was more warrantable then from our Churches unless you count them true Churches only in the sense you speak of viz. the body of them have not pertinaciously and desperatly rejected Christ come in the flesh and that as the Jewish Church then they now are to be dissolved yea that they are in dissolving by Gods appointment and ceasing to be true Churches notwithstanding the progress that is made in Reformation 2. You do not reply directly and pertinently but obliquely and evadingly though in your last book called the Congregational way justifyed P. 17. You are bold to say that no reply can more front or diametrically oppose my Answer then yours doth yea I dare appeal to your selves whether a precept or president of gathering or separating a Church out of the Churches of Galatia Corinth Laodicea because of their many and great corruptions would not have more fronted and bin more point-blank opposite to that part of my as your wisdoms stile it confused answer then this instance of the Jewish Church For first Did ever any man deny that there might then be separation from the Jewish Church Could you think I did deny it Your selves cite me acknowledging it and you could not but know after I had published my Epistle and Quere's what ever you did before that an instance of separation from true Christian Churches would most diametrically have opposed my answer which speaks not of separation of Christians from Jews as your instance doth but of some Christians from others and I dare witness thus much for you that if you had such a one you would have preferred it before the other Secondly Whereas you say in your last P. 18. That you do not consider that Church as Iewish but under the notion of truth you acknowledg that you do not consider it as you ought to have considered it for the seperation was from that Church as it was Jewish having officers and ordinances different from the Christian Church which hath Ministers in stead of Priests which hath not bodily sacrifices of beasts nor such Sacraments and Ceremonial services nor the presence of God in one place especially as the Jews had and the lawfulness of separation from that Church if it were then a true Church and had not been Jewish is stil uncleared 3. The Reformed Churches and Ministers are not to be compared to the then Jewish Church and the Priests thereof as you seem to compare them by pleading that the Reformed Churches and Ministers may be separated from because the then Jewish Church and Preists were to be separated from nor is this concerning the Ministers impertinently shuffled in as in your last P. 18. You most untruly alledge for they which separate from a Church do withdraw from the officers of it they that separated from the Jewish Church did withdraw from the obedience of their Priests and they that separate from the Reformed Churches do withdraw from the obedience of their Ministers and withdrawing your selves tell us Pag. 60. is a negative Excommunication and therefore the Ministers have as much or more injury then so many members have in every unjust separation from them as your selves would say were it your case but this must serve in stead of a better reply Surely you have either too much charity to the then Jewish Church and Preists thereof or too litle to our Churches and Ministers 4. That Church was but one and you should shew gathering out of several Churches for whereas you alledge they might have gathered out of twenty or an hundred had there been so many at that time I answer that it may be there were twenty possibly an hundred Churches while the Jewish Temple stood your selves say there were many Christian Churches and yet I doubt not but you will acknowledg both that no Churches were gathered or separated out of those or any other true Christian Churches and also that it is more lawful and orderly to separate the pretious of one Christian Church from the vile therein and the Godly party to cast out the incurable sinfull party 1 Cor. 5.12 Then to separate some persons of severall Churches into one distinct Church the former being not a gathering of a Church but a reforming and purging of it which is warranted by Scripture 3. Whereas you speak much both in your former and latter Book of the truth of the then Jewish Church I pray you what trueness mean you A naturall trueness as a thief or a lyar is a true man id est truly a man and Sathan a true spirit that is truly a spirit or a morall trueness viz. that it held and taught the way of salvation dare you say that the Jewish Church then did hold and teach the way of salvation Did they not pertinaciously and desperatly reject Christ No not while their Temple stood as you say some think The Scripture calls them an untoward generation from which it exhorts tho e that were pricked in their hearts which were but few in respect of the body of the Jews to save themselvs and from amongst which the Lord converted and added to the Christian Church such as should be saved Acts 2.40.47 And they did put the word from them being filled withenty contradicting and blaspheming Acts 13.45.46 Again the Apostle Rom. 11.11 12 15 19. Plainly implyeth that the Jewish Church ceased to be a true Church did fall was broken off cast away before salvation came to the Gentiles Nor do your Scriptures or reasons solidly prove that the Jewish Church was then a true Church for one of your texts Acts 11. which you produce for that purpose saith That they that were scattered whom in this place you call Apostles contrary to Scripture Acts 8.1 and your own assertion elsewhere Defence P. 4. Preached some to the Jews only and some when they were come to Antioch to the Grecians also Acts 11.20 Now the Grecians were not then a Church of God nor gathered yourselvs say into Church state til Barnabas was sent to them Defence p. 4. The other text mentions their Preaching to the Jews first but that they thought themselves bound to Preach to the Iews first because they were the people of God is your gloss which cannot be inferred from your texts joyntly or severally you know Gods command might make it necessary they should Preach to the Jews first whether they were at that very time the people of God or no and that was the true reason of it as you may see by comparing Acts 13.46.47 with Math. 10.1.5.6 But neither their Preaching first to the Jews nor afterwards to the Gentiles doth evince that either of them were then the people of God As for the Communion the Apostles had with the Jews which is your second argument to prove the trueness of the then Jewish Church I would you had expressed what Communion what worships you mean if that which you count properly Church-Communion then the Apostles did not as you say they did teach and practise
