of humane and Politick or as a nouresident Doctor in justification of his non-residency said of Popish institution it will more disadvantage then advantage you for before the said division many Congregations did but make one Church and the Presbytery did teach and rule in Common and probably the severall Assemblies were not fixed but fluid consisting now of some persons and then of others sometimes of more and sometimes of fewer and the reason of division of Parishes was Ne administratio in promiscuo esset Poll. Verg. intimating plainly That no Presbyter did know his particular Congregation whereof he had more care than another Presbyter or then himself had of another Assembly within such and such limits as of a City c. but after Division of Parishes this particular Minister and assembly were better known more related and fastned one to another if this be of a Politique or Popish institution what do you gain by it 4. I cannot but observe that you plainly intimate that he that transgresseth such bounds or limits as are not jure Divino is not in any fault Sect. 2. Reply P. 5.2 Was there not liberty within this very Kingdom formerly for persons to pay their tythes to what Minister they pleased And consequently they were not tyed to the Parish they lived in but might choose their own society and Pastor and hence it is that there are some pieces of Parishes in some places six or eight miles distant from other parts of it and whole Parishes betwixt Why therefore now should there be an abridgment Rejoynder Suppose Mr. Selden say so and that it be true that he saith yet 1. You know this doth not evidence the doctrine and practise of the Apostles 2. I cannot think that from their payment of tythes to such a Minister or society it can be concluded that they did choose to be of that society for they sometimes payd their tythes to Regulars sometimes to Seculars sometimes they payd one year to one and another year to another and possibly a 3 year to a third person 3. That people payd their tythes to what Minister they pleased within such or such limits within which Ministers did administer and several assemblies of people did partake in ordinances promiscuously is not so hard to beleeve as that after the division of Parishes as you intimate saying they were not tyed to their own Parish they did so 4. Suppose the people had then free choice of their society and Pastor and afterwards according to their choice Parishes were divided which you to the discredit thereof make the occasion of inconvenient division of Parishes must it always be free notwithstanding any obligation by consent of Churches custome command of authority for every private person to live where he listeth and to choose his own society and Pastor Is it an abridgment of the children of your Church-members liberty to be accounted of your Church or may they separate themselves from your communion and gather whensoever they conceive there is just occasion into any Church which they think is purer Sure you must say that they may for seeing their parents voluntarily chose your Church why should there now be an abridgment Sect. 3. Reply P. 5. 3d There are many inconveniences both to Minister and people arising hence 1. The Pastors of parish Churches are only at certainty what houses they have under their Ministry not what persons for they may go which way they wil leaving their houses but their houses and lands are fixed and they shal always find them there 2. The members of these Churches though they have been bred up under the wing of such Churches and Pastors thereof and have taken a love and liking to the same yet if they remove from their habitation but a stones cast sometimes they must be broken off thereby from such Churches in point of Membership 3. A mans habitation may be nearer to some Church that is out of that Parish and so far off from his own Parish Church that he cannot conveniently repaire thereunto must he yet be bound to his own Parish Church by his habitation 4. Suppose a man have many houses in several Parishes and would desire sometimes to live in one and sometimes in another must he needs alter his Church membership as oft as he changeth his habitation Or can he be a member in all the Parishes where he hath houses Rejoynder Pastors may be at certainty what persons they at present have under their Ministry but for time to come indeed they are not certain nor can you shew us where the word of God requireth that they should have such certainty your selves are not certain how long you shal have your members for death may take them away or they may turn Anabaptists seekers or fall into such sinnes as they may be cast out or they may voluntarily notwithstanding any covenant which binds no further then it is lawful and warrantable desert you Nor are we certain what houses we shal have in our Parishes A fire may burn them or the sea in some places may overflow them or the wind may blow them down we cannot say what shal be to morrow 2. The removeal of men from one Parish to another is for the most part voluntâ—ry possibly for some secular ends and volenti non fit injuria 3. Distinction of Parishes are in some cases is or ought to be dispensed with where Parishes are in conveniently divided 4. A Christian removeing from one Parish to another may be a member at least a transient one in any Parish where he dwels as a man that hath houses in several counties cities and towns may be a member of any of those several counties cities and towns where he dwelleth they that were scattered from the Church of Ierusalem fell you say into membership with other Churches was this any inconvenience to the Aquila and Priscilla dwelling sometimes in one place sometimes in another were members of several Churches And if a Christian citizen of Corinth did dwel at Cenchrea he did as is probable fall into the membership of the Church of Cenchrea 