of all the other six Churches did endeavour the casting out of these Balaamites c. why were they then not cast out Could the Elders of Pergamus over-vote the Elders of all the neighbouring churches in a Synod And if all or at least the major part of the Elders of these seven Churches neglect why are the Elders of Pergamus only reproved Lastly we cannot choose upon this consideration but condole the sad condition of Presbyterian Churches which is such if wicked men be suffered in any particular Congregation in
the world all the Churches in the world are guilty of it The reason is the same obligation that lies upon a Classicall Church to reform the severall Congregations in the Classis the same lies upon a Provinciall Church to reform the severall Classis in the Province and the same lies upon a Nationall Church to reform the severall Provinciall Churches in the Nation and the same lies upon the Oecumenicall Church to reform the severall Nationall Churches in the world and therefore though all the inferiour Churches should fail yet the Oecumenicall is bound to see it reformed and if the Oecumenicall fail all in the line of Oecumenicall communion that is to say all Churches in any Nation in the world are guilty POSITION XXIII The particular Congregation takes Christ for her only spirituall Prophet Priest and King Deut. 18.15 Acts 737. Psal 110.4 Heb. 5.4 Isai 9.6 7. Rev. 15.3 To make good this charge you say Answer Seven or eight you say are the fewest will make a Church but five or six yea any one particular Saint though out of Church-fellowship by excommunication may take Christ for his only spirituall Priest Prophet and King c. How comes it to passe Brother that your margent that hath in most places born witnesse to your Text reserves it self in deep silence Reply as if it were afraid to be accessary to this wrong offered to the Brethren of the Congregationall Way That the Congregationall Way eatenus in that it is Congregationall is conformed to the will and lawes of Christ appoined by him as King of the Church delivered by him in his Word as Prophet of the Church we constantly affirm and shall be ready to justifie before all the word till we be convinced of our errour in that particular That the stated Classicall Provinciall Nationall and Oecumenicall Way of Church-government importing a power of jurisdiction in point of Ordination Excommunication c. over particular Congregations is not sutable to the Will of God delivered by Christ as Prophet nor to the Laws of God delivered by Christ as King of the Church as it is sutable to our light So we shall endeavour pro virili nostro according to our power with all meeknesse and brotherlike affection to defend as God shall give opportunity But that ever we have read in the writings of any Congregationall man truly so called as they stand in opposition to others of a different judgement both upon the right hand and on the left with whom alone you professe in your Preface to have to do I say that ever we have read in the writings of any Congregationall man these places applyed to prove the Position as it is by you controverted that is to say that the particular Congregationall Church takes Christ for her only Prophet Priest and King as if in these his Offices he were so only hers that no five or six or one particular Saint though out of Church-fellowship no Classicall Presbyteriall or Nationall Church no not the Nationall Church of the Jewes it self doth or notwithstanding some failings in government may take Christ as their only spirituall Priest Prophet and King as we do not remember so in whose Sack soever this cup of abomination be found yea though it be in Benjamins let him suffer according to his demerits But if any of us have thus expressed our selves whereby we have made all particular Believers not joyned to some Congregationall Church the renowned Scotish and Belgick Churches and all other reformed Churches not Congregationall yea the Nationall Church of the Jews it self at least as you would insinuate strangers from the Common-wealth of Israel yet are we unjustly condemned by you we mean in that sense in which Salvian saith a L. 7. de Gub. Dec. p. 282. Socrates when he writ a book perswading that all mens wives should be common was unjustly condemned by the Judges Injustè damnatus dicitur à judicibus verum est Rectius vuim haec talia praedicantem genus damnaret humanum In like manner we say we should be unjustly condemned by you for all the Churches of God yea all the people of God might deservedly condemne us 2. But suppose it cannot be made out by you that ever any Congregationall man truly so called held the Position you speak of in the sense insinuated in your examination where then is your ingenuity that you professe in your Preface viz. If any of the Brethren seem in my apprehension to come neerer the truth then others I willingly take notice of it Is this your willing taking notice of our neerest approaches to the truth to fasten upon us an imputation of wresting so many Scriptures to the maintenance of an opinion that never entered as we verely believe into the hearts and we are confident is not to be found in the works of any Congregationall man which if it be said and that you cannot make out the contrary it is well for you that you lived not in that over rigorous age spoken of by Ludovicus Vives in Commentary upon Augustine Lud. Vives in August de Civit. Dei l. 2. c. 9. de Civitate Dei in which it was a capitall fault and punishable with death to write or act any thing derogatory to the good name of any man For you have indeavoured to cast the odium of the most detestable pride and censoriousnesse upon many thousands Ministers and People that are of a precious anointing for learning or piety or both and in particular of a singular eminency for that rich grace of humility yea such a blot have you laid upon them whilest you say that we cleerly him that Christ doth exercise his Kingly Priestly and Propheticall Office only in Churches meerly Congregationall yea that Christ did offer himself a sacrifice for all the members of a Congregationall Church and only for such a thing of the greatest abhorrency to our thoughts if it fall on this side blasphemy against the Holy Ghost such a blot I say you have laid upon them that you will not easily wipe off for Machiavels rule is too true Calumniate fortiter saltem aliquid adhaerebit Slander boldly at least somewhat will cleave POSITION XXIV Christ left but one way of Discipline for all Churches This is found in Answ to 32. q. p. 72.73 and the like is in R. M. and W. T. to C. H. pag. 8. which in the essentialls of it is unchangeable and to be kept till the appearing of Christ 1 Tim. 6.13 14. To prove that these words are injurious to the Text alledged you say It seems by the words Thou O man of God I give thee in charge Answer that thou keep this Commandement viz. which immediatly precedes concerning faith and holinesse in the Ministery of the Word to be directed to Timothy himself or if to his successours then it must be to the ordinary Elders for Euangelists that succeeded him wee know none not to the Churches for example not to the
from other Jewes Reply and gathering them into a Christian Church while yet the Jewish Church was not dissolved for they ceased not to be a Church of God till the body of them pertinaciously and desperatly rejected Christ Therefore they preached to the Jewes first and thought themselves bound so to doe because they were the people of God Acts 11.19 13.46 And yet they had commanded some to separate from the rest as your selfe acknowledge Acts 2.40 And their communion they had with them in Jewish worships shews that they counted them a true Church And some think that their Church state ceased not while their Temple stood And yet before that time many Jewes were gathered into many Christian Churches as both the Acts of the Apostles and their Epistles doe declare And if they might gather out of one Church they might as lawfully have gathered out of twenty or an hundred had there been so many at that time Secondly if the Apostles never taught nor practised such a thing what warrant then have our brethren for their Presbyterian Church which is gathered out of many Churches For they Interpret Matth. 18.17 Tell the Church of a Presbyterian Church which consists of the Elders of many Churches Thirdly why may not one Church be gathered of the members of many Churches as well as many Churches consist of the members of one Church For we read that the Church at Jerusalem was scattered upon Stevens persecution and we read not that they returned again but fell into membership with other Churches as is probable which were planted in severall parts of the world Fourthly such a Church which consists of the members of many other true Churches hath formerly been without exception in the dayes of the Prelates how comes it now to be questioned For at least fourteen yeares since such a Church was extant in Wiâ—â—all in Cheshire the vocall covenant being onely wanting which consisted of the choycest Christians of many Parishes who met constantly together upon the Lords day and enjoyed the Word and Seales of the Covenant and maintained a Pastor to dispense the same unto them and never or very rarely repaired to such Parishes where their habitations were And we think it cannot be denied but Mr. John Angiers Church at Denton in Lancashire hath of long time been such and many other such there have been besides And it was accounted an high happinesse to have liberty to make such a Church but was never accounted by the godly sinfull before But if you should answer That the Church consists of such as lived within such a Parish or Chappell and that the rest were strangers We reply If assembling constantly together and participating in all the Ordinances that the rest doe partake of and contributing with the rest in the maintenance of the Minister of such a place and an adhering rather to such a Minister and people then to any other in affection and action if all these together make members of a Church then these persons of other Parishes were not strangers but members and with the rest made such Churches except it shall be said that habitation alone in other Parishes when all the other are wanting makes membership and constitutes Churches which some of our brethren who are Presbyterians have and doe deny Fifthly are not some Parish Churches constituted sometimes of members of other Parish Churches when many persons have left their own places and removed into other Parishes without any consent Yet this hath been judged pious at least honest sometimes upon one ground and somtimes upon another some to have liberty of conscience in such places whither they have removed others to have better preaching others to meet with better society and others for better worldly accommodation What Christian knoweth not well that this hath been common Sixthly that a Church may consist of persons that have been members of other Churches if such persons have been orderly dismissed from such Churches and have come away with consent will be granted of all For none hold Church-membership to be undissolveable The question then will be Whether the members of Churches may depart without consent 1. According to the present constitution of Churches they may For they come in without consent meerly by removing their habitations therefore they may so depart 2. If consent must be had from whom must it be sought From