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
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
of the Catholique Church there ariseth to every particular Church and person such a relation to and dependance on the Church Catholique as parts have to the whole and neither of them are to work as several divided bodyes by themselves which is the ground of all Schisms but as parts conjoyned to the whole and members of the Common-wealth for the edification of it having care of and exercising their power to other as their call occasion and necessity doth require Eph. 4.11 Epaphras Pastor of Coloss had a zeal and therefore a care also for them in Laodicea and Hierapolis Col. 4.13 3. Your argument is a meer non sequitur it runns thus If Colonels in a Councel of war may exercise some acts of power over the whole army then one Colonel should teach train and lead up the souldiers of other Regiments as wel as he with the rest may rule them Now this inference is evidently weak and so is yours for as the Colonel doth not singly and severally by himself govern the whole army but joyntly with others and therefore cannot be expected to train every Regiment so a Pastor which is a member of a national assembly doth not separatim govern all the Congregations but joyntly with others and therefore it cannot be concluded that he should separatim feed them 4. All that can be concluded wil be but this that he must feed them by Doctrine as wel as by the rod of Discipline and so he doth he with the rest do lawfully as you confess upon occasion put forth Doctrinal power to bring light to the Churches 5. Seeing Mr. Burroughes not only as his own opinion but as the judgment of other Congregational men doth hold that Elders in a Synod are to be looked upon as the officers of Iesus Christ your argument may be thus retorted upon your selves The question is whether each be not an Elder or officer of Iesus Christ to every purpose as to one they as officers may feed by doâ—trine as you acknowledg and why not by discipline They may you say by authority from Iesus Christ admonish men or Churches and this admonition is a censure why then may they not proceed to other acts of censure 6. Elders receive their power for the whole Church of Christ and may having a call preach administer the Sacraments or rule in any Congregation or do one of these and not the other where their call and necessity of the Church requireth one and not the other Your selves as Elders do administer the Sacrament to some of other Churches which you have no power to censure and so you become a Pastor to them for one purpose and not for another 7. Acts the 15. doth hold out the authoritative power of a Synod as you may see in the next section and then your arguments against it are nothing worth CHAP. VIII Of Councels especially of that Acts 15. Sest 1. THere is a pattern of a Synod of Churches Acts 15. of two evidently and probably of many more as of the Churches of Syria and Cilicia which were alike troubled and their soules subverted and the letters of the councel directed to them rather then to other Churches as more peculiarly binding them which intimates they had commissioners there but if there were but 2 Synod of two Churches Ierusalem and Antioch for those that were sent from Antioch were certainly members of that meeting Acts 15.12.22 a Synod of two Churches warranteth a Synod of three foure or five Churches for where must it stay even of as many as shâ—l combine and associate Synodicatry else it could not be proved hence that Synods are an ordinance of Christ and that the assembly of the Elders of the Churches in N. E. was a lawful assembly 2. This meeting is not to be looked upon as Apostolical but as Synodical for though the Apostles were present and acted in it yet they acted not as Apostles Paul as an Apostle needed not to have gone up to Ierusalem to the Apostles and Elders Gal. 1.16 17. Peter Iames and Iohn added nothing to him Gal. 2.6 much less ordinary Elders I Paul say unto you had bin enough Gal. 5.2 And all preachers of another Gospel should have bin accursed Gal. 1.7 8. Nor had the Church of Antioch any power to send out Paul as he was an Apostle but only as an Elder and member of their Presbytery there Acts 13.1 15.1 2. Had they acted as Apostles they needed not to have stated the question and debated it from scripture in an ordinary way having deliberative discourses before the decisive suffrage v. 7. Nor should the ordinary Elders have gone hand in hand with them as they did for the Elders were sent unto as wel as the Apostles v. 2. They came together to consider of the matter v. 6. The Decrees were ordained by the Elders Acts 16.4 The Elders did write and conclude Acts 21.25 where the word Eldâ—rs may and ought to include the Apostles but cannot include any un-officied men though it be supposed that some such were present and did joyn in the inscription of the Synodical Epistle as Sylvanus and Timotheus did in the Inscriptions of some of Pauls Epistles 1 Thes 1.1 2 Thes 1. 1. The Apostles may be pretended to act as Apostles in other cases as wel as this and then nothing done by them is to be drawn by us into imitation 3. This Synod was an authoritative Synod not only consultative they put forth doctrinal power confuting the heresy vindicated the truth v. 1 7 8 9. And this power was above the power of a single Pastor or the Presbytery of a single Church 2. They made a practical canon for avoiding the Scandal and the occasion of it v. 20.29 and they ordeined Decrees Acts 16.4 not doctrines but decrees or laws for so the word dogma is taken in the new testament Luk. 2.1 Acts 17.7 Ephe. 2.15 Col. 2.14 Of these decrees they say It seemeth good to the holy Ghost and to us as any Synod upon assurance of scripture warrant may say to impose upon you no other burthens now it is an act of the binding power of the keyes to impose burthens and this binding power ariseth not only materially from the weight of the matter imposed though that ought to be warranted by the word of God but also formally from the authority of the Synod which being an ordinance of God bindeth more for the Synods sake 3. They put forth an act of Critick power v. 24. Branding them with the black mark of lyars subverters of soules troublers of the Church They needed not to summon the false teachers for they were present at least some of them to whom else doth Peter say v. 10. Why tempt ye God Neither was it necessary they should make mention of excommunication it being a clear case of it self that those Hereticks and Schismaticks which could not by admonition and other due means be reclaimed were to be excommunicated Tit. 3 1â—.11 Rev.
