2.2.14.20 It being also clear that if they were not then duly proceeded against they could not be justly and orderly excommunicated 4. If it be said that this meeting if it was a formal Synod it was only occasional and not a set stated monethly or yearly meeting I answer 1 This is but a circumstance of time which followeth necessarily the substance of the thing if Synods sit they must sit in some time but what time or times they should sit doth depend upon circumstances and as the Churches business requireth the scripture doth not mention any stâ—tâ—d Ecclesiastical meetings for government Synodical or Congrâ—gational that they should meet weekly monethly nor mentioneth it any set Church-meetings except the Lords day for preaching hearing fasting prayer conference yet the Church may upon occasion order weekly or monethly Congregational meetings for those purposes according to the general rules of Gods word your selves grant that the officers of several Churches may meet together as oft as occasion shal require to advise and consult about the ordering of the affaires of the Churches in all difficult cases And that at every meeting the time of the next meeting be determined on and the occasion thereof so far as appears intimated Yea you tel us p. 128. That emimently gifted men may preach for divers moneths together while the occasion lasts And so I say Synods may meet but if it appear there be no just occasion of a Synod I desire not that there should be any in a stated way Sect. 2. Reply p. 23. What is there to warrant combination of assemblies in a Nation more then of all Christian assemblies in the world represented in an oecumenical Councel For if a Congregational Church must depend upon a National Church then a National Church must depend upon the universal as the lesser upon the greater What a Nation is to a Congregation that the Universal is to a Nation Rejoyn I wil also ask you one question what is there more to warrant the Elders of New England to convene in a Synod or Assembly of the Churches then the Elders of all the world to convene in a general Councel Surely no more warrant save that they had a better call and more power and encouragement by the Civil Magistrates and their mutual consent and might with more conveniency ease expedâ—tion and safety meet together in Cambridge in N. E. then all the Elders in the world could and yet you account that Assembly an Ordinance of God 2. There is not the same necessity of combination of all Churches in the world as there is of all Churches in a Nation for peace and government Is there as good reason that all kingdoms should be subject to one general meeting o the Kings and supreme Magistrates as that in every Kingdom there should be subordination of Judicatories and appeals from the less to the greater 3. How much greater distance there is between particular Churches so much the less needs the visible communion of those Churches to be because danger of scandal and infection and the opportunity of mutual edification is less or more according as the distance of place is greater or less therefore there is or ought to be a more strict ordinary visible Ecclesiastical communion within a Classis then within a Province within a Nation then in all the world 4. Your selves must either acknowledg that a particular Church hath power to elect an officer for other Churches for you oft alledg Acts 1. for the Churches power of Election as wel as their own or else grant that that was a general Church or Councel which did choose an Apostle a general officer 5. As for your conceit that the members of a general Councel must be universal Pastors it hath been before confuted in a democracy or popular government the power is in all the people joyntly but to say that every one of the people is an universal officer is ridiculous Sect. 3. When I say shew me a Nation of Magistrates and people converted and I wil shew you a National Church You reply p. 24. that I might have said Shew me a Nation converted and I wil shew a National Church framed like the Iewish Church with one National Bishop over it one National Cathedral in it Rejoyn 1. The Jewish was rather the Universal then a National Church if God should have called any or all other Nations they must have been proselyted into it 2. If there were no better arguments against the Pope and Prelatical men then you bring against a National Church and if the Nationalness of the Church was as truly Ceremonial and abrogated as the high Priest and Temple were which you odly cal a National Bishop and Cathedral are then that form of speech should I use it were irreprehensible 3. I retort shew me an Assembly of the Churches in a Nation like that of New England and I wil shew you a National Church You further say Reply p. 24. Though there was no Nation converted yet Christ's mind in that matter might easily have been dictated in the Scriptures had he intended any such Church afterwards as Moses tels the Iews Deut. 12.8 9 10. And though there were not Nations converted yet there were so many in a Nation converted as made many Assemblies In little Iudea there were Congregation and why together with the Church at Ierusalem might tâ—ere not have been a Diocesan or Classical Church The foot-stets of a Diocesan or Classical Church shal serve the turn then we wil yeeld there might in time be a National Rejoyn You hold a National Synod to be a lawful and useful Ordinance of God if one should deny it and say shew me a lesser Synod of all the Churches within such or such a circuit and I wil grant there may be a National Synod consider wel what ye would answer 2. It is either weakness or worse to intimate to the world that Presbyterians do plead for a Diocesan Church you know I suppose that Mr Rhuterfurd and others do professedly reject and refute it 3. I have shewed that the Church of Ierusalemâ— did consist of many Congregations and that the Elders of that Church did convene for acts of government you cannot deny and this you know is a Presbyterial Church which we cal a Classis 4. I have shewed a pattern of an authoritative Synod exercising jurisdiction over particular Churches and cleared it from your greatest and strongest exceptions against it 5. In Chap. 9. I have shewed from holy Scripture that there is an Vniversal visible Church which is greater then a National and doth include and justifie it and to which it is subordinate in a regular way These you know are more then footsteps of a Presbyterial or Classical Church 6. The Scriptures do prophecy of the cal of a Nation I. a. 55.5 and also of a Nations answer to that call and that Israel should be one of the three which may import three National Churches One Nation as
first argument for an universal visible Church The Apostles were universal officers to which an universal visible Church is the adaequate correlative were good if the Apostles had bin universal ordinary officers but they were universal extraordinary officers therefore the Adaequate correlative is an extraordinary universal visible Church I answer 1. I have not heard til now of an extraordinary visible Church which continued til the death of Iohn and then breathed its last 2. If there were then an universal visible Church whether ordinary or extraordinary as to this it matters not it followes necessarily that all those presidents which are brought for Iuda poâ—â—â—â—â—â— Churches in Galatia Asia Iudea do not so much as prove de facto that the Churches then were Independent much less do they prove de jure that then and ever after all Churches ought to be such 3. God hath set Pastors teachers helpes governments which are ordinary officers and offices in the very same Church in which â—e set Apostles Evangelists Prophets extraordinary officers and therefore the same Church doth continue to the end of the world 4. Ordinary Pastors baptized the Corinthians into this universal visible Church for Paul baptized none of them but Crispus and Gajus and the houshold of Stephanus 1 Cor. 1.14 16. with 1 Cor. 12.13 And ordinary Pastors now do baptiz into the same body that ordinary Pastors then did viz. into the universal visible Church as hath bin shewed before therefore the universal visible Church continues to the end of the world 5. The arguments and illustrations I have brought to hold out the universal visible Church do suite all or most of them not only with the Church in the Apostlique times but in after ages 6. Every Apostle was as it were an Eldership of the Churches extraordinarily combined in one man and so one Apostle being an Elder of all Churches had universal authority in all Churches but that so much authority in all the Churches as was to be perpetual should be in the Elders of all the Churches was not temporary or extraordinary but is ever useful and necessary Sect. 2. As for the defect of general Councels c. I answer 1. You seem to assert that that doctrine which supposeth a great defect in Christendome is not to be entertained or is not likely to be the way of God which if true I am sure the Independent way is not likely to be the way of God for that supposeth a far greater defect in Christendome the Churches of Christ far more generally opposing it then the other way 2. There have bin some general representative conventions as the Councel of Nice Ephesus c. The Protestant Churches a great part of this body met at the Synod of Dâ—rt 3. There is nothing intrinsecal to the Church but that they may meet so stil the lets are but extrinsecal viz. division amongst Kings and Countries c. The deadly enmity or great reâ—â—teness of the several nations in which Christians do respectively dwel Had you but one Independent Congegation in England another in Spaiâ— another in Turky you could not gather an assembly or Synod of these Churches though it were never so needful and though you did much desire it as being an ordiâ—â—â— of God yea in that 〈◊〉 suppose you were Presbyterians you could not have so much as a Class and yet such a defect you would esteem your affliction not your sin 4. The fault is not so great as you make it For 1. every Prince and State doth come as neer a general assembly as they can encouraging the Churches within their territories to combine and be as it were one body or Church of Churches 2. That is supream authority to us which is the highest authority we can get pro hic nunc we hold that supream Ecclesiastical power may be in a National or in a Provincial Church if God shut the door of higher appeals and he by his providence and not we through our default do break the line of subordination yea in a particular Church which same thing we hold also of supream civil power that in some necessary cases it may be exercised in one Assembly yea in one Family the same thing might in some cases be said of a Jewish Synagogue when they could not have the benefit of any superior Judicatory 3. A general Councel hath in this last age been desired and endeavoured by sundry famous Christians though in vain 5. If there were such a lawful general Councel we should be as willing to submit to their godly decrees as to follow their advise though the question is not what we would do but what we should do CHAP. X. Of the word Churches whether it evince Independency of Congregations I Omit some things less pertinent and profitable as 1. That the English word Church did anciently signifie the place for the Saxons Germanes Dutch Nations from whence this word is deriued do usually cal their temples or meeting places by the name of Cyrick Kirich Kerck and they cal the people the Gemeine and the Gemeint as is acknowledged by one of your friends Guide to Sion p. 4. Hence our Translators turn the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into Church Acts 19.37 and our meeting places are properly and truly called Churches 2. That Ecclesia commonly translated Church is not necessarily so translated but convocation or a people called oâ—â— though it may be at least metoâ—â—â—mically undâ—â—â—ood of the place of ordinary publick worship as Mr Mede Mr Fuller and of late Mr Bifield do interpret 1 Cor. 11. which ought not to be despised a negative civil reverence being due unto it as to a Court-house Senate-house Parliament-house c. 3. That the words Kaâ—â—l and Gnedah do sometimes signifie a dispersed multitude or company that possibly never did nor could meet together Hence we read of a Church of Nations Gen. 35.11 Church of evil doers Psa 26.5 Church of the dead Prov. 21.16 Church of the righteous Ps 1.5 And the people of Israel though divided into several Domistied Assemblies to keep the Passover are called one Church Exod. 12.46 47. when I urge and prove that usually an Assemby or Coâ—cio is all one with Kahal or Ecclesia and that in this sense there were many Churches amongst the Iews the Scripture cals them Church or Congregation often and sometimes in respect of their several Synagogues Tribes and Families Congregations Psa 74.4.8 No wonder therefore if the Christians of one Country meeting in several Synagogues and houses do receive the dommination of Churches which in Scripture-phrase is all one with assemblies many whereof we confess were in Galatia Macedonia c. You reply p. 26 27. Psa 74.4.8 is impertinently aledged for Congregations there is metonymically used and is all on with Synagogues and signifies the place and not the people at all the Congregation was but one having one high Priest for their chief Pastor though meeting in its parts in many places the Church
opposed to any man that is called a Brother but all Christians in Scripture-phrase are called brethren whether they be of the same or of severall congregations yea though one should be unjoyned to any congregation as Paul whom Ananias calleth brother Saul Act. 9 17. And the Apostle writing to severall churches wills them to love as brethren to love the brotherhood 1 Pet. 2.17 3.8 Lastly they are here said to be without which Paul had not to do with by judging them but of this more afterwards Sect. 2. But you reply If this exposition of yours be true then the judgement of the Church of Corinth did extend to the lands-end of Christianity to the confines of Paganisme and consequently any one Church hath power to judge any Believer in the world for he saith Do not ye judge them that are within V. 12. Rejoynd Nothing so for Ye there is to be understood of the Corinthians as members in part of the universall visible church 1 Cor. 12.27 28. Your selves tell us p. 65. that the Epistles do respect persons according to their capacities so this judging those that are within respects only the church of Corinth suppose he writes only to one church for we would not mingle questions lest we should darken the light according to her capacity viz. You judge all within your limits all of the city of Corinth the Cenchrean church all within that town and other Churches pari ratione authoritate within theirs So ye are Gods husbandry and Gods building 1 Cor. 3.9 that is ye are part of Gods husbandry of Gods building So 1 Cor. 12.27 Ye are the body of Christ viz. as he immediately by way of correction doth interpret himselfe Members in part And in 1 Cor. 3.21 22. he saith all things are yours Paul Apollos Cephas Now Paul and Cephas were officers of all churches his meaning therefore is that they are yours viz. yours amongst others and All things are yours viz. all things belong to the Universall church of which the Apostles were properly officers and to you as members And so it is no more but this Ye are amongst those that judge them that are within So Calvin and Beza might have written to one or two English Bishops and said You silence all Nonconformists and yet might well enough have been understood that they had but silenced all within their Diocesses and other Bishops had done the like in theirs Sect. 3. Reply p. 74. Suppose the Apostle had known a member of the Church of Corinth whatever he appeared outwardly in the frame of his conversation to be indeed without God 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 and why should a Church-unbeliever be subject to the Apostles judgement and an Heathenish unbeliever exempt from it if Church-membership did not make the one obnoxious to that judgement more then the other Rejoynd 1. By your argument p. 36. he ought not to be excommunicated for you say Excommunication supposeth men to be alive in the judgement of charity but such a one as is known to be without Christ is not supposed to be alive 2. We assert that if he have committed some grosse sinne and appear to the Church obstinate therein he may be excommunicated though he be supposed to be truly ingrafted into Christ 3. I dare not say that one known by the Apostle to be without Christ which hath committed some grosse sinne as heresie adultery or some other work of the flesh Gal. 5. if he being admonished do heare the Church and submit himself ought to be excommunicated Tit. 3.10 Mat. 18.17 A member of the visible Church though indeed without Christ and so discerned by an Apostle cannot be judged to be without Christ in foro ecclesiastico he appearing as you put the case outwardly otherwise in the frame of his conversation 4. I never said nor thought but a man must be within the Church before the Apostle