cornfloor and to a City but as for the comparing of a visible Church to a garrison town 1. Is a similitude invented by your selves for your own purpose 2. You cannot shew so good warrant for your examination as souldiers have for theirs 3. It is neither necessary nor ordinary that each man that is admitted into a garrison should give satisfaction to all the souldiers therein that he is a real frend 12. Mr. Noyes a N. E. man saith p. 6. p. 10. Our facility of admitting members must give testimony to the Lords dispensation of grace in the embracing of invisible members The gates of Ierusalem do stand open Rev. 21.25 The Elders of the City of Refuge did not expostulate with such as fled before the avenger of bloud in way of any explicite covenant or exquisite examination Iosh 20. Excess of complements insolemnities formalities punctualities are unsuitable to the simplicity and spirituality of the Gospel and also fully forbidden in the 2. Commandment Sect. 2. Reply p. 34. If the Church be not a common receptacle but must consist of selected then there are certain rules of reception and rejection and tryal must be made by some whether persons be so qualifyed according to those rules and this the light of nature and rule of reason leads to though there should be nothing in Scripture expresly mentioning it Rejoyn 1. When the rule of reason and light of nature is alledged by some for episcopacy by others more cleerly necessarily for subordination of Ecclesiastical judicatories and the remedy of appeals then you decline tryal by those judges but now you do appeal to them 2. Your argument is a meer non-sequitur The Church is not a common receptacle there are rules of reception and rejection a tryal must be by some therefore the Church must examine all those that come to be admitted whether the work of grace be wrought in their hearts or no. For 1. The Iewish Church the Christian Church in the days of the Apostles were not common receptacles yet they did receive and admit into them respectively many whom they did not examine whether the truth of grace was wrought in their hearts or no. 2. The rules of reception and rejection are set down in Scripture but amongst them this rule is not to be found that the Church must examine c. If it be why do you not shew it 3. If some may try persons that come to be admitted it follows not that the Church must do it 4. If there may be examination of something it follows not that it must be of the truth of grace wrought in the heart and that all are to be rejected which cannot give satisfactory arguments thereof Sect. 3. Reply p. 34. It was lawful and commendable in the Ephosians to try false Apostles which professed in words to be true Apostles Rev. 2.2 Rejoyn 1. You do here much qualify your tener signifying you would accept of verbal profession of faith and repentance if there be any thing which may though but probably give witness to the reality thereof 2. That those Apostles did desire member-ship with the Church of Ephesus and were tryed upon that occasion is not expressed or implyed in the text but rather they that said they were Apostles did in effect say that they ought not to be set members of any Church but had the care of all the Churches 3. This tryall was not of their sanctity or syncerity but of their doctrine and authority not whether they had true grace or no but whether they had the office and doctrine of Apostles or not which two things differ much Indas was a true Apostle and yet the work of grace was not wrought in his heart and the work of grace is wrought in many that are not Apostles 4. They had commission to examine them 1 Iohn 4.1 1 Thes 5.21 And for this the Bereans were commended Acts 17.11 And the Elders or the Angel of Ephesus were in effect put upon that duty by Paul Acts 20.29 30. But you have no such commission for the Church to examine the work of grace and therefore your practise is not so lawful as theirs Sect. 4. The Church of Ierusalem sought satisfaction concerning Saul you wil say there was cause of suspition and jealousy concerning him and we may say there is now also cause of jealousy for profession of faith and repentance is common and the fruits worthy of it Math. 3.8 are rare Rejoyn Your practise is not so reasonable as the practise of that Church in that case for 1. There was just ground of personal exception against Saul and so there is not against every man of whom you doubt the Apostles might suspect him stil to be a Iew a persecutor a spy and that he but assay'd to joyn himself to them to betray them Protestants in Q. Maryes days and Non-conformists in the Prelates days though they held not that they ought to examine each man of the truth of his grace before they admitted them into their society would have bin afrayd to have admitted known persecuting persons into their private meetings though they had pretended to be converted til they had known they had left off their trade of persecution which the Aposties