the people or from the Minister That the people have any power either to give or with-hold their consent hath not been granted heretofore That the Ministers consent should be necessary for the departing of every member when yet himselfe it may be hath had his entrance amongst them without their consent seemes to be unreasonable 3. Suppose consent hath been sought and cannot be obtained may not members withdraw their membership in some cases without consent Suppose some Ordinance be corruptly dispensed without all hope of redresse and that men must partake therein without having any power so much as to witnesse against such corruptions unlesse they will be accounted factious and disturbers of the Churches peace or that by remaining where such corruptions are they be in danger to be leavened with the corrupt lump of such a Church of which they be members 1 Cor. 5.6 what must they now doe Doth not that Rule that bids a Church purge out one person that may endanger the leavening of the whole lump when there are no other means to prevent such an evill give warrant to every member that is endangered to be leavened by the lump to withdraw from such a lump because power to purge out the lump they have none when there is no other means to prevent the evill 2 Cor. 13.10 Church membership is for edification of the members not for destruction But you stumble at this because they converted them not To which we reply Persons whom the Apostles converted were ordinarily committed to others to be further edified and the ordinary Pastors and Elders of the primitive times did almost perpetually build upon anothers foundation The persons that watered for the most part were not the same that planted In Acts 11.20 21. we read of a great conversion wrought by the preaching of the scattered Disciples but we read not that they were gathered into Church-state till Barnabas was sent unto them and both Barnabas and Paul assembled with that Church and taught it which yet they converted not And in Acts 19.1 9. Paul found twelve Disciples converted to his hand though not fully instructed and gathered them into the Church which he planted at Ephesus But Brother how comes this to be a stone to stumble at If you hold a succession of Pastors in the same Church the successors may feed a flock which their predecessors converted and not themselves And if you hold transplantation of members from one Church to another then they may feed the members which were of other Churches which themselves converted not But you will say This must be orderly
doth 2. We allow the case to be much different For when we live under a Christian Magistrate inteuding and endeavouring Reformation we are raised up unto an expectation of having all the wayes of Christ countenanced and confirmed by his authoritie which would be a very blessed thing which we have no such ground to look for living under a Heathen Magistrate But how the case is different in your sense we understand not For the Christianity of the Magistrate or his piety and sedulity in intending and endeavouring Reformation cannot take any person or persons off from their dutie which they would be bound unto if a Heathen Magistrate bore sway The Magistrate and the Ministers and the people must each doe their part because each stands engaged for himselfe to Jesus Christ unto the work of his own place The impediments that come from any unto other cannot be a discharge unto any Would our Brethren in New England allow a Presbyterian Church Answer or but a new Independent Church to be erected in New England against the will and mind of the Magistrates and Churches there 1 T. W. to W.R. p. 31. 1. The question is not what they would allow Reply but what a company of people planted there which cannot without unfaithfulnesse to their own light be subject to any other government save the Presbyterian ought to doe Whether if their livelihood lie there and that they cannot remove they are not bound to keep Faith and a good Conscience what ever it be that they suffer for it 2. Our beliefe of New England is this that they would suffer the godly and peaceable to live amongst them though they disser in point of Church-government from them Because so farre as we could ever learn they never banished any but unpeaceablenesse together with desperate erroneousnesse was the cause of it Our Brethren at London I heare doe hold it at least unseasonable Answer to gather Churches now how their opinion and yours are reconcileable I see not If you had said Reply some of them did once think it unseasonable you had not much missed it But what crossing is in this which should need a reconciliation The Position saith it cannot be unlawfull the Brethren say it was unseasonable for that time Many things may be unseasonable at least in opinion and yet not unlawfull It may be the Brownists Answer Anabaptists Antinomians Familists and other grosse Hereticks and Schismaticks in old or new England doe also pretend the Doctrine and practice of the Apostles for the setting up of their Churches yet our godly and conscientious Divines doe therein oppose them If grosse Heretikes and Schismaticks doe so pretend Reply they must be found to be liers and so their practice will be found to be unwarrantable whether they have or have not the commandement of man yet this will hinder nothing but that those which not in pretence but in truth have the Doctrine and practise of the Apostles with them may lawfully practise according to it though they want the commandement of man to warrant it The false Apostles pretended to be true Apostles but the Church of Ephesus tried them and found them liers and rejected them and yet accepted of those that were Apostles of Christ indeed POSITION II. Seven eight or nine may make a Church In Adams and Noahs time there was not above seven or eight will you deny them the being of a Church What will you make of Christ and of his Family which were not above twelve besides himselfe and of the first foundationals of the Church of Ephesus which were about twelve The number in the first beginning of the greatest Church was small enough in comparison Acts 1.15 The case of Adam and Noah was extraordinary Answer there were no more in the world and therefore could be no more in the Church You grant in an extraordinary case seven eight Reply or nine may make a Church The Position saith not that more may not make a Church but if there be but so many the truth and being of a Church cannot be denied them We say further that such a number may but make a Church in the first foundation or while there be no more persons sitted for membership For when more Saints by calling offer themselves they are to be received and so the Church will be increased Acts 19.7 8 9 18.19 20. Adam and his wife Answer and first sonnes yea Adam himselfe was the Church if then there was any yet you hold not that two or three yea one may make a Church We conceive that the Church is Christs body Reply and that every body consists of members If all were one member where were the body How therefore one Adam could have been a Church we understand not Put this we hold that look how few have ever made a Church since the beginning of the world the same number may still make a Church And the reason is because God hath not precisely determined what number doth make a Church Cain lawfully married his own sister may other men doe the like Answer Have we not a manifest prohibition of such marriages in the Scripture Reply so that though sometimes they were lawfull yet now they are not lawfull But what Scripture have you against this that what number of beleevers have formerly been a Church such a number may yet be a Church And no greater number is required to the simple being of a Church Twelve are more then seven or eight Answer and an hundred and twenty are a competent number yet it appeareth not that they were called or counted a Church till they were more increased First Reply though twelve be more then seven or eight yet twelve is not more in the truth of constitution of a Church then seven or eight Is there more of the essence of a Church in twelve then in seven or eight Except you mean it so you declare onely in saying so that you can number twelve And if you so understand it we shall demand proof of you for it Secondly the Scripture determines not what number is competent and what not competent to the being of a Church How come you then so to passe your verdict about it when further you adde That it appeares not they were called or accounted a Church till they were more increased that is till those three thousand persons were added to them Acts 2.41 If so are you not then the more presumptuous in saying that an hundred and twenty are a competent number to make a Church Notwithstanding if you will you may see them a Church before they were so increased For they performed one great act of a Church in electing an Officer to be over the Church Acts 1.23 And when three thousand were added to them they came into their state and if their state were not Church state then neither were they made a Church by this addition for let three thousand be added to no Church and they are still no Church
given in all the new Testament that Christians ordinarily meeting together in divers places are yet called one Church except where Church is taken improperly in a distributive sense And therfore in cities where they might and did meet together they are called a Church and in countries where they could not all meet in one but in divers places they are called Churches Many such Churches or Congregations we have in England Answer We say so too Reply and add that either we have such in England or none at all For what other besides such can you shew us And the Beleevers in every Christian Church Answer even in the Church of England and in the Jewish Church also might and did at first meet 1. Reply Can you shew that the Beleevers of any Christian church met onely at first in one place and then afterwards being increased they met not in one place but many places except at some time of hot persecution 2. If Beleevers in England ever met together in one place it was when there was but one congregationall Church in England As for the Jewish Church in it Exo. 34.23.24 Deut. 16.2.16 both at first and afterwards all the males wore to meet by speciall appointment in one place at some seasons though not alwayes and in some ordinances though not all to shew that they were but one Church To say nothing that all the people of the Jewes being about six hundred thousand Answer are called one Congregation and are frequently in the old Testament said to come together and that * One Myriade is 10000. Myriads did come together Act. 21.22 They were one church and therefore did and ought to congregate together and are therefore called one congregation Reply and yet neither they nor those Myriads spoken of Acts 21.22 did then nor can such a number now ordinarily come together Now our Position is to be understood that a Gospel visible church consists of no more then can ordinarily come together into one place nor of so many as sometimes in an extraordinary way have met together How will you make out this Inference The Church of Corinth did meet in one place and so did Antioch Jerusalem Answer therefore no Church in the new Testament must consist of more then can meet in one place You must take the Argument in the scope of it Reply such and such Churches did meet constantly in one place and there