could excommunicate him yet it hence follows not that he must be within this or that particular church or within the Church in your sense Of I'resbyterian calculation I shall speak in the last Section Sect. 4. When I urge that the Apostle opposeth fornicators of the world and fornicators that are brethren You reply that Persecution in the Primitive times was levied against those which did joyne themselves to the Churches or otherwise visibly as Paul at his first conversion by preaching declared themselves to be Christs disciples That the brother opposed to the fornicators of the world is not be that by the internall and invisible grace of faith is a brother and dare not â—â—enly professe Christ but a named and professed brother Fervicators of this world are to be understood of it as it stands in opposition to the visible Church Rejoynd The Apostle forbad them to eat not only with scandalous Church-members but with all Brethren not those which are brethren only in foro Dei conscientiae suae by the internall and invisible grace of faith whereof it is impossible the Church should take notice De non existentibus non apparentibus eadem est ratio But those that were brethren in foro ecclesiae did make profession of Christianity were called brethren and yet were scandalous I am not so senslesse as to think that the Church was bound to take notice of the internall invisible and unprofessed grace of faith in a mans heart why do you so largely disprove it 2. A man may be a brother that is a Christian and disciple of Christ as Paul was it is your own instance at his first conversion before any such enchurching yea every visible Christian is so for by priority of nature every Christian is first of the universall visible Church and so in that respect called a brother and secondarily of a particular congregation An Heathen is not first converted into this or that or the other Congregation but first into the Church catholique then into this or that Congregation Now the Apostle saith not if any man that is called a brother and is a member of a particular Congregation with such a one eat not but you contrary to the rule Non restringendum ubi lex non restringit say if a man be called a brother and be not of a particular congregation he is without as well as an Heathen and the Church hath no power to censure him nor doth the Apostle forbid us to eat with such an one And so you make scandalous Church-membership not scandalous professorship of Christianity to be the formall objective cause of our separation and withdrawing from them Sect. 5. When I say Without are dogs sorcerers Rev. 12.15 such as Paul had not to do with What have I to do c. v. 12. And yet he had to do with all Christians by his illimited Apostolique power whether they belong to that or any other Congregation on no
usuall nor needfull 3. How 8000. or suppose but 5000. new Converts and the many thousands converted by John Baptist Christ and the 12 Apostles and 70 Disciples before Christs death could at that meeting upon the Apostles motion all of them know the seven men and so unanimously agree upon this new businesse without considering and consulting apart especially seeing they were of divers languages is a thing incredible most probable it is that the Grecians that murmured against the Hebrewes did apart choose one or more of of the Deacons as suppose Nicolas the Proselyte of Antioch 4. Whereas you name Cenchrea though you bring nothing to prove it was only one particular assembly and your men pretend that it was but a little town I read that it was a very well frequented populous town most famous for the station of the ships and so might be large enough to contain in it many Church-assemblies as well as many Haven-towns in England do 5. There are no officers appointed by God for National churches but the same that are for lesser churches surely there may be National churches without National officers as in Scotland The office of a President Register c. nature may teach it National Synods which your selves hold lawfull as well as Congregationall Judicatories 6. For Lawes there are some lawes for Synods whether National Provincial or Oecumenical and there are some acts of Church-government which by the lawes of Christ every particular Congregation is unable to performe as I have formerly shewed 7. Seeing there is deep silence in the Scripture of this Position that every Church must be only Congregational and Independent in opposition to Classical Provincial c. and seeing also there is a charter from heaven for combination of Churches into Classes Synods and for the authoritative power thereof therefore they which say that Mat. 18. must needs be meant only of the former and cannot be rightly applied to the latter do abuse and wrest that Scripture Lastly Mr. Cotton himself saith Keyes 47. that the promise of binding and loosing is not given to a particular Congregation when it is leavened with error and variance Ecclesia litigans non ligat Clavis errans non ligat But then a Synod of Churches or of their messengers may judicially convince and condemn error search out truth determine declare and impose the way of truth and peace upon the Church You say a Synod must not assume authority of censuring Delinquents Wherein you oppose Mr. Cotton for how can a Synod of Churches impose wayes of truth and peace upon a litigating erring Church if she have no authority to censure the said delinquent Church nor any member of it except she her self will do it I leave you three to consider of the matter CHAP. XXIX Of the power of the Keyes in MAT. 16.19 Sect. 1. Reply p. 89. The power of the Keys we seat not in the people as contradistinguisht to their Elders but in the whole Church by a most wise and divine dispersion of power into the dissimilar parts of the Church Elders have an authoritative power the people have a power of liberty in point of Censures so that reclamante ecclesia there can be no excommunication Rejoynd 1. Who made these Keyes especially this key of Liberty cannot they that make Keyes make Locks too If God have made these Keyes I pray shew me when and where If the Scripture do not witnesse that they are true Keyes I shall think them to be picklocks and fit with the Popes keyes to be thrown into Tyber 2. A Key in all mens judgements was wont to imply office and authority they that have no office have no keys that I know of at their girdle In a family or in a corporation or city servants and citizens have some liberties priviledges and interests which yet have no stroke in ordering the Keyes in city or family 3. Do not your selves give the people without officers or as distinct from them a Key of authority Tell me I pray you is not Ordination an authoritative act an act of government And yet you say Pos 10. the brethren may ordain Is not Church-admonition as a step to an higher censure an authoritative act an act of government and yet you say the brethren may admonish their officers yea and excommunicate them at least negatively which you say is not so authoritative as the positive but yet you imply it is authoritative Do you hold that Elders do receive their authority from the Church of Believers or no If you do then the Church of believers hath authority else she could not give authority If you do not you forsake your own principles If ye hold that the peoples denyal of consent when a case is voted doth bind the Elders and the Elders denyal of consent doth not bind the people then the people have more authority then the Elders If you say the Elders and body of Members have each a negative voyce then you make the Church to consist of two co-ordinate societies which you cannot prove by Scripture 4. Your speech Reclamante ecclesia c. must be rightly understood or else it is not true the sentence of Excommunication may be valid in foro though not in facto in respect of right though it cannot take due effect as an Outlawry may be good in law though the people will not withdraw from the person out-lawed if the people had a negative voice which might illegitimate and disanull the act of the Presbyterie then they had greater authority then the Presbyterie A necessity of the Members consent doth constitute Church government in a Democratical frame in Rome Athens c. they had Magistrates yet the government was democratical But certainly it belongs to the Elders which are stewards of the mysteries of God 1 Cor. 4.1.2 Tit. 1.7 and not to the whole family next under the Lord and by his direction to take in and turn away servants and Elders have full power to baptize upon making of a disciple without any intervening act of the Church Mat. 28.19 and this power was exercised by John Baptist Mat. 3.6 Luk. 3.7 and the Disciples of Christ Joh. 4.1 2. and the Apostles Act. 2.37 38 41. Act. 4. 5. 8. c. no mention being made of a Church or Congregation voting for their admission into the Church by baptisme Sect. 2. When I answer that Peter and the rest to whom Christ directs his speech were Apostles in office and commission though not yet sent out into all the world you tell us that the terme Apostle is equivocall as noting 1. One authorised to dispence Doctrine and Discipline amongst all Nations Mat. 28.19 and in this sense Peter was no Apostle 2. As one sent out by a temporary commission to preach and work miracles amongst the Jewes only Rejoynd .. 1. That they were not called Apostles by Anticipation only is very clear as any historicall thing is for the Text saith hee chose made and
of all the other six Churches did endeavor the casting out of these Balaamites c. why were they then not cast out Could the Elders of Pergamus over-vote the Elders of the neighouring churches in a Synod and if all or the major part of the Elders of the 7 Churches did neglect why are the Elders of Pergamus only reproved Rejoynd I pray you tell us whether the words The spirit saith to the Churches doth prove that only one Church and not Churches are spoken to by the spirit 2. Whereas you suppose I mean the other sixe churches of Asia and tell of a common combined Presbytery amongst them all Episcopall men make each of those Churches an Episcopall Sea having other Churches under it's jurisdiction and you fancy to bring them all under one combined Presbytery both which are extreams had I meant either of them I could have so expressed my selfe I meant only churches in the same sense that the text means and determined not what that meaning may bee but say once again if it could bee proved from Rev. 2.8 that the Epistle directed to the Angel of the Church of Ephesus was of immediate concernment to one Church then it may bee thence proved that it is of immediate concernment to churches sic de caeteris v. 11.17 and one is as cleer as the other and your selves I hope mean not to contradict the sacred Text whatsoever be the meaning of it 3. Mr. Brightman a godly learned man doth conceive that each of those seven churches did typifie one or more Nationall Churches for instance Laodicea doth typifie England Philadelphia in which the spirit of God finds nothing reprehensible Scotland Geneva c. each of which have severall Congregationall Churches within their combination 4. My thoughts I shall deliver in these propositions 1. The Church of Ephesus did consist of more congregations then one I evince it first by the muâ—titude of beleevers there Paul continuing Preaching there for the space of three years Act. 20.31 God gave special successe to his Ministry so that many beleeved and there were many also which used curious Arts who brought their books and burned them before all men the price of which was 50000. pieces of silver so mightily grew the Word of God and prevailed Act. 19.18 19 20. and a great and effectuall dore was opened to him 1 Cor. 16.8 9. 2. By the number of Elders Act. 20.17 the terme All being again and again given them v. 36 37. Paul setled there about twelve disciples which Prophesied Act. 19.1.6.7 and doubtlesse in any single Congregation many Elders and Prophets especially in those times of extraordinary gifts could not finde imployment The second Proposition is that the Church of Ephesus had but one Presbytery Rev. 2.1 Act. 20.17 28. The third Proposition is that congregations and assemblies are in Scripture phrase called Churches so the Jewish Church which unquestionably was but one is called Churches as hath been shewed and the severall assemblies were ruled by one Presbytery and so the meaning of this place is that the spirit speaketh not only to the Angell of the Church of Ephesus but to the severall assemblies of the Church As Church and city do expound one another so there was but one Church comprising all the Christians within Ephesus if they were 40000. as Church and Assembly doe explain one another so they were many churches 10.20.30 it may bee and your selves will acknowledge that if this bee true of Ephesus it may bee true of Smyrna Pergamus c. that they also consisted of more Congregations then one though perhaps it bee not so evident 5. Your large discourse to prove that the seven Churches were not under a common combined Presbyterie is not only impertinent for no one holds that opinion that I know but also in part insufficient if it were to any purpose I could discover the weaknesse of it but I shall take notice only of your last thing Sect. 3. Reply p. 104. The sad condition of Presbyterian churches is such that if wicked men bee suffered in any congregation in the world all the churches in the world are guilty of it for the same obligation that lies upon a classicall church to reform the congregation lyes upon a Provinciall church to reform the classis upon the Nationall to reform the Provinciall Synod upon the Oecumenicall to reform the Nationall though inferior churches should faile the Oecumenicall should see it reformed and if the Oecumenicall faile all the churches of the world are guilty Rejoynd 1. That there is or ought to be the same obligation in all respects between all the Churches in the world as there is between the Churches of a Nation Province or Classis I never asserted but the contrary why then do you let such a proposition as this go naked without any proof What are all the Churches in the world guilty if wicked men be suffered in any particular Congregation and doth Presbyterianisme bring such guilt Oh if you wrong it and the glorious Churches of God what can you answer when they rise up against you at that Day 2. If the Angel of the Church of Thyatyra suffer that woman Jezabel God will indeed cast them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation but the rest in Thyatyra as many as have not this doctrine and which have not known the depths of Sathan be will lay upon them no other burden but to hold fast what they have already Rev. 2.22.24 but you it seems will lay upon them the burden of all those fornications idolatries seductions impenitencies which any of those with whom they were in communion were guilty of though they mourned for it and laboured to amend it but could not 3. The faithfull in Pergamus are said to hold fast Gods name and not deny his faith and yet they had amongst them such as held the doctrine of Balaam and of the Nicolaitans which did not hold fast Gods name and faith Rev. 2.13.14 Dare you say that the godly and orthodox were guilty of these abominations because they were comembers with them of the same church 4. If one of your Church be a Brownist whose errors the five Apologists call fatall shipwracks or an Anabaptist which goes beyond the Brownists or hold some other error or is fit to be cast out for some sinne do you hold your selves guilty of that error or sinne though you should do your best to reform them or to cast them out and could not do it And if a member of a particular Church may be guiltlesse of the sinnes of his fellow-members yea of the Churches suffering wicked men if he do the duty of his place against them then why I pray you may not a particular Church be guiltlesse of the sins of other Churches 5. The externall impediments why an Oecumenical church cannot meet you have heard before If an English-man should be taken prisoner in Turkie and cannot return shall he be guilty of all the