knew not that Paul had done til they heard Barnabas his testimony concerning him which they received without any examination 2. Fruits meet for repentance were ever rare yet Iohn Baptist did not defer baptism til the people brought them forth nor was he or the disciples of Christ afrayd notwithstanding they wel knew the rarity of such fruits to admit thousands at once to baptism against whom they had no just ground of personal exception as they had against Saul and therefore were afraid of him Sect. 5. In Answer I alledg If the Gospel and Christian Religion was brought into England in the Apostles times then it was like it was constituted of Saints as wel as the Church of Corinth If we look upon the latter constitution in Q. Elizabeth's time many Congregations Manchester for example had visible yea doubtless real Saints which were sufferers all Queen Maries time to be the foundationnalls thereof You Reply p. 35. It is uncertain what Congregation was so constituted and what not we neither justify nor condemn the constitution of any but judg according to their present state and if we see any visible Saints as doubtless there are many in some Congregations and united also amongst themselves for the sake of those few so united we acknowledg them a Church and in all things so far as they carry the ordinances uncorruptly desire to have fellowship with them Rejoyn 1. It is as certain as any thing built upon humane faith that God had a faithful people not only in London but in Manchester and neer to it in Queen Maries days witness not only tradition but the letters of Mr. Iohn Bradford and Mr. George Marsh 2. There are also visible Saints stil in it and those as much
first they met together in one place 4. The primitive times were times of hot persecution when Peter and Iohn as they were preaching were apprehended threatned again and again halled to the common jaol and beaten Acts 4.1 2 3 17 21. Acts 5. 18 40. Saul also persecuted for a time Acts 8.1 and Herod Acts 12.1 Your selves tel us page 6. that the ordinary Pastors and teachers of those times were martyred for preaching against the peremptory commands of Magistrates yet I suppose you intend not that the Primitive paterns of Churches meeting in several places produced or to be produced should hereby be evaded because those were times of persecution seeing it is not possible that in the Churches greatest prosperity such a vast number cannot orderly and edifyingly conveene Sect. 4. When I put you to make good your inference viz. Scripture saith such such a Church did meet in one place therefore the Church must consist of no more then can meet in one place You say Reply p. 15. You must take the argument in the scope of it such and such churches did meet constantly in one place and there is no mention of any Church which did not meet together in one place therefore no church in the new testament doth consist of more then can meet in one place the consequent is now good for we think that patterns that are uncontrouled by percepts and other patterns have Doctrine in them and do teach how things ought to carryed It is one thing more warrantable to derive an inference from patterns when they all run one way and be patterns of one kind and another thing and less safe to draw an inference from patterns when there is diversity of kinds of them about the same thing Rejoynder 1. Your selves dare not say that all the patterns in the new testament do run one way in point of gathering of Churches out of Churches of having 7 or 8 to be a Church of ordination by non-officers of the Church censuring her officers of maintenance by contributions or out of the Church-stock c. And therefore your reasoning is less safe and warrantable by your own confession in these points in which you have much adoe to find one pattern for each of them so far are you from proving that they all run one way 2. It is repugnant to plain Scripture or to neer and necessary consequence from it to assert that no Church in the new testament doth consist of no more then may meet in one place as is instanced and proved in the Church of Jerusalem and of Samaria Sect. 2. and in the Church of Corinth ch 6. 3. Christians dwelling in a vicinity or neighbourhood together do alway in scripture make a Church together this is a pattern uncontrouled by precepts or other patterns therefore by your own rule it hath doctrin in it but your practiles are not conformable to this doctrin 4. Suppose that in the new testament only one family in a city had received the faith could it thence have bin concluded that no Church should consist of more then of the members of one family I beleeve you wil not own such a conclusion Sect. 5. When I urge that all the beleevers in such or such a city were of the Church in that city whether they were more or fewer hence every city and every Church expound one another Acts 14.21 2 cum Tit. 1.5 Acts 16.4 5. And that it cannot be sheâ—ed that any Church how numerous