5. If Parishes or neighbourhoods of people to be in one Church-society be an ordinance of God as hath bin proved Sest 5. then allegation of these or many more such inconveniences cannot equallize the inconveniences and unwarrantableness of your gathered or separated Churches 6. The cohabitation of Church members is ful of conveniency 1. For their more commodious meeting together in publike with ease frequency less expence of time and money 2. Their more easy conversing with and watching over comforting and releeving one another 3. For the preventing of confusion contention and offence 4. For their more convenient inspection over their families that their families as wel as themselves do sanctify the Sabbath CHAP. 3. Of gathering Churches and preaching without yea against the laws of the Magistrate Sect. 1. WHen you alledg for it the doctrine of the Apostles Acts 4.17 18 21. Acts
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
Congregation no Minister above another Minister though the major part of them as of Congregational members though equall one to another be above the minor part where every Elder is left to enjoy the office of an Elder and each Congregation left to the freedome of the Congregation in what belongs to them and they able to perform The Prelates power was altogether extrinsecal to those Congregations that were under it they did not consent unto it nor sent Commissioners to assist or concur in it but Classes and Synods are aggregates made up out of their mutuall associations into one and do in matters of common concernment strengthen and help particular Congregations walking according to rule and reduce such as walk not in truth and peace but are leavened with error and variance The Prelates urged Subscription Ceremonies had civil power to imprison fine were Barons and so had votes in Parliament they had their Chancellors Commissaries Surrogates Deans Chapters Archdeacons Rural Deans Proctors Apparitors Singing-men Choristers Summoners Their Courts were remote from many of the people they were expensive oppressive by exaction of Fees they or some of them promoted Tyranny Popery Arbitrary government suffered ignorant profane Popish Arminian Socinian Ministers which the Presbyterian Government where it is in full strength as in Scotland doth not Sect. 4. Reply p. 8. You might more properly have said that John did not blame him simply for usurping or exercising preheminence for accepting presupposeth an offer made of the thing accepted now it is more then probable that the Church never offered him that preheminence nor if shee would had shee any such power exorbitant preheminence usurped over the whole both the Elders his equals and the fraternity which yet have a share and interest in the passing of Excommunication is here spoken of not any lawfull preheminence for then a moderate and well-tempered love of it were lawfull By the same reason that Diotrophes is excused in regard of the materiality of his action may the corrupt Princes of whom it is said Isai 1.23 Every one loveth gifts be excused from their bribery and corruption 3. You say It is probable that John writ somewhat concerning Discipline as the receiving of certaine brethren a businesse in which the fraternity had some interest as well as Diotrophes and the rest of the Elders and therefore he wrote not to Diotrophes or to the Elders alone but to the whole Church But Diotrophes riseth up he alone commands forbids excommunicates and yet say you or else you say nothing to purpose be is not blamed for it If Diotrophes were not to blame being a particular Elder to take upon him the power of the whole Eldership yea and the whole Church why may not a brother do that which belongeth to the fraternity an Elder do that which belongs to the Presbytery or to the Classis or Province and yet blamelesse Rejoynd 1. You grant Diotrophes was an Elder of the Church of Corinth and is it not probable he had a primacy of order or some preheminence amongst the Presbyters by reason of parts or age c whereunto he was chosen by his brethren and whereupon he made answer when John writ to the Church as Presidents Moderators use to do when Colledges Synods Societies are writ unto and if so the word accepting is not an unmeet expression 2. That the text speaks of an exorbitant preheminence usurped over the whole you assert but prove not the expresse words of the text are loving preheminence or primacy not having preheminence the word I used not usurping it the word you use The preheminence might be lawfull and yet the love of it be blamed in Scripture as money pleasure uppermost roomes long clothing salutations may be lawfull Prov. 21.17 Mat. 23.6 Mark 12.38 as your selves confesse yea the Prophet doth not reprove Princes for receiving of gifts or rewards notwithstanding your instance to the contrary but for corrupt inordinate loving or receiving of them Saul did lawfully receive gifts and they were men of Belial that brought him none 1 Sam. 10.27 though to love gifts or rewards or to receive them so as to delay or pervert judgement be a great sinne Isa 1.23 3. By what logick do you conclude Diotrophes is not here blamed ergo he is excused from the guilt of solitary excommunication in regard of the materiality of the action or he is not here blamed therefore he is not to blame c. Are all men in Scripture blamed yea and simply blamed for that was my word for every thing in which they were to blame 4. I indeed had no thought of excusing him from guilt in solitary excommunication or exercise of any Ecclesiastical authority which I have publikely witnessed against both lately and long since nor well know I whether he was solitary or only principall in that work nor how far the Church was guilty of it That he alone did rise up and command and forbid and excommunicate the Scripture saith not neither did I say it or think it much lesse