A rejoinder To Master Samuel Eton and Master Timothy Taylor's REPLY.  
OR, AN ANSWER TO Their late Book called A Defence of sundry Positions and Scriptures, etc.  
With some occasional Animadversions on the Book called the Congregational way justified.  
For the satisfaction of all that seek the Truth in love, especially for his dearly beloved and longed for, the Inhabitants in and near to Manchester in Lancashire.  
Made and Published by Richard Hollinworth. Mancuniens.  The Lord will show who are his and who are holy. 
LONDON, Printed by T. R. and E. M. for Luke Fawn, and are to be sold at the sign of the Parrot in Paul's Churchyard. 1647.   

Some of the principal CONTENTS of this Book.  

OF gathering Churches out of true churches, Cap. 1. Sect. 1. etc.  
Of separation from a true church because of corruption, S. 6.  
Presbyterial-Classical, National and Ecumenical church, c, 1, s, 2. p. 6.  
(the citation in l. 12 being misprinted. for it read) c, 7, s, 1, etc. c, 8, s, 2, 3, c, 9, s, 1, c, 10, s, 2, c, 28, s, 3, c, 15, c, 18  
Of Parishes, how jure divino, and how not, c. 2. s. 1, etc.  
Of the heathen and christian Magistrate, c. 3. s. 3.  
No toleration in New-England, c. 3. s. 3, 4, 5.  
Whether seven or eight can make a church, c. 4. s. 1, etc.  
Whether Adam's family, Noah's, Christ's, and the 12 Disciples of Ephesus, and the 120 at Jerusalem, were each of them particular churches, ibid.  
The church of Jerusalem did not ordinarily meet in one place, c. 5. s. 2.  
Churches were planted in cities and great towns, not in villages, c. 5. s, 5  
Judaea was not so little but it might have many classical churches in it, ibid. The Epistle to the Corinthians written to the churches of Achaia, c. 6. s. 1.7.  
E 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, what it signifies, c. 5. s. 4.  
Church taken as properly in a distributive sense as for one assembly. The word [Churches] notes not Independency, it is given to the Jewish church, c 10. c. 1. Combination of churches, c. 8. s. 2. c. 10. s. 2, 3.  
Whether and how the church consists of visible Saints, c. 11. s. 1.  
Edification whether the only end of church-fellowship and not conversion, c. 11. s. 7. Who are to be excommunicated, c. 11. s. 8, 9  
The Jewish church a church of Saints, c. 11. s, 10  
Of the Church covenant, c. 12. s. 1, 2, etc.  
Church-fellowship whether a part of the covenant of Grace, c. 13. s. 5  
The Authors just Apology for pretended abusing of the Authors out of which the Positions seem to be taken, c. 14. s. 1  
Whether Christians without Officers be properly called a church, c. 15, 1. Of election of Officers, c. 16  
Ordination by Bishops and popular Ordination compared, c, 18, s, 4  
Ordination and Election compared, c. 18. s. 8  
Neither Tithes nor settled maintenance are unlawful, c. 20, 21  
Of Lords days contributions for maintenance of Ministers, and the design of it, c. 21, s, 1, &c, 9  
Deacons not to take care of Minister's maintenance, c, 21, s, 3  
Distinction whether between Pastors and Teachers, c, 23  
Each church Assembly is not Zion, c, 24  
Of the word [without] in 1 Cor. 5. c, 25  
Of Anarchy worse than tyranny, c, 26, s, 2  
Marks of Malignancy, c, 26, s, 3  
Presbyterial Government not Prelatical, c, 26, s, 3  
The difference between the Prelatical & Presbyterian way, c, 26, s, 3  
What was the sin of Diotrophes, c, 26, s, 4  
Independents likeness and unlikeness to Corah, etc. c, 27, s, 1, etc.  
Differences between the Christian church and the Jewish, c, 27. s, 1 c, 28, s, 2, 3, 4  
Of the Key of Liberty, and of the necessity of the churches consent to excommunication, c, 29, s, 1, The Keys how given to Peter, c, 29  
Whether Excommunication and delivering to Satan be all one, c, 30  
The (supposed) sad condition of the Presbyterian churches, c, 31, s, 3  
A Definition of Discipline and Essentials examined, c. 33, s, 6.  
The Independents Model promised, c, 33, s, 7  
Of Ministerial acting in another congregation, c, 34  
Why men may preach to Heathens, and before Ordination, and not administer the Sacraments, c, 34, s, 2  
Recommendation of Ministers and Members. c, 34, s, 11    

Christian Reader,  
I intended to have reprinted in this Book the Positions, my Answer to them, and Mr. E. and Mr. T. Reply to it, and a large rejoinder: but that course my wife friends judged tedious and chargeable, not profitable: I have therefore taken up the pith of their Reply, especially of that part of it which pretends to Scripture or Reason; and of my rejoinder, omitting prefaces, personal matters, repetitions, impertinencies. My style is plain and modest; Not victory, but God's truth, the Church's peace, thy good, yea their good (who in this are my adversaries) is really intended and endeavoured, by  
Thine in the service of Truth and Peace. R. H.   

A rejoinder to Master Samuel Eaton's, and Mr Timothy tailor's Reply.  

CHAP. I. Of Gathering Churches.  
I Asserted in my answer, That the Apostles never taught or practised to gather or separate some Christians from others, one part of this true Church, and another part of that, (especially persons which themselves converted not) to make a purer Church, neither with, nor without the Magistrates Authority. To this you Reply: The Apostles both taught and practised the separating of some Jews from other Jews, 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.  
rejoinder 1. Suppose (at present) that the Jewish Church was then a true Church and not yet dissolved, yet it was then in dissolving and ceasing to be a true Church, your own words [Yet the jewish Church was not dissolved] do intimate so much, and the thing is undeniable, that Church was but to continue for a time, and then to be dissolved by God's appointment. As it was said of the two covenants, that the first was taken away that the other might be established, Heb. 1●. So it was with those two Churches, that legal, this Evangelical; the first was taken away, that the other might be established: and therefore separation from the than Jewish Church was more warrantable, then from our Churches, unless you count them true Churches only in the sense you speak of, viz. the body of them have not pertinaciously and desperately rejected Christ come in the flesh, and that (as the Jewish Church then) they now are to be dissolved, yea that they are in dissolving by God's appointment, and ceasing to be true Churches, notwithstanding the progress that is made in Reformation.  
2. You do not reply directly and pertinently but obliquely and evadingly (though in your last book called the Congregational way justified P. 17. You are bold to say, that no reply can more front or diametrically oppose my Answer then yours doth) yea, I dare appeal to yourselves whether a precept or precedent of gathering or separating a Church out of the Churches of Galatia, Corinth, Laodicea, because of their many and great corruptions would not have more fronted, and been more point-blank opposite to that part of my (as your wisdoms style it) confused answer then this instance of the Jewish Church. For 

first, Did ever any man deny that there might then be separation from the Jewish Church? Can you think I did deny it? Yourselves cite me acknowledging it, and you could not but know after I had published my Epistle and Quere's (what ever you did before) that an instance of separation from true Christian Churches, would most diametrically have opposed my answer which speaks not of separation of Christians from Jews (as your instance doth) but of some Christians from others, and I dare witness thus much for you, that if you had such a one, you would have preferred it before the other.  
Secondly, Whereas you say in your last P. 18. That you do not consider that Church as jewish, but under the notion of truth, you acknowledge that you do not consider it as you ought to have considered it, for the separation was from that Church as it was Jewish, having officers and ordinances different from the Christian Church, which hath Ministers in stead of Priests, which hath not bodily sacrifices of beasts, nor such Sacraments and Ceremonial services, nor the presence of God in one place especially, as the Jews had, and the lawfulness of separation from that Church, (if it were then a true Church, and had not been Jewish) is still uncleared.  
3. The Reformed Churches and Ministers, are not to be compared to the than Jewish Church and the Priests thereof, as you seem to compare them by pleading, that the Reformed Churches, and Ministers may be separated from, because the than Jewish Church and Priests were to be separated from; nor is this concerning the Ministers impertinently shuffled in (as in your last P. 18. You most untruly allege) for they which separate from a Church, do withdraw from the officers of it; they that separated from the Jewish Church did withdraw from the obedience of their Priests, and they that separate from the Reformed Churches, do withdraw from the obedience of their Ministers, and withdrawing (your selves tell us, Pag. 60.) is a negative Excommunication, and therefore the Ministers have as much or more injury, than so many members have in every unjust separation from them, as yourselves would say, were it your case; but this must serve in stead of a better reply. Surely you have either too much charity to the than Jewish Church and Priests thereof, or too little to our Churches and Ministers.  
4. That Church was but one, and you should show gathering out of several Churches, for whereas you allege they might have gathered out of twenty, or an hundred, had there been so many at that time. I answer, that it may be there were twenty, possibly an hundred Churches while the Jewish Temple stood: yourselves say there were many Christian Churches, and yet I doubt not but you will acknowledge both, that no Churches were gathered or separated out of those or any other true Christian Churches, and also that it is more lawful and orderly to separate the precious of one Christian Church from the vile therein, and the Godly party to cast out the incurable sinful party 1 Cor. 5.12. Then to separate some persons of several Churches into one distinct Church, the former being not a gathering of a Church but a reforming and purging of it, which is warranted by Scripture.    
3. Whereas you speak much both in your former and latter Book, of the truth of the than Jewish Church, I pray you what trueness mean you? A natural trueness, as a thief or a liar is a true man, (id est) truly a man, and Satan a true spirit that is truly a spirit, or a moral trueness, viz. that it held and taught the way of salvation, dare you say that the Jewish Church then did hold and teach the way of salvation? Did they not pertinaciously and desperately reject Christ? No not while their Temple stood, as you say, some think? The Scripture calls them an untoward generation, from which it exhorts though e that were pricked in their hearts, (which were but few in respect of the body of the Jews) to save themselves, and from amongst which the Lord converted and added to the Christian Church, such as should be saved, Acts 2.40.47. And they did put the word from them being filled withenty, contradicting and blaspheming, Acts 13.45.46. Again the Apostle. Rom. 11.11, 12, 15, 19 Plainly implieth, that the Jewish Church ceased to be a true Church, did fall, was broken off, cast away, before salvation came to the Gentiles. Nor do your Scriptures or reasons solidly prove that the Jewish Church was then a true Church; for one of your texts, Acts 11. which you produce for that purpose saith, That they that were scattered (whom in this place you call Apostles contrary to Scripture, Acts 8.1. and your own assertion elsewhere; Defence, P. 4.) Preached some to the Jews only, and some when they were come to Antioch, to the Grecians also, Acts 11.20. Now the Grecians were not then a Church of God, nor gathered (yourselus say) into Church state till Barnabas was sent to them, Defence p. 4. The other text mentions their Preaching to the Jews first, but that they thought themselves bound to Preach to the jews first, because they were the people of God, is your gloss, which cannot be inferred from your texts jointly or severally; you know God's command might make it necessary, they should Preach to the Jews first, whether they were at that very time the people of God or no, and that was the true reason of it, as you may see by comparing Acts 13.46.47. with, Math. 10.1.5.6. But neither their Preaching first to the Jews nor afterwards to the Gentiles, doth evince that either of them were then the people of God. As for the Communion the Apostles had with the Jews which is your second argument, to prove the trueness of the than Jewish Church, I would you had expressed what Communion what worships you mean, if that which you count properly Church-Communion, than the Apostles did not (as you say they did) teach and practise separation from the than Jewish Church, at least not a total one, they had yet Church Communion with her, if you mean not Church Communion which is properly and peculiarly such, than it did not show that they counted her a true Church: Though the Apostles being Jews and formerly members of that Church might become jews to the jews, 1 Cor. 9.20. That they might ga●n the jews and give no offence, Acts 21. (which is unlawful to do to those that are within or without the Church, 1 Cor. 10.32.) Might give great respect to the Jewish Church and worships even after they were then dead, as in some places by way of funeral pomp, the honour done to great personages by their attendants while they lived is in measure continued to them after their death, till they be buried, as uncovering the head, carrying maces and sceptres before them, etc.  
Lastly, Unless you can solidly prove 

1. That the Jewish Church was then a true Church by a moral trueness.  
2 That there is or aught to be such a change of our Ministry, Sacraments, and service of God in the Churches gathered from amongst us, as was then of the Jewish Priesthood, Sacraments, and service of God, in those Churches which were gathered from amongst them.  
3 That the Reformed Churches and Ministers, may as lawfully be forsaken as the than Jewish Church and the Priests thereof.  
4 That you have authority to gather Churches amongst us, as well as the Apostles had for gathering Churches from amongst the Jews.  
5 That men are bound to become Independents when they hear you preach, as the Jews were to become Christians when they heard the voice of the great Prophet, Deut. 18.18, 19 Unless also you can invalidate my other  exceptions against this instance I would advise you to lay it aside and to pass to another argument.    
Sect. 2. Reply, P. 2. 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, Mat. 18.17. Tell the Church, of a Presbyterian Church, which consists of the Elders of many Churches.  
rejoinder. What do you hence conclude that the Apostles taught and practised to gather some Christians from others, one part of this true Church, & c? This is it which P. 18. of your last Book you profess to show at large in this and the subsequent particulars, than belike you acknowledge that the gathering of Presbyterian Churches is according to the doctrine and practice of the Apostles. 2 Between a Presbyterian Church and your gathered and separated Church there is most difference. For, 

1 A Presbyterian Church is not a particular congregation, nor are all her members accounted to be members of a particular congregation, much less covenanted members such as yours are.  
2 She doth not refuse the communió of those congregations, out of which you say it is gathered, and therefore cannot be called a separated Church.  
3. She is gathered with the consent of her societies.  
4 She doth not cast off the care of government of those societies, but her gathering makes much for the better government of them, and for settling of truth and peace in them, as the convening in Parliament of the principal patriots, out of several Counties doth make for the good government of the State.  
Lastly, their gathering is warranted (as hereafter Pos. 3. & 4. may appear) by the Doctrine and practice of the Apostles which you cannot show of yours. Interim you may take notice that Mr. Cotton himself as he doth assert that Synods rightly ordered and classes and conventions of Presbyters of particular Churches are all one, keys. P. 42. So he doth call a Synod a Congregation of Churches, or a Church of Churches, which is as much as to say, there is a Presbyterian Classical Church, but of this and of Mat. 17. I shall speak more hereafter.    
Sect. 3. Reply, p. 2. 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.  
rejoinder. Yes they may; in these troublous times, one family hath oft been divided into more families; part of them at Manchester, another at home; and one family hath consisted of the members of many families, possibly the heads of several Country families have taken one house and dieted together, yea it may be in times of persecution, wives may live apart from their husbands, and their husbands live together apart from their wives, yet it were strange boldness to say that the Apostles taught and practised the separation of several husbands, and gathering them into a distinct family from their wives, and it is no less unreasonable from the necessitous condition of a scattered persecuted Church, to infer that the Apostles taught and practised to separate some Christians etc. Yourselves do intimate P. 14. That one Church may meet in many places, in some time of hot persecution, may we thence conclude that the Apostles taught and practised the meeting of one Church in many places? 2. You read as much of the return of the scattered disciples to Jerusalem, as you read of their falling into membership with other Churches, if therefore it be probable (as you say it is) that they fell into membership with other Churches, I am sure it is as probable that they ere long did return to Jerusalem, seeing there was the first Church, the chief Church in which the Apostles continued as officers, whose doctrine and government all that were members of that Church could not but much desire, and the persecution was but short though sharp. Acts 9.31.3. Yourselves do in effect acknowledge that this argument doth not necessarily (if it do probably) conclude the undertaken conclusion. 4. They that fell into membership with other Churches did not (nor do you think they did) separate from the Church of Jerusalem, or refuse communion with her or with the godly of her, aiming at a purer Church, and unless you had shown this, you have not performed what you say you have performed. When the scattered Disciples left the Church of Jerusalem it was their affliction, not their choice, much less was it their duty, as you pretend your separation to be.  
Sect. 4 Reply, p. 2. 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 Wirrall in Cheshire, (the vocal covenant being only wanting) which consisted of the choicest Christians of many parishes. 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. 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, make members of a Church, than these persons of other Parishes were members, and with the rest made such Churches.  
rejoinder, 