â—oeâ—er it grew was divided into two or more Churches or that there Were more Churches then one in any city or town therefore the beleevers in any one city or town may be but one Church whether they can meet in one place or no. You Reply p. 16. Not so because as appears to us thene is light of scripture gainsaying it for though in all cities all the beleevers of them were of the Church of each of them yet such an inference would be â—aught because it was so for a special reason and in regions and countries where that reason took not place it was â—therwise All the beleevers of Ierusalem were of one Church there because they were not so many but that they might come constantly together into one place and did so But all the beleevers in Indea were not of one Church there but of many Churches because they could not meet constantly in one place And if beleevers in cities meeting in divers places are but one Church for this reason because they were of 〈◊〉 city as you would form to infer than shew but a probable reason why beleevers meeting in divers places in countries may not be one Church because they are of one country especially the beleevers of Indea being but a smal country and under the same civil Government The reason why city and Church expound one another was this because there was not more converted in a city then could meet together in a congregation or Church And when you can shew us out of the new testament that beleevers were so multiplyed in any city is that they could not all meet in one place then Wil we shew you that such Churches were divided into more Churches Rejoynder 1 Here are patterns of the new Testament uncontrouled by precepts and other patterns rejected by you upon pretence of special reason and that special reason is your begging of the question viz. there were no more converted in any city then might constantly meet together in one place 2. I have shewed out of the new testament and light of reason that beleevers in Ierusalem were so multiplyed that they could not meet together constantly for edification to receive the Sacrament of the Lords supper Sect. 2. 3. we read of Churches planted by the Apostles in cities and in great townes Cenchrea the least was oppidum valde frequens populosum navium statione celeberrimum Gualter in Rom a wel-frequented populâ—â— town most famous for the station of the ships and that they usually preached in cities Math. 10.23 11 1 23 34. Ierusalem Rome Corinth Coloss were all cities so were Philippi and Thessalonica Antioch Laodicea c. Hence cities not countries or villages and Churches do in scripture-phrase expound one another and Paganus which signifies a Country-man signifies in our common acceptation an Heathen and yet you tell us of Churches in the countries as distinct from Churches in cities and never offer to prove that there were such Churches That the Apostles in their journeyes did preach sometime in villages I grant but that they planted any Church in a village I put you to prove by scripture and if you cannot prove it then your distinction of country Churches and city Churches and the observation there upon which you make so much use of falls to the ground 4. I did not hold them bound to be out Church only because they were in one city but because their Elders or commissioners might come together being all of
prove him to be in Church-Covenant as wel as Circumcision did all that were baptized by Iohn Baptist or the Disciples and Apostles of Christ and Paul himself before he did assay to joyn to the Disciples was in Church-Covenant because he was baptized by Ananius and all those that were baptized in our Churches were in your judgment in Church-Covenant with us and if you perswade them to leave us how do you clear your self of being accessary to their breach of Church-Covenant I add How prove you That Melchisedeck a Priest and Lot which were not of his seed nor of his family were out of Church-state That a beleever is not a sonne of Abraham nor an heire of the promise and Covenant made to Abraham if he be not in Church-state by Covenant all which you seem to imply when you say the Jewish Church was constituted in Abrahams family by Church-Covenant The family of Shem was the Church of God long before this Gen. 9.25 26 27. You Reply p. 43. We assert not that they were out of Church-state but if they were not Circumcised they were not of Abrahams Church nor could they have partaked of the passover had it bin on foot any more then other beleevers not joyned to Abrahams family as Cornelius Rejoyn 1. You have not yet proved that Abraham was not in Church-state before Gen. 17. This demand you answer with a deleatur 2 If Melchisedeck and Lot were of another Church then Abrahams can you prove that that Church also was made by Covenant if it was not then every Church is not as you assert founded in a Church-Covenant 3. If Melchisedeck was not a Jew as I beleeve he was Lot certainly was one Cornelius was certainly a Gentile