is no mention of any Church which did not meet together in one place therefore no Church in the new Testament doth consist of more then can meet in one place the Consequent is now good For we think that patterns that are uncontrolled either by precepts or other patterns have doctrine in them and do teach how things ought to be carried To say there was a Church in Adams house and in Noahs Answer and also in Philemons Aquila's and Priscilla's houses therefore the Church in the old and new Testament must be domesticall is an inconsequent illation contrary to plain Scripture We confesse it and for the reason you render Reply because contrary to plain Scripture Now if you could have shewed us the repugnancy to plain Scripture of the inference which you oppugne wee should have confessed a great oversight in it It is one thing and more warrantable to derive an inference from patterns when they all run one way and be patterns of one kind and another thing and lesse safe to draw an inference from patterns when there is diversity of kinds of them about the same thing Is not the Argument as good if it run thus All the believing Corinthians were of the Church of Corinth 1 Cor. 1.1 2 Cor. 6.11 Answer The Smyrnians and Laodiceans of the Church of Smyrna and Laodicea Col. 2.1 4.16 Rev. 2.8 3.14 Whether they were more or fewer Hence in every city and every church seem to expound one another Acts 14.21.23 with Tit. 1.5 Acts 16.4 5. And it cannot be shewed that any church how numerous soever it grew was divided into two or more churches therefore the believers in any one city or town may be but one church whether they can meet in one place or no. No brother not so Reply because as appeares to us there is light of Scripture gain-saying it For though all the believing Corinthians were of the church of Corinth which yet you seem to contradict in the after part of your Answer while you say that Gaius the Corinthian was the host of another church besides that of Corinth which if true then all believing Corinthians were not of the church of Corinth and though in all other cities all the believers of them were of the church in each of them yet such an inference would be naught because it was so for a speciall reason and in regions and countries where that reason took not place it was otherwise All the Believers in Jerusalem were of one church there because they were not so many but that they might come constantly together into one place and did so But all the Believers in Judea were not of one church there but of many churches because they could not meet constantly in one place And if believers in cities meeting in divers places are yet but one church for this reason because they were of one city as you would seem to inferre then shew but any probable reason why believers meeting in divers places in countries may not be one church because they were of one countrey especially the believers of Judea being but a small countrey and under the same civil government The reason why city and church expound one another was this because there was not more converted in a city then could meet together in a congregation or church And when you can shew us out of the new Testament that believers were so multiplied in any city as that they could not all meet in one place then will we shew you that such churches were divided into more churches Paul writes not only to them which might Answer and did meet in one place but to all that in every place not throughout the world at appeares 2 Cor. 1.1 written to the same persons 1 Cor. 5.1 2. with 2 Cor. 2.1 2. neither is this a Catholique Epistle but that in all Achaia call upon the Name of the Lord. Paul writes and sends this Reply and applieth it to the Corinthianss and to them alone as appears almost in every chapter of the Epistle and in many of the verses of each chapter For all along proper and peculiar things belonging to the Corinthians and not to the Achaians nor Saints in all the world are spoken of in commendation and discommendation and proper reproofes directions exhortations are given yet he intended it for the use and benefit of all Achaia and of the whole world also And it may as properly be called a Catholique Epistle as an Achaian Epistle for the use redounds to the world as well as to Achaia
such a Generall called to be souldiers this name shewes the intrinsecall nature of the thing to which applied Such is the name Saint when applied to the Church of God but there are other names which are extrinsecall and superadditionall to the nature of the things given to and separable and may be in some and not in other of that kinde As if one should write to the Army of such a one enriched with gold and silver apparell this is extrinsecall and casuall and may agree to some Armies and not to others such are the Epithets 1 Cor. 5. inriched with wisdome utterance c. Concerning the names Elect c. we have answered them before POSITION VI. The form of a Church is the gathering together of these visible Saints and combining and uniting them into one body by the form of a holy Covenant Deut. 29 1.10 11 12. by which is plainly shewed that a company of people become Gods people that is a Church by entring into Covenant with God If it be said they were a Church before yet that was when the Church of the lewes was constituted in Abrahams Family by Covenant You intend not that this Covenant doth make a true Church Answer but a pure Congregationall Church as it is refined according to the platform of the Gospel We intend that the combination of Saints into one body by some kinde of Covenant either expresse or implicite Reply or by some kinde of speciall bond as Dr. Ames calls it doth make a true Church The seed of Jacob and the Sechemites could not make a Church together Gen. 34.15 16. but by becoming one and they could not become one but by coming into the same Covenant therefore they say though deceitfully for they never meant it yet therein they shew how such a thing could only be done if you will be as we be that every male be circumcised then we will become one people and we would demand had those Sechemites been Believers and had this businesse been carried without guile whether they had not by this doing become one Church We conceive relation or combination into one unto domestick ends and purposes is the form of a Family and relation and combination into one unto politick and civill ends and purposes is the form of a Commonwealth and relation and combination of one man and one woman unto conjugall ends and purposes is the form of matrimoniall state and that covenant alwayes makes this relation and combination into onenesse where the persons are free from each other and no naturall tie amongst them and so relation and combination of so many Saints as do or may well meet in one place unto religious ends 〈◊〉 the enjoyment of Church-ordinances doth make a church and because the persons are free from one another therefore covenant or agreement together which is all one must make the relation A solemne expresse and verball covenant or agreement we assert to be necessary unto the purity and strength of a Church and so consequently unto the welbeing of a Church for how Saints and they alone living promiscuously in the world should yet be severed from the world with which they be in habitation mingled and how they even they alone should have communion together in all holy ordinances without expresse verball consent we cannot conceive which yet we judge ought to be if the rule be well attended which saith Nothing shall enter into the holy city which defileth Rev. 21.27 22.14 And how such loosenesse which is in our Parish-churches from which any may depart to another Parish-church without rendering any reason removing their habitation it may be but a stones cast which we conceive to be a great evill For the members in a naturall body are not so loosly joynted nor stones in any house so loosly set unto which yet a particular Church is compared Eph. 2.22 and 1 Cor. 12.27 How this evill may be prevented but by expresse agrement we cannot apprehend and therefore conceive such a covenant to be necessary to such purposes A Church-covenant s especially in relation to Church-estate Answer and Church duties as a marriage-covenant is with relation to the marriage state and marriage duties but the Covenant here enentioned was not entered into in reference to Church estate and Church duties rather then to other duties of the morall Law and may be taken by two or three though they be too few to make a Church or by persons of severall Churches in a ship or a journey and yet leave them in the same Church-state they were before and not make them members of a distinct Church A Church-covenant is especially in relation to Church duties Reply but not only so for Christian duties are comprehended under it and the Covenant in Deut. 29.1.10 11 12. respects principally Church-duties more then other duties of the morall Law as appeares from vers 16 17 18. for he warns them of Heathenish worships such which they had seen in Egypt and among the Nations and would ingage them by holy covenant to all Gods holy worships which were of his own institution of which were the worship and service of the Passeover and all the offerings of Gods prescription which were to be brought to the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation and the covenant of two or three to perform such duties might not be taken because some of them did seal their union and communion with that body and were to be celebrated when the whole body was assembled And though a covenant binding to the performance of some of the duties of the morall Law may be made by two or three and by persons of severall Churches and yet leave them in the same Church-state and not make them members of a distinct Church from what they were of before yet not so a covenant that binds to Church-duties as if a company of persons of divers churches should covenant to meet together to pray one with another this would not make them a Church nor change their state but if they covenant to walk together in the constant enjoyment of all Church-ordinances which God requires of a Church this would make them a Church and change their state that afterwards they could not be of divers Churches but of the same Church and Body A Covenant in generall doth not make a Church nor a marriage Answer a Covenant betwixt this man and that woman makes it but a Covenant with appropriation and application to this or that Pastor or people but the Scripture covenants are not with appropriation and application to this Pastor or people viz. that they would serve God with this people or Pastor rather then with that therefore they are not Church-covenants Who ever read or heard of any Covenant in generall of duties to be done Reply without application to persons mutually ingaged to perform such duties As a covenant of duties in a marriage would be ridiculous without application to persons this man or that woman to be
