A DEFENCE Of sundry POSITIONS, And Scriptures alleged to justify the congregational-way; charged at first to be weak therein, impertinent, and unsufficient; By R. H. M.A. of Magd. Col. Cambr. in his Examination of them; But upon further Examination, clearly manifested to be Sufficient, Pertinent, and full of Power.  
By Samuel Eton, Teacher AND Timothy Taylor, Pastor Of The Church in Duckenfield, in Cheshire.  Isai. 26.12, 13. 
LORD, thou wilt ordain peace for us: for even thou hast wrought all our works in us.  
O LORD our God, other lords besides thee have had dominion over us; but by thee only will we make mention of thy Name.  
Published according to Order.  
LONDON, Printed by Matthew Simmons, for Henry Overton, and are to be sold at his shop in Popes-head Alley. 1645.   

To the Christian Reader.  
IT was not our purpose, when these Examinations of our Reverend and beloved Brother and neighbour came forth, to have made any Reply to them: First, because we thought there was that already published to the world on both sides, which was more weighty than either the Examinations or Answer to them were like to be deemed. Secondly, because we apprehended some other persons, rather called to this Work, than ourselves; because their Positions and Scriptures brought by them, are professedly and nominally opposed, as the margin declares. Thirdly, because we were unwilling to engage ourselves or others in the Controversy, further than we should be compelled; knowing it to be one evil under the Sun in men (and perhaps, in some good men) that they will strive for Victory, rather than for Truth. And as it is with an unyielding spirit, it will contend for thelast word: So it is in publishing of books, who shall Print last in his own Cause. We chose therefore rather to practise in silence, according to our own light, and quietly to follow the Work we are called to in these parts, then to implead those that should plead against the Way we walk in. Therefore, when the Examinations first came down, though we read them, yet we minded not to answer them; for three months almost, the thoughts of intermeddling in the Work (now effected by us) slept with us. At last we were awakened to consider what was fit to be done by us. And after some consultation, thought ourselves bound to vindicate wronged Scriptures, Positions, Persons; that which bred a change in our mind, was: First, an expectation and earnest desire in these parts, that something might be answered thereunto, or the Cause yielded. Secondly, the eyes of many were upon us rather than upon others: First, because the Author of the Examinations is our neighbour: Secondly, because many of these things have been discussed betwixt him and us: Thirdly, because it is thought that some of the Positions have been taken up by him, as in discourse they fell from us: Fourthly, because it is believed by many, that there is so much strength in the Examinations, or weakness in us, that we cannot answer them: Fifthly, because the Examinations are magnified in Pulpits: Lastly, because the Person whom we most eyed to have vindicated the Scriptures and Assertions built upon them, we hear, is called away out of the kingdom. Hereupon we came to set upon the Work. And our request (good Reader) is this, that the plainness of the style may be passed over, and all weakness in expression; and if there be any strength of Argument, that it be kindly accepted for the truth's sake. We profess to be friends to the Truth, so fare as we know it, and shall think it the worst work that ever we did in our lives; if we should make any to err from the Truth. We entreat God, as we are able, to lead both thee and us into all truth.  


S. E.  
T. T.     

Mr. Prynne his Judgement, touching the only and speediest way for the present Reformation, in his last Book, called A Vindication, page 57  
ANd if our Assembly and Ministers will but diligently preach against that Catalogue of scandalous Sins and sinners they have presented to the Parliament, and the Parliament prescribe severe temporal Laws and Punishments against the same, and appoint good Civil Magistrates to see them duly executed, inflicted; I am confident, that this would work a greater Reformation in our Church and State in one half year, than all the Church-discipline and censures now so eagerly contested for, will do in an age; and will be the only true way, and speediest course to reform both Church and State at once: which I hope the Parliament will consider of, and take care, that our Ministers (like the Bishops formerly) may not now be taken up with ruling and governing; but preaching and instructing, which is work enough wholly to engross their time and thoughts.   

To our Reverend Brother, the EXAMINER.  
Good Brother,  
THough we often encountered one another within private walls, yet we little thought to have been Antagonists in print; you have provoked us to it, and so have those that are either so engaged to your person, or to your Examinations, as to make their boast of them. We think you will confess our candour in proceeding; we have not stepped out of the way, to intermeddle with bystanders or by-matters; nor have we racked any thing: we entreat the like usage from you. Take up the pith and substance of the Argument, and let alone expressions and matters of that nature, and show us our error, and we shall not be offended, but thankful. That deep heavy charge in the first part of your Preface, whether it might have been spared, till you had seen how you had sped, we leave for you to consider: As also whether you had honoured yourself more, and wronged us less, if your Examinations had come forth without so cutting and stinging a censure. Beware of giving such blows again in words, and do it (if you can) in the weight of your Arguments, and you shall be blameless. We will bear it, and amend by it, as being.  
Your loving Brethren, SAMUEL ETON, TIMOTHY TAYLOR.   

The Contents of the Book.  
The Scriptures opened, or alleged in this Treatise, you have in a Table at the end thereof, and the page wherein they are cited.  
The POSITIONS, as they are laid down by Mr. R. H. in his Examination of them, are the sum and substance of the whole Book; as being the Subject herein debated, whereof the most of them are explained and defended, (some, in some proofs cited, are mistaken: as Position 20, and 25.)  

The POSITIONS are these in order following.  
POSITION 1. GAthering of Churches in the name of Christ, and setting up of Church-ordinances, cannot be unlawful for want of a Commandment from man, as appeareth by the Doctrine and Practice of the Apostles, Acts 4.19. & 5.29. page 1  
POSIT. 2. Seven, eight, or nine may make a Church. In adam's and Noah's time there was not above seven or eight, will you deny them the being of a Church? What will you make of Christ and of his Family, which were not above twelve besides himself, and of the first foundationals of the Church of Ephesus, which were about twelve? the number in the first beginning of the greatest Church was small enough in comparison, Acts 1.15. p. 9  
POS. 3. A visible Church in the new Testament consists of no more in number, then may meet in one place, in one Congregation, 1 Cor. 11.20. & 14.23. p. 13  
POS. 4. A visible Charch in the new Testament is not Nationall, as the Jews was; hence we read of the Churches of Galatia, Macedonia, Judea, not Church of Galatia, 1 Cor. 16.1. 2 Cor. 8.1. p. 21  
POS. 5. When a visible Church is to be erected, the matter of it should be visible Saints and Believers, 1 Cor. 1.2. p. 31  
POS. 6. The form of a Church, is the gathering together of these visible Saints, and combining and uniting them into one body by the form of a holy Covenant, Deut. 29.1.10, 11, 12. by which is plainly showed, that a company of people become God's people, that is, a Church, by entering into Covenant with God. If it be said, they were a Church before; yet that was when the Church of the Jews was constituted in Abraham's Family by Covenant. p. 37  
POS. 7. Every Member at his admission, doth promise to give himself as to the Lord, to be guided by him; so to the Church, to be guided by them; which is no more than the Members of the Church of Macedonia did in a parallel case, 2 Cor. 8.5. p. 44  
POS. 8. This particular Congregation is a Church before it have Officers, Acts 2.47. p. 45  
POS. 9 She hath also full and free power to choose her own Officers, without the help of Synod, Classis, or Presbytery, Act. 1.15. & 6.3. & 14.23. p. 46  
POS. 10. The particular Congregation, though they want Officers, have power and authority to ordain Officers, as the children of Israel did put their hands upon the Levites, Numb. 8.9, 10. p. 52  
POS. 11. When the Apostles were sent out by Christ, there was no mention of Ordination in that Commission of theirs, but only of teaching and baptising, Mar. 16.15. Mat. 28.19, 20. If ordination of Ministers had been such a special work, there would belike have been some mention of in in their Commission. p. 56  
POS. 12. The Church hath power to censure her Officers, if she see just occasion, Col. 4.17. p. 58  
POS. 13. These Officers are to be maintained by contribution every Lord's Day, 1 Cor. 16.1. p. 60  
POS. 14. The great Mountain burning with fire cast into the Sea, upon the sounding of the second Trumpet, Rev. 8.8, 9 is applied by some good Writers, to those times in which Constantine brought settled endowments into the Church. p. 68  
POS. 15. There must be in the Church, Teachers, distinct from Pastors, as Apostles are distinct from Evangelists, Ephes. 4.11. p. 69  
POS. 16. This particular Congregation is Zion, which God loveth, and he hath promised to be present, Mat. 18.20. p. 71  
POS. 17. So long as a Believen doth not join himself to some particular Congregation, he is without in the Apostles sense, 1 Cor. 5.12. p. 74  
POS. 18. The Elders are not Lords over God's heritage, 1 Pet. 5.3. nor do exercise authority, as the Kings and Princes of the earth do; remembering our Saviour's lesson, Mat. 20.25, 26. Luke 22.25, 26. p. 78  
POS. 19 The Power of Government is expressly given to the Church, where we are bidden Hear the Church, which is a particular Congregation, Mat. 18. p. 85  
POS. 20. Matth. 16.19. Christ directeth his Speech not to Peter alone, but to all the Disciples also; for to them all was the Question propounded by Christ, vers. 15. Nor to them as general Officers of the Churches, for that Commission was not yet given them, but as Disciples and Believers. p. 90  
POS. 21. 1 Cor. 5. Paul himself, though an extraordinary Officer, yet would not take upon him to excommunicate the incestuous person, without the Church; but sends to them, exhorting them to do it, and reproves the Brethren of the Church of Corinth as well as the Elders, that they did no sooner put him away. p. 95  
POS. 22. The Lord Jesus reproving the Angel of Pergamus, for suffering Balaamites, sends his Epistle, not only to the Angel, but to the Church. The Spirit saith not only to the Angel, but to the churches, Rev. 2.11. And the Church-members are seen by John in a vision, sitting on Thrones, clothed with white raiment, having on their heads crowns of gold, Rev. 4.14. Now thrones and crowns are Ensigns of Authority and governing power. p. 101  
POS. 23. The particular Congregation takes Christ for her only spiritual Prophet, Priest and King, Deut. 18.15. Acts 7.37. Psal. 110.4. Heb. 5.4. Isa. 9.6, 7. Rev. 15.3. p. 104  
POS. 24. Christ left but one way of Discipline for all churches; which in the Essentials of it is unchangeable, and to be kept till the appearing of Christ, 1 Tim. 6.13, 14. p. 107  
POS. 25. The Church, or the Ministers thereof, must not be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 1 Pet. 4. And therefore the Minister must not perform a Ministerial act to another Congregation, Acts 20.28. 1 Pet. 5.1, 2. p. 111  
POS. 26. Gifted men, viz. (so reputed by competent Judges, though) not called to the Ministry, nor intended for it, may preach. They that were scattered abroad upon the Persecution which arose about Stephen, were not Church-officers, at least not all of them: yet these men did preach the Word; and Philip which was but a Deacon, preached without the calling or privity of the Apostles, Acts 11.19. & 8.14. p. 118  
POS. 27. Jehosaphat sent Princes, who were neither Ministers, nor intended so to be, to teach with the Priests and Levites, (viz.) at least to encourage the people to hearken to the Priests and Levites, 2 Chron. 17.7, 8, 9 as Jehosaphat did, 2 Chron. 20.20. yea, and was their mouth to God in Prayer, vers. 2.5. to 13. As we conceive something in that prophesying, 1 Cor. 1.4. to be extraordinary: so we conceive it to be ordinary, that some private men, grown Christians of able gifts, who may have received a gift of Prophecy, need no more extraordinary calling for them to Prophesy in the Churches, then for Jehosaphat and his Princes to prophesy in the Church of Israel. p. ibid.    

A Defence of certain Positions and Scriptures, against an examination thereof by R.H. in which they are charged to be faulty.  

POSITION I.  
GAthering of Churches in the Name of Christ, 
See almost the same Argument verbatim, in answer from New England to 32. q. p. 35.  and setting up of Church-Ordinances, cannot be unlawful for want of a Commandment from Man, as appeareth by the Doctrine and Practice of the Apostles, Acts 4.19. & 5.29.  
THe Apostles never taught or practised to gather or separate some Christians from others, one part of this true Church, Answer. and another part of that, (especially persons which themselves converted not) to make a purer Church, neither with nor without the Magistrates Authority.  
THe Apostles both taught and practised the separating of some Jews from other Jews, Reply. and gathering them into a Christian Church, while yet the Jewish Church was not dissolved: for they ceased not to be a Church of God, till the body of them pertinaciously and desperately rejected Christ: Therefore they preached to the Jews first, and thought themselves bound so to do, because they were the people of God, Acts 11.19. & 13.46. And yet they had commanded some to separate from the rest (as yourself acknowledge) Acts 2.40. And their communion they had with them in Jewish worships, shows that they counted them a true Church. And some think, that their Church state ceased not while their Temple stood. And yet before that time, many Jews were gathered into many Christian Churches, as both the Acts of the Apostles, and their Epistles do declare. And if they might gather out of one Church, they might as lawfully have gathered out of twenty, or an hundred, had there been so many at that time.  
Secondly, if the Apostles never taught nor practised such a thing, what warrant then have our brethren for their Presbyterian Church, which is gathered out of many Churches? For they Interpret, Matth. 18.17. Tell the Church, of a Presbyterian Church, which consists of the Elders of many Churches.  
Thirdly, why may not one Church be gathered of the members of many Churches, as well as many Churches consist of the members of one Church? For we read that the Church at Jerusalem was scattered upon Stevens persecution, and we read not that they returned again, but fell into membership with other Churches, (as is probable) which were planted in several parts of the world.  
Fourthly, such a Church which consists of the members of many other true Churches, hath formerly been without exception in the days of the Prelates; how comes it now to be questioned? For at least fourteen years since, such a Church was extant in Wi●●all in Cheshire, (the vocal covenant being only wanting) which consisted of the choicest Christians of many Parishes, who met constantly together upon the Lord's day, and enjoyed the Word, and Seals of the Covenant, and maintained a Pastor to dispense the same unto them, and never, or very rarely repaired to such Parishes where their habitations were. And we think it cannot be denied, but Mr. John Angiers Church at Denton in Lancashire, hath of long time been such, and many other such there have been besides. And it was accounted an high happiness to have liberty to make such a Church; but was never accounted by the godly sinful before.  
But if you should answer, That the Church consists of such as lived within such a Parish, or Chapel, and that the rest were strangers: We reply, If assembling constantly together, and participating in all the Ordinances that the rest do partake of, and contributing with the rest in the maintenance of the Minister of such a place, and an adhering rather to such a Minister and people, then to any other in affection and action; if all these together make members of a Church, than these persons of other Parishes were not strangers, but members, and with the rest made such Churches; except it shall be said, that habitation alone in other Parishes, when all the other are wanting, makes membership, and constitutes Churches, which some of our brethren (who are Presbyterians) have and do deny.  
Fifthly, are not some Parish Churches constituted sometimes of members of other Parish Churches, when many persons have left their own places, and removed into other Parishes without any consent? Yet this hath been judged pious, at least honest, sometimes upon one ground, and sometimes upon another, some to have liberty of conscience in such places whither they have removed; others to have better preaching; others to meet with better society; and others for better worldly accommodation: What Christian knoweth not well that this hath been common?  
Sixthly, that a Church may consist of persons that have been members of other Churches, if such persons have been orderly dismissed from such Churches, and have come away with consent, will be granted of all: For none hold Church-membership to be undissolveable. The question than will be, Whether the members of Churches may departed without consent? 1. According to the present constitution of Churches, they may: For they come in without consent, merely by removing their habitations; therefore they may so departed. 2. If consent must be had, from whom must it be sought? From the people, or from the Minister? That the people have any power either to give or withhold their consent, hath not been granted heretofore: That the Ministers consent should be necessary for the departing of every member, when yet himself (it may be) hath had his entrance amongst them, without their consent, seems to be unreasonable. 3. Suppose consent hath been sought, and cannot be obtained, may not members withdraw their membership in some cases without consent? Suppose some Ordinance be corruptly dispensed, without all hope of redress, and that men must partake therein without having any power so much as to witness against such corruptions, unless they will be accounted factious, and disturbers of the Church's peace; or that by remaining where such corruptions are, they be in danger to be leavened with the corrupt lump of such a Church of which they be members; 
1 Cor. 5.6.  what must they now do? Doth not that Rule that bids a Church purge out one person that may endanger the leavening of the whole lump, (when there are no other means to prevent such an evil) give warrant to every member that is endangered to be leavened by the lump, to withdraw from such a lump, (because power to purge out the lump they have none) when there is no other means to prevent the evil? 
2 Cor. 13.10.  Church membership is for edification of the members, not for destruction.  
But you stumble at this, because they converted them not. To which we reply, Persons whom the Apostles converted, were ordinarily committed to others to be further edified, and the ordinary Pastors and Elders of the primitive times, did almost perpetually build upon another's foundation. The persons that watered for the most part, were not the same that planted. In Acts 11.20, 21. we read of a great conversion wrought by the preaching of the scattered Disciples, but we read not that they were gathered into Church-state, till Barnabas was sent unto them; and both Barnabas and Paul assembled with that Church and taught it, which yet they converted not. And in Acts 19.1, 9 Paul found twelve Disciples (converted to his hand, though not fully instructed) and gathered them into the Church which he planted at Ephesus. But (Brother) how comes this to be a stone to stumble at? If you hold a succession of Pastors in the same Church, the successors may feed a flock which their predecessors converted, and not themselves. And if you hold transplantation of members from one Church to another, than they may feed the members which were of other Churches, which themselves converted not.  
But you will say, This must be orderly done, and with consent. Answ. No such order can be expected, where no such order hath been wont to be exercised. If any godly person hath removed from one Country to another, and planted himself in Manchester, have the Ministers or people whom he left, sent after him, or challenged him as theirs? Or have the Ministers or people whom he hath come to, rejected him, as none of theirs, because not orderly delivered into their hands? Suppose the end of his removal was communion with a better people, or better ministry, Doth this make it the worse, or more unwarrantable? Is it lawful to remove to a fatter soil, when the place a man lives in, is more barren? Is it lawful to remove to a purer air, when the air one hath lived in, is worse, and distempers the body? And is it not lawful to remove to a purer Church? The purer any Church is, doth not Christ take the more delight in it? And doth he not desire to be there most? And why may not persons desire to plant themselves where Christ gives most of his presence? And if one man may unite to such a Church that is purer, may not many agree together to make such a Church that may be purer? And this is all the gathering of Churches that we know of, that is either taught or practised.  
But the exception is, That there is a removal of persons to other Churches, without the removal of their habitations. But why should this be blamed? 1. If distinction of Parishes by bounds and limits, be not Jure divino, where is then the fault? 
Selden of Tithes.  2. Was there not liberty within this very Kingdom fromerly, for persons to pay their tithes to what Minister they pleased? And consequently, they were not tied to the Parish they lived in, but might choose their own society and Pastor (and hence it is, that there are some pieces of Parishes in some places six or eight miles distant from other parts of it, and whole Parishes betwixt.) Why therefore now should there be an abridgement? 3. There are many inconveniences both to Minister and people, arising hence: 1. The Pastors of Parish Churches are only at certainty what houses they have under their Ministry, not what persons: for they may go which way they will leaving their houses, but their houses and lands are fised, and they shall always find them there. 2. The members of these Churches, though they have been bred up under the wing of such Churches and Pastors thereof, and have taken a love and liking to the same, yet if they remove from their habitation but a stones cast sometimes, they must be broken off thereby from such Churches in point of Membership. 3. A man's habitation may be nearer to some Church that is out of that parish, and so far off from his own Parish Church that he cannot conveniently repair thereunto, must he yet be bound to his own Parish Church by his habitation? 4. Suppose a man have many houses in several Parishes, and would desire sometimes to live in one, and sometimes in another, must he needs alter his Church membership as oft as he changeth his habitation? Or can he be a member in all the Parishes where he hath houses?  
The Apostles (being not of men, Answer. nor by men, but by Jesus Christ, Gal. 1.1.) 
b This was proper to the Apostles, or Apostolic men Answ. to 9 Pos. p 76. T.W. to W.R. p. 67.  did preach not only without but against the peremptory command and Laws of the Magigistrate, Acts 4.17, 18, 21. & 5.28.  
So did the ordinary Pastors and Teachers of those times, as well as the Apostles, and many of them were martyred for their labour, which yet had not an immediate call from Christ, as the Apostles had. Reply. Therefore it was not an Apostolic business as you would make it.  
But you profess not such a latitude of opposition against Magistracy. Answer.  
We profess subjection to Jesus Christ, Reply. without any opposition at all against Magistracy, though you would suggest the contrary: only thus, If Magistrates command any thing contrary to Christ, we rather choose to deliver up our persons into their hands, than our consciences and practices unto their commands. And this we hope cannot be interpreted an opposing of Magistracy.  
Nor do you hold (I suppose) that our godly nonconformable Brethren suspended by the Bishops, Answer. or New-England Ministers deposed by their Churches, (to say nothing of Ministers deprived by the Parliament for malignancy) are bound by the Apostles example to execute their Ministry in the Churches, notwithstanding such suspension or deposition, etc.  
We conceive you have not equally yoked the Bishops, Reply. New-England Churches, and the Parliament together: For 1. The Parliament challengeth not the execution of Ecclesiastical censure, and yet can tell how to punish malignancy in Ministers or any others. 2. The Bishops have laid claim to it, and exercised it without any just or true title to it. Therefore though godly nonconformable Ministers, might in prudence give place to violence (especially when their people deserted them, and Pulpit doors were shut against them,) yet in conscience, and in obedience to such suspensions and depositions, they neither did (neither aught to have done) desist from the execution of their office. 3. Ministers that are censured by a lawful power, where ever it lies (whether in their own congregational Churches, or in a Presbytery (for we will not dispute that now in this place) whether the censure be inflicted justly or unjustly,) ought to submit thereto, and forbear the execution of their Ministry in that place, till they be restored again; else Ecclesiastical government, which is Christ's ordinance in the Church, (as Civil government is in the Commonwealth,) might come to be undermined and subverted by pretence of unrighteousness in the managing of it, or the peace of the Church be disturbed.  
But wherein makes this against the Position? We conceive that those very Pastors and Teachers of the Primitive Churches, which continued to preach, though the express command of the Heathen Magistrate was against it, lest they should offend Christ by desisting, were yet taken off from preaching when silenced by their own Churches, and that upon the same ground, lest they should offend Christ in persisting. But you go on to say:  
Had you such an immediate commission sealed from Heaven, Answer. and such infallible direction of the Holy Ghost, as the Apostles had, you might more boldly imitate them therein; especially if the case of living under a Christian Magistrate intending, endeavouring and consusting with Divines, about the Reformation of the Church, and of living under a Heathen Magistrate, were not much different.  
1. The warrantableness ariseth not from the immediatnesse of the Commission, Reply. but from the truth and reality of it. If a Commission be as really sealed by Christ, and from heaven, thought not so immediately as the Apostles was, yet it binds as truly to the execution of the work of it, (till it be called in,) as the immediate doth.  
2. We allow the case to be much different: For when we live under a Christian Magistrate, inteuding and endeavouring Reformation, we are raised up unto an expectation of having all the ways of Christ countenanced and confirmed by his authority, (which would be a very blessed thing) which we have no such ground to look for living under a Heathen Magistrate. But how the case is different in your sense, we understand not: For the Christianity of the Magistrate, or his piety and sedulity, in intending and endeavouring Reformation, cannot take any person or persons off from their duty, which they would be bound unto, if a Heathen Magistrate bore sway. The Magistrate and the Ministers, and the people, must each do their part, because each stands engaged for himself to Jesus Christ, unto the work of his own place. The impediments that come from any unto other, cannot be a discharge unto any.  
Would our Brethren in New England allow a Presbyterian Church, Answer. or but a new Independent Church to be erected in New England, against the will and mind of the Magistrates and Churches there? 
1 T. W. to W.R. p. 31.   
1. The question is not what they would allow, Reply. but what a company of people planted there (which cannot without unfaithfulness to their own light, be subject to any other government save the Presbyterian) ought to do. Whether if their livelihood lie there, and that they cannot remove, they are not bound to keep Faith and a good Conscience, what ever it be that they suffer for it?  
2. Our belief of New England is this, that they would suffer the godly and peaceable to live amongst them, though they disser in point of Church-government from them: Because so fare as we could ever learn, they never banished any, but unpeaceableness together with desperate erroneousness, was the cause of it.  
Our Brethren at London (I hear) do hold it (at least) unseasonable, Answer. to gather Churches now: how their opinion and yours are reconcileable, I see not.  
If you had said, Reply. some of them did once think it unseasonable, you had not much miss it. But what crossing is in this, which should need a reconciliation? The Position saith, it cannot be unlawful, the Brethren say it was unseasonable for that time. Many things may be unseasonable (at least in opinion) and yet not unlawful.  
It may be the Brownists, Answer. Anabaptists, Antinomians, Familists, and other gross Heretics and Schismatics in old or new England, do also pretend the Doctrine and practice of the Apostles, for the setting up of their Churches; yet our godly and conscientious Divines do therein oppose them.  
If gross Heretics and Schismatics do so pretend, Reply. they must be found to be liars, and so their practice will be found to be unwarrantable, whether they have or have not the commandment of man; yet this will hinder nothing, but that those which not in pretence, but in truth, have the Doctrine and practice of the Apostles with them, may lawfully practise according to it, though they want the commandment of man to warrant it. The false Apostles pretended to be true Apostles, but the Church of Ephesus tried them, and found them liars, and rejected them; and yet accepted of those that were Apostles of Christ indeed.   

POSITION II.  
Seven, eight, or nine, may make a Church. In adam's and Noah's time there was not above seven or eight will you deny them the being of a Church? What will you make of Christ and of his Family, which were not above twelve besides himself, and of the first foundationals of the Church of Ephesus, which were about twelve? The number in the first beginning of the greatest Church was small enough in comparison, Acts 1.15.  
The case of Adam and Noah was extraordinary: Answer. there were no more in the world, and therefore could be no more in the Church.  
You grant in an extraordinary case, seven, eight, Reply. or nine may make a Church: The Position saith not, that more may not make a Church, but if there be but so many, the truth and being of a Church cannot be denied them. We say further, that such a number may but make a Church in the first foundation, or while there be no more persons sitted for membership. For when more Saints by calling offer themselves, they are to be received, and so the Church will be increased, Acts 19.7, 8, 9, 18.19, 20.  
Adam and his wife, Answer. and first sons, yea Adam himself was the Church, if then there was any; yet you hold not that two or three, yea one may make a Church.  
We conceive that the Church is Christ's body, Reply. and that every body consists of members; If all were one member, where were the body? How therefore one Adam could have been a Church, we understand not. Put this we hold, that look how few have ever made a Church since the beginning of the world, the same number may still make a Church. And the reason is, because God hath not precisely determined what number doth make a Church.  
Cain lawfully married his own sister, may other men do the like? Answer.  
Have we not a manifest prohibition of such marriages in the Scripture? Reply. so that though sometimes they were lawful, yet now they are not lawful. But what Scripture have you against this, that what number of believers have formerly been a Church, such a number may yet be a Church? And no greater number is required to the simple being of a Church.  
Twelve are more than seven or eight, Answer. and an hundred and twenty are a competent number; yet it appeareth not that they were called or counted a Church, till they were more increased.  
First, Reply. though twelve be more than seven or eight, yet twelve is not more in the truth of constitution of a Church, than seven or eight; Is there more of the essence of a Church in twelve then in seven or eight? [Except you mean it so, you declare only in saying so, that you can number twelve.] And if you so understand it, we shall demand proof of you for it.  
Secondly, the Scripture determines not what number is competent, and what not competent to the being of a Church. How come you then so to pass your verdict about it; when further you add, That it appears not they were called or accounted a Church, till they were more increased? that is, till those three thousand persons were added to them, Acts 2.41. If so, are you not then the more presumptuous in saying, that an hundred and twenty are a competent number to make a Church? Notwithstanding if you will, you may see them a Church before they were so increased: 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, than neither were they made a Church by this addition: for let three thousand be added to no Church, and they are still no Church; which to affirm, were flat against the Scripture, Acts 2.47.  
If there were no more Believers in Ephesus then twelve (as there was, Answer. viz, Aquila and Priscilla, which knew no more than John's Baptism, Acts 18.26. with 24.25. if not others) yet there were more in ferusalem than an hundred and twenty, even five hundred brethren at once 
c 1 Cor. 15.6. .  
First, though Aquila and Priscilla were at Ephesus, Reply. yet they were but sojourners there, as they were also in many other places, sometimes at Rome, sometimes at Corinth, as appears from Acts 18.2. Rom. 16.3. But to what place they did belong, is not certain.  
Secondly, your five hundred brethren at Jerusalem is as slightly collected from 1 Cor. 15.6. For, 1. doth the Apostle say, that he was seen of those five hundred in Jerusalem? He shown himself in Galilee, and some other places, as well as in Jerusalem. 2. Though the place of manifesting himself might be Jerusalem, must the persons therefore be of Jerusalem? Why not appertaining unto Judea? Or suppose of Jerusalem, why might they not be dispersed before Christ's ascension? For present afterwards, when they chose an Apostle, they were not, which was yet a Church action: and without doubt, the major part of the Church would have been present at it.  
Adam and Noah with their Families, Answer. (if they were Churches) they were but Domestical Churches, not congregational.  
Domestical Churches enjoying congregational Ordinances, Reply. and congregational Churches, are not divers species of Churches, neither do they differ in their nature or kind, but in quantity, as one Congregation differeth from another, as one small Country chapel differeth from a numerous Town Church.  
What will ye make of Christ and his Disciples, Answer. a Church distinct from the Jewish? You know Christ did not make a new Church, or gather men into it, but lived and died a member of the Jewish Church. 
d Answer to to 32. q. p. 14.  Had they been called a Church, as some households are in the new Testament 
e Phile. 2. witness T.W. to W.R. , you had had some more pretext, and yet they are but a Domestical Church, etc.  
1. Whether Christ died a member of the Jewish Church, Reply. is questionable: But that he gathered certain persons to him, and that he instituted Baptism and the Supper amongst them, is most certain, which were Ordinances of the Gospel Church, and he either thereby prepared them for, or laid the foundation of a Gospel Church before his death. For immediately after his ascension they were a Gospel Church, as appeareth from Acts 1.14, 15.  
2. For the denomination of Church, we pass not much, whether we meet with it, or not; provided that we find the reality of a Church among any persons.  
3. Many Domestical Churches may be in one congregational in your sense, but not in ours. We deny and put you to prove that two or three converted in a Family, enjoying some Christian Ordinances, but no Church Ordinances, are called a Church.  
It is an Argument you will not own; Answer. seven, eight, twelve, may make a Domestical Church, therefore they may make a congregational.  
We acknowledge not any such distinction of congregational Church, Reply. and Domestical, as you press after: But say, That the foundation of a congregational Church may be laid in one Family, and may spread unto many. It may be laid in seven or eight, and may grow up to an hundred, or a thousand, or to as many as can meet together constantly unto edification in one place. The Church in Abraham's Family, was the same which was in the Families of all his sons, and in the Families of their children after them, & which afterwards grew up into a nation. And though the Gospel Church is not now Nationall, as the Jewish was, yet a congregation of many Families may spring out of a Church of one Family, more easily than a Nation did formerly. And if seven, eight, or twelve may not make a congregational Church in our apprehension, what have you been confuting all this while?  
If seven or eight may make a Church, Answer. then two hundred persons in a City may well make twenty distinct Churches, and by consequence so many Independent Judieatures.  
First, this collection is made to bring an Odium upon congregational Churches; but it may be thus retorted, four or five in a house may make a family, therefore three hundred in an house may make sixty distinct families. Four or five in a family may make a Domestic Church (say you,) then three hundred in a family may make sixty Domestic Churches; two thousand in a Field may make an Army, therefore two hundred thousand in a Field, may make ten distinct Armies under so many independent Generals.  
Secondly, we have declared ourselves before, that seven or eight may make a Church in the first foundation, and whilst there are no more persons fitted and that as more in that place shall be converted, the Church, of them, is to be increased. And we are utterly against the unnecessary multiplication of Churches, as conceiving such small Churches inconsistent to Christ's ends, which is edification by Pastors, Teachers, Ruling Elders, Deacons, which he hath given to his Church. But that a Church of seven or eight should require so many Officers, or be able to maintain them, we cannot understand. And we perceive from the patterns presented in the New Testament, that Churches in cities which at first were small, grew great by the daily addition of others to them, Acts 1.14.15. with Acts 2.41. & 19.7, 8, 9, with 18, 19, 20. Acts 20.17.28. So that we would not have believers of one city, be of so many Churches, if one congregation will conveniently hold them, except there be some eminent reason for it. But though there should be many Churches consisting of a few members: yet without Officers amongst them, we do not assert them to be Independent Judicatures.   

