saying if all were one member where is the body is not to be understood so much that the Church must be a Collective body as that it must be an Organical Heterogeneal body if all were one member id est if all were one sort of members all eye all eare all feet as is plain by the Coherence 1 Cor. 12.14.15 c. 4. Your Reply leaves the reader very doubtful in that you say God hath not precisely determined what number doth make a Church for he may question first how you dare precisely determine either that 7.8 or 9. may make a Church that a Church may consist of so many as may with edification meet in one place and of no more which doth determine the number materialiter though not formaliter seeing God himself hath not precisely determined it as your selves confess 2. You do not possitively must be found to be lyers him what number did at any time make a Church whether 7. or 8. or 10.20.40 or 100. but send him to seek it 5. Mr. Cotten saith though there might be a domestical Church in Adam and Eve at the beginning yet such a Church as Christ hath instituted in the new Testament consisteth of a greater number then two or three way of the Churches P. 53. And if you do assert that Adam and Eve did then make a Church which seems to be your opinion for you argue only against one person being a Church then you have scripture produced by mee and cited by you Defence P. 73. And Reverend Mr. Cotton against such a number making a Church now And indeed in the beginning of the world there was defectus physicus but now if a defect be it is defectus moralis If there were no woman in the world an incontinent person could not many but now it is a sin for him not to marry 6. I beleeue your selves do not conceive that those 7. or 8. in Adams or in Noahs family might be now an instituted Church if they were alive though the reader may think you contend for it can one man one woman foure or 5 children the eldest whereof must needs be very young make a Church should the man sin the Woman reproves him or e contra and he wil not be gained where must she have one or two more or a Church to complain to seeing little children as reason tells us and your selves grant are neither meet for nor capable of that imployment Can foure men and their Wives make a Church Cham sins Noah rebukes him he wil not be gained he according to rule takes with him one or two more as Sem and Iaphet then they have a goodly Church left viz foure women their four wives which you know are disabled by their sex 7. Suppose in a Church of 7. or 8. a man and a woman should be suspected by their brother of Committing adultery as David and Bathsheba did or incest and their brother admonish them and they deny it he takes one or two with him to charge sin upon them and they yet deny it and complain of wrong and take one or two with them to charge sin upon him or them that admonished them then all these are parties who is left to judg this business if the Church consist but of 7. 8. or 9 8. You say a particular Church is called a City an Army a Kingdom which titles do imply multitudes now it were strange to say that two or three or 7. 8. 9. may make a City an Army a Kingdom 9. It is inconvenient and of dangerous consequence that 7. or 8. should be able to cast out of Communion any person not only with themselves but the whole Catholique visible Church and deliver him to Sathan especially if they be illiterate and unexperienced in the wayes of God and apt to be byased as so few men though visible Saints may easily be Sect. 2. When I say that Twelve are more then seven or eight and an hundred and twenty a competent number yet it appeareth not that they were called or counted a Church til they were more increased If there were no more beleevers in Ephesus then twelve as there was viz. Aquila and Priscilla which knew more then Iohns Baptiâ—m Acts 18.26 with 24.25 If not others Yet there were more in Jerusalem then an hundred and twenty 1 Cor. 15.6 You reply P. 10. That twelve is not more in the truth of the constitution of a Church then 7. or 8. Rejoynder 1. My meaning was that you cannot prove that 7. or 8. may make a Church though twelve might for 12. is almost double to â— 2. Twelve men your selves wil acknowledg are rather capable of being a Church then 7. or 8. in Adams family or in Noahs where were so many women and children for here if a man sin and his brâ—ther admonish him and he wil not be gained and he take two or three with him yet there is some remaining to take cognizance of the thing which in the precedent instances there was not you see I dispute upon your own principles though I grant them not 3. You say P. 13. Smal Churches are inconsistent with Christs and which is edification by Pastors from whence it follows that the more smal the more inconsistent and the less smal the less inconsistent and in this sense I might say that twelve is more then 7 or eight and so declare some what else then that I can number twelve Sect. 3. You Reply P. 10. That the scripture determines not what number is competent and what not competent to the being of a Church that I am the more presumptuous in aring that an 120 are a competent number to make a Church that if I wil I may see them a Church before they were so encreased for they performed one great act of a Church in electing an officer to be over the Church Acts. 1. 23. And when three thousand were added to them they came into their state and if their state were not Church-state then neither were they made a Church by this addition for let 3000. be added to no Church and they are stil no Church which to affirm were flat against the Scripture Rejoynder 1. Pardon me I pray you I thought I had bin no more presumptuous to say an 120. is a competent number then you are in saying 7. or 8. is a competent number to the being of a Church seeing God hath as wel determined that an 120. as that 12. or 7. or 8. is a competent number and 120. is more capable of all officers and of a flock then 7. or 8. The truth is as you sayd that an 120. was smal enough in comparison you mean of what it was afterward so I sayd that it was a competent number comparatively to 12. which yet is more then 7. or 8. the number which you should prove competent to the being of the Church or else forgoe the position 2. Election of an Apostle is not properly a Church act