Heathens and other strangers to the Church not of children born within the Church whose parents are Church-members which are reputed within the Church and baptized as such though no visible Saint-ship doth or can they being infants appear in them and consequently this is not of much if of any concernment to the Reformed Churches of England Scotland France For until it can be proved that a perfect reformation of the Churches cannot be made without a new constitution and that Churches may lawfully be gathered out of Churches the said new constitution is to be judged unnecessary 2. It cannot be denyed that all men are morally bound to be visible Saints yea real Saints yea God requireth that armies should be holy Deut. 13.14 23. 9. And the Instance of Achan for relative guilt is more suitable to the Isralites as a camp the passages of it being military not Ecclesiastical then as a Congregation Cities should be holy Isa 1.21 26. Isa 64.10 families should be holy Psal 101.2 7. That is they ought to be so it is their duty so to be and the words in the position nakedly considered import no more and he that erects a family is bound so far as he may to erect it of such as fear God Church-members should much more be visible and real Saints for a Church-member quâ such makes more profession enjoys more means is in a neerer relation to God then a souldier or a Citizen quâ such 3. I grant that some visibility of Saint-ship is requisite to admission viz. profession of faith and repentance especially if men be not sufficiently known and approved by experience of them acquaintance with them or by sufficient testimony of others that are known or if they have bin known to be Heathenish heretical or wicked and desire of admission 4. I deny not but all means prescribed by the rule that the Church may consist of visible Saints are to be used but I question 1. whether it were better no Church were erected then not of visible Saints as you assert p. 31. That is not wholy of visible Saints for thus I understand you seeing those Churches from which you gather members consist of some if not of many visible Saints 2. I question also whether God doth not require Heathens and irreligious wicked persons to joyn to the Church as wel as to raise armies or wage war erect families and that their joyning to the Church by profession of faith and repentance craving the Sacraments is not a sin no more then raising armies families c. Yea it is a greater sin to neglect the one then the other though indeed their remaining Heathen is a great abomination and more odious in Gods sight after their entrance into the Church then after the erection of Cities But the main question as it is stated by you p. 33. is whether a Church should examine persons which come to be admitted whether the work of grace be wrought in them or not I hold the negative and my reasons are 1. There is no precept for it in the word of God 2. Nor was every member at his admission into the Church in the Apostles times called to give account of the work of grace in his heart Nor. 3. Can any Congregation be named which was appointed to judg or did actually judg whether the work of grace was wrought in such an heart or no and consequently whether he were to be admitted into the Church or no. 4. Nor doth the Scripture prescribe that men should meet together for prayer and mutual conference to be satisfyed of the good estate one of another and to approve themselves to one anothers consciences in the sight of God before they can constitute a Church Nor. 5. Were those three thousands and the Apostles also satisfyed in their consciences of the regeneration of all those they joyned with as Ananias and Sapphira â—or can we think that they could in one day or had any days before used the foresaid means of tryall one oâ— another by prayer conference Nor. 6. That all that were circumcised and admitted into the Jewish Church would upon such examination have bin found visible Saints Nor. 7. That Iesus Christ as man did know those thousands and myriads of Ierusalem and all Iudea and all the region round about Iordan what one man knows the people of London of all Midlesex and of all the Country about Thames or Trent with whom he was baptized much less can it be proved that Iesus Iohn Baptist which baptized them or the disciples of Christ which were born and lived amongst them and knew the great wickedness and frequent fained confessions and humiliations oâ— that people did esteem each of them a true Saint of God or that they did examine and try whether their confession of sin or profession of faith and repentance was real or but meerly verbal or that they required them to Walk in Christian fellowship with them some space for tryal and approbation or that they stayd or deferred to baptize any of them til they saw their fruits meet for repentance especially seeing Luke saith Luc. 3.21 that all the people which v. 7. he calls Generations of vipers were baptized if you cannot prove to the contrary of these things I pray you acknowledg it if you can do it hitherto you have not done it 8. This makes the Churches charity the rule of admission which is but a leaden rule no certain one some mens charity being larger some lesser yea the same mens charity being larger at sometimes then at others and more to some men as those that are of theiâ— opinions kindred benefactors c. Then to others whence it followeth that men of larger charity may lawfully admit such as they that have less charity cannot 9. This Tenet makes Communion with all the Apostolique Churches and particularly with the Church of Corinth unlawful whereas the Apostle allows the worthy receivers to communicate in it 1 Cor. 11. he would have no schism in it nor separation from it 1 Cor. 12.25 11.18 10. A man that beleeves he should not communicate with any of whom his Conscience is not satisfyed that they are visible Saints dareth not communicate in any Congregational Church especially not in a great one for if coveâ—ous persons raylers two of the very sins mentioned by the Apostle 1. Cor. 5. or Brownists whose errors the Apologists call fatal shipwracks or Schismaticks which professedly the Apostle speaks of 1 Cor. 11.18 19 20. or Hypocrites and false teachers which the Scripture saith are of a leavening nature idle persons disorderly Walkers 2. Thes 3.6 8 12. or spiritually proud censorious uncharitable persons be unworthy receivers it is an hard thing to be satisfyed that in those Churches especially in the greater of them there is none at all of any of these sorts amongst them no not one 11. The Scripture compares a Church lawfully constituted to a draw-net to a wheat field in which are tares discerned a