Melchisedeck if he was Shem was Abrahams progenitor and Lot was his kinsman and so neerer to the family of Abraham then Cornelius was but of Melchisedeck and Lot see before You Reply further It is one thing to be a sonne of Abraham as a beleever and heire of promise another thing to be the sonne of Abraham as a professed Covenanter with God and bearing the symbol in his flesh in the former sense Abraham was the father of all beleevers though uncircumcised in the later of the Circumcised which were also of his faith as the Apostle shews Rom. 4.11 12. Rejoyn Rom. 4.11 12. Shews that Abraham was the father of all that beleeve whether Circumcised or uncircumcised that is in Scripture language you know Iews or Gentiles the Jews had the symbol in their flesh the Gentiles had not but what is this to the purpose you assert the Covenant Gen. 17. to be a Church-Covenant then I conceive it follows from your opinion that beleevers which are not now in Church-state by Covenant are not heires of that promise and put you to prove it or if you had pleased to renounce it your text doth rather prove that he was the father of all beleeving Gentiles whether joyned to an instituted Church or no and that such beleevers are heires of that promise and Covenant 2. You say every beleever is the sonne of Abraham as a beleever and heire of promise But what promise mean you if not that Gen. 17. my demand was and is whether a beleever out of Church Covenant be not an heire of that promise and Covenant Gen. 17 If you grant he is then it wil follow that it was not a Church-covenant if you say he is not I pray you speak plainly I sometimes find it more difficulty to discern the strength of your Reply then to confute it 3. A single person two or three persons may undoubtedly be professed covenanters with God and so may be children of Abraham in that but to be the children of Abraham as bearing the symbol of that covenant in his flesh no beleeving Gentiles whether in Church-covenant or no baptized or unbaptized can for the Scripture yea common sense tels us that neither baptism nor Church-membership do leave any symbol in the flesh you are able enough to express your selves if you would make your meanings more plain our discourses would be more profitable to the Reader Lastly you reply p. 43. Though it be probable there was a Church in the family of Shem yet that place proves it not and that Church might be of another constitution then this in Abrahams family this hinders not but that the Church in Abrahams family was constituted by covenant Rejoyn 1. If there were a Church in Shems family it is less matter whether that text proves it and yet if the thing had bin denyed I could have proved it 2. You take too much delight in multiplying Churches and diversifying their constitutions one Church whereof Melchisedeck was for you wil not assert that he was out of Church-state another Church where Lot was for I imagin you wil not assert that Melchisedeck and Lot were both of one Church 3. A third might be in the family of Shem if you hold him not to be Melchisedeck and a 4. in Abrahams family what three or foure Churches at once and that before Christ too and those or some of those of different constitutions and yet all agreeable to the wil of God I suppose if necessity had not driven you to seek Churches to take Sanctuary in you would not upon so little ground of Scripture have deserted the received and most rational opinion That there was but one Church at once before Christs time But surely the more Churches you find out the more work you have to do to prove they were as you say all Churches are founded in Covenant especially if you should prove that a solemn express verbal covenant was necessary to the strength and purity of each of those Churches or if you wave that that subscription signals silence it self as a sign were used CHAP. XIIII Of members promising at their admission to give themselves to the Church 2 Cor. 8.5 Sect. 1. TO shew that 2 Cor. 8.5 doth not uphold that practise I urged that the givers are not the members of the Church of Macedonia as you for your advantage phrase it but the Churches of Macedonia and therefore if this do prove union or Covenant it is of the members of several Churches and not of one only Reply The allegation in answer to 9 Pos pag. 73. runs thus So to the Church according to God to be guided by them these words according to God are left out whether wilfully or by oversight I conclude not Rejoyn I never professed nor intended that the Positions and Scriptures alledged should agree punctually and verbatim to the places set in the margin nor could I effect it without some in mine opinion unfitting alterations of them as they were alledged to me and for evidence that I tyed not my self to the Printed books as at the first coming out of my examinations I advertised one of your brethren I sometimes alledged no book at all even where you know I might as Pos 4. Other times that