POSITION III.  
A visible Church in the new Testament consists of no more in number then may meet in one place, in one Congegation, 
The like you have, Answer to 32 q p. 9  1 Corinth. 11.20. & 14.23.  
If you seek for Congregations meeting for prayer, hearing the Word, Answer. Sacraments in one place, or that they were called by the name of Church, or that all Believers in some Cities and Countries (when they might) did meet in one place, I will not contend.  
We plead for congregations meeting together, Reply. not for prayer, hearing the Word, Sacraments alone, but for the executing of censures also, 1 Cor. 5.4. which you leave out, as if Church censures belonged not to congregations, as those Ordinances you mention do. And we say, that there is no sacred Worship or Institution, prescribed in the Gospel, which may not be observed to have been exercised in, or appertained unto the congregations. And these congregations are called Churches in the Scripture. And further we say, not only that all believers in some cities did meet together in one place, but that there can no instance be given in all the new Testament, that Christians ordinarily meeting together in divers places, are yet called one Church, except where Church is taken improperly, & in a distributive sense. And therefore in cities, where they might and did meet together, they are called a Church, and in countries where they could not all meet in one, but in divers places, they are called Churches  
Many such Churches or Congregations we have in England. Answer.  
We say so too, Reply. and add, that either we have such in England, or none at all. For what other besides such, can you show us?  
And the Believers in every Christian Church, Answer. even in the Church of England, and in the Jewish Church also, might and did at first meet.  
1. Reply. Can you show that the Believers of any Christian church, met only at first in one place, and then afterwards (being increased) they met not in one place, but many places, except at some time of hot persecution?  
2. If Believers in England ever met together in one place, it was when there was but one congregational Church in England. As for the Jewish Church in it, 
Exo. 34.23.24 Deut. 16.2.16  both at first, and afterwards, all the males wore to meet by special appointment in one place, at some seasons, though not always, and in some ordinances, though not all, to show that they were but one Church.  
To say nothing that all the people of the Jews being about six hundred thousand, Answer. are called one Congregation, and are frequently in the old Testament said to come together, and that 
* One Myriad is 10000  Myriad did come together, Act. 21.22.  
They were one church, and therefore did, and aught to congregate together, and are therefore called one congregation; Reply. and yet neither they, nor those Myriads spoken of, Acts 21.22. did then, nor can such a number now, ordinarily come together. Now our Position is to be understood, that a Gospel visible church consists of no more than can ordinarily come together into one place, nor of so many as sometimes in an extraordinary way have met together.  
How will you make out this Inference, The Church of Corinth did meet in one place, and so did Antioch, Jerusalem, Answer. therefore no Church in the new Testament must consist of more than can meet in one place?  
You must take the Argument in the scope of it, Reply. 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 than can meet in one place; the Consequent is now good: For we think that patterns that are uncontrolled, either by precepts or other patterns, have doctrine in them, and do teach how things ought to be carried.  
To say there was a Church in Adam's house, and in Noah's, Answer. and also in philemon's, Aquila's and Priscilla's houses, therefore the Church in the old and new Testament must be domestical, is an inconsequent illation, contrary to plain Scripture.  
We confess it, and for the reason you render; Reply. because contrary to plain Scripture. Now if you could have showed us the repugnancy to plain Scripture of the inference which you oppugn, we should have confessed a great oversight in it. It is one thing (and 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.  
Is not the Argument as good, if it run thus? All the believing Corinthians were of the Church of Corinth, 1 Cor. 1.1. 2 Cor. 6.11. Answer. The Smyrnians and Laodiceans of the Church of Smyrna and Laodicea, Col. 2.1. & 4.16. Rev. 2.8. & 3.14. Whether they were more or fewer. (Hence in every city, and every church, seem to expound one another, Acts 14.21.23. with Tit. 1.5. Acts 16.4, 5.) And it cannot be showed that any church, how numerous soever it grew, was divided into two, or more churches, therefore the believers in any one city or town, may be but one church, whether they can meet in one place or no.  
No (brother) not so; Reply. because as appears to us, there is light of Scripture gainsaying it. For though all the believing Corinthians were of the church of Corinth (which yet you seem to contradict in the after part of your Answer, while you say that Gaius the Corinthian was the host of another church, besides that of Corinth, which if true, than all believing Corinthians were not of the church of Corinth) and though in all other cities all the believers of them, were of the church in each of them, yet such an inference would be naught, because it was so for a special reason, and in regions and countries where that reason took not place, it was otherwise. All the Believers in Jerusalem 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 Believers in Judea were not of one church there, but of many churches, because they could not meet constantly in one place. And if believers in cities, meeting in divers places, are yet but one church, for this reason, because they were of one city (as you would seem to infer,) then show but any probable reason, why believers meeting in divers places in countries, may not be one church, because they were of one country, especially the believers of Judea being but a small 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 show us out of the new Testament that believers were so multiplied in any city, as that they could not all meet in one place, then will we show you, that such churches were divided into more churches.  
Paul writes not only to them which might, Answer. and did meet in one place, but to all that in every place (not throughout the world, at appears, 2 Cor. 1.1. written to the same persons, 1 Cor. 5.1, 2. with 2 Cor. 2.1, 2. neither is this a Catholic Epistle, but that in all Achaia) call upon the Name of the Lord.  
Paul writes and sends this, Reply. and applieth it to the Corinthianss, and to them alone, as appears, almost in every chapter of the Epistle and in many of the verses of each chapter. For all along, proper and peculiar things belonging to the Corinthians, and not to the Achaians, nor Saints in all the world, are spoken of in commendation and discommendation, and proper reproofs, directions, exhortations are given; yet he intended it for the use and benefit of all Achaia, and of the whole world also. And it may as properly be called, a Catholic Epistle, as an Achaean Epistle, for the use redounds to the world, as well as to Achaia. And if it be not so, how can it be said to be Canonical Scripture? And how comes it to be the foundation of our Sermons, that we preach out of it?  
Besides, doth all in every place, and Saints in all Achaia expound one another? What Commentator hath ever said so? And doth 1 Cor. 5.1. compared with 2 Cor. 2.1. enforce such an exposition? That which you would suggest, is that he writes to the same Corinthians, in the second Epistle, that he writes unto in the first, for more your Scriptures import not; and we grant it. But the inference you draw is this, ergo, all in every place here, and Saints in all Achaia, are all one; a strange consequence. If the second Epistle be written to the same persons as the first, Why do you not expound the subject persons of the second, by the subject persons of the first, and say, though the Saints in all Achaia be mentioned only, yet under them the Salnts every where in the world are meant, as in the first Epistle it is expressed. This would have been a more natural exposition.  
But we shall declare the Apostles naked scope, as we understand it. The Corinthians (not the Achaians in general, for the Cenchreans joined not with them, that we read of) had written to Paul, Chapt. 7.1. and Paul had received sundry reports concerning them (not concerning all the Saints in Achaia, for of the Cenchreans he had heard nothing, that we read of) chap. 1.11. & 5.1. and hereupon he writes unto them; but because this letter might be of common use and profit, and especially to the Saints which bordered next upon them, therefore he would have the Achaians their neighbours to peruse it; yea, the Saints every where to read it for their edification. Therefore in both his Epistles he mentioneth the Corinthians, as the proper subject thereof; but the Achaians he mentioneth but in one, and the Saints every where in another. And he brings them in collaterally, rather than directly; it is to the church of Corinth, but with the Saints in Achaia, and withal, that in every place call on the name of the Lord Jesus, as it were on the buy. And this is Pareus his exposition upon 1 Cor. 1.2. and he takes occasion of confuting the vain conceit of Pighius and other Jesuits, because they would have Paul's Epistles to extend to the particular uses of those times, and not to Saints in all places and ages.  
And therefore those words, Answer. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (besides, that being but a supposition, they put nothing in being, and may fitly be translated, in id ipsum, for the same, or, in one, which, though they met in an hundred places, they might do, Acts 4.26. with Psal. 2.2. 1 Chron. 12.17.) prove no more that those to whom Paul writ, were of one congregation, than James calling the twelve tribes scattered abroad, one Assembly, Synagogue, or Church, Jam. 1.1. with 2.2. & 5.14. or Paul's mentioning the Hebrews assembling themselves together, Heb. 10.25. doth prove that the scattered Hebrews were no more than one particular congregation, which might, and did meet in one place.  
1. Reply. You give us another exposition of the words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and would refer them to an identity of things, and not of place, they were together in one thing, but not together in one place. But,  
1. These words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, are sometimes conjoined with the Verb, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as 1 Cor. 11.20. & 14.23. and then I hope it will not be denied, but that place is principally meant.  
2. Except the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, do hold forth a coming together into one place, their meeting at all (any of them) together, though in an hundred places will come to be overthrown. For what gives more light to the coming together of any of them at all into one place, than these words? If the words do carry any respect to place, then seeing it is said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the whole church, they will be in force to prove, that the whole church came together into one place.  
3. When these words are found without 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Act. 2.44. is not the sense darkened, if not overthrown by such an interpetation? And all that believed were together, and had all things common; shall it be thus rendered, And all that believed were in one thing, or mind? So they might be, though every one were in his own house, and none of them together in the same place. But how doth it cohere with the next words, and had all things common, if they met not together in the same place?  
Besides, will those words bear such an exposition in Acts 3.1. Now Peter and John went up together into the Temple, shall it be thus translated, They went up to the Temple for the same thing? not together in company, but for one end? then they might go one after another, if they only met in an oneness of business, and not of place; but several passages in the story do flatly contradict it, and do show that they ascended together in company one of another into the Temple.  
But Acts 4 26. compared with Psal. 2.2. is alleged to confirm the exposition of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. To which we answer, that we see nothing, but that the conspirators against Christ, met in one place: For, Psal. 2. saith, They took counsel together; and how can that better be done, then by meeting in one place? Acts 4.27.5. saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which without 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifies, they came together into one place; and they might do it easily, because all the persons mentioned were in one city; and the story makes it plain, that the Rulers and the people of Israel, and Pontius Pilate and the Gentiles gathered together; and there is nothing repugnant, but that Herod might meet with them, especially, seeing that we read that Pilate and he were made friends.  
4. We do not stand in need of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to prove that the churches of the Gospel met in one congregation frequently; for there are other words that carry it clearly, as may appear from Acts 2.46. & 5.12. & 14.27. & 15.22.30. & 1 Cor. 5.4. and 1 Cor. 11.17.  
2. Though you yield the translation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that it respecteth place, yet you say, it proves no more, that those that Paul writ to, were of one congregation, than James' calling the twelve Tribes scattered one Assembly; To which we reply, that there is a palpable difference, betwixt the places alleged by us, to prove a meeting in one place, and those alleged by you against it from James, and from the Hebrews: For,  
1. Your places are not so full for a meeting in one place; and,  
2. James 1.1. contradicts and makes impossible such a meeting of all the Hebrews in one place: And therefore we must take it in a distributive sense, If there come into your Assembly, that is, into any of your Assemblies; send for the Elders of the Church, that is, of the church he is of. Not forsaking the assembling of yourselves together, that is, no one with his own church that he is of, or each church with itself.  
But there is no need of any such figure in the Texts which we allege, but the literal sense may pass; and in some places must pass, or there will be no sense: For,  
1. The persons which we say came together, they might do it, they were neither so many, nor so remote, but they might. And if the Holy Ghost say they did, we must believe it, and not seek a figure, when we are not enforced to it.  
2. The Text, in 1 Cor. 14.23. saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, when the whole church comes together; Now let the Reader judge, whether any of your Texts have any such fullness of words in them to sway to a meeting in one place, as this one Text hath, which we have brought. Some of your own side have been convinced with the evidence of this Text, that the church of Corinth was but one congregation, and came together into one place.  
Especially, Answer. seeing the Apostle writes to the Achaians, 2 Cor. 1.1. 1 Cor. 16.1 with 2 Cor. 9.2. & 11.10. Now there were other churches in that Region, at least two, Corinth and Cenchrea, Rom. 16.1. To say nothing of the church whereof Gaius the Corinthian was the Host.  
1. Reply. Paul writes to the Achaians not otherwise then he doth to the Saints which call on the name of the Lord Jesus every where, 1 Cor. 1.1. with 2 Cor. 1.1.  
2. He writes not to them as making one church with the Corinthians, for he mentioneth them with a note of distinction from the Corinthians, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  
The places which you would have compared, will not enforce any such thing. For, 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, etc. So that the oneness of the Congregation of the church of Corinth is not yet infringed.  
4. Doth the Apostle write to the Achaians, and were there in that Region two churches at least, Corinth and Cenchrea; why then doth not the Apostle say, To the Churches of Achaia? as in all other such cases he doth, To the churches of Galatia, The churches of Judea, Macedonia, Asia? Why is the church of Corinth mentioned, and the church at Genchrea wholly silenced in the first Epistle, and not mentioned directly and by name in the second?  
Hence there is mention of churches to which the women he writes to (for, he saith, Your women, not women, or all women) did resort. Answer. Or how else could they keep selence in the churches? 1 Cor. 14.34.  
1. These Epistles were written for the use and direction of all churches, and therefore the Apostle nameth churches, Reply. because this was to be a standing rule for all churches; and by your women, the Corinthian women, were primarily meant, to whom the Epistle was sent; yet in regard of use, not they alone, but they with the women of Achaia, and all that call on the name of the Lord Jesus in every place. It was a command intended for universal direction for the women of all other churches.  
2. Women were wont to go from one church to another upon occasion, as Rom. 16.1. Phebe from Cenchrea went to Rome, so might the Corinthian women go to other churches, and in all churches must keep silence.  
3. Though it he said your women, yet it is not said your churches, but in the churches; that is, churches every where; and the verse before gives some light hereto: For he had said, As in all the churches of the Saints. And he adds, Let your women keep silence in the churches; What churches? The churches of the Saints every where.   

POSITION IU.  
The visible Church in the new Testament is not Nationall, as the jews was; hence we read of the Churches of Galatia, Macedonia, ludea, not Church of Galatia, 1 Cor. 16.1. 2 Cor. 8.1.  
We say not, that the Christian Church is Nationall, Answer. as was the Jewish church, viz. that it hath a national Tabernacle, Temple, or House of God, and solemn worship peculiar to it, to which all the members, or all the males must sometimes resort, towards which the absent are to pray, and in which the Priests in their courses do minister unto God.  
1. Why do you yet find fault with the Position, Reply. when you agree with us in the same?  
2. Why do you not lay down in what sense the Christian church is national, and in what sense not national?  
3. If in any proper manner of speaking you will have the Christian church national, meaning by national, the Saints that live within such a nation, as distinguished from the Saints of another nation, in country and place of habitation, without any othertie amongst them, being all of them parts only of the Mystical or Catholic church (as we know the Sea that washeth the British shores is called the British Sea, and that which washeth the Belgic shores, is called the Belgic Sea, though they be not distinct Seas, but parts of the great Ocean; yet in reference to an adjunct of place they run by, they receive distinct denominations, and by a Synecdoche, the parts carry the names of the whole:) in this sense we do yield the exposition or phrase of national church. But if you mean by national church, an instituted church of national extent in point of power and jurisdiction, upon which particular congregations within that nation do depend; we want light, that there is, or aught to be any such church in the times of the Gospel.  
For, if there ought to be such a national church, (for patterns we have none, as yourself do confess) then in this church there must be some national combination, national place for convention, national Pastor upon which it must depend, and national Ordinances.  
For, seeing there was no such church extant, when the Gospel was written, nor rules left (for you would have alleged them (we suppose) had there been any) how all things must be carried in such a national church, what reason can be showed (if such a church must be) why there should be a departing from the pattern of the national church among the Jews, in which they had all these things? Therefore those seem to do best, that in their moulding of their national church come nearest to the example of the Jewish church.  
Or, if you will have another model of this national church of your own framing, viz. a nation of Assemblies combined together, and represented in their officers, meeting in one place, and consulting the good of the whole, and executing authority over the whole, than these persons must stand in relation to all and each one of the Assemblies of the Nation under their jurisdiction; and so they are Nationall Officers every one of them, and the whole is the flock of each amongst them, and each of them hath as full power over the assemblies that he never saw, as over that from which he came, and which sent him; (as in the representative civil body every Knight and Buegesse hath the care of the kingdom upon him, and each hath equal authority of inspection and decision of matters concerning cities and countries, which he knows not, as of those whence he came.) Now if it be so, the Question is, whether each be not a Passor to every purpose, as well as unto one? And whether he be not to feed by doctrine, as well as by the rod of discipline, all such assemblies which are under his charge? (Which thing is yet impossible to be done.) And what warrant there is of non-residency with the flock unto purposes that do most concern the flock, seeing themselves are Christ's Ministers and substitutes, and have not power of appointing Ministers and substitutes under them; and what ground there is, why they must jointly rule all the assemblies, but severally teach each man the congregation to which he is designed, without care of the rest?  
Or, if there be any such combination of assemblies in a Nation, what is there to warrant it more, than the combination of all Christian assemblies in the world, represented in an ecumenical council, the members of which must be universal Pastors, having power over, and care of all churches under them? For, if a congregational church must depend upon a Nationall church, as the lesser upon the greater, than a Nationall church must depend upon the universal, as the lesser upon the greater. For, look what a Nation is to a Congregation, that the universal is to a Nation; and if Nations may be independent of the universal, Congregations may be independent of the Nationall.  
And if an universal visible instituted church be acknowledged, why are there not universal representative conventions? What a defect is this in Christendom? And what a fault, that all Christian nations do not endeavour it? But we conceive that they are so fare from the endeavouring it, that if there were any such, though they might make use of them for advice, yet they would be loath to subject themselves to the binding decrees of them.  
Nor say we, that the Scriptures do mention a Nationall church, Answer. for the supreme Magistrate was an enemy to Christian Religion, and Regis ad exemplum, etc. Believers (it is like) were not so many as to bear the name of a Land or Nation, nor could they have liberty safely to meet in Nationall Synods. Show me a Nation of Magistrates and people converted, and I will show you a Nationall church. Ultra posse, non est esse, whether Nationall churches be lawful or unlawful.  
1. Reply. You might have said, Show me a Nation of Magistrates and people converted, and I will show you a Nationall Christian church, framed like the Jewish church, with one Nationall Bishop over it, one Nationall Cathedral in it, etc. for so would Prelatical men and the Pope himself argue. No one Nation was converted then, and therefore there could be no Nationall Pastor. Many nations were not converted then, therefore there could be no universal Pastor. But what hinders but that there might be afterwards, when a Nation and when the world should come to be converted?  
2. Though there was no Nation converted wholly, and therefore (as you say) no national church could be; yet Christ's will and mind in that matter, might easily have been dictated in the Scriptures, had he intended any such Church afterwards; as Moses tells the Jews, Deut. 12.8, 9, 10. That they should not do (when they should come to Canaan) every man what he listeth, as they did in the Wilderness, but there should be a place appointed, and thither should they bring their offerings and tithes; and though there were not Nations converted, yet there were so many in a Nation converted, as made many Assemblies; In little Judea there were Congregations, and why (together with the Church at Jerusalem) might there not have been a Diocesan or Classical Church? There were enough converted for such a purpose. But show the sootsleps of a Diocesan or Classical Church, and it shall serve the turn; then we will yield there might in time be a Nationall.  
Arguments taken from the appellation of the word Church, Answer. or Churches, are very unsatisfactory, because of the various acceptations of the words Kahal, Gnedah, Ecclesia, Synagoga, which we sometimes translate Church, but should always translate Convocation, or Congregation, a company called out, or gathered together.  
In this answer you labour to overthrow our Argument; Reply. for congregational churches, fetched from the appellation of the Apostle (when he speaks of Countries and Provinces, where more Congregations were, he calls them perpetually churches, in the plural number, and not church) by these suggestions rather than arguments:  
1. That the words, Kahal, Gnedah, Ecclesia, Synagoga, should always be translated Convocation, a company called out, or gathered together; if this be yielded, wherein it will advantage you we know not. A national Convocation or Congregation, or gathering together, will sound harsher than a national Church; for every one knows that we have no Nationall Congregation in England: But,  
2. You suggest;  
The English word church, Saxon, Cyrick, and Scots Kirk; Answer. are derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Cambd. Rem. or, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Sr. Hen. Spelm. which (as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) signifieth the place of meeting. Hence we read of robbers of Churches or Temples, Acts 19.37. Kahal (whence our English word, call) is sometimes Metonymically understood of the place. The Heathen enter into the Sanctuary, which God hath forbidden to enter into the Church, Lam. 1.10. with Deut. 23.3. Nehem. 13.1. To come together, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. is (if it be rightly translated) to come together in one place, and so Ecclesia is opposed to the buildings, or houses in which they did eat and drink, 1 Cor. 11.19, 20, 21, 22. Synagoga is evidently taken for the place of meeting, Luke 7.5. Acts 18.7.  
1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the proper signification, Reply. is appertaining to the Lord, and may more properly relate to people appertaining to the Lord, then to place; because the people do more appertain to the Lord, than the place.  
2. Though Kahal once, perhaps, and Synagoga oftener, may be understood of the place, yet Ecclesia never. That place in Acts 19.37. is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 robbers of Temples, not Churches: That place in 1 Cor. 11.18. When ye come together, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is not to be rendered, in one place. Pareus upon those words utterly denies it. And there is good reason, why they should rather be referred to the people as a church, then to the place: For the meaning is, (when ye meet in the church) when ye meet as the church, that is, to perform Church-work. For they might meet in the place, even those very persons, and yet not meet as a Church; as it might be said, when such meet in a Synod, it's meant, as a Synod, to act some thing as a Synod. 
* As convenire in Senatum, is to meet as a Senate; not so much referring to the place, as to the persons: so meeting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, misacrum conventum, Beza, ibid. i. for a holy meeting, & Musculus in coetu sacro, quem li●vocat Ecclesiam. i. in a holy Assembly, which he calleth the Church. Item Pet. Mart. bid.  It refers not to the place, nor to the persons barely meeting, but to the persons meeting as a Synod to act Synodically.  
Besides, though Kahal and Synogoga may by a Metonymy be referred to place, because there were places built and set apart for Church-services, yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the new Testament cannot be so taken, because they had not set stated appointed places for the Christian churches to meet in; yourself assert so much, p. 26. Nor is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 opposed to the buildings and houses in which they did eat and drink in 1 Cor. 11.19, 20, 21. The words are, or despise ye the Church of God? which respects the people, the godly amongst them, which told them of their fault, and other Churches also, as Pareus upon that place observes; Unless you will say, there must be a reverend observance of the place where the Church meets, more than of all other places. They met in Woods, Dens, Caves, many times in times of persecution; and must those places be more respected than men's houses, where they did eat and drink in? But what would you infer, if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Church were taken for the place? Would it profit you? Yes; for you say afterwards,  
The Scripture calls them Church or Congregation often, Answer. and sometimes in respect of their several Synagogues, Psal. 74.4.8. No wonder therefore if that Christians of one country meeting in several Synagogues, James 2.2. Heb. 10.25. Acts 19.8, 9 & 22.19. Acts 13.15, 16, 43. and houses, Acts 12.12. Rom. 16.5. do receive the denomination of Churches, which in Scripture phrase is all one with Assemblies, many whereof we confess were in Galatia, Macedonia.  
The place you bring from Psal. 74.4.8. is impertinently alleged: Reply. for the Church of the Jews which was one, is not called Congregations in vers. 4. in reference to divers Synagogues they met in, vers. 8. But Congregations there, is Metonymically used, and is all one with Synagogues, and signifieth the place, and not the people at all; They roar in the midst of the Congregations, that is, in the midst of those places where the Congregation met, which places were many, but the Congregation but one, having one high Priest, for their chief Pastor; though meeting in its parts in many places. So that the Church of the Jews is not called Congregations, as Mollerus shows upon that place. Neither can you show (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.  
For, if it were so; how comes it, that a Church in a city, such as Jerusalem, Corinth, Ephesus, and Rome, which met and assembled in many places (as our Brethren of the Presbytery say) are never called Churches, but always Church? And yet a Church in the country, meeting and assembling in many places are called Churches, and not Church. And you say, there is no wonder of it, for this reason, because the Houses and Synagogues in the country were many, in which they met. See (brother) whether you do not in this assertion, cross yourself? In the city you can find many meeting houses, and but one Church, but in the country you can find so many Churches, as meeting houses.  
But the truth is, it is not place, but the combination of a Christian people to meet together for Ordinances, that makes a Church: For the same Church may meet sometimes together in one place for Church worship, and sometimes asunder in many places, for Christian worship; but they are not therefore divided into sundry Churches. And many distinct Churches, or parts of them may meet occasionally in one place, yet they become not one Church hereby; but combination to enjoy Church ordinances together in a constant way, makes a Church; and all in a city were in this combination to enjoy ordinances together, therefore they were a Church. But all in a country could not be in such a combination to meet together constantly; therefore they were not a Church, but churches. But you go on, and say,  
The word Kahal and Gnedah, do signify a dispersed multitude, Answer. that never met together; that the people of Israel, though divided into several domestical assemblies to keep the Passeover, are called one Church; That an Assembly is all one with Kahal, Ecclesia, whether it be good or bad, less or greater; that when the Israelitish men, women and children were together, they were but one Congregation: And when all did not meet, (though searce half, or a third part met) yet they were called all the Congregation. And when there was a great Assembly, than the Scripture tells us, there was a great Church; accounting no more persons of the Church, but those that were then assembled; Yea, Simeon and Levi's assembly is called a Church; and those many which were gathered to pray in the house of Maty, are called the Church, though many were absent. Yea, four or sive in a Family joining in the worship of God, are called a Church.  
But (suppose there be truth in all that is said) what are all these acceptions of the words Kahal and Ecclesia to the purpose? Reply. Among all these, can you find that ever any one Church is called two, or more Churches? For, except there can be brought instances of this nature, the air is but beaten all the while, and our assertion stands immovable. We find many churches in little Judea; in which of the ennumerations of acceptions of those words, Kahal, Ecclesia, doth it appear, that a Church that is really but one, multiplies into many, and is called churches, and yet is but one? If you find not this, we cannot believe that a whole Nation or Province of Believers are but one Church in the days of the Gospel.  
Besides, is your scope to confound and lose your Readers in the various acceptions of the word Assembly, or Church; so that when they read the word Church, or Churches, they shall not be able to know what to make of it? How then will they understand your Nationall Church, at which your Discourse drives? It had been your part to have taken your Reader by the hand, and to have showed him when the word Church is taken properly, and when improperly.  
Both you in your Nationall, and we in our congregational, understand a people combined together into one body to worship God. And in the old Testament (let the words, Kahal, Gnedah, be taken as they may) there was but one kind of Church so combined, which was Nationall: And in the new Testament we say; there is no other combination, to enjoy all ordinances and worships instituted in the Gospel but congregational; and we produce the small country of Judea, containing a plurality of Churches; and thence collect, that they must be Congregations, and that Congregations are therefore Churches. And this is not weakened by what variety of acceptions is brought.  
Furthermore, we do not know, that Church, or Flock, or Lump, or Body, when referred to God and Christ, and is properly taken, is used otherwise then in two or three senses: either for the mystical Church, Ephe. 5.25, 26. or the 
* 2 Cor. 8.1.19.  congregational, 1 Cor. 1.1. (sometimes indeed, 
Rev. 1.4.  we read of it in a sigurative sense, as in 1 Cor. 12.28. Gal. 5.9. James 2.2. 1 Pet. 5.2. and many more places)  
For though you say, That four or five in a Family joining in the worship of God, are the Domestical Church spaken of by Paul, many times in his Epistles, yet we conceive otherwise; for seeing usually when there were any heads of Families converted, some of the household were converted with them, as we can give many instances, we think that many, or the most that Paul saluted, had in that sense churches in their Families; and therefore, Paul would not have singled out, and with a note of distinction, have spoken of some persons, and the churches in their Families, for that reason, if some other reason had not moved him; either than these Families were large and great Families, and might be as numerous as some congregational Churches; or the foundation of a Church might be laid in the persons of a Family, but not so to continue, but to grow to a Congregation; or else some congregational Church might meet in such houses, which was ordinary in those days. And for the word Church in Acts 12. either it is to be taken for the mystical church, or else for that particular visible society of Believers, which was at Jerusalem, though some of them were absent. But you proceed to give more particular answers, and encounter with a part of the forementioned Position, viz. There were Churches in Galatia, therefore they were congregational.  
Galatia was a large country; in England a far less country, Answer. several Churches have been heretofore and yet not merely congregational.  
And why are Galatia and Macedonia taken hold of, Reply. and made use of, and Judea left out, which in the Position was mentioned as well as they? Surely the reason was, because in both those countries there was more room for your Nationall Church, then in Judea. You could not find breadth enough to make a plutality of Diocesan Churches, and therefore durst not contend for Nationall.  
But grant we the largeness of those countries: (according as you speak) were either of them too large to make one Nationall Church? (we know you think not so.) Why then doth not the Apostle knit them all up into one Nationall Church, if he had so intended them? But you add,  
The Churches of Galatia might he combined one to another, Answer. as the Churches of England, Scotland, Holland, France, are respectively combined; for the Apostle speaks of them as one lump, 1 Cor. 5.6. with Gal. 5.9, etc.  
Such a combination we easily grant to be among the Churches of Galatia, as is among the Churches of England, Scotland, Reply. etc. and that is, none at all: or at the most a combination without jurisdiction. But, if by respectively you mean a combination, which each of these Churches hath in itself, in all the Congregations of and belonging to it; such a combination we deny to have been in the Churches of Galatia. For all our Congregations have been united under one Metropolitan Archbishop, of all England, and as yet there is none other established; and for other combinations, such as in Scotland, Holland, etc. 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 all one Church, he would never have called them churches in the Preface of his Epistle; but in a distributive sense it is to be understood: For suppose one speak in a literal sense, and say, a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump, doth he thereby make all the dough in a country one lump? No, but of every lump (how many soever they be) it is to be understood, a little leaven leaveneth each of them; so of churches, a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump, that is, the whole Church, every Church in which it is, this maketh not all the Churches in a country to be one.  
And the Churches of Macedonia were not so several, Answer. but they joined in one to choose a Brother (which I conceive was an authoritative act) to go with Paul for the managing of the Church's contributions, 2 Cor. 8.18, 19  
1. Reply. Then to choose an Officer is much more an authoritative act; which you grant to appertain unto the people; then the people may act authoritatively, which is none of our assertion, but yours, and the people are beholden to you for it.  
2. A combination of churches without jurisdiction, will enable them to such an act; nay, if there were no combination at all, yet when many churches are alike interessed in a business, reason shows they ought to join alike to promove it.  
3. They did not make him an Officer by this act of choosing him, but they deputed him thereby to a particular work, which when accomplished, all was ended.  
The churches of Judea, Answer. consisting of Myriad of people, did come together, Acts 21.20, 21, 22. to be satisfied of Paul, concerning an accusation that they had received against him, and are called a Church, Gal. 1.13. Acts 12.1. and an House, Heb. 3.4.  
Not the Jews of Judea alone did gather together, Reply. but the Jews of all other parts; as appeareth from Acts 21.27. But be it that they gathered alone, yet are they called one Church? the place alleged is, Gal. 1.13. I persecuted the Church of God. What Church? Churches in Judea? No, Paul saith, he persecuted them unto strange cities, and Damascus was one of them. The meaning is, them that were of Jerusalem he persecuted to strange cities, or, he persecuted the Saints in general. Who, as they are parts of the mystical Church, may be called by a Synecdoche, the Church. And Herod stretched out his hands to vex certain of the Church. What church? Either the mystical, or that at Jerusalem, or any Church within his reach. And his house, Heb. 3.4. to be understood of the churches of Judea? What strange misinterpreting of Scripture is this? house in that place, is all the churches that were then, or ever were to be in the world; Christ is the builder of them all.   