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
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
5.28 I answered that the Apostles were immediatly called Gal. 1. 1. You reply Pag. 6. That the ordinary Pastors and teachers of those times did so as wel as the Apostles and Pag. 7. That the warrantableness ariseth not from the immediatness of the commission but from the truth and reality of it I rejoyn 1 You should produce those ordinary Pastors and teachers which did so and prove it by scripture which proof the reader may expect as being only able to satisfy conscience your selves dis-allow many things reported in Ecclesiastical history 2. You cannot make out so true and real a Commission for gathering Churches amongst us as the Apostles had amongst the Jews and Gentiles as hath bin largely shewed Cap. 1. If you could yet surely had you as immediate a commission now as they then had you might more boldly imitate them therein which is the thing I asserted 3. Mr. Weld a Congregational man calleth this an opposition to Magistracy yea saith he what pen can express a greater latitude of opposition as you acknowledg in your last P. 22. And promise to annex a more pertinent answer Sect. 2. When I assert that you hold not that ministers deposed by their Churches ought to preach or that Mr. Ward deposed by the Church at Roterodam was hound to officiate there before his restauration you reply P. 7. That Ministers censured by a lawful power where ever it lyes whether in their own Congregational Churches or in a Presbytery whether the censure be inflicted justly or unjustly ought to submit and forbear the execution of their Ministry in that place til they be restored c. But what say you makes this against the position Rejoynder 1. Then you plainly intimate that either the Presbytery or the Congregational Church hath lawful power to depose their Minister 2. Your grant here makes much against the Position as it relateth to the Apostles For 1. The Apostles immediate Commission could no more be called in or curbed by the Church then by the Magistrate 2. Nor had the Churches power to silence them as they had ordinary Elders you confess no more then the Magistrate 3. Those whom Peter and Iohn refused to obey if they were not meerly an Ecclesiastical Court yet there was amongst them Ecclesiastical Persons Acts 4.5 6 23. Acts 5.17 24 27. 4. That they had lawful power is not denyed nor questioned by the Apostles but granted rather Acts 4.8 And you assert it was a true Church then and if these things be so and you do hold up to your rule it wil follow as wel that Ministers deposed specially if unjustly by lawful Ecclesiastical judges ought not to desist from their Ministry but say to them as wel as to the Magistrate as the Apostle said to the high Priest Acts 5.20 We ought to obey God rather then man Ecclesiastical judges being but men no more then civil which would tend to the undermining and subverting of the Government by pretence of unrighteousness in the managing of it and disturb the Churches peace as you ingenuously acknowledg Sect. 3. When Iurge that the Apostles had infallible direction of the holy Ghost you reply nothing at all to it though you know 1. That he which is infallible may more safely resist the laws of the Magistrate then he that is not 2. That opposition made by men so infallibly inspired is rather made by the holy Ghost then by them 3. The points which the Apostles were forbidden to preach were of themselves of more absolute necessity and undoubted certainty as your selves wil acknowledg then your tenets of discipline and therefore the Magistrate is not to be so peremptorily disobeyed in the one as in the other When I further answer That the case of living under a Christian Magistrate Intending indevouring I might now add and having in measure effected Reformation and of living under an Heathen Magistrate and a professed publike enemy of the Church is much different you reply That the case is not different in my sense for the Christianity of the Magistrate or his piety and sedulity for Reformation cannot take any person or persons off their duty which they would be bound unto if a Heathen Magistrate bore sway The Magistrate Minister and the people stand ingaged each for himself to Iesus Christ unto the work of his own place The impediments that come from any unto other cannot be a discharge to any Rejoynder but. 1. The question is whether it be private mens duty to set up Churches or to make publike Reformation can a precept or president be shewed in Gods Book for such a practise we must keep within the compass of our callings 1 Cor. 7.17 When things were amiss in Israel the people made no Reformation nor did the Prophets call them to it or blame them for not doing it when they were opposed by soveraign authority the Iews omitted to build the Temple and the City being forbidden by the Kings of Persia yea Christ and his Apostles shifted from place to place and left the execution of their Ministry in places where they were persecuted at least to avoyd offence or to escape danger 2. It is the right and dury of every Magistrate to be the Churches nursing Father and to reform it if there be need as also it is the duty of every family-governer to reform his family Now a godly Christian Magistrate and houshholder have both jus and aptitudinem the right as also Heathens may have and fitness so to do A wife may be more bold to order the family if her husband be distracted then if he be solidwitted for though he be an husband stil and it is his duty to do it yet he wants fitness to do it It is not orderly for some companies of an army to engage while their faithful and valiant General and Councel of war are consulting and deliberating how they may best do it yea possibly have determined another course shal no more respect be shewed nor obedience in matters of God yeelded by a wife child servant to a conscionable Christian husband Father Master then if they were professed Heathens you would not take it wel if you should catechize your children command them to come to family-duties and to keep the way of the Lord. Gen. 18.19 And they should answer an Heathen father is as truly a father as you and you are no more to be obeyed in matters of Religion then he 3. The General Court civil in N. England hath made a law that no Church should be set up there without the consent of the Magistrate T. W. to W. R. and were you in N. E. I suppose you durst not preach or print that that law is against Gods law or that any ought to set up Churches there against the consent of the Magistrates And hath not the civil Magistrate in old England from whence theirs is but derived as much power there being the same or greater occasion to make a law to the same