2.2.14.20 It being also clear that if they were not then duly proceeded against they could not be justly and orderly excommunicated 4. If it be said that this meeting if it was a formal Synod it was only occasional and not a set stated monethly or yearly meeting I answer 1 This is but a circumstance of time which followeth necessarily the substance of the thing if Synods sit they must sit in some time but what time or times they should sit doth depend upon circumstances and as the Churches business requireth the scripture doth not mention any stâ—tâ—d Ecclesiastical meetings for government Synodical or Congrâ—gational that they should meet weekly monethly nor mentioneth it any set Church-meetings except the Lords day for preaching hearing fasting prayer conference yet the Church may upon occasion order weekly or monethly Congregational meetings for those purposes according to the general rules of Gods word your selves grant that the officers of several Churches may meet together as oft as occasion shal require to advise and consult about the ordering of the affaires of the Churches in all difficult cases And that at every meeting the time of the next meeting be determined on and the occasion thereof so far as appears intimated Yea you tel us p. 128. That emimently gifted men may preach for divers moneths together while the occasion lasts And so I say Synods may meet but if it appear there be no just occasion of a Synod I desire not that there should be any in a stated way Sect. 2. Reply p. 23. What is there to warrant combination of assemblies in a Nation more then of all Christian assemblies in the world represented in an oecumenical Councel For if a Congregational Church must depend upon a National Church then a National Church must depend upon the universal as the lesser upon the greater What a Nation is to a Congregation that the Universal is to a Nation Rejoyn I wil also ask you one question what is there more to warrant the Elders of New England to convene in a Synod or Assembly of the Churches then the Elders of all the world to convene in a general Councel Surely no more warrant save that they had a better call and more power and encouragement by the Civil Magistrates and their mutual consent and might with more conveniency ease expedâ—tion and safety meet together in Cambridge in N. E. then all the Elders in the world could and yet you account that Assembly an Ordinance of God 2. There is not the same necessity of combination of all Churches in the world as there is of all Churches in a Nation for peace and government Is there as good reason that all kingdoms should be subject to one general meeting o the Kings and supreme Magistrates as that in every Kingdom there should be subordination of Judicatories and appeals from the less to the greater 3. How much greater distance there is between particular Churches so much the less needs the visible communion of those Churches to be because danger of scandal and infection and the opportunity of mutual edification is less or more according as the distance of place is greater or less therefore there is or ought to be a more strict ordinary visible Ecclesiastical communion within a Classis then within a Province within a Nation then in all the world 4. Your selves must either acknowledg that a particular Church hath power to elect an officer for other Churches for you oft alledg Acts 1. for the Churches power of Election as wel as their own or else grant that that was a general Church or Councel which did choose an Apostle a general officer 5. As for your conceit that the members of a general Councel must be universal Pastors it hath been before confuted in a democracy or popular government the power is in all the people joyntly but to say that every one of the people is an universal officer is ridiculous Sect. 3. When I say shew me a Nation of Magistrates and people converted and I wil shew you a National Church You reply p. 24. that I might have said Shew me a Nation converted and I wil shew a National Church framed like the Iewish Church with one National Bishop over it one National Cathedral in it Rejoyn 1. The Jewish was rather the Universal then a National Church if God should have called any or all other Nations they must have been proselyted into it 2. If there were no better arguments against the Pope and Prelatical men then you bring against a National Church and if the Nationalness of the Church was as truly Ceremonial and abrogated as the high Priest and Temple were which you odly cal a National Bishop and Cathedral are then that form of speech should I use it were irreprehensible 3. I retort shew me an Assembly of the Churches in a Nation like that of New England and I wil shew you a National Church You further say Reply p. 24. Though there was no Nation converted yet Christ's mind in that matter might easily have been dictated in the Scriptures had he intended any such Church afterwards as Moses tels the Iews Deut. 12.8 9 10. And though there were not Nations converted yet there were so many in a Nation converted as made many Assemblies In little Iudea there were Congregation and why together with the Church at Ierusalem might tâ—ere not have been a Diocesan or Classical Church The foot-stets of a Diocesan or Classical Church shal