POSITION V.  
When a visible Church is to be erected, 
This is not unlike the Answer to 32. q. p. 8, 9  the matter of it should be visible Saints and Believers, 1 Cor. 1.2.  
True, so it should; when an Army is to be raised, a City begun, Answer. a Family set up, much more when a Church is to be erected or continued, the matter of them should be visible; yea, real Saints, beloved of God, elect, blessed, Deut. 38.14. Isai. 1.21.26. Acts 16.34. Rom. 1.7. Ephes. 1.1.2, 3.4. And we hearty wish they were all such.  
1. The meaning of the Position is this: Reply. Visibility of Saintship is requisite to warrant the setting upon such an action as erecting of a Church; else the action for the nature of it is naught, might not be performed; Better no Church erected, than not of visible Saints: The rule is broken, sin committed. Is this granted by you? If so, why is the position quarrelled at, seeing it is all that is asserted?  
2. But why do you jumble these actions together? The raising of an Army, the erecting of a City, the setting up of a Family, and the erecting of a Church? As if they were actions of a like nature? As if visibility of Saintship to them all, were of like necessity? Do you conceive that the matter of an Army, must either be visible Saints, or there must be no Army raised? The matter of a city, visible Saints, or no city erected? Doth the nature of those actions necessarily require any such qualification in the subject persons performing them, that without such qualifications the subject persons are in a state of incapacity, according to God's true scope and intention to set upon such actions? We know you hold it not. Heathens may raise Armies, and wage war, and not sin because they do so, if the cause be just. They may erect cities, (and remain Heathens still) and not sin because they do so, for it may be their duty so to do; but may they erect a Church to God, and remain Heathens, and not sin in doing so? An Atheist and profane wicked person may buy and sell, and labour in his Calling, and not sin because he doth so, because it is his duty; but may he be one to erect a Church of, and to partake in the seal of the Lords Supper, and be an Atheist and visible person still, without sin? Men need not be Believers and Saints to warrant them to perform civil actions, or some religious actions, for irreligious wicked persons, while in that state, are called to them; but to do them with acceptation, and so as to be accounted righteous in the doing of them, they must be Believers and Saints. But to erect a Church, which is Christ's body, and is called to have communion with Christ in his body, and blood in that Supper which he instituted, is an action of another nature, and requires faith and holiness in the persons that constitute it, to warrant the constitution of it. For Church state being holy, and the Ordinance of it holy, either the subject persons must be holy also, or all will be grievously profaned, and God foully dishonoured.  
But why do you say, They should not only be visible, but real Saints; except it be to cast another mist before the eyes of the ignorant? For, if an Army were to be raised to fight on the Purliament side against the Cavaliers, you would say, it must consist of visible friends which seem sincere and cordial, else let it not be raised at all; but you would not say it must consist of real friends, for than it would not be raised at all: For, if it must consist of real friends, God must be the raiser of it, and not man, who alone knoweth who are real friends: So of a Church, if it must consist only of real friends, God alone must erect it, and man must not meddle with it.  
And though we read these phrases, Beloved of God, Elect, blessed, yet either they received these denominations from the judgement of Charity, because they seemed to be such, as Phil. 1.7. or if there were infallibility, it was applicable only to a party within the Churches whom the Apostle discerned to be such, and not to the whole Church.  
Yet we dare not use unscriptural ways and means for the procuring and preserving of Church-members sanctity; Answer. To be wise and holy above the rule, is to be foolish, profane, presumptuous, superstitious. Can you show us out of Scripture, that the Church must examine persons that come to be admitted, and that they must make any other declaration then professing of faith and repentance: and that the Congregation ought to reject such, of whose sincerity and sanctity they are not satisfied? and that the want of this care in the first constitution of a Church, doth nullify it or make it unlawful for men to join to it, or continue in it, and that it is necessary to know, that a Church was constituted of visible Saints, before he can in faith join to it, we should not differ about the sanctity of the members.  
Here is a deep charge of some things practised by us, Reply. to preserve the Church's sanctity and purity, to be foolish, profane, superstitious and presumptuous; And there are instances given, in examination of persons, whether there be the works of Grace wrought in their hearts, or no, etc.  
We answer for ourselves:  
First, there are some things fathered upon us, which we hold not: as,  
1. That there must be some further declaration besides profession of faith and repentance. We contend for no such thing, but conceive profession of faith and repentance, if in the judgement of charity it may be accounted real, if there be any thing that may serve to give witness unto it, that it is not merely verbal, may be judged sufficient.  
2. That the want of care to try the sincerity and sanctity of men, doth nullify the Church; This is an opinion which we renounce as none of ours.  
3. That we must know that a Church was constituted of visible Saints before we can in faith join to it. We hold flatly against such an assertion, and do believe a judgement may be made from the present faith and order which any Church holds forth, whether it be safe or unsafe to join to it, or to continue in it.  
Secondly, there are other things which some Churches hold and practise, which we think cannot be condemned: As that a Church must examine persons that come to be admitted, whether the work of grace be wrought within them or not. Yourself will now admit none (of whom you doubt) to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, till you have first examined them of their knowledge; and why may not we examine them of their grace? Is the Lords body discerned by knowledge most, or by grace? Faith is a grace, and faith is the best discerner of the Lords body; and if we can but find grace, we shall be sure to find knowledge: The Scripture saith, Let a man examine himself; yet you think not that sufficient, unless you examine him; if it be no scriptural way to examine others, why will you be so soolish, profane, presumptuous, superstitious? A stranger comes to the gate of a Garrison town, professeth to be a friend, yet except there be something to witness the truth of that profession, he is examined over and over again; and it is strictness that shows faithfulness to the State: And shall we be more remiss and careless when we receive persons into the Church, than we are when we receive them into a town? Our too much credulity may show too little fidelity in the matters of Christ, as well as in the business of men.  
Besides, if the Church be not a common receptacle of all persons, but that it consist of a selected number, and some are received, and others rejected, then there are certain rules of reception and rejection. And then there must be a trial made by some, whether persons be qualified according to those rules; and this the light of nature teacheth, and the rules of Reason lead to it; though there should be nothing in the Scripture expressly mentioning it. The most suitable means serving most fitly to achieve such ends, are always enjoined in the ends, though they be not particularly expressed. But what think you? Is it not as lawful to try persons that would be Church-members, and make some profession in words of saith and repentance, but hold forth nothing which may probably give witness to the reality thereof, as it was lawful and commendable in the Ephesians to try false Apostles, which professed in words to be true Apostles? Rev. 2.2. And is it not as reasonable for a Church to seek satisfaction, concerning the reality and sincerity of sanctity from persons of whom they doubt, as it was just and equal for the Church at Jerusalem to seek satisfaction concerning Saul, whether he were a Disciple in truth or in pretence only? Acts 9.26, 27.  
But you will say, there was cause of suspicion and jealousy in them, concerning him, because they knew him formerly to be a destroyer of the Church.  
And may not we say, there is cause of jealousy, when we know external profession of faith and repentance to be so common, and the fruits which are worthy of it, Mat. 3.8. to be so rare and scarce to be found?  
If the Gospel and Christian Religion was brought into England in the Apostles times, than it was like it was constituted of Saints, Answer. 
Church-covenant p. 37.  as well as the Church of Corinth, etc.  
Because it is uncertain what Congregation was at first constituted of Saints within this kingdom, and what was not, Reply. we neither justify nor condemn the constitution of any; but judge according to the present state of them. And if we see any visible Saints (as doubtless there are many in some Congregations, and united also amongst themselves,) we could wish they were all such; and in the mean time, for the sake of those few whom we see, so united, we acknowledge them a Church, and in all things so fare as they carry the ordinances uncorruptly we desire to have fellowship with them.  
The Text in 1 Cor. 1. rather shows what the members of the Church of Corinth were at the time of Paul's writing to them, Answer. then that they were on aught to have been visible Saints, at the first erection of that Church; yet it shows not, that all the Church-members he writes to, were visible Saints; for many known evil livers were known Members; The denomination of Saints, is a parce meliore, that is, from the better part, etc.  
The Text shows what they either were at first, Reply. or aught to have been, or what some of them were at that time, and aught all of them to have been, viz. sanctified in Christ, called to be Saints, as Hemingius, Gualther, Pareus upon that place do note, for they say, a definition of a Church may thence be fetched. And what rule soever there is in Scripture requiring that any be Saints, the same rule requires that all be Saints. And there may many Arguments be brought to hold it forth:  
1. The end of Church-fellowship is not conversion, but edification, Ephes. 4.11, 12. Acts 9.31. For if it were conversion, then all uncoverted one's, whether they make profession of faith and repentance or no, might enter in, that thereby they might attain one end for which they enter; as we know. Because one end of the preaching of the Word is conversion, therefore all may partake of it, Jews, Turks, Heathens, because they may attain one end whereto it serves. It is supposed then that the persons that enter into the Church are converted already.  
2. Excommunication is an ordinance in the Church, and one end of it is, to recover persons that are desperately sick, and ready to die; it is in the use of it as physic, 1 Cor. 5.5. and therefore supposeth the persons to whom applied to be alive, therefore all Church-members are to be reputed in the judgement of charity, to be living stones, 1 Pet. 2.5.  
3. If excommunication be an ordinance to throw forth visible sinners, of all sorts, than the Church should consist of visible Saints. 1. It appeareth that all scandalous gross sinners ought to be cast out from 1 Cor. 5. and that all other sinners which are not seandalous, if they will not be healed of their lesser faults, and brought to repentance, aught to be duly proceeded against until at last it come to an excommunication, Matth. 18.15, 16, etc.  
He writes to the Church called to be Saints, Answer. or called Saints, not to the 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 vers. 1. Paul called to be an Apostle,) then that they were Saints before they were a Church.  
He writes to the Church of God; Reply. and can there be a Church of God, before there be Saints? What a Church of God is that, which had no visible Saints in it when it was first constituted? Surely, except you will say, they were a Church of God while they were Heathens, you must confess, that professing to be turned by the power of the Gospel in a time of persecution from the service of Idols, to embrace the living God in Christ, they must be judged visible Saints at the first when they were a Church of God. And these words (Paul called to be an Apostle) will not avail you; for Paul was a man, and a Christian too, before an Apostle; but what would you have the Church of God to be before they were visible Saints?  
But how appeareth it that all the honourable Titles and Epithets given Paul, Answer. are given with relation to Church-members? The Corinthians were enriched by God in all utterance, etc. Will you thence conclude, that all Church-members must be so, etc.  
There are some names which show the intrinsical nature of the things to which they are given, Reply. and they do agree to all of that kind. As if one should write to the Army of such a General, called to be soldiers, this name shows the intrinsical nature of the thing to which applied. Such is the name Saint, when applied to the Church of God; but there are other names which are extrinsecall, and superadditionall to the nature of the things given to, and separable, and may be in some, and not in other of that kind: As if one should write, to the Army of such a one enriched with gold and silver, apparel, this is extrinsecall and casual, and may agree to some Armies, and not to others; such are the Epithets, 1 Cor. 5. enriched with wisdom, utterance, etc. Concerning the names, Elect, etc. we have answered them before.   

POSITION VI.  
The form of a Church, is the gathering together of these visible Saints, and combining and uniting them into one body by the form of a holy Covenant, Deut. 29 1.10, 11, 12. by which is plainly showed, that a company of people become. God's people, that is, a Church, by entering into Covenant with God. If it be said, they were a Church before; yet that was when the Church of the Iewes was constituted in Abraham's Family by Covenant.  
You intent not that this Covenant doth make a true Church, Answer. but a pure congregational Church, as it is refined according to the platform of the Gospel.  
We intent that the combination of Saints into one body by some kind of Covenant, either express or implicit, Reply. or by some kind of special bond (as Dr. Ames calls it) doth make a true Church. The seed of Jacob, and the Sechemites could not make a Church together, Gen. 34.15, 16. but by becoming one, and they could not become one, but by coming into the same Covenant, therefore they say (though deceitfully, for they never meant it; yet therein they show how such a thing could only be done,) if you will be as we be, that every male be circumcised, than we will become one people; and we would demand, had those Sechemites been Believers, and had this business been carried without guile, whether they had not by this doing become one Church?  
We conceive relation or combination into one unto domestic ends and purposes is the form of a Family, and relation and combination into one unto politic and civil ends and purposes is the form of a Commonwealth, and relation and combination of one man and one woman unto conjugal ends and purposes is the form of matrimonial state; and that covenant always makes this relation and combination into oneness, where the persons are free from each other, and no natural tie amongst them; and so relation and combination of so many Saints as do, or may well meet in one place, unto religious ends, 〈◊〉 the enjoyment of Church-ordinances, doth make a church; and because the persons are free from one another, therefore covenant or agreement together (which is all one) must make the relation.  
A solemn express and verbal covenant or agreement (we assert) to be necessary unto the purity and strength of a Church, and so consequently unto the wellbeing of a Church; for how Saints (and they alone) living promiscuously in the world, should yet be severed from the world, with which they be in habitation mingled; and how they (even they alone) should have communion together in all holy ordinances, without express verbal consent, we cannot conceive; which yet we judge aught to be, if the rule be well attended, which saith, Nothing shall enter into the holy city which defileth, Rev. 21.27. & 22.14. And how such looseness which is in our Parish-churches [from which any may departed to another Parish-church, without rendering any reason (removing their habitation, it may be but a stones cast,)] which we conceive to be a great evil: (For the members in a natural body are not so loosely jointed, nor stones in any house so loosely set, unto which yet a particular Church is compared, Eph. 2.22. and 1 Cor. 12.27.) How this evil may be prevented but by express agreement, we cannot apprehend; and therefore conceive such a covenant to be necessary to such purposes.  
A Church-covenant s especially in relation to Church-estate, Answer. and Church duties (as a marriage-covenant is with relation to the marriage state and marriage duties) but the Covenant here enentioned, was not entered into in reference to Church estate, and Church duties, rather than to other duties of the moral Law, and may be taken by two or three, though they be too few to make a Church, or by persons of several Churches, in a ship or a journey, and yet leave them in the same Church-state they were before, and not make them members of a distinct Church.  
A Church-covenant is especially in relation to Church duties, Reply. but not only so; for Christian duties are comprehended under it; and the Covenant in Deut. 29.1.10, 11, 12. respects principally Church-duties, more than other duties of the moral Law, as appears from vers. 16, 17, 18. for he warns them of Heathenish worships, such which they had seen in Egypt, and among the Nations, and would engage them by holy covenant to all Gods holy worships, which were of his own institution, of which were the worship and service of the Passeover, and all the offerings of God's prescription, which were to be brought to the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation; and the covenant of two or three to perform such duties might not be taken, because some of them did seal their union and communion with that body, and were to be celebrated when the whole body was assembled. And though a covenant binding to the performance of some of the duties of the moral Law, may be made by two or three, and by persons of several Churches, and yet leave them in the same Church-state, and not make them members of a distinct Church from what they were of before, yet not so a covenant that binds to Church-duties, as if a company of persons of divers churches should covenant to meet together, to pray one with another, this would not make them a Church, nor change their state; but if they covenant to walk together in the constant enjoyment of all Church-ordinances, which God requires of a Church; this would make them a Church, and change their state, that afterwards they could not be of divers Churches, but of the same Church and Body.  
A Covenant in general doth not make a Church (nor a marriage, Answer. a Covenant betwixt this man and that woman makes it) but a Covenant with appropriation and application to this, or that Pastor or people, but the Scripture covenants are not with appropriation and application to this Pastor or people (viz.) that they would serve God with this people or Pastor, rather than with that; therefore they are not Church-covenants.  
Who ever read or heard of any Covenant in general of duties to be done, Reply. without application to persons mutually engaged to perform such duties? As a covenant of duties in a marriage would be ridiculous without application to persons, this man, or that woman to be engaged to perform such duties, so is any covenant. The covenants in Scripture were no such covenants; they were applied to Israel, and to the Gentiles that should join to Israel, and appropriated to them also: So that they were a separated people from other Nations by covenant, Exod. 12.47, 48. the Passeover was a service which all the house of Israel was engaged to perform together, and all that would join to them, and by circumcision they became one people with them; but no stranger might partake with them, so that the Jews by the Covenant of God, were to serve God, rather with this people, then with that.  
That a covenant makes a Church with appropriation to this or that Pastor, is denied: for we hold it a consequent privilege of a Church (whether constituted by verbal covenant or not) to choose their own Pastor; therefore the Church is first, before it hath a Pastor: this is confessed by yourself, page 13. if it were not so, the Church would be dissolved at the death of the Pastor; there is a covenant between the Pastor and people, but it is emergent, and groweth out, and proceeds from the Covenant among the people; the people must first be one before they can agree in one, to choose their Pastor, with whom they afterwards enter into covenant: There was a covenant with Abraham and his house, by virtue of which, Israel was the Lord's people in Egypt, before there were any Pastors to be over them; therefore Church-covenant there was in Scripture, without application to Pastors. And it was so in the Wilderness also at the first before Aaron and his sons were chosen.  
To be God's people, Answer. and God's Church, is not all one in your sense. Forty Believers of no Church, or of forty several Churches, are the Lords people, but they are not an instituted Church.  
To be one people unto God, Reply. in a professed solemn way, (which is done by entering into covenant with God) and to be a Church, is all one. Now this is that which is asserted from Deut. 29.12, 13. That thou shouldest enter into covenant with the Lord thy God, that be may establish thee this day for a people, (or one people) to himself, in a professed way: So by the Covenant of circumcision, (for so it was called, because it was the seal of it) the Seehemites were to become one people to God, and to the seed of Jacob, Gen. 34.15, 16.  
No Covenant in Scripture was at the founding of the Jewish Church, Answer. nor of the Christian Church, nor at the adding any members to them: neither did they make a Church more truly a Church, or politic Society, or more truly members, but did make them or show them to be more pure and holy servants of God; even as when single persons or families do covenant with God.  
1. If there were no covenant at the founding of the Jewish church, Reply. how comes it that all that entered into the jewish Church of the proselyted Gentiles, entered by the Seal of the Covenant, which was Circumcision? doth not the way of augmentation of the Church show the way of the first constitution thereof? So it may be spoken of Christian Churches: why are converted Heathens, and the Infants of Church-members, brought into the Church by baptism? which is a Church-ordinance, and the seal of the Covenant of grace, and of that part of it principally which respects Church-society.  
2. How do those which were many, become one among themselves, and distinct from all other bodies of the same kind, (as Corinth was one in itself, and distinct from Cenchrea: (for parishbounds were not then on foot) so that the members of one were not the members of the other; nor the Officers of one the officers of the other) if there be nothing that knits them together among themselves, and divides them asunder from others? and if any thing combine them, what can it be but some agreement or covenant express or implicit? Why must circumcision the seal of the Covenant be used to make the Sechemites one people with jacob's family, if jacob's family, or Isaak's, or Abrabam's before that, were one unto all holy Church-worships among themselves without covenant?  
3. Did the joining of the believing Gentiles to the family of Abraham by circumcision, make them no more truly members of the church of Israel, than they were before, only make them, and show them to be more pure and holy servants of God? were they not accounted after circumcision of the Jews Commonwealth, and were invested into all the Jews spiritual privileges? which they had no right to before, though they were converted persons, and Gods servants.  
4. We conceive that Abraham and his family were not in Church state, and professedly and openly separated from the world till the Covenant in Gen. 17. at which time, by a mark in his flesh, he was distinguished from all the nations, and became God's household; if this be so then, Church state is founded in Covenant, if it be otherwise, let it appear that he was in Church state before that time, and we shall look out for a Covenant before that time: That which induceth us thus to think, is, 

1. Because we read nothing of Abraham's family, that they were a professed people unto God before that time.  
2. We read not of any Symbol of Church state by which Abrabam and his family were separated from the rest of the world, before circumcision, which was a token in their flesh to distinguish them from the nations round about them.  
3. This distinguished him and his family not from the world alone, but from other believers of his time, Melchisedeck and Lot, which though holy men, yet not in his state, nor had his privileges. But this Argument from circumcision is encountered with in your answer that follows.    
The Covenant in Gen. 17. is taken only for God's part of the Covenant, Answer. or his promise to Abraham, Gal. 3.16, 17. not for man's part to God.  
While you charge us of misinterpreting the Scriptures, Reply. it stands you upon to be wary that yourself run not into that error. Paul, Gal. 3.16. with vers. 8. (as Peter, Acts 3.25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, rendered well there, and in thy seed) seems to make use of the promise of God made to Abraham and his seed in the Covenant, Gen. 12.3. and 22.16.18. The Apostle there had no occasion to speak of the restipulation on Abraham's part, and in Gen. 17.1.9. 'tis manifest, that that Covenant was reciprocal, as Junius and Pareus do observe upon that place; but you check yourself, as if overbold, and therefore say,  
Indeed, Answer. receiving of circumcision doth import a Covenant on Abraham's part, or consent to the Covenant, as baptism also doth: but it is held they were in Church state before they had right to circumcision; therefore you should show they made a Covenant before circumcision.  
Circumcision (being but the sign and seal of the covenant betwixt God and Abraham) doth argue necessarily that there was a covenant before, Reply. of which it was the sign and seal: and we would demand, whether Isaac were not in covenant before he was circumcised? and whether his circumcision did not seal so much? and always this order is supposed: First, God's promise: Secondly, man's faith: Thirdly, the sign and seal of both in some Symbol of God's institution, so in Baptism.  
How prove you that Melchisedeck a Priest, and Lot, Answer. which were not of his seed nor family, were out of Church-state? That a believer is not a son of Abraham, if he be not in Church state by covenant? which things you seem to imply, when you say, the Jewish Church was constituted in Abraham's family by Church-covenant; the family of Sem was the Church of God long before this.  
1. We assert not that they were out of Church-state; Reply. but this we say, if they were not circumcised, (as we read not that they were) they were not of Abraham's Church, nor had the Passeover been on foot, could they have partaked of it, any more than Believers could afterward, who joined not to Abraham's family. Cornelius may be an example.  
2. It is one thing to be a son of Abraham as a Believer, and heir of promise, for so all Believers are, and an Heathen is, when converted, before joined to any instituted Church; and another thing to be the son of Abraham as a professed Covenanter with God, and bearing the Symbol of it in his flesh: in the former sense, Abraham was the father of all Believers, though uncircumcised, and in the latter a father of the circumcised, which were also of his faith; as the Apostle shows, Rom 4.11.12.  
3. Though it be probable that there was a Church in the famimily of Sem, yet that place, Gen. 9.26, 27. proves it not: for, first, it is prophetical of the posterity of Sem and Japhet, and respects not (so far as we can discern) the persons of Sem and Japhet (at least not at that time) being both (as is probable) in the family of their father Noah: Secondly, there might be a Church in Sems' family, and yet of another constitution than this in Abraham's family; this hinders not, but that the church in Abraham's family might be constituted by covenant.   

POSITION VII.  
Every Member at his admission, 
See the like allegation in Answer to Pos. 9 p. 73.  doth promise to give himself as to the Lord, to be guided by him; so to the Church, to be guided by them; which is no more than the Members of the Church of Macedonia did in a parallel case, 2 Cor. 8.5.  
The givers are not the Members of the Church of Macedonia, Answer. (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.  
1. The allegation in answer to the 9th Position, Reply. pag. 73. runs in these words, As to the Lord to be guided by him, so to the Church (according to God) to be guided by them; these words (according to God) are lest out; whether wilfully to make the practice of our Churches the more odious, or by oversight we conclude not.  
2. There was no intent to prove Union or Covenant of a Church, but subjection of each member to the Church to which he is joined himself, and the officers thereof; and the practice of the Churches of Macedonia (by way of allusion) is made use of: it is said, it is no more, than the members of the Church of Macedonia did in a parallel case: The Argument is fetched à comparatis: the members of the Church of Macedonia did as much in a like case,; they gave themselves to the Lord, and to the Apostle and Timothy, according to Gods will, to be guided by the Lord, and directed by them; a whole Church, or Churches to one or two persons gave themselves; and an Argument is fetched thence, thus, then may one person that is to join to a Church, as fitly give himself to the Lord, to be guided by him, and to the whole Church and the Officers thereof to be directed by them, according to the will of God; and it is urged, that a member should therefore promiseit; and to call it Church of Macedonia, or churches, is neither advantageous nor disadvantageous; for though many Churches gave themselves to be guided by one Paul, because he was Officer to them all, yet a members subjection will be only required to his own Church, and the Officers thereof, because there is no superiority of jurisdiction of one Church over another, and the members thereof. We believe you would be ready enough to make use of this pattern, to prove that the members of a Congregation must submit to the guidance of their Pastors; and why do you except against it, because subjection of each member to the Church, is endeavoured to be proved thence, seeing that the Church compriseth the Officers thereof?   

POSITION VIII.  
This particular Congregation is a Church before it have Officers, Acts 2.47.  
In a general sense, a few private men without Officers; yea, Answer. a few women without men; yea, twenty members of several Churches may be called a Church; but a governing Church they are not; the Church hath not received an office of rule without her Officers, 
(b) Cottons Keys, p. 16. Reply.   
We take Churches for such churches, Reply. as the Apostles planted in all places, when they had converted any considerable number of persons, into which Saints were wont to be gathered, that they might be built up and edified by the Ordinances, Acts 9.31. and unto which Pastors were given to reside with them, and to oversee them, Acts 20.28. and these must be congregational Churches; for Pastors cannot constantly feed any other. Or, we take Church as Amesius defines it, 
* A company of faithful ones by special bond betwixt themselves joined together, to exercise the communion of Saints constantly amongst themselves.  Coetus sidelium speciali vinculo inter se conjunctorum ad communionem sanctor 'em inter se constanter exercendam, such an united company is the Church, before it have Officers, for it is their privilege to choose their Officers, (as you confess in your Answer to the next Position) in which sense (if in any sense at all) a few private men, or a few women, or twenty members of several churches, have never been called a Church.  
Now whether this congregational church be a Governing church or not, because it is not asserted in the Position, we have no occasion here of discussing it.  
The Church in Acts 2. had Officers, Answer. and better Officers than any Church now hath, even the Apostles which were the Elders of all Churches, 1 Pet. 5.1. 2 Cor. 11.28. 
(d) The Apostles were as Elders and Rulers of all Churches, Cotton Keys p. 48  and particularly of the Church of Jerusalem; and did act therein as Elders; it is not all one to want Elders now they are instituted, as before; ordinary Elders were not appointed at that time.  
There is a concession that the Church, Reply. Acts 2. bade not ordinary Officers, for none were then appointed; and yet they were a church, and Acts 14.23. shows so much they were churches before the Apostles ordained Elders in them, and this is all that the Position drives at.  
And though there were general Elders which had inspection over all Churches; yet neither these, nor any other Elders do 
* Come into the essence of Churches.  ingredi essentiam Ecclesiarum; nor is it any formal reason why a Company of Believers are a Church, because they have Elders, whether extraordinary or ordinary; for were it so, than their privilege to choose their Officers, would be when they have Officers, for than they are a Church; and it would follow, that they cannot choose Officers when they want them, and have most need of them, for than they are not a Church, and so can have no such power; and it is very uncomfortable; for the death of an Officer, might be the unchurching of a people.  
But that which may give more satisfaction in this matter is the consideration of such Scriptures where the members mentioned apart from the Officers, are called the Church of God, Acts 20.28. the Elders are the persons spoken to, feed the flock over which the holy Ghost hath made you overseers, the believing Ephesians are the flock, who are also called the Church of God, purchased with his blood. 
* Acts 20. vers. 28.  So Phil. 1.1. So that a Christian people, united together with an intent of constant congregating to enjoy Ordinances for their edification, are a church without officers; or if they have them, yet without consideration of them.   

POSITION IX.  
She hath also full and free power to choose her own Officers without the help of Synod, 
This, though not so fully, is asserted by R.M. & W.T. to C. H.  Classis or Presbytery, Act. 1.15. Acts. 6.3. & 14.23.  
In Church-affairs, Answer. of weighty and difficult common concernment, as election and ordination of Elders, excommunication of an Elder, it is safe and wholesome and an boly Ordinance to proceed with consultation and consent of the churches, Prov. 11.14. 
(p) Cottons Keys, p. 55. Reply.   
This Position saith not that a particular Congregation or Church of Brethren have full and free power to choose her own Officers without ask or seeking the help of advice and direction from Synod, Classis, or Presbytery: nor do we think that there is any such meaning in it; but without authoritative help of a Synod, Classis, or Presbytery; for in all those places of the Acts, the churches had the help of direction: but they were not strengthened by the interposition of the authority of the Apostles, or of any other.  
You will not take upon you hastily to censure the many notable precedents of ancient and latter Synods, Answer. who have put forth the Acts of power in ordination and excommunication. 
(q) Cottons Keys, p. 28. Reply.   

1. The grave Author of this speech meddles not with election in that place quoted, but this Position runs of election.  
2. He keeps himself from an hasty and peremptory censuring of ancient precedents, who have put forth acts of power in ordination and excommunication; but he declares his opinion against it, and we approve as well of his modesty, as we do agree with him in his judgement.   
We hold it a privilege of the people (especially if they proceed wisely and piously) to elect their Officers, Answer. and an injury to obtrude any on them without their consent.  
1. What people are these that have this privilege? Reply. 
Cottons Keys, pag. 12.  the Author whom you make use of so oft, calls them Church of Brethren; is it a people-priviledge, or a church-priviledge to choose Ecclesiastical Officers?  
2. What if they do not proceed wisely and piously? is their privilege lost? must it be taken from them? and than it would be no injury to obtrude an Officer on them. It is an Officers privilege to rule the Church; but what if he do it not wisely and piously? is the privilege then lost? it is a Master of a Family's privilege to rule his own house: but what if he do it not wisely and piously, must it now be taken from him? or rather must he not be directed and exhorted to do it rightly? and the privilege remain still with him? so of the people; we have Junius of our mind herein. 
(a) Junius Eccles. p. 1963 Answer.   
But let us view your Scriptures.  
Seeing that you agree with us in the substance of the Position, Reply. and yet immediately bring all the Scriptures brought by us to strengthen the same into question, and none of them will pass for currant with you, it had been convenient, that you should have produced the Scriptures which do sway you unto the asserting of the same thing, that it might have appeared to the world, that you have found out some better bottom to set such a tenet on, than we have produced: For we conceive, that if the Scriptures you oppugn are not pertinent to prove the Position, there will be none found in all the new Testament, but they will be more liable to exception then these; and it is to be noted, that all our modern Writers (that we know of) that grant any liberty to the people of choosing their own Officers, they do it upon the evidence of these Scriptures which are excepted against; in so much that we know not what should be the reason why you grant the thing alleged, and bring no proofs of your own to confirm it; and yet allow not of ours which we bring, except you be resolved to contradict all that comes from us. But what are your exceptions? let us prove what weight is in them; you say,  
The Assembly, Answer. Acts 1. it is likely was not a body politic, but occasional only, no part of Church-government being as yet set on foot: here were not all, but some of the sounder members of the Jewish Church; and they had no commission to separate from the Jews, before Acts 2.40. the Company was not without Elders: all the Churches and Elder at that time in the world were present: if there had been any more Elders they must have convened upon that occasion; the choice was limited by the Apostle Peter; First, to the persons present: Secondly, to those that accompanied the Apostles all the time, etc. and was determined by God whose it was to choose an Apostle, by his directing of the lot.  
The meaning is, Reply. they were not a Christian Church, but some of the sounder members of the Jewish Church; and not yet separated from the Jewish Church; and then,  
1. There is a contradiction unto some other of the exceptions which follow: If they were no Christian Church, how were the Apostles Elders of it? and how was it an Ecumenical council, all the Churches and Elders in the world being at it?  
2. Is there not some mistake in point of truth? For those persons who were commanded to separate, Acts 2.40. were they added unto such which were not separated? The Text saith, there were added to them, three thousand fouls: (to them) to whom? to those who are yet members of the Jewish church? then these separated ones, who were added, were members of the Jewish church by their addition; for they came into their state to whom they were added; and so they were separated, and not separated; which yet agrees not to vers. 47. where they are all together called a Church.  
3. It is impertinently alleged that the company was not without Elders, the Apostles were present: For was the company straitened in their liberty by the presence of these Elders? or rather were they not acquainted with their privilege in this matter by these Elders? When as else they might not have known it: but you say a little after they were limited; but what is this limiting? nothing else but necessary direction: and the limitation is but in one thing, though you would have it in two; the words are these, Wherefore of these that have accompanied us, etc. For aught that appears, all that had accompanied them were present; and who could be so sit to be an Apostle, as one of those who had accompanied them, 1 Joh. 1.1.  
4. If the election of an Apostle did belong to God, in reference to the particular person; yet they proceeded as far as they could therein, and agreed in the denomination of two, and when the lot determined whether of the two should be the man, the Text saith, vers. 26. by the common suffrage of them all, Mathias was numbered among the eleven Apostles.  
5. If all Elders and Churches must conveen upon occasion of electing of an Apostle, because he is Pastor of all Churches, why must they not be gathered together upon occasion of ordaining an Apostle? But we read but of one Church and the Elders thereof present at the onlaining of Paul, Acts 13.2.3.23. whereupon Paul calls himself, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Rom. 1.1.  
As for the Deacons and Overseers for the power, Answer. though people may better discern of men's fitness and ability for that Office then for the Ministry.  
Why are Deacons and Overseers for the poor made Synonymies and confounded? Reply. is this the reason, to make the world believe that we have had Deacons amongst us, because we have had Overseers for the poor? but if we have had Deacons, when were they ordained? who ever put their hands upon them according to the pattern, Acts 6.6. or are they called so, because their work is only to oversee the poor? we conceive their office extends further: But of that in its own place.  
It is added, Answer. The people can better discern, etc.  