1. If all this were granted it is but an humane testimony not divine, nor can you though you should produce a 1000 more instances (as you might)  
2 I am informed, and in part know that these were not gathered separated Churches, for those members of other Churches did not refuse communion in Parish-assemblies, they grieved when they were deprived of it for nonconformity; they did not exclude all that were not visible Saints, much less the known godly of other Churches from their Sacraments, they aimed not principally (it at all) at a purer Church but a better Ministry, they possibly having no Ministry at their parish Churches, or a bad one, and it may be dwelling nearer to those, then to their own parochial assemblies, and you confess they wanted the vocal Covenant, and I suppose also they wanted subscription, and signals, of their mutual consent that they would be a Church together; and they resorted sometimes to their parish meetings, and if they had had such Ministers there, and liberty of conscience in point of gesture as in other places, it may be thought they would not have sought else where.  
3 Suppose there were such a Church in the days of the Prelates, and that it was then lawful too; can you thence infer that it is still lawful, though Innovations and scandalous Ministers and other offensive things be removed, have you as great occasion still of withdrawing as they then had?  
4 That such a separation was never accounted sinful by the godly before is too large a speech, if you mean, That the separation which then was used by them that used it, and possibly by some others was approved, I contend not: but that no godly man accounted it sinful, ordinarily to frequent another assembly (especially if they had a Minister of ordinary parts and piety) I cannot think. As for your separation many godly did account it sinful, yea the most eminent non-conformists, yea they which did best affect congregational government; yea you two have often told me and others of my godly brethren, That you are free in your judgement to baptise my child, or the children of any godly Minister, or member of our Church, or to receive us to the Sacrament amongst you: now if you would act according to your own Principles, (which I should conceive myself bound in conscience to do in this case) and would inform your Churches of their duty herein, your separation would be less offensive; but how you can account admission of us to your Sacraments lawful and yet the denial, of it not sinful, I see not.    
Sect. 5. Reply, P. 3. 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? 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.  
rejoinder, 1. What then? will you thence conclude, that the Apostles taught or practised to gather or separate some Christians from others & c? Did yourselves ever before call this gathering of Churches or separating Christians into Churches; is this the common acceptation of the words [Gathering of Churches] or separating Christians into Churches? Did yourselves dream that was my meaning, or the thing I put you to prove? Doth remooval from one parish to another, imply the forsaking of, or separating from the communion of the former parish, and refusal to receive the Sacraments with the godly of the former parish? If not, how doth it, can it justify your kind of separation from all our parish-assemblies? And yet you argue thus; remooval from one parish to another hath been judged pious or at least honest, therefore your separation is pious and honest, and you should conclude therefore the Apostles taught and practised your separation. For you know the question is not what is judged pious and honest by men, but what is so judged by the spirit of God. Truly I might as well argue, some separation from our parish-assemblies is sinful (as that of the Papists, Brownists &c.) Therefore yours is so. And indeed whether your separation be with consent or no it is not much material, for it is sin to consent sent to such a separation, and sin to separate, whatsoever consent you have: show that your gathering of Churches with consent, or without consent is justified by the doctrine and practice of the Apostles, and it shall serve your turn.  
Sect. 6. Reply p. 3. Suppose some Ordinances, 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 factions, 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; 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? Church-membership is for edification of the members, not for destruction.  
rejoinder, 

1. These passages and your practice of gathering & separating Churches from amongst us do pass an harsh and heavy censure on our Churches, viz. that there are amongst us not only smaller faults but greater corruptions, and those obstinately persisted in without all hope of redress; and that there is no other means left to prevent the evil but separation, a censure so void of truth and charity, that it is worthy to be exibilated rather then confuted.  
2. When there is indeed such a case as you put, a particular member may and ought humbly to admonish the Ministers and members, plead with the Church. Hose. 2.2. Bear witness against her sins and errors, and act to his utmost in his place for her reformation, both by exciting (quantum inse) the power of that particular Congregation, and complaining to superior judicatories, but not presently to separate. The Apostle Paul, notwithstanding the incestuous person was in communion with the Church, and they were puffed up and gloried, 1 Cor. 5.1.2. Allows worthy receivers to Communicate in it, 1 Cor. 11. 28. & 10.16. He blames their schisms in it, (which are less than separation from it) 1 Cor. 11.18. & 12.25. And prescribes the putting away of the old leaven as a means of making a new lump, especially by casting out the grossest offender (as the incestuous person) first.  
3. Those members which in their place laboured to reform the gross profanation of the Sacrament, by the Incestuous man (as it's like some few did) and mourned for what they could not mend, were not leavened or corrupted (no more than those of Thyatira were leavened with the false doctrine of jezabel, by being co-members with her which had not that dostrin etc. Whom the spirit of God acquits. Revel. 2.24.) But they that were puffed up and neglected to use the means which they had, be it less or more to the putting of him away. If josua and his house serve the Lord and do what in them lies to reform the rest, they are not guilty of all the sins and wickedness of their tribe, much less of all the tribes or of all that were in communion with the Jewish Church; some of your Churches have Brownists (whose errors the Apologists call fatal shipwrecks) Anabaptists, Antinomians and possibly some other erroneous persons amongst them; can no member be free from being corrupted and leavened by these unsound opinions (for false doctrine leaveneth as much, and in some respects more dangerously than profaneness) except he separate from you if he hath not power to cast them out.  
4. Separation from a true Church and refusing to partake the Sacrament in it, or with the godly of it, which is your practice (of which we speak all along) savours much of faction, and more disturbs the Church's peace, then witnessing against the corruptions of the Church while we are in her communion, and using means to reform her: and is indeed sinful, being a remedy of your own devising; the scripture doth require that the bad should be cast out, not that the good should cast out themselves: every person should inform the Church of a brother that will not be gained by private admonition, and the Church should cast such a one out, but that every person should cast off the Church if the Church doth not hear him, is a step beyond our saviours direction, and we should not be wise above what is written.  
5. Yourselves when it is your case will not approve it; suppose seven or eight should separate from your Congregation, and would not admit either of you to the Sacrament, because you want the Ordinance of prophesying, of singing hymns, of anointing with oil, holy kiss etc. Or because some are admitted to your Sacraments which they judge not fit, or because Pedobaptism is retained, or because you make not (as they think) separation enough from our Churches, (which is the case of some Congregational Churches) though they pretend to worship God in a purer way, would or could your Church approve worship God in a purer way, would or could your Church approve of their do? Lastly, in 2 Cor. 13.10. Paul speaks of the power which God had given him over the Church and over every member of it, not of power given to the Church as distinct from officers, not of power given to any member to withdraw from it, not of Church-membership, at least not in your sense. But if he did speak of Church-membership, it will not serve your turn, unless you could prove (as you can never do) that destruction only, and not edification is found in our assemblies, and edification only and not destruction in yours, nor can I think that you hold that every Corinthian (if in his judgement the Apostle did use his power for destruction and not for edification) was bound to withdraw from him, which they were too apt to do, and for which he reprehends both them and the Galatians, Gal. 1.6.1 Cor. 4.10.11.13.14.15. 2 Cor. 10.2. Cor. 11.    
Sect. 7. But you say that I stumble at this because they converted them not: and to this you 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.  
Bejoynder, 

1. I stumble not, but only discover your stumbling and falling, I never denied or doubted that some might plant and others water; why do you trifle away time to prove it?  
2. I brought in by a parenthesis an aggravation of the great wrong done, by separation, unto Pastors which are not only rob of their sheep, but of their children; in that they are gathered into such societies, as will not eat, or have Church-communion in the Sacrament with their spiritual fathers.  
3. Did it not grieve Paul himself when those which God had called by his Ministry were withdrawn from him, Gal. 1. 6.1. Cor. 4.15. 2 Cor. 11.2.4? And yet they I suppose never proceeded so far as to deny him communion. If they had and should have proved to him (as you do to us) that some plant and some water (which he knew well enough) would this have given him satisfaction or excused their withdrawing from him? If a father should complain that some jesuite, Monk, or Nunn, had seduced his children from his family into their scieties, the said jesuite, Monk, or Nun might make as solid and just Apology for themselves as this is, viz. That oftimes one begets and another brings up, and upon occasion of the death of parents, removal etc. Children are to be disposed of and transplanted into other famlies, therefore they did the father no wrong? surely their reasoning and yours too is very weak.    
Sect. 8. You suppose I may object, That this separation must be orderly done and with consent an to this you answer, P. 4. 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, to a purer air, And not to a purer Church? The purer any Church is, doth not Christ the more delight in it? And 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, may not many agree together to make such a Church? And this is all the gathering of Churches that we know of, that is either taught or practised.  
rejoinder, 

1. You play with your own fancy, for it is not acknowledged that your gathering of Churches is at any time orderly done, whether it be with consent or no.  
2. You assert what I think yourselves approve not, that order is not to be expected where it hath not been wont to be exercised: as though custom were the guide of conscience.  
3. You take it for granted, 

1 That your Churches are purer Churches (as if humane inventions sundry whereof I have discovered in Quare's, (to which contrary to my caution given you in my Epistle) you sent me censures in stead of answers, would make a Churth more pure.  
2. That Christ doth delight in your Churches more than in ours, (as the Anabaptists boast that they have more of Christ's presence in their Churches then you in yours)  
3. That your manner of gathering and separating Christians into Churches, is as justifiable as the removal of one or many to dwell in a fatter soil, clearer air and under a better Ministry that they may be a purer Church, yea this (you say) is all the gathering of Churches you know of, I pray you consider better of it.  
Lastly, yourselves are not determined when a Church is pure enough to live in. Hence many of you do fly from one Church to another, under pretence of attaining more purity though they are usually mistaken, as those Corinthians were, which slighted Paul, accounting him one of the foolish things of the world, his bodily presence weak and his speech contemptible, and those foolish Galatians which accounted him their enemy because he told them the truth.       

CHAP. II. Of Parishes, how they are jure Divino and how not.  
Sect. 1. YOu say, the exception is, That there is a removal of persons to other Churches without the removal of their habitations. This exception you take off by saying, why should this be blamed? 1. If distinction of Parishes by bounds and limits be not jure Divino, where then is the fault.  
rejoinder, 

1. The Parishes now are some too great, some to little, some unfitly and incommodiously divided, and where they are most fitly divided these or those limits are of politic and not of divine constitution, and are alterable upon just occasion, and the law (if there be any such) whereby all that dwell within such a line are accounted of the Church there, proceeds from a supposition that a due profession of Christianity is made by all the inhabitants, I say [if there be any such law] because many Jews, Pagans, Papists have formerly, and yet may dwell within the percinct of some Parish, as many Heathen did dwell amongst the Church-members of Jerusalem, Corinth &c. (though no Christians of other Churches did) and so may many ignorant and scandalous persons which by the laws of the land and orders of the Church are to be kept from our Sacraments.  
2. It is most agreeable to the law of nature and scripture, that there should be Parishes, that is that Churches should be confined within convenient local limits. 

For first, else the members of one Congregation might live each of them, 10.20.50. an 100 miles asunder without blame.  
2. The Scripture usually denominates Churches from places, as the Churches of jerusalem, of Rome, Antioch, Corinth, and Cenchrea are denominated respectiuly from the Cities of jerusalem, Rome etc. So that (for aught we know) Churches were then so exactly distinguished by local bounds, that a man might have stood in some place between Corinth and Cenchrea; and have said no member of the Church of Corinth dwells on this side, and no member of the Church of Cenchrea on that side.  
3. In constant scripture-phrase the Christian inhabitants of such a town, city or place were the Church in that city or place, The Christian Corinthians, Smyrnaeans, Laodicaeans were the Church of Corinth Smyrna, Laodicea, 1 Cor. 1.1. 2 Cor. 6.11. Col. 2.1. & 4.16. Rev. 2.8. & 3.14.  
4. Cities and Churches in scripture-phrase do expound one another (as you confess defence P. 16.) Which could not be if all the members of the Church were not in the city, for certainly all the citizens (many being Heathens) were not of the Church, Acts chap. 16. verse 4, 5. Acts chap. 14. ver. 23. cum Tit. c. 1. v. 5.  
5. The way of Christ all along in Scripture is, That Christians dwelling together should together make one Congregation, and the converting of many Christians in a place to be a Church was all the gathering of Churches that then was.  
6. They that did remove from place to place did (it is very probable (as yourselves acknowledge page 2. in the case of the scattered disciples) fall into membership with those Churches where they did reside, so Aquila and Priscilla might fall into membership sometime of the Church of Rome, sometime of the Church of Corinth, etc. Acts 18.2, 24, 25, 26. Rom. 16.3. and so many persons removing their places may well be of other Churches and yet transgress no scripture Rules, as your separation doth.  
7. If Church-members should not cohabite, how can Pastors feed the flock that is amongst them, and be resident with them if they be not resident amongst themselves?  
8 This is a pattern uncontrolled by precepts and other patterns, which kind of pattern (your selves say, Defence, p. 15.) hath doctrine in it, for no instance can be given, either that any dwelled in a Town or City where there was a Church, though very corrupt, as Corinth, Laodicea, Sardis, etc. and was a member of a Church in another City or Town, as Cenchrea, etc. Or that any dwelled nearer to one Church, and was a member of a remoter Church, Or that any Christians dwelling remote one from another, were united into one particular Church. This hath also the consent of godly learned men, as Mr Carwright, Mr Parker, and others non-conformists, which agree against the Brownists in the lawfulness and expediency of confining, for order's sake, particular Churches within the bounds of distinct Parishes; and in New England itself (as I hear) Congregations are divided and bounded by the divisions and boundings of Towns and Parishes, as Cambridge, New Plymouth, Boston, etc.    
3 Suppose distinction of Parishes by bounds and limits, were but of humane and Politic or (as a nouresident Doctor in justification of his nonresidency said) of Popish institution, it will more disadvantage than advantage you; for before the said division, many Congregations did but make one Church, and the Presbytery did teach and rule in Common, and probably the several Assemblies were not fixed, but fluid, consisting now of some persons, and then of others; sometimes of more, and sometimes of fewer; and the reason of division of Parishes was, Ne administratio in promiscuo esset, Poll. Verg. intimating plainly, That no Presbyter did know his particular Congregation, whereof he had more care than another Presbyter, or then himself had of another Assembly within such and such limits, as of a City, etc. but after Division of Parishes this particular Minister and assembly were better known, more related, and fastened one to another; if this be of a Politic or Popish institution, what do you gain by it?  
4. I cannot but observe that you plainly intimate that he that transgresseth such bounds or limits as are not jure Divino is not in any fault.    
Sect. 2. Reply, P. 5.2. Was there not liberty within this very Kingdom formerly, for persons to pay their 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?  
rejoinder, Suppose Mr. Selden say so, and that it be true that he saith yet, 