to Officiate in Gal. 2.9.2 Cor 10.13.14.15.16 as souldiers and watchmen of any regiment to which Ministers 1. Tim 2.3 Isa 62.6 are compa'rd have their severall wards limits and gates which they looke to and take care of yet so as they all are the Souldiers and Watchmen of the whole city and ministers may teach and Governe severall congregations in common by consent of all parties Interessed if it shal be found most for their edification as it is in some reformed churches at this day for all Ministers and officers of the Church are given to the whole church for the gathering and building of it 1. cor 12.28 Ephes 4.11.12 and they are to teach and rule and performe all ministrations with reference to it and the best advantage of it And yet that I may prevent an usuall objection there is difference enough between Apostles and Ordinary Elders for the Apostles were to teach and rule not onely Churches and Flocks but Pastors and Ministers also being men of an higher Order 1 Cor. 12.28 Eph. 4.11 they were immediately called of God Gal 1.1 Infallible in their Doctrine Gal. 1.7.8 5.2 endowed with extraordinary gifts Act 2.1 2 8.18 were enjoyned ordinarily to travell abroad to plant Churches Math 28.19 they might act authoritatively any where without a call or consent and might shake of the dust of their feet against such Ministers or others as did not receive them Math. 10.14 their Commission was irrepealable their limits were large Gal. 2.9 one Apostle had authority over all the Churches whether he were present or absent But a Minister is not of an higher order nor hath power over his Fellow-Ministers nor hath an immediate unrepealable call is not infallible nor in these times extraordinarily gifted he cannot act authoritatively either in an ordinary or occasionall way either inpreaching administring the sacraments or the like without the call or consent of persons Interested 6. You cannot shew any one Elder that was ordeined by those that were only of that particular congregation where he was to officiate byvertue of the said ordination Sect. 5. Lastly if it be unlawfull for unofficed men to ordaine then at least in case a congregation have no Elders the Elders of other congregations must ordaine Elders there or else they can have no ordination without sinfull surpation of Presbyterian Power now for the unlawfullness of unofficed men's ordination of Elders consider first what ordination is It is the solemne setting apart of a Person to a publike church-office so it was voted in the Assembly nemine contradicente or it is in Scripture phrase an appointment of men over some church-business Act 6.3 Imposition of hands the usuall and most approved ceremony of ordination notes 1. a visible designation of persons to be in office 2. a separation of them to God in that office or work Act. 13.1.3 Rom. 1.1.3 a putting of that worke and service upon them as laying hands on the sacrifices did put sin upon them 4. A benediction of them that their labor may be to the glory of God and good of the Church 5. a signification to them in Gods name that his hand is with them in all that they doe in his name and by his Authority to guid strengthen and protect them 2. Let us consider who hath the power and Authority to ordaine viz. Officres only for first The Apostles which did where ever they came leave the Elders and people to the exercise of that right which belonged to them did not leave to non-Elders the power of ordaining though it had been much easier to have writ to the churches that they should ordaine their own Elders then to have come themselves as Act. 14.23 or to have sent Timothy or Titus for that purpose 1. Tim. 5.22 Tit. 1.5 2dly There can no Instance no not one be given in all the New Testament of any Officer upon whom an unofficed man did impose hands in ordaining him 3. They that do ordaine do put some of their worke upon the person ordained but Preaching Baptizing c. Is it not the worke of any non-officed men 4. He that ordaines blesseth him that is ordained and without all contradiction the less is blessed of the greater Heb. 7.7.5 Ordination vou confess is an Act of authority but non-officed men have no rule or authority Cotton Keyes p. 5.6 The two Brethren in their answer to Mr. Herle page 48. do allow that a Church wanting Elders may request the Elders of other Churches to ordaine Elders for her and they that are so requested have a calling to come 7. Your selves say p. 110. It is essentiall that ordination be done by the right Subjectum capax of that ordinance and alledge 1 Tim. 4.14 laying on of hands of the Presbytery Tit. 1.5 Act. 14.23 to which I add Act. 6.2.6 13.1.2.1 Tim. 5.22 2. Tim. 2.2 which texts do not only prove that Ordination is to be done by the right Subjectum capax but also that Elders are that Subjectum capax 8. their being deputed by a Congregation or not deputed varies not the case till it be made to appeare that though no other non-Officer may ordain yet the Church may