1. They had direction to enable them to discern aright in choosing Deacons, Reply. and by direction they will be able to discern aright in choosing other Officers.  
2. A godly people or church rightly constituted for the matter, will be able to discern of wholesome and powerful Doctrine: and if they want skill to judge of humane learning, they may with little ado be informed.  
3. If your meaning be, that upon this ground the people may choose Deacons, but not other Officers; you might have done well to have limited what you before granted, and in stead of saying, We hold it the privilege of the people, to choose their own Officers, you would have said; We hold it the privilege of the people to choase their own Deacons, but no Officers else.   
And their liberty of choosing was a good means at that time to abate their discontentments because of former neglect. Answer.  

1. Then it was granted to them of courtesy, Reply. and out of policy, and it did no way belong unto them; why then did you say before, We hold it the privilege of the people?  
2. Doth any thing appear to make this a reason that this liberty was granted to them? Would not they have been as well pleased, if the Apostles had done it, if it belonged to the Apostles and not to them? they all knew the Apostles were more able to choose than they, and what the Apostles did, gave better content; for all magnified the Apostles; besides, is it likely that the Apostles would nourish a sinful humour of discontent in the people, by giving them a privilege that belonged not to them? Good brother, take heed how you attempt to evade the strength of plain scriptural proofs, by such dangerous glosses as these.   
Yet at their election, Answer. there were all the Churches and Elders in the world.  
The meaning is, Reply. there was but one Church, and the Elders thereof, at that time in the world, and they were there. It is true, the members were there, for the Brethren were they that elected, and the Apostles were there, which were extraordinary Elders, for they were the persons that directed; but what did they act further? Did they interpose their authority in election? Did they take it out of the brethren's hards? Did they not manifestly put it into their hands? in commanding them to look out seven men, etc. Acts 6.3.  
Answer. Yourselves acknowledge Synods an Ordinance of Christ in sundry cases.  
Reply. Not the Authority of Synods by way of jurisdiction in any case;  
Answer. Paul and Barnabas ordained Eders by suffrages given by lifting up and stretching out of hands, (for so the Greek word signifies) but that the people did ordain Elders by election, without the Apostles, it saith not, but rather the contrary, (viz.) that they stayed from election and ordination of Elders, till the Apostles came to advise and assist them therein; the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth rather to give, then to gather saffrages; as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth imply the election of more Churches than one, and yet it imports the election of no more Churches than those there spoken of; so the phrase (Paul and Barnabas, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) doth not imply that any Church, or other person, besides Paul and Barnabas, did elect these Presbyters.  
1. We do not affirm that the people did it without the Apostles: Reply. For we conceive the Apostles guided them, as at other times they had done other Churches.  
2. Concerning their staying from election and ordination, we read not of it, and therefore dare conclude nothing about it: concerning their advising, we grant it; but what other assistance they assorded we understand not, unless it be said, that they led the people by their own suffrage, and so they might give their suffrage, as you say the word signifies, and yet gather the people's also. But that they should give their own suffrage, by lifting up their own hands, without the peoples, seems unreasonable: For when hath it ever been known, that two persons alone, in the presence of many others have gone to voting, by lifting up of hands? the one must gather the vote, and the other must give it; that is, the one must say to the other, Paul to Barnabas, If thou be for such a man to be Elder in this Church, manifest it by lifting up thy hand; and Barnabas must say to Paul, If thou be for him, or for any other, dielare it by lifting up thy hand; a most ridiculous course: was ever suffrages so gathered and given, when but one man to gather, and another to give? might not two persons better have gone apart, and concluded the business by counsel betwixt themselves, then to have gone to it by suffrage and stretching out of hands, in the presence of so many, except there had been some greater plurality of persons? There is room enough without absurdity for Churches, though but two or three to go to voting in a business, that is common to them; and therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is applicative to them; but there is no place with any colour of reason, why two persons should go to voting: when any thing is put to vote, or lifting up of hands, the end of it is, that the business may that way be cast; but two persons may end it by agreement, when as by vote they cannot, if they be opposite to one another.   

POSITION X.  
The particular Congregation, 
This Scripture is alleged by R. M. and W. T. to C. H. & answ. to 32. q. p. 69.  though they want Officers, have power and authority to ordain Officers, as the children of Israel did put their hands upon the Lovites, Numb. 8.9, 10.  
That Congregation had Officers, Answer. Aaron the High Priest, and many other Priests, Numb. 3.4. But you hold not that people may ordain in the presence and plenty of Officers.  
1. Though they had Officers, Reply. viz. Aaron and his Sons, yet those Officers could not lay their hands upon them for a special reason; and therefore they were as without Officers: the reason was this, the Levites were given to God, and they were given to Aaron and his sons, they were given to God's service, & they were given to Aaron's service, and therefore they must be presented not by Aaron and his sons, but before them, Numb. 8.13. Aaron and his sons must be the person that must (as it were) receive them, therefore not lay their bands on them, for that was the work of those that offered them, and gave them, and not the work of those that must receive them; this appears from Numb. 3.6, 7. and Numb 8.13. with 19.2. Will it not hold, à majore, from the greater, that if in the old Testament the people did ordain in the presence of Officers, than they may in the new much more in the want of Officers?  
All the children of Israel being about 600000, Answer. did not probably lay hands on the Levites, but some in stead of the rest, which were more likely to be the Elders than any other.  
You might have said, could not possibly at once do it; Reply. therefore of necessity some in stead of the rest did it, and probably the Elders. But what Elders? Ecclesiastical Elders? there were none but Aaron and his sans; and they did it not, as is manifest from the Text, and for the reason rendered; they were therefore Civil Elders: but not as Elders: For you hold not that it belongs to Civil Elders (as Civil Elders) to lay on hands in ordination: but as they were the chief and principal men of the Congregation: and we hold the gravest and wisest, and primest of the Congregation ought to do it, on the behalf of the rest, when there is a want of Ecclesiastical Officers.  
All the Congregation, Answer. and all the Elders of the Congregation are all one, Exod. 12.3. with vers. 21.  
1. It doth not appear from the Text alleged, Reply. that they are all one, but distinguished (though they all are one body, yet these as Officers, those as Members:) For, when God saith, speak ye unto the Congregation of the children of Israel; he meant really that the Congregation of Israel should be spoken to, and not the Elders only; for the ordinance was as well appertaining to the Congregation, as to the Elders; and when Moses, vers. 21. spoke to the Elders only, yet it was with reference to God's command, in vers. 3. that all the Congregation might be spoken to; they fulfil God's commandment, speak to the Congregation, but not immediately, but by the Elders. Doth this confound Congregations and Elders? For, if God had meant Elders by the Congregation, than the Elders killing the Passeover, though the people had not done it, yet God's command had been fulfilled; which is untrue.  
2. Though the Congregation and the Elders should be all one; yet is the Congregation and the Ecclesiastical Elders all one? if the Text you allege prove not that, it is nothing to your purpose.  
3. If the Congregation and the Elders should be all one in some places, yet in Numb. 8.9, 10. they are not all one: For Aaron and his sons were the only Ecclesiastical Elders; and they are mentioned distinctly from the Congregation of Israel.  
The Levites were separated to their work, Answer. an't taken from amongst the children of Israel, cleansed and offered before the Lord by Moses and Aaron respectively, according to God's express appointment, vers. 6.7.8.11.13.14. therefore this laying on of hands was either only obediential for approbation of God's election, or for oblation of the Levites to God in stead of their first born, vers. 16.17, 18. as they laid hands on sacrifices, vers. 12. which was a special reason, and peculiar to those times.  
obediential certainly it was, Reply. but principally for another reason (as we conceive) which you omit; the service of the Levites was the service of the children of Israel; which formerly the first born were wont to perform; now God had chosen the Levites in stead of the first born, to do that service, which Israel should have done by their first born; therefore Israel must lay their hands upon them, that is, put that work upon them which was theirs: For as the laying on of the hands on the sacrifice, did put the sins on the sacrifice, and so upon Christ; so the laying on of hands, did put the service upon the Levites, see Numb. 3.7. & Numb. 8.18, 19 and herein there is a parity: for the service of the Ministry is the service of the Church; and the Officers which the Church hath, performs it for the Church; and the Church when she puts her hands upon the Officers, puts the service upon the Officers; and yet this reason would neither have been good then in the presence of the Officers (had there not been a special reason for it,) nor is it good now, when the Church hath Officers; because the Officers are to transact her affairs for her.  
If the people did ordain the Levites, Answer. I am sure they did not choose them: If this be a binding pattern, you will lose Election while you contend for popular ordination.  
Such a sleight conclusion will not so soon wring away election from the people. Reply. We have examples enough in the new Testament for such a privilege, to settle it upon them more firmly than so. We need not fly to the old Testament for patterns for it; if you can but produce one instance from the new Testament that ever Elders of one Church ordained Officers in another, or any good reason for it grounded thence; the controversy about ordination shall be ended betwixt us; and the pattern of Numb. 8. shall be waved.  
You tell us that it is a pillar of Popery to proportion the Church now, Answer. to the outward policy of Israel.  
It is notoriously known, Reply. that the foundation of the Antichristian Hierarchy is laid in the proportion which some would have betwixt the Jewish policy, and the policy of the Christian Church; yet this debars not, but that use may be made of the old Testament, where the new is silent. Do not you rest upon the new Testament for the change of the Seal of the Covenant, and conclude Baptism is to be embraced in stead of Circumcision, because the new is clear in that matter? and yet run to the old, to find out the latitude and extent in the application of it to the subject; and conclude, Infants must be baptised, not because the new expressly saith so, but because you find it in the old: The Jews children were circumcised, therefore Christian's children must be baptised.  
You tell us, that Christ's faithfulness above Moses, Answer. consists in as full determination of God's worship in the new Testament; and that we are as strictly tied to the Gospel-pattern, as the Jews were to the old Testament. Why then should we in ordination of Officers, be guided by the old Testament, and not by the new?  
It is our Argument against those that hold that there is no platform of discipline laid down in the new Testament, Reply. but that any is lawful that the State will authorise: but it was never asserted by us, that all things without limitation are directly determined; for we have always restrained it to substantials; neither have we ever said, that we have had a perfect knowledge of all things that are revealed.  
And why should we follow the ordination of Levites rather than of Priests for a pattern, for the ordination of Elders; Answer. except to gratify you?  
You cannot gratify us by following the one or the other, Reply. because ye cannot advantage yourselves, whether of them soever ye betake yourselves unto: For, 

1. If the people laid their hands upon the Levites, there were no hands at all laid upon the Priests: they were anointed and consecrated, and holy vestments put upon them, but ordained by the imposition of hands, they were not: but you would not have ordination of Elders turned into a consecration after the manner of the Priests.  
2. What was done to the Priests, was not performed by any Ecclesiastical person, but by Moses the chief Magistrate of the people: but you are not so weary of ordination, as to transfer it from the Presbytery to the Magistracy.  
3. The Elders of the new Testament are rather the successors of the Levites, then of the Priests; because there is no Hierarchy amongst them; and therefore the pattern of their ordination, is rather to be followed then the ordination of the Priests, and yet not to gratify us. Consult better the next time with Scripture, before you proceed to such triumphing.     

POSITION XI.  
When the Apostles were sent out by Christ, 
The words of the Answer to 32. q. p. 71.  there was no mention of Ordination in that Commission of theirs, but only of teaching and baptising, Mark. 16.15. Matth. 18.19, 20. If Ordination of Ministers had been such a special work, there would be like have been some mention of it in their Commission.  
Neither is there mention of the celebration of the Eucharist. Answer.  
The Eucharist is an ordinance, Reply. sealing the same Covenant that Baptism sealeth; therefore the Apostles having Commission for the one, could not want it for the other, though it be not mentioned.  
Preaching and Baptising were first to be done to the Nations, Answer. therefore they are there mentioned.  
That is not the sole reason: Reply. but because they were principal works, and in reference to the subject persons about which they were exercised more Apostolical; for they might preach and baptise in all the world: whereas ordinary Officers, in an ordinary way, may not do such works in all the world, but only in the Church.  
We find the Apostles did practise ordination, Answer. and yet we suppose they went not beyond their Commission, Acts 6. & c. 13. & 14. and a Commission to Elders we read, 1 Tim. 5.  
The Position saith not, Reply. that ordination was not within their Commission, but saith, That there is no mention thereof, when they first received their Commission, and the page out of which the Position is exerted, makes mention of some other works, within their Commission, not mentioned, viz. Prayer; and Acts 6.4. is quoted for it.  
But indeed, Brother, you are injurious to the Authors of those words of the Answer to 32. q. p. 71. for Ordination is not denied to be within the Commission of the Apostles, but those Reverend men do grapple with hierarchical persons, in that place; and we see no reason why you should take offence thereat, if you would not have yourself judged to be one of them; their words are these: Some, indeed, have so highly advanced ordination, that they have preferred it above preaching, ministering of Sacraments, Prayer; making it, and the power of excommunication, the two incommunicable prerogatieves of a Bishop, above an ordinary Minister; who are these sons? Prelatical men's: against them, the Authors of the Position fight: And first would beat them with the words of the Apostles first Commission, which was to preach and to baptise; and afterwards they do show, that preaching was the great work that they were to attend upon; and do allege 1 Cor. 1.17. for it; and next after preaching they mention prayer, and allege Acts 6.4. and then they speak of the Sacraments, not of Baptism alone, but of the Lords Supper; So that Brother, you had no reason to take such offence because of the Eucharist, for they gave it its due place in the Apostles Commission; after this, they render another reason, why preaching was a greater work than ordaining, because Paul went about the work of preaching, and left Titus (an inferior Officer to himself) to the work of ordaining.  
Indeed afterwards, when those Reverend men had proved that ordination was not superior to Preaching, Baptism, etc. they then endeavour to show, that it is not equal to those works, so as that none but those which may perform those works, may ordain; and they bring this Argument: Ordination being nothing else but the accomplishment of Election, it may be performed by the people of God, (who yet have no office,) even as Election may upon whom it depends: and they bring the testimonies of many Protestant Writers, among the rest, D. Whitakers Answer to Bellarmine, If Bellarmine grant the calling of those Bishops to be lawful, there is less cause why we should doubt of Ordination: For those who have the authority of calling, they have also the authority of ordaining, if a right ordination cannot be obtained; for Ordination follows Vocation: he that is called (by calling he means election) is, as it were, sent into the possession of his function.  
You intimate that special works which the people might not do, Answer. are mentioned in that Commission, which if you stand to, you must deny the people power, either to baptise or to preach; if these words be not a Commission to the Apostles and Elders to ordain, I am sure they are no commission to un-officed men to preach or to ordain.  
We conceive we differ not much from you in this matter, Reply. we are utterly against un-officed men's baptising, and against their preaching in ordinary, except when they have been trained up to learning, and to the knowledge of the Scriptures, and are expectants of a call to execute the Ministry; and yourselves in this case grant it; and you put difference betwixt preaching and baptising, though they be joined together in the Apostles Commission, for in no case will you let an un-officed man baptise, and yet for trial of gifts you think it fit to suffer an un-officed man to preach, from 1 Tim. 3.10.   

POSITION XII. 
If that need so require, she may admonish her Officers, and excommunicate. etc. T. W. to W. R. p. 39   
The Church hath power to censure her Officers if she see just occasion, Col. 4.17.  
The Church at Coloss had other Elders besides Archippus, Answer. which might join with the people in admonition.  
1. Reply. What Officers there were in that Church, or with that Church at that time, appears not.  
2. The command is directed to the Church without express consideration of any Officers amongst them, and though there should be Officers, yet the Brethren are not thereby excluded from joining with the Officers in that which is commanded, Col. 4.17.  
Paul bids Timothy fulfil his Ministry, Answer. 2 Tim. 4.5. this doth not suppose Timothy to be faulty, or to be under censure: And it may be Archippus, Paul's fellow-labourer, (Philemon, vers. 2.) was not faulty, and then this admonition was no censure; and therefore it is alleged to no purpose.  
1. Reply. Expositors do judge him faulty; see Zanchy upon that place.  
2. The Apostle saith to Timothy, make full proof of thy ministry, but bids them say to Archippus, fulfil it. Now there is difference betwixt these two; the former respects persons, himself and others, whom he should assure of it; the latter respects the work itself in duties of it; and the one of these may also be without the other.  
3. It is one thing when the Apostle a superior, writing to a person and inferior, and one who did depend upon him, gives him much good counsel, and amongst other things, enjoins him to make full proof of his ministry, and another thing, when the Apostle writing to a people, without any occasion of such an exhortation, and without mingling the injunction of this duty with other exhortations of like nature, doth excite them in an abrupt manner, to say to Archippus, see to the Ministry, etc. For the former we have many patterns, which yet imply not faultiness, 1 Pet. 5.1, 2, 3. Tit. 2. ult. For the latter, where is there any parallel place? Though therefore Timothy, whom the Apostle exhorts, may be without fault; yet there is strong presumption that Archippus (whom the people ordinarily must hear in silence, but now are put upon it to admonish him) was not.  
Neither doth admonition always suppose authority, Answer. for this may be an act of charity as well as of authority.  
Church-admonition is some degree of censure; Reply. for it is a leading step to higher censure, till at last it come to excommunication; call it what you will, liberty, power, or authority, yet censure it is, and that is all the Position doth assert.  
Private members cannot censure judiciously, Answer. or unchurch the Congregation, though they be hidden; Plead with their mother, plead, Hosea 2.2.  
If they may plead, than they may withdraw when the Congregation is obstinate; and so from their Officers, Reply. when they will no be reclaimed; which though it be not judicial and positive censure, yet must be granted to be negative.  
The Colossians were as well to cause that Epistle to be read in the Church of Laodicea, as to say to Archippus, etc. yea, Answer. the word cause seems more authoritative, then say ye, yet our Brethren hold not that one Church hath power to cause any thing to be done in another Church; if it had been said, Cause Archippus, etc. and say to Laodicea, you could have made notable use of it.  
Cause, in the original is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not command ye, but work ye; Reply. effect ye, endeavour ye, that it be read; and so interpreted, it is not so authoritative as say ye; for say ye, take heed, seems to be more imperative: if it had been said, Say ye to Laodicea, see that you read this Epistle, and of Archippus, endeavour ye, that Archippus fulfil his ministry (for the Greek word translated cause, imports no more) we could have made less use of it.  
Finally, Answer. the Church cannot excommunicate their whole Presbytery, no more than the Presbytery excommunicate the whole Church, 
Cottons Keys, pag. 16.  only she may withdraw from them, etc.  
This withdrawing is a negative excommunication, Reply. which is some kind of censure, though not so authoritative as the positive; and more than this we plead not for.   

POSITION XIII. 
This Text is much insisted on, and weekly contributions for the Minister, grounded upon it.   
These Officers are to be maintained by contribution every Lord's day, 1 Cor. 16.1.  
You do not maintain all your Officers, Answer. not your Ruling Elders, though the Text, 1 Tim. 5.17. doth as clearly hold out the maintenance, as the lawfulness: The Apostles rule was not general, but only in the Churches of Galatia and Achaia vers. 1. nor perpetual, for those gatherings were to cease when Paul came; nor for any Officers, qua Officers, but for the poor; not their own Church neither, but of the church of Jerusalem, which was a singular and extraordinary case, etc.  
We conceive you meet not with this Position (as you do not with some other) in scriptis, Reply. in our writings; for we should then have been sent to the Author in the margin; but in stead thereof, you salute us with these words, This text is much insisted on, etc. in discourse we suppose betwixt some one and yourself; you should have done well to have named the person, because some of us have had conference with you about this matter, and it may be thought you intent us, but than you deal not fairly: for that Text hath been alleged by us, and more Texts with it, to prove another thing, viz. the raising and maintaining of a stock of money in the Church, out of which may be taken proportions for every good purpose; and so for the Minister's maintenance, as need shall require; and our practice is suitable hereto.  
Now to give better satisfaction, both of our opinion and practice, we shall discover our present apprehensions: thus,  
1. We do apprehend tithes to be Jewish maintenance, 
See Jo. Selden of Tithes.  because they were settled upon the Levites, upon consideration of having no inheritance amongst their brethren, and were appointed together with offerings, Mal. 3.8. and had a particular respect to the Priesthood; for the tithe of the Levites was to be tythed and given to the Priests, Nehem. 10.38.  
2. Neither do we see ground for settled, slinted maintenance to last from year to year, if it must arise from the Church, and not come from the state, as in some countries it doth; because, if the Church must maintain the Ministry among them, as God blessed them (and a more equal rule then that, there can none be found;) then except they could settle God's blessing, and make it to abide with men in an equal manner, without increase or decrease the maintenance may not be settled; and this also is an argument against tithes: There is a great inequality in tithes, and in all settled maintenance, if not unrighteousness; persons whose estates arise from trading, and consist in goods (not having any lands) in some places pay nothing to the Ministry out of duty, and so the country maintains the Ministry of the town, though many Chapels, perhaps, be rob thereby, (we give instance in Manchester) whereas the town is far more able to maintain their own Ministry, and the countries also round about them; and persons who are much poorer in estate than others, but have larger lands than they, though others (less in lands) can buy them twice or thrice over; yet pay more, because of their lands than they: and if houses be rated, or men's present estate valued, and maintenance settled in the just proportion; yet because men's estates are like the Moon, in the increase some of them, and others of them like it in the decrease, it will soon grow unto an inequality again; Besides, men's estates lie many times where their persons inhabit not, neither can inhabit; and then their estates go to maintain a Ministry to which they do belong not, and they are so much the more disabled in supporing the Ministry to which they do belong. And this settled visible maintenance can be the maintenance but of peaceable times, when the Magistrate is a Christian, and countenanceth Religion; for in the Apostles days, and afterwards for three hundred years together, while the ten Persecutions lasted, there neither was, nor could be on foot any such maintenance. But the Church treasury duly kept up by contributions, according as God blesseth every man, will afford maintenance while the Church hath any thing, at all times; whether peaceable or troublesome; whether the Magistatre be a Christian or a Heathen.  
3. This maintenance out of the stock of the Church, we think we see most warrant for from the new Testament, and as most probable we once disputed it with you, and some other Brethren: but neither then, nor now, are we peremptory in it.  
1. We considered how Christ and the Apostles were maintained in the work of the Ministry, and we find that they had a Stock of moneys, 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 
(b) Junius Ecclesiast. pag. 1954.   
2. We consider what was done in the Apostles times, after Christ was taken from them, in the days of the first Christian Church, Acts 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 business, and not astrictive unto all times. Now out of this common stock, the Apostles themselves, and all others that had need were maintained; and the Apostles had at first the oversight of this stock.  
3. After this, upon the occasion mentioned, Acts 6.1. there were Deacons chosen, which had the oversight of the treasure of this Church; for the Apostles gave themselves to the Ministry of the Word, and to Prayer, Acts 6.4. and neither meddled 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: 
(c) Junius Eccles. p. 1954  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 meddled 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; than it was so afterwards, when the Deacons were entrusted in it; so than the Deacons Office was to receive into stock, and to take out, and dispose as either the labourers, or poor Saints had need; and their Office was not to oversee the poor alone, as our Brother would suggest. 
(d) Junius Eccles. p. 1954 Deacons do distribute to the necessary uses of the Church, viz. the sustenance of the Ministers of the Church.   
4. This Office of the Deacon is not temporary, but perpetual in the Church, as from 1 Tim. 3.8. appears, and our Brethren do acknowledge it; therefore the work of receiving, and disposing the treasure of the Church is perpetual, therefore there must be a constant stock, unto which the contributions must be brought, and out of which distribution must be made; therefore though contributing of whole estates lasted not, yet some other manner of contributing came in the room thereof; else the Deacons Office would fall to the ground for want of work; for they could not distribute out of nothing: Hence it is that a commandment comes forth from the Apostle, Rom. 12.13. to distribute to the necessity of the Saints; and Hebr. 13.16. to do good, and to communicate; and another commandment which respects the necessity of the Ministers, Gal. 6.6. Let him that is taught in the Word, communicate to him that taught him in all good things; the word (though diversely translated in the English) is yet but one in the Greek, and signifieth to communicate.  
5. But this comunicating or contributing, or distributing (for all these are one) to the necessity of Saints, and to the necessity of the Ministers, which will be granted to be a perpetual duty in all ages, doth not uphold the Deacons Office, except the Deacons do receive it; that so out of it they may dispose portions of it, as need shall require; therefore to the Deacons this contribution must be brought: and we are induced the rather to think so, because it is commanded under a word, which often signifies Church-communion; and the Apostles meaning may well be, that it should be upon days when the Church meets in communion; and giving and receiving are actions of communion, Phil. 4.15. and therefore suitable to such meetings in communion; (in the interim, we would not be understood as though we meant to exclude all private distributing, or communicating to the necessities either of Saints or Ministers, though we conceive public contributions to be principally intended.) Hence it is, that Deacons are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 1 Cor. 12.28. which being interpreted, may import a person that receives some thing for another; and it may bear receiving of a just reward for another, and so a receiving not for the poor Saints alone, but a reward for the labourers also. 
* See Scap. Lex.   
6. But how must the Deacons receive the Church's contribution? must they gather it from house to house? that would be an endless toil, and dishonourable also. Contribution or communication is called a sacrifice, Heb. 13.16. Now sacrifice was wont to be brought to the door of the Tabernacle, and it comes most freely, when it is thus brought; but when must it be brought? when the Church meets; and when meets the Church? constantly upon the Lord's Day; therefore, these contributions must be brought upon the Lord's Day; but upon which Lords days must this be done? upon those only upon which there is occasion of distributing something? or at other times? surely at other times; else it might come to pass, that they might have nothing in deposito, nothing in the stock: then many a person that needs can many times have nothing; for the case may be such, that the need cannot tarry till the Lord's Day come, and the person may be gone, that needs, before that time come; now there ought always to be something in readiness to supply needs in cases of such urgency; therefore this contribution ought to be every Sabbath day: that as there may be daily occasions of distributing, there may be constant supply in contributing. To prove this, we have alleged 1 Cor. 16.1, 2. and so far as we have made use of this Text, we conceive we have not wrested it.  
1. We confess, that the occasion of this institution was collection for the poor Saints; and not their own poor Saints neither, but the poor Saints at Jerusalem.  
2. We confess, that there are no other Churches mentioned upon whom this institution was enjoined, but the Church at Corinth, and the Churches of Galatia, which our brother saith, was larger than England. Notwithstanding, if we consider several particulars of the Injunction, we may probably conjecture, that he had a further scope in the commandment, than the occasion doth import.  
1. He brings a great many of Churches, not to the doing of the duty alone, but to the same way of doing it; the Churches of Galatia, which were many; and that at Corinth; and there cannot be a reason rendered why all other Churches that were called to the duty, should not be bound to the same manner of doing also, and so the Churches of Macedonia, and that at Rome will be brought under this Injunction; for they were called to the same work of relieving the Saints at Jerusalem, as well as the Churches of Galatia and Corinth. 
* Rom. 15.26.27.   
2. The Apostle binds the performance of this contribution to the Lords Day in all these Churches, if he had had no scope to make this an Ordinance in all the Churches, he might have pitched it upon some other day.  
3. He saith, every first day of the week (that is, every Lord's Day,) so it is translated in the Geneva Bible, and so the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often rendered, as Scapula observes, and give instances abundantly, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is in every year, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is every month, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is every word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is every person, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is vicatim, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is domesticatim, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is viritim, street by street, house by house, man by man; we have twice together the Preposition so taken, Acts 2. ult. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, day by day, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, house by house; now what reason can be rendered, why this contribution must be every Lord's Day, in reference to the Church of Jerusalem alone? for they might have given what they could have spared at once; or if it were a great deal that they were to give, they might have had the longer time allotted them, and yet have given it at once; or the richer and the abler might have given it at once, and the rest at twice, or thrice, or four times; but they must give it Lords Day by Lords Day, without missing one Lords Day; this seems to hold forth, that Paul meant it for a standing Ordinance, and that his scope was by weekly contributions, to raise a stock in the Churches, out of which might be taken, without gathering.  
4. They are bound under this Injunction of first days contributions, without any time set them of ceasing the same; for though our Brother say, those gatherings were to cease when Paul should come, and allege vers. 2. for it, yet we find no such thing there; he saith, vers. 2. That there may be no gatherings when I come, our Brother gives this interpretation, that collections may cease when I come, but is not he guilty herein of corrupting the Text, more than we? for the true meaning is, that it may be in readiness when I come, and that there may not be need to gather for it when I come; for when it is in the stock already, there will be no need of gathering for it; and the Greek words are against his exposition, but agree well with ours, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which words are truly thus translated, that not when I come, than gatherings be made, he is divers (I think) from Paul, in his exposition of Paul's words, he would have gatherings then to cease, Paul would not have them then to begin; for should they then begin, there would be nothing in stock, and so nothing in readiness, when use should be made thereof.  
5. Consider the manner of performing this act: every one must put apart somewhat, or lay by him; What? to keep it with him, and not part with it? not so: for he must treasure it up, as the Greek carries it; or put it into the treasury; What treasury? his own private treasury? no; for than it needed not to have been upon the Lord's Day, for any other day would have served for such a private act; and then there would have been gathering together what every man had put into his own private treasury when Paul came; and this would have been unreadiness, which Paul labours to prevent; it was then the common treasury which the Church had when they met, into which every one did put what he provided for such a business; thus a stock was raised in all these Churches by an every Sabbaths contribution.  
But it will be said still, that this respecteth the poor Saints at Jerusalem only.  
But every Church hath, or may have poor Saints of her own; which way must they be relieved? must not they be provided for the same way, as the poor Saints of other Churches? What reason can be showed that the poor of other Churches must be provided for by one way or rule, and the poor of their own Church by another way or rule? or, if there be any difference; do not a Churches own poor, rather require a weekly contribution for their relief, than the poor abroad of other Churches? therefore we said, at the beginning, that we conceived the Apostle to have a further meaning than the occasion did import.  
Besides, seeing there are Lords Day's contributions throughout the year, in all the Belgic churches for the poor; upon what Scriptures do they bottom them, if not upon this? there is par ratio, like reason without all doubt, that look how the Apostle would have relief come in, to the Saints of Jerusalem; so he would have it come in to the Saints of every Church that wants it; and that is by raising a stock in the Church for all good uses by first days contributions.  
But wherein doth this Stock or Treasury of the Church respect Ministers?  
The stock raised by selling of estates, and laying them down at the Apostles feet, respecteth not the Saints alone, but the very Apostles; why then should not the stock raised by an every Sabbaths contribution respect Ministers? If we will take Chemnitius his opinion, (whose harmony upon the Gospel is not a little set by) 
(a) Chem. har. p. 182 period. hist. de anno Christ. 12.  he tells us, the Doctors in Christ's time, that preached, were maintained by contribution: he saith the treasury into which Christ beheld many rich ones casting in much, and the poor widow all her substance, was to maintain the Doctors; he also joins the poor with the Doctors, and saith, that the Treasury was for both uses, see John 8.20. and compare it with Mark. 12.41.  
Having given an account of our tenant and grounds whereupon built, and our conceptions upon 1 Cor. 16.1, 2. we need not frame any other Reply unto your Answer (Brother,) for the intelligent Reader will discern, what little truth in some things, and little substance in other things there is in what you have presented in that matter; only, because you charge us with unrighteousness, and partiality in point of our not maintaining our Ruling Elders, we shall clear ourselves in a few words.  
1. We conceive all Officers are to have some maintenance; the labourer is worthy of his hire; provided that he either require it, or the Church be able to give it.  
2. We conceive that there is a difference in the works of Officers; some are greater, taking up the whole time and strength of the Officers double work being put upon them, ruling and labouring in the Word and Doctrine; so there should be difference in the maintenance of Officers, some aught to have more than others.  
3. When the Church is not able to maintain her teaching Officers with an honourable maintenance; then if the ruling Officers and the Deacons will remit what ever reward from the Church their work calls for; 'tis no unrighteousness nor partiality in the Church to maintain the teaching Officers, and not the rest; because their works do not so require the whole man, but that they may have other Callings to help themselves, by which means they may spare the Church in her poverty, in point of maintenance.  
4. Yourself may do well to consider whether the ruling Elders and the Deacons be maintained in the Presbyterian Churches; and if it be an error not to do it, it is good to pull out that beam out of your own eye, and then you may see the better to take it out of your brother's eye.   