1. You know this doth not evidence the doctrine and practice of the Apostles.  
2. I cannot think that from their payment of tithes to such a Minister or society, it can be concluded that they did choose to be of that society, for they sometimes paid their tithes to Regulars, sometimes to Seculars, sometimes they paid one year to one, and another year to another, and possibly a 3 year to a third person.  
3. That people paid their tithes to what Minister they pleased, within such or such limits, within which Ministers did administer; and several assemblies of people did partake in ordinances promiscuously, is not so hard to believe as that after the division of Parishes, (as you intimate, saying they were not tied to their own Parish) they did so.  
4. Suppose the people had then free choice of their society and Pastor, and afterwards according to their choice Parishes were divided, (which you to the discredit thereof make the occasion of inconvenient division of Parishes) must it always be free, notwithstanding any obligation by consent of Churches, custom, command of authority for every private person to live where he listeth, and to choose his own society and Pastor? Is it an abridgement of the children of your Church-members liberty to be accounted of your Church, or may they separate themselves from your communion, and gather whensoever they conceive there is just occasion into any Church which they think is purer? Sure you must say that they may; for seeing their parents voluntarily chose your Church, why should there now be an abridgement?    
Sect. 3. Reply, P. 5. 3d There are many inconveniences both to Minister and people, arising hence: 

1. The Pastors of parish Churches are only at certainty what houses they have under their Ministry, not what persons: for they may go which way they will leaving their houses, but their houses and lands are fixed, 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?    
rejoinder, 

Pastors may be at certainty what persons they at present have under their Ministry but for time to come indeed they are not certain, nor can you show us where the word of God requireth that they should have such certainty, yourselves are not certain how long you shall have your members, for death may take them away, or they may turn Anabaptists, seekers, or fall into such sins as they may be cast out or they may voluntarily, notwithstanding any covenant (which binds no further than it is lawful and warrantable) desert you: Nor are we certain what houses we shall have in our Parishes, A fire may burn them, or the sea in some places may overflow them, or the wind may blow them down, we cannot say what shall be to morrow.  
2. The removal of men from one Parish to another, is for the most part voluntary (possibly) for some secular ends and volenti non fit injuria.  
3. Distinction of Parishes are in some cases, is or aught to be dispensed with where Parishes are in conveniently divided.  
4. A Christian removeing from one Parish to another; may be a member (at least a transient one) in any Parish where he dwells, as a man that hath houses in several counties, cities and towns, may be a member of any of those several counties, cities and towns where he dwelleth: they that were scattered from the Church of jerusalem, fell (you say) into membership with other Churches, was this any inconvenience to the? Aquila and Priscilla dwelling sometimes in one place sometimes in another, were members of several Churches. And if a Christian citizen of Corinth did dwell at Cenchrea, he did (as is probable) fall into the membership of the Church of Cenchrea.  
5. If Parishes or neighbourhoods of people to be in one Church-society be an ordinance of God, (as hath been proved Sest. 5.) then allegation of these or many more such inconveniences cannot equalise the inconveniences and unwarrantableness of your gathered or separated Churches.  
6. The cohabitation of Church members is full of conveniency, 

1. For their more commodious meeting together in public with ease, frequency, less expense of time and money.  
2. Their more easy conversing with, and watching over, comforting and relieving one another.  
3. For the preventing of confusion, contention, and offence.  
4. For their more convenient inspection over their families that their families as well as themselves do sanctify the Sabbath.       

CHAP. 3. Of gathering Churches and preaching without, yea against the laws of the Magistrate.  
Sect. 1. WHen you allege for it, the doctrine of the Apostles Acts 4.17, 18, 21. & Acts 5.28. I answered that the Apostles were immediately called Gal. 1. 1. You reply, Pag. 6. That the ordinary Pastors and teachers of those times, did so as well as the Apostles. and Pag. 7. That the warrantableness ariseth not from the immediatness of the commission, but from the truth and reality of it. I rejoin, 

1, You should produce those ordinary Pastors and teachers which did so, and prove it by scripture, which proof the reader may expect as being only able to satisfy conscience, yourselves disallow many things reported in Ecclesiastical history.  
2. You cannot make out so true and real a Commission for gathering Churches amongst us as the Apostles had amongst the Jews and Gentiles, (as hath been largely showed Cap. 1.) If you could, yet surely had you as immediate a commission now, as they then had you might more boldly imitate them therein, which is the thing I asserted.  
3. Mr. Weld a Congregational man, calleth this an opposition to Magistracy (yea (saith he) what pen can express a greater latitude of opposition?) as you acknowledge in your last, P. 22. And promise to annex a more pertinent answer.    
Sect. 2. When I assert that you hold not that ministers deposed by their Churches ought to preach, or that Mr. Ward deposed by the Church at Roterodam, was hound to officiate there before his restauration, you reply, P. 7. That Ministers censured by a lawful power where ever it lies, whether in their own Congregational Churches or in a Presbytery, whether the censure be inflicted justly or unjustly, aught to submit and forbear the execution of their Ministry in that place till they be restored etc. But what (say you) makes this against the position?  
rejoinder, 

1. Then you plainly intimate that either the Presbytery or the Congregational Church, hath lawful power to depose their Minister.  
2. Your grant here makes much against the Position, as it relateth to the Apostles, For 

1. The Apostles immediate Commission could no more be called in or kerbed by the Church then by the Magistrate.  
2. Nor had the Church's power to silence them (as they had ordinary Elders you confess) no more than the Magistrate.  
3. Those whom Peter and john refused to obey, if they were not merely an Ecclesiastical Court, yet there was amongst them Ecclesiastical Persons, Acts 4.5, 6, 23. & Acts 5.17, 24, 27.  
4. That they had lawful power is not denied nor questioned by the Apostles but granted rather, Acts 4.8. And you assert it was a true Church then, and if these things be so, and you do hold up to your rule it will follow as well that Ministers deposed (specially if unjustly) by lawful Ecclesiastical judges ought not to desist from their Ministry, but say to them (as well as to the Magistrate) as the Apostle said to the high Priest, Acts 5.20. We ought to obey God rather than man: (Ecclesiastical judges being but men no more then civil) which would tend to the undermining and subverting of the Government, by pretence of unrighteousness in the managing of it, and disturb the Church's peace, as you ingenuously acknowledge.      
Sect. 3. When jurge that the Apostles had infallible direction of the holy Ghost, you reply nothing at all to it, though you know, 

1. That he which is infallible may more safely resist the laws of the Magistrate than he that is not.  
2. That opposition made by men so infallibly inspired is rather made by the holy Ghost then by them.  
3. The points which the Apostles were forbidden to preach, were of themselves of more absolute necessity, and undoubted certainty, (as yourselves will acknowledge) than your tenets of discipline, and therefore the Magistrate is not to be so peremptorily disobeyed in the one as in the other. When I further answer, That the case of living under a Christian Magistrate Intending, endeavouring, (I might now add, and having in measure effected Reformation) and of living under an Heathen Magistrate and a professed public enemy of the Church is much different: you reply, That the case is not different in my sense, for the Christianity of the Magistrate or his piety and sedulity for Reformation cannot take any person or persons off their duty which they would be bound unto, if a Heathen Magistrate bore sway, The Magistrate, Minister and the people stand engaged each for himself to jesus Christ, unto the work of his own place. The impediments that come from any unto other cannot be a discharge to any.    
rejoinder: but. 

1. The question is whether it be private men's duty to set up Churches or to make public Reformation; can a precept or precedent be showed in God's Book for such a practice? we must keep within the compass of our callings, 1 Cor. 7.17. When things were amiss in Israel the people made no Reformation nor did the Prophets call them to it, or blame them for not doing it, when they were opposed by sovereign authority; the jews omitted to build the Temple and the City being forbidden by the Kings of Persia, yea Christ and his Apostles shifted from place to place, and left the execution of their Ministry in places where they were persecuted, at least to avoid offence or to escape danger.  
2. It is the right and duty of every Magistrate to be the Churches nursing Father, and to reform it if there be need, as also it is the duty of every family-governer to reform his family. Now a godly Christian Magistrate and houshholder have both jus and aptitudinem, the right (as also Heathens may have) and fitness so to do. A wife may be more bold to order the family, if her husband be distracted then if he be solidwitted, for though he be an husband still and it is his duty to do it, yet he wants fitness to do it: It is not orderly for some companies of an army to engage while their faithful and valiant General and Council of war are consulting and deliberating how they may best do it, yea possibly have determined another course; shall no more respect be showed nor obedience in matters of God, yielded by a wife, child, servant to a conscionable Christian husband, Father, Master then if they were professed Heathens; you would not take it well if you should catechise your children, command them to come to family-duties, and to keep the way of the Lord. Gen. 18.19. And they should answer, an Heathen father is as truly a father as you, and you are no more to be obeyed in matters of Religion than he.  
3. The General Court civil in N. England hath made a law that no Church should be set up there without the consent of the Magistrate. T. W. to W. R. and were you in N. E. I suppose you durst not preach or print that that law is against God's law, or that any aught to set up Churches there against the consent of the Magistrates. And hath not the civil Magistrate in old England (from whence theirs is but derived) as much power (there being the same or greater occasion) to make a law to the same effect?    
Sect. 4. When I tell you, that New-England men will not allow a Presbyteryan Church, nor a new Independent-Church against the will of the Magistrates.  
You Reply, P. 8. The Questian is not what they would allow, 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? Our belief of New England is this, that they would suffer the godly and peaceable to live amongst them, though they differ in point of Church-government from them: Because so far as we could ever learn, they never banished any, but unpeacebleness together with desperate erroneousness, was the cause of it.  
rejoinder; Yes the Question is what they would allow, for 

1. It may be presumed they do not transgress the charter they have from old England, nor the due power of the Magistrate in the opinion of the Churches there.  
2. That they do to others as they would be done unto.  
3. Yourselves intimate that if Presbyteryans have no livelihood there, than they should remove.  
4. A course hath been taken that they should have no livelihood there, for when some of them being persecuted for nonconformity writ into N. E. desiring that they might be a sister-Church and have the liberty of their Consciences, N. E. brothers would not then tolerate them, though now the case is altered, and the difference is pretended to be so small that one party ought to tolerate the other.  
5. They that now plead for liberty of Conscience and toleration will, and (if they hold Presbyterian government to be Antichristian, as some do) must endeavour to the utmost to root it out, if ever they have ability and opportunity for such a design: these times show much, and aftertimes will show more to the grief and shame of the lukewarm or (as they would be called) moderate Presbyterians.    
Sect. 5. To omit that it is plain (notwithstanding what you say in your reply) that the chiefest Independents in London did think it unseasonable to gather Churches at that time that you did gather yours, and that so far as any thing is unseasonable so far it is unlawful: When I said that it may be Brownists, Anabaptists, Antinomians, Familists, and other gross Heretics and Schismatics do also pretend the doctrine and practice of the Apostles. You reply. They must be found to be liars, but 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 Church of Ephesus found the false Apostles liars and rejected them.  
rejoinder, 

1. You here omit a fair opportunity of bearing witness against those Heretical and Schismatical conventions, saying only (what themselves would say) that they should be found liars.  
2. They are found liars both when in disputations and conferences they are solidly confuted (as they often are) or when they are subdued or constrained to yedd (at least) feigned and dissembled obedience. Deut. 33.29. Psal. 18.44. As they ought to be.  
3. Sure you would not have them let alone by the Magistrates and ministers, till they confess themselves to be liars: do not all Heretics, and Schismatics say, that they in truth and not in pretence have the doctrine and practice of the Apostles with them? and it may be they think so too, being given up to believe lies: and therefore by your argument they may, yea are bound to erect Churches in their own way. Did the false Apostles of Ephesus, did those opinions of N. E. whom neither preaching, nor conference, nor the assembly of the Churches could cure, confess they were liars, though the Churches knew them to be so? no, no, they went on in their former course not only to disturb the Churches but miserably to interrupt the civil peace, and pour contempt upon Courts and Churches, and therefore the Magistrates did convent and censure them, and if the Magistrates had not so done, they had been guilty of those Heresies, Schisms, Seditions, and of the blood of so many souls as should perish thereby, (as he that willingly suffers men to go about to poison all waters in a country, is guilty of the death of those which are thereby poisoned) nor had they been nursing fathers to the Church, nor had discharged the trust reposed in them by that Plantation, yea should they have tolerated Heretics, and Schismatics for their own profit, or some Politic end, (as the Pope doth Jews and Courtesans) their sale of Religion truth and the souls of men for money or worldly interest would have made them abominable to God and all good men.     

CHAP. 4. What number makes a Church.  
Sest. 1. WHen I allege that the case of Adam's family and Noah's was extraordinary, there being then no more in the world. And that Adam and his wife and first son were the Church, if then there was any, and that Cain lawfully married his own Sister. you reply, P. 9.1. That I grant in that extraordinary case that 7. 8 or 9 may make a Church. That the Church is Christ's body, and every body consists of members; if all were one member, where were the body, and therefore one Adam could not make a Church: That we have a manifest Prohibition of a man's marrying with his sister, but what scripture (say you) is there 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. And that God hath not percisely determined what number do make a Church.  
rejoinder, 