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
sufficient pertinent and full of power to prove it And in this I praise your modesty 2. Your applying of the commendation of Jugurtha to your selves in your last That he did plâ—rimum facere minimum de se loqui is no act of your modesty The Independent Answerer of Mr. Prynnes Quaere's saith Independents are the meekest men upon earth and you by your own report are men that do much and say little Surely few think so but your selves You say p. 62.1 We considered how Christ and the Apostles were maintained in the work of the Ministery and we find that they had a Stock of monies which came partly at least by Contribution Luke 8.2 3. and out of this stock was taken for the Poor also as from Joh. 13.29 appears See Junius Ecclesiast p. 1954. Rejoynd The one Text saith The women ministred to Christ of their substance The other faith that Judas had the bag But that the womens contribution was given every Lords day or that it was put into the publike treasury Or that Judas bag out of which Christ gave somewhat to the poor had not Christs proper goods in it but the Churches stock that Judas was a kind of Deacon or Church-officer it saith not 2. That Christs maintenance was wholly out of a stock that was raised by contribution your selves do not assert nor were the Apostles maintained in the work of the Ministery out of that bag save only when they were at home as being of Christs own family Sect. 2. Reply p. 62. We consider what was done in the Apostles times Act. 2.45 4.35 there was a Stock then but raised after an extraordinary way and yet by free contribution they brought their whole estates and put them into a common stock which was but a temporary businesse and not astrictive unto all times Now out of this common stock the Apostles and all others that had need were maintained and the Apostles had at first the oversight of this stock Rejoynd 1. They could not have any other way of Church-maintenance at that time 2. Your selves acknowledge First that a setled maintenance may come from the State And must it come from the State and the Church-stock too Secondly that that was but a temporary businesse and not astrictive to all times else it would hold that there must be a community of all things in the Church 3. What is this to Lords-day contributions for the Ministers maintenance of which the Position speaks Sect. 3. Reply p. 62. You say There were Deacons chosen which had the oversight of the treasure of this Church for the Apostles gave themselves to the ministery of the Word to Prayer Act. 6.4 and neither medled with receiving nor with disposing of what was contributed The Deacons took that burden from off them so that now they received all and disposed of all if any brought their estate they laid it down at the Deacons feet and if any distribution was made the Deacons made it the Apostles medled with nothing So then the work was the same which the Deacons managed with that which the Apostles had before managed only it was in other hands the Deacons came into the Apostles place hence it follows that if the distribution was made as every one had need when the Apostles had the oversight and if themselves had a share as their need required and other Labourers with them then it was so afterwards when the Deacons were intrusted in it so then the Deacons office was to dispose as the Labourers had need and their office was not to oversee the Poor alone Rejoynd 1. That the Deacons came so into the Apâ—stles place that the Apostles medled with nothing but received their maintenance from the Deacons or that men laid their money at the Deacons feet it appears not in Scripture 2. The contrary rather appears for not only Paul took great care of the poor divers times and in divers places and James Cephas and John not the Deacons did desire him to remember the poor Gal. 2.10 but the Antiochians Act. 11.30 sent the relief for the poor brethren which dwelt in Judaea to the Elders not to the Deacons Now Agabus and other Prophets came lately thither from Hierusalem v. 27 28. and Barnabas and Paul that went with it knew to whom to deliver it yet they lay it down at the feet of the Elders not of the Deacons which imports that Agabus the Prophets Barnabas and Saul did know that the Apostles and Elders had somewhat to do with it at least to take for their own necessity as they did before and not to be at the disposall of the Deacons and if Barnabas and Saul had conceived it to be Gods ordinance that the Apostles and Elders should not meddle with reception they would have brought it to the Deacons whose office they knew well enough nor would the Elders have received it at their â—hands but have sent them to the Deacons 3. That the charge of the poor belongs to Pastors is the judgement of Pareus and others which do hold that the greater and higher office doth include in it the lesse and lower 4. By this doctrine Pastors if they have meanes of their own ought not to receive maintenance out of the Churches stock except they have need in the judgement of the Deacons or of the Church as other poor Saints have Sect. 4. P. 63. You tell us That the office of the Deacons is not temporary but perpetuall But what is this to prove Ministers maintenance by Lords-day contributions or out of the Church-stock Yes say you In the Commandment which respects the necessity of the Ministers Gal. 6.6 the word is the same in the Greek which is in the commandment to distribute to the necessity of the Saints Rom. 12.13 Heb. 13.16 and signifies to communicate But what then 1. The word communicating is a generall word and compriseth all duties whereby men do mutually help one another Calv. on Heb. 13.16 Can there be no communicating except the Deacons do receive it and pay it over to the Minister except there be Lords-day contributions and a Church-stock You know the contrary 2. That place in Gal. 6. which only speaks expresly of Ministers maintenance is understood of private as well yea rather then of publike contribution 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of all his goods by which is meant not only money which may be fitly brought to the Congregation but other good things according as there is opportunity ability and necessity some of which cannot be fitly brought into the Congregation 3. Your own Texts do declare that the Scripture distinguisheth communicating to the necessity of the Saints and communicating to their Ministers and that these two are not both one fâ—r then Paul might have said Give unto the Church-treasury for publike uses for the maintenance of the Ministery and of the poor to both which if there were a Church-stock they might contribute in one act but he speaks of severall acts