seperation from the then Jewish Church at least not a totall one they had yet Church Communion with her if you mean not Church Communion which is properly and peculiarly such then it did not shew that they counted her a true Church Though the Apostles being Jews and formerly members of that Church might become Iews to the Iews 1 Cor. 9.20 That they might gaâ—n the Iews and give no offence Acts 21. which is unlawful to do to those that are within or without the Church 1 Cor. 10.32 Might give great respect to the Jewish Church and worships even after they were then dead as in some places by way of funeral pomp the honour done to great personages by their attendants while they lived is in measure continued to them after their death till they be buried as uncovering the head carrying maces and scepters before them c. Lastly Vnless you can solidly prove 1. That the Jewish Church was then a true Church by a morall trueness 2 That there is or ought to be such a change of our Ministry Sacraments and service of God in the Churches gathered from amongst us as was then of the Jewish Priesthood Sacraments and service of God in those Churches which were gathered from amongst them 3 That the Reformed Churches and Ministers may as lawfully be forsaken as the then Jewish Church and the Priests thereof 4 That you have authority to gather Churches amongst us as wel as the Apostles had for gathering Churches from amongst the Jews 5 That men are bound to become Independents when they hear you preach as the Jews were to become Christians when they heard the voyce of the great Prophet Deut. 18.18 19. Vnless also you can invalidate my other fore-mentioned exceptions against this instance I would advise you to lay it aside and to pass to another argument Sect. 2. Reply P. 2. 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 Mat. 18.17 Tell the Church of a Presbyterian Church which consists of the Elders of many Churches Rejoynder What do you hence conclude that the Apostles taught and practised to gather some Christians from others one part of this true Church c This is it which P. 18. of your last Book you profess to shew at large in this and the subsequent particulars then belike you acknowledg that the gathering of Presbyterian Churches is according to the doctrin and practise of the Apostles 2 Between a Presbyterian Church and your gathered and seperated Church there is most difference For 1 A Presbyterian Church is not a particular congregation nor are al her members accounted to be members of a particular congregation much less covenanted members such as yours are 2 She doth not refuse the communió of those congregations out of which you say it is gathered and therefore cannot be called a seperated Church 3. She is gathered with the consent of her societies 4 She doth not cast off the care of government of those societies but her gathering makes much for the better government of them and for setling of truth and peace in them as the convening in Parliament of the principall patriots out of severall Counties doth make for the good government of the State Lastly their gathering is warranted as hereafter Pos 3. 4. may appear by the Doctrinâ— and practice of the Apostles which you cannot shew of yours Interim you may take notice that Mr. Cotton himself as he doth assert that Synods rightly ordered and classes and conventions of Presbyters of particular Churches are all one keyes P. 42. So he doth call a Synod a Congregation of Churches or a Church of Churches which is as much as to say there is a Presbyterian Classical Church but of this and of Mat. 17. I shal speak more hereafter Sect. 3. Reply p. 2. Thirdly why may not one Church be gathered of the members of many Churches as wel 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 Rejoynder Yes they may in these troublous times one family hath oft bin divided into more families part of them at Manchester another at home and one family hath consisted of the members of many families possibly the heads of several Country families have taken one house and dyeted together yea it may be in times of persecution wives may live apart from their husbands and their husbands live together apart from their wives yet it were strang boldness to say that the Apostles taught and practised the seperation of several husbands and gathering them into a distinct family from their wives and it is no less unreasonable from the necessitous condition of a scattered persecuted Church to infer that the Apostles taught and practised to seperate some Christians c. Your selves do intimate P. 14. That one Church may meet in many places in some time of hot persecution may we thence conclude that the Apostles taught and practised the meeting of one Church in many places 2. You read as much of the return of the scattered disciples to Jerusalem as you read of their falling into membership with other Churches if therefore it be probable as you say it is that they fell into membership with other Churches I am sure it is as probable that they ere long did return to Jerusalem seing there was the first Church the chief Church in which the Apostles continued as officers whose doctrin and government all that were members of that Church could not but much desire and the persecution was but short though sharp Acts 9.31.3 Your selves do in effect acknowledg that this argument doth not necessarily if it do probably conclude the undertaken conclusion 4. They that fell into membership with other Churches did not nor do you think they did separate from the Church of Jerusalem or refuse communion with her or with the godly of her aiming at a purer Church and unless you had shewn this you have not performed what you say you have performed When the scattered Disciples left the Church of Jerusalem it was their affliction not their choice much less was it their duty as you pretend your separation to be Sect. 4 Reply p. 2. Fourthly such a Church which consists of the members of many other true Churches hath formerly bin without exception in the days of the Prelates how comes it now to be questioned For at least fourteen years since such a Church was extant in Wirrall in Cheshire the vocal covenant being only wanting which consisted of the choicest Christians of many parishes And we think it cannot be denied but Mr. Iohn Angiers Church at Denton in Lancashire hath of long time been such and many other
challenged him as theirs Or have the Ministers or people whom he hath come to rejected him as none of theirs because not orderly delivered into their hands Suppose the end of his removall was communion with a better people or better Ministry Doth this make it the worse or more unwarrantable Is it lawful to remove to a fatter soil to a purer aire And not to a purer Church The purer any Church is doth not Christ the more delight in it And desire to be there most And why may not persons desire to plant themselves where Christ gives most of his presence And if one man may unite to such a Church may not many agree together to make such a Church And this is all the gathering of Churches that we know of that is either taught or practised Rejoynder 1. You play with your own fancy for it is not acknowledged that your gathering of Churches is at any time orderly done whether it be with consent or no. 2. You assert what I think your selves approve not that order is not to be expected where it hath not bin wont to be exercised as though custome were the guide of conscience 3. You take it for granted 1 That your Churches are purer Churches as if humane inventions sundry whereof I have discovered in Quare's to which contrary to my caution given you in my Epistle you sent me censures in stead of answers would make a Churth more pure 2. That Christ doth delight in your Churches more then in ours as the Anabaptists boast that they have more of Christs presence in their Churches then you in yours 3. That your manner of gathering and separating Christians into Churches is as justifiable as the removal of one or many to dwel in a fatter soyl clearer aire and under a better Ministry that they may be a purer Church yea this you say is all the gathering of Churches you know of I pray you consider better of it Lastly your selves are not determined when a Church is pure enough to live in Hence many of you do fly from one Church to another under pretence of attaining more purity though they are usually mistaken as those Corinthians were which sleighted Paul accounting him one of the foolish things of the world his bodily presence weak and his speech contemptible and those foolish Galatians which accounted him their enemy because he told them the truth CHAP. II. Of Parishes how they are jure Divino and how not Sect. 1. YOu say the exception is That there is a removall of persons to other Churches without the removall of their habitations This exception you take off by saying why should this be blamed 1. If distinction of Parishes by bounds and limits be not Iure Divino where then is the fault Rejoynder 1. The Parishes now are some too great some to little some unfitly and incommodiously divided and where they are most fitly divided these or those limits are of politique and not of divine constitution and are alterable upon just occasion and the law if there be any such whereby all that dwel within such a line are accounted of the Church there proceeds from a supposition that a due profession of Christianity is made by all the inhabitants I say if there be any such law because many Jews Pagans Papists have formerly and yet may dwel within the percinct of some Parish as many Heathen did dwel amongst the Church-members of Jerusalem Corinth c. though no Christians of other Churches did and so may many ignorant and scandalous persons which by the laws of the land and orders of the Church are to be kept from our Sacraments 2. It is most agreeable to the law of nature and scripture that there should be Parishes that is that Churches should be confined within convenient local limits For first else the members of one Congregation might live each of them 10.20.50 an 100. miles asunder without blame 2. The Scripture usually denominates Churches from places as the Churches of Ierusalem of Rome Antioch Corinth and Cenchrea are denominated respectivly from the Cities of Ierusalem Rome c. So that for ought we know Churches were then so exactly distinguished by local bounds that a man might have stood in some place between Corinth and Cenchrea and have said no member of the Church of Corinth dwels on this side and no member of the Church of Cenchrea on that side 3. In constant scripture-phrase the Christian inhabitants of such a town city or place were the Church in that city or place The Christian Corinthians Smyrnaeans Laodicaeans were the Church of Corinth Smyrna Laodicea 1 Cor. 1.1 2 Cor. 6.11 Col. 2.1 4.16 Rev. 2.8 3.14 4. Cities and Churches in scripture-phrase do expound one another as you confess defence P. 16. Which could not be if all the members of the Church were not in the city for certainly all the citizens many being Heathens were not of the Church Acts chap. 16. verse 4 5. Acts chap. 14. ver 23. cum Tit. c. 1. v. 5. 5. The way of Christ all along in Scripture is That Christians dwelling together should together make one Congregation and the converting of many Christians in a place to be a Church was all the gathering of Churches that then was 6. They that did remove from place to place did it is very probable as your selves acknowledge page 2. in the case of the scattered disciples fall into membership with those Churches where they did reside so Aquila and Priscilla might fall into membership sometime of the Church of Rome sometime of the Church of Corinth c. Acts 18.2 24 25 26. Rom. 16.3 and so many persons removing their places may well be of other Churches and yet transgress no scripture Rules as your separation doth 7. If Church-members should not cohabite how can Pastors feed the flock that is amongst them and be resident with them if they be not resident amongst themselves 8 This is a pattern uncontrouled by preceps and other patterns which kind of pattern your selves say Defence p. 15. hath doctrine in it for no instance can be given either that any dwelt in a Town or City where there was a Church though very corrupt as Corinth Laodicea Sardis c. and was a member of a Church in another City or Town as Cenchrea c. Or that any dwelt neerer to one Church and was a member of a remoter Church Or that any Christians dwelling remote one from another were united into one particular Church This hath also the consent of godly learned men as Mr Carwright Mr Parker and others non-conformists which agree against the Brownists in the lawfulness and expediencie of confining for orders sake particular Churches within the bounds of distinct Parishes and in New England it self as I hear Congregations are divided and bounded by the divisions and boundings of Towns and Parishes as Cambridge New Plimouth Boston c. 3 Suppose distinction of Parishes by bounds and limits were but
effect Sect. 4. When I tel you that New-England men wil not allow a Presbyteryan Church nor a new Independent-Church against the wil of the Magistrates You Reply P. 8. The Questian is not what they would allow but what a company of people planted there which cannot without unfaithfulness to their own light be subject to any other government save the Presbyterian ought to do 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 Our beliefe of New England is this that they would suffer the godly and peaceable to live amongst them though they differ in point of Church-government from them Because so far as we could ever learn they never banished any but unpeacebleness together with desperate erroneousness was the cause of it Rejoynder Yes the Question is what they would allow for 1. It may be presumed they do not transgress the charter they have from old England nor the due power of the Magistrate in the opinion of the Churches there 2. That they do to others as they would be don unto 3. Your selves intimate that if Presbyteryans have no livelyhood there then they should remove 4. A course hath bin taken that they should have no livelyhood there for when some of them being persecuted for non-conformity writ into N. E. desiring that they might be a sister-Church and have the liberty of their Consciences N. E. bretheren would not then tolerate them though now the case is altered and the difference is pretended to be so smal that one party ought to tolerate the other 5. They that now plead for liberty of Conscience and toleration wil and if they hold Presbyterian government to be Antichristian as some do must endeavour to the utmost to root it out if ever they have ability and opportunity for such a designe these times shew much and after-times wil shew more to the grief and shame of the luke-warme or as they would be called moderate Presbyterians Sect. 5. To omit that it is plain notwithstanding what you say in your reply that the chiefest Independents in London did think it unseasonable to gather Churches at that time that you did gather yours and that so far as any thing is unseasonable so far it is unlawful When I sayd that it may be Brownists Anabaptists Antinomians Familists and other gross Heretiques and Schismatiques do also pretend the doctrine and practise of the Apostles You reply They must be found to be lyers but 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 commandment of man to warrant it The Church of Ephesus found the false Apostles lyars and rejected them Rejoynder 1. You here omit a fair opportunity of bearing witness against those Heretical and Schismatical conventions saying only what themselves would say that they should be found lyars 2. They are found lyars both when in disputations and conferences they are solidly confuted as they often are or when they are subdued or constrained to yedd at least feigned and dissembled obedience Deut. 33.29 Psal 18.44 As they ought to be 3. Sure you would not have them let alone by the Magistrates and ministers til they confess themselves to be lyars do not all Heretiques and Schismatiques say that they in truth and not in pretence have the doctrine and practise of the Apostles with them and it may be they think so too being given up to beleeve lies and therefore by your argument they may yea are bound to erect Churches in their own way Did the false Apostles of Ephesus did those opinions of N. E. whom neither preaching nor conference nor the assembly of the Churches could cure confess they were lyars though the Churches knew them to be so no no they went on in their former course not only to disturb the Churches but miserably to interrupt the civil peace and pour contempt upon Courts and Churches and therefore the Magistrates did convent and censure them and if the Magistrates had not so don they had bin guilty of those Heresies Schisms Seditions and of the bloud of so many soules as should perish thereby as he that willingly suffers men to go about to poyson all waters in a country is guilty of the death of those which are thereby poysoned nor had they bin nursing fathers to the Church nor had discharged the trust reposed in them by that Plantation yea should they have tolerated Hereticks and Schismaticks for their own profit or some Politique end as the Pope doth Jews and Curtizans their sale of Religion truth and the soules of men for money or worldly interest would have made them abominable to God and all good men CHAP. 4. What number makes a Church Sest 1. WHen I alledg that the case of Adams family and Noahs was extraordinary there being then no more in the world And that Adam and his wife and first son were the Church if then there was any and that Cain lawfully married his own Sister you reply P. 9.1 That I grant in that extraordinary case that 7. 8 or 9. may make a Church That the Church is Christs body and every body consists of members if all were one member where were the body and therefore one Adam could not make a Church That we have a manifest Prohibition of a mans marrying with his sister but what scripture say you is there against this that what number of beleevers have formerly bin a Church such a number may yet be a Church and no greater number is required to the simple being of a Church And that God hath not percisely determined what number do make a Church Rejoynder 1. I no more grant that seven or eight then that two or three did then make a Church much less that they may now make a Church but that two or three may now make a Church though it be the opinion of some congregational men as white Summer Ilands P. 23. is rejected upon good grounds by Mr. T. and Mr. M. against Mr. H. and by M. Cotten P. 53. For if thy brother offend thou must tel him his fault between him and thee and if he heare thee not take one or two with thee now they are three or four yet this was but the 2. admonition which if he did not heare then they were to tel the Church now as the second admonition was to be given by more then the first so the third admonition was to be given by more then the second and therefore the Church must of necessity consist of more then two or three 2. If one Adam could not make a Church it is nothing to my answer for I only say that Adam was the Church before Eve was made and Adam and Eve before their first sonne was born if then there was any and this you know is most true 3. The Apostles