1. I no more grant that seven or eight then that two or three did then make a Church, much less that they may now make a Church; but that two or three may now make a Church (though) it be the opinion of some congregational men, as white Summer Lands. P. 23.) is rejected upon good grounds by Mr. T. and Mr. M. against Mr. H. and by M. Cotten. P. 53. For if thy brother offend thou must tell him his fault between him and thee, and if he hear thee not, take one or two with thee, (now they are three or four) yet this was but the 2. admonition which if he did not hear then they were to tell the Church; now as the second admonition was to be given by more than the first, so the third admonition was to be given by more than the second, and therefore the Church must of necessity consist of more than two or three.  
2. If one Adam could not make a Church, it is nothing to my answer, for I only say that Adam was the Church before Eve was made, and Adam and Eve before their first son was born, if then there was any; and this (you know) is most true.  
3. The Apostles saying if all were one member where is the body; is not to be understood so much, that the Church must be a Collective body, as that it must be an Organical Heterogeneal body, if all were one member (id est) if all were one sort of members, all eye, all ear, all feet as is plain by the Coherence, 1 Cor. 12.14.15. etc.  
4. Your Reply leaves the reader very doubtful, in that you say, God hath not precisely determined what number doth make a Church; for he may question 

first, how you dare precisely determine either that 7.8. or 9 may make a Church, that a Church may consist of so many as may with edification meet in one place, and of no more; which doth determine the number materialiter, though not formaliter seeing God himself hath not precisely determined it as yourselves confess.  
2. You do not positively must be found to be liars, him what number did at any time make a Church, whether 7. or 8. or 10.20.40. or 100 but send him to seek it:    
5. Mr. Cotten saith though there might be a domestical Church in Adam and Eve at the beginning, yet such a Church as Christ hath instituted in the new Testament consisteth of a greater number than two or three, way of the Churches. P. 53. And if you do assert that Adam and Eve did then make a Church, (which seems to be your opinion, for you argue only against one person being a Church) than you have scripture produced by me, and cited by you, Defence. P. 73. And Reverend Mr. Cotton against such a number making a Church now. And indeed in the beginning of the world, there was defectus physicus, but now if a defect be, it is defectus moralis: If there were no woman in the world, an incontinent person could not many, but now it is a sin for him not to marry.  
6. I believe yourselves do not conceive that those 7. or 8. in Adam's or in Noah's family might be now an instituted Church, if they were alive (though the reader may think you contend for it) can one man, one woman, four or 5 children (the eldest whereof must needs be very young) make a Church? should the man sin, the Woman reproves him (or e contra) and he will not be gained, where must she have one or two more, or a Church to complain to? seeing little children (as reason tells us and yourselves grant) are neither meet for, nor capable of that employment: Can four men and their Wives make a Church? Cham sins, Noah rebukes him, he will not be gained, he according to rule takes with him one or two more as Sem and japhet, than they have a goodly Church left, viz four women, their four wives, which you know are disabled by their sex.  
7. Suppose in a Church of 7. or 8. a man and a woman should be suspected by their brother of Committing adultery, (as David and Bathsheba did) or incest, and their brother admonish them and they deny it; he takes one or two with him to charge sin upon them and they yet deny it, and complain of wrong, and take one or two with them to charge sin upon him or them that admonished them, than all these are parties; who is left to judge this business, if the Church consist but of 7. 8. or 9?  
8. You say a particular Church is called a City, an Army, a Kingdom, which titles do imply multitudes, now it were strange to say that two or three, or 7. 8. 9 may make a City, an Army, a Kingdom.  
9 It is inconvenient and of dangerous consequence, that 7. or 8. should be able to cast out of Communion any person, not only with themselves but the whole Catholic visible Church, and deliver him to Satan; especially if they be illiterate and unexperienced in the ways of God, and apt to be byased as so few men (though visible Saints) may easily be.    
Sect. 2. When I say that Twelve are more than seven or eight, and an hundred and twenty a competent number, yet it appeareth not that they were called or counted a Church till they were more increased. If there were no more believers in Ephesus then twelve (as there was, viz. Aquila. and Priscilla, which knew more than john's Baptism, Acts 18.26. with 24.25. If not others) Yet there were more in Jerusalem then an hundred and twenty. 1 Cor. 15.6. You reply, P. 10. That twelve is not more in the truth of the constitution of a Church then 7. or 8.  
rejoinder. 

1. My meaning was, that you cannot prove that 7. or 8. may make a Church though twelve might, for 12. is almost double to ●.  
2. Twelve men (your selves will acknowledge) are rather capable of being a Church then 7. or 8. in Adam's family or in Noah's. where were so many women and children; for here if a man sin, and his br●ther admonish him, and he will not be gained: and he take two or three with him, yet there is some remaining to take cognizance of the thing, which in the precedent instances there was not: you see I dispute upon your own principles, though I grant them not.  
3. You say, P. 13. Small Churches are inconsistent with Christ's and, which is edification by Pastors: from whence it follows that the more small the more inconsistent, and the less small the less inconsistent, and in this sense I might say that twelve is more than 7 or eight, and so declare some what else then that I can number twelve.    
Sect. 3. You Reply, P. 10. That the scripture determines not what number is competent and what not competent to the being of a Church, that I am the more presumptuous in aring that an 120 are a competent number to make a Church, that if I will, I 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 3000. be added to no Church and they are still no Church which to affirm were flat against the Scripture.  
rejoinder, 

1. Pardon me (I pray you) I thought I had been no more presumptuous to say an 120. is a competent number than you are in saying, 7. or 8. is a competent number to the being of a Church, seeing God hath as well determined that an 120. as that 12. or 7. or 8. is a competent number, and 120.  more capable of all officers, and of a flock then 7. or 8. The truth is, as you said that an 120. was small enough in comparison, (you mean) of what it was afterward, so I said, that it was a competent number comparatively to 12. which yet is more than 7. or 8. the number which you should prove competent to the being of the Church or else forgo the position.  
2. Election of an Apostle is not properly a Church act, for then other Churches might have done it as well as that, for other Churches may do all Church acts, but it was an occasional extraordinary act, and the power of doing it, did not result from the combination of them into a particular Church, but from an immediate extraordinary commission from God for that time only, and therefore noteth not any Church-ship in them, nor that any other Church might do it, any more than Ananias his laying of hands on Saul proves that every single disciple or Minister may ordinarily do it. It is the honour of Apostles and Apostolic men, not to be of men, or by men, but of God. God himself elected the first twelve, and after there were Christian Churches, God without the intervention of all or any of them chose Paul to be an Apostle. And in this place he confined them to some sort of men that had conversed with our Saviour, (amongst whom (I suppose) an unfit man could not be found, and if he had been unfit, the gifts of the holy Ghost which they were then immediately to receive would have made him fit) he gave them no power to nominate the particular man, but himself determined it by Lot, and he might have chosen a third man not nominated by them, yea one that had not accompanied the Apostles (as Paul) if he had so pleased.  
3. That election (so far as it was the act of man) might aswel be the Apostles as the people's act, for though Peter stood up in the midst of the Disciples, and told them that in the room of judas one must be ordained, yet he doth not bid them nominate or elect one or two or more, nor doth the text convincingly decide who did appoint those two: Bucerus saith, The Apostles named two, and it is likely it was they, the same parties that prayed and cast lots, And though all persons present did not join in the election, Peter's speech unto them might be of use, lest they should conceive (as they might well enough) that none should have succeeded an Apostle an extraordinary Officer, no more than any succeeded john Baptist before, or james afterward: and that they might submit to such an one, and join with more understanding and faith in prayer with them, and in approbation of their act.  
4. If you can see them a Church (you mean) a particular Church, because they elected an officer, than I may say, you (if you will) may see them an universal Church, because they performed one great act of the universal Church in electing an universal officer.  
5. It is strange that men of your strength should make so weak work, for 

1. The words [to them] upon which you build, are not in the original text, but only in the translation; and therefore it may be read, they were added to the Lord, as Acts 5.14.  
2. The words [to them.] (if they were in the text as they are not) may be meant of Peter and the rest of the Apostles spoken of v. 37.42. as Acts 9.26.27 which were not set members of any particular congregation.  
3. If one Apostle only had been there, and 3000. had added themselves to him, receiving his word, being baptised, and continuing in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship, they might have been a Church of themselves; though that one Apostle (to whom they were added) was not nor could be a Church.  
4. Those that were daily converted to the faith, & baptised are said to be added daily to the Church, meaning the general visible Church, into which the Eunuch was baptised, and Paul also before he did so much as assay 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to join to any particular Church.      
Sect. 4. You Reply, P. 11. Though Aquila and Priscilla were at Ephesus, 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 it is not certain.  
rejoinder, 

1. If it be uncertain to what place they did belong, how dare you say peremptorily they were but sojourners there, why might they not be inhabitants of Ephesus, and members of the Church there?  
2. They had an house in Rome, and in that house a Church, Rom. 16.5. Therefore they remained there for one season. Pareus thinks they dwelled at Ephesus another while, and removed from one place to another as occasion was offered.  
3. The dissenting brethren in their reasons, P. 18. do affirm that many of the members of the Church of Jerusalem were but sojourners there, and if so, why might not Aquila, and Priscilla be members of the Church of Ephesus, though (suppose) they were but sojourners there.  
4. If their being but sojourners in a place did hinder them from being members of the Church in that place, then how can they which are not so much as sojourners in a place, but mere strangers and inhabiting 5.8.10.20. miles from it, be members of the Church in that place?  
5. Those twelve which you call the foundationals of the Church of Ephesus, When the holy Ghost came on them, they not only spoke With tongues but prophesied, Acts 19 Now though tongues were a sign to them that did not believe, yet Prophesying served not for infidels but believers, 1 Cor. 14.4.22. Yea Beza signifieth that they were called unto the Ministry, and then these may well be those Elders mentioned, Acts 20.28. Which the holy G●ost (in a special manner) made Bishops, now that 12. men should prophesy, yea to be made Ministers at Ephesus; and there be no other believers to hear that prophecy, or to submit to their Ministry, yourselves will judge very improbable.    
Sect. 5. Reply, p. 11. Your five hundred brethren at jerusalem is as slightly collected from 1 Cor. 15.6. For first doth the Apostle say that he was seen of those 500 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 to judea? Or suppose of jerusalem; why might they not be dispersed before Christ's ascension? for presently afterwards when they chose an Apostle, they were not there, which yet was a Church action, and without doubt the major part of the Church would have been present at it.  
rejoinder, 

1. Those 500 might well be of jerusalem, seeing that I●rusalem (which could be no less than a considerable part, if not the major part of that City) were baptised by john; See more. Cap. 5. Sect. 2.  
2. You render no reason why it might not be at jerusalem as well as any other place.  
3. Imagine the place to be Galilee or judaea (and indeed you do but imagine it, not prove it) and those 500 to appertain to Galilee or judaea, might they not be of the Church of jerusalem? was there yet any other Church to which they did belong? would they not desire the society of the Apostles? were there not men of Galilee amongst the 120. Acts 1.11.15. & 2.7. which yourselves acknowledge were of the Church of jerusalem? Suppose therefore these 500 were Galilaeans or dispersed into judaea and Galilee, this doth not hinder but they might be of the Church of Jerusalem.  
4. If Christ did appear in Galilee they had notice of it in jerusalem, Math. 28.7. And questionless they would go out of jerusalem to see him.  
5. The choosing of an Apostle (concerning which see before in Sect. 3.) was of general concernment, and why then should not the 500 brethren though in Galilee or judea have been there at the choosing of an Apostle, who was to be an officer to them, as well as to those in jerusalem?    
Sect. 6. When I allege that Adam and Noah with their families, if they were Churches were but domestical Churches not congregational, some houshoulds are called Churches in the new testament, many whereof may be within a congregational Church and specially within a national. To this you Reply, pag. 11.12.  
That Domestical Churches enjoying Congregational ordinances, and Congregational Churches, differ not in their nature and kind, but in quantity, as a small country Chappel differeth from a numerous Town-Church. That many domestical Churches may be in one Congregational, in my sense, not in yours, that you deny, that two or three concerted in a family, enjoying no Church-ordinances are called a Church: that you acknowledge not any such distinction of Congregational Church and Domestical. But say the foundation of a congregational Church may be laid in one family, and spread into many. It may be laid in 7 or 8. and grow up to as many as can meet together constantly unto edification in one place, as the Church in Abraham's family, which afterwards grow up into a nation, and though the Go pel-Church is not now national, yet a Congregation of many families, may spring out of a Church in one family, more easily than a nation did.  
rejoinder. 

1. you do not express, whether you mean that one, or two, or all, or none of the three families mentioned in the position did enjoy Congregational ordinances. Nor.  
2. What you mean by Congregational ordinances; but the Reader may conceive, that you mean election of officers, partaking Sacraments and censures:  
3. You tax me to hard to require me, to prove that two or three converted in a family enjoying no Church-ordinances are called a Church, for neither you nor I know the number of persons in the families called Churches, whether it was 2. or 3, 7, or 8, 11, or 12, 19, or 20. more or less, nor is it (as to this) any whit material.  
4. Mr Weld a congregational man doth acknowledge a domestical Church to be spoken of in scripture, as distinguished from a particular visible Church, and citys Phil●m 2. and so do Zanchy and very many good interpreters, and Mr Cottons words cited, Sect. 1. import the same. And indeed these families might be called Churches, because they were more eminently Religious or more numerous, or for some other reason, besides the enjoyment of Congregational ordinances.  
5. You say, p. 16. That city and Church do expound one another, and p. 113. You say we do not read of more Congregations of Saints constantly meeting for the Worship of God in any City than one. But if these were Congregational Churches, than you must acknowledge that there was more Congregations than one in a City; for you read of the Church of Rome, Rom. 1.7. And of the Church in the house of Aquila, and Priscilla, Rom. 16.3. of whose being in Rome you spoke even now.    
Sect. 7. When I cite new-England men to say, that Christ did not make a new Church, but lived and died a member of the jewish Church; and therefore he and his family were not a Church distinct from the jewish Church. you reply, p. 12. Whether Christ died a member of the jewish Church or no, is questionable, but that he gathered certain persons to him, and instituted baptism and the Lords 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.  
rejoinder, 

1. The Elders of new England confidently assert it, Answer, to, 32. q.p. 14. Though you question it.  
2. If it be questionable whether Christ died a member of the Jewish Church or no, than it is questionable whether he & his disciples made a Cospel Church or no, and then what becomes of that instance in the Position?  
3. To prepare for, and to lay the foundation of the Gospel Church are much different, yet you tell us not whether of these two Christ did; as though either would serve your turn, but you know he might prepare them for a Gospel Church, and himself die a member of the jewish Church. David did prepare for building the Temple, but did not build it, nor lay the foundation of it.  
4. What you mean by gathering certain persons to himself, or who were those certain persons you do not tell us: if you mean the 12. how prove you that he instituted baptism amongst the 12? if others, how do you prove that he instituted the Lords supper amongst them? were all baptised persons only prepared for the Church, or was the foundation of the Church laid in them, or only in those to whom he administered, the supper: or if in both, was the foundation of the Church laid in them equally or unequally? If the foundation of the Church was laid in all them that were baptised, than it was a very large foundation, if only in the twelve, than it was but a little one, and so it makes for the position, the other makes against it? I pray explian your opinion that the reader may understand it, and the reasons of it.  
5. Was the reality of an Instituted Congregational Church in the family of Christ or no? (you speak like Apollo's oracles very doubtfully) if it was not, than this instance is impertinent to prove the position, if it was (for they did partake in the Sacrament to which you will admit, none but such as are in Church-state) than it is to be proved that Christ and his Apostles did covenant or agree to be a Christian Church, that they did choose jesus for their officer (which seems to contradict, john 15.16.) or at least that they had power to choose their own officers, to ordain them, and if need had been to censure them, and that they had power to receive Saints by calling into that society and fellowship, and why then was not the blessed Virgin received into that Church?  
6. It appeareth not to me (nor I think) to any man from Acts 1.14.16. That they were a Gospel-Church, an instituted Congregational Church, nor can you by any consequence infer it from those two verses, though you say it appears from them.    
Sect. 8. When I argue, If seven or eight may make a Church, than 200. persons in a City may well make twenty distinct Churches and Independent judicatures, you reply, p. 12. That this is to bring an odiù upon Congregational Churches. That 7. or 8. may but make a Church in the first foundation, and whilst they are no more persons fitted for membership, and that the Church is to be increased, as more in that place shall be converted, as you perceive by the paterns, Acts 1.14.15. with Acts 2.41, & 19, 7, 8, 9 with 18, 19, 20. Acts 20.17, 28. That you are against the unnecessary multiplication of Churches, as conceiving that small Churches are inconsistent with Christ's ends which is edification by Pastors, teachers, Ruling Elders, Deacons: and that a Church of 7. or 8. requires not, nor is able to maintain so many officers. That if one Congregation will conveniently hold the believers of a City, you would not have them to be of so many Churches without, some eminent reason.  
rejoinder, 

1. The collection is necessarily inferred from the Position; nor do you, or can you deny the consequence:  
2. It is well you grant it is as disorderly or inconvenient, that 200 persons in a City should be 20 Churches as that 300 in an house should make 60. distinct families, or 60 domestic Churches, or as that 200000 in a field may make so many distinct armies under so many Independent Generals.  
3. Christ's family which you seem to affirm to be a congregational Church but of 12 or 13, was not so little for want of more persons converted in that place and fitted for membership, for there were many such persons in Jerusalem, yet not one of any other family was added to them while Christ lived.  
4. You acknowledge, that the Church is to be increased of such persons as are converted in that place where the Church is (though your own Church is increased of some that dwell remote from it) that small Churches are inconsistent with Christ's ends, that Churches are not unnecessarily to be multiplied; but your brethren in London do practise the contrary, for some three, or four, or more of their Churches might be conveniently one Congregation; nor is there any ●minent reason (except that they cannot all agree to affect any one Minister, but some are for Paul, some for Apollo's, be an eminent reason) though possibly they will tell you, that officers seeking to increase their Churches seek more their own profit or credit, than the discharge of their duties for they may better attend to afew people then to many.  
5. Of the texts cited by you I have spoken of before in this Chapter.  
6. Whereas you say you do not assert Churches consisting of a few members without officers to be Independent judicatures, than you do not assert all Churches to be Independent, but some only; if some be already acknowledge not to be Independent judicatures, the rest may possibly, in time, be so acknowledged also.     