POSITION XIV.  
The great Mountain burning with fire cast into the Sea, upon the sounding of the second Trumpet, Rev. 8.8, 9 is applied by some good Writers to those times in which Constantine brought settled endowments into the Church.  
If it be so applied by some good Writers, Answer. who possibly bad in their eyes the Lordly, and almost regal riches and pomp of Prelates; it is by as many, and as good writers applied otherwise.  
Our brethren speak modestly and moderately: Reply. they tell us, it is applied so by some good Writers; It is not therefore their own novel exposition; they present it as probable, they force the interpretation upon no man. But what are your exceptions against it?  
For my part, Answer. as I finde that Constantine's donation, the foundation of this exposition, is but a fiction, accounted by Gratian himself to be but palea (and what is the chaff to the wheat?) So I find in the Prophecies, that Kings and States are called Mountains, Zach. 4.7. Casting of Mountains into the Sea, implieth great commotions, Psal. 46.2. Their burning with sire, signifieth their opposition and fierceness, whereby they become destroying Mountains, Jer. 51.25.  
1. Reply. We are not at a little want of books; and therefore are not able to make an exact search either after the truth or falsehood of this matter; But let Constantine's donation of the Pope's patrimony, be a Fiction and Palea; yet we suppose it may be clearly evidenced from credible Authors, that Constantine brought in great riches and pomp, settled endowments to the Clergy of the Church, and that is all that is affirmed in the Position.  
2. If Kings and States be called Mountains, so is prosperity in riches and honours, Psal. 30. Thou hast made my Mountain so 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 taken in your sense for Kings, when almost regal riches and honours were cast upon Prelates of the Church, may it not be said, a mountain was cast into the Sea? And may it not well be said to be a burning Mountain, when the ambition of Prelates after Church endowments and honours, almost set the Christian world on fire? and the hot contestations of Ecclesiastical persons for Church-livings do testify, that if prosperity in wealth and honour be a mountain, than it was a burning mountain; and had such effects following it, as the Prophecies in the Revelations speak of: But you go on and say,  
I find not that it is unlawful, either for a year, as in New-England, Answer. 
(u) 〈◊〉. to ●. R. p. 19 Reply.  or for certain years, or for term of life; much less do I find that it is lawful for one, and not for a year & a quarter, or two, or three, or four years.  
Though T. W. speak of maintenance from year to year, yet it is not to be understood that there is any compact betwixt Ministers and the Church, how much the Ministers must have before the work be begun; but it is the consultation of the Church after the work hath been performed, or a consideration for the year past, when they all agree; that if there be not enough in the flock of the Church to raise it up to an honourable allowance, by the voluntary gift of each; yet, according as God hath blessed them, Otherwise were it an agreement aforehand it would be as lawful for two or three years as for one. But how you will answer your misinterpreting and misreporting of T. W. in the page you cite wherein he doth express himself as we have showed, we understand not.   

POSITION XV.  
There must be in the Church Teachers, 
This for substance is alleged by Answ to 32. q. p. 75. and many others.  distinct from Pastors, as Apostles are distinct from Evangelists, Ephes. 4.11.  
That Text proves not the same distinction between them; for he saith, Answer. Some Apostles, and some Prophets, etc. but not some Pastors, and some Teachers; but some Pastors and Teachers; or rather, these Apostles, these Prophets, these Evangelists, these Shepherds and Teachers, which words seem but to explicate one another; as Shepherd and Bishop do, 1 Pet. 2.25.  
You cross the opinion of many Orthodox modern Writers, Reply. while you speak contradictorily to us; for it is not our tenant alone, but the judgement of many learned ones, that they are distinct Offices. 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 they be School Doctors, as Junius 
* Jun. Eccles. lib. 2. cap. 5. p 1955  thinks, and so their work to train up the youth of the Church in the knowledge of Arts and Sciences, especially of Divinity for the service of the Church; or whether they be Teachers of the whole Church, and their work to doctrinate the Church by words of knowledge. The latter seems to be more consonant to the Scripture than the former, Rom. 12.7, 8. 1 Cor. 12.8. And Zanchy, Pareus, Bucer, and many others, are of this judgement. Zanchy's words are these: There are only five orders of Ministers in the Church, 
Zanc. de Feel. milit. gubernation, tom. 8. p. ●4●.  instituted by Christ; and then under this Position are these words, We acknowledge not more kinds of Ministers than the Apostle expresseth in Ephes. 4.11. Apostles, Evangelists, Prophets, Pastors, Teachers. The three first were not tied to places, but were sometimes here, and sometimes there, either to gather Churches, or to govern them, to plant, or to water them: The two latter, viz. Pastors and Teachers, he would have to be set apart for the conservation and government of particular Churches: as also for the augmentation and propagation of them. Pareus upon Rom. 12.7. hath these words: Now he under puts two kinds of prophecies; the gift of teaching, which is proper to the Doctor or Teacher; the gift of exhorting, which is proper to the Pastor of the Church: for Paul, in Ephes. 4. distinguisheth Pastors and Teachers, and the gifts of the Spirit were distinct; for to some were given a most clear revelation and understanding of doctrine; these did attend to the explication of the heads of Religion, and did form the faith of the Church: to others was given a faculty of exhorting. Bucer also upon Rom. 12.7. saith thus: One man hath the gift of propecie, another hath the gift of ministering; so the person that teacheth, having the gift of teaching, in doctrine, so the person that exhorteth (the person that teacheth, he makes distinct from the person that exhorteth) endued with the gift of exhortation; and then he mentions the Deacon and Ruling Elder, as distinct with their gift from the rest. So that if we do put any false gloss upon the Scriptures, by misinterpreting of Ephes. 4.11. yet more modest language had becomed you, (brother) seeing such Reverend, Learned men, whom yourself so much honour, have gone before us in the exposition.   

POSITION XVI.  
This particular Congregation is Zion, 
This Text is frequently alleged in answ. to 32. q. and others.  which God loveth, and he hath promised to be present, Matth. 18.20.  
No Sir, it is not Zion, but one of the assemblies of Zion, Isai. 4.5. Answer. The Hebrews which were divided in many Congregations, are not said to be come into many mount Zions, but to Mount Zion, Heb. 12. The Scripture warrants not the expression of an hundred, or a thousand Zions.  
Zion was a mountain contiguous unto Moriah, Reply. upon which the Temple was built, in which God vouchsafed a special presence, and unto which the Tribes went up; and by a Metonymy, it is frequently put for the Temple that was built near to it; and by another Metonymy, it is put for the people that repaired thither, and assembled there; and so for the Church of the Jews, which Church, in the times of the old Testament, consisted of many assemblies, and yet itself was but one Church; and the Temple also was but one, which was called Zion; and so Zion, while the Temple was to stand, and the Church of the Jews was to continue, 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 congregational, and not Nationall, much less universal, as hath been proved; therefore the congregational church is Zion, therefore the special place of God's presence.  
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. Isai. 66.20, 21. So when Zion in the new Testament is spoken of in Isaiah 4.5. there may be an allusion in phrase and manner of speaking to Zion in the old Testament. We may as well read of the assemblies of Zion, though there be no such thing, but each assembly is Zion, as of the Feast of Tabernacles, when yet in the days of the Gospel there is no such thing as a feast of Tabernacles, but it is spoken by way of allusion; the things of the new Testament are set forth to us under the shadows of the old; therefore, because Zion was then but one, it is spoken of as one still, and yet it is more than one.  
Now that there are many mounts Zions, yourself doth really confess, though in words you contradict it.  
1. We know you hold that the Church of the Jews in the days of the old Yestament, was called Zion.  
2. We know you hold, that the visible Church in the days of the Gospel is Zion.  
3. Is it not manifest therefore, that you hold, that look how many visible churches there are in the times of the Gospel, so many Zions there are? Your own words are, that the Hebrews, which were divided in many Congregations, are said to be come to one mount Zion. If so, than the Congregations of the Christian Gentiles may well be another mount Zion; And if the Nationall church of the Jews, with the assemblies thereof were mount Zion: why may not every national-church of Christians with the assemblies thereof (we speak now in your language) be Zion also? and then there being many Nationall churches, (as you say) there are many Zions.  
And what greater absurdity is it to say, there are an hundred, or a thousand; Zions, then to say, there are an hundred, or a thousand Churches? Seeing Zion and Church are all one. Now you know there were many visible churches in Judea, Galatia, Macedonia, Asia, and many other places, and if (then) so many, how many more now? therefore many Zions; and because those many churches then, and these now, we believe to have been, and still to be congregational; therefore every congregational Church we hold to be Zion.  
But you ask an odd strange needless (to say no worse of it) question with a great deal of vehemency, Answer. viz.  
Have you not found God present in our Assemblies? Have you not by faith closed with the promises in the use of the Ordinances among us? Speak out: I know you dare not belie yourselves, us, and God himself, etc. Reply.  
Your question is bottomed upon a mistake; when we say, that God hath promised to be present in Zion; you give this gloss upon it, that we deny all your Assemblies to be Zion, and will not grant God's presence at all to be with you: and that we appropriate Zion and God's presence to ourselves; which is a great injury to us.  
You also put this sense upon our words, that God is so present in Zion, that he is present no where else, and so not present with holy men and women which are out of Church-fellowship, nor present with members of many churches meeting together, which either is a foul mistake, or a slander: For we think God to be present with his people, when they meet in his fear, whether they be Church-members, or not Church-members; whether they be of one, or many churches; whether they be in our assemblies or yours, provided that his Ordinances be carried according to his mind: yea, though there should be some error, yet he might give his presence 
(a) Rev. 2.1. with Rev. 2.14.20. . Much rather do we think God will be present with persons whom he sets on work to exalt him in the execution of some office, as he did the Apostles; and now doth ordinary Elders. Nevertheless, we conceive God to be most present with his people gathered into a body, and compacted together in an instituted Church, which we hold to be congregational; and the reason is, because the more any people do fall into the order of the Gospel, and come into the way of Christ, which he hath appointed for Saints to walk in; the more Christ is engaged to be present with them. Now to join to some instituted Church of Christ is that way and order which Christ hath directed to; therefore with them in such a way (as so united and joined) Christ will more especially be present: for he vouchsafeth a special presence amongst such Churches, Rev. 2.1. he styles himself one that walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks; he walks in other places and people, but he would intimate thus much, that his especial delightsome walk is among them, and the more golden the candlesticks are, the more pure they be, the more delight he takes to walk in the midst of them.  
But Matth. 18. you say is mis-interpeted; Your words are these: Answer.  
Christ, in Matth. 18. promiseth his presence to those that are not a Church; for two or three will not make a Church; they (vers. 17) were to give the second admonition, the Church the third.  
There is a figure in the number, Reply. there is a certain number put for an uncertain; two or three are put for a few; the paucity that may be in a Church, shall be no obstacle of Christ's presence. Pareus upon this Text, hath these words: It is an argument that the judgement of the Church shall be ratified, because Christ himself will be present in the Church as supreme Judge to ratify it: it is also a general promise of the presence of the grace of Christ in his Church, be it great or small. Now surely we shall less doubt our exposition having so learned a Commentator so well approved of, to stand by us in the same.   

POSITION XVII.  
So long as a Believer doth not join himself to some particular Congregation, he is without in the Apostles sense, 1 Cor. 5.12.  
Those without, Answer. of whom the Apostle speaketh, were unbelievers, Pagans, and Heathen; without Christ, as well as without the visible Church.  
Let it be granted that those whom the Apostle speaks of were both without Christ, Reply. and without the visible Church, yet it may be securely affirmed that the Apostle speaks of them under the notion of such as were without the visible church, and not of those that were without Christ.  
1. 
Singuli de suâ familia judicant, non immittunt consuram in alienam samiliam. Ergo, in Ecclesia similis servetur ratio ut singulae desuit membris judicent, Aretius in 1 Cor. 5.  Because those (without) whom the Apostle had not to do to judge, stand in opposition to those within, vers. 12. the latter part, whom the Church of Corinth had to do to judge, and consequently (if this exposition of yours be true) the judgement of the Church of Corinth extended as far as the ultima Thule, the lands end of Christianity; and only ceased when it came to the confines of Paganism; and consequently any one Church hath power to judge any one Believer in all the world, because (say you) he is not without in the Apostles sense; that is to say, he is not a Pagan, Heathen, or unbeliever.  
2. Suppose the Apostle had known a member of the Church of Corinth (what ever he appeared outwardly in the frame of his conversation) to be indeed without Christ, and in a state of enmity with God; if this man had committed a gross sin, might not the Apostle have judged such a one to be excommunicated? We suppose you will say, he might, and if so, we demand, why should a Church-unbeliever be subject to the Apostles judgement, and an Heathenish unbeliever be exempted from the Apostles judgement? If Church-membership did not make the one obnoxious to that spiritual judgement more than the other? For in the notion of unbelievers, and without Christ they both agree; and therefore if a Heathen were exempted from judgement, because without Christ, and not for this reason, because without the visible Church; why should not a Church-unbeliever be exempted as well as a Heathen?  
2. If we mistake not, a Believer not joined to any particular congregation, is without, in reference to Church-judgement (and we suppose by virtue of this Text) in your Presbyterian calculation of Ecclesiastical power. For Classical, Provincial, and Nationall Synods, have a power of judging, or excommunicating those only, that are within the combination. Now these being representative Churches, he that is of no particular Congregation, is without the verge of Presbyterial power; or else it will follow, that the Presbyterial Church hath power to excommunicate a person that is not within their combination; and if one, by the same reason a thousand, ten thousand, in every quarter and corner of the world. But, say you,  
The Apostle opposeth Fornicators of the World, Answer. and Fornicators that are Brethren.  
Persecution in the Primitive times (as it is at this day) was chief (if not only) levied against those who did join themselves to the Churches, to the enjoyment of Ordinances, Reply. or at least otherwise visibly (as Paul at his first conversion, by preaching) declared themselves to be Christ's Disciples. Hence those to whom God had given so much faith and constancy, as to be willing to expose themselves to persecution; these did inlist themselves in the Churches, frequented their meetings, (which were observable by the Persecutors) and professed themselves of the fraternity of the Church, the Church looked on them as her members, and accordingly dispensed ordinances and censures to them, as they had need. Others there were, who, like Nicodemus, came to Christ by night; or like those chief Rulers, spoken of, Joh. 12.42. who, though they believe in Christ, yet they dare not confess him, by public joining of themselves, to run all hazards with the Church. Hence it is, that no politic visible Church doth look upon these as of her fraternity; or doth dispense all ordinances and censures to them. Now the Brother that is opposed to the fornicators of the world, is not he, that by the internal and invisible grace of faith is a Brother, and of the mystical body of Christ, though peradventure he dare not openly profess Christ. But such a one is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the Church of Corinth, who is a named and professed Brother; so looked upon, not only by the motherly eye of the Church, but oft times by the malicious eye of the world; though peradventure they be not truly brethren, united with the rest of the faithful people of God, as members of the mystical body of Christ. 2. With such a one not to eat, presupposeth in an orderly way, a forbearing of voluntary civil and spiritual communion with the party upon this ground, that he is under censure in the Church. Now the power of Church-censures is not to be executed by the church-mysticall, but by the church-visible, as such; neither is it to be executed upon the members of the Church-mysticall, as such, but upon the members of the visible church, whether they be in truth or only in appearance members of the mystical church. So then Fornicators of the world, are to be understood of the world as it stands in opposition to the visible church, and so those that are of the mystical church may be fornicators of the world in that sense. And though by the laws of Christ, concerning Church-discipline, every man be forbidden to eat with those that are known Fornicators, under church-censure in their own church; and by virtue of church-communion, with those that are fornicators, under censure in any other church: yet if one that is a member of the mystical, but dares not profess his subjection to Christ in that particular, of joining himself to some visible church, shall be a fornicator, we know no law of Christ precisely concerning church-discipline, that interdicts a man to eat, in point of voluntary civil communion, with such a man, any more than if he were a Pagan, or Heathen.  
But, Answer. say you, without are Dogs, and Sorcerers; such as the Apostle had not to do with: What have I to do, etc. vers. 12. (and yet he had to do with all Christians, by his illimited apostolic power, whether they belong to that, or any other Congregation or no;) such as God judgeth, or are left to the immediate judgement of God: But this is not the case of Believers not joined (especially in your sense of joining) to a particular Congregation; nor do you (I hope) judge it to be the case of Believers in England and Scotland.  
1. Reply. There might be Dogs, in the Apostolic Churches, as well as without, Phil. 3.2. and with such dogs Paul had to do with; Nay, he had to do with the dogs of the Gentiles; he received a key of knowledge, by which he was to open the Kingdom of heaven to them in case they would repent and believe, and to bind them under the guilt of impenitency and infidelity, in case they would not repent and believe, Matth. 28.19. with Mark. 16.16. But those that Paul had not to do to judge, who are said to be without in this place, are all such as are contradistinguished to those that are within, with whom the Church had to do, by way of Ecclesiastical judgement. Now the church of Corinth had power of Ecclesiastical judgement, over all, and only those which were within the combination of that church; and therefore Paul had nothing to do to judge them (that is to say, with the judgement mentioned in this place) which were out of this combination. Now what was this judgement? Answ. The judgement whereby the Apostle decrees, that the church of Corinth shall excommunicate fornicators, and consequently shall not eat with them. Now the Apostle had received no such power to judge those persons to excommunication, and that by the ministry of a church, that were never in fellowship with the church: But such persons (though for their crimes they may be subject to the judgement of the civil Magistrate,) yet in respect of Ecclesiastical judgement they are left to the immediate judgement of God. And if this be not the case of Believers not joined to a particular congregation, by whom shall those Believers be judged? Why shall this congregational, Classical, Provincial, National-church judge them, rather than that? May they be judged by all, or any one? Certainly they stand no more related to one then to another, which are members of none at all. Where shall the fault be charged, if judgement be not passed? We said before, if a church may judge one out the combination, why not a thousand, why not ten thousand? etc. yet we are far from judging those Believers in England and Scotland which are not joined in our Way of joining to a particular Congregation, therefore to be altogether out of Church-combination, not capable of the Ecclesiastical judgement of their Churches, and consequently subject to the immediate judgement of Christ.   

POSITION XVIII.  
The Elders are not Lords over God's heritage, 1 Pet. 5.3. nor do exercise authority, as the Kings and Princes of the earth do; remembering our Saviour's lesson, Matth. 20.25, 26 Luke 22.25, 26.  
They are not so many Bishops striving for preeminence, Answer. as Diotrephes did, 3 Joh. vers. 9, 10. 
(a) These Scriptures are alleged to 32 q p. 59 & 76. though not with such tartness against Presbyterial government.   
We will not say to you as Geta in the Comedian 
(b) Teren. in Phor.  Reply. Nihil est Antipho quin male narrando possit depravarier; tu id quod boni est excerpis, dicis quod mali. For you do not only leave out (in reciting) that which is good, but for want of an evil use made of these Scriptures by the Elders of New-England in the 32. Quest. you first insinuate, that such an ill use is made of the Text, and then confute your own fiction; for you say,  
To say nothing that the title 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is sometime translated Sir, Answer. and sometimes Lord, Joh. 12.21, etc.  
You take up the Title 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Reply. and tell us that it signifies Sir, and Lord, and that it is sometimes given to Elders amongst others, as if you had a mind to speak a good word for some kind of Lordly power in Church-officers; but you lay it down again, and tell us,  
Though Elders be not Lords over God's heritage, Answer. yet they are Leaders and Guides; yea, Shepherds, Rulers, Overseers, Bishops, Governoure, and not only Precedents of the Congregation, Moderators of her actions, or, as the foremen of the Jury.  
And is not this to insinuate, Reply. that the Elders of New-England say, that the Elders are only Precedents of the Congregation, (I suppose you mean merely for order's sake) Moderators of her actions, or as the foremen of the Jury? Now there is not the least expression in either of the places, that so much as seems to smile upon such an assertion as you would father upon the Elders of New-England. Nay, do they not expressly say, that the Elders rule as Stewards, as Shepherds, as Captains, as Guides, as Leaders? and doth this amount to no more (in your Arithmetic, than a bare presidency Moderatorship, or Fore-manship of a Jury, which doth not advance the person that carries the stamp of it one hairs breadth above his Brethren in point of authority; But only one step before them in point of order. Whereas the Elders do not only state a Ministerial authoritative power in them, but also lay an obligation of duty upon the people towards their Officers, by virtue of 1 Thes. 5.12, 13. This is that that we judge to be your own fiction.  
The other Text (say you, Answer. viz. Mat. 20.25, 26.) forbids Kingly or Lordly power in the Ministers of the Gospel: for the two Apostles still dreaming of a temporal kingdom, and being kinsmen to Christ, did expect some temporal honour and advanaement. Christ saith not, there was inequality amongst the Priests of the Jews, and amongst the Priests of the Gentiles, or between the Priests and the people; but, it shall not be so among you: but very aptly and pertinently to their Petition answereth, The Princes of Gentiles, etc.  
And would you indeed make the world believe by all this, Reply. that you are all this while, beating up the quarters of the Independents; when as in truth, this Text is urged by the Elders to no other purpose, but to deny a kingly, or Lordly power in Elders over their Brethren; but not to deny an authoritative ministerial power in reference to their Congregations? Therefore, they say, the Elders are forbidden to exercise authority as the Kings and Princes of the earth do, and they quote Mr. Baynes his Diocesan trial, Q. 2. p. 74. where he distinguisheth power into natural, and moral; moral into Civil, and Ecclesiastical; both into Kingly and ministerial: asserting Kingly Ecclesiastical power to be in Christ; ministerial in the Elders of the Churches; who, though they be Governors to the Church in the descending line of power, yet are they but servile or ministerial Governors in the ascending line that leads to Christ, from whom they receive the Commission; because they do all ex mero alterius obsequio, by the mere will and command of another.  
I, but by this Text they deny a kingly spiritual power, Object. whereas the Text speaks nothing of spiritual; but only of kingly secular power.  
Admit that not only the two sons of Zebedee, Answer. but even all the Apostles that had been conversant with Christ, and heard his doctrine, from the beginning, were such babes, as to imagine that Christ would lay down his spiritual Kingdom over the souls and consciences of his people, and for their sakes over Angels, wicked men and devils in a way of sovereign power, and would take up a temporal kingdom, to divide inheritances, rule over the persons and estates of men. Nay, admit that the sons of Zebedee, or any, or all of the rest of the Apostles had their eyes so dazzled with the lustre of this imaginary temporal kingdom, that they desired an eminency one above another herein, nothing regarding an eminency above others in the spiritual Kingdom: yet it will not follow, that Christ speaks nothing by way of reproof of ambitious aspire in the spiritual, but only in the temporal kingdom of Christ. Neither needed Christ, by expressing the inequality among the Priests, whether of Jews or Gentiles, etc. amplify and express the equality which he would have amongst the Ministers of the Church. For expressing the disparity betwixt civil polities of the world, and the spiritual polity of the Church, he doth that abundantly: saith he, It shall not be so amongst you as it is in the civil polities of the world: There one, or more, rule with Lordly power, the rest are in subjection; but in the discharge of your Apostolical Commission, there shall be no such thing; but you shall be all of equal power; but if any will aspire to greatness in point of authority, above his brethren, let him be your minister, etc. as the Apostle taught afterwards, 1 Cor. 12.5. There are diversities of administrations, but the same Lord; Christ only rules with Lordly power over the Church, one Apostle, or Minister, hath no such power, nor any authority at all one over another: but are all fellow-servants, having a ministerial authority in reference to the household of the Church.  
2. It holds true in this case, optimi corruptio fit pessima; though Church-officers, and offices are excellent things, whilst they retain their genuine vigour, and virtue according to the institution of Christ; yet are they most dangerous, when they grow degenerate and corrupt, and no corruption so dangerous as that which is Symbolical in the common nature of Church-power, with that from which it doth degenerate. Hence it is, that corruption of Church-governors', in an usurpation of exorbitant Ecclesiastical domination is of more dangerous influence to the Church, then if they should usurp some parts, or branches of civil power. For as in natural things we say, Elementa symbolica facilius transmutantur, so in moral things, corruptions do more easily change things in some thing symbolical with themselves, into their own degenerate property; like a disease that it most contagious to persons of the same blood. And therefore if inequality of civil power be forbidden, how much more inequality in power Ecclesiastical, which is the spawn; and rise of Antichristian tyranny? 
(a) Pastor, & Prel. p. 23. Answer to Mr. Down. See pag. 81. 82. Mr. Pagets Defence. part 2. p. 29 The learned Clergy in the days of Hen. 8. confessed, there was no disparity of Ministers instituted by Christ, Act. & Mon.   
Diotrophes being but one, was liker to a Prelate then a Prsbyterie, etc.  
These words are brought to vindicate, 3 Joh. vers. 9, Reply. 10. from a supposed abuse by these words, They (viz. the Elders) are not so many Bishops, striving for preeminence, as Diotrephes did.  
We must confess, we had almost said; we wonder that your ink did not blush, to blot and blur such sweet, humble-spirited, holy and pertinent expressions, as you do in this place. Let yourself once more, and the Reader, take a judgement of the passage, as it lies in its perfect lustre, in the Answer to the 32 Quest. The Question propounded by the Brethren of Old-Engand is this:  
What authority or eminency have your Preaching-Elders above your Ruling-Elders?  
To which the Elders of New-England frame this Answer.  
It is not the manner of Elders amongst us, whether ruling only, or ruling and teaching also, to strive for preeminence one above another; as remembering what lesson our Saviour taught his Disciples, when they were at strife among themselves, which of them should be the greatest, Luke 22.24, 25. If Diotrephes strive for preeminence, verily we abhor such striving; and by the grace of God, respect one another as Brethren.  
Brother, where lies the fault, for which they lie under censure? Is it a fault that the Elders in New-England strive not for preeminence? If so, we suppose it lies in this, that their humble and brotherlike walking, each towards other, condemns the pride of those that will needs be striving for some kind of preeminence, and Prelacy above their Brethren.  

(b) Juutual. satire. — Patriam tamen obruit olim  
Gloria paucorum, & laudis titulique cupido.  
— This formerly the country overthrew;  
The lust for praise and titles, and the glory of a few.  
Or, are they to blame to insinuate, that the Apostles censure upon Diotrephes, doth so frown upon those (whether Prelates or Presbyters) that strive for preeminence, that it is a matter of abhorrency to them so to strive? Hinc illae lacrymae; hence it is that you say, Diotrephes being but one, is liker to be a Prelate then a Presbytery.  
Brother, Reply. a horse in the abstracted notion of unity, being but one, is liker a Prelate then a presbytery that are many. But what of that? Prelacy doth not consist in unity, but in the usurpation of undue (that is to say, unscriptural) spiritual power over their Brethren; and in this capacity it is possible, that a Classical Presbytery may be as like Diotrephes, as a Prelate; that is to say, if they take upon them a preeminence over their Brethren, as he did. 'Tis as truly Prelatical when fourteen or fifteen exercise a jurisdictionall power over all their Brethren in a County; as when one man shall take upon him to exercise the power aforesaid in two or three several counties. Perhaps the fourteen or fifteen (being better principled than the other) may do it with more gentleness and less offence, but 
(a) More and less do not alter the kind.  magis & minus, non variant speciem; and they may be both 
(b) Alike, if not equally.  aequè, if not aequaliter, Prelatical.  
Yet John dod not blame him simply for acceping or having preeminence; Answer. or for taking upon him to answer in the behalf of the Church to which St John writ; or for taking to him the power of commanding, forbidding, excommunicating; but for loving preeminence, (as Mat. 23.6, 7.) for not receiving the Apostles and Brethren; and prohibiting what he should have required, and encouraged; and excommunicating such as were the best members of the Church.  
Reply. You might more properly have said, usurping, or exercising preeminence: for accepting presupposeth an offer made of the thing accepted: Now it is more than probable, that the Church never offered him preeminence, both over the Apostle John, and over herself, that he should overrule the Church, and cast out her best members at his pleasure; neither if she would, had she any such power.  
Let it be granted that Diotrephes was an Elder of the Church of Corinth, Reply. 
(c) Rom. 16.25. 1 Cor. 1.14.  and so had a preeminence by virtue of Office over the Body of the Church, yet this is not the preeminence here spoken of, but an exorbitant preeminence, usurped over the whole; both the Elders his equals, in power, and the fraternity (who though his inferiors, yet have a share and interest in the passing of excommunication, and other weighty affairs of the Church) expressed (as yourself state it) in taking upon him to answer in the behalf of the Church, commanding, forbidding, excommunicating. Now say you, he is not simply blamed for accepting or having, but for loving preembrence, and exercising it corruptly, in regard of the things done and performed by him. It is said of corrupt Princes, Isaiah 1.23. Every one loveth gifts: by the same reason, that Diotrephes is excused from the guilt of solitary excommunication in regard of the materiality of the action; by the same reason may these Princes be excused from their bribery and corruption: And it may be said, the Prophet doth not reprove them for the receiving, but for the loving of gifts. When the thing is evil, there love, how moderate soever, is faulty, in this regard, that it is placed upon a wrong object. But where the thing is lawful, a moderate and well tempered love of it is lawful also: As for the Scribes and Pharisees, so far as they were men of chief rank and place, 
Mat. 23.6.  for them to possess and love to possess with a well bounded love, the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in Synagogues, would not be unlawful, but perhaps their ambition put them upon affectation of places undue to them; and then their possessing them, and their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Mark, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Matthew and Luke; or, as Christ speaks, Luke 24 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they choose the chief rooms, and this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to be seen of men, being added to their possessing:  
— Digito monstrari, & dicier hic est 
(a) To be showed by the singer, and to have it said, This is such One.  is that which may justly be condemned by our Saviour: But the case which respecteth Diotrephes may be this; it is probable that John writ about something that did concern Discipline, as the receiving of certain Brethren either to constant membership, or by virtue of church communion; now this was a business in which the fraternity had some interest, as well as Diotrephes and the rest of the Elders; and therefore the Apostle writes not to Diotrephes, or the Elders alone, but to the whole Church: also, because Quod omnes tangit, ab omnibus tractari debet; that which concerns all, must be handled by all. But Diotrephes riseth up, and he alone commands, forbids, excommunicates, and what can be more destructive of the power of the Presbytery and liberty of the people, than such a course? and yet, say you, (or else you say nothing to the purpose) he is not blamed for it. If Diotrephes were not to blame, being but a particular Elder, to take upon him the power of the whole Eldership, yea, and the whole Church, why may not a particular brother take upon him the power to elect an Officer which belong to the fraternity, or one Elder to ordain an Officer which pertains to the whole Presbytery? Or in your Classic Way, why may not a particular Elder, a member of the Classis, exercise the jurisdiction of the whole Classis? why may not a Classis exercise the power of a Provincial Synod? that of a Nationall; and the Nationall of the Ecumenical Synod; and yet be blameless? the reason is, the same proportion that an Elder hath to the whole Eldership, the same, or far greater, have a brother to the whole fraternity, an Elder to the Classic, a Classic to the Provincial, a Provincial to the Nationall, and that to the Ecumenical Synod.  
But peradventure it was not unwittingly done by you, to put in the word simply for a retreat, in case you should be hotly charged for pleading the cause of Prelacy, under the notion of Presbytery; and so you will say, you affirm not, that John doth not blame Diotrephes for having preeminence, but he doth not simply blame him for having preeminence. Now, if this be your meaning, and that you indeed grant that Diotrephes was blamed for striving for preeminence; why do you blame the Elders of New-England, for saying, that the Elders are not (i ought not to be) so many Bishops striving for preeminence, as Diotrephes did?  
But if it be said, that the force that is offered to the Text, lies not in this; that the Elders of New-England say, that if Diotrephes strive for preeminence, verily they abhor such striving, (for these are their words) but in this, that it is said, The Elders are not so many Bishops striving for preeminence, as Diotrephes did; which, peradventure may have an obliqne insinuation, that Classic Presbyters are so many Bishops, striving for preeminence; and it may be said, the text affords no such conclusion.  
We answer; those words, so many Bishops, are no expression of the Elders of New-England, neither is the Text applied by them, to prove that Classic Presbyters are so many Bishops striving for preeminence.  
I, but M. D. saith, a Classic Presbytery sets up many Bishops in stead of one.  
Peccat Aemilius, plectitur Rutilius. M. D. offends (if it be an offence,) and the Elders of New-England are beaten. Or, suppose that reverend, learned, and holy man, M. D. have let fall words which reflect with some blemish upon the Presbytery, from the sense of what himself had suffered, yet your professed business is not to vindicate Presbytery, but the Text. Now M. D. (we conceive, for we have not his book) doth not urge 3 John vers. 9, 10. to prove, that the Classical Presbytery sets up many Bishops in stead of one, and therefore what thing soever he hath said, which offends in reference to the Presbytery; yet he is not guilty of wrong-doing in reference to the Text.  
I will not tell you who said, All the Church is holy; Answer. ye take too much upon you, etc.  
Our consciences are unto us a thousand witnesses, Reply. that we have (and by the assistance of grace) hope ever to carry it with all gentleness and meekness toward our godly Brethren, that are guided by a different light in point of Government from us; and therefore it is less grievous to us to be paralleled with Corah, Dathan and Abiram, those grand incendiaries of the Congregation of Israel; yet it is not unworthy your serious consideration, whether it might not be with good cause said to you, as sometimes Christ said to one of the twelve, when he asked, Master, is it I? and he answered, Thou hast said.   