ingaged to perform such duties so is any covenant The covenants in Scripture were no such covenants they were applied to Israel and to the Gentiles that should joyn to Israel and appropriated to them also So that they were a separated people from other Nations by covenant Exod. 12.47 48. the Passeover was a service which all the house of Israel was ingaged to perform together and all that would joyn to them and by circumcision they became one people with them but no stranger might partake with them so that the Jewes by the Covenant of God were to serve God rather with this people then with that That a covenant makes a Church with appropriation to this or that Pastor is denied for we hold it a consequent priviledge of a Church whether constituted by verball covenant or not to choose their own Pastor therefore the Church is first before it hath a Pastor this is confessed by your self page 13. if it were not so the Church would be dissolved at the death of the Pastor there is a covenant between the Pastor and people but it is emergent and groweth out and proceeds from the Covenant among the people the people must first be one before they can agree in one to choose their Pastor with whom they afterwards enter into covenant There was a covenant with Abraham and his house by vertue of which Israel was the Lords people in Egypt before there were any Pastors to be over them therefore Church-covenant there was in Scripture without application to Pastors And it was so in the Wildernesse also at the first before Aaron and his sons were chosen To be Gods people Answer and Gods Church is not all one in your sense Forty Believers of no Church or of forty severall Churches are the Lords people but they are not an instituted Church To be one people unto God Reply in a professed solemn way which is done by entring into covenant with God and to be a Church is all one Now this is that which is asserted from Deut. 29.12 13. That thou shouldest enter into covenant with the Lord thy God that be may establish thee this day for a people or one people to himself in a professed way So by the Covenant of circumcision for so it was called because it was the seal of it the Seehemites were to become one people to God and to the seed of Jacob Gen. 34.15 16. No Covenant in Scripture was at the founding of the Jewish Church Answer nor of the Christian Church nor at the adding any members to them neither did they make a Church more truly a Church or politique Society or more truly members but did make them or shew them to be more pure and holy servants of God even as when single persons or families do covenant with God 1. If there were no covenant at the founding of the Jewish church Reply how comes it that all that entred into the Iewish Church of the proselyted Gentiles entred by the Seal of the Covenant which was Circumcision doth not the way of augmentation of the Church shew the way of the first constitution thereof So it may be spoken of Christian Churches why are converted Heathens and the Infants of Church-members brought into the Church by baptisme which is a Church-ordinance and the seal of the Covenant of grace and of that part of it principally which respects Church-society 2. How do those which were many become one among themselves and distinct from all other bodies of the same kinde as Corinth was one in it self and distinct from Cenchrea for parishbounds were not then on foot so that the members of one were not the members of the other nor the Officers of one the officers of the other if there be nothing that knits them together among themselves and divides them asunder from others and if any thing combine them what can it be but some agreement or covenant expresse or implicit Why must circumcision the seal of the Covenant be used to make the Sechemites one people with Jacobs family if Jacobs family or Isaak's or Abrabam's before that were one unto all holy Church-worships among themselves without covenant 3. Did the joyning of the believing Gentiles to the family of Abraham by circumcision make them no more truly members of the church of Israel then they were before only make them and shew them to be more pure and holy servants of God were they not accounted after circumcision of the Jewes Common-wealth and were invested into all the Jewes spirituall priviledges which they had no right to before though they were converted persons and Gods servants 4. We conceive that Abraham and his family were not in Church state and professedly and openly separated from the world till the Covenant in Gen. 17. at which time by a mark in his flesh he was distinguished from all the nations and became Gods houshold if this be so then Church state is founded in Covenant if it be otherwise let it appear that he was in Church state before that time and we shall look out for a Covenant before that time That which induceth us thus to thinke is 1. Because we reade nothing of Abrahams family that they were a professed people unto God before that time 2. We reade not of any Symbole of Church state by which Abrabam and his family were separated from the rest of the world before circumcision which was a token in their flesh to distinguish them from the nations round about them 3. This distinguished him and his family not from the world alone but from other believers of his time Melchisedeck and Lot which though holy men yet not in his state nor had his priviledges But this Argument from circumcision is encountred with in your answer that followes The Covenant in Gen. 17. is taken only for Gods part of the Covenant Answer or his promise to Abraham Gal. 3.16 17. not for mans part to God While you charge us of mis-interpreting the Scriptures Reply it stands you upon to be wary that your self run not into that error Paul Gal. 3.16 with vers 8. as Peter Acts 3.25 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rendered well there and in thy seed seems to make use of the promise of God made to Abraham and his seed in the Covenant Gen. 12.3 and 22.16.18 The Apostle there had no occasion to speak of the restipulation on Abrahams part and in Gen. 17.1.9 't is manifest that that Covenant was reciprocall as Junius and Pareus do observe upon that place but you check your self as if overbold and therefore say Indeed Answer receiving of circumcision doth import a Covenant on Abrahams part or consent to the Covenant as baptisme also doth but it is held they were in Church state before they had right to circumcision therefore you should shew they made a Covenant before circumcision Circumcision being but the sign and seal of the covenant betwixt God and Abraham doth argue necessarily that there was a covenant before Reply of
concession that the Church Reply Acts 2. bad no ordinary Officers for none were then appointed and yet they were a church and Acts 14.23 shewes so much they were churches before the Apostles ordained Elders in them and this is all that the Position drives at And though there were generall Elders which had inspection over all Churches yet neither these nor any other Elders do * Come into the essence of Churches ingredi essentiam Ecclesiarum nor is it any formall reason why a Company of Believers are a Church because they have Elders whether extraordinary or ordinary for were it so then their priviledge to choose their Officers would be when they have Officers for then they are a Church and it would follow that they cannot choose Officers when they want them and have most need of them for then they are not a Church and so can have no such power and it is very uncomfortable for the death of an Officer might be the unchurching of a people But that which may give more satisfaction in this matter is the consideration of such Scriptures where the members mentioned apart from the Officers are called the Church of God Acts 20.28 the Elders are the persons spoken to feed the flock over which the holy Ghost hath made you over-seers the believing Ephesians are the flock who are also called the Church of God purchased with his blood * Acts 20. vers 28. So Phil. 1.1 So that a Christian people united together with an intent of constant congregating to enjoy Ordinances for their edification are a church without officers or if they have them yet without consideration of them POSITION IX She hath also full and free power to choose her own Officers without the help of Synod This though not so fully is asserted by R.M. W.T. to C. H. Classis or Presbyterie Act. 1.15 Acts. 6.3 14.23 In Church-affairs Answer of weighty and difficult common concernment as election and ordination of Elders excommunication of an Elder it is safe and wholesome and an boly Ordinance to proceed with consultation and consent of the churches Prov. 11.14 (p) Cottons Keys p. 55. Reply This Position saith not that a particular Congregation or Church of Brethren have full and free power to choose her own Officers without asking or seeking the help of advice and direction from Synod Classis or Presbyterie nor do we think that there is any such meaning in it but without authoritative help of a Synod Classis or Presbyterie for in all those places of the Acts the churches had the help of direction but they were not strengthened by the interposition of the authority of the Apostles or of any other You will not take upon you hastily to censure the many notable precedents of ancient and latter Synods Answer who have put forth the Acts of power in ordination and excommunication (q) Cottons Keys p. 28. Reply 1. The grave Author of this speech meddles not with election in that place quoted but this Position runs of election 2. He keeps himself from an hasty and peremptory censuring of ancient precedents who have put forth acts of power in ordination and excommunication but he declares his opinion against it and we approve as well of his modesty as we do agree with him in his judgement We hold it a priviledge of the people especially if they proceed wisely and piously to elect their Officers Answer and an injury to obtrude any on them without their consent 1. What people are these that have this priviledge Reply Cottons Keys pag. 12. the Author whom you make use of so oft calls them Church of Brethren is it a people-priviledge or a church-priviledge to choose Ecclesiasticall Officers 2. What if they do not proceed wisely and piously is their priviledge lost must it be taken from them and then it would be no injury to obtrude an Officer on them It is an Officers priviledge to rule the Church but what if he do it not wisely and piously is the privilege then lost it is a Master of a Families priviledge to rule his own house but what if he do it not wisely and piously must it now be taken from him or rather must he not be directed and exhorted to do it rightly and the priviledge remain stil with him so of the people we have Junius of our minde herein (a) Junius Eccles p. 1963 Answer But let us view your Scriptures Seeing that you agree with us in the substance of the Position Reply and yet immediatly bring all the Scriptures brought by us to strengthen the same into question and none of them will passe for currant with you it had been convenient that you should have produced the Scriptures which do sway you unto the asserting of the same thing that it might have appeared to the world that you have found out some better bottome to set such a tenet on then we have produced For we conceive that if the Scriptures you oppugn are not pertinent to prove the Position there will be none found in all the new Testament but they will be more liable to exception then these and it is to be noted that all our modern Writers that we know of that grant any liberty to the people of choosing their own Officers they do it upon the evidence of these Scriptures which are excepted against in so much that we know not what should be the reason why you grant the thing alledged and bring no proofes of your own to confirm it and yet allow not of ours which we bring except you be resolved to contradict all that comes from us But what are your exceptions let us prove what weight is in them you say The Assembly Answer Acts 1. it is likely was not a body politick but occasionall only no part of Church-government being as yet set on foot here were not all but some of the sounder members of the Jewish Church and they had no commission to separate from the Jewes before Acts 2.40 the Company was not without Elders all the Churches and Elder at that time in the world were present if there had been any more Elders they must have conveened upon that occasion the choice was limited by the Apostle Peter First to the persons present Secondly to those that accompanied the Apostles all the time c. and was determined by God whose it was to choose an Apostle by his directing of the lot The meaning is Reply they were not a Christian Church but some of the sounder members of the Jewish Church and not yet separated from the Jewish Church and then 1. There is a contradiction unto some other of the exceptions which follow If they were no Christian Church how were the Apostles Elders of it and how was it an Oecumenicall councell all the Churches and Elders in the world being at it 2. Is there not some mistake in point of truth For those persons who were commanded to separate Acts