CHAP. V Whether a Church may consist of more than may ordinarily meet in one place.  
Sest. 1. When I grant that 1 Cor. 11.20. & 14.23. do prove, that there were Congregations, meeting for prayer, hearing the Word, Sacraments in one place; and that believers in some Cities and Countries (when they might) did meet in one place, you reply, That they meet also for execution of censures, I Cor. 5.4. And you say, That there is no sacred worship or institution prescribed in the Gospel, which may not be observe● to have been exercised in, or appertaining to the Congregations, and that those Congregations are called Churches.  
rejoinder, 

1. The texts cited by you speak only of meeting in one place for Sacraments and prophesying, (to which certainly prayer was annexed) of the 1 Cor. 5. (which you now produce) we shall speak hereafter.  
2. That every Gospel-worship and institution hath been either exercised in, or, in some sense, appertaining to the Congregations, may be true, and yet no prejudice come to the cause I maintain, but I dare appeal to you: are not Synods ordinances of God, yea General coun●●ls? yet they cannot be enjoined in any less Church than the universal visible Church. Is not ora●●ation by Presbyters a Go●pel-institution, and yet it cannot be enjoined in every congregation; especially not at first in an Independent congregation which consists only of private members, for which also she cannot as yet regularly partake in Sacraments and censures.    
Sect. 2. The strength of your Reply is, p. 14. where you say, That there can no instance be given in all the new testament, that Christians ordinarily meeting together in divers places are called one Church, except where Church is taken improperly, and in a distributive sense; and you challenge me again and again to produce such an instance from, 1 Cor. 11.20. & 14.23.  
rejoinder, Instances may be given o● Christians meeting ordinarily in divers places, which are properly called one Church: 1. The Church of jerusalem, the prime and patern-Church, was properly called one Church, and under one Presbytery (who hath read or heard of the Presbyteries of Jerusalem?) and yet the Christians there did meet ordinarily in divers places, as appears first, there were so many Christians that they could not meet for all ordinances in one place for edification; therefore they did meet ordinarily in several places: the consequence is evident, for the Apostles certainly did avoid confusion, and seek the order and edification of the people: The Antecedent is thus proved. 1. jerusalem and all judea and all the region round about jordan were baptised by john, Math. 3.6.7. And the Disciples of Christ baptised more Disciples than john, john 4.1. The Pharisees said the world is gone after him, john 12.19. For many of the people believed in him, john 2.23. & 7, 31, & 8, 30. And after Christ's ascension there were added 3000. Acts. 2.5000. heard the word and believed, Acts 4.4. Multitudes of men and women: and afterward the Disciples were multiplied greatly, and a great company of the Priests were obedient to the faith. Acts 5.14. Acts 6.1, 7. Now those which deserved to be called a City, a world of people, thousands, and multitudes (for the holy Ghost at last leaves numbering of the converts after Christ's ascension) could not meet together with order and edification in one place for hearing the word; for first not one room could well hold them. 2. No one Ministers voice could reach so many at once. 3. Much less could so many myriades orderly at once in a private house receive the Sacrament together, nor could be accommodated with beds to sit, lie or lean, upon (which was Christ's gesture) atable to receive at, & cups to drink in. 3. We read expressly of more than one assembly of Saints constantly meeting together for the worship of God in that city, Acts 2.46. breaking bread from house to house, Acts 5.42. And in every house they ceased not to teach etc. That these assemblies were Church-meetings, appears. 1. By that which they are said to meet for, to wit breaking of bread, which phrase though it do not only signify the Lords Supper, yet it doth signify it together with their ordinary tables or love-feasts, and is so generally interpreted, Acts. 2.42. Acts 20.7. And for teaching and preaching, Acts 5.42. contradistinct to preaching in the temple and in public, it being (as is by itself evident) the Apostles custom to preach both in the temple, Synagogues, markets, court-houses and the like public places, to all promiscuously, believers and others, that would hear, and in houses to the believers only in their Church-assemblies, so that publicly or in the temple (which terms expound one another) and from house to house, and in every house, note two kinds of Assemblies, sc. promiscuous meetings and Church-meetings: 2. That these were distinct several Congregations, and not the same kept successively at several houses, may be gathered. 1. by the words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 duly rendered, which signify house by house distributively, or in every house, as it is translated, Acts 5.42. That is, not in every house in the city, nor in every believers house in the city; (for there were thousands probably of these) but in every house designed for a Church-meeting, 2. By the opposition the text in Acts 2.46. Makes between their meeting in the temple, and their breaking of bread house by house, the former its said was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with one accord, implying they all met together in the temple, but distributively in their private houses or Church-meetings for the celebration of the Lords Supper, (the jews probably not permitting this new ordinance in the temple) and other Church ordinances. 3. Learned Mr. Beza on that of Acts. 2.46. Saith that procul dubie the number of Christians at jerusalem did require that more commodious houses should be chosen for their living together in common, as we see the Church in every populous city distributed into several Parishes, as the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 showeth: so he. And of these several meeting houses, we may very fitly understand that of Saul his entering into every house, Acts 8.3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 house by house, that is, he watched and assaulted them at their meeting times and places, and thence haling men and women, committing them to prison, for into every private house of Christians, it cannot be conceived that he entered for them; how could the Apostles themselves remain at jerusalem and escape him as they did? v. i. But he entered the ordinary meeting houses which were best known, and most noted, and where he was likely to meet with them for his purpose by great numbers, and both interrupt their exercises and find most occasion against them to punish them, he therefore possibly with reference to this, confesseth that he persecuted this way, Acts 22.4. And is said to make havoc of the Church, c. 8, 3. And to get authority to bind all that call on the name of the Lord jesus. c. 9, 14. 4. Mr. Burton an eminent man of your way, confesseth that the Christians of that Church were constrained to sever themselves into divers companies, to communicate (which probably they did every Lord's day) and consequently they did every Lord's day, enjoy other ordinances accompanying the Sacrament, as preaching, prayer, singing, and (yet saith Mr Burton) these several companies (which we call congregations) were but so many branches of one and the same particular Church, not properly several Churches but one Church. 2. Where there were so many preachers, that they could not all, nor the most of them be employed in preaching every Lord's day to one particular congregation, there was more than one congregation; this consequence is good and firm both by reason, for God did not ordain preachers to be idle or negligent, or to preach seldom, but to be instant in season and out of season, he appointed not many shepherds over a little flock: any by scripture, which affirms that the increase of the disciples was the occasion of the increase of those officers; and that there were so many officers in that Church is also evident, 12. Apostles, Math. 9.35. with 10.1 and 70. disciples Luc. 10. 2. besides Elders mentioned, Acts 11.30. as being extant we know not how long before that time, and others having immediate commission to preach, Luc. 9.60. (If those Elders were not the same with the 70. disciples, seeing we read not of the institution of any other, and if so, then there was twelve Apostles answerable to the twelve Princes of the tribs, Num. 1.16. and 70 Elders in the Christian Church answerable to the 70 Elders amongst the Jews, Num. 11. 16.) which could not be employed in preaching every Lord's day in one congregation. 3. The Church that prayed for Peter, Acts 12. 5. Met many of them in the house of Mary, v. 12. and others of them viz. james and his brothers else where, v. 17. And yet the text calls them the Church of Jerusalem though met in several places. 4. Again it is said that Paul abode in jerusalem with Peter 15 days, Gal. 1.18. And doubtless Peter and he frequented the public meetings, yet he saw no other of the Apostles save james the Lord's brother; (he saith not, that they were not in jerusalem but he saw them not) which had been very improbable if not impossible (seeing the Apostles were diligent in preaching) if there had been but one Church-meeting in jerusalem: another instance may be given in Samaria, where the generality of the city, which had before given heed to Simon Magus, embraced the Gospel in outward profession, Acts 8.6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14. Now all these m●st needs be more than could orderly in one place receive the Sacrament, (and they were not baptised into several Churches, (for then Church and city could not expound one another as the scripture witnesseth, and you acknowledge) therefore they met ordinarily in several places. So now to omit other Instances till a fit occasion, I have given you two Instances in the new Testament, of Christians ordinarily meeting in divers places which yet were but one Church properly so called.  
Sect. 3. in Reply p. 14. You say, Can you show that the believers of any Christian Church met only at first in one place, and afterwards (being increased) they met not in one place, but many places, except at sometime of hot persecution?  
rejoinder: 

1. Reason teacheth that when a land is Heathenish, the conversion of it from Heathenish to Christianity must begin somewhere, first it may be one or two, or moe are converted and baptised, and then as leaven (to which the Gospel is compared, Mat. 13.) It spreadeth further and further: some say the first Christian Church in England was planted at Glastenbury by joseph of Arimathea; and if so, then at first believers in England meet in one place.  
2 Of the Jewish Church the thing is evident, that they at first were altogether, both in the family of Abraham, and in the wilderness, though they never all met together again after their setlling in the land of Canan.  
3. I have manifested that the Church of Jerusalem did ordinarily meet in several places, and yet you doubt not but that at first they met together in one place.  
4. The primitive times were times of hot persecution, when Peter and john as they were preaching were apprehended, threatened again and again, halled to the common jaol and beaten, Acts 4.1, 2, 3, 17, 21. Acts 5. 18, 40. Saul also persecuted for a time, Acts 8.1. and Herod, Acts 12.1. Yourselves tell us, page 6. that the ordinary Pastors and teachers, of those times were martyred for preaching against the peremptory commands of Magistrates: yet I suppose you intent not that the Primitive patterns of Churches meeting in several places, produced or to be produced, should hereby be evaded, because those were times of persecution, seeing it is not possible that in the Church's greatest prosperity, such a vast number cannot orderly and edifyingly convene.    
Sect. 4. When I put you to make good your inference, viz. Scripture saith such & such a Church did meet in one place, therefore the Church must consist of no more than can meet in one place: You say, Reply p. 15. You must take the argument in the scope of it, such and such churches did meet constantly in one place and there is no mention of any Church which did not meet together in one place? therefore no church in the new testament doth consist of more than can meet in one place; the consequent is now good, for we think that patterns that are uncontrolled by percepts, and other patterns have Doctrine in them, and do teach how things ought to carried. It is one thing more warrantable to derive an inference from patterns when they all run one way, and be patterns of one kind, and another thing (and less safe) to draw an inference from patterns when there is diversity of kinds of them about the same thing.  
rejoinder: 

1. Yourselves dare not say that all the patterns in the new testament do run one way, in point of gathering of Churches out of Churches, of having 7 or 8 to be a Church, of ordination by non-officers, of the Church censuring her officers, of maintenance by contributions, or out of the Church-stock etc. And therefore your reasoning is less safe and warrantable by your own confession in these points, in which you have much ado to find one pattern for each of them, so far are you from proving that they all run one way.  
2. It is repugnant to plain Scripture, or to near and necessary consequence from it to assert, that no Church in the new testament doth consist of no more than may meet in one place, as is instanced and proved in the Church of Jerusalem and of Samaria, Sect. 2. and in the Church of Corinth, ch. 6.  
3. Christian's dwelling in a vicinity or neighbourhood together do always in scripture make a Church together, & this is a pattern uncontrolled by precepts or other patterns therefore (by your own rule) it hath doctrine in it, but your practiles are not conformable to this doctrine:  
4. Suppose that in the new testament, only one family in a city had received the faith, could it thence have been concluded that no Church should consist of more, then of the members of one family, I believe you will not own such a conclusion?    
Sect. 5. When I urge that all the believers in such or such a city were of the Church in that city, whether they were more or fewer, (hence every city and every Church expound one another, Acts 14.21, 2, cum. Tit. 1.5. Acts 16.4, 5.) And that it cannot be she●ed that any Church how numerous ●oe●er it grew, was divided into two or more Churches, or that there Were more Churches than one in any city or town; therefore the believers in any one city or town may be but one Church, whether they can meet in one place or no. You Reply, p. 16. Not so, because as appears to us thene is light of scripture gainsaying it, for though in all cities all the believers of them were of the Church of each of them, yet such an inference would be ●aught, 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 of 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 Indea 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 but one Church for this reason, because they were of 〈◊〉 city (as you would form to infer) than show but a probable reason, why believers meeting in divers places in countries, may not be one Church because they are of one country, especially the believers of Indea 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, is that they could not all meet in one place, then Will we show you that such Churches were divided into more Churches.  
rejoinder: 

1 Here are patterns of the new Testament uncontrolled by precepts, and other patterns rejected by you upon pretence of special reason, and that special reason is your begging of the question, viz. there were no more converted in any city, then might constantly meet together in one place.  
2. I have showed out of the new testament, and light of reason, that believers in jerusalem were so multiplied that they could not meet together constantly for edification to receive the Sacrament of the Lords supper. Sect. 2.  
3. we read of Churches planted by the Apostles in cities, and in great towns, Cenchrea the least was oppidum valde frequens & populosum, navium statione celeberrimum; Gualther in Rom: a wel-frequented, popul●● town, most famous for the station of the ships, and that they usually preached in cities, Math. 10.23, & 11, 1, & 23, 34. jerusalem Rome Corinth, Coloss, were all cities; so were Philippi and Thessalonica, Antioch, Laodicea, etc. Hence cities (not countries or villages) and Churches do in scripture-phrase expound one another, and Paganus which signifies a Countryman, signifies in our common acceptation an Heathen, and yet you tell us of Churches in the countries, as distinct from Churches in cities, and never offer to prove that there were such Churches. That the Apostles in their journeys did preach sometime in villages I grant; but that they planted any Church in a village, I put you to prove by scripture, and if you cannot prove it, than your distinction of country Churches and city Churches, and the observation there upon which you make so much use of, falls to the ground.  
4. I did not hold them bound to be out Church, only because they were in one city, but because their Elders or commissioners might come together, being all of one city, easily and conveniently, as yourselves say of Herod and Pilate, p. 19 And I hold that several congregations in the countries, (if they may conveniently meet and govern in common) not only may, but aught so to do as well as several congregations in a city.  
5. You cannot sh●w so express a pattern of Christians in a city making two Churches, as I have showed of Christians of one Church meeting ordinarily in several places, and therefore this pattern is more uncontrolled than the other, and consequently by your own doctrine more to be followed.  
6. You presume that there were Churches in some other parts of judea besides Jerusalem, though the particular assemblies of the Church of Jerusalem, might well enough be called the Churches of Judea; and you cannot show where one Church was in Judea, save at Jerusalem; and it is improbable to suppose any Churches in Judea, but what were in Jerusalem; seeing at Jerusalem the Apostles resided, held their constant assemblies and occasional counsels, and there they of Galilee (which was beyond Judea) that believed in Christ, continued Luke 23.49. Acts 1.15. & 2.1, 7. & 13.31. And the converts of the Apostles closely adhered to them in fellowship at Jerusalem, and sold their possessions, goods, lands, houses, and had all things common in the Church, Acts 2.42, 44, 46, 47. & 4.34. Some of which were of remoter places far then any part of Judes, cap. 4.36.  
7. If you should prove there were Churches elsewhere in Judea besides Jerusalem, yet it could not thence be gathered, that they were all congregational, and only such; for as little and final as Judea was, 