year or oftâ—er to consult and determine of the summe to be allowed for that yeare to their Ministers and to raise it Whether it may not be hence inferred that there is a way of setled and stinted maintenance in New-England for a year at least let the Reader judge I will not contend about it That the people in New-England when the work is done do consult and consider the Minister for the year past or that the Minister doth not know till the year be up what he must have in which respect the condition of the meanest servant is usually better then his is scarce agreeable I think to the letter of Mr. Welds words or to the practise of New-England where as Theodore de la Guard p. 39. saith They generally find and practise as the best way That the Ministers have seasonable and honourable maintenance and that certainly stated But our work is to find out the mind of God not of man CHAP. XXIII Of the distinction of Pastors and Teachers on EPHES. 4.11 WHen I say that Ephes 4.11 proves not that Teachers must be distinct from Pastors as Apostles are distinct from Evangelists you reply p. 70. You crosse the opinion of many Orthodox modern Writers whether you translate some Apostles or these Apostles the matter is not weighty nor are you advantaged by it The greater question is who these Teachers be and what their work is whether School-Doctors to train up Youth in the knowledge of Arts and Sciences especially of Divinity or Teachers of the whole Church and their work to doctrinate the Church by words of knowledge which seems more consonant to the Scripture And Zanchy Pareus Bucer and many others are of this judgement whose Reasons your selves in the Congregational way justified p. 9. thus abridge God gives distinct gifts to Pastors from those he gives to Teachers for to one is given a speciall faculty of Exhortation to the other a clearer understanding of doctrine and consequently they are distinct officers And you conclude your Reply p. 70. with these words So that if we do put any false glosse upon the Scriptures by misinterpreting of Ephes 4.11 yet more modest language had becommed you seeing such Reverend and learned men whom your self so much honour have gone before us in this exposition Rejoynd 1. The force of my argument to which you answer not at all was not as you would in both your books make the Reader to believe that the article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was translated some or these but that the said article is not inserted between Pastor and Teacher as it is between every of the rest to shew that there is not the same distinction between them as between each two of the rest as appears plainly by my answer though you take no notice of it having fit occasion and being minded of it by me I would not so deal with you 2. That you have the authority of Zanchy and of some reverend men besides on your part in this Position I do not deny nor do I want such on my part but I would see with mine own eyes not other mens 3. To the reasons alledged as you say by Pareus and Bucer for the distinction of Pastors and Teachers from difference of gifts which is grounded on Rom. 12. I answer 1. It takes not away the exception made against the proof of this by Ephes 4.11 2. I suppose the Apostle did not intend no not in Rom. 12. though he might intend it there and yet Ephes 4.11 be impertinently alleadged for proof of it that each of those severall gifts should constitute a severall officer for then there should be seven officers in the Church viz. Prophets v. 6. Ministers and Teachers v. 7. Exhorters Givers Rulers Shewers of mercy v. 8. For all these are equally by the disjunctive particle Or severed one from another for it is not sufficiently cleared to me that Prophesie and Ministery or Ministery and Teaching or Teaching and Exhortation are in the Apostles sense all one or one the genus and the other the species And yet Mr. Gillespy hath done most learnedly accurately in that point 3. Difference of gifts without an institution from God cannot make a different office James and John it may be had a speciall gift of terrifying sinners and are called sonnes of thunder Mark 3 17. and Joses a speciall gift of comforting weak Saints and called the son of consolation Act. 4.36 Yet no man will upon this ground conclude them to be different officers one Pastor may be excellent in one gift another in another possibly some men may be excellent in both gifts Paraeus himself a little after the place by you cited saith The Apostles did excell in both gifts and they are indeed common parts of the Episcopal or Pastoral office and therefore are conjoyned 1 Cor. 14.4 And it is evident 1. That every Pastor should be apt to teach 1 Tim. 3.3 which word is of the same originall with this in Ephes 4.11 2. That Pastors are called Teachers the very word that is here 1 Cor. 12.28 which runs paralel with this Text may be well fetchr into explicate it and also in Isa 30.20 Act. 13.1 3. The Scripture doth ascribe the work of feeding with knowledge and understanding which upon supposall of the distinction of these officers is the work of the Teacher unto the Pastor Jer. 3.15 And lastly words joyned together by a conjunction copulative are often exegetical and explicative one of another as in the example produced by me 1 Pet. 2.25 And the Apostle purposely omits the distinguishing and dividing particle some inserting it between Apostles and Evangelists but not between Pastors or Shepherds for the word is the same with 1 Pet. 2.25 and Teachers where Teachers tels us what he means by Shepherds as Bishop doth expound Shepherd in the other place And there is no parallel in all the Scripture doth prove that And doth stand for Some From all which jointly considered I conclude That Ephes 4.11 is not sufficient pertinent and full of power to prove that Pastors and Teachers are by Gods institution distinct officers And your selves also seem so to think when you conclude your Reply p. 70. with these words So that if we do put a false glosse upon the Scripture by misinterpreting Ephes 4.11 c. CHAP. XXIV Whether every particular Assembly be Sion the place of Gods speciall presence Sect. 1. WHen I say that every particular Congregation is not Sion but one of the Assemblies of Sion Isa 4.5 That the Hebrewes which were divided into many Congregations are not said to be come to many mount Sions but to mount Sion Heb. 12. And that the Scripture warrants not the expression of an hundred or a thousand Sions You reply p. 71. That Sion was a mountain contiguous to Moriah upon which the Temple was built in which God vouchsafed a speciall presence and unto which the Tribes went up and by a metonymy is frequently