saying if all were one member where is the body is not to be understood so much that the Church must be a Collective body as that it must be an Organical Heterogeneal body if all were one member id est if all were one sort of members all eye all eare all feet as is plain by the Coherence 1 Cor. 12.14.15 c. 4. Your Reply leaves the reader very doubtful in that you say God hath not precisely determined what number doth make a Church for he may question first how you dare precisely determine either that 7.8 or 9. may make a Church that a Church may consist of so many as may with edification meet in one place and of no more which doth determine the number materialiter though not formaliter seeing God himself hath not precisely determined it as your selves confess 2. You do not possitively must be found to be lyers him what number did at any time make a Church whether 7. or 8. or 10.20.40 or 100. but send him to seek it 5. Mr. Cotten saith though there might be a domestical Church in Adam and Eve at the beginning yet such a Church as Christ hath instituted in the new Testament consisteth of a greater number then two or three way of the Churches P. 53. And if you do assert that Adam and Eve did then make a Church which seems to be your opinion for you argue only against one person being a Church then you have scripture produced by mee and cited by you Defence P. 73. And Reverend Mr. Cotton against such a number making a Church now And indeed in the beginning of the world there was defectus physicus but now if a defect be it is defectus moralis If there were no woman in the world an incontinent person could not many but now it is a sin for him not to marry 6. I beleeue your selves do not conceive that those 7. or 8. in Adams or in Noahs family might be now an instituted Church if they were alive though the reader may think you contend for it can one man one woman foure or 5 children the eldest whereof must needs be very young make a Church should the man sin the Woman reproves him or e contra and he wil not be gained where must she have one or two more or a Church to complain to seeing little children as reason tells us and your selves grant are neither meet for nor capable of that imployment Can foure men and their Wives make a Church Cham sins Noah rebukes him he wil not be gained he according to rule takes with him one or two more as Sem and Iaphet then they have a goodly Church left viz foure women their four wives which you know are disabled by their sex 7. Suppose in a Church of 7. or 8. a man and a woman should be suspected by their brother of Committing adultery as David and Bathsheba did or incest and their brother admonish them and they deny it he takes one or two with him to charge sin upon them and they yet deny it and complain of wrong and take one or two with them to charge sin upon him or them that admonished them then all these are parties who is left to judg this business if the Church consist but of 7. 8. or 9 8. You say a particular Church is called a City an Army a Kingdom which titles do imply multitudes now it were strange to say that two or three or 7. 8. 9. may make a City an Army a Kingdom 9. It is inconvenient and of dangerous consequence that 7. or 8. should be able to cast out of Communion any person not only with themselves but the whole Catholique visible Church and deliver him to Sathan especially if they be illiterate and unexperienced in the wayes of God and apt to be byased as so few men though visible Saints may easily be Sect. 2. When I say that Twelve are more then seven or eight and an hundred and twenty a competent number yet it appeareth not that they were called or counted a Church til they were more increased If there were no more beleevers in Ephesus then twelve as there was viz. Aquila and Priscilla which knew more then Iohns Baptiâ—m Acts 18.26 with 24.25 If not others Yet there were more in Jerusalem then an hundred and twenty 1 Cor. 15.6 You reply P. 10. That twelve is not more in the truth of the constitution of a Church then 7. or 8. Rejoynder 1. My meaning was that you cannot prove that 7. or 8. may make a Church though twelve might for 12. is almost double to â— 2. Twelve men your selves wil acknowledg are rather capable of being a Church then 7. or 8. in Adams family or in Noahs where were so many women and children for here if a man sin and his brâ—ther admonish him and he wil not be gained and he take two or three with him yet there is some remaining to take cognizance of the thing which in the precedent instances there was not you see I dispute upon your own principles though I grant them not 3. You say P. 13. Smal Churches are inconsistent with Christs and which is edification by Pastors from whence it follows that the more smal the more inconsistent and the less smal the less inconsistent and in this sense I might say that twelve is more then 7 or eight and so declare some what else then that I can number twelve Sect. 3. You Reply P. 10. That the scripture determines not what number is competent and what not competent to the being of a Church that I am the more presumptuous in aring that an 120 are a competent number to make a Church that if I wil I may see them a Church before they were so encreased 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 3000. be added to no Church and they are stil no Church which to affirm were flat against the Scripture Rejoynder 1. Pardon me I pray you I thought I had bin no more presumptuous to say an 120. is a competent number then you are in saying 7. or 8. is a competent number to the being of a Church seeing God hath as wel determined that an 120. as that 12. or 7. or 8. is a competent number and 120. is more capable of all officers and of a flock then 7. or 8. The truth is as you sayd that an 120. was smal enough in comparison you mean of what it was afterward so I sayd that it was a competent number comparatively to 12. which yet is more then 7. or 8. the number which you should prove competent to the being of the Church or else forgoe the position 2. Election of an Apostle is not properly a Church act
one city easily and conveniently as your selves say of Herod and Pilate p. 19. And I hold that several congregations in the countries if they may conveniently meet and govern in common not only may but ought so to do as wel as several congregations in a city 5. You cannot shâ—w so express a pattern of Christians in a city making two Churches as I have shewed of Christians of one Church meeting ordinarily in several places and therefore this pattern is more uncontrouled then the other and consequently by your own doctrin more to be followed 6. You presume that there were Churches in some other parts of Iudea besides Jerusalem though the particular assemblies of the Church of Jerusalem might wel enough be called the Churches of Judea and you cannot shew where one Church was in Judea save at Jerusalem and it is improbable to suppose any Churches in Judea but what were in Jerusalem seeing at Jerusalem the Apostles resided held their constant assemblies and occasional councells and there they of Galilee which was beyond Judea that beleeved in Christ continued Luke 23.49 Acts 1.15 2.1 7. 13.31 And the converts of the Apostles closely adhered to them in fellowship at Jerusalem and sold their possessions goods lands houses and had all things common in the Church Acts 2.42 44 46 47. 4.34 Some of which were of remoter places far then any part of Judes cap. 4.36 7. If you should prove there were Churches elsewhere in Judea besides Jerusalem yet it could not thence be gathered that they were all congregational and only such for as little and final as Judea was 1. It had cities in it and great ones too besides Jerusalem as Lidda Azotus c. And you acknowledg that city and Church do explain one another 2. Judea through the blessing of God multiplying the inhabitants as the sand of the sea according to his promise to Abraham contained an innumerable multitude of people for ought I know more then in England In Ata's tune out of Juda and Benjamin alone there was an army of almost 600000 men besides women and children valiant men besides impotent aged persons now you know the multitude or paucity of the people not the largness or littleness of the of the place or country is in this case most considerable London may fitter be a providence then the same circuit of ground in some parts of the kingdome a parish 3. There was a vast multitude of Christians in Iudea converted by the Ministry of Iohn Baptist Iesus Christ the 12 Apostles the 70 disciples all raiâ—ed up to gather Gods chosen ones out of Iudaea and which were very successful in their Ministry so that the littleness of Judea is no let but that there might be ten or 20. several Churches and each of them dividid into 5 or 6 several assemblies as also the county of Midlesex one of the least counties in the kingdome and far less then the Province of Judea and having no city in it save one might also contain so many and such Churches Concerning the term Churches see more afterwards CHAP. VI. Whether the Epistles to the Corinthians were writ only to those that met ordinarily in one place Sect. 1. WHen I alledg that Paul writs to them that in every place not throughout the world as appears 2 Cor. 1.1 Writen to the same persons 1 Cor. 5.1.2 with 2 Cor. 2.1 2. Nor is this a Catholique Epistle but in all Achaja call upon the name of the Lord. You Reply p. 16. That Paul writes sends and applyes this to the Corinthians alone for all along proper and peculiar things belonging to the Corinthians and not to the Achaians nor Saints in all the world are spoken of in commendation and discommendation and proper reproofs directions c. Yet he intended it for use and benefit of all Achaia and of the whole world also And it may as properly be called a Catholique Epistle as an Achaian Epistle for the use redound to all the world as wel as to Achaia else how can it be Canonical scripture and the foundation of our sermons that we preach out of it Rejoynder 1 Certainly you know that the Epistle may be canonical and yet the use of it not redound to all the world as wel as to Achaia if by as wel you mean equally in all the particular contents of this Epistle The Epistle to Philemon is canonical and the 2. to Timothy though the use of it in point of Onesimus and Pauls cloak do not as wel or equally concern all the world as Philemon Timothy 2. The use of these Epistles I dare say redounds not to Corinth only nor to all the world as wel as Achaia for there are divers passages in both these Epistles which cannot be limited to Corinth nor enlarged to the whole world as 2 Cor. 11.1 2. Forwardness of Ministring to the Saints was not only in the Corinthians but in the Achaians Paul boasteth of them to whom he writes in these words I boasted of you that Achaia was ready a year ago now it is improper for any man that writes to London and not to England more then all the world to say I boasted of you that England was ready a year ago The house of Stephanas he commends to them under the notion of being the first fruits of Achaia The contribution for the Saints at Jerusalem was the contribution of Achaia Rom. 15.26 And part of his drift and scope is to get a liberal contribution not from Corinth only but from all Achaja and he doth not desire the Church of Corinth to communicate this letter to the other Saints of Achaia because he writs to them all in the second person 3. The Apostle doth not write to the Saints in Ephesus and in all Asia Ephes 1.1 Or the Saints at Philippi or the Church of Thessalonica and to all Macedonia nor any where else doth he write to the Saints or to the Church in such a city with all the Saints in such a province or country or in every place though every Epistle be of common use and profit both to the borderers and to strangers yea to all the world yet he writes to the Church of Corinth with the Saints in every place or in all Achaia Which words are not vainly and impertinently put here and not in any other Epistle and what can they else import but that this Epistle is more an Achaian pardon your own improper term then a Catholique Epistle 4. I put you to prove that the reproofs directions exhortations commendations were proper to them that schisms fornications were only amongst them that the exhortation to a liberal contribution on the first day of the week was proper to Corinth yea that the Incestuous person was a member of the Church of Corinth though we presume and commonly speak so yet it is not necessary for he might be a member of the Church of Cenchrea or some other Church in Achaia for ought we
know Why do you so strongly assert things and yet leave them naked without the least shew of proof Sect. 2. You Reply p. 17. I Ask what commentator ever sayd that all in every place and Saints in all Achaia expound one another doth 1 Cor. 1.1 compared with 2 Cor. 2.1 Inforce such an exposition you would suggest that he writes to the same Corinthians in the 2. Epistle that he writes to in the first more your scriptures import not and we grant it But the inference you draw is this ergo all in every place and all the Saints in all Achaja are all one a strang consequence If the 2. Epistle be written to the same persons as the first why do ye not expound the subject persons of the second by the subject persons of the first and say though the Saints in all Achaja be mentioned only yet under them the Saints every where in the world are meant Rejoynder 1. I observe you say not no commentator hath sayd so or that you know not any commentator hath sayd so possibly you knew that Reverend and Iudicions Beza Annot in 1 Cor. 1.1 Expounds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est in quavis Achaiae Ecclesia asserting also that though this inscription is made properly and specially to the Corinthians yet next it is writen to the rest of the Churches in all Achaja as appears by the beginning of the 2 Epistle as the Epistle to the Galatians was to all the Churches of that nation for that it is not absolutely Catholâ—que directed to the Churches in all the world appears saith he by the Inscription and matter of the Epistle Thus he 2. I would suggest not only that the 2. Epistle is written to the same Corinthians that the first as you strangely interpret me but that it is written to the same persons as I plainly expressed my self Corinthians or others 3. I have not read any one that makes so loose an interpretation of the Saints in all Achaja 2 Cor. 1.1 As to say that under them the Saints every where in the world are meant for so they might have bin under the name of the Corinthians alone as wel as under the name of the Romans alone Rom. 1.7 Ephesians alone Gal. 1.1 And that the use of them redounds to all the world as wel as to all Achaia against which I have formerly given some reasons to which I add that the Apostle might have said as wel to the Church of Corinth and to all the Saints in Indea if this Epistle had concerned them being a part of the world or any other province as wel as Achaia Sect. 3. Reply p. 17. The Corinthians not the Achaians had written to Paul c. 7 1. And Paul had received sundry reports concerning them not concerning all the Saints in Achaja for the Cenchreaus had not writ to him nor he heard any thing of them that we read of Chap. 1.11 5.1 And hereupon he writes unto them but because this letter might be of common use and profit and especially to the Saints which bordered next upon them therefore he would have the Achajans their neighbours to peruse it yea the Saints every where to read it in both his Epistles he mentioneth the Corinthians as the proper subject thereof the Achajans he mentioneth in one and the Saints every where in another And he brings them in Collaterally rather then directly it is to the Church of Corinth but with all the Saints in all Achaja and with all that in every place as it were on the by And this is Pareus his exposition upon 1 Cor. 1.2 Rejoynder 1. You first presume that the Epistles are written to the Corinthians only which is the thing denyed and then