did I say he is not to blame if he did so They for ought I know might joyn with him and yet he only be blamed by name as being the head of the faction and they doing it by his inducement and instigation as the rebellion of many yea in a sort of all the congregation of Israel is from the principal actor called the gainsaying of Corah Jud. v. 12. for how one man in the very Apostles times could excommunicate members out of a Church so great well gifted and fully furnished with officers as Corinth was if the Elders and people had been against him or have hindred John from comming to them I cannot see Might they not have received John and have some one or all of them writ to him to that purpose whether Diotrophes would or no seeing the Elders certainly had and you say the fraternity also had a share in those weighty businesses But possibly this was one of those false teachers which brought the Corinthians into great dislike of the Apostle Paul their spirituall father 1 Cor. 4.13 14. 2 Cor. 10.1 and was of an ambitious spirit v. 12.18 your selves take it for granted he was of that Church and if so then he might very easily bring them into dislike of John 5. Suppose any Church-power which you esteem most lawfull should have loved preheminence should not have received John nor the brethren and have forbidden them that would and have cast them out of the Church might not John have writ on this manner and sharply have rebuked them without any intent on his part of reflecting upon the lawfulnesse of their power but only upon their ambitious and corrupt use of it CHAP. XXVII Of Independents likenesse and unlikenesse to Corah Dathan and Abiram Sect. 1. WHen I desire you calmly to consider whether investing Non-Elders with Ministerial power placing Church-power in the body of the Congregation complaining of the Elders that rule over
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
act with the Key of power wherein only he resembles a Magistrate or to exercise jurisdiction in any other That he is at all times and cases fixed to such a circuit but as a Colonel Captain c which possibly somtimes may be the governour of such such a castle defender of such a country c. or any Martial commander may do acts of government whereever his Camp removes so may he do his office by your own confession wheresoever his Congregation is present but a Magistrate may not do justice no not to his own citizens no more then to strangers out of his liberties 2. Acts of justice and judgement by Majors or other Magistrates our of their territories are not only unlawfull but null in Law but sure you hold not that if a Minister preach in another congregation by vertue of office baptize administer the Sacraments Ordain or the like that those acts are altogether null and void as if they had not been baptized or ordained and that they ought to be rebaptized or reordained Lastly the County-Magistrates power is bounded by expresse laws or orders of the King or State but you can shew no Divine Law for the bounding of a Minister to a particular assembly yea whether there be any such laws or no is the question which you must not beg Reply p. 116. We grant that not one only of another Church but two three six eight which it may be are the whole Church may be received to the holy Communion but we demand who shall recommend them and without recommendation they cannot orderly be received or suppose they commend themselves they are now swallowed up in the fellowship of the other Church and counted pro tempore members of it and have not the consideration of a distinct church And though it be lawfull for a Minister to dispense the Sacrament to them with his own people yet not lawfull to go forth from his own people and give it to them alone If a whole Town should come and live in another Town they might have the justice of that Town from the Magistrate which cannot dispense justice to them abiding in their own place Rejoynd 1. If you grant that a Pastor may administer the Sacrament to another Church comming into his assembly as you say you do then first May not a Pastor and his Church upon some occasion go to the meeting-place of another Church and there perform the same ministeriall acts by consent of all parties interessed as he may do if that other Church come to his Churches meeting-place Doth the place make any difference in your opinion Secondly May a Pastor if his flock be present administer the Sacrament to another Church which possibly may be an hundred times bigger then his own and may he not if his flock be absent doth the presence of his church add so much to his power over another church Sure these things are gratis dicta without Scripture without reason 2. As for recommendation I answer first M. Cotton the Elders of N.E. as I shewed before yield another way of communicating betwixt Churches besides Recommendation so that this barre is needlesse and untrue if they must be Judges Secondly if Recommendation be so needfull for a whole Churches communicating with another Church it may be had from its officers from other neighbour-churches or from members of that church to which they come and joyn which are able to testifie of them Thirdly whereas you suppose they may commend themselves this is of all other reliefs the weakest as good as nothing a meer formality sure Recommendation with you is very needfull that must be thus patched up rather then wanted when it is thus helpt out it stands you in great stead 3. As for comming of one Church to another I rejoyn first If they communicate with this other church by vertue of communion of churches they must needs be considered as a distinct church Communion is at least between two and imports plurality and distinction betwixt the parties Identity destroyes communion which consists in the conveniencie or agreement of persons or things in aliquo tertio and not in a coalescencie of