2.40 were they added unto such which were not separated The Text saith there were added to them three thousand fouls to them to whom to those who are yet members of the Jewish church then these separated ones who were added were members of the Jewish church by their addition for they came into their state to whom they were added and so they were separated and not separated which yet agrees not to vers 47. where they are all together called a Church 3. It is impertinently alledged that the company was not without Elders the Apostles were present For was the company straitned in their liberty by the presence of these Elders or rather were they not acquainted with their priviledge in this matter by these Elders When as else they might not have known it but you say a little after they were limited but what is this limiting nothing else but necessary direction and the limitation is but in one thing though you would have it in two the words are these Wherefore of these that have accompanied us c. For ought that appears all that had accompanied them were present and who could be so sit to be an Apostle as one of those who had accompanied them 1 Joh. 1.1 4. If the election of an Apostle did belong to God in reference to the particular person yet they proceeded as far as they could therein and agreed in the denomination of two and when the lot determined whether of the two should be the man the Text saith vers 26. by the common suffrage of them all Matthias was numbred among the eleven Apostles 5. If all Elders and Churches must conveen upon occasion of electing of an Apostle because he is Pastor of all Churches why must they not be gathered together upon occasion of ordaining an Apostle But we reade but of one Church and the Elders thereof present at the onlaining of Paul Acts 13.2.3.23 whereupon Paul calls himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 1.1 As for the Deacons and Overseers for the power Answer though people may better discern of mens sitnesse and ability for that Office then for the Ministry Why are Deacons and Overseers for the poor made Synonymies and confounded Reply is this the reason to make the world believe that we have had Deacons amongst us because we have had Over-seers for the poor but if we have had Deacons when were they ordained who ever put their hands upon them according to the pattern Acts 6.6 or are they called so because their work is only to oversee the poor we conceive their office extends further But of that in its own place It is added Answer The people can better discern c. 1. They had direction to inable them to discern aright in choosing Deacons Reply and by direction they will be able to discern aright in choosing other Officers 2. A godly people or church rightly constituted for the matter will be able to discern of wholesome and powerfull Doctrine and if they want skill to judge of humane learning they may with little ado be informed 3. If your meaning be that upon this ground the people may choose Deacons but not other Officers you might have done well to have limited what you before granted and in stead of saying We hold it the priviledge of the people to choose their own Officers you would have said We hold it the priviledge of the people to choase their own Deacons but no Officers else And their liberty of choosing was a good means at that time to abate their discontentments because of former neglect Answer 1. Then it was granted to them of courtesie Reply and out of policie and it did no way belong unto them why then did you say before We hold it the priviledge of the people 2. Doth any thing appear to make this a reason that this liberty was granted to them Would not they have been as well pleased if the Apostles had done it if it belonged to the Apostles and not to them they all knew the Apostles were more able to choose then they and what the Apostles did gave better content for all magnified the Apostles besides is it likely that the Apostles would nourish a sinfull humor of discontent in the people by giving them a priviledge that belonged not to them Good brother take heed how you attempt to evade the strength of plain Scripturall proofes by such dangerous glosses as these Yet at their election Answer there were all the Churches and Elders in the world The meaning is Reply there was but one Church and the Elders thereof at that time in the world and they were there It is true the members were there for the Brethren were they that elected and the Apostles were there which were extraordinary Elders for they were the persons that directed but what did they act further Did they interpose their authority in election Did they take it out of the Brethrens hards Did they not manifestly put it into their hands in commanding them to look out seven men c. Acts 6.3 Answer Your selves acknowledge Synods an Ordinance of Christ in sundry cases Reply Not the Authority of Synods by way of jurisdiction in any case Answer Paul and Barnabas ordained Eders by suffrages given by lifting up and stretching out of hands for so the Greek word signifies but that the people did ordain Elders by election without the Apostles it saith not but rather the contrary viz. that they stayed from election and ordination of Elders till the Apostles came to advise and assist them therein the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth rather to give then to gather saffrages as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth imply the election of more Churches then one and yet it imports the election of no more Churches then those there spoken of so the phrase Paul and Barnabas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not imply that any Church or other person besides Paul and Barnabas did elect these Presbyters 1. We do not affirm that the people did it without the Apostles Reply For we conceive the Apostles guided them as at other times they had done other Churches 2. Concerning their staying from election and ordination we reade not of it and therefore dare conclude nothing about it concerning their advising we grant it but what other assistance they assorded we understand not unlesse it be said that they led the people by their own suffrage and so they might give their suffrage as you say the word signifies and yet gather the peoples also But that they should give their own suffrage by lifting up their own hands without the peoples seems unreasonable For when hath it ever been known that two persons alone in the presence of many others have gone to voting by lifting up of hands the one must gather the vote and the other must give it that is the one must say to the other Paul to Barnabas If thou be for such a man to be Elder in this Church manifest it
these Churches by an every Sabbaths contribution But it will be said still that this respecteth the poor Saints at Jerusalem only But every Church hath or may have poor Saints of her own which way must they be relieved must not they be provided for the same way as the poor Saints of other Churches What reason can be shewed that the poor of other Churches must be provided for by one way or rule and the poor of their own Church by another way or rule or if there be any difference do not a Churches own poor rather require a weekly contribution for their reliefe then the poor abroad of other Churches therefore we said at the beginning that we conceived the Apostle to have a further meaning then the occasion did import Besides seeing there are Lords Dayes contributions throughout the yeer in all the Belgick churches for the poor upon what Scriptures do they bottome them if not upon this there is par ratio like reason without all doubt that look how the Apostle would have reliefe come in to the Saints of Jerusalem so he would have it come in to the Saints of every Church that wants it and that is by raising a stock in the Church for all good uses by first dayes contributions But wherein doth this Stock or Treasury of the Church respect Ministers The stock raised by selling of estates and laying them down at the Apostles feet respecteth not the Saints alone but the very Apostles why then should not the stock raised by an every Sabbaths contribution respect Ministers If we will take Chemnitius his opinion whose harmony upon the Gospel is not a litle set by (a) Chem. har p. 182 period hist de anno Christ 12. he tells us the Doctors in Christs time that preached were maintained by contribution he saith the treasury into which Christ beheld many rich ones casting in much and the poor widow all her substance was to maintain the Doctors he also joynes the poor with the Doctors and saith that the Treasury was for both uses see John 8.20 and compare it with Mark 12.41 Having given an account of our tenent and grounds whereupon built and our conceptions upon 1 Cor. 16.1 2. we need not frame any other Reply unto your Answer Brother for the intelligent Reader will discern what little truth in some things and little substance in other things there is in what you have presented in that matter only because you charge us with unrighteousnesse and partiality in point of our not maintaining our Ruling Elders we shall clear our selves in a few words 1. We conceive all Officers are to have some maintenance the labourer is worthy of his hire provided that he either require it or the Church be able to give it 2. We conceive that there is a difference in the works of Officers some are greater taking up the whole time and strength of the Officers double work being put upon them ruling and labouring in the Word and Doctrine so there should be difference in the maintenance of Officers some ought to have more then others 3. When the Church is not able to maintain her teaching Officers with an honourable maintenance then if the ruling Officers and the Deacons will remit what ever reward from the Church their work calls for 't is no unrighteousnesse nor partiality in the Church to maintain the teaching Officers and not the rest because their works do not so require the whole man but that they may have other Callings to help themselves by which means they may spare the Church in her poverty in point of maintenance 4. Your self may do well to