tel us that the Corinthians had written to Paul and he had heard some reports of the Corinthians but it is evident that those he writes to did write to him and that he had received some reports concerning them but that these were only Corinthians and no other Saints in Achaia to whom he writes and which did write to him and concerning whom he had received some reports you cannot evidence 2. I grant there might be some special aym at the Church of Corinth in some things at least rather then any other Church of Achaia possibly in other things other Saints were more aymed at then the Corinthians and doubtless the Churches then could better tell when this Church or that was more specially aimed at by the Apostles then we which are more ignorant of the then state of those Churches can yet your collection is very sleighty and infirm concerning the bringing the Saints in every place and in all Achaia in collaterally rather then directly Do your selves think that he that in his prayer mentioneth Christ and saith To whom with the Father and the holy Ghost be glory doth give glory to God the father and the holy Ghost collaterally rather then directly if you do think so I hope you wil hold him accursed that useth it the phrase is the same the Reader can apply it Sect. 4. When I answer that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 11.20 14.23 may fitly be translated in idipsum for the same and in one you reply p. 18. That the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are conjoyned with with the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 11.20 14.23 and then you say it will not be denyed but that place is principally meant Rejoynder 1. If the Apostle doth write to more Churches then one as is alledged and proved from 1 Cor. 14.34 Then I hope your selves will not interpret this of the identity of place for you hold not as I told you though you blotted it out of my answer that two three or more Churches in the new Testament must consist of no more then may meet in one place 2. You begge the question and would perswade the Reader there is something in the Greek which possibly he understands not to force my assent to your opinion but the words import no more then convenire in unum as the Lords and Commons may be said to do which are but one Parliament though met in two houses and if there be no incongruity of applying the phrase to those which we know do meet in severall places then the Apostle might apply the phrase to the Corinthians though he kn ew that they did meet in severall Assemblies on a day of a publike fast or of thanksgiving all the Churches in Holland yea all in New England may be said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. It is at least very probable that the Church of Corinth it self suppose he write to no more was more then one particular congregation for 1. Not onely Crispus the chief Ruler but many of the Corinthians hearing the Word beleeved and were baptized Act. 18.8 And God told Paul that he had much people in that City v. 10. And Paul tarried there a long time which he would not have done if his
the words in sensu distributive is no more figurative then yours If it be I pray you what figure is it wil you make a new Rhetorick too 2. What the holy Ghost saith we must beleeve but you should not beg the question and say the holy Ghost saith what he doth not mean all the Hebrews did assemble themselves together in the sense he means viz. in several companies and so may this be understood and beleeved 3. You for your advantage translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when the whole Church comes together but you should translate if the whole Church come together and I told you in my answer that suppositions put nothing in being and you know they do not Gal. 1.8 Though you take no notice of it yet you are willing to lay aside the conditional expression which is both in the original and sundry translations and take up a more absolute one this dealing is not candid should the Apostle have said which you know may without any impropriety be said now in London if two or three whole Churches shal meet together in one place would you have collected thence that two or three whole Churches may orderly convene and that there ought to be no more in two or three Churches then may so convene when we say if the whole County of Lancaster or York respectively come together into the Castleyard of Lancaster or York doth this prove that the whole County doth ordinarily meet in one place though upon some special occasion as choosing of a Knight c. They may meet together or at least a great part of them in the name and power of the rest And so when he faith if the whole Church come together in one place it cannot be thence rationally concluded that every member of the Church was at any time much leâ—s ordinarily in one place some were infants some no doubt were sick and weak 1 Cor. 11.30 Some abroad about necessary negotiation some women in travel some in childbed so we read Ioshua 22.12 And Ezra 2.64 That the whole Church or all the Church was gathered together and yet you know there were many thousands of men in the Church of the Jews besides women and children and sick persons which were not in that assembly so far are such texts as these from proving that the Church must consist of no more then may meet in one place 4. That same thing which now you alledg to me was alledged by a Protestant revolted to Popery concerning hoc est corpus meum viz. The holy Ghost saith it and Protestants have bin convinced with the evidence of that text to grant a corporal presence in the Sacrament Sect. 7. When I urge that the Apostles writes to the Saints in all Achala and that there were other Churches in that Region at least two Corinth and Cenchrea which was oppiduÌ„ CorinthioruÌ„ c. You Reply p. 20. That he doth not write to them as making one Church with the Corinthians for he mentions them with a note of distinction from the Corinthians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rejoynder 1 You fight with your own shaddow I said not that he writes to them all as one Church but plainly asserted with Beza Piscator and others that he writes to the Churches in that region 2. Your criticism is worth nothing if one should say Paul writes not to the Bishops and Deacons as Saints at Philippi for he mentions them with a note of distinction to the Saints at Philippi with the Bishops and Deacons yourselves would laugh at it 3. He might have a scope that the other Churches in Achaia from the Epistle he sent to Corinth which they were to peruse as the Laodicean Church was to read the Epistle written to the Colossians should be stirred up to the same duty of contribution c. Thus you But the Apostle had not a scope to stir up all other Churches at least not all alike to that duty of contribution to the poor Saints at Ierusalem and therefore you now in effect acknowledg what before you did deny viz. That the Apostle writes more properly to the Achaians then to the whole world Besides you know your paralel is not suitable for 2 Cor. inscribed to the Achaians and so is not that Epistle to Coloâ—s inscribed to the Church of Laodicea 4. You demand why then doth not the Apostle say to the Churches of Judea Macedonia Asia Why is the Church of Corinth mentioned and the Church at Cenchrea wholy silenced in the first Epistle and not mentioned directly and by name in the second You are as good at asking questions as any I pray you answer me one question and then if need be I wil answer yours Why doth not Paul cal the Romans Ephesians Philippians by the name of Saints and the Corinthians and Thessalonians by the name Church Why doth not Paul James and Jude inscribe their Epistles to the Churches of Iudea or the Hebrew Churches though all of them write to Churches and famous ones too far more famous then Cenchrea probably was yet they make no mention of them directly or by name The answer is 1. We must not teach the Apostle in what phrase to speak Nor 2. can we render a reason why he inscribes his Epistle to the. Saints at Ephesus whom elsewhere he calleth the Church of Ephesus no more then we shew a reason why the Church of Cenchrea may be included under the name of Saints in Achaia 3. The Church of Corinth may be mentioned and not any other Church by name because the Church of Corinth was the most famous best-gifted Church Or to use the words of Mr Banes Diac. tryal p. 16. because it was the most illustrious and conspicuous Church 5. Where Iurge that the women he writes too did resort to Churches else how could they keep silence in the Churches 1 Cor. 14.34 You reply p. 21. That these Epistles were written for universal direction of the women of all Churches 2. That women were wort to go from ove Church to another as Phebe and were to keep silence in all Churches 3. That though he saith your wome he saith not your Churches Rejoyn It was indeed for universal direction of the women of all Churches in a secundary and mediate way but primarily and immediately it was for direction of those he writes to and hence he saith not set women or all women but your women 2. Phaebe's going from Cenchrea to Rome doth not prove that women had such a wont to go from one Church to another and that they were so forward speakers that the Apostle had need to silence them not only in their own Church but in strange Churches 3. If it had been said your Churches which phrase being not found in any place of Scripture is not here to be expected it had been somewhat more plain but as it is it is plain enough viz. that the women he writes to did resort to Churches and therefore I conclude they were
Aegypt should be one people of God which in Defence p. 40. you say is all one with one Church another nation another people of God and Israel shal be so far from being alone a National Church that she shal not be the chiefest but other Nations shal be before her Isa 19.25 So Abraham became the father of many nations Rom. 4.17 the Jewish Nation and the Nations of the Gentiles one its evident was a National Church and why might not a Gentilish Nation converted to Christianity be a sister National Church Paul faith Rom. 3.29 God is not the God of the Iews only but of the Gentiles the word in the Original is of the Nations also his meaning is God is in covenant with beleeving Nations of the Gentiles as wel as with the Jewish nation Now if God call a nation and a nation obey that call and become the daughter of father Abraham and a sister of the Iewish nation and God be in covenant with a nation or the God of a nation Is not that nation a national Church Did not thus much if there had been no more make the Jews a national Church And wil it not make a beleeving nation among the Gentiles so also Have you any so good an argument against a National Church as this for it 7. Moses in Deut. 12. did not tell the Jews that God did intend they should be a national Church for that they were before even as soon as they grew into a nation Acts 7. but only of a peculiar place of some solâ—mn publick worship which was but ceremoniâ—l and because it was so and God hath not intended any such set place for solemn publick worship in the New Testament as more holy then other places therefore he hath prescribed to us no such thing but lâ—ft us at liberty Ioh. 4.8 Of little Iudea much is spoken before and after CHAP. IX Of the universal visible Church and general Councels Sect. 1. Reply ANd if an universal visible instituted Church be acknowledged why are there not then universal representative conventions What a defect is this in Christendom that all Christians do not endeavour it But we conceive that they are so far from the endeavouring of it that if there were any such thought they might make use of them for advice yet they would be loath to subject themselves to the binding decrees of them Rejoyn 1. You being no Scriptures at all against the universal visible Church or the subordination of lesser Judicatories to greater 2. You acknowledg at least implicitely that if there be an universal visible Chuch then there may be a national subordinate to it and a congregational subordinate to it in which you deal fairly and ingenuously for the whole is not subject to a part but the part to the whole and the neerer any part comes to the whole Church the more authority it hath and hence a general Councel is of more authority then a National and a National then a Provincial 3. I assert that the Scriptures do hold out an universal visible Church For 1. the Apostles which were general officers to which a general Church is the adaequate correlative and had the care of all the Churches are said to be put or placed in the Church as speaking but of one 1 Cor. 12.28 2. This is that one body into which all both Iews and Gentiles bond or free are baptized v. 13. whereof Christ is the head v. 12. yea the visible head though he be now removed to heaven as King Iames was visibly the head of Scotland though removed into and residing in England and Paul the Minister Col. 1.25 in which God hath set 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the members 1 Cor. 12.18 viz. he hath set 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apostles Prophets Teachers helps governments v. 28. 3. The same is proved Ephes 4. to the end of the 16. verse for there we find that the whole Catholique Church is but one v. 4. one body one spirit one hope of our calling one Lord one faith one baptism one God and father of all All which are adaequate and commensurate to the Catholique Church unto which he after saith the Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastors and teachers were given v. 11. 4. This Church consisteth of all beleeving Iews and Gentiles Ephes 2.16 3.6 And is contra-distinguisht from and opposite to all other Iews and Gentiles in the world yet uncalled and is called one fould Iohn 10.16 one woman traveling Rev. 12. one city of God Rev. 11. one field one draw net one barn-floor c. 5. This Church was a child and in non-age under the law and at ful age under the Gospel Gal. 4.1.2 One assembly of 24. Elders and foure beasts in allusion to the 24. orders of Priests and the foure camps of Israel bearing in their standards the same beasts Rev. 4. and as all the twelve tribes did but make one Church so the 144000. of all Christian Churches as it were of the twelve tribes are but one Church I omit many more such expressions which signify to us that as the Church was but one amongst the Jews so it is but one amongst the Gentiles one army under Michael one vineyard c. you may object that we read of Churches in the new testament therefore there is not only one Church I answer These are particular Churches of the same name and nature with the whole as the dry land is but one yet being possessed by several nations under several climates divided by hils rivers and other boundaries is called lands as Labans flocks having all one owner and probably all one mark are called one flock and so Iacobs also Gen. 30.31 32 36 38. 33.13 as the freemen of Rome where ever born or bred make but one corporation hence the Church of Ephesus though a compleat particular Church is not called the whole city or houshold but fellow citizens with the Saints viz. of other Churches and of the househould Ephes 2.19 20. As the Iewish Church was certainly but one yet it is called Churches as you shal hear anon as the Antichristian Churches of Italy France Spain Germany are but one whore one Church under one head the Pope so the Christian Churches of England Scotland Holland c. which have their fathers name written in their foreheads having one faith c. are but one woman one Church The one is the army under the Dragon the other under Michael particular Churches and Antichristian conventions are as the several Brigades Regiments or companies of those armyes Hence the Church of God is called Army and Armies Cant. 6.10.13 vineyard and vineyards Cant. 7.12 8.11.12 Garden and Gardens Cant. 6.2 Note Reader that these are not spoken of the invisible Catholique Church but of the visible Church for officers are not set in the invisible Church Iudas was an Apostle but was not a member of the invisible Church nor is baptism a badg of it 2. Whereas some object that my