lawfully depute a man and a man so deputed may lawfully ordaine Where hath the Congregation any charter for this Sect. 6. When I alledge that you tell us that it is a maine Pillar of Popery to proportion the church now to the outward policy in Israell and that Christs faithfullness above Moses consists in as full determination of Gods worship in the New Testament as in the old that we are as strictly tied to the Gospell Patterne as the Jewes were to the old Testament you reply p. 55. The foundation of the Antichristian Hierarchy is laid in the proportion betwixt the Iewish policy the policy of the christian church yet use may be made of the Old Testament where the new is silent do not you conclude Infants must be baptised not because the new expresly saith so but because you find in the old Testament that Infants were circumcised Rejoyn 1. Then the foundation of the Antichristian hierarchy and of Popular ordination is one and the same viz. the proportion between the Iewish church and the christian 2. Your selves confess that the New Testament is not silent in this matter for it shewes say you p. 110 that ordination must be done by the right subjectum capax of it of which I spake in the next precedent Section 3. The covenant of grace to which the controversie of Paedobaptisme hath reference is the same in the old and new Testament but ordination is an Act of Government and policy and you tell us p. 86. That Christ hath not appointed the Iewish Church in matters of Government to be a Patterne to Gospel Churches but that they should be conformed to spirituall Patterns and Precepts left by Christ and his Apostles amongst which this is not to be found that the people may ordaine 4.
for the contrary appears they had forty eight cities and suburbs which were 2000 cubits from the wall on every side Numb 35.2 Lev. 25.32 33 34. though Judaea as oft times upon other occasions you assert was but a small country Jeremy a Priests sonne buyes a field of his uncle as next a kiâ— Jer. 32.7 9. Barnabas a Levite having land sold it Act. 4.36 Yea for ought you know except you have studied more against tythes then I for them the cities of the Levites though a small tribe might equall yea excell the portion of any tribe in Israel besides their tythes and other their great revenues therefore you cannot say that they had no inheritance at all though they had none such as other tribes had so separate from the rest so bounded so entire together but they had their inheritance by parts and peeces as Jacob had prophesied and God in wisdom disposed both that the land should be but divided into twelve parts and the children of Joseph should be two Tribes Josh 14.4 and that the Levites should for the better instruction of the people be scattered amongst the tribes and have their maintenance also where they lived Sect. 3. Reply p. 61. Tythes were appointed together with Offerings Mat. 3.8 Rejoynd 1. That text saith that they were taken away together God was robbed of them both at once but that they were appointed together it saith not 2. The text mentions them together yet this if you have no better argument proves not that they were of the same nature Fornication eating of blood and things strangled prayer ever the sick and aâ—â—â—inting them with â—yle are not of the same nature nor alike commanded or forbidden and yet the first two are mentioned together Act. 15.29 and the other two Jam. 5.14 3. The text implies they were at the same time due and required of God but not that they both were appointed at the same time and upon the same grounds 4. How do you make it appear that all the Offerings there mentioned were ceremoniall and now unlawfull Is it ceremoniall to offer to the Church-stock or treasury because the Jews did so Your selves for the credit of such offerings say they were used amongst the Jews and I dare say you hold that it is lawfull upon good occasion to keep a Day in the moneth or yeare a Fast or a Feast though we know the Jewes did keep fasts or feasts on the same day Sect. 4. Reply p. 61. Tythes had a particular respect to the Priesthood for the tythe of the Levites was to be tythed and given to the Priests Nehem. 10.38 Rejoynd Here is another mistake The text saith not that tythes were paid to the Priests but to the Priest the sonne of Aaron the successor of Aaron in the High-Priests office as the very citation in the margent led me to Num. 18.27 28. which faith that the tenth of the Levites amongst whom the Priests as to that were comprehended was to be given as the Lords heave-offering to Aaron the Priest But tythes were payed by Abraham Gen. 14. vowed by Jacob Gen. 38.22 Asserted by Paul not to be proper to the Leviticall Priesthood Heb. 7 are not that we know of any typical or mystical signification as the High-Priest we know was therefore they are not of the same nature If tythes to the High-Priest be now unlawfull the reason is because there is no High-Priest now Christ hath made that office