1. It had cities in it and great ones too besides Jerusalem, as Lidda, Azotus etc. And you acknowledge that city and Church do explain one another.  
2. Judea (through the blessing of God multiplying the inhabitants as the sand of the sea, according to his promise to Abraham) contained an innumerable multitude of people (for aught I know) more than in England, In Ata's tune out of Juda and Benjamin alone, there was an army of almost 600000 men, besides women, and children, valiant men besides impotent aged persons; now you know, the multitude or paucity of the people, not the largeness or littleness of the of the place or country is in this case most considerable: London may fitter be a providence, than the same circuit of ground in some parts of the kingdom, a parish:  
3. There was a vast multitude of Christians in judea converted by the Ministry of john Baptist, jesus Christ the 12 Apostles, the 70 disciples, all rai●ed up to gather Gods chosen one's out of judaea, and which were very successful in their Ministry, so that the littleness of Judea is not let but that there might be ten or 20. several Churches and each of them dividid into 5 or 6 several assemblies, as also the county of Midlesex one of the least counties in the kingdom, and far less than the Province of Judea, and having no city in it save one, might also contain so many and such Churches. Concerning the term Churches see more afterwards.       

CHAP. VI Whether the Epistles to the Corinthians were writ only to those that met ordinarily in one place.  
Sect. 1. WHen I allege that Paul writs to them that in every place (not throughout the world as appears, 2 Cor. 1.1. Writen to the same persons, 1 Cor. 5.1.2. with 2 Cor. 2.1, 2. Nor is this a Catholic Epistle) but in all Achaja, call upon the name of the Lord. You Reply, p. 16. That Paul writes, sends, and applies this to the Corinthians alone, 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 etc. Yet he intended it for 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 redound; to all the world, as well as to Achaia, else how can it be Canonical scripture and the foundation of our sermons that we preach out of it?  
rejoinder: 

1 Certainly you know that the Epistle may be canonical, and yet the use of it not redound to all the world as well as to Achaia, if by as well you mean equally in all the particular contents of this Epistle, The Epistle to Philemon is canonical, and the 2. to Timothy, though the use of it in point of Onesimus, and Paul's cloak do not as well or equally concern all the world as Philemon & Timothy.  
2. The use of these Epistles, I dare say, redounds not to Corinth only; nor to all the world as well as Achaia, for there are divers passages in both these Epistles which cannot be limited to Corinth, nor enlarged to the whole world, as 2 Cor. 11.1, 2. Forwardness of Ministering to the Saints, was not only in the Corinthians, but in the Achaians; Paul boasteth of them to whom he writes in these words, I boasted of you that Achaia was ready a year ago: now it is improper for any man that writes to London, and not to England more than all the world, to say I boasted of you, that England was ready a year ago. The house of Stephanas he commends to them under the notion of being the first fruits of Achaia. The contribution for the Saints at Jerusalem, was the contribution of Achaia, Rom. 15.26. And part of his drift and scope is to get a liberal contribution, not from Corinth only, but from all Achaja; and he doth not desire the Church of Corinth to communicate this letter to the other Saints of Achaia, because he writs to them all in the second person.  
3. The Apostle doth not write to the Saints in Ephesus and in all Asia, Ephes. 1.1. Or the Saints at Philippi, or the Church of Thessalonica, and to all Macedonia, nor any where else doth he write to the Saints or to the Church in such a city with all the Saints in such a province or country, or in every place, though every Epistle be of common use and profit, both to the borderers, and to strangers, yea to all the world, yet he writes to the Church of Corinth, with the Saints in every place, or in all Achaia. Which words are not vainly and impertinently put here and not in any other Epistle; and what can they else import but that this Epistle is more an Achaean, (pardon your own improper term) than a Catholic Epistle.  
4. I put you to prove that the reproofs, directions, exhortations, commendations were proper to them, that schisms, fornications, were only amongst them, that the exhortation to a liberal contribution on the first day of the week was proper to Corinth, yea that the Incestuous person was a member of the Church of Corinth, though we presume and commonly speak so, yet it is not necessary, for he might be a member of the Church of Cenchrea, or some other Church in Achaia for aught we know. Why do you so strongly assert things, and yet leave them naked without the least show of proof?    
Sect. 2. You Reply, p. 17. I Ask what commentator ever said, that all in every place and Saints in all Achaia expound one another: doth, 1 Cor. 1.1. compared with 2 Cor. 2.1. Enforce such an exposition? you would suggest that he writes to the same Corinthians in the 2. Epistle, that he writes to in the first; more your scriptures import not, and we grant it. But the inference you draw is this, ergo all in every place, and all the Saints in all Achaja are all one: a strange consequence. If the 2. Epistle be written to the same persons as the first, why do ye not expound the subject persons of the second by the subject persons of the first, and say though the Saints in all Achaja be mentioned only, yet under them the Saints every where in the world are meant?  
rejoinder, 

1. I observe you say not, no commentator hath said so, or that you know not any commentator hath said so; possibly you knew that Reverend and juditions Beza, Annot in 1 Cor. 1.1. Expounds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est in quavis Achaiae Ecclesia, asserting also, that though this inscription is made properly and specially to the Corinthians, yet next, it is written to the rest of the Churches in all Achaja, as appears by the beginning of the 2 Epistle, as the Epistle to the Galatians was to all the Churches of that nation, for that it is not absolutely Catholic, directed to the Churches in all the world, appears (saith he) by the Inscription and matter of the Epistle, Thus he.  
2. I would suggest not only that the 2. Epistle is written to the same Corinthians, that the first (as you strangely interpret me, but that it is written to the same persons (as I plainly expressed myself) Corinthians or others.  
3. I have not read any one that makes so lose an interpretation of the Saints in all Achaja, 2 Cor. 1.1. As to say that under them, the Saints every where in the world are meant, for so they might have been under the name of the Corinthians alone, as well as under the name of the Romans alone, Rom. 1.7. Ephesians alone, Gal. 1.1. And that the use of them redounds to all the world, as well as to all Achaia, against which I have formerly given some reasons, to which I add that the Apostle might have said as well to the Church of Corinth and to all the Saints in Indea, if this Epistle had concerned them being a part of the world, or any other province as well as Achaia.    
Sect. 3. Reply, p. 17. The Corinthians not the Achaians had written to Paul, c. 7, 1. And Paul had received sundry reports concerning them, not concerning all the Saints in Achaja, for the Cenchreaus had not writ to him, nor he heard any thing of them 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 Achajans their neighbours to peruse it, yea the Saints every where to read it; in both his Epistles he mentioneth the Corinthians, as the proper subject thereof, the Achajans he mentioneth in one, and the Saints every where in another, And he brings them in Collaterally rather then directly; it is to the Church of Corinth, but with all the Saints in all Achaja, and with all that in every place, as it were on the by, And this is Pareus his exposition upon, 1 Cor. 1.2.  
rejoinder, 

1. You first presume that the Epistles are written to the Corinthians only (which is the thing denied) and then tell us that the Corinthians had written to Paul, and he had heard some reports of the Corinthians, but it is evident that those he writes to, did write to him, and that he had received some reports concerning them, but that these were only Corinthians, and no other Saints in Achaia to whom he writes, and which did write to him, and concerning whom he had received some reports, you cannot evidence.  
2. I grant there might be some special aim at the Church of Corinth, in some things at least, rather than any other Church of Achaia, & possibly in other things other Saints were more aimed at then the Corinthians; and doubtless the Churches than could better tell when this Church or that was more specially aimed at by the Apostles, than we which are more ignorant of the then state of those Churches can; yet your collection is very sleighty and infirm, concerning the bringing the Saints in every place, and in all Achaia in collaterally rather then directly. Do yourselves think that he that in his prayer mentioneth Christ, and saith, To whom with the Father and the holy Ghost be glory, doth give glory to God the father, and the holy Ghost collaterally, rather than directly? if you do think so, I hope you will hold him accursed that useth it: the phrase is the same, the Reader can apply it.    
Sect. 4. When I answer that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 11.20. & 14.23. may fitly be translated in idipsum for the same and in one, you reply p. 18. That the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are conjoined with with the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 11.20. & 14.23. and then (you say) it will not be denied but that place is principally meant.  
rejoinder, 

1. If the Apostle doth write to more Churches than one as is alleged and proved from 1 Cor. 14.34. Then I hope yourselves will not interpret this of the identity of place, for you hold not (as I told you though you blotted it out of my answer) that two, three, or more Churches in the new Testament must consist of no more than may meet in one place.  
2. You beg the question and would persuade the Reader there is something in the Greek (which possibly he understands not) to force my assent to your opinion: but the words import no more than convenire in unum, as the Lords and Commons may be said to do, which are but one Parliament though met in two houses, and if there be no incongruity of applying the phrase to those which we know do meet in several places, than the Apostle might apply the phrase to the Corinthians though he knew that they did meet in several Assemblies: on a day of a public fast or of thanksgiving all the Churches in Holland, yea all in New England may be said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
3. It is at least very probable that the Church of Corinth itself (suppose he writ to no more) was more than one particular congregation: for, 1. Not only Crispus the chief Ruler but many of the Corinthians hearing the Word believed and were baptised, Act. 18.8. And God told Paul that he had much people in that City, v. 10. And Paul tarried there a long time which he would not have done if his ministry had not prospered; yea so many were the Christians that the Jews which made insurrection against Paul were driven away, and Sosthenes beaten by the Geeks, Gall●o the Proconsul was Paul's friend. 2. There was a great multitude of teachers (as is intimated, 1 Cor. 4.15.) Though you have 10000 Instructers implies they had many, and they had contentions amongst them, one being for one teacher, and another for another, 1 Cor. 4.6. 1 Cor. 11.12. There was also many that had the gift of tongues and of Prophecy, 1 Cor. 14.31. And Paul tarried with them a year and six months together, now it is incongruous there should be so many Pastors, Teachers, Speakers with tongues, Prophets, unemployed (at least in part) and employed, they all could not be to any purpose in one Congregration.    
Reply, p. 18. 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 be overthrown, 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.  
rejoinder, 

Camero, that learned Critic, saith, the words have respect to the unity of the persons not the identity of the place. Yet,  
2. Their meeting at all any of them needs not be overthrown, for though this phrase could not uphold it, yet other texts of Scripture may.  
3. Yourselves know that James 2.2. and Heb. 10.25. the Texts cited in my Answer do carry respect to place, and do import that some met together in one place, and some in another place or places, and yet do not import the meeting of them all in one place: so we say the Parliament comes together, The Lords amongst themselves and the Commons amongst themselves, not all both Lords and Commons in one house:  
4. This Phrase (or one equivalent) may respect place and yet be taken distributively, so Joab and Abners men, 2 Sam. 2.13. are said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet the holy Ghost intends not to express thereby a meeting in one place, but expressly overthrows that sense, by telling us that they sat one on the one side, and the other on the other side of the pool of Gibeon. The same word is used of Edom, Ishmaelites, Moab, etc. Psal. 83.4, 5, 6. so Kingdoms are said to come together to serve the Lord. Psalm. 102.22.    
Reply, p. 18. When these words are found without 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not the sense darkened if not overthrown by such an interpretation? shall Acts 2.44. be 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?  
rejoinder: 

1. I cannot see any shadow of absurdity to say, Believers were in one, or in one mind, (though it sounds not well to say Believers were in one thing, nor know I any but yourselves so rendering the text, and had all things common, it is the language of the holy Ghost, Acts 4.32. (a place which seems parallel) and the multitude of them that believed were of one heart, and one soul, neither said any of them, that ought he possessed was his own, but had all things common. Surely, you dare not quarrel with the language of the holy Ghost:  
2. Suppose that this interpretation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Acts 2.44. Would darken the sense, it will not follow that the same interpretation in the texts cited, 1 Cor. 11.20. & 14.23. will darken the sense also; the same words may bear one sense in one scripture, and yet not necessarily bear the same sense in all other scriptures.    
Reply. p. 19 Will those words in Acts 3.1. Now Peter and john went up together into the temple, be well translated? They went up to the temple for the same thing, not together in company, but for one end, than they might go one after another; several passages in the story do flatly contradict it, and do show that they ascended together in company one of another into the temple.  
Rejoynd●r: 

1. If some passages of the story show that they went together in company, do any of them show that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proves their going together in company?  
2. It is untrue that the passages of the story do flatly contradict their meeting in one-ness of business. That they went together for the same thing, and with one mind, yourselves will not deny.  
3. No one ever said that one-ness of mi●d and business, doth exclude one-ness of place, (which is the thing you confute) only we say, it doth not necessarily include it, they might meet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in one mind and to one end, and meet more place too; and the rather because (if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cany any respect to place) Peter and john being but two, were not capable of meeting distributively in several places, as the phrase (if it do respect place) must of necessity be understood in other texts as hath been showed.    
Reply. But Acts 4.26. compared with Psal. 2.2 Is alleged to confirm the exposition of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To which we answer, 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 be better done then by meeting in one place? Acts 4.27.5. Saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which without 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies they came together in 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.  
rejoinder. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may signify consent of minds in one thing, and that Herod, Pilate, and the Gentiles did agree in one design is as clear as the Sun, but that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies their meeting in one place (as you assert) is improbable. 