abstracted from the place where they are set may be stretched to more but the restriction which I have given if well weighed leave us but this 2. If a share of this fight stands as you say in an Evangelists conversation yet still the commandement may be peculiar an eminencie and exemplarinesse being required of an Evangelist or Minister in his conversation as such c. 4.12 The enemies in this fight bending themselves more against such then against ordinary persons as gaining more advantage by it if they prevail 3. If the word faith be here understood of sides qua ereditur or doctrine of Christianity as you take it in your next page it is more properly and directly said to be fought for by a Minister in his publike ministery then in his life Gal. 1.23 The Apostle delivering a Bishops part saith he must be one that holdeth fast the faithfull word in teaching so the margent Tit. 1.9 4. If this Commandement reach to the conversation will it ever the more yield a bottom for a perpetuall form of Church-government You go on Reply p. 408. How can these words Fight the good c. drink up the whole meeting of the words And it may seem too grosse to teare in peece-meal the continued exhortation v. 11 12. and to apply the words this commandement only to that in v. 12. R. But my words carry not in them a dividing between v. 11.12 nor a referring of the charge following to the 12. verse for the words I used sâ— faith and holinesse may comprise the whole of those two Verses what is there in them of commandment which may not be reduced to these two heads Your bold censure of the thoughts of my heart I passe over Sect. 4. When I urge that this commandment extends not is the whole Epistle nor to every precept and example of Discipline in gods book or to the whole way of Discipline Against this you oppose and assert p. 109. that the words relate to the Rules concerning Church-government in the former part of the Epistle Rejoynd Say they do yet in so doing they relate not to the whole way of Discipline for all Churches not to the essentials of it which is that you have to make good there being divers parts of that Discipline yea as you will upon second thoughts grant I suppose essentials not found laid down by precept or pattern is this epistle What is there in it about Excommunication and other censures by the people or ordinary Elders What of election or ordination of Elders by the people What of Church-covenant Qualifications of persons capable of membership c You should therefore enlarge your assertion which seems large enough already and say that the Apostle relates in these words to all fore written books of Scripture which have any thing of Church government in them or else you do not make good the Position by the Text nor do you prove what I required you in my answer to prove that the words this commandement doe extend to every preccept and example of discipline in Gods book which clause you answer not but with a deleatur wherein you deale wisely in your generation to shape my answer so as that you might better reply to it 2. For proof of your assertion you say Consider the cohaerence The Apostle having in the former part of this Epistle insisted on the severall duties of the officers of the Church he commands them in the later end of the second verse of this chapter to teach and exhort these things Rejoynd If wee doe consider the coherence wee shall finde that the Apostle had insisted most on Timothy's owne duty in which indeed other officers may read theirs so farre as they are analogated with him in the Ministery and somewhat of the qualifications of the persons eligible to the offices of Bishops Deacons widdowes cap. 3. and cap. 5. that so Timothy might know how to regulate in such cases 2. You greatly and plainly mistake the text for it is not them that in the second verse of this chapter hee commands to teach and exhort but him viz. Timothy you could have wisht perhaps it had been them to have brought in the severall officers to a nearer interest in the charge wee are about but the cohaerence here will not stretch to it Thirdly as this them for all the officers is an altering of the text so it is against sense and commonly admitted principles that it should bee so for who on your or our part will grant that all officers even Deacons Widdowes then as it is held officers shall exhort and teach these things and that authoritatively by this commission not only as you distinguish by vertue of a gift Fourthly you strangely mis-interpret the words these things teach and exhort in making these things there to bee the severall duties of the officers of the Church delivered in the former part of the Epistle for who so reads over the two beginning verses of this chapter unto which this clause is the close and epiphonema will in one instant perceive what hee means by these things scil the dutys of Christian servants to their masters which this Apostle with Peter saw cause more then once to presse the contrary practise reflecting much upon the name of God and his Gospel and therefore wils Timothy to teach and exhort these things yet you passe over this clear Inference of the words and seek a longer stretch for them which I suppose none will follow you in that would not be lost in a dark labyrinth You proceed in your coherence and say Next hee armes him now you come again to the right person with instructions how he should carry himself towards those that should teach and exhort the contrary v. 3 4 5. R. The contrary to what To the duties of servants immediately preceding v. 1 2. and not to the duty of Church-officers formerly as you say laid down as you would insinuate and if you will not yet agree to my sense observe the characters given of the contrary teachers in in v. 3 4 5. and judge whether they have not more direct contrariety to the doctrine of Servants duties v. 1 2. than to Church-officers duties any where before in this Epistle laid down former argument to bear the sense I have cleared it to have and so may your following paraphrase on v. 11 12. and your transition to this text as a charge laid on Timothy as an Evangelist or Pastor But what is in all this tending to pitch the charge upon the matter of Church-government situate so remotely from this passage though treated on in this Epistle Your selves have found out now at length a neerer dependence for it upon a subject of a different nature sc v. 11 12. on which I shall suffer it to rest and take the coherence or relation of it to the rules concerning Church-government in the former parts of this Epistle yea in every other book of Scripture which the Position