serve the turn then we wil yeeld there might in time be a National Rejoyn You hold a National Synod to be a lawful and useful Ordinance of God if one should deny it and say shew me a lesser Synod of all the Churches within such or such a circuit and I wil grant there may be a National Synod consider wel what ye would answer 2. It is either weakness or worse to intimate to the world that Presbyterians do plead for a Diocesan Church you know I suppose that Mr Rhuterfurd and others do professedly reject and refute it 3. I have shewed that the Church of Ierusalemâ— did consist of many Congregations and that the Elders of that Church did convene for acts of government you cannot deny and this you know is a Presbyterial Church which we cal a Classis 4. I have shewed a pattern of an authoritative Synod exercising jurisdiction over particular Churches and cleared it from your greatest and strongest exceptions against it 5. In Chap. 9. I have shewed from holy Scripture that there is an Vniversal visible Church which is greater then a National and doth include and justifie it and to which it is subordinate in a regular way These you know are more then footsteps of a Presbyterial or Classical Church 6. The Scriptures do prophecy of the cal of a Nation I. a. 55.5 and also of a Nations answer to that call and that Israel should be one of the three which may import three National Churches One Nation as
therefore to be cut off Immedicabile vulnus ense recidendum ne pars syncera trabatur Math. 18.15 16. Tit. 3.10 that the other members be not leavened or corrupted by it And yet 2. one end of Excommunication may be the saving of the soul of the excommunicate and yet not suppose him to be already in the state of grace for as a known unconverted man may be admonished if not apparently and obstinately wicked and when God sets in with the admonition we gain our brother and he is converted and his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus so if God set in with the Excommunication he may be gained by it though before he was not gained 3. The Apostle supposeth not the incestuous person to be alive but to be a wicked person and spiritually dead 1 Cor. 5.12 and yet would have him cast out 4. In the Churches of Asia and Galatia were some that were bewitched Gal. 3.1 and turned to another Gospel Gal. 1.6 and counted Paul their enemy for telling them the truth Gal. 4.16 And some that were of the Synagogue of Sathan Nicolaitans Balaamites Jezebelians many that had defiled their gariments viz. were visibly wicked that were luke-warm neither hot nor cold Rev. c 2. c. 3. Therefore Peter writing to the strangers scattered through Pautus Asia Galatia c. could not repute them all in the judgment of charity living stones or visible Saints but this denomination is given a meliori parte as if a man should call a Parliament godly wise faithful Senators he is to be understood that the better part of them are such but not that all of them are such no not in the judgment of charity Sect. 9. Reply p. 36. If Excommunication be an ordinance to throw forth visible sinners both all scandalous sinners 1 Cor. 5. and all other which will not be healed of their lesser faults being duly proceeded against Math. 18.15 16. Rejoyn 1. I doubt whether every one that is not healed of lesser sins after due admonitions be to be excommunicated Suppose of passionate speaking of vain merriment c. if he be not otherwise blameable The censure of excommunication in Scripture is read to pass for grosser crimes but no example of passing it for lesser faults we complained of this very thing in the Prelates Beza affirms Math. 18. to be meant of private scandals which differ only from publick scandals that the one is less known then the other we must not saith Doctor Sibbs kil a fly on a mans forehead with a beetle If every one that is not healed of every sin must be proceeded against so far as to excommunicate him the purest Churches would have nothing to do but excommunicate one another 2. Suppose they were to be cast out can you shew as good warrant to keep such out before due course of admonition as to cast them out when you perceive that admonitions and other due proceedings wil not work upon them 3. Suppose you had good warrant to cast out all such you cannot hence infer that all that are not visible Saints are to be kept out nor cast out for there are thousands that are not scandalous and it may be if they were admonished of their lesser faults would strive to amend them Herod did many things after John Baptist which yet you would not put in the Calender of Saints especially if you should examine them of the work of grace in their heart Sometimes the thing is in medio and we are neither satisfied that this man is a Saint nor dare we censure him to be a sinner Can you shew that the Church ought to examine her members yea those of which she hath no just ground of personal suspition whether they have committed any sin that deserves casting out Then we wil grant she may examine such before she take them in Or could you shew that Non-regeneration or the Churches not being satisfied of their visible Saint-ship she possibly seeing more into them then she did at her admission of them is a just cause of excommunication though they be neither gross offendors nor in foro Ecclesiastico obstinate in their lesser faults then you speak somewhat to the purpose But if this could be shewed then the Apostle needed not to give us a catalogue of divers sorts of sinners with whom we must not eat 1 Cor. 5. for he might have given us a shorter and readier rule saying you shal nos eat with any of whose regeneration you are not satisfied or that are not in your judgments Saints Sect. 10. When I say he writes to the Church called to be Saints or called Saints not to Saints called to