Andrew Thomas c. Paul and Barnabas assembling a whole year with the Church at Antioch though they did not covenant themselves into it are sayd to be within that Church Acts 11.26 cum cap. 13.1 And therefore if implicite covenant agreement or combination doth make a true Church we are not deficient therein 5. As for that of the Sichemites being one people that is to say one Church or one people to God as elsewhere you phrase it I conceive that Simeon and Levi did not pretend them to be one Church neither would this have bin an acceptable motion to an Heathenish Idolatrous people nor would Circumcision alone have effected it Edomites and others were Circumcised and yet were not of the Jewish Church except they had renounced their idols and become Proselytes 2. I conceive the poor Sichemites had no thoughts of altering their Religion for a wife nor would the men of the City in all probability have so unanimously consented to it they might look upon Circumcision as a national rite and by being one people they do interpret themselves to mean of a civil union viz. dwelling trading marrying one with another enjoying the cattel and substance one of another Gen. 34.21 Of any overture or pretence of Simeon and Levi or any desire or hope that the Sichem tes had that they should be one Church one people to God partakers of the same Sacrifices and ceremonies there is no mention I conceive therefore it is but your gloss what covenant is involued in Circumcision we shal shew hereafter Sect. 2. Reply p. 38. Relation and combination to domestick ends and purposes is the form of a family unto politick and civil ends is the form of a Common-wealth c. And so relation and combination of so many Saints as may wel meet in one place unto the enjoyment of Church-ordinances doth make a Church Rejoyn 1. Do you not mean that this agreement or covenant is only of them that are sui juris must every member of the Common-wealth as mean men servants women children per se at least implicitly consent to their relation or combination in the Common-wealth and every particular member of a City and family also or he else is not to be judged one in that Common-wealth City or family and do you hold the same of Church-relation 2. Do you mean that this covenant is not only between inferiors and superiors but between equals viz. that all the subjects of the Common-wealth must agree together to be one all the children and servants in a family should agree to be one all the wives of David and all the wives of Solomon did agree to be one and not only that there is an agrrement between Magistrates and subjects Masters and servants as we acknowledg also between Ministers and people but that there must be agreement or covenant of the wives amongst themselves the servants amongst themselves the subjects amongst themselves and that this is the form of a family or of a Common-wealth and so consequently Christians agreement to be a Church is you say the form of a Church 3. Do you mean that any former agreement or covenant made by our parents unto Domestique Politique or Ecclesiastique ends and purposes doth not bind us their children and successors but notwithstanding the same we without a particular and personal consent are not of the same family City Common-wealth or Church that they were of I pray you express your selves plainly Sect. 3. Reply p. 38. A solemn express and verbal covenant or agreement we assert necessary to the purity and strength of a Church how should Saints and they alone living promiscuously in the world have communion together without express verbal consent which yet we judg ought to be if the rule be wel attended Rev. 22.27 22.14 And how else such loosness as in our Parssh Churches from which we may remove into another Parish without rendring a reason the members in a natural body the stones in an house are not so loosly set to which a particular Church is compared Eph. 2.22 1 Cor. 12.27 may be prevented therefore we conceive a covenant necessary for such purposes Rejoyn 1. You assert here more then I can yeeld unto For. 1. The Scripture gives us no precept or president of such a solemn express and verbal covenant which you assert necessary to the strength and wel-being of the Church For. 1. Church-covenant hath reference to Church-state and Church-duties as such as marriage hath to conjugal duties as such Apol. for Church Cov. p. 3. 25. This doth distinguish it from the covenant of grace and other covenants which have no more reference to those duties if so much as to other duties 2. Your Church-covenant binds men to walk in all the ordinances of God which in the known sense of your Church expressed by your confession of faith and by your practise is no other then to walk in the congregational or Independent way now no Scripture doth require that men should covenant to walk in that way 3. Your Church-covenant is not only with God but with a particular Congregation which doth difference it from all those covenants that are made with God only and not with any Church 4. Your covenant is publike vocal express and this doth distinguish it from all those agreements that are only implyed in actions as one that dwels in Manchester joyns in choosing and submitting to the Constables and other officers payes lays and taxes assists officers and bears office if required doth tacitely agree that he is a Manchester man and yet we do not say he hath entered into covenant or that none can be a Manchester man but by covenant 5. Your solemn covenant is before the choosing of officers which distinguisheth it from al such covenants as are made by a Church having officers 6. It binds men not to depart without leave-asking which though it be no ordinance of God but a politique invention yet it doth infringe much the liberties of the Church members w th els in some cases might lawfully depart without leave asking 7. If a man cannot in Conscience consent to your covenant he shal be secluded from the Sacrament though he be never so fit and holy 8. Your covenant doth translate men and remove men out of our Churches into yours and makes them members of a distinct Church whereas Scripture-covenants at the most did but confirm if so much men in their Church-state If you can shew such a Church-covenant as this in Scripture or that hath all the essentials of your Church-covenant then I shal incline to beleeve it not only lawful but necessary to the Churches welbeing but I cannot beleeve any thing to be necessary to the strength and purity of the Church if it cannot be found in Scripture some have sayd If set formes of prayer had bin lawful Christ would have prescribed them I may much rather say if this Church-covenant were so necessary Christ would have prescribed it
before he did assay 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to joyn himself to the Disciples 3. You cannot shew of what Congregation all those that were baptized by John Baptist by the Disciples of Christ were or that they were of any and if they were of none then the seal of Baptism in reference to a principal part of the Covenant of grace was set to a blank 4. Baptism doth admit us into that one body consisting of Jews and Gentiles 1 Cor. 12.13 else if Baptism do admit only into one Congregation then a person so baptized is an alien to other Congregations as he that is a member only of one Corporation is a stranger to all the rest 5. Whereas you ask how those that are many become one amongst themselves and distinct from others of the same kind as Corinth was one in it self and distinct from Cenchrea for parish bounds were not then on foot so that the members and officers of one were not the members and officers of another what can it be but some agreement or covenant explicite or implicite I answer the same way of uniting and distinguishing Congregations and Churches which the Scripture holds out to be practised in the primitive times cannot be denyed to be sufficient now a days partly by local bounds and limits and partly by an implicite Covenant which here you confess to be sufficient or an agreement implyed in actions submitting to the same officers frequenting the same Sacraments c. of which we have spoken more Chap. 2. 6. Whereas you demand p. 41. Did not the joyning of the beleeving Gentiles to the family of Abraham by circumcision make them more truly members of the Church then they were before Were they not afterwards accounted of the Jewish common-wealth and invested into all their spiritual privileages which they had no right unto before though they were converted persons and Gods servants Rejoyn 1. That Passage of mine their Covenants did not make a Church more truly a Church or more truly members had apparent reference to the Covenant in Deut. 29. pretended to be a Church-covenant the beleeving Gentiles were not a Church or members at all before their beleeving and therefore not capable in propriety of speech of being made more truly such 2. You shew not that the joyning of the Gentiles to the Iewish Church was by solemn express verbal Covenant that they would be a Church together 3. That beleeving Gentiles after Circumcision were always accounted of the Iews common-wealth viz. under their civil government had a portion of their land I deny and put you to prove and if they all were of that Church it was but per accidents because there was then no other Church to which they might joyn had God pleased to have erected several Independent Churches amongst the Iews their circumcision had sealed them no more into one of these Churches then into the other Sect. 6. Reply p. 41. 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 otherwise let it appear that he was in Church-state before that time and we shal look for a Covenant before that time We read nothing of Abrahams family that they were a professed people to God before that time Rejoyn 1. You speak but doubtingly you know that if it be not certain that the Church was now constituted it is impossible to demonstrate hence what the Position asserts that the Church of the Iews was constituted in Abrahams family by Covenant no more then it can be certain that A. B. sold his land for ready money if it be uncertain that A. B. did sell his land 2. But for ought you say they were in Church-state before though not professedly and openly separated yea they might be one of them and yet your words be true if they were not both 3. I conceive they were in Church-state before for God called Abraham and blessed him with a promise of Christ Gen. 12.1 2 3. and Abraham beleeved the Lord c. built altars called on the name of the Lord God appeared to him and made him promises was blessed by and payd tythes to Melchisedeck the Priest 4. Was not Lot a professed servant of the Lord and Sarah and Hagar one of the worst in Abraham's family Gen. 16.9 10 11 Abraham was the Priest of his family and when he offered sacrifices upon the altars he builded did he not offer sacrifice for his family as wel as himself Doubtless Abraham before circumcision as wel as after did command his chidren and household to keep the way of the Lord Gen. 18.19 his family willingly for ought appears even 300 and more left their own Country and Idolatrous kindred at Gods cal Gen. 17.4 5. Iosh 24.23 Isa 41.2 and came into the land of Canaan and this they did visibly and professedly bringing no Idols with them that we read of were none of these arguments of Church-state and of real profession and seperation from the world 5. You tell us p. 28. that usually when any heads of families were converted some of the houshold were converted with them and was Abrahams family to be excepted 6. You reply p. 42. We read not of any symbole of Church-state by which they were seperated from the rest of the world before circumcision Rejoyn But would you have any symbole of Church-estate which God hath not instituted You assert that Adam's and Noahs family was a Church You say p. 43. there might be a Church in Sem's family You cannot deny that there was a Church before Abraham's time Had that Church any symbole of Church-estate which Abraham's family wanted What was that I beleeve you cannot shew any and if he had all the symboles of Church-state which God had then instituted or any Church before him had it was enough take heed lest by your reasonings against the Family of Abraham being a Church you utterly overthrow the Church of God before his time every where else also 7. You say This distinguisheth him and his family not from the world alone but from the beleevers of his time Melchisedeck and Lot though holy men were not in his state nor had his priviledges Rejoyn Melchisedeck and Lot might be circumcised though we do not read they were and if he was Sem then by vertue of a natural precedency in age as Mr Noyes supposeth he was a Priest of Abraham's family as wel as his own and they were sons of the same Church and if Melchisedeck and Lot were of one Church with Abraham before Abraham receiving of circumcision could not thrust them out of that Church which they were of before though they did not suppose lie under the same command of circumcision that Abraham and his family did if God required them to be
taken it includes both 2. The word Church in Acts 20. is but distinguished only from Elders not from all the officers and from feeding not ruling Elders for that the ruling Elders are said to be made Bishops by the holy Ghost is not probable 3. Phil. 1.1 wil prove that there were Saints in Philippi distinct from Bishops and Deacons but not that they were a Church without them much less that they were a Church properly so called Lastly If you can shew by Scripture that any company of people without officers did or ought to exercise Church-power or that they might receive in or cast out members our of the Church it shal suffice we wil not contend about names nor wil the name of the Church avail if this power cannot be proved by Scripture CHAP. XVI Of Election of Ministers and other officers Sect. 1. Reply p. 47. THe Position saith not that a particular Congregation hath full and free power without seeking the help of advise and direction of a Synod Classis or Presbytery but without the authoritative help thereof Rejoyn 1. Then you allow both that there should be Synods Classes and Presbyteries and that they should be advised with about election prove you that any Congregation did ask or seek the direction or advice of any Synod Classis or Presbytery in election of officers which you press as a duty and holy ordinance and I will shew you that they used authoritative help of a Synod Classis c. 2. I approve your approbation of Mr Cottons modesty in not taking on him hastily to censure the many notable presidents of ancient and latter Synods which have put forth the acts of power in ordination c. Which Author though he speak not expresly of election yet if acts of power may be put forth in another Congregation in one thing they may be put out in another 3. When I say we hold it a priviledg of the people especially if they proceed wisely and piously to elect their officers 1. You vainly ask Reply p. 47. What people Is it a people-priviledg or a Church-previledg to choose Ecclesiastical officers R. You are too willing to contend Scripture warrants me to cal un-officed men Church-members or others by the name of people Heb. 7.5 and your selves p. 59. yea in the last line of this very page use the same word in the same sense which you quarrel at that a Church viz. a company of people knit together by express publick covenant or agreement hath the only power of choosing officers I put you to prove 4. You ask What if they do not proceed wisely and piously is their priviledg lost Would it then be no injury to intrude any officer on them Is the priviledge of a Church-officer or Master of a family lost if he use it not wisely and piously Must they not be directed and exhorted to use it rightly and the priviledg remaine still with him we have Junius of our mand Rejoyn Then I conceive the Presbyters ought to keep the charge of the Lord and not to ordain hastily though the people should elect suddenly 1 Tim. 5.22 Least they should be partakers of other mens sins viz. of that unwise and ungodly Election 2. A master of a family may rule his house so unwisely and impiously that his priviledge of Governing it yea his liberty and his life may by the Magistrate be taken away from him A Church officer your selves assert may be censured yea deposed for unwise and ungodly managing his trust 3. Your selves hold not I suppose that it is the priviledge of the people to have an unwise and ungodly election confirmed but rather an injury to them 4. The Church of Boston in New England did chuse or would have chosen a notorious familist to have been co-teacher with Mr C. would you have the Elders to have ordeined him or the Synod to have approved him 5. If you grant that whensoever a people do chuse unwisely and ungodlity the Presbytery or Synod should oppose and refuse to ordain them and that without such ordination they may not lawfully officiate it is enough as to my present purpose and this at least if not more you seem to grant by equalling the case of a Church mis-electing to the case of a Mr of a family or a Church-officer mis-governing both which may loose their priviledg and power by a. busing it especially for a time til they be more wise Sect 2. I ingenuously confess I have always and stil do in my opinion and practise propend that people should elect their Minister they being thereby engaged the more to love and obey him and his cal to them made more unquestionable yet the Scriptures you bring though as I conceive as perument as any other and your defence of them upon the matter as strong as the cause wil suffer are unsatisfactory to me To your first text I answered that it is likely that Assembly was not a body politick but occasional only no part of Church-government being as yet 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 Jews before Act. 2.44 The company was not without Elders The Apostles if not the 70 were present all the Churches and Elders that were at that time in the world were present in respect whereof it may be called an acumenical councel The Apostles being Elders of all Churches rather then a particular Congregation If there had been any more Elders and Churches they must have convened upon that occasion to choose an Apostle who is a Pastor of all Churches The choise was limied by the Apostle Peter 1. To the persons present 2. To those that had accompanied the Apostles all the time that the Lord Jesus went and out amongst them and by God the director of the lot to whom properly the election of an Apostle doth belong to Matthias You reply p. 48.1 There is a contradiction if they were but the sounder parts of the Jewsh Church then they were not a Christian Church and if no Christian Church how were the Apostles Elders of it how was it an â—cumenical Councel the Churches and Elders in all the world being present Rejoyn I do not at all contradict my self for 1. To he Christian and to be the sounder members of the Jewish Church was then all one 2. The Apostles being members of the then Iewish Church hinders not but that they might be Elders of all the Churches in the world as Christ was a member of the Jewish Church yet head of the whole Church Christian or Jewish in several respects 3. If you wil have it to be a Christian Church as you affirm it was liker to a general Councel then a particular Congregation You further reply 1. Is there not some mistake in point of truth There were added to them 3000 souls to them to whom To those who were yet members of the Iewish Church then these