POSITION XIX.  
The Power of Government is expressly given to the Church, where we are bidden Hear the Church, which is a particular Congregation, Matth. 18.  
Brother, we could wish you had signified the Author by whom, Reply. and the place where this wrong (at least as you suppose) is done to the Text, as you have done in other Sections, who those be that presume that Christ did no more respect the Jewish, than they do the Church of England; As your margin doth not inform us, so in searching those few books we have, we cannot find among all the congregational men, therefore we take it as an unjust aspersion thrown upon them.  
The Church, in the first and primary intent of these words, Answer. was a Church then in being, which did abominate the Gentiles, (for Heathens and Gentiles were all one) viz. the Jewish church, which was not aparticular Congregation, but a national-church; having gradual judicatories and appeals; of which the Apostles were at that time, and Christ lived and died an actual member, etc.  
Whilst you yourself say, Reply. that the Church in the primary intent of these words, was a Nationall church, then in being, do you not imply, that these words, tell the Church, have reference to a Church, or churches, that were not yet in being, which should afterward be invested with power of judging? and therefore giving it for granted, that Christ saying, Tell the Church, sends them to the Jewish Synagogues or Sanhedrin, whilst their authority did continue, (and so Peter needs not stay three years, before he can acquaint the Church with his offence) yet still the congregational church may be competitrress with Classical, Provincial, Nationall, and Ecumenical churches for the power of judging; and if she should come off victricious, than the guilt of wresting this place (for you urge it to prove the power of your judging church) would rest among yourselves, and the congregational men, and their Way be guiltless. Now, for our parts we cannot see the title of congregational churches any way invalidated, by what hath been hitherto said by yourself or others.  
2. Whilst you say, that the Church in the first and primary, etc. I suppose your inference must be this; Ergo, those words, Matth. 18. Tell the Church, cannot be rightly applied to a congregational Church, which hath no such gradual judicatories and appeals; but Classical, Provincial, and Nationall Churches; for amongst these are found such gradual judicatories and appeals. The sinew and strength of this reason is this: It is necessary that the judging Church in the times of the Gospel, should answer in the manner of its judicature the judging Church in the time of the Law: and ergo, if that Church which was to judge then had gradual judicatories and appeals, such aught to have the judging Church in the days of the Gospel: This main hypothesis upon which the strength of all depends, is unsound: For,  
1. It is necessary that the judging Church in the times of the Gospel should be conformed to spiritual precepts and patterns left us by Christ and his Apostles: but Christ hath not appointed the Jewish church in matter of government to be a pattern to Gospel Churches: For if so, then are not the Churches that are of Presbyterian complexion to be understood in this place, for there is a vast difference betwixt your Churches and the Jewish Church: For,  
First, there is disparity in the manner of the calling of persons; for Synods are made up of men, chosen and sent forth by particular Churches, but the Sanhedrin did not consist of chosen men sent out by the Synagogues, but of Priests and Levites, which the Synagogues did neither choose nor send forth.  
Secondly, there is disparity in matter of power: In the Jewish Sanhedrin the chief Priest was chief, by virtue of Office, 2 Chron. 19.11. but in the Classical Way all are equal in point of Office.  
Thirdly, in respect of the causes judged: the Sanhedrin dealt with matters of civil nature, Deut. 21.5. but Synods only with Ecclesiastical.  
Fourthly, in respect of the time of judicature. The Sanhedrin was a standing, constant court; but Classical, Provincial, Nationall and Ecumenical Synods, meet but once in a month, once in half a year, once in twelve months; or it may be, not once in many ages is an Ecumenical Synod gathered, and so those appeals that are made from a Nationall, are in little hope to find relief from an Ecumenical Synod.  
2. If it were necessary that Church-government in the times of the Gospel should bear conformity with the Jewish Government, than they must not only have gradual judicatories and appeals, but they must have,  
First, a stated Ecumenical judicature, constantly to judge all hard controversies between blood and blood, plea and plea, stroke and stroke, into all Churches in the world.  
Secondly, that this stated Ecumenical judicature must have some stated place which God should choose, Deut. 17.8. that so appellants might know whither to repair for redress of their grievances.  
Thirdly, that there must be one chief by virtue of office over all met in this universal court, 2 Chron. 19.4. That he that shall do presumptuously, and will not hearken to that Catholic council, that man must die, Deut. 17.12.  
3. There may be good reason rendered, why the Synagogues should be under a Juperiour judicatory; and the same cause there is why Congregationall-churches should be under a Superior judicatory. The Synagogues were parts of a church that had not power to dispense all God's Ordinances amongst themselves, and were branches of a politic national-church, endued with power of government as Nationall: The Promise and Covenant of God extended to the whole Nation. But there is no such power of government left to every or to any Nation in the world; neither are particular Congregations parts of a Church, as the Synagogues of the Jews were, but they are entire, and complete Churches; and may transact all God's Ordinances, walking in truth, and peace amongst themselves, otherwise all God's Ordinances could not be transacted, unless a whole Nation were converted and brought into Church-society.  
This Gospel was writ principally for the Jews some say in Hebrew, Answer. etc.  
Admitting the Proposition were true, Reply. (which yet we have much cause to doubt of;) may not congregational men that are Christians, use this place aright in applying it to congregational churches, because the whole Gospel was writ principally for the Jews? Certainly the undiscernible strength of this reason (at least by us,) will levy war against the Presbyterians (except they will profess themselves Jews,) for applying this place to Presbyterian Churches. The Epistles to the Hebrews and James, were writ principally for the Jews; and yet Christians that are Gentiles, may make a right use of them.  
In it the spirit of God useth much the language and dialect of the old Testament, Answer. in which Kahal (and Ecclesia with the Seventy) do sometimes signify the company of Elders, as well as the body of the people; a Nationall Church with gradual judicatories and appeals, as well as a particular assembly.  
We cannot but despair of ever seeing the premises delivered of the conclusion. Reply. Let it be granted, that Kahal, etc. signifies in the old Testament, sometimes a company of Elders, sometimes the People; sometimes a Nationall, sometimes a congregational Church; yet it will not follow, that the congregational men, in applying Mat. 18.17. to the congregational Church, have offered any violence to the Text. For it will not follow, Kahal sometimes signifies a Nationall Church in the old Testament, (no, though to make it more strong, you add; that the Spirit useth much the language and dialect of the old Testament) I say, it will not follow therefore it signifies a Nationall Church in Matth. 18.17. for the Spirit may use (by your own confession) the language and dialoct of the old Testament, and yet it may be understood of a particular Assembly. Neither will it follow, Kahal sometime in the old Testament, Ergo Ecclesia signifies a company of Elders, Ergo, it signifies a company of Elders in Matth. 18.17.  
Now there is not a word in the Text, Answer. to show either that the Church is not here taken for the Presbytery, but for the People (seeing when Christ saith, whatsoever ye shall bind, etc. he speaks to the Disciples, vers. 1. or Apostles, which are elsewhere said, to have the power of binding and losing, Matth. 16.19. Joh. 20.23. and were not ordinary Believers but Elders? 1 Pet. 5.1.) or, that it is meant of a parcular Congregation, without gradual judicatories and appeals, etc.  
These are the Premises; Reply. but how shall we do to get the conclusion willingly to follow these Premises? which must be this: Ergo, when the congregational men affirm, that the particular Congregation is the Church, to which God hath given the power of government, and urge Matth. 18. to prove the exercise of such power by the Church aforesaid, they abuse that Text. For the congregational men may very securely affirm, that those words, Tell the Church, send the offended Brother to the congregational Church in the time of the Gospel (even as they sent the Jewés to the Sanhedrin whilst that was in force) and yet not send him to the people, as they stand in opposition to the Presbytery, which are the most noble organical parts of the integrally perfect Church: For we do not seat the power of the Keys in the people, as they are contradistinguished to their Elders; but in the whole Church, by a most wise and divine dispersion of power unto the dissimilar parts of the Church, according to their several capacities: For, as the Elders have an authoritative power, so the people have a power of liberty in point of censures: So that reclamante Ecclesiâ, there can be no excommunication. So then, though it be not understood of the people only, no nor chief, as they stand in opposition to their Guides; yet this place may lawfully be understood of the congregational Church as it is contradistinct to Classical, Provincial. Nationall, and Ecumenical Churches. The reason is, we have precedents in the Word of God for the one, as in the Churches of Jerusalem, Corinth, Cenchrea, etc. and rules prescribed to such a Church, Acts 6.3. 1 Cor. 5.4. chap. 11. chap. 12. chap. 1.4. chap. 16. but of any stated Classical, Provincial, Nationall, Ecumenical Churches, there is a deep silence in the Scriptures of the new Testament; no precept for the erecting of such, and no laws nor Officers provided for such Churches. Now Christ, Matth. 18. sends the people of God to such a Church, as should be in strength, by virtue of a Charter from heaven to redress grievances, and heal offences, and therefore he sends us to the congregational Church, as it opposeth those churches I spoke of before, for these can show no such charter.  
I read that the promise of binding and losing is not given to a particular Congregation when leavened with error and variance. Answer. But then a Synod of Churches, or of their Messengers may judicially convince and condemn errors, search out truth, etc.  
All that we have to say to that, Reply. is this; If you will acknowledge the power of binding and losing to be seated in the particular Congregation, we shall not contend against it, (though we cannot say that the Scriptures and reasons brought, are convincing to each of us to enforce our grant) but that in ease of error or scandal that cannot be healed in the Congregation; A Synod of neighbour churches, or their Messengers may judicially condemn those errors and schisms, etc. and impose ways of peace and truth; but yet not assume authority of censuring the delinquents, but leave that to particular Churches to be performed. 
Cotton Keys, pag. 28.    

POSITION XX.  
Matth. 16.19. Christ directeth his Speech not to Peter alone, 
This seems to be taken out of Answer to 32 q p 44.  but to all the Disciples also; for to them all was the Question propounded by Christ, vers. 15. Nor to them as general Officers of the Churches, for that Commission was not yet given them, but as Disciples and Believers.  
In laying down this Position, Reply. and making your battery upon it, as you do fall short of that ingenuity you profess in your Preface, when you say, If any of the Brethren (amongst whom Mr. Cotton is deservedly the chief) seem in my apprehension to come nearer the truth then other, 
Cotton Keys, pag. 4.  I willingly take notice of it, etc. Now Mr. Cotton must needs (in your judgement) come nearer the truth then the Elders: for he doth acknowledge that Peter was considered in the several capacitles of an Apostle, an Elder, a Brother; and so the power of the Keys was promised in him to Apostles, Elders, and Brethren, according to their several proportions of that dispersed spiritual power. Now had you dealt with this doctrine (with which we concur) and told us your thoughts of it in reference to the place; we should have acknowledged your answerableness therein to your profession. Now, though you cite Mr. Cotton in the margin, yet so, as that the ordinary sort of readers can hardly guess what his judgement is: and the whole frame of your Discourse is such, that may well leave the Reader in this apprehension, That the Elders of New-England place all power of the Keys in Believers as such, which is contrary to the very expressions of the Elders of New-England and to the judgement of the congregational men in general: For the Elders say, The ministerial power of government is given to the Church, and consequently not to Believers, unless they become a Church; yea, they say expressly, That the Keys are committed to all Believers that shall join together in the same confession, according to the order and ordinance of Christ, and consequently, except Believers join into Church-societies (which is the Ordinance of Christ) they have no share of the power of the Keys, muchlesse do they assert any such power in women, who (though Believers, yet) are excluded from any share in Church-government, by a positive law, 1 Cor. 14.34, 35.  
Peter was an Apostle, in Office and Commission, Answer. though not yet sent out into all the world: and an Elder, Matth. 10.1, 2, etc. and doubtless the Key of Authority, and Rule when it was promised to Peter, and given to him with the rest of the Apostles, Joh. 20.23. is the same authority which is given to their successors, whereby they are called to feed and rule the Church of God; as the Apostles had done before, etc.  
Let it be granted that the twelve Disciples (so called, Mat. 10.1.) are not called Apostles (vers. 2.) by way of anticipation, Reply. 
Mar. 3.13, 14.  but in reference to their present state and condition: yet it will be necessary still to distinguish the equivocal term of Apostle; as noting,  
1. One authorised to dispense doctrine and discipline amongst all nations, Matth. 28.19. and in this sense Peter was no Apostle in Office and Commission, as yourself confess: And what the Elders affirm is true, That the Keys were not given to Peter in this capacity; i.e. not as to one that was actually in that estate and condition; or was hereby put into that estate and condition.  
2. As one sent forth by a temporary Commission to preach and work miracles amongst the Jews only. 
(a) Mat. 10.23.  Now the Promise of the Keys, was not made to Peter under this capacity, neither was he an Elder invested with authoritative power of government at this time; he could neither vote in Synagogues, nor in the Sanhedrin, but only preach authoritatively, and work miracles to confirm his Doctrine: and in case that they did not receive him, he could not excommunicate them by himself, or with all the rest of the twelve with him; but must shake 
(a) Mat. 10 14, 15.  off the dust of his feet against them, and leave them to the great day of God's immediate judgement; for so runs the tenor of his Commission, and there is deep silence of any other, then merely a doctrinal power of the Keys. So that the issue is this; that though what you say be true, in the sense expressed, yet it is nothing to the purpose for which it is brought; for still the assertion of the Elders may be true, that Christ speak not to them as Apostles in Office and Commission, whether limited to the Jews (as you would insinuate) or extended to all Nations; but as Disciples or Believers.  
2. Neither will it follow, the Key of authority promised to Peter, and given to him with the rest of the Apostles, Joh. 20.23. is the same which is given to their successors; therefore Christ directeth his Speech to Peter, not as a Believer, but as an Apostle in Office and Commission; for what ever the import of the thing promised may be, yet that hinders not but the promise may be made to Peter under the respect and consideration of a Believer. For the thing promised in this place may be considered two ways: 

First, as a reward in general of grace and mercy.  
Secondly, as such a reward which importeth a power of opening and shutting the Kingdom of heaven.    
Now the Power of the Keys considered as a reward of grace and mercy, is promised to Peter as making such a glorious confession 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and I say unto thee, q. d. thou hast made such a holy confession of me, that I say unto thee, I will not suffer thee to go unrewarded: but I do promise that I will give thee the Keys of the Kingdom of heaven, etc. Now Peter did not confess Christ as a general Officer, but as a Believer; and therefore the reward which is the promise, is made to him, not as a general Officer, but as a Believer.  
2. As importing a power of opening and shutting, and so though it be promised to Peter as a Believer, and in him to all those that shall make the same holy confession of Christ that he did; yet is it not to be executed either by Peter himself, or any other, under the notion and consideration of a Believer only; but imports also an Office, or State under the capacity and consideration of which it is to be executed. Thus, when Christ saith to Peter, I will give to thee Keys, etc. he doth thereby promise, that Peter shall be as a Member, as an Elder, as an Apostle in the Gospel-churches; and in all these capacities should have some share in the dispensation of the power of the Keys. The consequent whereof is this; No Believer at this day, merely as a Believer; nay, nor yet as a Believer externally confessing Christ with the mouth, may have any share in executing the power of the Keys, unless he be a Brother, joined to some Church, or an Elder set over some Church; (for children for their weakness, and women for their sex, are excluded by a positive law) For as the power of the Keys is promised; so the State under the consideration of which they shall exercise such power, yea, and a Commission from Christ, by which they shall exercise that power, is also promised. And thus Mr. Cotton may say, that Peter may he considered as an Apostle, an Elder, a Brother; because together with the power of the Keys, the state of an Apostle, of an Elder, of a Brother is promised; and yet not clash with the Elders of New-England, who affirm, that the power of the Keys is promised to Peter (i e. as a reward of grace and mercy) as a Believer. Neither need the Elders of New-England dread your threefold consequence, viz.  
First, That the Keys are not given to any visible Church: And,  
Secondly, That they are given to all Believers, in covenant or no; whether males or females.  
Thirdly, That Apostles and Pastors have no more power of the Keys, then ordinary Believers: which, as they are false and absurd; so it may easily appear by that which hath been said, that they cannot shelter themselves under any thing in the Position of the Elders of New-England. Neither will that Axiom, à quatenus ad omnevalet consequentia, (i. from as such, to all such, a consequence is of force: how?) bear you out in so unjust a charge. For though it be true in such Propositions, where the specifical difference is predicated of the Species, or proper Accident of the Subject, the proper effect of the immediate cause; yet it will not hold when you speak of a Sovereign Lord, acting in a transcendent way of liberty; no, nor of a rational creature moving according to choice and election Suppose you should have a servant that should prove faithful in his place (though one of the meanest places;) and therefore you should promise to give into his hand all the Keys of the house, that he should open and shut to all the rest; and this you should do, looking upon him as faithful; A quatenus ad omne non valet consequentia, in such a case; it will not follow, that every faithful servant in your house, hath the power of the Keys; neither will it follow, that the faithful servant, to whom the promise of the Keys, much less every other faithful servant, as such, may execute the power of the Keys: For though the promise be made to that servant under the capacity of a faithful servant; yet the promise itself carries an Office by implication, viz. the office of Steward; under which consideration, and not under the consideration of a faithful servant, he is to manage the power of the Keys. Phineas the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron was zealous for God, Numb. 25. and God gives him the covenant of an everlasting Priesthood, because he was zealous; will you say, that A quatenus ad omnia valebat consequentia, in this case, i. e. because an everlasting Priesthood was promised to Phineas, because he was zealous, therefore every zealous person hath an everlasting Priesthood?  
Lastly, that it was far from the purpose of the Elders of New-England to assert any such Doctrine as you would draw from their words, may appear in this Answer, and elsewhere in this book, wherein they place the power of the Keys, not in the body as contradistinct to the guides; but in the whole, consisting of Rulers, and ruled; giving to the Rulers an authoritative power, which they give not to the ruled.   

POSITION XXI. 1 Cor. 5. Paul himself though an extraordinary Officer, yet would not take upon him to excommunicate the incestuous person, without the Church; but sends to them, exhorting them to do it, 
(a) See also answ. to 23. q. pag. 49.  and reproves the Brethren of the Church of Coriuth as well as the Elders, that they did no sooner put him away, 
(b) Cotton Keys, pag. 13.   
To prove that this Doctrine is injurious to the Text, you thus reason:  
He blames all women as well as men, Answer. that notwithstanding the notorious fornication which was amongst them, they were puffed up, and gloried, etc.  
1. We suppose this battery is raised against those words, Reply. and reproves the Brethren as well as the Elders, etc. Now, if it might be any gratification of strength to your Argument, we will grant, that the Apostle blames all in general, and yet the Elders may without any show of wrong to the Text, affirm, that he blames the Brethren as well as the Elders; for it will not follow, Paul reproves the whole Church, Ergo, he reproves not the Brethren which are a part of the Church.  
2. If it be said, that the wrong lies in the scope of the words: For hence we go above to prove, that the Brethren have ashare in the power of Church-censures; Now the same argument will prove from this text, that women have a power in Church-censures, because women are reproved in this place, as being part of the Church. We answer, when an Epistle is writ to a whole Church, it doth respect particular persons, according to their several capacities: 
1 Cor. 14.34, 35.  Now women are not in a capacity of dispensing Church-censures; therefore the reproof is not extended unto them. If things indefinitely spoken to a whole Church, because they cannot be verified of one who is not in a capacity to receive them, may not therefore be affirmed of another; then because a liberty in cutting off offenders, by virtue of Gal. 5.9.12.13. doth not belong to women, neither doth it belong to Elders or Brethren; for the Apostle speaketh to all. Likewise because the Holy Ghost writes to the whole Church of Pergamus, females as well as males, and blames them for not casting out the Balaamites and the Nicolaitans; which women have no power to do; therefore neither doth the reproof import any such power, either in Elders or Brethren.  
This it may be you intended but as a light velitation with these lusorious expressions, Sed remove ista luforia, decretoriis opus est, i. remove these Toys, there is need of Decrees.  
Paul himself (say you) did excommunicate Alexander, Answer. and Hymeneus, 1 Tim. 1.20. and it is not mentioned that he took the consent of the Church or Presbytery.  
That Paul alone did excommunicate Alexander and Hymeneus is not so clear, Reply. but if we should deny it, we could argue probably for the Negative. Paul saith to Timothy, 2 Tim. 1.6. Stir up the gift of God which is in thee, by the putting on of my hands; and yet Paul did but lay on hands with the Presbytery, 1 Tim. 4.14. Now if the Apostle did not act in ordination, how much less in excommunication without the concurrence of the Church? the rather because Apostles concurrence with the Church, seems to make more,  
1. For God's glory in the universal humiliation of the whole Church.  
2. For the Church's peace, who are more likely to subscribe to the equity of those proceed of which themselves have the cognizance, then if they were carried on by a transcendent and superior motion of Apostolical power.  
3. For the edification of the Church in seeing, and hearing, and concurring in the whole business.  
4. For the attainment of the end of excommunication, both the more immediate, viz. Non-communion with the party; and the more nemote & noble end, viz. the healing of the party, and of the offence.  
2. Let what is assumed be granted; yet we suppose you will make no gain of it: For,  
1. It will not necessarily follow, Paul did excommunicate Hymeneus and Alexander himself; therefore Paul did without the consent of the Church of Corinth excommunicate the incestuous person: For it was but suitable to the holy, and self denying frame of the Apostles spirit, Jure suo cedere, to remit something of his own right.  
2. Neither is it so much as probablely convincing, if we consider, that the Holy Ghost makes the subject excommunicating, to be the Church of Corinth, 1 Cor. 5.4, 5. 'Tis the Church of Corinth whom the Apostle requires to purge out the old leaven, vers. 7. 'Tis the Church of Corinth in which the Apostle states the power of judging, vers. 12. do not ye judge them that are within.  
The Apostle, saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Answer. I have judged as though I were, etc. which imports rather, that Paul himself would deliver him to Satan, then that he exhorts them to do it. Indeed he commands them to put him away, as he writes to them to restore him again, to see if they would be obedient in all things, 2 Cor. 2.9.  
Brother, we cannot but observe, Reply. that you manage this argument something tenderly, as if you did suspect the ground you tread on; for you say not, that the words import that Paul would deliver him to Satan himself, and not that he exhorts the Corinthians to do it; but you say, that they import rather the one than the other; and this amounts to as much as nothing to the purpose: For in regard of the affinity the words may have with the one importment more than the other, they may be said to import the one rather than the other, and yet in their proper sense import neither. 
Luke 18.14.  The Publican is said to go away justified rather than the Pharisee, and yet the words do not positively import that either of them were justified.  
And yet you have a good mind to make your Reader believe that Paul himself delivers him to Satan, and not the Corinthian Church, by their authority, and this you prove,  
From the Gammaticall Syntax of the words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Answ. Doubtless there must be an Accusative case importing the subject delivering, understood; and this must be either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, with reference to the Apostle, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, with relation to the Church. Not the first, as we conceive:  
1. For if so, it is probable the Apostle would have said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I have delivered him that hath so done this thing to Satan; and have commanded the Church only to take notice of it, and to abstain from communion with him.  
2. The Apostles judgement was such a judgement as was passed at the writing of the Epistle; and therefore the Apostle saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I have judged, or I have judged already him that hath done this thing, and therefore his judgement of the man was not the actual casting out of him, but only a judgement, that the Church should pass the judgement of Excommunication against him, assuring them that not only his spirit, but the power of Christ should go along with them.  
3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, To deliver to Satan, notes such a public and solemn transaction of an Ordinance, as Paul was in no possible capacity to do (for he did nothing by proxy) being absent. For it notes; 

1. A public binding of the person under the guilt of sin by the Key of Faith.  
2. An observable exemplary ejection of the person out of the fraternity of the Church, and a shutting of the door of communion against him, until he repent by the Key of Church order.    
Now must the whole come together, and look one upon another in silence, and upon the incestuous person, imagining him to be thus excommunicate, because Paul had judged to have him excommunicate, and so after this dumb show, depart one from another: Therefore we conceive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be understood as going before the Infinitive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to relate to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, according to the rule of Grammarians, Si infinitivus, & Participium praecedens pertinent ad eandem persmam, non additur accusativus personae, sed subintelligitur.  
But it may be you will say, Objection. that you affirm that the Church is commanded to do it, and therefore Paul alone did not do it.  
Doth Paul command the Church to deliver the incestuous person to Satan, Answer. and yet reserve the whole power to himself? as he must needs do, if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, have reference to himself. These things being spoken by you in reference to one individual act under one and the same consideration expressed in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, must needs be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, altogether inconsistent one with another, or with the truth.  
2. If the Elders abuse the Text by saying that Paul exhorts the Church of Corinth to excommunicate the incestuous person; how will you wash your hands from all wrong offered to the Text, whilst you affirm that Paul commanded them to excommunicate him? Yes, say you, Paul writes to them to see if they would be obedient in all things. Is this your meaning, that Paul writes not to them, requiring them to put forth a power given unto them (and all other Churches) by Jesus Christ, but only to exercise an act of power, which did not of right belong unto them, but to his Apostolical Function. And why by the same reason might not the Apostle then, and the Ministers now in their Churches, call out one, or more, and command them to preach, or administer Baptism, or the Supper, merely to try their obedience? Now this must be your meaning, or else your argument will never conclude the thing you profess to conclude: For we willingly grant that Paul writ unto them to try their obedience, but the very Text imports that there were other grounds of his writing as well as this; for he saith not, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, therefore, for this I write, much less, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for this therefore only writ, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for this therefore also I writ unto you, to try your obedience; intimating that there were other grounds. And therefore, that Paul writ unto them to try their obedience, will never afford such a conclusion; therefore he writ not to them to exercise an ordinary power purchased for them by the blood of Christ: for obedience may be tried by that which is both a privilege and a duty.  
Paul bids the Colossians cause an Epistle to be read in Laodicea, Answer. they (its like) did it in obedience to Apostolical authority; yet it will not bence follow, that a Church hath ordinarily the same power over another Church.  
There is a twofold causing; by way of authority, Reply. or by way of moral suasion, or endeavour: this latter, the Apostle speaks of, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (saith he) work, or use your endeavour; and the same power hath every Church over other at this day for their good.  
2. Suppose you could obtain what you desire in all these, that Paul did excommunicate, not the Church; or if the Church did, yet it is a wrong to the text, to plead for the like power at this day: Do you not all this while fight against the Presbyterians (whose Cause you pretend to advocate) as well as against the congregational men whom you professedly oppose? For, if it will not follow, The Church of Corinth (whether particular, or representative) is commanded to deliver the incestuous person to Satan, therefore every true Courch hath the same power; then whilst the Presbyterian Brethren urge this place to prove the power of a Classical Presbytery, they wrong the Text: For though it may be a question, whether this Text gratify the fraternity of the Church, with so much power as we would state upon them by virtue of this Text; yet Presbyterians, and congregational men all, (except yourself, that we know) agree; That whatsoever power the Fraternity and Presbytery of the Church of Corinth had, that the Fraternity and Presbytery of all true Churches have to the end of the world.  
He bids them purge out the leaven, Answer. and put away from them the wicked person, etc. which must not be understood, as if Elders and People were equally authorized thereunto, etc.  
1. Reply. Is not this to insinuate, that the Elders of New-England and Mr. Cotton affirm, that the Elders and People are equally authorized to cast out the incestuous person, and not only quilibet in suo gradu, every one in their degree? There is nothing in the place by you alleged, that doth import thus much. They say, the Apostle reproves the one as well as the other: The King for a miscarriage in a Cause, may reprove the Jury as well as the Judge, and yet there is no such implication, that Elders and People, Judge and Jury, are equally authorized to the respective acts of Judicature. The Elders of New-England infer from hence, that all Church-power is not in the Officers alone; do they therefore affirm that there is as much in the people, as in the Elders? Whereas in answer to Q. 15. p. 60. they show certain acts of power in the Eldership, which are not in the people; and Mr. Cotton 
(a) Cotton Keys, cap. 4. and 5.  expressly gives all authority properly so called, to the Eldership, allotting only a popular power of interest and liberty to the people.  
2. And lastly, (for the rest of your expressions about this matter, I take to be but of the train and retinue of this grand misprision, and so pass them over;) lastly (I say) when you say, that he bids them purge out the old leaven, and put away the wicked person, which must not be understood, as if Elders and People were equally authorized thereunto, but quilibet in suo gradu; a man would think you did acknowledge, that the People in suo gradu are authorized to purge out the old leaven, and put away the wicked person (which questionless are acts of some kind of governing power) and yet in the Catastrophe of all this Discourse you wipe the Fraternity of the Church clearly of all acts of governing power, when you say— So when he speaks of acts of governing power, it is to be understood of Elders, and not of Believers. Are not these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? Are purging out the old leaven, and putting away the wicked person, acts of governing power? And are Believers authorized in suo gradu to perform these acts? and yet doth no act of governing power belong to the Believers of the church? Let him assoil this Riddle that is an Oedipus, able to do it; for our parts we cannot. Thus much of your 21. Section.   