be a Church or to the Church constituted of Saints which expression rather of the two proves there was a Church before they were Saints See v. 1. Paul called to be an Apostle then that they were Saints before they were a Church though I maintain not the validity of either inference You Reply p. 36. Can there be a Church before there were Saints What a Church was that which had no visible Saints in it when it was first constituted Rejoyn Why do you oppose an inference which I professed I would not maintain the Reader certainly would have discerned the impertinency of this your Reply if you had not in your book left out that Passage of mine 2. That which I said is undeniable that the words Church called to be Saints doth in the grammatical construction rather of the two conclude that they were a church before they were called to be Saints then that they were Saints before they were called to be a Church as if I should write to Mr E. called to be a Pastor it were more rational to conclude that Mr E. was a man before he was a Pastor then that he was a Pastor before he was a man 3. Any company or assembly called together by command to hear some laws and speeches whether they obey them or no are called Ecclesia or Concio but be it as absurd as you can make it to say there was a Church which had no visible Saints in it much more absurd is the other Position that they were Saints before they were a Church considering it as an inference from this Text whatsoever it is in it self 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be read called to be holy which is in Scripture a word of greater latitude then Saintship in English so little children are said to be holy 1 Cor. 7.14 by a faederal holiness which cannot be called Saints or Sainted The Papists invented this substantive Saints which the Scripture useth always as an adjective though possibly sometimes the substantive is not expressed of which also instance may be given in other adjectives and from them we borrow the word 5. There is no more here ascribed to the Corinthian Church then is oft ascribed to the Jewish Church by the Holy Ghost as holiness Deut. 7.6 Deut. 33.2 3.
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
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
of the Iews is not called Congregations there as Mollerus shews But suppose there be truth in all that is said what are all these â—ceptions of the words Kahal and Ecclesia to the purpose Can you find that ever any one Church is called two or more Churches For except there can be found such an instance the ayr is but beatâ—â— all this while and our assertion stands immoveable You cannot shew as we suppose that ever any one Church was called Churches in the plural number either in the Old or New Testament in reference to plurality of places they met in Rejoyn 1. Doubtleâ—s our Translators did understand v. 4. of 〈◊〉 people and v. 8. of the place else why should they translated 〈◊〉 Congregations and not Synagogues and that is the primary signâ—â—cation of the word and so it is most usually taken in the Old Testament That there were in Davids or in Asaph's time any Synagogues or set stated appointed places to use your own worâ—◠〈◊〉 it is hard to prove the temple it self being not yet built 2. I have shewed that an Assembly or Concio and a Church are often in Scripture phrase all one and therefore seeing it cannot be denyed that there were assemblies in several places it must needs be granted that there were many Congregations in scriptural and ordinary phrase of speech though these were indeed but parts of the Jewish Church and therefore it might be said to be but one congregation having one high Priest c. yet it may be called many congregations because they did meet in several assemblies 3. If it can be shewed that one Church is called Churches in the Old and New Testament then you grant something is done to purpose for the weakning of the position Now besides that the Universal Church is but one and yet called Churches as hath been shewed I alledg that the Jewish Church which you confess was but one is called Churches Ps 26.12 where David promiseth to bless God in the Churches the Original being the properest word to signifie Churches and such as you cannot say is meant of Synagogues or places Also Psal 68.26 which was a Psalm sung at the removal of the Ark Bless ye the Lord in the Churches viz. In the Church-meetings in the several assemblies for the worship of God Mr Ainsworth himself translateth it Churches and paralels it with 1 Cor. 14.34 Now to say that David promised and the Israelites were commanded at the removeal of the Ark to bless God in the Churches of the New-Testament or that those texts are only prophetical or to â—â—ll of Enallage numeri when the strength of the Argument is in the difference of the number are strained and far fetcht evasions and such whereby I might quickly answer you saying The Churches of Galatia are spoken figuratively for the Church of Galatiaâ—â— Thus I have through the good hand of God helping me done the task you set me and by bargain your position should fail 4. If your consciences did not tell you the contrary of what you instance concerning my scope and drift when you say Is your scope to confound and lose your Reader in the various acceptions of the word Assembly or Church that when they read the word Church or Churches they shal not know what to under of it yet my rejoying 〈◊〉 this the testimony of my conscâ—â—◠〈◊〉 â—â—d rather extricate my Reader out of diâ—â—â—â—ties that 〈…〉 and the true reason of all my tedâ—â—â— and expâ—â—◠〈…〉 satisfaction and strengthing of Godâ— peoâ—â—◠〈…〉 GOD 〈…〉 speak as becometh Saints in the sight of God are these things nothing to the purpose you to prove that there were several Independent judging Churches