to consider Sect 6. Reply p. 113. They are called one flock one church We have declared that one instituted Church and a Congregation is all one when Church is properly taken and in this place there is no necessity of a figure therefore the charge runs to the Elders to feed the church viz. the congregation at Ephesus and to that they are so limited Rejoynd 1. Those to whom Peter writes are called one flock yet sure you will not say that they were but one congregation the Inscription of that Epistle and your own Interpretation next following will forbid you 2. What you have declared before is I hope sufficiently answered 3. Many churches congregationall associated or combined in one Presbyterie may as properly be called a church as many Christians may which belong to one congregation I would fain see you evince the contrary and know your meaning distinctly in that distinction of properly and improperly with and without a figure you are oftentimes prest with multiplicity of Scripture instances for the word church taken for more then one congregation your distinguishing thus at randome and in generall can satisfie none about these instances Let me give you one instance it is in Act. 15 22 and let me heare what impropriety there is in church there it is a Church assembled and acting in the ordinances of Jesus Christ and it is not a particular congregation your Authors as well as ours acknowledge it to be a Synod of churches and it is as hath been said a Church imposing burthens making decrees for many churches which you will not grant single congregations may do A church made of many particular assemblies was a proper term when the Jewish church stood and in the Old Testament how comes the propriety in this point to be so much altered I had thought there had been fewer figures since and not more but because you will needs put a figure on the word when it is used otherwise then for one congregation I pray you erect your figure and state what it must be you can find none such figures but what will fall upon that acception which you will have to be the only proper one there is as much necessity of a figure in your exposition as in ours but it seems figures are necessary yea and new-coyned ones too for the old ones will not serve to help out your improbabilities 4. What will the conclusion so long looked for be from all these premises certainly but possible which is far from probable and further from more then probable which it was promised to be for that which follows upon no necessity of the contrary and no improbability of the thing will amount to no more Your conclusion should be that the flock at Ephesus was but one congregation but this hath so little strength in the premises that you have thought good to set it aside and only to joyn the Church at Ephesus and the Congregation at Ephesus together with a Viz. presuming that they are both one in the Text but not proving it After all this feeble or fallacious dealing you in the close of all bring in And to that they are so limited whereas if the former assertion of Ephesus being one Congregation had followed soundly on your preâ—â—sâ—â— yet this had still been in controversie so that here you doubly commit that grand solaecisme in argumentation of putting more in the conclusion then was in the premises Sect. 7. Reply p. 113. Flock in 1 Pet. 5.1 2. is to be taken figuratively and distributively of necessity and the charge of feeding the flock is to be limited by the words amongst you and thus it must be understood You Elders in Pontus feed the flock amongst you and you Elders of Galatia amongst you and each in every place feed the flock where you be And yet more distributively Ye Elders in this city feed the flock among you and ye Elders in that city feed the flock amongst you Now the Saints in Galatia were not with the Elders of Asia nor the Saints of one city with the Elders of another city therefore the Elders were by commission to look to the Saints in every city place where themselves were and not to others where they were not if they should take authoritative inspection over other Saints they should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because all Elders are bounded to the Saints amongst themselves Rejoynd 1. This is an ill compacted argument if you did intend it for one and may thus be taken off 1. This toucheth nothing the binding of a Minister to one congregation but onely insists on a tye to one city or region inclusive of many congregations Galatia had churches in it Gal. 1.1 and so had Asia Rev. 1.11 2. This offers not to confine him in all acts to that place but only in authoritative inspection it is your own word which can mean no more then administration of discipline 3. This reacheth no further then to a limitation of him in those acts to that place while he is there present which is naturall and necessary ex parte adjecti â—o that if he should thence remove or but travell for a few dayes to another city or country he might as this argument runs yeâ— he ought to feed the flock in each place where he is 2. Whereas you say the word floâ—k is to be taken distributively and to be limited by the words amongst you let me ask if it be distributive how can it be limited The words amongst you are more properly distinctive then distributive and point out what flock he chargeth them to feed 3. You cannot prove that this charge is the commission of the Elders as you call it nor a full recitâ—â— thereof but a charge insisting on some part of the Ministers duty viz. of feeding or overseeing 4. When you say the Elders must 〈◊〉 look to the Saints in other cities or places where themselves were not you condemn your own practise of Allotriepiscopacy in that you gather and constitute your Churches of Members dwelling in severall towns and countries many miles distant one from another and from your Elders Thus this term you so often bandy rebounds to your selves still 5. Whereas you say that all Elders are bounded c. I demand was not the Apostle himself an Elder as v. 1. and might there not be within the circuit of those countries mentioned c. 1.1 other Apostles and Evangelists amongst them either in Pontus or Asia c and will you say these also were so bounded by this Scripture Sect. 8. You go on to overthrow my exceptions against the Positions arguing à testimonio negativè laid in by two instances A Communicant must examine himself will you thence inferre that none else must examine him You change this word him into himselfe which change alters the sense fits it to be more liable to your answer The Theslalonians are to know them that were over them and laboured amongst them and esteem