POSITION XXII.  
The Lord Jesus reproving the Angel of Pergamus, for suffering Balaamites, sends his Epistle, 
This is alleged by Answ. to 32. q. 45. and 49.  not only to the Angel, but to the Church. The Spirit saith not only to the Angel, but to the Churches, Rev. 2.11. And the Church members are seen by john in a vision, sitting on Thrones, clothed with white raiment, having on their heads Crowns of gold, Rev. 4.14. Now Thrones and Crowns are ensigns of Authority and governing power.  
To make good your charge against the Elderss of wrong offered to these Texts alleged, you say,  
The Lord Jesus reproving the Angel of Pergamus, Answer. sends his Epistle (say you) not to the Angel, but to the Church: I add, not to the Church but to the Churches. As you gather that the suffering of corrupt persons and practices was the sin of the Church and not of the Angel only; so I may gather that it was the sin, not of the Church only, but the neighbouring Churches also.  
It is like you intended a consutation; Reply. but it hath befallen you as it did the Potter in the Poet: 
Horat. de Art. Poet.— amphora coepit. Institui currente rota, cur urcens exit?  qui amphoram instituens currente rota effingit urcoum. For in stead of a consutation you have brought forth an addition otwo other inferences. Now, if you should unto this inference of the Elders add a hundred more of your own; yet this will not prove that the inference of the Elders is injurious to the Text; For still it may be doubted, whether theirs, or yours, any of them, all of them, or none of them be true, true inferences from the Text, yea or no; especially considering that the inferences you bring, are of friendly compliance with that that you pretend to confute. For you say,— not to the Church (I suppose you mean— the Church only, for else you harp upon a harsh string in the ears of rational men, to say, John writ to all the seven Churches of Asia; Ergo, he writ not to Perganus, one of the seven) but to the churches. Now can you say the Lord Jesus, writing to the Angel of the Church of Perganus, sends his Epistle to all the seven Churches, and not abuse the Text? and yet must we believe it, when you tell us, that the Elders of New-England, in saying Christ writ not to the Angel of the Church of Pergamus only, but to the whole Church of Pergamus also, do abuse the Text? Again, if the suffering of Balaamites in the Church of Pergamus was the sin of all the neighbouring Churches, and that this may be affirmed by you without wrong to the Text; then the suffering of them in the Church of Pergamus itself was the sin of that Church; and this may be affirmed by the Elders of New-England without wrong to the Text.  
2. But let us look upon the words, not as they may afford matter of an argument ad hominem, but as they are in themselves: Two things you affirm, 

1. That Christ reproving the Angel of the Church of Pergamus, sends the Epistle to the Churches. We suppose you mean the other six Churches of Asia.  
2. That suffering Balaamites (which is reproved in the Church of Pergamus) was the sin of the neighbouring Churches also. For the first:    
1. The book of the Reulation contains seven Epistles, which were of immediate concernment in a distributive sense, to seven several Churches; and many other glorrious mysteries that were of equal concernment to all the people of God. These all being moulded into one book (as we said) are sent to the seven Churches of Asia. Now the Elders of New-England affirm, that the Epistles sent to the Angels of Pergamus and Thyatira, are sent by way of immediate appropriation and concernment (for that is their meaning) to the whole Churches of Pergamus and Thyatira. Now if in this sense you affirm, that Christ reproving the Angel of the Church of Pergamus, sends his Epistle to all the Churches, you speak to the purpose, but not according to truth: For,  
1. What a Pleonasme and redundancy, if not a gross Solecism in discourse, and absudity it is, in a book sent as an Epistle to seven Churches, two several times to mention them together, vers. 4. John to the seven Churches of Asia, vers. 11. What thou seest, 
Rev. 1.4.11.  writ it in a book, and send it to the seven Churches of Asia, and afterwards to write several things of a Heterogeneal nature to those seven several Churches distributively. To the Church of Ephesus writ thus, to the Church of Pergamus thus, etc. commend one, condemn another; admonish a third, extol a fourth, threaten a fifth, etc. and yet, that these several Epistles should be of as immediate a concernment to all the rest, as to those to which they are particularly directed.  
2. It will follow, that Philadelphia was lukewarm with Laodicea, dead with Sardis; and of these two lukewarm, dead Churches, may be verified the Encomiastics of Ephesus, Pergamus and Philadelphia, with many such consequences. But if your meaning be, that the Epistle sent to the Church of Pergamus, in respect of that remote, and general concernment, whereby it may be of use to all Christians, is sent together with the rest of the Book of the Revelations to the seven Churches; This (though a truth) will afford no contribution towards the making good of your charge against the Elders of New-England, being that which they deny not.  
2. For the second, it is undeniably manifest, that the assertion of the Elders, viz. that the Church of Pergamus was guilty of suffering Balaamites, and other wicked persons, is true; yea, the truth of this Text. But to have so much faith as to believe, that all the rest of the six Churches of Asia (if that be the utmost extent of neighbouring Churches in your account) were guilty of suffering Balaamites and Nicolaitans (yea, even Ephesus and Philadelphia, that are commended for not suffering those that are evil, hating the deeds of the Nicolaitans, and keeping the Word of God's patience,) would require some further proof than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, your bare assertion for the manifestation of it. For if the rest were guilty, why are they not blamed? Why is the burden laid only (though it might be laid chief) upon one Church, when as the rest are guilty? I suppose the building upon which you lay the weight of this roof, is this: These seven Churches were a combined Presbytery, and therefore as the government, so the neglect thereof concerns all.  
Answ. If you may assume the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the thing in question, as if it were the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a thing out of question, you may in time persuade the world, that the Elders of New-England have forced this, and many other Texts. But to prove that the seven Asian Churches were governed by a joint and common Presbytery, hic labour, hoc opus est, this is the business.  
But suppose that such a common Presbytery there were, and that the Presbyters of all the other six Churches did endeavour the casting out of these Balaamites, etc. why were they then not cast out? Can the Elders of Pergamus over-vote the Elders of all the neighbouring churches in a Synod? And if all, or at least the major part of the Elders of these seven Churches neglect, why are the Elders of Pergamus only reproved?  
Lastly, we cannot choose upon this consideration, but condole the sad condition of Presbyterian Churches which is such, if wicked men be suffered in any particular Congregation in the world, all the Churches in the world are guilty of it. The reason is, the same obligation that lies upon a Classical Church to reform the several Congregations in the Classis, the same lies upon a Provincial Church to reform the several Classis in the Province; and the same lies upon a Nationall Church to reform the several Provincial Churches in the Nation; and the same lies upon the Ecumenical Church to reform the several Nationall Churches in the world: and therefore, though all the inferior Churches should fail, yet the Ecumenical is bound to see it reform; and if the Ecumenical fail, all in the line of Ecumenical communion, that is to say, all Churches in any Nation in the world are guilty.   

POSITION XXIII.  
The particular Congregation takes Christ for her only spiritual Prophet, Priest and King, Deut. 18.15. Acts 737. Psal. 110.4. Heb. 5.4. Isai. 9.6, 7. Rev. 15.3.  
To make good this charge, you say, Answer.  
Seven or eight (you say) are the fewest will make a Church; but five or six, yea, any one particular Saint, though out of Church-fellowship by excommunication, may take Christ for his only spiritual Priest, Prophet and King, etc.  
How comes it to pass (Brother) that your margin that hath in most places born witness to your Text, reserves itself in deep silence, Reply. as if it were afraid to be accessary to this wrong offered to the Brethren of the congregational Way? That the congregational Way, eatenus, in that it is congregational, is conformed to the will and laws of Christ appoined by him, as King of the Church, delivered by him in his Word, as Prophet of the Church, we constantly affirm, and shall be ready to justify before all the word, till we be convinced of our error in that particular. That the stated Classical, Provincial, Nationall, and Ecumenical Way of Church-government importing a power of jurisdiction in point of Ordination, Excommunication, etc. over particular Congregations, is not suitable to the Will of God delivered by Christ as Prophet, nor to the Laws of God delivered by Christ as King of the Church, as it is suitable to our light: So we shall endeavour pro virili nostro according to our power, with all meekness and brotherlike affection to defend, as God shall give opportunity. But that ever we have read in the writings of any congregational man, truly so called, as they stand in opposition to others of a different judgement, both upon the right hand, and on the left (with whom alone you profess in your Preface to have to do;) I say, that ever we have read in the writings of any congregational man, these places applied to prove the Position, as it is by you controverted, that is to say, that the particular congregational Church takes Christ for her only Prophet, Priest and King, (as if in these his Offices he were so only hers) that no five or six, or one particular Saint, though out of Church-fellowship; no Classical, Presbyterial, or Nationall Church, no not the Nationall Church of the Jews itself, doth (or notwithstanding some failings in government may) take Christ as their only spiritual Priest, Prophet, and King, as we do not remember; so in whose Sack soever this cup of abomination be found, yea, though it be in Benjamins, let him suffer according to his demerits. But if any of us have thus expressed ourselves, whereby we have made all particular Believers, not joined to some congregational Church, the renowned Scotish and Belgic Churches, and all other reformed Churches not congregational, yea, the Nationall Church of the Jews itself, (at least as you would insinuate) strangers from the Commonwealth of Israel; yet are we unjustly condemned by you, we mean, in that sense, in which Salvian, saith 
a L. 7. de Gub. Dec. p. 282.  Socrates, when he writ a book, persuading that all men's wives should be common, was unjustly condemned by the Judges: Injustè damnatus dicitur, à judicibus, & verum est; Rectius vuim haec talia praedicantem genus damnaret humanum. In like manner we say, we should be unjustly condemned by you, for all the Churches of God, yea, all the people of God might deservedly condemn us.  
2. But suppose it cannot be made out by you, that ever any congregational man, truly so called, held the Position you speak of in the sense insinuated in your examination: where then is your ingenuity that you profess in your Preface? viz. If any of the Brethren seem in my apprehension to come nearer the truth than others, I willingly take notice of it? Is this your willing taking notice of our nearest approaches to the truth, to fasten upon us an imputation of wresting so many Scriptures to the maintenance of an opinion that never entered (as we verily believe) into the hearts; and we are confident, is not to be found in the works of any congregational man? which if it be said, and that you cannot make out the contrary, it is well for you that you lived not in that over rigorous age spoken of by Ludovicus Vives in Commentary upon Augustine, 
Lud. Vives in August. de Civit. Dei, l. 2. c. 9  de Civitate Dei, in which it was a capital fault, and punishable with death, to write or act any thing derogatory to the good name of any man. For you have endeavoured to cast the odium of the most detestable pride and censoriousness upon many thousands, Ministers and People, that are of a precious anointing for learning, or piety, or both, and in particular, of a singular eminency for that rich grace of humility; yea, such a blot have you laid upon them, whilst you say, that we clearly him, that Christ doth exercise his Kingly, Priestly, and Prophetical Office only in Churches merely congregational; yea, that Christ did offer himself a sacrifice for all the members of a congregational Church, and only for such, (a thing of the greatest abhorrency to our thoughts, if it fall on this side blasphemy against the Holy Ghost) such a blot I say you have laid upon them, that you will not easily wipe off; for Machiavels rule is too true, Calumniate fortiter, saltem aliquid adhaerebit, Slander boldly; at least somewhat will cleave.   

POSITION XXIV.  
Christ left but one way of Discipline for all Churches; 
This is found in Answ. to 32. q. p. 72.73. and the like is in R. M. and W. T. to C. H. pag. 8.  which in the essentials of it is unchangeable, and to be kept till the appearing of Christ, 1 Tim. 6.13, 14.  
To prove that these words are injurious to the Text alleged, you say,  
It seems by the words, Thou, O man of God, I give thee in charge, Answer. that thou keep this Commandment (viz. which immediately precedes) concerning faith, and holiness in the Ministry of the Word, to be directed to Timothy himself: or, if to his, successors, than it must be to the ordinary Elders; (for Evangelists that succeeded him we know none) not to the Churches; for example, not to the Church of Ephesus, to whom Paul writes nothing 
(a) Do these words, Eph. 4.11, 12. nothing concern government.  of government; though in his Epistles to Timothy he writ almost concerning nothing else; and chargeth the Elders to take heed to the flock, and look to Wolves, Acts 20.28. But if you will need have the words this commandment extended to this whole Epistle, you had need of good warrant for this exposition.  
If you will acknowledge that the things written to Timothy concern Elders, Reply. Deacons and Believers out of Office according to their several capacities respectively: We shall easily grant, that all the things contained in the whole Epistle, are directed to Timothy himself, but not for his own personal use, but for the use of the Church also. Now in this sense it will nothing befriend you in making good your charge: For still the many rules contained in this Epistle in reference to the Church in general, to Bishops, Deacons, Widows, and Members in particular, may be in force, yea by virtue of this Text, to the appearing of Christ.  
2. If by these words,— to be directed to Timothy himself, you mean that the Commandment immediately preceding, concerns none by way of obligation, but only Timothy, you heat upon a harsh string: For must none flee these things, fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life (by virtue of this Text) but only Timothy? Yea, yourself seem to be jealous of this interpretation, when you say, or if to his successors, than it must be the ordinary Elders, not the Church; and yet you have not mended the matter: For will you restrain these words, That thou keep this Commandment, vers. 14. to those, vers. 11, 12. Flee these things, follow after righteousness, etc. and when you have done, determine it to Elders only? Then it will follow, that only Elders must flee envy, strifes, rail, evil surmisings, perverse dispute, covetousness: That Elders only, and not Believers (at least by virtue of this Text) must follow after godliness, righteousness, faith, love, patience, meekness: That Elders only, and not ordinary Church-members, must fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life. Now, lest this (as well it may) should seem incredible, to make it Testimonium side dignum, you tell us, that these words, This Commandment, relate only to that which immediately precedes, and that which immediately precedes, relates only to faith and holiness in the ministry of the Word. I answer,  
1. If you make these words, Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, the commandment immediately preceding, yet it is not necessary they should be understood only of faith and holiness in the ministry of the Word, which is but one part of the good fight of faith, whereas the good fight of faith is fought in the universal conflict of an Evangelists conversation against the world, the flesh and the devil, as well as in the dispensation of his Evangelicall function.  
2. But with what good reason can these words, Fight the good fight of faith, etc. be conceived to drink up the whole meaning, and utmost extent of those words, That thou keep this commandment without spot, etc. For though I do believe that your thoughts are ready to gratify you with all pleasing accommodations, for overthrow of one only stated discipline out of the word, yet I cannot but think it would seem too gross in your thoughts, to tear by piecemeal the continued exhortation of the Apostle, vers. 11, 12. but thou, O man of God, flee these things, follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness: Fight the good fight of faith, etc. and to apply only this latter part of the exhortaion to those words, That thou keep this commandment. And therefore cannot but wonder, that you should affirm that the Commandment Timothy is commanded to keep, should concern only faith and holiness in the ministry of the Word.  
Therefore, notwithstanding what hath been said, we still affirm that these words relate to the rules concerning Church-government in the former part of the Epistle; and this will further appear,  
1. If you consider the coherence of these words with the former: The Apostle having in the former part of the Epistle insisted upon the several duties of the Officers of the Church, he commands them in the latter end of the second verse of this Chapter, to teach and exhort these things.  
2. He arms him with instructions, how he should carry himself toward those that should teach and exhort the contrary, giving at once the character and censure of such men, vers. 3, 4, 5. and having made a digression, vers. 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10th. he falls on again to resume the former Argument, and to exhort Timothy to flee the courses of these corrupt teachers, and both as a Christian and Evangelist, to approve himself to God in all holiness of conversation, vers. 11, 12. But thou, O man of God, flee these things, etc. q. d. Though some others may prove corrupt in doctrine, and vicious in life, yet do thou walk with God in the power of a holy conversation, and particularly, though others will spot this doctrine, Bishops, Deacons, etc. yet do thou keep it without spot and unrebukeable, and cause it to be kept so by others; for an Apostle, Evangelist, or Bishop never keeps the faith as an Apostle, Evangelist, or Bishop aright, unless he cause it as much as in him lies, to be kept so by others; and so much is the import of the Apostles words, 2 Tim. 4.7. I have kept the faith.  
Now, lest the Evangelist, 
Demonstration of Discipline, p. 5.7.  or others to whom this Word of God might come, should conceive that these things given in charge to Timothy, were of a temporary nature, and to cease with the Primitive times, therefore he saith, vers. 13, 14. I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, etc.— that thou keep this commandment unrehukeable, and without spot, to the coming of Christ, i. e. keep them thyself, and deliver them in charge to the Church, and principally to the Elders to be kept till Christ his second coming.  
2. That which Dr Whitakers against Du●aeus urgeth, is not without strength, That the Apostles have writ these Laws (speaking of Discipline) not for a day, or for the first age, but to endure for all times to come, and therefore hath ratified them with a most earnest obtestation (saith he) 1 Tim. 6.14. that these commandments should be kept unto the day of the Lord.  
That the Essentials of Discipline set down in Scripture, are unchangeable, Answer. I grant; but whether any Essentials be in controversy, or how many, and which they are, you tell us not, etc.  
By Discipline (Brother) we mean the whole System, Reply. and comprehension of divine Rules, Precepts or Precedents, for the external Eutaxie order of the Church, which are not of a temporary, but of a perpetual use, and equity, till the appearing of Christ, and by Essentials, we mean such particulars included in this System or Comprehension, as if any of which be wanting, something is detracted from the perfect and complete order of the Gospel. In this sense we say, that there are certain Essentials in controversy. That only persons rightly qualified, should be admitted to society in the Church, is an Essentall. 
a Isai. 5.6.6.7. 1 Cor 1.1. Phil. 1.1.  Now, though this in the general be not in controversy, yet whether this or that be a right qualification is in controversy, and so an error in an Essential is contended for, and made by the erring party; either by taking in visibly false, or excluding visibly true matter. That the members of the Church, be united by a right medium, is Essential 
b Acts 2.41. Acts 5.13. 1 Cor. 12.  to Discipline, but whether this right medium be I know not what implicit covenant, or whether it be an express covenant, or the legal bounds of the Parish, is no small Question at this day. That ordination, excommunication, etc. be done by the right Subjectum capax 
c 1 Tim. 4.14. Titus 1.5. Acts 14.23.  of these ordinances, is certainly an Essential part or discipline. But whether the Churches in some cases may ordain by Deputies no Church-Elders; or whether in an ordinary way this power be in the Eldership of the particular Congregation, or in a compound Classic Eldership, is a great controversy. But that the holy kiss, oil, washing of feet, are Essentials, we hold not.  
The remainder of your examination, though drawn out into seven particulars, seems to us to be like the horns of the Beast, called Bonassus, 
Aristot. de Nat. Animal.  which are big enough; but yet they are ad pugnam inutilia unuseful to fight withal. For though we cannot assent to every thing in your seven particulars, yet shall pass them over, because they are all peaceably conditioned to the Doctrine of the Elders of New-England. For though they were all granted, yet it may be clearly deduced from 1 Tim. 6.13, 14. that Christ hath left but one way of Discipline for all Churches, etc. the reason is, because these are no parts of the discipline left by Christ to the Church, which in the Essentials of it is unchangeable: spoken by Paul in the Epistle to Timothy. 
Horat. de Art. Poet.  Non semper feriet, quodeunque minabitur Areus.  
Lastly, whereas you call for a Narrative of our Churchway, especially of what we count Essentials, we had thought to have taken some pains to have satisfied you herein, but that in the nick of time that work is done to our hands, by Reverend Mr. Cotton: And further we hear, that a work of the same nature, by the Brethren of the the congregational-way, members of the Assembly, is upon the Anvil, and that by the request of the Assembly of Divines at London, and we make no doubt, but the gleaning of the grapes of Ephraim, are, and will be better than would be the vintage of Abiezer. Yet we know not by what obligation we stand bound to give forth a Narrative of our Way, more than the Brethren of the Presbyterian judgement do of theirs, who though to this day they call earnestly for a Narrative from us, yet have not gratified us with any Narrative of what themselves hold. And therefore vouchsafe to touch at least with one of your fingers, that which you are pleased to lay (though we count it not so) as a burden upon us.   

POSITION XXV.  
The Church or the Ministers thereof, 
The like words are found, answ. to 32. q. p. 11.15. answ. to 9 Pos. p. 76.77, 28.  must not be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 1 Pet. 4. and therefore the Minister must not perform a Ministerial act to another Congregation, Acts 20.28. 1 Pet. 5.1, 2.  
The Text in Peter speaketh not of the Church, or of the Elders, Answer. more than of any other men, nor of meddling with the affairs of other churches, but with other men's matters; nor yet every meddling with them, but such a meddling, as for which they suffered from the Heathens in those days, Let no man suffer as a busybody in other men's matters, etc.  
Neither do the Elders say that the Apostle speaks of the Church, Reply. or the Elders thereof, when he doth dehort them from suffering as busybodies in other men's matters; nor is the Text in Peter so much as mentioned in any of the quotations presented in the margin, nor once intended to be made use of, to prove the thing they were spoken of; therefore is it not a gross wrong, to make the world believe that they made use of 1 Pet. 4. to any such purpose? Only in p. 11. they make use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which Peter makes use of in 1 Pet. 4. but of that Text they make not use, when their scope was to appear against dispensing censures & Church-priviledges to Christians, joined to no particular Church, they say they must not be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, alluding to that place of 1 Pet. 4. where that word is used, but not intending to give the meaning of the place.  
Now they might well apply the word to Ministers intermeddling without the bounds of their calling, because the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, though it signify an Overseer, yet usually it is applied by the Holy Ghost, to a person over-seeing in spiritual matters, and so to a Minister of the Gospel, and is translated Bishop; therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is a person that plays the Bishop in another's Diocese, out of his own bounds most properly; therefore might be made use of in a way of application to Ministers, though the Apostle speak not of Ministers in that place.  
But what inference do you infer after you have resuted your own fiction?  
It is of no more strength (meaning 1 Pet. 4. Answer.) against a Presbytery over particular Congregations then against the power of Parliament over other Courts of Judicature.  
You say true; Reply. the place which neither meddles with the one nor the other, nor was produced unto any such purpose; may have no more strength against the one then against the other; but there are other Scriptures brought, which deny to Ministers that power over other Congregations which the Parliament hath over other Courts of Judicature, within their own territories.  
The inference supposeth that the flocks mentioned in these two Texts, Answer. (viz. Acts 20.28. 1 Pet. 5.1, 2.) were two particular Congregations, which is impossible to be proved.  
The inference supposeth no such thing, Reply. only implieth that there is something in those Texts against Ministers their performing ministerial acts to other Congregations, the truth of which we shall make to appear:  
The Texts in Acts 20.28. gives this charge: Take heed to yourselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers to feed the Church of God, i. their charge extends to none of them beyond the flock over which they were made overseers in the work of feeding; now whether there were more Congregations in Ephesus, or but one, yet no Elder could then, or can now, feed any more than one Congregation, therefore they are Overseers only, each of them, to one Congregation. Yourselves will grant that they cannot feed in a constant way by word and doctrine, and the Sacraments, (which are the principal works of feeding) any more than one Congregation; therefore one Congregation bounds their Commission; and consequently, if they feed ministerially other Congregations, they go beyond their Commission, and are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
2. It is more than probable, that the flock at Ephesus was but one Congregation: First, Ephesus was a City, and we do not read of more Congregations of Saints constantly meeting for the worship of God in any City, than one: Secondly, we cannot think, but that the Church of Jerusalem, Corinth and Antioch, were as numerous as Ephesus, and yet none of them were more than one Congregation, if we be bound to rest upon the Holy Ghosts own testimony, who witnesseth that they ordinarily met in one place, as before was showed.  
3. They are called one flock, one Church; now we have declared before, that one instituted Church, and a Congregation are all one, when Church is properly taken, and without a figure; and in this place there is no necessity of a figure, for there is no improbability but that they might meet in one place; therefore the charge runs to the Elders at Ephesus to feed the Church, viz. the Congregation at Ephesus, and to that they are so limited.  
The Text in 1 Pet. 5.1, 2. gives this charge: Feed the flock that is among you. Now, neither the Elders to whom he writes were together, nor the Saints whom they were to feed, but both the one and the other, scattered abroad through many countries, Pontus, Galatia, Asia, etc. therefore flock in this Text, is to be taken in a figurative sense, and distributively of necessity; and the charge of feeding the flock is to be limited by the words (among you.) And thus it must be understood, you Elders in Pontus, feed the flock among you; and you Elders in Galatia, feed the flock among you, and you Elders in Asia, feed the flock among you; and each of you in every place, feed the flock where you be, in each place. And more distributively yet, because neither all the Elders, nor all the Saints in Galatia, Asia, etc. were together, therefore it is thus to be interpreted; ye Elders in this City of Asia, feed the flock among you; and ye Elders in that City, feed the flock among you; and so of all the rest; so that the restriction in the Commission is in these words (among you.) Now the Saints in Galatia were not with the Elders of Asia, nor the Saints of one City of Asia, with the Elders of another City of Asia; therefore the Elders were by Commission to look to the Saints in every City and place where themselves were, and not to others where themselves were not: So that if the Elders in Asia should take authoritative inspection over the Saints in Galatia, and in other countries, they should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Bishops meddling in others Diocese not belonging to them, because all Elders are bounded to the Saints among themselves.  
Peter bids the Elders of Pontus, Answer. Galatia, etc. to feed the flock of God that is amongst them; therefore you say the Elders of one Church of Galatia, must not feed the people of another Church of Galatia. A communicant must examine himself; will you thence infer, that none else must examine himself? The Thessalonians were to know them that were over them, and laboured among them, and esteem them very high in love for their works sake; therefore must they not hear at all, or at least not esteem highly for their works sake the Pastors of other Congregations? 2 Thes. 5.12, 13.  
Your reasoning is not good, Reply. (nor candid) by comparing things disparate, you would cast an absurdity upon us, but it will light upon yourself. You argue from works of common Christian duty unto works of Office very improperly: As suppose the matter were thus laid down; The Parliament writes to the Colonels of Lancashire, to look well to, and rule and govern the soldiers and people that is amongst them; an inference is drawn hence, the Colonels of Lancashire are not to govern and rule the soldiery and people of Cheshire, for their charge is over the soldiery and people amongst themselves; this inference is good. But you to overthrow it, would bring such an argument as this: The Colonels of Lancashire must agree amongst themselves, must they not therefore agree with the Colonels of Cheshire? The soldiers and people of Lancashire must respect and honour their own Commanders, must they not therefore respect and honour the Commanders in other counties also? This is a weak argumentation to overthrow the former inference; the fallacy lieth in this, you would extend duties of authority and office in such manner as duties of love and reverence, and honour (which respect all men, all superiors) are to be extended. Therefore, seeing that it is a feeding of office, and an authoritative feeding, that is enjoined in those Texts alleged, it is limited to the people over whom they are Officers, and may not be extended further. And yet the people of such Congregations must love their own members, so as withal they must love the members of other Congregations; and they must reverence their own Officers, so, as withal they must reverence the Officers of other Congregations; yet their own most, because relation there is strongest: And the reason is, because love and reverence are not actions annexed to Office, but of a common nature appertaining to men and Christians.  
Take heed to the flock, and feeding it, Answer. doth include administration of the Word, and Prayer, as well as of Sacraments; yet you hold, he may, notwithstanding this Text, preach and pray in another Congregation.  
Taking heed to the flock, and feeding it, Reply. doth include the administration of the Word and Prayer, of the Sacraments, and the exercise of Discipline; and yet yourself doth not place a parity in all these. For you are apprehensive of a further liberty in preaching and praying, then in performing the other actions. You will preach to the Heathens as Heathens, but not give Sacraments to them; you may preach before Ordination for approbation, but not dispense the Sacraments before Ordination; You may preach to a Congregation in Scotland, and yet not act authoritatively in their Synods among them. And now, what the reason of this should be, we cannot imagine, unless you grant with us, a difference betwixt some acts of feeding, and other acts of feeding, and say, some acts are so annexed to Office, and are so authoritative, that they cannot be performed but where Office is, and authority is; and other acts of feeding, though they they be authoritative to that people over whom the persons performing them are Officers, yet they may be performed by a gift without Office, to another people, and are not authoritative to them. To this purpose speak the Elders in answer to the 8th Position; and the reason will be good to us, till you yield a better.  
The relation of Ministers and People is mutual; Answer. if the people my receive the Sacrament from another that is not their Minister, than the Minister may administer it to them that are not of his flock.  
In one sense, all that you say is true; Reply. people may receive the Sacrament from one that is not their Minister, being recommended to him; and the Minister may administer the Sacrament to such as are so recommended to him; but then this recommendation is, as it were, a dismission, differing not really, but only in time: recommendation commends them for a time to fellowship with that Church, and dismission commends them for continuance without returning: See Cottons Keys 
a Cottons Keys, pag. 17, 18. , which you make so much use of against us. When persons of another Church do orderly intermingle themselves with this or that Church, than they are as members, and the Pastor is as their Pastor, and so he may dispense the Sacraments to them. But it will not follow, that therefore he may act Ministerially out of his own Church and People in and maong another Church and People; nor will relation of Ministers and People being mutual, bring such a conclusion about. Magistrates and Subjects are Relatives; and if any Subjects of one county come to another county, and be wronged in the county whither he is come, he may request justice from the Magistrate of the county where the wrong is done him, and receive it. But yet this will not draw on another thing, that hereupon, because a Magistrate may dispense justice to a stranger coming among his people, he may therefore go from among his people to another county, and dispense justice among them: so of Ministers, it may be said, They are Pastors to their own people, and perform Pastoral acts to their own, and to those that orderly are recommended to them as theirs; but when they leave their own, they are not Pastors to other Congregations, to dispense Pastoral acts to them.  
By virtue of communion of Churches you may, Answer. and do receive known approved recommended members of another Church, to the holy Communion. If you may receive one, why not two, three, six, seven, eight, which it may be, are the whole Congregation? Where doth the Scripture allow the one, and not the other?  
We grant all you say, Reply. in this also, that if one, two, seven, eight, do come by recommendation, they must be received by virtue of communion of Churches; yet we demand, if these seven, or eight be the whole Congregation, who shall recommend them? For without recommendation, they cannot orderly be received. Or suppose they commend themselves to the Communion of another Church, they are now sallowed up in the fellowship of the other Church, and counted (pro tempore) as members thereof, and have not the consideration of a distinct Church. And though it be lawful for a Minister to dispense the Sacrament to them with his own people; yet not lawful to go forth from his own people, and to give it to them alone: If a whole town should come to live in another town, they might have the justice of that town, and yet the Magistrate, though he might do justice to them in the town, being mingled with his own people, cannnt notwithstanding dispense it unto them, abiding in their own place. But you ask, Where the Scripture alloweth the one, and not the other? We answer, the Scripture alloweth the recommendation of the members of one Church to another, Rom. 16.1. 2 Cor. 3.1. But can you produce any place where the Minister of one Church hath acted ministerially in another Church?  
You grant that Elders have a calling to ordain Elders in other Churches whereof themselves are neither Elders nor Members, Answer. by request of that Church where the Elders are to be ordained. 
(k) R. M. & W. T. to C.H. p. 48. Reply.   
While Mr. Mather saith they may entreat help, he holds by consequence, that the Elders of other Congregations have no proper right of their own to ordain in other Congregations, and that their power is derived to them from those Congregations that entreat them; and than it will follow, that the help that such Elders do afford, is not as they are Elders in reference to their Office; but as better gifted, and in reference to greater ability which such Elders have to carry on such a business. The reason is, because if such Elders acted in Ordination as Officers in another Congregation, than they would have proper power so to act without entreaty; for entreaty makes not them Officers which were none before; and if they were Officers before, entreaty is not needful to enable them. And if they act as Officers in another Congregation, than they may in all Congregations; for they are Elders alike in all as in any, save only where they are fixed. Now this is against Mr. mather's principles; his meaning therefore was, that as if in case a Church want Elders to preach to them, they may entreat Elders of other Churches to preach to them, not because they conceive that an Elder only may preach, but because they judge an Elder to be more able to do it; so it must be understood in the business of Ordination. In this sense we wholly concur with Mr. Mather, but in your sense cannot grant it.  
Whereras the 26. and 27th Sections concern one and the same head of controversy, we shall make one defence for both.   

POSITION XXVI.  
Gifted men, 
This is but a little altered from Answ to 32. q. p. 80. & 73. & T. W. to W. R. p 44. & 56.  viz. (so reputed by competent Judges, though) not called to the Ministry, nor intended for it, may preach. They that were scattered abroad upon the Persecution which arose about Stephen, were not Church-officers, at least not all of them: yet these men did preach the Word; and Philip which was but a Deacon, preached without the calling or privity of the Apostles, Acts 11.19. & 8.14.   