in Galatia and in Macedonia alledg the words Churches of Galatia I grant there were several assemblies in Galatia and also in Macedonia and in Iudea The question is whether the texts cited do prove more then I grant I shewed that the words Kahal and Ecclesia in Scripture as wel as prophane Authors signifies Concio or an Assembly whether orderly or disorderly less or greater with government in it or no Whether is be an instituted Church or no a whole governing Church or but a part of it Hence though the Jewish Church was but one yet Churches are said to be in it because there were divers Assemblies in it Hence as I proved in my Answer those that met at such and such a time and place are called the Church the whole Church yet they were not it may be the half or a third part or the tenth part of the Iewish Church and hence it followeth what I would infer that the calling of them Churches of Galatia doth not prove that each of them was an instituted visible Church uncombined is any other in point of government seeing the Assemblies amongst the Jews were certainly combined in point of government and yet are called Churches as wel as the Churches of Galatia It is therefore clear to me and I hope to you too that the word Churches proves no such thing as that they were instituted Independent Churches though it may be other texts do shew that some of them were compleat particular Churches 5. You should not only say but prove that there is no other combination to enjoy all Gospel ordinances but congregational a position which in the latitude of your words your own authors Mr Cotton Mr Mather Mr Tompson and others wil not own nor I think your selves when you have considered wisely of the matter for Synods are some ordinances yea Gospel-ordinances too and a Congregational combination if there be no other cannot enable us to partake of those ordinances as you very wel know Sect. 2. You do but think though you in pag. 28 intimate that you know that those Churches were only Congregational 1 Cor. 1.1.2 Cor. 8.1.19 Rev. 1.4 and that they are properly called Churches and that the word Church in 1 Cor. 12.28 is read in a figurative sense when I say that though the beleevers in Galatia were called Churches yet for ought you alledg to the contrary they might be combined one to another as the Churches of England Scotland Holland are respectively combined for the Apostle speaks of them as one lump 1 Cor. 5.6 with Gal. 5.9 and wisheth the anathematizing or excommunicating of him that troubled them Gal. 1.8 9. 5.10 11. and the restoring with the spirit of meekness both which I take to be acts of discipline and Cottons Keyes p. 8 9. doth so take them of a faln brother Gal. 6.1 You thus reply As for such combination as is in Scotland Holland without proof we cannot grant them in Galatia and if Paul had intended by saying A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump that we should gather thence that they were but one Church he would never have called them Churches in the Preface of his Epistle if one speak in a literal sense and say a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump doth he thereby make
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
put for the temple and the people that repaired thither and assembled there and so for the Church of the Jewes which consisted of many assemblies and yet was but one Church and the Temple was but one which was called Sion and so Sion was but one But in the times of the Gospel there were to be no visible temples where God would dwell but the visible Church 2 Cor. 6.16 and the visible Church is Congregationall not Nationall much lesse Vniversall as hath been proved therefore the Congregationall Church is Sion the speciall place of Gods presence Rejoynd 1. A question of names and words is of no great moment yet in opposition to that which is most common with Congregational men yea with confessed Heretiques and Schismatiques to call each of their Congregations by the name of Sion which in their sense imports that it is an entire visible church Independent of any Ecclesiastical judicature and that the greatest presence of God is there to be found and that combination of many Sions is unnecessary yea sinfull I truly observed that there was but one Sion in the Old and New Testament and that the Scripture warrants not the expression of an hundred or a thousand Sions 2. The Temple is one expression and Sion another the Scripture may yea doth acknowledge many temples of God not many Sions every Christian is a temple not a Sion yet if you do betake your selves into the temple I will follow you thither rnd fetch you thence 3. The visible Church in 2 Cor. 6.16 is not called a temple but every Christian in whom the spirit of God dwels 1 Cor. 3.16 yea his body is the temple of the Holy Ghost 1 Cor. 6.20 even that body which may be joyned to an harlot which is especially sinned against and abused by fornication viz. his naturall body as Christ called his naturall body a temple Joh. 2.19 and that body which might be unequally yoked with unbelievers 2 Cor 6.6 one way whereof was by unequall marriages and of it the Apostle chiefly speaks and not of any visible Church or Society as such 4. It hath been shewed that the visible Church may not only be Congregationall but Nationall yea that there is an universall visible Church And in Ephes 2.20 21 22. which your selves interpret of the visible Church the Church of Ephesus is not said to be the whole city house or temple but to be built together with other Churches and Christians and all the building groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord. Of this temple all the Churches to which Peter writes 1 Pet. 1.1 are living stones not so many living temples 1 Pet. 2. Thus many Nations shall in the day of the Gospel be joyned to the Lord and shall be Gods people and he will dwell amongst them Zach. 2.11 so Antichrist is said to sit in the temple of God viz. in the Church universall 2 Thess 2.2.4 See also Rev. 11.1 and Mr. Cotton Keyes p. 56. saith The new Jerusalem is many particular churches combined all which are yet but one city one tabernacle Rev. 21. Sect. 2. Reply p. 71. Yet this hinders not but that the language of the Old Testament when it speaks of things of the New Testament may be used in the Old Testament yea in the New also as in Zach. 14. 