1, Because (though I deny not but they might come together) yet it cannot be made to appear by the story, that ever th●y did come together all at once in one place.  
2. Suppose they did (sometimes) meet together, do you in good earnest think that the prophecy, Psal. 2. or the history, Acts 4. Of their being gathered together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was verified of them only in that punctilio of time, when all the foresaid persons (without exception) met together in one place, and not any other time. The Lords and commons are together sometimes in one house, cannot they be said to meet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at any other time but then?    
Sect. 5. Reply. p. 19 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. & 1 Cor. 11.17.  
rejoinder: None of those texts do carry the thing clearly, nor doth it appear that the Churches of the Gospel met frequently (much less and constantly and ordinarily, which you should prove) but the contrary rather; for 1 Though Acts 2. & Acts 5. May prove a meeting in the temple to hear God's word, which was a worship common to Jews with Christians, and frequented in the temple jointly by both, yet they prove not that in the temple they administered the sacraments, (the Jews probably would not permit this new ordinance there) which are the distinguishing ordinances of the Christian Church, Interpreters collect that they did break bread (which was Sacramental breaking as that phrase is generally understood by all, Acts 20.7.) not in the temple but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in every house, or from house to house; now it hath been showed by good reasons, and by the acknowledgement of a prime man amongst you, that it is no way probable that in those several houses of the poor, which did then receive the Gospel, there should be rooms so capacious, and other accommodations, as that so many thousands might orderly and edifyingly communicate therein at once; not can I think that you being ingenuous dare assert that the whole Church of Jerusalem did constantly meet together in one place to receive the Sacrament, for your brothers of the assembly having formerly disputed for it do now wave it. Acts 14.27. Saith that Paul gathered the Church together, but you should have showed. 1. That the Church they gathered was any other than the Church that sent them out by imposition of hands, Acts 13.1, 2. viz. The Prophets and teachers of Antioch, or at least. 2. That women and children were gathered together by the Apostles that they might give them account of their labour and success, For. 1. We might grant that the men of a Church might sometimes be no more than might meet in one place, and yet in respect of the women and children, (which for most part are triple or more to the men) they could not meet ordinarily in one assembly: at a Leet-court a 〈◊〉 city may be gathered together, if you mean all the men of it, whereas if women and children were there too, there would not be room for half for a quarter of them. 2. This meeting was not an ordinary s●●ted meeting on a Lord's day, but an occasional meeting; for the text saith not, that Paul and Barnabas came when they were gathered together, but they gathered the Church together: and therefore it is likely no women or children were there, nor (it may be) any besides the Elders. 3. It is said that when they went to Jerusalem. Acts 15.3. They were brought on their way by the Church, which must needs be Synecdochic●●y understood, either of the Elders or at least some part o● the Church, and not the whole Church, and so is this place also to be understood: compare Acts 14.27, with 15, 3. It seems evident that the Church of Antioch was more than one Congregation, for first a great number believed, Acts 11.21. And then upon Barnabas preaching much people were added to the Lord, v. 24. And Paul a whole year assembled with the Church, and t●●ght much people, and questionless he saw the fruits of his labours; and the Disciples were first ca●ed Christians in Antioch, v. 26. And besides Barnabas and Saul they had Prophets and teachers, Acts 13.1. And some others which came from judea, Acts 15.1. All which could not have competent employment in one Congregation. Acts 15.22, 30. Speaks not of one single Church, but of a Synod or assembly of the Churches, as Mr. Tompson, Mather, Cotton expound it, and yourselves must needs acknowledge, that there were others besides the Church of Jerusalem there; will you hence infer, That a Church under the new testament, must not consist of so many, but that others may assemble with them in one place? and if others, how many? if two, why not ten, 20.100.1000. where and upon what grounds will you determine the number? As for, 1 Cor. 5.4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. 1 Cor. 11.17. I answer. 

1. That the Church of Corinth appeareth not to be only one particular Congregation.  
2. The Apostle writes not only to that Church, but to other Churches.  
3. The same Greek words or other equivalent to them have been proved insufficient, when joined with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to evince one-ness of place, and therefore you cannot persuade any wise reader that they alone will evince it: I suppose you think not that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth weaken them.    
Sect. 6. When I urge that james calls the twelve tribes scattered abroad, one assembly, Synagogue or Church, Jam. 1.1. cum 2.2. & 5.13. Or Paul's mentioning the Hebrews gathering themselves together, Heb. 10.25. Doth not prove that they were only one Congregation which might and did constantly meet in one place. You Reply, That there is a palpable difference betwixt the places.  
R. But I suppose if it had been said to the Corinthians, If there come into your assembly, or a charge given them not to forsake the assembling themselves together, you would not have discerned such difference, but would have urged that the word Synagoga in the N. T. is usually taken for a place, & when it is taken for the people it is understood of one only, and not of several assemblies. You 2. Reply, That the scripture makes such a meeting of the scattered Hebrews impossible.  
R. But doth not the vast numbers of the Church of jerusalem (for whose meeting ordinarily in one place the most is pretended) make it also impossible that they all should orderly ordinarily convene to receive the Sacrament? and the Inscription of the first Epistle To the Church of Coriath with all that in every place &c Being expounded, by the Saints in all Achaia, 2 Cor. 1.1. Doth contradict the meeting in one place of all those to whom Paul writ: You say p. 20. The literal sense of the words may pass, there is no need of a figure in texts you allege; for 

1. The persons were neither so many nor so remote but they might come together; 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, have any of your texts any such fullness of words in them, to sway to a meeting in one place as that text hath? 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 in one place.    
rejoinder, 

1. My exposition of the words in sensu distributive is no more figurative than yours; If it be, I pray you, what figure is it? will you make a new Rhetoric too?  
2. What the holy Ghost saith, we must believe; but you should not beg the question, and say the holy Ghost saith what he doth not mean, all the Hebrews did assemble themselves together (in the sense he means) viz. in several companies and so may this be understood and believed:  
3. You for your advantage translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when the whole Church comes together but you should translate if the whole Church come together, and I told you in my answer that suppositions put nothing in being, and you know they do not, Gal. 1.8. Though you take no notice of it, yet you are willing to lay aside the conditional expression which is both in the original, and sundry translations and take up a more absolute one; this dealing is not candid: should the Apostle have said (which (you know) may without any impropriety be said now in London) if two or three whole Churches shall meet together in one place, would you have collected thence, that two or three whole Churches may orderly convene, and that there ought to be no more in two or three Churches then may so convene? when we say if the whole County of Lancaster or York respectively come together into the Castleyard of Lancaster or York, doth this prove that the whole County doth ordinarily meet in one place, though upon some special occasion (as choosing of a Knight etc.) They may meet together, or at least a great part of them in the name and power of the rest? And so when he faith if the whole Church come together in one place, it cannot be thence rationally concluded, that every member of the Church was at any time much le●s ordinarily in one place, some were infants, some no doubt were sick and weak, 1 Cor. 11.30. Some abroad about necessary negotiation, some women in travel, some in childbed: so we read joshua 22.12, And Ezra 2.64. That the whole Church or all the Church was gathered together, and yet you know there were many thousands of men in the Church of the Jews, besides women and children and sick persons, which were not in that assembly: so far are such texts as these from proving that the Church must consist of no more than may meet in one place.  
4. That same thing which now you allege to me was alleged by a Protestant revolted to Popery concerning hoc est corpus meum, viz. The holy Ghost saith it, and Protestants have been convinced with the evidence of that text to grant a corporal presence in the Sacrament.    
Sect. 7. When I urge, that the Apostles writes to the Saints in all Achala, and that there were other Churches in that Region, at least two Corinth, and Cenchrea which was oppidum Corinthiorun etc. You Reply p. 20. That he doth not write to them as making one Church with the Corinthians, for he mentions them with a note of distinction from the Corinthians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
rejoinder. 

1 You fight with your own shadow, I said not that he writes to them all as one Church, but plainly asserted with Beza Piscator and others, that he writes to the Churches in that region,  
2. Your criticism is worth nothing if one should say, Paul writes not to the Bishops and Deacons as Saints at Philippi, for he mentions them with a note of distinction, to the Saints at Philippi with the Bishops and Deacons, yourselves would laugh at it:  
3. He might have a scope that the other Churches in Achaia from the Epistle he sent to Corinth which they were to peruse (as the Laodicean Church was to read the Epistle written to the Colossians) should be stirred up to the same duty of contribution etc. Thus you, But the Apostle had not a scope to stir up all other Churches, at least not all alike to that duty of contribution to the poor Saints at jerusalem, and therefore you now in effect acknowledge (what before you did deny) viz. That the Apostle writes more properly to the Achaians then to the whole world. Besides, you know your parallel is not suitable, for 2 Cor. inscribed to the Achaians, and so is not that Epistle to Coloss inscribed to the Church of Laodicea.  
4. You demand, why then doth not the Apostle say to the Churches of Judea, Macedonia, Asia? Why is the Church of Corinth mentioned and the Church at Cenchrea wholly silenced in the first Epistle and not mentioned directly and by name in the second? You are as good at ask questions as any? I pray you answer me one question and then if need be I will answer yours. Why doth not Paul call the Romans Ephesians, Philippians by the name of Saints, and the Corinthians and Thessalonians by the name Church? Why doth not Paul, James and Judas inscribe their Epistles to the Churches of judea or the Hebrew Churches, though all of them write to Churches and famous ones too, far more famous than Cenchrea (probably) was? yet they make no mention of them directly or by name. The answer is, 

1. We must not teach the Apostle in what phrase to speak. Nor  
2. can we render a reason why he inscribes his Epistle to the. Saints at Ephesus, whom elsewhere he calleth the Church of Ephesus, no more than we show a reason why the Church of Cenchrea may be included under the name of Saints in Achaia.  
3. The Church of Corinth may be mentioned and not any other Church by name, because the Church of Corinth was the most famous, best-gifted Church: Or (to use the words of Mr Banes Diac. trial p. 16.) because it was the most illustrious and conspicuous Church.    
5. Where jurge that the women he writes too did resort to Churches, else how could they keep silence in the Churches, 

1 Cor. 14.34. You reply, p. 21. That these Epistles were written for universal direction of the women of all Churches.  
2. That women were wort to go from ove Church to another (as Phebe) and were to keep silence in all Churches.  
3. That though he saith [your wome] he saith not [your Churches.]      
Rejoin. 

It was indeed for universal direction of the women of all Churches in a secundary and mediate way, but primarily and immediately it was for direction of those he writes to, and hence he saith not, set women or all women, but your women.  
2. Phaebe's going from Cenchrea to Rome doth not prove, that women had such a wont to go from one Church to another, and that they were so forward speakers that the Apostle had need to silence them, not only in their own Church but in strange Churches.  
3. If it had been said your Churches (which phrase being not found in any place of Scripture is not here to be expected) it had been somewhat more plain; but as it is, it is plain enough, viz. that the women he writes to did resort to Churches; and therefore I conclude they were not all of one particular Congregation; you presume the contrary, viz. they were all of one Congregation, and that the Apostle speaks of Churches because they did sometimes occasionally resort to other Churches; any text may be thus answered, let the Reader judge.     

CHAP. VII. Of a National Church.  
Sect. 1. IF there ought to be such a national Church, then in Reply, p. 22. 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 how 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 departure from the pattern of the national Church among the Jews?  
Rejoin. 

1. I expressly distinguished in my Answer between a ●●●●d Church or such a national as the Jewish Church was; and therefore your confutation of such a Church might well enough have been spared, for the Jewish Church had an high Priest (which was a type of Christ, and his office is now ceased) to be a national Pastor, and a national place of Convention as the Temple or Tabernacle being of divine institution and promise (which was also ceremonial) and national ceremonial ordinances, but that the Church cannot be national except it be such a national, except there be a national pastor, a set place for convention, and national ordinances is unreasonable to assert; for then Scotland itself were not a national Church, for it hath no national pastor, no national place, not a certain fixed place for convention, no national ordinances, but doth justly and necessarily vary from the Jewish Church in t●ose things that are ceremonial; but subora nation of Ecclesiastical Judicatories and the benefit of appeals is not merely ceremonial but grounded on natural reason and equity, not doth the abrogation of it appear in the New Testament.  
2. You grant, both that the Saints in a nation as destinguished from the Saints of another nation, may be call ●●a national Church, and al●o that ●ll the Churches in a nation may, and in some cases ought, to combine together and convene in a Synod or Church of Churches to consuit the good of the whole, and to preserve truth and pear in the Churches; such was the assembly of the Churches in New England, and this their convention is an ordinance of Christ, though in the Apostles times there was no pattern of such national Synod no more than there was a national Church, when there was no Christian Magistrate, nor were Christians so many as to bear the name of a Land or Nation (as if but one family had been Christian the Church could not have been more than Domestical) the Protestant Church could not be national in the days of Henry the 8. and Queen Mary as in the days of King Edward and Queen Elizabeth; nor had they liberty safely and freely to meet in such national assemblies, nor is there rules left how things must be carried in such a national assembly or Synod, considering it as National: Yea Mr Cotton groundeth this Synodical combination on Act. 15. and allegeth the Jewish Church in Ezek. 48.30. to be but one Congregation, twelve furlongs, and the Church in Rev. 21.16. to be 12000. furlongs, many Churches combining together in a Synod, Keyes p. 57 the difference than is only about combination in government, or whether a lawful national Synod or Assembly may or aught to exercise jurisdiction over particular Churches in that nation, I hold assirmatively and in this sense maintain there may lawfully be a National Church, and this is not of my framing (as you assert) but was framed many hundred years before you or I were born, and is consonant to the rules of God's Word, you hold the negative.  
3. You say there is no necessity of Congregational officers to the being of Congregational Churches, and then what necessity is there of National officers to: National Church? Yea it is clear that one Congregation may have more Pastors than one, and then what necessity there is that a National Church should only have one officer.    
Sect. 2. Reply p. 22. Then these persons must stand in relation to all and every of the assemblies of the natian under their jurisdiction, and so they are national officers every one of them, and the whole is the flock of each amongst them; as in the representative civil body, every Knight and Burgess 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 from whence he came.  
rejoinder: 

1. Yourselves grant, not only that Synods are the ordinances of God, but also that all the Elders thereof are to be looked upon as the officers of jesus Christ, when they do such synodied acts as they may do in relation to many Congregations, you cannot deny that they do those acts of Elders as Elders, when a Minister doth administer the Sacrament to another Congregation, or to the people of another Congregation, he doth it as an Elder, and as having special relation to that people at that time and in that work, he being called unto it.  
2. The Knights and Burgesses in Parliament, are not each of them severally and singly kingdom-officers; though in that body they may do many things in relation to the whole kingdom: So Colonels associated in a council of war, So particular heads of Colleges joined in a consistory, So aldermen of several Wards in the Court of Aldermen, So in the Jewish commonwealth the heads of the several tribes, which were as a Parliament to all Israel might in that associated body do many things, which could not be required of particular Elders and heads of the tribes, yet it is an unproper and untrue speech to say, every head of this or that tribe is an officer of all the tribes; every Colonel is a general officer of the whole army, and so it is an unjust and incongruous speech to say, every member of an authoritative national assembly is a national Church-officer, though he with the rest in a body or whole assembly whereof he is a member, may in some acts of government relate to the whole,    
Sect. 3. Reply p. 23. Now if it be so, the question is, whether each be not a Pastor to every purpose as well as to one? and to feed by Doctrine as well as Discipline, all such assemblies which are under his charge (which thing is yet impossible to be done) 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.  
rejoinder: 

1. What mean you to call each member in a national assembly, a Pastor? Is each man in a Congregational Presbytery a Pastor?  
2. We hold not that Pastors may or aught to teach each man his own Congregation without care of the rest, because from the one-ness of the Catholic Church, there ariseth to every particular Church and person, such a relation to and dependence on the Church Catholic as parts have to the whole, and neither of them are to work as several divided bodies by themselves (which is the ground of all Schisms) but as parts conjoined to the whole and members of the Commonwealth for the edification of it, having care of, and exercising their power to other, as their call, occasion and necessity doth require, Eph. 4.11. Epaphras Pastor of Coloss had a zeal, and therefore a care also for them in Laodicea and Hierapolis. Col. 4.13.  
3. Your argument is a mere non sequitur, it runs thus. If Colonels in a Council of war may exercise some acts of power over the whole army, than one Colonel should teach, train, and lead up the soldiers of other Regiments, as well as he with the rest may rule them. Now this inference is evidently weak and so is yours, for as the Colonel doth not singly and severally by himself govern the whole army but jointly with others, and therefore cannot be expected to train every Regiment, so a Pastor which is a member of a national assembly, doth not separatim govern all the Congregations but jointly with others, and therefore it cannot be concluded that he should separatim feed them.  
4. All that can be concluded willbe but this that he must feed them by Doctrine as well as by the rod of Discipline, and so he doth; he with the rest do lawfully (as you confess) upon occasion, put forth Doctrinal power to bring light to the Churches.  
5. Seeing Mr. Burroughes not only as his own opinion, but as the judgement of other Congregational men doth hold that Elders in a Synod are to be looked upon, as the officers of jesus Christ; your argument may be thus retorted upon your selves. The question is whether each be not an Elder or officer of jesus Christ to every purpose as to one, they as officers may feed by doctrine (as you acknowledge) and why not by discipline? They may (you say) by authority from jesus Christ admonish men or Churches, and this admonition is a censure, why then may they not proceed to other acts of censure?  
6. Elders receive their power for the whole Church of Christ, and may (having a call) preach, administer the Sacraments, or rule in any Congregation, or do one of these and not the other where their call and necessity of the Church requireth one and not the other. Yourselves as Elders do administer the Sacrament to some of other Churches which you have no power to censure, and so you become a Pastor to them for one purpose and not for another.  
7. Acts the 15. doth hold out the authoritative power of a Synod (as you may see in the next section) and then your arguments against it are nothing worth.     