consider whether the ruling Elders and the Deacons be maintained in the Presbyterian Churches and if it be an error not to do it it is good to pull out that beam out of your own eye and then you may see the better to take it out of your brothers eye POSITION XIV The great Mountain burning with fire cast into the Sea upon the sounding of the second Trumpet Rev. 8.8 9. is applied by some good Writers to those times in which Constantine brought settled endowments into the Church If it be so applyed by some good Writers Answer who possibly bad in their eyes the Lordly and almost regall riches and pomp of Prelates it is by as many and as good writers applyed otherwise Our brethren speak modestly and moderately Reply they tell us it is applied so by some good Writers It is not therefore their own novell exposition they present it as probable they force the interpretation upon no man But what are your exceptions against it For my part Answer as I sinde that Constantines donation the foundation of this exposition is but a fiction accounted by Gratian himself to be but palea and what is the chaffe to the wheat So I finde in the Prophecies that Kings and States are called Mountains Zach. 4.7 Casting of Mountains into the Sea implyeth great commotions Psal 46.2 Their burning with sire signifieth their opposition and fiercenesse whereby they become destroying Mountains Jer. 51.25 1. Reply We are not at a little want of books and therefore are not able to make an exact search either after the truth or falshood of this matter But let Constantines donation of the Popes patrimony be a Fiction and Palea yet we suppose it may be cleerly evidenced from credible Authors that Constantine brought in great riches and pomp setled endowments to the Clergie of the Church and that is all that is affirmed in the Position 2. If Kings and States be called Mountains so is prosperity in riches and honours Psal 30. Thou hast made my Mountain so strong that is my condition so prosperous And Sea in Scripture is the Church sometimes or the Religion of the Church Rev. 13.1 15.2 therefore casting of a Mountain into the sea may be bringing prosperity and casting riches and honours upon the Church and though Mountains should be taken in your sense for Kings when almost regall riches and honours were cast upon Prelates of the Church may it not be said a mountain was cast into the Sea And may it not well be said to be a burning Mountain when the ambition of Prelates after Church indowments and honours almost set the Christian world on fire and the hot contestations of Ecclesiasticall persons for Church-livings do testifie that if prosperity in wealth and honour be a mountain then it was a burning mountain and had such effects following it as the Prophecies in the Revelations speak of But you go on and say I finde not that it is unlawfull either for a yeer as in New-England Answer (u) 〈◊〉 to ◠R. p. 19. Reply or for certain yeers or for term of life much lesse do I finde that it is lawfull for one and not for a yeer a quarter or two or three or four yeers Though T. W. speak of maintenance from yeer to yeer yet it is not to be understood that
are said to be come to one mount Sion If so then the Congregations of the Christian Gentiles may well be another mount Sion And if the Nationall church of the Jewes with the assemblies thereof were mount Sion why may not every Nationall-church of Christians with the assemblies thereof we speak now in your language be Sion also and then there being many Nationall churches as you say there are many Sions And what greater absurdity is it to say there are an hundred or a thousand Sions then to say there are an hundred or a thousand Churches Seeing Sion and Church are all one Now you know there were many visible churches in Judea Galatia Macedonia Asia and many other places and if then so many how many more now therefore many Sions and because those many churches then and these now we believe to have been and still to be Congregationall therefore every Congregationall Church we hold to be Sion But you ask an odde strange needlesse to say no worse of it question with a great deal of vehemency Answer viz. Have you not found God present in our Assemblies Have you not by faith closed with the promises in the use of the Ordinances among us Speak out I know you dare not belie your selves us and God himself c. Reply Your question is bottomed upon a mistake when we say that God hath promised to be present in Sion you give this glosse upon it that we deny all your Assemblies to be Sion and will not grant Gods presence at all to be with you and that we appropriate Sion and Gods presence to our selves which is a great injury to us You also put this sense upon our words that God is so present in Sion that he is present no where else and so not present with holy men and women which are out of Church-fellowship nor present with members of many churches meeting together which either is a foul mistake or a slander For we think God to be present with his people when they meet in his feare whether they be Church-members or not Church-members whether they be of one or many churches whether they be in our assemblies or yours provided that his Ordinances be carried according to his minde yea though there should be some error yet he might give his presence (a) Rev. 2.1 with Rev. 2.14.20 Much rather do we think God will be present with persons whom he sets on work to exalt him in the execution of some office as he did the Apostles and now doth ordinary Elders Neverthelesse we conceive God to be most present with his people gathered into a body and compacted together in an instituted Church which we hold to be Congregationall and the reason is because the more any people do fall into the order of the Gospel and come into the way of Christ which he hath appointed for Saints to walk in the more Christ is ingaged to be present with them Now to joyn to some instituted Church of Christ is that way and order which Christ hath directed to therefore with them in such a way as so united and joyned Christ will more especially be present for he vouchsafeth a speciall presence amongst such Churches Rev. 2.1 he styles himself one that walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks he walks in other places and people but he would intimate thus much that his especiall delightsome walk is among them and the more golden the candlesticks are the more pure they be the more delight he takes to walke in the midst of them But Matth. 18. you say is mis-interpeted Your words are these Answer Christ in Matth. 18. promiseth his presence to those that are not a Church for two or three will not make a Church they vers 17 were to give the second admonition the Church the third There is a figure in the number Reply there is a certain number put for an uncertain two or three are put for a few the paucity that may be in a Church shall be no obstacle of Christs presence Pareus upon this Text hath these words It is an argument that the judgement of the Church shall be ratified because Christ himself will be present in the Church as supreme Judge to ratifie it it is also a generall promise of the presence of the grace of Christ in his Church be it great or small Now surely we shall lesse doubt our exposition having so learned a Commentator so well approved of to stand by us in the same POSITION XVII So long as a Believer doth not joyn himself to some particular Congregation he is without in the Apostles sense 1 Cor. 5.12 Those without Answer of whom the Apostle speaketh were unbelievers Pagans and Heathen without Christ as well as without the visible Church Let it be granted that those whom the Apostle speaks of were both without Christ Reply and without the visible Church yet it may be securely affirmed that the Apostle speaks of them under the notion of such as were without the visible church and not of those that were without Christ 1. Singuli de suâ familia judicant non immittunt consuram in alienam samiliam Ergo in Ecclesia similis servetur ratio ut singulae desuit membris judicent Aretius in 1 Cor. 5. Because those without whom the Apostle had not to do to judge stand in opposition to those within vers 12. the latter part whom the Church of Corinth had to do to judge and consequently if this exposition of yours be true the judgement of the Church of Corinth extended as far as the ultima Thule the lands end of Christianity and only ceased when it came to the consines of Paganisme and consequently any one Church hath power to judge any one Believer in all the world because say you he is not without in the Apostles sense that is to say he is not a Pagan Heathen or unbeliever 2. Suppose the Apostle had known a member of the Church of Corinth what ever he appeared outwardly in the frame of his conversation to be indeed without Christ and in a state of enmity with God if this man had committed a grosse sin might not the Apostle have judged such a one to be excommunicated We suppose you will say he might and if so we demand why should a Church-unbeliever be subject to the Apostles judgement and an Heathenish unbeliever be exempted from the Apostles judgement If Church-membership did not make the one obnoxious to that spirituall judgement more then the other For in the notion of unbelievers and without Christ they both agree and therefore if a Heathen were exempted from judgement because without Christ and not for this reason because without the visible Church why should not a Church-unbeliever be exempted as well as a Heathen 2. If we mistake not a Believer not joyned to any particular congregation is without in reference to Church-judgement and we suppose by vertue of this Text in your Presbyterian
are alledged to 32 q p. 59. 76. though not with such tartnesse against Presbyteriall government We will not say to you as Geta in the Comoedian (b) Teren. in Phor. Reply Nihil est Antipho quin male narrando possit depravarier tu id quod boni est excerpis dicis quod mali For you do not only leave out in reciting that which is good but for want of an evill use made of these Scriptures by the Elders of New-England in the 32. Quest you first insinuate that such an ill use is made of the Text and then confute your own fiction for you say To say nothing that the title 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is sometime translated Sir Answer and sometimes Lord Joh. 12.21 c. You take up the Title 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Reply and tell us that it signifies Sir and Lord and that it is sometimes given to Elders amongst others as if you had a minde to speak a good word for some kinde of Lordly power in Church-officers but you lay it down again and tell us Though Elders be not Lords over Gods heritage Answer yet they are Leaders and Guides yea Shepheards Rulers Overseers Bishops Governoure and not only Presidents of the Congregation Moderators of her actions or as the fore-men of the Jury And is not this to insinuate Reply that the Elders of New-England say that the Elders are only Presidents of the Congregation I suppose you mean meerly for orders sake Moderators of her actions or as the fore-men of the Jury Now there is not the least expression in either of the places that so much as seems to smile upon such an assertion as you would father upon the Elders of New-England Nay do they not expressly say that the Elders rule as Stewards as Shepheards as Captains as Guides as Leaders and doth this amount to no more in