19. Isa 66.20 21. So in Isa 4 5. we may as well read of the assemblies of Sion though there be no such thing but each assembly is Sion as of the feast of tabernacles when in the dayes of the Gospel there is no such thing but it is spoken by way of allusion because Sion was then but one it is spoken of as one still and yet it is more then one Rejoynd 1. That the language of the Old Testament may be used in the Old Testament or in the New is not denied yet it is considerable if the word Sion be read perhaps two or three hundred times in the Scriptures and never taken for one particular Independent congregation as you frequently use it if you could find Sions in the plurall number you would judge it to be a justification of your appropriating the word to a particular assembly and full as good an argument for the Congregational way as the terme Churches which you say though untruly is not found in the Jewish church 2. If you can prove it to be as ceremoniall that Sion should consist of many assemblies as that the feast of tabernacles should be kept and the one be as evidently abrogated as the other then you say something or otherwise it is nothing If a man should endeavour to prove from Isa 4.5 that the Church should be at least one assembly you would not sure stop his mouth with the feast of tabernacles Now if I alledge that there shall be assemblies of Sion in the New Testament I suppose you can find no ceremony in the plurality of the number 3. That there is but one Sion is the language yea the constant unchanged language of the New as well as of the Old Testament yea when it is applied to the Christian church and no example there is to the contrary but the feast of tabernacles is not constantly not frequently not once that I remember applied to Christian worship in the New-Testament and therefore the case is not alike though you make itso Sect. 3. Reply p. 72. Now that there are many mount Sions your self do really confesse We know you hold 1. That the Church of the Jewes was called Sion 2. That the visible Church in the dayes of the Gospel is Sion is it not manifest therefore that you hold that look how many visible Churches there are in the times of the Gospel so many Sions there are You say the Hebrews which were divided into many Congregations are said to be come to one mount Sion If so then the Congregation of Christian Gentiles may be called another mount Sion Rejoynd 1. All this doth not so much as prove though it confidently affirms much more that there is two Sions one in the Old Testament and another in the New The Jewish church and the Christian notwithstanding may be but one Church one Sion though under a different state and condition 2. I hold not there are as many Sions as particular visible Churches but you grossely misunderstand my words A believing Jew and a believing Gentile may be you will acknowledge of one particular Congregation and so of one Sion much more may I say that they both may come to one mount Sion yea many people all nations may flow unto it Isa 2. â— 3. I never said nor thought that the Hebrews did come to one mount Sion and Christian Gentiles to another but all to one You see you are far enough from proving what you would have us believe that every particular assembly of Sion Isa 4.5 is a distinct Sion 3. Whereas you ask what greater absurdity it is to say there are an hundred Sions then to say
offender yet he might be judged by a Provinciall for this is one benefit of combination of Churches or National Assembly or if there were a universall councell all Christians should be subject to its Ecelesiasticall power whether Members of a particular Congregation or no and may be excommunicated upon just occasion not onely out of particular Congregations if they be Members of them but out of the Church universal for though it might be doubted to what Church this or that man doth belong yet it can scarce bee doubted in what province in what Nation an offender doth reside and to which he by right doth belong The Church of Ephesus is commended for trying the false Apostles which did not acknowledge themselves Members of that Church for this had been inconsistent with the aime of Apostleship else grievous Wolves false Teachers might have crept in amongst them and drawne Disciples after them to Blasphemie Idolatrie c. without blame CHAP. XXVI Of the Authority of Elders WHen I say though Elders bee not Lords over Gods heritage yet they are Leaders and Guides yea Shepeards Rulers Overseers Bishops Governours and not onely Presidents of the Congregation Moderators of her actions or as the fore-men of the Iury you thinke your felves wronged and expresse your selves to grant that Elders dos rule as Stewards as Captaines as Guides or Leaders and his grant is large enough for Stewards and Captaines may take or put out Servants and Souldiers without the others of the family or company intermedling by way of Power therein yet I could have wished you had shewed what more Power then of a Moderator or President of a Synod or foreman of a Iury or Speaker of a Parliament House practically you give the Elders in election of Officers receiving in of Members or casting them out or other acts which are properly act of Discipline and Government for a Moderator may put matters to Vote open the doores of speech or silence advise or councell the Assemblie pronounce the sentence keep order c. But why do I put you upon this you say they rule as Stewards and Captains yea as Guides and Leaders which Titles in Scripture Phrase in which I presume you speak doe signifie the Power of civill Magistrates Act. 23.24 Mat. 27.2 and indeed Presbyterian Government in this sense in opposition to Praelaticall and Popular Government you cannot deny seeing the Scripture saith they have the Rule they feede and governe the flock Heb. 13.7 17.1 Tim. 5.17.1 Pet. 5.2 Acts 20.17 28. The Keyes which in the Notion of them doe carry Power and Authoritie properly so called are committed to them Matth. 