Acts 14.23 Sect. 1. TO Acts 6. I answered For the Deacons or Overseers of the poor though people may better discern of mens fitness and ability for that office then the ministery and their liberty of chusing was a good means at that time to abate their discontentments because of former neglect yet at their election there were all the Churches and Elders in the world and more there could not have been in any case such necessity hath no Law Your selves acknowledge Synods an Ordinance of Christ useful in sundry cases as in case a Church being leavened with Popery Arminianism Antinomianism Libertinisâ—s Anabaptism c. should chuse a Minister like themselves If such a case had hapned they could have had no more of a Synod at that time then they had the company Acts I. did nominate 〈◊〉 but they that prayed which is likely was the Apostles did appoint them v. 23 24. The people chose seven such as they were directed to chuse set them before the Apostles which did appoint them over the business prayed and imposed hands You Reply p. 49. Why are Deacons and overseers for the poor made Synonima's have We had Deacons all this while Who ordained or imposed hands upon them according to the pattern R. I added Overseers for the poor to explain and limit the word Deacons which in Scripture phrase is a general word usually signifying and translated Ministers 2. That I might shew that the work of the Deacon was to oversee the poor according to their institution Acts 6. 3. That I might with a learned holy man before me discover in our Churches low at ground those Officers which are specified in Scripture though with some defects Interest of Engl. part 2. p. 33. who also instanceth in Overseers for the poor refined by the late Statutes 43 Eliz 2.3 Car. 4. to be the Deacons You further Reply p. 50. They had direction to iâ—â—ble them to discern aright in chusing Deacons and by direction they 〈◊〉 be able to discern aright in chusing other Officers A godly people or Church rightly constâ—â—uted for the maner wiâ—â— be able to discern of wâ—olesâ—m and powerful Doctrine of humane learning they may wite â—â—â—â—le ado be informed upon this ground the people should chuse Deacons not other Officers and so limit your first grant Rejoynd 1. They had Apostolique direction and all the people were fâ—â—u of the holy Ghost Acts 4.31 but we have not such infallible direction nor extraordinary gifts 2. Even a godly people or Church which you say is rightly constituted and hath good direction cannot sometimes judge of a mans fitness for the Ministery The Church of Boston in New England would have chosen Mr. Wheelright a Familist to have been co Teacher wish Mr. Cotton The Brownists Anabaptists Familists would be esteemed a godly people and rightly constituted especially those which being first Independents do afterwards turn such yet they usually chuse a Pastor or Teacher of their own Way and the manifold Blasphemous Hrretical Schismatical Doctrines of these Times especially amongst those which are for Indepency doth flow from this fountain and their Ministers if they will not lead or at least follow them into those giddy Opinions are despised so unable are some Congregations which in your sense are rightly constituted and Well directed to discern Shepherds from Wolves So the Churches of Galatia counted Paul an enemy and the Church of Coâ—inth was like lier sometimes to entertain a false then a true Teacher 3. However you talk of direction or of information you hold That the Election of a particular Congregation whether she have direction or no will take it or no is valid and cannot be frustrated but by her self 4. You deal not fairly For 1. you untwine those passages which I twisted together placing the strength in all of them joynely and not in any one singly quae non prosent singula juncta juvant that you may break them better when you have sundred them 2. You are too forward in making inferences for me from every of them which I would but make from all of them joyntly considered 3. I desire you to express whether your conscience do not tell you That what I have said is 〈◊〉 most certain truth Thaâ— people may better discern mens fitness and ability for oversight of the poor then for the Ministery and whether your selves judge the cases alike Do you count it necessary to have the advice of other Churches in the one as in the other or that the help of God should be so solemnly craved in the one as in the other Sect. 2. Reply p. 50. Then by your speech the liberty of choosing Deacons was granted to them of courtesie Doth any thing appear to make this a Reason that this liberty was would not they have been as well pleased if the Apostles had done it all magnified the Apostles would the Apostles nourish a sinful 〈◊〉 of discontent in the people by giving them that prividedge which belonged not to them these are dangerous glosses Rejoynd 1. That which you conceive so absurd in me your selves say in effect p. 96. It was sutable to the holy and self denying frame of the Apostles Spirit jure suo cedere to remit something of his own right And the Apostles concurrence with the Church you mean the Churches concurrence with the Apostle seems to make more for the Churches peace who are now more likely to subscribe to the equity of those proceedings of which themselves have the cognizance then if it were carried by a transcondent and superior motion of Apostolique power That you speak of Excommunication and may not I speak the same of Election of Deacons which if the Apostles with whose managing of the contributions the Grecians were displeased should have nominaeted the Grecians might still have suspected some fraud or partiality and therefore they might allow the people to nominate some whom they might appoint over the business as they were ever careful to avoid suspition of wronging any this way which made them for satisfaction of such as contributed to the poor Saints at Jerusalem to desire them to approve some man to carry it 1 Cor. 16.3.2 Cor. 8. 19.20 That the Apostles did somewhat condescend to the multititude and that there was a peculiar reason for it especically in that tenderness of the Church and to put off from themselves all sinister suspition is asserted also by Bucerus diss de gub Ecclesiae apud Apoll. p. 104. 2. You much wrong your selves and your Reader in calling that assertion of mine which you cannot deny to be true and pertitent a dangerons gloss You adde p. 50. Your meaning in saying there were all the Churches and Elders in the world is there was but one Church and the Elders thereof at the time in the world 'T is true the Apostles and Members were there for these elected and the Apostles directed But did they interpose their authority in election Did they take it out
expresseth their opinion that the contribution 1 Cor. 16.1 Was properly intended for the poor 2. That some Churches appoint not any part of it towards their Ministers maintenance 3. That those that do it do it but conditionally if much be given in if there be an overplus and in a secundary way which is not the manner of your Churches which or at least some of them make it an ordinance of God 5. The setting up of this way of Ministers maintenance is the grand designe of Hereticks and Schismaticks though some godly men in the simplicity of their hearts may approve it or actin it for some or all of these ends 1. That they may strengthen the hands of Cormorants who under pretence of Reformation and abhorring Idols do now as in the dayes of Henry the 8. commit sacrilege viz. That do take away to private use things deputed to holy uses or maintenance and furtherance of Gods worship for what is the sinne of sacrilege if this be not by the received custome and consent of the Churches by donation of Princes legacie of Testators severall Acts of Parliament and Magna Charta and do alien them from their generall end whose sinne consisting in devouring that which is holy or devoted to the service of God and his Church Prov. 20.5 Lev. 27.28 30. and in abrogating the Testaments of men Gal. 3.15 makes them worse then Ananias and Sappirah which did only with-hold part of that which they had pretended to give to the Church though before they gave it it was in their own power but these do take away that which neither they nor it may be their ancestors did give but others strangers to them and long since dead 2. That they may make way for their own maintenance in their severall separated Congregations as of Divine institution whether they be tolerated or no. 3. That they might put an imputation of covetousnesse and burdensomnesse upon the Ministers of the Gospel as the false teachers did upon Paul who therefore took no maintenance at all though he might but wrought with his hands that he might take off that imputation 4. That they might catch men to their party because this way is for the peoples profit 5. That they might discourage Learning 6. That they might set the People aloft over their Ministers 7. To bring the Ministers which cannot in conscience comply with their unsteddy unsound people to basenesse and beggery and that they might neither have learning nor leisure books nor spirits to oppose their ungodly wayes 6. As for Chemâ—itius I have spoken before and now adde You do not produce him to say that de jure it ought to be so now but only de facto it was so then he saith contributions was the maintenance amongst the Jews not that it ought to be so amongst Christians CHAP. XXII Of the burning Mountain cast into the Sea REVEL 8.8 9. Sect. 1. TO shew that that is not rightly applied to setled endowments brought in to the Church I urge that Kings and States are called mountains Zach 4.7 Casting of mountains into the sea implieth great commotions and troubles Psal 46.2 Their burning with fire signifieth their opposition and fiercenesse whereby they become destroying mountains or as the Septuagint whom the Pen-men of the New Testament much follow 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a mountain on fire Jer. 51.25 But I find not that setled and stinted Maintenance is in any Prophesie understood by a mountain burning with fire cast into the sea You reply p. 68. that Constantine did bring in great riches and setled endowments to the Clergy of the Church and that this may be clearly evidenced from credible Authors But why do you not shew this in your first or second book and that those Authors meant not of Constantines donation which is justly accounted a fiction What other setled endowments did he give to the Clergie and to whom and who are those credible Authors that assert it You further reply If Kings and States be called mountains so is prosperity in riches and honours Psal 30. Thou hast made my mountain to stand 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 in your sense for Kings when almost Regal riches and honours were cast upon the Prelates and the ambition of Prelates did set the world on fire it might be called a burning mountain Rejoynd You know Kings and States are called mountains The most learned and godly Interpreters of Prophesies Brightman Mede c. tell us so you need not to If it 2. The place Psal 30.7 may be understood of Davids Kingdom in which God had setled him it was a Psalm at the dedication of his house v. 1. 3. Do you hold indeed that Kings may not cast any riches and honour upon the Church how are Kings nursing fathers and mothers if the Church be as poor and beggerly as when they were enemies how can the Kings of the earth bring their glory and honour into it Rev. 21.24 Why might not Constantine bring in setled endowments as well as the State allow setled maintenance are they not both one yet the one you hold lawfull and not the other 4. I had nothing to do with ampla praedia the Position was of setled endowments Even N. E. men bring it against them and I understand it of set maintenance which may be either lesse or more which you deny to be lawfull from the Church therefore the leaving out of ampla praedia minding you alwaies of what is said in answ to Pos 8. was no fault in the producers of the Position 5. You should shew that setled endowments given to the Church are in any prophesie called a burning mountain cast into the Sea but because you cannot do it therefore you acknowledge Congr way justified p. 9 10. that the interpretation is but probable and doubtfull and that you dare not speak definitively of it And so I leave it minding you only that many which seemed most Anti-Prelatical do justifie the Bishops setting the world on fire Sect. 2. You tell me of my misinterpreting and misreporting of T.W. to W.R. p. 59. I shall relate the case and leave the determination of it to any ingenuous indifferent person It is thus New-England men being asked Whether they do allow or think it lawfull to allow and settle any certain and stinted maintenance upon their Ministers do answer But for setled and stinted maintenance there is nothing done that way amongst us except from year to year because the conditions of Ministers may vary c. Mr. Weld saith For a way of setled maintenance there is nothing done that way except mark the exception from year to year And a little before he saith The Church usually meets twice in the
action of the infinitive in another person having no other ground but only Rhetoricall placing by which it stands nearer to the Infinitive then the verb doth 4. There might bee good reason to require the assembling of themselves together though hee only did deliver to Sathan 1. That the Church might behold it and bee afraid might repent of their glorying and being puffed up and take heed of the same sinne least they should meet with the same punishment 2. That there might be more shame and confusion upon the Incestuous mans spirit as when a Malefactor is openly punisht 3. That they which were in capacity to dispense church-censures might more solemnly excommunicate hiâ— 4. That the rest if they also must bee gathered might give a popular consent and approbation to the sentence and execute it in withdrawing from him some of these reasons were given by mee in my answer by way of prevention but you left them out that your objection might bee more plausible 5. If the Church of Corinth by an extraordinary commission had been enabled in Pavl's absence of body and presence of his spirit to deliver the Incestuous person to Sathan that cannot bee drawn into ordinary imitation 6. As for your other passages I find you mis-aprehension of my opinion to bee the ground of all or the greatest part of your discourse you conceive I grant that delivering up to Sathan and excommunication of the incestuous person is all one possibly I did not so clearly in my answer expresse my conceptions as I might and ought to have done out of a feare of multiplying questions Whereas you say in p. 96. The Church in 1 Cor. 5.7.4.5 is made by the holy Ghost the subject excommunicating I grant you that the Church in v. 7 8. 