your Arithmetick then a bare presidency Moderatorship or Fore-manship of a Jury which doth not advance the person that carries the stamp of it one haires breadth above his Brethren in point of authority But only one step before them in point of order Whereas the Elders do not only state a Ministeriall authoritative power in them but also lay an obligation of duty upon the people towards their Officers by vertue of 1 Thes 5.12 13. This is that that we judge to be your own fiction The other Text say you Answer viz. Mat. 20.25 26. forbids Kingly or Lordly power in the Ministers of the Gospel for the two Apostles still dreaming of a temporall kingdome and being kinsmen to Christ did expect some temporall honour and advanaement Christ saith not there was inequality amongst the Priests of the Jews and amongst the Priests of the Gentiles or between the Priests and the people but it shall not be so among you but very aptly and pertinently to their Petition answereth The Princes of Gentiles c. And would you indeed make the world believe by all this Reply that you are all this while beating up the quarters of the Independents when as in truth this Text is urged by the Elders to no other purpose but to deny a kingly or Lordly power in Elders over their Brethren but not to deny an authoritative ministeriall power in reference to their Congregations Therefore they say the Elders are forbidden to exercise authority as the Kings and Princes of the earth do and they quote Mr. Baynes his Diocesan triall Q. 2. p. 74. where he distinguisheth power into naturall and morall morall into Civill and Ecclesiasticall both into Kingly and ministeriall asserting Kingly Ecclesiasticall power to be in Christ ministeriall in the Elders of the Churches who though they be Governours to the Church in the descending line of power yet are they but servile or ministeriall Governours in the ascending line that leads to Christ from whom they receive the Commission because they do all ex mero alterius obsequio by the meer will and command of another I but by this Text they deny a kingly spirituall power Object whereas the Text speaks nothing of spirituall but only of kingly secular power Admit that not only the two sons of Zebedee Answer but even all the Apostles that had been conversant with Christ and heard his doctrine from the beginning were such babes as to imagine that Christ would lay down his spirituall Kingdome over the souls and consciences of his people and for their sakes over Angels wicked men and devills in a way of soveraign power and would take up a temporall kingdome to divide inheritances rule over the persons and estates of men Nay admit that the sons of Zebedee or any or all of the rest of the Apostles had their eyes so dazled with the lustre of this imaginary temporall kingdome that they desired an eminencie one above another herein nothing regarding an eminencie above others in the spirituall Kingdome yet it will not follow that Christ speaks nothing by way of reproofe of ambitious aspirings in the spirituall but only in the temporall kingdome of Christ Neither needed Christ by expressing the inequality among the Priests whether of Jewes or Gentiles c. amplifie and expresse the equality which he would have amongst the Ministers of the Church For expressing the disparity betwixt civill polities of the world and the spirituall polity of the Church he doth that abundantly saith he It shall not be so amongst you as it is in the civill polities of the world There one or more rule with Lordly power the rest are in subjection but in the discharge of your Apostolicall Commission there shall be no such thing but you shall be all of equall power but if any will aspire to greatness in point of authority above his brethren let him be your minister c. as the Apostle taught afterwards 1 Cor. 12.5 There are diversities of administrations but the same Lord Christ only rules with Lordly power over the Church one Apostle or Minister hath no such power nor any authority at all one over another but are all fellow-servants having a ministeriall authority in reference to the houshold of the Church 2. It holds true in this case optimi corruptio fit pessima though Church-officers and offices are excellent things whilest they retain their genuine vigor and vertue according to the institution of Christ yet are they most dangerous when they grow degenerate and corrupt and no corruption so dangerous as that which is Symbolicall in the common nature of Church-power with that from which it doth degenerate Hence it is that corruption of Church-governours in an usurpation of exorbitant Ecclesiasticall domination is of more dangerous influence to the Church then if they should usurp some parts or branches of civill power For as in naturall things we say Elementa symbolica facilius transmutantur so in morall things corruptions do more easily change things in some thing symbolicall with themselves into their own degenerate property like a disease that it most contagious to
judicatories and appeals such ought to have the judging Church in the dayes of the Gospel This main hypothesis upon which the strength of all depends is unsound For 1. It is necessary that the judging Church in the times of the Gospel should be conformed to spirituall precepts and patterns left us by Christ and his Apostles but Christ hath not appointed the Jewish church in matter of government to be a pattern to Gospel Churches For if so then are not the Churches that are of Presbyterian complexion to be understood in this place for there is a vast difference betwixt your Churches and the Jewish Church For First there is disparity in the manner of the calling of persons for Synods are made up of men chosen and sent forth by particular Churches but the Sanhedrin did not consist of chosen men sent out by the Synagogues but of Priests and Levites which the Synagogues did neither choose nor send forth Secondly there is disparity in matter of power In the Jewish Sanhedrin the chief Priest was chief by vertue of Office 2 Chron. 19.11 but in the Classicall Way all are equall in point of Office Thirdly in respect of the causes judged the Sanhedrin dealt with matters of civill nature Deut. 21.5 but Synods only with Ecclesiasticall Fourthly in respect of the time of judicature The Sanhedrin was a standing constant court but Classicall Provinciall Nationall and Oecumenicall Synods meet but once in a moneth once in half a yeer once in twelve moneths or it may be not once in many ages is an Oecumenicall Synod gathered and so those appeals that are made from a Nationall are in little hope to finde relief from an Oecumenicall Synod 2. If it were necessary that Church-government in the times of the Gospel should beare conformity with the Jewish Government then they must not only have graduall judicatories and appeals but they must have First a stated Oecumenicall judicature constantly to judge all hard controversies between blood and blood plea and plea stroke and stroke into all Churches in the world Secondly that this stated Oecumenicall judicature must have some stated place which God should choose Deut. 17.8 that so appellants might know whither to repaire for redresse of their grievances Thirdly that there must be one chief by vertue of office over all met in this universall court 2 Chron. 19.4 That he that shall do presumptuously and will not hearken to that Catholike councell that man must die Deut. 17.12 3. There may be good reason rendered why the Synagogues should be under a Juperiour judicatory and the same cause there is why Congregationall-churches should be under a Superiour judicatory The Synagogues were parts of a church that had not power to dispence all Gods Ordinances amongst themselves and were branches of a politick nationall-Nationall-church endued with power of government as Nationall The Promise and Covenant of God extended to the whole Nation But there is no such power of government left to every or to any Nation in the world neither are particular Congregations parts of a Church as the Synagogues of the Jewes were but they are entire and compleat Churches and may transact all Gods Ordinances walking in truth and peace amongst themselves otherwise all Gods Ordinances could not be transacted unlesse a whole Nation were converted and brought into Church-society This Gospel was writ principally for the Jews some say in Hebrew Answer c. Admitting the Proposition were true Reply which yet we have much cause to doubt of may not Congregationall men that are Christians use this place aright in applying it to Congregationall churches because the whole Gospel was writ principally for the Jews Certainly the undiscernible strength of this reason at least by us will levie war against the Presbyterians except they will professe themselves Jews for applying this place to Presbyterian Churches The Epistles to the Hebrews and James were writ principally for the Jewes and yet Christians that are Gentiles may make a right use of them In it the spirit of God useth much the language and dialect of the old Testament Answer in which Kahal and Ecclesia with the Seventy do sometimes signifie the company of Elders as well as the body of the people a Nationall Church with graduall judicatories and appeals as well as a particular assembly We cannot but despaire of ever seeing the premises delivered of the conclusion Reply Let it be granted that Kahal c. signifies in the old Testament sometimes a company of Elders sometimes the People sometimes a Nationall sometimes a Congregationall Church yet it will not follow that the Congregationall men in applying Mat. 18.17 to the Congregationall Church have offered any violence to the Text. For it will not follow Kahal sometimes signifies a Nationall Church in the old Testament no though to make it more strong you adde that the Spirit useth much the language and dialect of the old Testament I say it will not follow therefore it signifies a Nationall Church in Matth. 18.17 for the Spirit may use by your own confession the language and dialoct of the old Testament and yet it may be understood of a particular Assembly Neither will it follow Kahal sometime in the old Testament Ergo Ecclesia signifies a company of Elders Ergo it signifies a company of Elders in Matth. 18.17 Now there is not a word in the Text Answer to shew either that the Church is not here taken for the Presbyterie but for the People seeing when Christ saith whatsoever ye shall binde c. he speaks to the Disciples vers 1. or Apostles which are elsewhere said to have the power of binding and loosing Matth. 16.19 Joh. 20.23 and were not ordinary Believers but Elders 1 Pet. 5.1 or that it is meant of a parcular Congregation without graduall judicatories and appeals c. These are the Premises Reply but how shall we do to get the conclusion willingly to follow these Premises which must be this Ergo when the Congregationall men affirm that the particular Congregation is the Church to which God hath given the power of government and urge Matth. 18. to prove the exercise of such power by the Church aforesaid they abuse that Text. For the Congregationall men may very securely affirm that those words Tell the Church send the offended Brother to the Congregationall Church in the time of the Gospel even as they sent the Jewés to the Sanhedrin whilest that was in force and yet not send him to the people as they stand in opposition to the Presbyterie which are the most noble organicall parts of the integrally perfect Church For we do not seat the power of the Keys in the people as they are contradistinguished to their Elders but in the whole Church by a most wise and divine dispersion of power unto the dissimilar parts of the Church according to their severall capacities For as the Elders have an authoritative power so the people have a power of liberty in point of