void it was typical and plainly ceremonial and not because Tythes are unlawfull And these or some of these are the answers we give to them that tell us we might as well keep the Sabbath of the 7. year as of the 7. day Sect. 5. You reply p. 61. That you see no ground for setled stinted maintenance to last from year to year if it must arise from the Church and not come from the State as in some countries it doth because if the Church must maintain the Ministery among them as God blessed them and a more equall rule then that there can none be found then except they could settle Gods blessing and make it to abide with men in an equall manner without increase or decrease the maintenance may not be setled And this also is an argument against Tythes Rejoynd But what if Tythes were ceremoniall and Jewish is set maintenance ceremoniall also Of what mysticall or typicall signification is that or is it grounded on equitie and morall reason Doth not the Scripture Ezek. 45.1.5 allude to a certain and setled maintenance that should be given to the Ministery and in comparing it with servants hire and wages 1 Tim. 5.18 and to a Souldiers pay 1 Cor. 9.7 both which are certain 2. Had God more care of the maintenance of the Ministers of the Old Testament then of the New As the father allotting his sonne some portion of lands and revenues or allowing him to be capable of certain maintenance which none can deprive him of doth expresse more care of him then if he should make him uncapable of such maintenance and assigne him to his friends at large to be maintained as they thought fit 3. When the Minister hath set-maintenance he knowes better how to proportion his living his alms his expences for the publike his provision for his children and how to keep hospitality as the Scripture requires he should 4 Tythes are not in one sense setled or stinted maintenance for they are more or lesse according as the husbandman soweth and God prospereth as Corn is little or much good or bad well or ill gotten dear or cheap they that receive Tythes do rise and fall with them from whom they receive them 5. Where do you see ground in Scripture for setled and stinted maintenance to last from year to year if it come from the State how prove you that the State may lawfully settle such maintenance and the Church may not Can the State settle Gods blessing to make it abide with them in an equall manner without increase or decrease any more then the Church can 6. Do you see ground for set stinted maintenance for a time as a quarter of a year or half a year or a year as you intimate you do only you say you see not ground it should last from year to year Can the blessing of God be setled and made to abide with men in an equal manner without increase or decrease a year or half a year or a quarter 7. When maintenance is given from the State must it not come out of the Subjects purses You would not have the Parliament men out of their proper purses to maintain all the Ministers in the kingdome And out of whose purses can it so fitly come as from those which are bound by Gods law to maintain their Ministers 8. Do not Tythes come from the State or from the King which as to this is all one Did they not voluntarily at first give them and when some by Law did fall again into
Baptisme of Infants hath better ground in the new Testament then your popular ordination 5. you say it is an Essentiall in government that ordination be done by the right subjectum capax therefore that by your own confession must be directly determined And 〈…〉 deny not your selves to have certaine knowledge of Essentiall in government and the people thinke you are assured that it is lawfull for non-officied men in case a church want Officers to ordeine Sect. 7. When I ask why should wee in ordination of Officers be guided by the old-Testament and not by the New and why should we follow the Ordination of Levites rather then of Priests for a pattern of Ordination o◠Elders You Reply I. no hands at all were layd upon the Priests they were anointed and consecrated 8 c. but you would not have ordination of Elders turned into consecration after the manner of Priests Rejoynd No I would not indeed and therefore I would not have the Ordination either of Preists or Levites a pattern for ordination of Elders as you may see by the last question above why should we in c. whereunto you give no direct answer but Popish-Priests will be annointed using such a like argument from the annointing of the Priests as you doe for popular ordination from the ordination of the Levites 2dly you Reply p. 55. what was done to the Priests was not done by any Ecclesiasticall person but by Moses the chiefe Magistrate Rejoyn 1. Surely you know that Moses though he was the chief Magistrate was also an Ecclesiasticall person Psal 99.6 Moses Aaron amongst his Priests and that he did offer sacrifice which had hee been onely a civill Magistrate as Saul hee could not have done at the time of the consecration