13. was the subject purging out or putting away if you will the subject excommunicating with this proviso that as imposition of the hands of the Presbytery is by your selves p. 96. called the concurrence of the Church in Ordination so the acting only of the Presbytery in excommunication may be called the concurrence of the Church As the whole Church which Act. 15.22 is said to send messengers and decrees to Antioch was in the judiciall passing of those decrees only the Apostles and Elders Acts 15.2 and 16.4 and 21.5 3. I assert not that Paul did command the Church to deliver the Incestuous person to Sathan nor that excommunication was an act belonging to the Apostolique function I know it may and ought in cases requiring it bee transacted by the Church I assert not that there were no other grounds of Paul's writing to them to put away the wicked person but to try their obedience I only say if Paul did write to them to deliver him to Sathan as you strongly affirme some other way then by church-censure then the Church of Corinth was in obedience to Paul and by his spirit to deliver him up and every Church hath not the same power and this was the reason of those passages Paul by Apostolique authority bids the Colossians cause an Epistle to bee read in Laodicea c. I grant that whatsoever power the fraternity and the Presbytery of the Church of Corinth had the fraternity and Presbytery of all such Churches as Corinth was hath to the end of the world but deny that the fraternity of that or any other Church hath power to dispence church-censures and that it is that you should prove Sect. 4. When I say that bidding them purge out the old leaeven and put away from them that wicked person c must not bee understood as if Elders and people were equally authorized thereunto c. You reply p. 100. Is not this to insinuate that the Elders of New-England and Mr. Cotton affirme that the Elders and people are equally authorized to cast out the incestuous person there is nothing in the place by you alleadged that doth import thus much the King for a mis-carriage in a cause may reprove the Jury as well as the Judge and not imply that Judge and Jury are equally authorized c. Rejoynd 1. The Position in the letter saith that he did reprove the brethren of the Church of Corinth as well as the Elders that they did no sooner put him away implying that the brethren were to put him away as well as the Elders 2. The Position in the scope of it seems not to me if I understand it to make any difference between the power of Elders and of Brethren Mr. Cottons words are There is no word in the Text that attributes any power to the Presbyterie apart or singularly above the rest but as the reproof is directed to them all so is the commandement directed to them all Cottons way p. 99. You bring in Mr. Cotton expresly giving all authority properly so called to the Eldership allotting only popular power of interest and liberty to the people I would suppose he doth not contradict himself and yet me thinks in his late book called the Keyes he comes neerer to the truth then in the former called the Way I know not how to reconcile him I leave it to you to do which are better acquainted with his manner of speaking 3. If N. E. men may interpret the Position which I conceive might be and you assert was taken out of them they do hold that the Members of the Church have authority and governing power I will not glosse on their words or meaning or on your distinction of authority properly so called and not properly so called let the Reader judge as he pleaseth I count these unnecessary unprofitable debates 4. Your comparison of Elders and people to Judge and Jury is not proper for the Jury is not all the County or Corporation but only some select dozen of men out of many and so the Ruling Elders are liker to the Jury then all the Congregation 2. The judgement of the Jury is a judgement I think of authority properly so called for they condemne or acquit the party in some degree though not compleatly Sect. 5. Reply p. 100. And lastly A man would think you did acknowledge that the People in suo gradu were authorized to purge out the old leven and put away the wicked person which questionlesse is some act of governing power and yet in the Catastrophe of your Discourse you wipe the Fraternity clearly of all such acts This is is a ridle Rejoynd 1. I do acknowledge that the people yea the women are authorised in suo gradu to put away the wicked persons viz. by withdrawing from them being excommunicated yet sure Womens withdrawing is no act of governing power but of obedience to it for you say Women are prohibited by positive law from having any Church-power though it is said women do exercise power in some of the new Churches in London When the Steward of a family hath discharged a naughty servant all the servants are authorized to withdraw from him yea if need be to turn him
misgovernment of his family in his absence which he prayes against mourns for and endeavours what he can at such a distance to amend Surely God will be to him a more equall and mercifull Judge Lastly your selves do hold communion of Churches too for counsel though not for jurisdiction yea you hold that Churches ought to have a 〈◊〉 one of another are you thereupon guilty of all those heresies and blasphemies that are broached by men which at first were Independents if you do admonish them of their error and renounce communion with them and use what means you can to reclaime them Sect. 4. I read in Rev. 4. that four and twenty Elders distinguished from believers c. 7.8.11.13.14 not four and twenty Saints or members were clothed and crowned by which I understand the officers of the Church alluding to the four and twenty orders of the Priests and the four beasts represent the Christian churches through the four quarters of the world alluding to the foure camps of Israel bearing in their standards the same beasts By your exposition the Elders which you say are signified by the four beasts are excluded from governing power for they sit not on thrones nor have crowns on their heads Their crowns and thrones are no more ensignes of power and authority then their white raiment of Priesthood Cot keyes p. 16. But they are not Priests by office they cannot do Pastorall acts as baptize c. neither have they authority to govern Every Christian man or woman Church-member or other hath a crown and sitteth on a throne viz. is spiritually a King and Priest to God Rev. 5.10 Finally governing power properly so called you acknowledge none but in the Elders alone 1 Cor. 12.28 Rom. 12.8 Heb. 13.17 The peoples power you say is more fitly called liberty and priviledge too mean a thing to be represented by crowns and thrones This my answer to Rev. 4. you blot out by an Index expurgatorius and being justly taxed for it in my Epistle before my Quaere's you say That in the copying out of your Reply for the Presse it was omitted but whether casu or consilio casually or purposely we cannot say I pray you whom should I ask if you know not You tell us how godly and able men having proved a thing by plain texts of Scripture do adde probable ones though more obscure But I pray you where are those plain texts which do solidly prove that Church-members are to sit on thrones or that they have authority and governing power You expresse your selves unwilling to defend the Position by vertue of the Text at least in that expression viz. of authoritative and governing power Why then do you not ingenuously confesse that the Text doth not prove the Position You say that it may be N. E. men are able to maintain it by vertue of the Text. Then it may be authority and governing power may be duly setled on Church-members as distinct from officers by Gods word You say that the exposition that I give in my answer seemed probable to one of you yet upon further inspection you have some exceptions against it though you do not absolutely reject it But if my exposition seem probable and you do not reject it why do you except against it 1. You say the four Beasts are full of eyes Revel 4.8 but you read not of any eyes that the Elders had I answer it was convenient to mention the beasts with eyes that it may not be thought the Churches were bruitishly ignorant but to mention Elders with eyes was superfluous seeing they are men and of the gravest and wisest of men and you may presume they had eyes for the Text tels us not that they were blind 2. You say the four beasts do lead the 24 Elders in the worship and service of God Rev. 4 9 10. c. 5.8 11. Now Churches do not lead their Officers but Officers the Churches I answer 1. The Elders are sometimes set before the four beasts Rev. 7.11 2. If I should say When the Society of Duckenfield doth communicate the Elders do break the bread therefore the Church of Duckenfield doth lead her Officers you would laugh at that consequence The cafe is the same When those beasts give glory and honour you may read shall give glory and honour the 24 Elders fell down therefore say you the Church doth lead her Officers 3. You say As for your allegation Rev. 7.9 11 13 14. that Elders are distinguished from believers we discern not that they are any more distinguished then the four beasts are I answer You may discern more distinction for one of the Elders not any of the four beasts speaks of them as of another sort then themselves in some respects v. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These are they not We are they c. 4. You say Mr. Conon asserts some priviledges of Church-members which are priviledges of Kings wearing crowns viz. to transact nothing by themselves but by their officers 2. Their consent is requisite to the judgements that passe in the Church I answer 1. I thought that a Church viz. the non-officed members had nor transacted things by their Officers to expresse their royalty but for want of authority per se to administer Sacraments 2. That their consent had not been a royall consent as to Acts of Parliament but a popular consent 3. No exposition can be given of the words but some exceptions may be made against it 4. All your exceptions together are not of such weight no not with your selves as that you daâ—e because of them reject the exposition I gave Lastly if you do maintain the position that Church-members have authority and governing power you contradict your selves CHAP. XXXII Of taking Christ for their onely spirituall Prophet Priest and King Deut. 18.15 Act. 7.37 Psal 110.4 Heb. 5.4 Isa 9.6 7. Rev. 15.3 YOu professe that you do not appropriate this to the Congregational churches as if in these offices Christ were so only hers that no five or six or one particular Saint out of Church-fellowship no Classical Presbyterial or National Church may take him for their only Prophet Priest and King You condemn any that have thus expressed themselves you call it a cup of abomination and say in whose sack soever it be found let him suffer according to his dâ—â—â—rits Yea that all the churches of God yea all the people of God may deservedly condemn such that it favours of most detestable pride and censoriousnesse that it is a thing of greatest abhorrency to our thoughts if it fall on this side blasphemie against the holy Ghost Rejoynd 1. The texts cited prove that Christ is a King a Priest and Prophet but not that Congregational churches do only so take him 2. You insinuate that it may be found in the writings of some on your right hand you may mean the rigid Seperatists which if it bee I am sure it is found in the writings of those that in point of
that question were propounded to any Minister so exercising in another Church which was once to our Saviour by the high Preists and Elders by what authoritie dost thou doe these things and who gave thee this authoritie let that Minister whosoever he be study to make an answer and retort them thus on you you say here there are some acts of feeding which though they be authoritative to that people over whom the persons performing them are officers yet they may be performed without an office c. let him that holdes or exercises any such acts in such manner suppose preaching which was the subject of that question of the high Priests Matth. 21.23 study to make answer to it If he say by no authoritie but by a gift then 1. He answers not the Elders question which demandeth by what authoritie c nor can hee positively answer it 2. Either this giftednesse is a sufficient warrant and then he hath authority and so doth it authoritatively or else its insufficient and then he is convinced as a transgressor and presumptuous and hee and you must quit this and find out another distinction to salve your disparityes which can hardly be so strange and incongruous as this Sect. 11. When I urge If the relation of Ministers and people be mutual If the people may receive the Sacrament from one that is not their Minister then the Minister may administer it to them that are not of his flock you reply p. 115. In one sense all that you say is true they may so doe by recommendation but then this recommendation is as it were a dismission differing not really but only in time Recommendation commends them for a time into the fellowship with that Church and dismission for continuance when persons of another Church doe orderly intermingle themselves with this or that Church then they are as Members and Pastor is as their Pastor and so hee might dispence the Sacraments to them Rejoynd In New-England members well known and approved doe mutually without exception communicate each of them at other Churches even so often as Gods providence leads them thereto and they desire it and this is done by virtue of communion of Churches and sometimes without letters of recommendation See Answ to Pol. 9. p. 78. Cottons keyes p. 17. way p. 103. F.W. to W.R.p. 10. 2. We stil ask why may not a Minister officiate inanother church recommended or as it were dismissed by his own aswel as a member of another communicate in his by recommendation 3. Belike you are pinched with the argument that you are glad to use such amphibolous termes as it were a dismission as his member as his Pastor but observe 1. Your Author Master Cotton gives a reason of this both more genuine and crosse to this of yours for we saith he receive the Lords Supper not onely as a seale of our communion with the Lord and with his members in our Church but also in all the Churches of the Saints if so then what need you or how can you say truly that a member of another Church comming to receive at yours is as it were dismised or dismembred from the other Church and is become as a member of yours and you are as his Pastor 2. I aske is he not still really a member of the Church he comes from is he not under another Pastor of another Church if you deny these things it would overthrow that communion of Churches which Master Cotton reduceth this mutual receiving one of another to and would make membership and Pastorship like a cloake to cast off and put on alternation upon every slight occasion of going from home and eturne and if you yeeld or affirme the said things then you must recal those words wâ—erein you say Recommendation differs not really from dismission for if it doe not then is hee really dismissed from the Church he comes from and is not as one of them he comes from but as one of them to whom he is resigned and recommended Cottons way p. 104. In what Church then to place him or whether he be in either according to you I cannot resolve and I am sure to say he is a member of both would be incongruous to your Principles and to reason 3. In saying Recommendation differs not from dismission really but in time is a contradiction for things that differ in time must needs differ really ut res res quorum incipiente vel desinente uno non incipit vel desinit alterum else you must needs say eadem res est non est but you are not happy in your distinctions the lesse wonder it is that in some things you erre for qui bene distinguit bene docet 4. The Argument for all this that you have said must still presse you if this man a member of another Church may come to your Church why may not the Pastor of his Church come and if hee as a member may receive why may not his Pastor as a Minister preach and administer the Lords Supper is not the one as strictly tyed in by his Church-Covenant in his relation as the other in his is not recommendation of a Minister as truely a dâ—smission of him as recommendation of a Member Sect. 12. Reply p. 110. But it will not follow that therefore hee may act ministerially out of his owne Church and people in and among another Church and people Magistrates and Subjects are Relatives and if any Subjects of one County come to another County and be wronged there he may require justice from the Magistrate of the County where the wrong is done him and receive it but the Magistrate may not therefore goe from among his people to another County and dispense justice amongst them So of Ministers Rejoynd 1. The similitude is not truly laid down for a Magistrate of this County and a Subject of the Kingdome are not relata as such a County-Magistrates correlative is a Subject and Inhabitant of the said County And if you had so put your comparison what could you have inferred from it 2. The similitude is unfit even in that for which you bring it For first a County-Magistrate is tyed within locall bounds in administrations whether to his country-men or to strangers but the case of a Pastor is not so especially with you which admit of no Parochial or locall bounds which we think requisite in some cases not possible in all to the circumscribing of a Church or the Pastorship of it but enlarge the Pastors leave to officiate any where in the world if his Church remove thither and the Church may remove whithersoever Secondly a Magistrate as he may do a stranger justice in his own County so he may as well execute justice on him within the same but you will not allow another Churches member to be censured in this Church though he may communicate there Thirdly I should easily grant that a Pastor may not go from his own congregation to