Paul alone did not do it Doth Paul command the Church to deliver the incestuous person to Satan Answer and yet reserve the whole power to himself as he must needs do if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 have reference to himself These things being spoken by you in reference to one individuall act under one and the same consideration expressed in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must needs be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 altogether inconsistent one with another or with the truth 2. If the Elders abuse the Text by saying that Paul exhorts the Church of Corinth to excommunicate the incestuous person how will you wash your hands from all wrong offered to the Text whilst you affirm that Paul commanded them to excommunicate him Yes say you Paul writes to them to see if they would be obedient in all things Is this your meaning that Paul writes not to them requiring them to put forth a power given unto them and all other Churches by Jesus Christ but only to exercise an act of power which did not of right belong unto them but to his Apostolicall Function And why by the same reason might not the Apostle then and the Ministers now in their Churches call out one or more and command them to preach or administer Baptisme or the Supper meerly to try their obedience Now this must be your meaning or else your argument will never conclude the thing you professe to conclude For we willingly grant that Paul writ unto them to try their obedience but the very Text imports that there were other grounds of his writing as well as this for he saith not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore for this I write much lesse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for this therefore only writ but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for this therfore also I writ unto you to try your obedience intimating that there were other grounds And therefore that Paul writ unto them to try their obedience will never afford such a conclusion therfore he writ not to them to exercise an ordinary power purchased for them by the blood of Christ for obedience may be tried by that which is both a priviledge and a duty Paul bids the Colossians cause an Epistle to be read in Laodicea Answer they its like did it in obedience to Apostolicall authority yet it will not bence follow that a Church hath ordinarily the same power over another Church There is a twofold causing by way of authority Reply or by way of morall swasion or endeavour this latter the Apostle speaks of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he work or use your endeavour and the same power hath every Church over other at this day for their good 2. Suppose you could obtain what you desire in all these that Paul did excommunicate not the Church or if the Church did yet it is a wrong to the text to plead for the like power at this day Do you not all this while fight against the Presbyterians whose Cause you pretend to advocate as well as against the Congregationall men whom you professedly oppose For if it will not follow The Church of Corinth whether particular or representative is commanded to deliver the incestuous person to Satan therefore every true Courch hath the same power then whilest the Presbyterian Brethren urge this place to prove the power of a Classicall Presbyterie they wrong the Text For though it may be a question whether this Text gratifie the fraternity of the Church with so much power as we would state upon them by vertue of this Text yet Presbyterians and Congregationall men all except your self that we know agree That whatsoever power the Fraternity and Presbyterie of the Church of Corinth had that the Fraternity and Presbyterie of all true Churches have to the end of the world He bids them purge out the leaven Answer and put away from them the wicked person c. which must not be understood as if Elders and People were equally authorized thereunto c. 1. Reply Is not this to insinuate that the Elders of New-England and Mr. Cotton affirm that the Elders and People are equally authorized to cast out the incestuous person and not only quilibet in suo gradu every one in their degree There is nothing in the place by you alledged that doth import thus much They say the Apostle reproves the one as well as the other The King for a miscarriage in a Cause may reprove the Jury as well as the Judge and yet there is no such implication that Elders and People Judge and Jury are equally authorized to the respective acts of Judicature The Elders of New-England infer from hence that all Church-power is not in the Officers alone do they therefore affirm that there is as much in the people as in the Elders Whereas in answer to Q. 15. p. 60. they shew certain acts of power in the Eldership which are not in the people and Mr. Cotton (a) Cotton Keys cap. 4. and 5. expresly gives all authority properly so called to the Eldership allotting only a popular power of interest and liberty to the people 2. And lastly for the rest of your expressions about this matter I take to be but of the train and retinue of this grand misprision and so passe them over lastly I say when you say that he bids them purge out the old leaven and put away the wicked person which must not be understood as if Elders and People were equally authorized thereunto but quilibet in suo gradu a man would think you did acknowledge that the People in suo gradu are authorized to purge out the old leaven and put away the wicked person which questionlesse are acts of some kinde of governing power and yet in the Catastrophe of all this Discourse you wipe the Fraternity of the Church cleerly of all acts of governing power when you say So when he speaks of acts of gouerning power it is to be understood of Elders and not of Believers Are not these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Are purging out the old leaven and putting away the wicked person acts of governing power And are Believers authorized in suo gradu to perform these acts and yet doth no act of governing power belong to the Believers of the church Let him assoyle this Riddle that is an Oedipus able to do it for our parts we cannot Thus much of your 21. Section POSITION XXII The Lord Jesus reproving the Angel of Pergamus for suffering Balaamites sends his Epistle This is alledged by Answ to 32. q. 45. and 49. not only to the Angel but to the Church The Spirit saith not only to the Angel but to the Churches Rev. 2.11 And the Church members are seen by Iohn in a vision sitting on Thrones clothed with white raiment having on their heads Crownes of gold Rev. 4.14 Now Thrones and Crownes are ensignes of Authority and governing power To make good your charge against the Elderss of wrong offered to these Texts
believers may be said to be WITHOUT in that sense page 74 75 76 1 Cor. 7.16 Gifted men or women may convert page 120 1 Cor. 11.19 The Church whether it is the place page 25 26 Vers 20. A church meeting in one place page 13-31 1 Cor. 14.1 2.3.33 All must covet the gift of prophecy page 121 124 V. 12.31 Such may page 128 1 Cor. 14.23 This is discussed fully there page 13 to 31 V. 32. Spirit of Prophets subject page 126 1 Cor. 12.8 Pastor and Teachers gifts distinct page 70 1 Cor. 12.9.29 All had not all gifts page 125 V. 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Helps put for Deacons page 63 1 Cor. 14.1.3 Prophecying hath something ordinary something extraordinary p. 118 Vers 34. Women to be silent in your churches What churches means he p. 21 Not to use power in churches page 91 95 1 Cor. 15.6 Christ appeared to five hundred brethren at once in Jerusalem page 11 1 Cor. 16.1 2 Cor. 8.1 Churches whether Nationall churches page 21 to 31 1 Cor. 16.1 Ministers to be maintained by the churches contributions every first day scanned page 60 61 Vers 1.2 Every first dayes contribution proved page 64 Qu. Whether those collections were to cease page 65 Hence for maintaining the Ministers proved page 66 2 CORINTH 2.9 Church excommunicates and not Paul alone page 97 2 Cor. 3.1 Letters of recommendation to others page 117 2 Cor. 6.16 A Church is Gods Temple page 71 2 Cor. 8.5 Such give themselves to the Lord and to them page 44 2 Cor. 8.18 19. Many churches may choose one to do them service page 30 GALATIANS 3.16 17. And in thy seed not to page 42 Gal. 5.9.12.15 Church to cut off offenfenders page 95 Gal. 6.6 Opening the communicating to Ministers page 63 EPHESIANS 2.22 A house of stones united page 38 Eph. 4.11 Teachers and Pastors are distinct page 69 Eph. 5.25 26. Is of the Church mysticall page 28 PHILIPPIANS 1.7 Churches to be of reputed Saints page 32 Phil. 4.15 Giving and receiving are acts of communion page 63 COLOSSIANS 4.17 A Church hath power to censure her officers page 58 59 1 TIMOTHY 1.20 Whether Paul alone excommunicated Hymeneus page 96 1. Tim. 3.8 Deacons office is not temporary page 63 1 Tim. 3.10 One unofficed may preach page 58 1 Tim. 4.14 Elders laid on hands page 96 1 Tim. 5.17 Whether ruling Elders must be maintained by the Church page 60 1 Tim. 6.13 14. That Christ left but one way of Church discipline which must be kept to the end of the world page 107 2 TIMOTHY 1.6 Whether Paul laid on hands alone page 96 JAMES 1.1 with Jam. 2.2 Whether all the twelve Tribes were one Church or how called your Synagogues page 18 19 1 PETER 2.5 A Church of living stones page 36 1 Pet. 2.25 Shepheard and Bishop there are one and the same page 69 1 Pet. 4.14 Ministers not to be Bishops in anothers Dioces page 111 1 Pet. 5.1 Apostles were Elders of all Churches page 46 1 Pet. 5.3 Elders are not Lords over Gods Heritage page 78 3 d. Epist JOHN vers 9. Diotrephes that loved preeminence how blamed page 78 81 REVELATIONS 1.6 Kings and Priests distinguished page 127 Rev. 2.11 The Spirit speaks not to the Angel alone but also to the churches page 101 Rev. 4.14 The Church hath Crownes which implies it hath authority ibid. Rev. 8.8 9. A great Mountain cast into the Sea what it means page 68 Rev. 13.1 15.2 Sea put for the Church or the Churches Religion page 68 Rev. 15.3 Christ is the King of the Church page 104 Rev. 21.27 Rev. 22.14 Nothing shall enter into the Holy City the Church that defileth page 38 Some Greek words and phrases opened herein 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whether in one place or in one minde page 18 20 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Kak Synagoga and Hebrew Gnedah Kahal What page 24 25 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Every first day cleared 1 Cor. 16.1 2. page 65 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have judged to deliver What page 97 98 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For this I wrote page 99 Errata PAge 35. line 4. à fine reade converted p. 36. l. 5. à fine given Paul r. given by Paul p. 37. l. 9. r. 1 Cor. 1.5 p. 49. l. 10. à fine 2 3 23. dele 23. p. 52. l. 4. à fine 19.2 W. r. 19.2 p. 65. l. 9. Matth. 18. r. 28. p. 83. circa med Luke 24. r. 14. p. 110. l. 4. r. presidents p. 114. circa med 2 Thes r. 1 Thes p. 121. r. 1 Cor. 14.1.3 FINIS