Exod. 29.11.12.13 12. at it were to shew that he consecrated Aaron as a Priest not as a Magistrate 2ly This puts me in minde that I told you that the Levites were by Moses separated to the work from amongst the Children of Israell cleansed brought before the tabernacl of the congregation and set before Aaron and his Sons and Offered as an offering to the Lord Num. 8.6 7 13 14. which was more to say nothing what Aaron did then was done by the children of Israell towards the consecration of the Levites and your evasion that he was a civil Magistrate will not serve your turne 3dly your reply the Elders of the new Testament are rather the successors of the Levites then of the Priests because there was no Hiearrchy amongst them and therefore the pattern of their ordination is rather to be followed Rejoynd 1. The Levites are often called Diaconi Deacons and the Deacons seem in the Prophesies to be pointed out by Levites and Elders by Priests Isa 66.21 I will take of them for Priests and Levites which as your selves say p. 71. is spoken of the New Testament 2. There was an Hierarchy amongst the Levites hence we read of the Princes and over-seers or Bishops of the Levites 1 Chro. 15.16 22. 1 Chro. 9. 33 34 2 Chron. 35.9 Nehe. 11.22 12.42 when you have consulted better with Scriptures as you bid me do and God-willing I will do in these dangerous times wherein men father their bastard opinions on God and with Bertram de politia Iudaica p. 101. You will find an Hierarchy amongst the Levites as well as amongst the Priests and also that there is no footing for ordination by non-officers no more then for the Antichristian hierarchy Sect. 8. I alledged in my Answer that there was no mention in Mar. 16.15 Mat. 28.19 20. of the celebration of the Eucharist you Reply p. 56. The Apostle having Commission for Baptism could not want it for the Eucharist which sealeth the same Covenant which baptism sealeth Rejoynd Very true therefore Ordination being an Act of Presbyteriall power as well as Baptism the Apostles did not want it though it be not mentioned I further said that preaching and baptizing were first to be done to the nations therefore they are there mentioned you Reply That was not the sele reason but because they were principall works and in reference to the subject persons about which they were to be exercised more Apostolical for they might preach and Baptize in all the world whereas ordinary Officers in an Ordinary way may not do such works in al the world but onely in the Church Rejoynd 1. You allow my reason to be good though it be not the sole reason 2. The reason you adde is not good for the Administring of the Supper is as principal a work as Apostolicall as Baptism it seals the same Covenant as you confesse requires as much if not more Authority might have been Administred in all the world by the Apostles as well as Baptism and so might ordination also 3. If the Apostles might Baptise any that were not in the Church then how could their Baptism be a seal principally of Church-Communion as you have asserted I further urged That the Apostles did practise Ordination and we suppose that they went not beyond their Commission Act. 6. c. 13. 14. And a Commission to Elders we read as well as practise 1 Tim. 4. You reply That the Position saith not that Ordination is within their Commission but that there is no mention thereof when they first received their Commission and the page out of which the Position is exerted makes mention of some works within their Commission not mentioned viz. prayer and Act. 6.4 is quoted for it But indeed you are injurious to the Authors of the Answ to 32. q. p. 71. Rejoynd 1. You are injurious to me to accuse me of injury to the Authors of the Answ to 32. q. 2 What ever their meaning be if your selves will plainly acknowledge what you seem to do covertly that those words in that position will not justifie Ordination by non officers I have attained my end 3 That passage of yours That Ordination is nothing else but the accomplishment of Election I must take notice of it here it may be I shall not meet with it els-where and in direct opposition of it I say That Ordination is more then the accomplishment of Election yea it is of more moment then election for 1. laying on of hands not lifting up of hands as you speak is reckoned amongst the Principles Heb. ◠3.2 The charge is more expresse that Ordination rather then election should not be hastily and suddenly done ◠The description of persons fit for Office is much more large in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus which were to ordein then in any or all the Epistles written to the Churches to whom Election is conceived to belong 4. The Apostles by Ordination rather then the people by Election are said Act. 6. to uppoint the 7 over the business 5. Fasting and Prayer was specially with reference to the ordination of the seven rather then to the Election Act. 6. Sect. 9. Ordination by the Prelates