POSITION XXVII.  
jehosaphat sent Princes, who were neither Ministers, nor intended so to be, 
See Answ. to 32. Quest.  to teach with the Priests and Levites (viz.) at least to encourage the people to hearken to the Priests and Levites, 2 Chron. 17.7, 8, 9 as jehosaphat did, 2 Chron. 20.20. yea, and was their mouth to God in Prayer, vers. 2.5 to 13. As we conceive something in that prophesying, 1 Cor. 14. to be extraordinary: So we conceive it to be ordinary, that some private men grown Christians of able gifts, who may have received a gift of Prophecy, need no more extraordinary calling for them to prophesy in the Churches then for jehosaphat and his Princes to prophesy in the Church of Israel.  
These Positions thus laid down, are by you accused of injury to the Text, to which we answer.  
1. Here also you fall short of that ingenuity professed in your Preface; for doubtless Mr. Cotton, Reply. that denies any ordinary exercise of Prophecy, by men not called to the Ministry, cannot but in your judgement come nearer the truth, than those that say (at least as you give it out) that gifted men, not called to the Ministry, nor intended for it, may preach, which imply to be meant in an ordinary and stated way. When you say— yet that these did preach ordinarily and usually to the Churches, like to Pastors— is impossible to be proved. Now, though you style Mr. Cotton deservedly, the Chief of the more ingenuous sort of congregational men; yet you neither help forward accommodation, nor honour Mr. Cottons ingenuity by the least mention of it, as you profess.  
2. You are so far from helping forward accommodation, that I know not how to excuse you from making the breach greater than it was. For we have consulted advisedly with 73. & 80th pages of the 32. Quest. and we can find no such Position as you fasten upon the Elders: For page 73. they answer the 21. Quest. viz. Whether do you hold it lawful for mere lay, or private-men to ordain Ministers in any case? And having proved the Affirmative by reasons grounded upon the Word of God, they come to urge the consent of some worthy Divines, and learned Writers, as Doctor Willet, Morney, Whitakers, and others; and in the Allegation of Morney, they show that Morney expresseth himself, that some of our men expected not the calling of those that under the title of Pastors, oppressed the flock, but did at first preach without this formal calling, and afterwards were called to the Holy Ministry of the Word, by the Churches; and for this we have examples (saith Morney) First in the Acts, where we read that Philip was but a Deacon, preached in Samaria without the calling of the Apostles, yea, without their privity, who for all that gave their allowance to that work. So that here he speaks not of an ordinary and usual course in preaching to the Churches without Office, but an extraordinary case, of those that because of the corruptions of the times preached to the people without the calling of the Prelates in such places, where they had either no Officers, or Popish Officers; neither doth he speak of gifted men that intended not the Ministry, but of gifted men, that because they durst not enter by the ordinary door of Prelatical ordination, preached to the people by virtue of their gifts, and that internal Prothumie, or desire which God had wrought in them, and so soon as by the blessing of God upon their endeavours, they had so far prevailed, as that there were Churches giving them a calling, they embraced that call: And this is that he proves lawful by the Allegation of Philip's example: So in the 80. page, their scope is to show, that the Word may be made effectual to Conversion, though the man that speaks it be not a Church-officer. For the people of which they allege the preaching of those that were scattered by the Persecution of Stephen, Acts 8.4. and 11.19, 20, 21. and Job. 4.39. where many of the Samaritans believed upon the saying of the woman of Samaria, and that 1 Cor. 7.16. What knowest thou, O woman, but thou shalt gain thy husband? So that you do most miserably wrest their Allegations quite to another purpose, then that for which they intended them; for they never intended hereby to prove the lawfulness of preaching by virtue of gifts, without Office, but only that those which do preach without Office, may be instruments of conversion, much less did they intent, as you would make the world believe, that these did preach ordinarily, and usually to the Churches like Pastors, and received maintenance; for they speak of such a kind of preaching, as may be done by a gifted woman, as the woman of Samaria, or the believing wife, 1 Cor. 7. as well as by a gifted man. Neither do they speak of the preaching of these that were scattered, as it was ordinary and usual, and like unto Pastors, but only as performed by men, who (all of them at least) [say they] were not Church-officers, and yet proved effectual for conversion. When we read your marginal note, viz. This is but a little altered from Answ. to 32. Quest. p. 80.73. we imagined at first sight, you had made some small alteration in the language and phrase, which we could well have born with; but we find that you have made an alteration in the very scope and subject matter insisted upon by the Elders. You have taken away their living child, and laid your own dead child in the room of it; so that in your margin we have you (though in a mincing extenuating) what Ciecro desires his adversary, viz. Confitentem re●●●●, confessing your own guilt, which is the greatest expression of ingenulty of all others in this Section.  
3. But that we may give satisfaction to you, and to all men, (if it be the will of God;) we shall first declare our judgement concerning the point in debate, and then answer your Arguments, so far as we conceive them invalid.  
First, than we conceive that all the members of the Church (so far as their occasions and calling will permit, should strive after ability by way of prophesying; to speak to exhortation, edification and comfort, 
a He Prophetiae donum tanquamalus praestantms maximè commendat Apostolus, cuiom●es studeant, 1 Cor. 14.1, 2. Par●us in Rom. 12. col. 1197. i. e. This gift of Propecie, as more excellent than the other gifts, the Apostle most commends, for which all should cover, 1 Cor. 14.1, 2.  1 Cor. 1 p. 1. and the Hebrews ought to have been teachers of others, though they stood in need to be taught the very Principles of Religion, Hebr. 5.12.  
2. There are for the most part, (and may always lawfully be) some in the Church, who devote themselves to the study of the Scriptures, and other profitable studies, that so they may be the better enabled to understand the meaning of the Word: Such were those sons of the Prophets, bred up under the Prophets, 1 Sam. 19.20. 1 King 20.35. 2 King. 2.3.5. Such were many of our Saviour's Disciples, who addicted themselves wholly to learn to be fishers of men. Such (it is probable) were some of those Prophets which were in Corinth, Antioch, and other Churches: For the Rules to be observed in the exercise of Prophecy, were not proper to the Church of Corinth alone, but the same were ordained in all Churches, 1 Cor. 14.33. And therefore Prophets, whom the Rules concern, were, or might be in all Churches; for having no public Universities, or Colleges for Christians, 'tis probable this was the way of training up men for the work of the Ministry, under the Teaching Officers of the several Churches.  
3. That ordinarily God chose of those that were sons of the Prophets, to be Prophets; yet this was not universal: for sometimes God raised up extraordinarily from amongst the people. Thus Amos was a Herdsman, and yet chosen to be a Prophet: And this hath been done in an ordinary way in the Churches, that men that have made great proof in holiness and knowledge, have been called to public Office.  
Spyridion a Shepherd, was called to be Bishop of Trimithous, 
Socrates Eccl. Hist l. 1. c. 8. p. 232.  a City of Cyprus: Ambrose, a Consul (being yet but a Catechumenist) came into the Church Assembly at Milan, and spoke much, and very powerfully by way of exhortation to the dissenting Brethren, and was by an unanimous vote chosen for their Bishop at that instant, before he was Baptised. 
Socrat. Eccles. Hist. l 4. c. 24, 25. p. 335.  So when God was pleased to make known his Will by immediate revelation, he was pleased many times to make use of the sons of the Prophets. The sons of the Prophets that were at Bethel, 
1 King 2.3, 5.  and Jericho, could tell Elisha, that his Master should be taken from him; yet sometimes God was pleased to reveal his will to those that were not sons of the Prophets. Thus, though none were to be designed by the Church, as one of these two or three that must prophesy in a Church-meeting, but Prophets; yet if any thing were revealed to him that sat by, he had the liberty to express it; so that it is well observed on the one hand by W. Musculus upon the place, that the Apostle saith not, Duo, vel tres prophetent, sed Prophetae duo vel tres prophetent; that is, he doth not say, Let two or three prophecy, but let two or three Prophet's prophecy: So on the other hand upon these words; If any thing be revealed to him that sits by, let the first hold his peace: he hath these words, Non dicit, significet loquenti, ut ille hoc Ecclesiae proponat, sed dicit, surgat & ipse, & loquatur: neque dicit, servet sibiipsi, sed prior taceat: ne videlicet illicitum putetur ei loqui in Ecclesia qui non sit in ordine Prophetarum, sed de numero sedentium & auditorum, i.e. He saith not, Let him signify it to him that is speaking, that he may prophesy the thing to the Church; but he saith, Let himself also arise, and let him speak; neither saith he, let him keep it to himself, but let the first hold his peace; viz. lest it should be thought unlawful for him to speak in the Church, who is not in the order of the Prophets, but in the number of those that sit by, 
Aretius' in 1 Cor. 14.26.  and are auditors. In like manner Aretius, Ind fieri potest, ut quos Ecclesia deputavit ad munus interpretandi, non habent revelationem loci propositi, sed alius in turba sedens: Hence it may come to pass, that those whom the Church hath deputed to the Office of interpreting, may not have the revelation of the place propounded, but some other fitting among the multitude.  
4. That now that extraordinary revelations are ceased, yet it may be lawful for some members of the Church, which are not Officers, to preach or prophesy publicly; and, 

1. To those that are not in Church-fellowship.  
2. To those that are in Church-fellowship, and want Officers.  
3. To those that are in Church-fellowship, and have all Officers complete.    
For the first,  
First, it may be lawful for a Church, having persons endowed with parts fit for the work, to send them forth as Messengers to preach to Heathens for their conversion.  
Reas. 1. By the same reason that the Church of Antioch sent forth Paul and Barnabas to preach in Salamis, Paphes, Pergo, Antiochia, etc. for the conversion both of Jews and Gentiles, by the same reason a true Church may send forth men of excellent parts to preach for the conversion of Heathens; For Paul and Barnabas did not now go forth by virtue of their Apostolical Commission, by which they were enabled to preach to all Nations: for so they should have had no need to have been separated by fasting, prayer, and imposition of the hands of the Eldership; for that Commission they had long before this separation: but they went as Messengers sent out of God by the Ministry of the Church of Antioch; and when they returned, they render an account to the Church of their service in the work to which they were recommended by the Church, Acts 14.27. Now if Paul and Barnabas, who without the recommendation of the Church of Antioch, might have preached in all these places, were sent forth by the Church, what doth this but demonstrate unto us a power in the Churches, to send forth Messengers, though they be neither Apostles, Pasters, nor Teachers, who shall preach as gifted men, sent forth by the Church for that purpose? For, if Paul and Barnabas, who were Apostles, did preach as Messengers sent of God, by the Ministry and recommendation of the Church to such a work, by the same reason may persons gifted, preach by virtue of such a recommendation.  
Reas. 2. God hath left a power to the Church, to propagate the Gospel, by using means for the conversion of those that are unconverted. Now, because all unconverted persons cannot come to hear in the Church-assemblies, therefore Christ hath left power to the Churches, to send out Messengers for this purpose, to preach the Gospel to them; otherwise there were no means left by Christ to be used by the Church, for the conversion of those that lie in a state of Heathenism, and cannot, or will not be at the charge and pains of repairing to Church-assemblies.  
If it be said, Let the Church send forth some of her teaching Officers. Objection.  
The work of the Officers is properly to attend the flock, Answer. and therefore though a Church in the want of other fit persons may send out one of her officers for a time, yet if she have those that are not in office, that are endowed with eminent abilities for the work, they are never the less fit, because not in Office: For, if they were Officers they should act amongst Heathens, not as Officers to such a Congregation, but as men sent out by such a Church, in the name of Jesus Christ.  
2. Gifted persons not in the Ministry may preach to Churches wanting Officers. That they may preach by way of probation, in reference to a Call, you yourself will grant, and there is the same reason, in case the teaching Officers should die. Suppose an eminent gifted member, that hath been bred at School and University for many years, should be desired by the Congregation to exercise his gifts amongst them, till God would enable them to choose another Pastor and Teacher, this gifted person, though not in the Ministry, nor intending it, might exercise his gift amongst them, upon this ground, which shall appear in the confirmation of the third thing which is yet of a higher nature.  
3. Gifted persons not in the Ministry, may preach in a Church that hath all Officers complete: For the understanding of which, we will lay down certain Positions:  
1. No Believer as a Believer, may challenge a liberty to preach or prophesy publicly: For though it were with Moses to be wished, that all the Lords people were Prophets, 
Numb. 11.  and that the Lord would put his Spirit upon them; yet for as much as God hath not endowed all them with parts fir for the work, all may not prophesy; some there are that have need of milk, 
Heb. 5.13.  because they are unskilful in the word of righteousness, for they are babes, and so not able to prophesy.  
2. No Church-member (though a Brother) merely as a Church-member, may challenge a liberty of public prophecy. This appears because the Apostle exhorts the Corinthians to strive after ablitie to prophesy, 1 Cor. 14.1. which shows, that they might not prophesy merely in the capacity of Church-members; for if so, God would have entailed abilities upon all the Fraternity of the visible Church at their first admission. There were in the Church of Corinth, some that occupied the room of the unlearned, 1 Cor. 14.16. that expressed themselves no otherwise then by saying Amen, with an audible voice, when those that possessed the room of the learned gave thanks, as Tertullian, and Justin Martyr tell us, and therefore, when the Apostle saith, 1 Cor. 14.23, 24. If all speak with tongues, etc. but if all prophecy, etc. he is not to be understood of the whole Fraternity, but only of those that were in a capacity to speak with tongues, and prophesy. Now, that all were not endowed with these gifts, appears, 1 Cor. 12.10.29.  
3. Church-members, upon whom God hath bestowed eminent parts, that are able to divide the Word of God aright, and to wield the sword of the Spirit with dexterous abilities, may lawfully preach publicly in the Assembly of the Church. This may appear,  
1. From the end of gifts, which is the use of them for the edification of others, as well as of ourselves. Now private or mean gifts are of private use, but public or eminent gifts are of public use. When the young man told Moses that Eldad and Medad prophesied, and Joshua exhorted Moses to forbid them, it was because they exercised that office that was (as they thought) peculiar to Moses; but Moses is well content, Numb. 11.29. I would (saith he) all the Lords people were Prophets, and God would put his Spirit upon them; 
ut contra nihil tantopere expetam quam ut singuli qui in populo Jehovae sunt eodemspiritu instrcti prophetare possint, Jun. Paral. Appen. par. 3. p. 353.  q. d. if God would put his Spirit upon all the people, as well as upon myself, they might all lawfully prophesy, as well as myself: for together with extraordinary gifts, there went along an extraordinary call to exercise those gifts. So the Apostle speaking of the exercise of prophecy, Rom. 12.6. Having then gifts differing according to the grace which is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of fatith: So that where there is the gift, there may be a lawful exercise of the gift in an orderly manner.  
2. That which Church-members, not in Office, nor intending Office, may lawfully strive after, that they may lawfully exercise, being once obtained; But Church-members may lawfully seek after an ability to prophesy publicly, 1 Cor. 14.1. Fellow after, etc. and v. 12. even so ye, for as much as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the Church. Those that are fit to be instrumental in a public way, must not be men of vulgar and trivial parts, but must excel, that they may edify the Church; the conclusion is, some Church-members (though not in Office, nor intending Office) may prophesy publicly.  
3. From a like necessity at this day of the exercise of acquired gifts, with that the churches had in those times of the exercise of infused gifts. If in those times when the Apostles did often visit the churches, the Evangelists did water the churches, and there were in the churches many Prophets, that not only addicted themselves to the study of the Scriptures, but were also extraordinarily many times, assisted by the Spirit of God; yet if a Brother, that had a Revelation must have a liberty to utter his revelation for the edification of the Church, how much more now, when there are neither Apostles to visit, nor Evangelists to water, nor Prophets extraordinarily gifted to expound the Word? but in many Congregations not one teaching Officer, in the most, but one Minister endowed with acquired gifts, if any Brother have an excellency of acquired parts, he not only may, but should be stirred up to employ his talon, as God shall offer occasion for the good of the Church.  
4. Church-members, how ever eminently gifted, may not presume to speak in the Church-assembly, before they have a calling to the work by those whom it doth concern: Paul, though an Apostle, did not offer to preach in the Synagogue at Antioch, in Pisidia, till the Rulers of the Synagogues had sent unto him for that end, otherwise, through the corruption of men, there might be great confusion in the Church, and the Officers much disturbed by the proud interposition of Exthusiastick spirits (for such may arise in the purest Churches) venting their frothy phantasms, tanquant ex tripode dicta, as if they were the undoubted Oracles of God Now, if there may be discerned a spirit of erroneous pride in the men that desire to speak, they ought to be denied, and admonished; but if they be holy, able, humble men, of whom the Church may presume that they will speak to edification, in such a case the preaching officers must have a spirit of humility, to give way unto them, 1 Cor. 14.32. The spirit of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets, that is, the Prophets have a command of their spirits, that they can easily give way to any to speak, and themselves sit down as auditors, provided they be such as expound, divide, and apply the Word profitably. And that this is the meaning of the place, appears by that which follows, vers. 33. For, God is not the author of confusion, but of peace.  
Now we will consider your Arguments, with which you endeavour to prove these Texts to be abused.  
This Text cannot be generally understood of all that were scattered, Answer. yourselves explain it of men, not of women, 1 Cor. 14. Of gifted men, and called to that work by the Church, not of ungifted and uncalled men; yet the words in their indefinite latitude, will prove the preaching as well of ungifted men, and uncalled, as others.  
We understand not the Text of all as yourself confess. Reply. If it may be understood of any that were scattered being not Officers, we have what we desire. Will it follow, The text taken in its indefinite latitude, must needs be wrested; therefore it is wrested by us, who take it in a definite latitude? especially since no reason is, or (we suppose) can be by you brought, why we may not take it in a limited sense, and yet deny it to be taken in an unlimited sense. Is not this an ignorance of the Elench? Can you ever infer contradictorium propositionis negatae, with this medium? St John saith, Christ hath made us Kings and Priests, etc. Because these words, 
Rev. 1.6.  Kings and Priests taken in their indefinite latitude, will infer, that the people of God are temporal kings, having Sovereign power over others; and Priests to offer up corporal sacrifices to God, as the Priests of the Law did? Will it therefore follow, that he that shall expound these words in a definite latitude, as importing only that in Christ they have overcome the Law, Death, Sin, the World, and do triumph over them; that they are Priests by a special sequestration of themselves from the world, to offer up spiritual sacrifices to God the Father, do pervert and abuse this Text?  
Questionless, there were Elders amongst them, Answer. it may be the Seventy Disciples were not quite out of Commission, certainly Philip was amongst them, who was an Evangelist, etc.  
Suppose that amongst those that were scattered and preached, Reply. some were Elders, yea, preaching Elders: Suppose the Commission of the seventy (by virtue of which they were to carry neither purse nor scrip, nor shoes, neither were to salute any man by the way, 
Luke 10.1, 2. Nullos dum habes hic Apostolos, sed Discipulos illorum, & Discipulori● Discipulos, sic quovis medio utiliter Deus uti potest. Aretius' in Acts 11.  but to go before the face of Christ, two, and two into every city and place whither Christ himself would come) were in full force at this time: Lastly, Suppose that Philip were an Evangelist amongst them: Will it from hence follow, that all that preached were Church-officers; and that none of them were gifted persons out of Office; and consequently, that those that say, that all were not Officers that went preaching, do abuse the Text? certainly this is a wide consequence: But you say,  
They were all filled with the Holy Ghost, Answer. Acts 2.4.10. and 4.31. which made them Doctors, the first day, and gave both ability and a call to speak the Word, etc. Reply.  
But did their extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost make them all Officers, yea or no? (for you suppose that all received the Holy Ghost;) If so, then there was a Church of Officers, and none over whom those Officers were set, and that were under the authority of Office. If the gifts did not make them Officers, than we have what we assume, viz. Gifted persons not in Office may preach; yea, if all the members of a Church, had gifts fit for the work, all might preach, Numb. 11.29. 1 Cor. 14.12.31.  
If it be said, Objection. these were extraordinary gifts by immediate inspiration.  
So were the gifts of the Officers in those times. Answer. Now by the same reason you deny Church-members, though orderly called to the work, (we mean not to the Office) because eminently gifted for it, a liberty to exercise their gift, because their gifts are not extraordinary, as were those of the Primitive Christians; By the same reason you may deny Officers, though both orderly called, and competently gifted, a liberty to exercise their gift, because their gifts are not extraordinary, as were the gifts of the Primitive Officers.  
Again, if a Brother, gifted by immediate inspiration might preach or prophesy publicly in those Churches where the Officers were gifted by immediate inspiration; then a Brother eminently gifted by God's blessing upon his labour and industry, being orderly called thereunto, may preach in those Churches where the Officers are gifted, only by God's blessing upon their labour and industry, without any immediate inspiration.  
That these did preach ordinarily, Answer. and usually to the Churches, like to Pastors, and receive maintenance for the same, as some do in London and elsewhere, is impossible to be proved.  
That which is not affirmed by the Elders, Reply. need not be proved by them. We have already proved, that eminent gifted persons, being orderly called thereunto, may lawfully preach, though not in Office; and if by ordinarily and usually you mean, that toties quoties, as oft as the Church shall have need, (suppose by reason of the sickness, death, or just absence of the Pastor, or any other lawful ground and occasion) and his calling and condition will permit, we suppose the person eminently gifted may preach, though for divers months together. And if he do the work, why may he not receive the wages, not in the capacity of a Pastor, but of one that hath done the work that deserves wages? Suppose he hath spent his means in many years painful study in the University, may he lawfully preach, and yet must he necessarily famish, because he is not in the Pastoral relation? May he lawfully dispense unto them his spiritual things, and may he not lawfully receive of them a dispensation of their temporal things? May he (nay must he by a conflux and concentering of all things that make up his Call to such a work, for such a time) usually and ordinarily tread out the corn, and yet his mouth be muzzled during all that space? May he lawfully communicate unto them by teaching them in the Word, and may he not lawfully communicate with them in receiving, who are freely willing to communicate with him in giving all good things?  
In the Church of Israel, none besides the Priests and Levites, Answer. did ordinarily prophesy, either in the Temple, or in the Synagogues, unless they were either furnished with extraordinary gifts of prophecy, as the Prophets of Israel; or were set apart, and trained up to prepare for such a Calling, etc.  
In case that either those whose Office it is in an ordinary way to prophesy be unable many of them to the work; Reply. or the people grown bold in sinful courses, so that they slight and contemn them: If the King, and certain choice men of the Princes of the Realm be able, and in parts no way inferior to those able men, whose Office it is to preach unto the people, they may, they ought to prophesy, as well as Kings, Princes, Noblemen, being gifted, may sit in Ecclesiastical Synods, and declare what they conceive to be the mind of God therein. And this Jehosaphat and his Princes did, by virtue of that general equity which is of perpetual use, whereby eminent gifts are to be put forth upon just occasion, for the Public good, though by men not in Office.  
Luther, and the first Preachers in the beginning of Reformation, were not Church-officers, nor could be, unless we will say, that the Antichristian Hierarchy could institute a Christian Ministry; and yet they preached lawfully, as gifted persons, stirred up by God in a time of defection and apostasy: And so Jehosaphat and his Princes preached, not merely as King and Princes, for then all Kings and Princes might preach, but as King and Princes gifted, and singularly stirred up to the work by Almighty God. That a King, and Princes eminently gifted and stirred up by an internal prothumie and desire wrought upon their spirits, to preach, is of perpetual use in all such cases of defection, as was in Jehosaphats time: Nor will this confound the matters of God, and the King's matters: But still the Priests and Levites shall preach ordinarily by virtue of Office, and the King and Princes only occasionally by virtue of gifts. And as they may preach themselves in all such cases: so they may send forth eminently gifted men, though the Churches through corruption should neglect or refuse to call them; and this belongs to Civil Magistrates as they are custodes utriusque tabulae. Neither are Kings, or those sent out by them, limited to particular Congregations but may call the people to such places, and at such times as they shall judge most to tend to edification. Thus Joshua called all Israel to Sechem, 
Josh. 24.1.  and preached unto them before his death.    

They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the Sea, Isaiah 11.9.  
Thus saith JEHOVAH, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way; and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls, Jeremiah 6.16.  
For in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.  
And as many as walk according to this rule, Peace be on them and mercy, and upon the Israel of God, Gal. 6.15, 16.   

A TABLE of the Texts of Scriptures, cited, Discussed, and cleared from misinterpretations, in this BOOK.  

GENESIS 9 vers. 26, 27. Whether a Church in Sems' family. page 43  
Gen. 12.3. & 22.16.18. with Gal. 3.17. as Acts 3.25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 42  
Gen. 17.1.9. Whether it was a covenant only on God's part. p. ibid.  
EXODUS 12.3.21. Whether the word Congregation and Elders are all one there. p. 53  
Exod. 12.47. Engaged by covenant to serve God together. page 40  
Exod. 34.23, 24. All the Church's males must meet together for worship in one place. page 14  
NUMBERS 8.9, 10. with vers. 6, 7, 13, 14, 18, 19 All the Congregation must lay hands on the Levites, how? page 52, 44, 55  
Numb. 11.29. I wish all could prophesy. page 125, 128  
Numb. 25. Phinehas his zeal. Hence God's covenant with him and his. ergo? page 49  
DEUTERONOMY 16.2.16. See Exod. 34.23. All males to meet. page 14  
Deut. 29.1.10.12. Whether a covenant makes a Church. page 37, 39, 40  
2 KINGS 2.3.5. God's will revealed by Prophets and others. page 122  
2 CHRONICLES 17.7. Princes sent to teach the people. page 118  
2 Chron. 20.25.20. King Jehosaphat prayeth, and teacheth Israel. page 118  
NEHEMIAH 10.38. Levites were tythed. Tithes are a Jewish maintenance. page 61  
PSALM 30.7. My Mount so strong. What? page 68  
Psal. 46.2. Mountains into Sea, what it signifieth. ibid.  
Psal. 74.4.8.  up Synagogues, What? page 26  
ISAIAH 4.5. Gospel-church is called Zion. page 71  
Isai. 61.20. Gospel in Old-Testaments language. ibid.  
Isai. 9.6, 7. Christ is the churches King. page 104  
JEREMIAH 51.25. Fire signifies oppositions. page 68  
HOSEAH 2.2. Members may plead with the Church. page 59  
ZACHARIAH. 4.7. What is that great Mountain? page 68  
Zach. 14.19. Gospel in Old Testaments language. page 71  
MALACHI 3.8. Tithes as offerings are Jewish. page 61  
MATTHEW 16.19. Of Church-binding and losing. page 89, 90  
Mat. 18.17. Tell the Church. What Church it is. p. 2, 36  
Not a Classical nor Nationall church, etc. page 86-89  
Mat. 18.20. A Church is Zion and hath the promises to it. page 71, 73  
Mat. 20.25, 26. Ministers are not Lords. page 78, 79  
Mat. 28.19, 20. In that Commission to the Apostles is no mention of ordination, nor in that Mar. 16.15, 16. page 56, 57  
Was not given to them as Apostles. page 91  
MARK 12.41. The use of the Church treasury. page 67  
LUKE 8.2, 3. Christ received contribution. page 62  
Luke 22.25, 26. Ministers are not as Lords. page 78, 79, 81  
JOHN 8, 20. Church treasury; for what. page 67  
Joh. 13.29. From contribution was distribution. page 62  
Joh. 20.23. The Key given Peter, with the rest. page 92  
ACTS 1.15. A few begin a Church. page 9, 12, 13  
Act. 1.15.23. A Church hath full power to choose her own officers. page 46, 11, 9  
Act. 1.26. By common vote or suffrage. page 49  
Act. 2.4.10. Gifts make not officers. page 128  
V 40. The Church was separated. page 2, 48  
Vers. 41. Whether they they were a church before page 10, 13  
V 45. Whole estates put into the common stock page 62  
V 47. A Church before Officers. page 45  
Act. 4.35. Selling whole estates not binding to all times, but extraordinary. page 62  
Act. 4.17.19.21. & 5.28, 29. Preaching when men forbidden to obey Christ. page 6  
Act. 4.26. Took counsel together, how? page 19  
Act. 5.28, 29. Obey, and hearken to God most. page 1, 2, 3, 4, 6  
Act. 6.1. Of the Deacons office. page 62  
Vers. 3. The Church must look out seven men. page 46, 51  
Act. 6.4. Prayer, one work of a Minister. page 57, 62  
Act. 8.4.12. Preaching without office. page 119  
Act. 9.26, 27. Satisfaction of members before they be received in. page 34  
Vers. 31. The head of Church-fellowship is not conversion, but edification. page 35  
Act. 11.19. Jews were first preached to. page 2  
Ver. 19 Some not in office may preach. page 118  
V 20.21. Some converted, others gathered them. page 4  
Act. 13.2, 3. Paul set apart by God, and the Church. page 49  
Act. 14.23. Churches before officers to them. page 46  
Act. 14.27. Paul and Barnabas sent by Church also. page 123  
Officers ordained by people's election. page 46, 51  
Act. 18.2.26. Aquila and Priscilla at Corinth. page 11  
Act. 19.1.9. Paul separated such at himself converted not. page 4  
Vers. 37. Robbers of Temples, not of churches. page 25  
Act. 20.28. Elders must see to the flock. page 107, 112  
Act. 21.22. Myriads, What; not all those of one Church, but of many churches. page 14, 15, 30, 31  
ROMANS 4.11, 12. Abraham, father of the faithful, circumcised and uncircumcised. page 43  
Rom. 12.6. Of prophecy. page 125  
Rom. 12.7, 8. Teacher and Pastor are distinct. page 70  
Vers. 13. Distribute to the necessity of Saints. page 63  
Rom. 15.26. Romans to contribute to Jerusalem. page 64  
Rom. 16.1, 2. Recommending members to another church, to receive them. page 117  
1 CORINTHIANS 1. v. 1. All Saints of Corinth of one Church. page 15, 16  
Qu. Whether this be writ to all Saints or no? page 16, 20  
1 Cor. 1.1, 2. Church-members to be visible Saints, and what trial of Saints herein. page 31  
Vers. 17. Preaching is a Ministers great work. page 57  
1 Cor. 5.5, 6. Purge out the old leaven. page 29, 30, 36  
Vers. 5. Excommunicating there, whether done by Paul, or to be by the Church's power. page 95, 97, 98  
1 Cor. 5.12. Whether some believers may be said to be WITHOUT, in that sense. page 74, 75, 76  
1 Cor. 7.16. Gifted men, or women, may convert. page 120  
1 Cor. 11.19. The Church, whether it is the place. page 25, 26  
Vers. 20. A church meeting in one place. page 13-31  
1 Cor. 14.1, 2.3.33. All must covet the gift of prophecy. page 121, 124  
V 12.31. Such may. page 128  
1 Cor. 14.23. This is discussed fully there. page 13 to 31  
V 32. Spirit of Prophet's subject. page 126  
1 Cor. 12.8. Pastor, and Teachers gifts distinct. page 70  
1 Cor. 12.9.29. All had not all gifts. page 125  
V 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Helps put for Deacons. page 63  
1 Cor. 14.1.3. Prophesying hath something ordinary, something extraordinary. p. 118  
Vers. 34. Women to be silent in your churches. What churches means he? p. 21  
Not to use power in churches, page 91, 95  
1 Cor. 15.6. Christ appeared to five hundred brethren at once in Jerusalem. page 11  
1 Cor. 16.1. & 2 Cor. 8.1. Churches, whether Nationall churches? page 21 to 31  
1 Cor. 16.1. Ministers to be maintained by the church's contributions every first day, scanned. page 60, 61  
Vers. 1.2. Every first day's contribution proved. page 64  
Qu. Whether those collections were to cease. page 65  
Hence for maintaining the Ministers proved. page 66  
2 CORINTH. 2.9. Church excommunicates, and not Paul alone. page 97  
2 Cor. 3.1. Letters of recommendation to others. page 117  
2 Cor. 6.16. A Church is God's Temple. page 71  
2 Cor. 8.5. Such give themselves to the Lord, and to them. page 44  
2 Cor. 8.18, 19 Many churches may choose one to do them service. page 30  
GALATIANS 3.16, 17. And in thy seed; not to. page 42  
Gal. 5.9.12.15. Church to cut off offenfenders. page 95  
Gal. 6.6. Opening the communicating to Ministers. page 63  
EPHESIANS 2.22. A house of stones united. page 38  
Eph. 4.11. Teachers and Pastors are distinct. page 69  
Eph. 5.25, 26. Is of the Church mystical. page 28  
PHILIPPIANS 1.7. Churches to be of reputed Saints. page 32  
Phil. 4.15. Giving and receiving are acts of communion. page 63  
COLOSSIANS 4.17. A Church hath power to censure her officers. page 58, 59  
1 TIMOTHY 1.20. Whether Paul alone excommunicated Hymeneus. page 96  
1. Tim. 3.8. Deacons office is not temporary. page 63  
1 Tim. 3.10. One unofficed may preach. page 58  
1 Tim. 4.14. Elders laid on hands. page 96  
1 Tim. 5.17. Whether ruling Elders must be maintained by the Church. page 60  
1 Tim. 6.13, 14. That Christ left but one way of Church discipline, which must be kept to the end of the world. page 107  
2 TIMOTHY 1.6. Whether Paul laid on hands alone. page 96  
JAMES 1.1. with Jam. 2.2. Whether all the twelve Tribes were one Church; or how called your Synagogues. page 18, 19  
1 PETER 2.5. A Church of living stones. page 36  
1 Pet. 2.25. Shepherd and Bishop there are one and the same. page 69  
1 Pet. 4.14. Ministers not to be Bishops in another's Diocese. page 111  
1 Pet. 5.1. Apostles were Elders of all Churches. page 46  
1 Pet. 5.3. Elders are not Lords over God's Heritage. page 78  
3 d. Epist. JOHN vers. 9 Diotrephes that loved preeminence, how blamed. page 78, 81  
REVELATIONS 1.6. Kings and Priests distinguished. page 127  
Rev. 2.11. The Spirit speaks not to the Angel alone, but also to the churches. page 101  
Rev. 4.14. The Church hath Crowns, which implies it hath authority. ibid.  
Rev. 8.8, 9 A great Mountain cast into the Sea, what it means. page 68  
Rev. 13.1. & 15.2. Sea put for the Church, or the Church's Religion. page 68  
Rev. 15.3. Christ is the King of the Church. page 104  
Rev. 21.27. & Rev. 22.14. Nothing shall enter into the Holy City (the Church) that defileth. page 38    

Some Greek words and phrases opened herein.  

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Whether, in one place, or in one mind, page 18, 20  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Kak. Synagoga; and Hebrew Gnedah, Kahal. What page 24, 25  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Every first day, cleared, 1 Cor. 16.1, 2. page 65  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I have judged to deliver, What page 97, 98  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, For this I wrote. page 99    

Errata.  
PAge. 35. line 4. à fine, read converted. p. 36. l. 5. à fine, given Paul, r. given by Paul. p. 37. l. 9 r. 1 Cor. 1.5. p. 49. l. 10. à fine, 2, 3, 23. deal 23. p. 52. l. 4. à fine, 19.2. W. r. 19.2. p. 65. l. 9 Matth. 18. r. 28. p. 83. circa med. Luke 24. r. 14. p. 110. l. 4. r. precedents. p. 114. circa med. 2 Thes. r. 1 Thes. p. 121. r. 1 Cor. 14.1.3.  
FINIS.