16.19 and Power to remit and retain sins Joh. 20.28 and they are over the People in the Lord 1 Thes 5.12 and the Titles which are given to civill Magistrates at least to subordinate ones are given to the Elders of the Church and they as you say afterwards are Governours to the Church in the descending line of Power though thy be but Ministeriall Governours in an ascending line that leads to Christ the only Monarch or supreme Governour of the Church Sect. 2. when I urge that Matth. 20.25 26. forbids Kingly or Lordly power in the Ministers of the Gospel for the two Apostles still dreaming of a Temporall Kingdome and being Kinsmen to Christ did expect some temporall honour and advancement Christ saith not there was inequality among the Priests of the Iewes or amongst the Priests of the Gentiles or between the Priests and the People but it shall not be so amongst you but very aptly and pertinently to their petition answereth the Princes of the Gentiles c. propounding himself verse 28 whose Kingdome is not of this world for an example to them yet had he no intent to equall them to himselfe in Church Power or other Ministers to the Apostles or the People to the Presbyters You say in your Reply p. 79. Admit that the Apostles were such babes as to imagine that Christ would lay downe his spirituall Kingdome and take up a temporal and that any or all of them desired an eminency one above an other therein yet it will not follow that Christ speakes nothing by way of reproofe of ambitious aspirings in the Spirituall but onely in the temporall Kingdome of Christ hee expresseth the disparity betwixt civill policies where one or more rule with Lordly Power and the rest are in subjection and Spirituall policies where Christ only rules with Lordly Power and one Apostle or Minister hath no Authoritie at all one over another but are fellow servants Rejoind 1. You must needs admit you cannot deny that they did still dream of a temporall Kingdome Matth. 20.21 Acts 1.6 2. The Apostles were not such babes as to imagine that Christ would would lay down his spirituall Kingdome over the soules and consciences of his People but they are babes that imagine as you intimate that hee could not take up a temporall Kingdome except hee did lay downe his spirituall Kingdome for spirituall and civil Government which were confihenti in the person of Moses Eli Samuel were much more consistent in the person of Christ God and Man 3. I said not that it will follow that Christ spake nothing by way of reproofe of ambitious aspirings in the spirituall Kingdome of Christ they may also bee included though ambition in civill matters be the thing here directly and principally intended and I hope the Reader by reading the whole answer in my book which is curtel'd in yours will understand me aright 4. Nor denied I that inequality of men of the same office may be here forbidden save only that reason and order if not Scripture do require presidencie moderatorship one Apostle is not to be above another Apostle one Elder as such above another Elder c. Yet you cannot deny that had Christs main scope been to forbid inequality of the Ministers of the Word an instance of the inequality of the Jewish and Gentilish Priests had been more pat then of the Gentile Princes 5. As our Saviours meaning was not to exclude the Apostles from being in Ecclesiastical power above Elders Elders above Deacons and himself above all so neither was it his meaning to equalize believers in Church-power with their Presbyters or one Elder or the lesser part to many Elders or the major part and consequently he speaks nothing against Presbyterian government or the government of the Church by Presbyters 6. It may be said of Civil policies that one supreme Magistrate is not above another but they are all fellow-servants Lastly whereas you say pag. 80. That corruption of Church-Governours in an usurpation of Ecclesiastical domination is of more dangerous influence to the Church then if they should usurp some branches of Civil power I answer 1. What you can shew to be a corruption of Church-government an usurpation of exorbitant Ecclesiastical domination God forbid that we should not abominate it and I expect that you shall be as willing to