them in one Secondly whatsoever they are counted howsoever considered by you this temporary fellowship makes them not indeed one church with that they communicate with Your way of constituting churches and your everlasting covenant Cottons Way p. 104. wild noc brook such an easie and interchangeable putting together into one and parting again of churches your considering them as one then when they are not such is the error of your Conceptus and salves not the matter in hand in this case deny it if you can A Minister acts ministerially to another church and now you have brought two churches together in communion let me enquire May not their Elders act in common to both are the Eldert of either suspended in this conjunction and if so of which are they that are to be suspended and why not a third and a fourth church come to them after the same manner and the Elders of all joyn interests in ruling what will lack to make up here a Classis or Presbyterie of many churches Thus you are unawares comming into our tents Thirdly by this you plainly teach a Minister acts not ministerially but in the presence of his Congregation and the authoritativenesse of his acting and lawfulnesse of his authoritative acts depends on their being assembled with him But first it is the presence of Christ which gives authority and efficacy to his Ministry Mat. 18.20 which is promised to him alway and with no such limitation Mat. 28.20 Secondly some Ministeriall acts are required of him in private Jam. 5.14 2 Tim. 2.15 1 Tim. 4.13 14 15 16. He is to charge privately the people that they live not inordinately Cottons keyes p. 21 22. and he may act authoritatively in a Synod of churches where his Church is not collectively which is your sense present Of the difference as to this between a Magistrate and a Minister see Sect. 12. Reply p. 117. The Scripture alloweth the recommendation of the members of one Church to another Rom. 16.1 2 Cor. 3.1 But can you produce any place where the Minister of one church hath acted ministerially in another church Rejoynd 1. Neither of the places you cite for recommendation of members mentions any thing of meer members but both speak of officers Phaebe in Rom. 16.1 is termed a servant of the Church Mr. Cotton calls her a Deaconesse of that church Way p. 103. Keys p. 17. And that in 2 Cor. 3.1 speaks of Paul himself as not needing recommendation to or from them as do other teachers for of such he had immediately before discoursed c. 2. ult and much in this Epistle the Apostle useth this collation as c. 10. 11. 2. Your demand annexed should in equity and correspondency to your own attestation be Can you produce one place where the Ministers of one church are recommended to another And this I can though your places for Members recommendation be not found and may as strongly therefore inferre their acting ministerially in other churches upon their recommendation to them as you with Mr. Cotton conclude for the communicating of members in other churches from such supposed recommendation of them thereunto See for the recommendation of Ministers 2 Cor. 8.16 18 19 22 23. Act. 15.22 25 26 27 32. Col. 4.7 8 10 11. Ephes 6.21 22. Phil. 2.19 20 21. and your own place 2 Cor 3.1 Sect. 4. When I produce Mr. M. Mr. T. granting that Elders have a power to ordain Elders in other churches by request of that church where the Elders are to be ordained You reply p. 117. Not by their own proper right not as Elders or Officers but as of better gifts and greater abilities and their power is derived to them from those congregations which entreat them if they acted as officers then they might act without entreaty for entreaty makes them not officers and if they were officers before entreaty is not needfull to enable them Rejoynd This reason is not good 1. A man may be intreated to do that which he hath office and authority to do Act. 16.9 2 Cor. 8.4 with 19. Mar. 9.23 2. When there is an office and calling to do a work there is requisite on the part of them to or for whom it is to be done a consent and whether it be signified in the form of an intreaty or otherwise is nothing materiall In censures you give some proper power to the Elders and yet require the peoples consent in passing them In this matter of Ordination you hold the Churches consent necessary though their own Elders did transact it and their acting therein you will grant to be authoritative 3. You say the same of Elders acting in their own congregations therefore the Elders deriving power from the Church is no hindrance but that they may have it from Christ to another congregation upon their request as to their own 4. Let me ask you 1. How can the Church according to you delegate its power to persons out of it self 2. Whether is this act of deriving power to the Elders of another church an act of authority or no If it be then the Church acts authoritatively to persons of another church and if the Church may why may not also the Ministers If it be not then the Ordination performed by them is either done by no authority or by an authority underived from the church to which they are intreated 5. If the Church may derive power to Elders of another church in point of Ordination why may she not translate it to the Elders of two three or four churches why not to a classis of Elders and why not her interest in other acts of power as well as this You haue thus a power to become Presbyterians with us if you will You further reply p. 117. And if they act as officers in another congregation then they may in all congregations R. So they may act in any positis omnibus requisitis ad agendum but they act not formally as officers of another congregation but as officers of the same classical provincial or national church and as joyned in government with that church Part of this and the whole 35. Chapter of the Preaching of gifted men Waits a farther occasion FINIS