usuall nor needfull 3. How 8000. or suppose but 5000. new Converts and the many thousands converted by John Baptist Christ and the 12 Apostles and 70 Disciples before Christs death could at that meeting upon the Apostles motion all of them know the seven men and so unanimously agree upon this new businesse without considering and consulting apart especially seeing they were of divers languages is a thing incredible most probable it is that the Grecians that murmured against the Hebrewes did apart choose one or more of of the Deacons as suppose Nicolas the Proselyte of Antioch 4. Whereas you name Cenchrea though you bring nothing to prove it was only one particular assembly and your men pretend that it was but a little town I read that it was a very well frequented populous town most famous for the station of the ships and so might be large enough to contain in it many Church-assemblies as well as many Haven-towns in England do 5. There are no officers appointed by God for National churches but the same that are for lesser churches surely there may be National churches without National officers as in Scotland The office of a President Register c. nature may teach it National Synods which your selves hold lawfull as well as Congregationall Judicatories 6. For Lawes there are some lawes for Synods whether National Provincial or Oecumenical and there are some acts of Church-government which by the lawes of Christ every particular Congregation is unable to performe as I have formerly shewed 7. Seeing there is deep silence in the Scripture of this Position that every Church must be only Congregational and Independent in opposition to Classical Provincial c. and seeing also there is a charter from heaven for combination of Churches into Classes Synods and for the authoritative power thereof therefore they which say that Mat. 18. must needs be meant only of the former and cannot be rightly applied to the latter do abuse and wrest that Scripture Lastly Mr. Cotton himself saith Keyes 47. that the promise of binding and loosing is not given to a particular Congregation when it is leavened with error and variance Ecclesia litigans non ligat Clavis errans non ligat But then a Synod of Churches or of their messengers may judicially convince and condemn error search out truth determine declare and impose the way of truth and peace upon the Church You say a Synod must not assume authority of censuring Delinquents Wherein you oppose Mr. Cotton for how can a Synod of Churches impose wayes of truth and peace upon a litigating erring Church if she have no authority to censure the said delinquent Church nor any member of it except she her self will do it I leave you three to consider of the matter CHAP. XXIX Of the power of the Keyes in MAT. 16.19 Sect. 1. Reply p. 89. The power of the Keys we seat not in the people as contradistinguisht to their Elders but in the whole Church by a most wise and divine dispersion of power into the dissimilar parts of the Church Elders have an authoritative power the people have a power of liberty in point of Censures so that reclamante ecclesia there can be no excommunication Rejoynd 1. Who made these Keyes especially this key of Liberty cannot they that make Keyes make Locks too If God have made these Keyes I pray shew me when and where If the Scripture do not witnesse that they are true Keyes I shall think them to be picklocks and fit with the Popes keyes to be thrown into Tyber 2. A Key in all mens judgements was wont to imply office and authority they that have no office have no keys that I know of at their girdle In a family or in a corporation or city servants and citizens have some liberties priviledges and interests which yet have no stroke in ordering the Keyes in city or family 3. Do not your selves give the people without officers or as distinct from them a Key of authority Tell me I pray you is not Ordination an authoritative act an act of government And yet you say Pos 10. the brethren may ordain Is not Church-admonition as a step to an higher censure an authoritative act an act of government and yet you say the brethren may admonish their officers yea and excommunicate them at least negatively which you say is not so authoritative as the positive but yet you imply it is authoritative Do you hold that Elders do receive their authority from the Church of Believers or no If you do then the Church of believers hath authority else she could not give authority If you do not you forsake your own principles If ye hold that the peoples denyal of consent when a case is voted doth bind the Elders and the Elders denyal of consent doth not bind the people then the people have more authority then the Elders If you say the Elders and body of Members have each a negative voyce then you make the Church to consist of two co-ordinate societies which you cannot prove by Scripture 4. Your speech Reclamante ecclesia c. must be rightly understood or else it is not true the sentence of Excommunication may be valid in foro though not in facto in respect of right though it cannot take due effect as an Outlawry may be good in law though the people will not withdraw from the person out-lawed if the people had a negative voice which might illegitimate and disanull the act of the Presbyterie then they had greater authority then the Presbyterie A necessity of the Members consent doth constitute Church government in a Democratical frame in Rome Athens c. they had Magistrates yet the government was democratical But certainly it belongs to the Elders which are stewards of the mysteries of God 1 Cor. 4.1.2 Tit. 1.7 and not to the whole family next under the Lord and by his direction to take in and turn away servants and Elders have full power to baptize upon making of a disciple without any intervening act of the Church Mat. 28.19 and this power was exercised by John Baptist Mat. 3.6 Luk. 3.7 and the Disciples of Christ Joh. 4.1 2. and the Apostles Act. 2.37 38 41. Act. 4. 5. 8. c. no mention being made of a Church or Congregation voting for their admission into the Church by baptisme Sect. 2. When I answer that Peter and the rest to whom Christ directs his speech were Apostles in office and commission though not yet sent out into all the world you tell us that the terme Apostle is equivocall as noting 1. One authorised to dispence Doctrine and Discipline amongst all Nations Mat. 28.19 and in this sense Peter was no Apostle 2. As one sent out by a temporary commission to preach and work miracles amongst the Jewes only Rejoynd .. 1. That they were not called Apostles by Anticipation only is very clear as any historicall thing is for the Text saith hee chose made and