CHAP. VIII. Of Counsels especially of that, Acts 15.  
Sest. 1. THere is a pattern of a Synod of Churches, Acts 15. of two evidently, and (probably) of many more, as of the Churches of Syria and Cilicia which were alike troubled, and their souls subverted, and the letters of the council directed to them, rather than to other Churches, as more peculiarly binding them, which intimates they had commissioners there; but if there were but 2 Synod of two Churches, jerusalem and Antioch, (for those that were sent from Antioch were certainly members of that meeting, Acts 15.12.22.) a Synod of two Churches warranteth a Synod of three, four, or five Churches, (for where must it stay?) even of as many as sh●l combine and associate Synodicatry, else it could not be proved hence that Synods are an ordinance of Christ, and that the assembly of the Elders of the Churches in N. E. was a lawful assembly. 2. This meeting is not to be looked upon as Apostolical, but as Synodical, for though the Apostles were present and acted in it, yet they acted not as Apostles: Paul as an Apostle needed not to have gone up to jerusalem to the Apostles and Elders, Gal. 1.16, 17. Peter, james and john added nothing to him, Gal. 2.6. much less ordinary Elders; I Paul say unto you had been enough, Gal. 5.2. And all preachers of another Gospel, should have been accursed, Gal. 1.7, 8. Nor had the Church of Antioch any power to send out Paul as he was an Apostle, but only as an Elder and member of their Presbytery there, Acts 13.1 & 15.1, 2. Had they acted as Apostles, they needed not to have stated the question, and debated it from scripture in an ordinary way, having deliberative discourses before the decisive suffrage. v. 7. Nor should the ordinary Elders have gone hand in hand with them as they did, for the Elders were sent unto as well as the Apostles. v. 2. They came together to consider of the matter, v. 6. The Decrees were ordained by the Elders, Acts 16.4. The Elders did write and conclude, Acts 21.25. where the word Eld●rs may and aught to include the Apostles, but cannot include any un-officied men, though it be supposed, that some such were present and did join in the inscription of the Synodical Epistle, as Sylvanus and Timotheus did in the Inscriptions of some of Paul's Epistles. 1 Thes. 1.1. 2 Thes. 1. 1. The Apostles may be pretended to act as Apostles in other cases as well as this, and then nothing done by them is to be drawn by us into imitation. 3. This Synod was an authoritative Synod, not only consultative; they put forth doctrinal power confuting the heresy, vindicated the truth, v. 1, 7, 8, 9 And this power was above the power of a single Pastor, or the Presbytery of a single Church. 2. They made a practical canon for avoiding the Scandal and the occasion of it, v. 20.29. and they ordained Decrees, Acts 16.4. not doctrines, but decrees or laws, for so the word dogma is taken in the new testament, Luk. 2.1. Acts 17.7. Ephe. 2.15. Col. 2.14. Of these decrees they say, It seemeth good to the holy Ghost and to us, (as any Synod upon assurance of scripture warrant may say) to impose upon you no other burdens, now it is an act of the binding power of the keys to impose burdens, and this binding power ariseth not only materially from the weight of the matter imposed, (though that aught to be warranted by the word of God) but also formally from the authority of the Synod, which being an ordinance of God, bindeth more for the Synods sake. 3. They put forth an act of Critic power, v. 24. Branding them with the black mark of liars, subverters of souls, troublers of the Church. They needed not to summon the false teachers for they were present, at least some of them, to whom else doth Peter say, v. 10. Why tempt ye God? Neither was it necessary they should make mention of excommunication, it being a clear case of itself, that those Heretics and Schismatics which could not by admonition and other due means be reclaimed, were to be excommunicated, Tit. 3. 1●.11. Rev. 2.2.14.20. It being also clear that if they were not then duly proceeded against, they could not be justly and orderly excommunicated. 4. If it be said that this meeting, if it was a formal Synod it was only occasional, and not a set stated monthly, or yearly meeting. I answer. 1 This is but a circumstance of time, which followeth necessarily the substance of the thing; if Synods sit, they must sit in some time; but what time or times they should sit, doth depend upon circumstances and as the Church's business requireth: the scripture doth not mention any st●t●d Ecclesiastical meetings for government, Synodical or Congregational, that they should meet weekly, monthly, nor mentioneth it any set Church-meetings (except the Lord's day) for preaching, hearing, fasting, prayer, conference; yet the Church may upon occasion order weekly or monthly Congregational meetings for those purposes according to the general rules of God's word: yourselves grant that the officers of several Churches may meet together as oft as occasion shall require to advise and consult about the ordering of the affairs of the Churches in all difficult cases. And that at every meeting the time of the next meeting be determined on, and the occasion thereof so far as appears intimated. Yea you tell us, p. 128. That emimently- gifted men may preach for divers months together while the occasion lasts. And so (I say) Synods may meet, but if it appear there be no just occasion of a Synod, I desire not that there should be any in a stated way.  
Sect. 2. Reply, p. 23. What is there to warrant combination of assemblies in a Nation more than of all Christian assemblies in the world represented in an ecumenical Council? For if a Congregational Church must depend upon a National Church, than a National Church must depend upon the universal, as the lesser upon the greater. What a Nation is to a Congregation, that the Universal is to a Nation.  
Rejoin. 

I will also ask you one question, what is there more to warrant the Elders of New England to convene in a Synod or Assembly of the Churches, than the Elders of all the world to convene in a general Council? Surely no more warrant save that they had a better call and more power and encouragement by the Civil Magistrates and their mutual consent, and might with more conveniency, ease, expedition, and safety meet together in Cambridge in N. E. then all the Elders in the world could, and yet you account that Assembly an Ordinance of God.  
2. There is not the same necessity of combination of all Churches in the world as there is of all Churches in a Nation for peace and government. Is there as good reason that all kingdoms should be subject to one general meeting o the Kings and supreme Magistrates, as that in every Kingdom there should be subordination of Judicatories and appeals from the less to the greater?  
3. How much greater distance there is between particular Churches, so much the less needs the visible communion of those Churches to be, because danger of scandal and infection and the opportunity of mutual edification is less or more according as the distance of place is greater or less; therefore there is or aught to be a more strict ordinary visible Ecclesiastical communion within a Classis then within a Province, within a Nation then in all the world.  
4. Yourselves must either acknowledge that a particular Church hath power to elect an officer for other Churches (for you oft allege Acts 1. for the Church's power of Election) as well as their own, or else grant that that was a general Church or Council which did choose an Apostle a general officer.  
5. As for your conceit that the members of a general Council must be universal Pastors, it hath been before confuted; in a democracy or popular government the power is in all the people jointly, but to say that every one of the people is an universal officer is ridiculous.    
Sect. 3. When I say, show me a Nation of Magistrates and people converted, and I will show you a National Church. You reply p. 24. that I might have said, Show me a Nation converted, and I will show a National Church framed like the jewish Church with one National Bishop over it, one National Cathedral in it.  
Rejoin. 

1. The Jewish was rather the Universal than a National Church, if God should have called any or all other Nations they must have been proselyted into it.  
2. If there were no better arguments against the Pope and Prelatical men than you bring against a National Church, and if the Nationalness of the Church was as truly Ceremonial and abrogated as the high Priest and Temple were (which you oddly call a National Bishop and Cathedral) are, than that form of speech, should I use it, were irreprehensible.  
3. I retort, show me an Assembly of the Churches in a Nation like that of New England, and I will show you a National Church. You further say, Reply p. 24. Though there was no Nation converted, yet Christ's mind in that matter might easily have been dictated in the Scriptures had he intended any such Church afterwards, as Moses tells the jews, Deut. 12.8, 9, 10. And though there were not Nations converted yet there were so many in a Nation converted as made many Assemblies. In little judea there were Congregation, and why, together with the Church at jerusalem, might t●ere not have been a Diocesan or Classical Church? The foot-stets of a Diocesan or Classical Church shall serve the turn, than we will yield there might in time be a National.    
Rejoin. 

You hold a National Synod to be a lawful and useful Ordinance of God; if one should deny it and say show me a lesser Synod of all the Churches within such or such a circuit and I will grant there may be a National Synod; consider well what ye would answer.  
2. It is either weakness or worse to intimate to the world that Presbyterians do plead for a Diocesan Church; you know (I suppose) that Mr Rhuterfurd and others do professedly reject and refute it.  
3. I have showed that the Church of Ierusalem● did consist of many Congregations, and that the Elders of that Church did convene for acts of government you cannot deny; and this you know is a Presbyterial Church which we call a Classis.  
4. I have showed a pattern of an authoritative Synod exercising jurisdiction over particular Churches and cleared it from your greatest and strongest exceptions against it.  
5. In Chap. 9 I have showed from holy Scripture that there is an Universal visible Church which is greater than a National, and doth include and justify it, and to which it is subordinate in a regular way. These (you know) are more than footsteps of a Presbyterial or Classical Church.  
6. The Scriptures do prophecy of the call of a Nation, I. a. 55.5. and also of a Nations answer to that call: and that Israel should be one of the three, which may import three National Churches: One Nation, as Egypt, should be one people of God, which in Defence p. 40. you say is all one with one Church; another nation another people of God; and Israel shall be so far from being alone a National Church that she shall not be the chiefest, but other Nations shall be before her, Isa. 19.25. So Abraham became the father of many nations, Rom. 4.17. the Jewish Nation and the Nations of the Gentiles, one (its evident was a National Church, and why might not a Gentilish Nation converted to Christianity be a sister National Church: Paul faith Rom. 3.29. God is not the God of the jews only, but of the Gentiles, the word in the Original is, of the Nations also, his meaning is, God is in covenant with believing Nations of the Gentiles as well as with the Jewish nation. Now if God call a nation, and a nation obey that call, and become the daughter of father Abraham and a sister of the jewish nation, and God be in covenant with a nation, or the God of a nation, Is not that nation a national Church? Did not thus much (if there had been no more) make the Jews a national Church? And will it not make a believing nation among the Gentiles so also? Have you any so good an argument against a National Church as this for it?  
7. Moses in Deut. 12. did not tell the Jews that God did intent they should be a national Church, for that they were before, even as soon as they grew into a nation, Acts 7. but only of a peculiar place of some solemn public worship, which was but ceremonial, and because it was so and God hath not intended any such set place for solemn public worship in the New Testament as more holy than other places, therefore he hath prescribed to us no such thing, but l●ft us at liberty, joh. 4.8. Of little judea much is spoken before and after.     

CHAP. IX. Of the universal visible Church and general Counsels.  
Sect. 1. Reply. ANd if an universal visible instituted Church be acknowledged, why are there not then universal representative conventions? What a defect is this in Christendom that all Christians do not endeavour it? But we conceive that they are so far from the endeavouring of it, that if there were any such thought they might make use of them for advice, yet they would be loath to subject themselves to the binding decrees of them.  
Rejoin. 

1. You being no Scriptures at all against the universal visible Church or the subordination of lesser Judicatories to greater.  
2. You acknowledge (at least implicitly) that if there be an universal visible Church, than there may be a national subordinate to it, and a congregational subordinate to it, in which you deal fairly and ingenuously, for the whole is not subject to a part, but the part to the whole, and the nearer any part comes to the whole Church, the more authority it hath; and hence a general Council is of more authority than a National, and a National then a Provincial.  
3. I assert that the Scriptures do hold out an universal visible Church. For 

1. the Apostles which were general officers (to which a general Church is the adequate correlative) and had the care of all the Churches, are said to be put or placed in the Church, as speaking but of one: 1 Cor. 12.28.  
2. This is that one body into which all both jews and Gentiles, bond or free are baptised, v. 13. whereof Christ is the head, v. 12. yea the visible head, though he be now removed to heaven, (as King james was visibly the head of Scotland though removed into and residing in England) and Paul the Minister Col. 1.25. in which God hath set [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] the members 1 Cor. 12.18. viz. he hath set [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Apostles, Prophets, Teachers, helps, governments, v. 28.  
3. The same is proved, Ephes. 4. to the end of the 16. verse, for there we find that the whole Catholic Church is but one. v. 4. one body, one spirit, one hope of our calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and father of all. All which are adequate and commensurate to the Catholic Church, unto which he after saith, the Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, and teachers were given. v. 11.  
4. This Church consisteth of all believing jews and Gentiles, Ephes. 2.16. & 3.6. And is contradistinguisht from, and opposite to all other jews and Gentiles in the world yet uncalled; and is called one fouled, john 10.16. one woman travelling, Rev. 12. one city of God. Rev. 11. one field, one draw net, one barn-floor etc.  
5. This Church was a child, and in nonage under the law, and at full age under the Gospel, Gal. 4.1.2. One assembly of 24. Elders, and four beasts in allusion to the 24. orders of Priests, and the four camps of Israel bearing in their standards the same beasts. Rev. 4. and as all the twelve tribes did but make one Church, so the 144000. of all Christian Churches (as it were of the twelve tribes) are but one Church.     I omit many more such expressions which signify to us, that as the Church was but one amongst the Jews, so it is but one amongst the Gentiles, one army under Michael, one vineyard etc. you may object, that we read of Churches in the new testament, therefore there is not only one Church: I answer. These are particular Churches of the same name and nature with the whole, as the dry land is but one; yet being possessed by several nations under several climates, divided by hills, rivers and other boundaries is called lands; as Laban's flocks having all one owner and probably all one mark, are called one flock; and so jacobs' also. Gen. 30.31, 32, 36, 38. & 33.13. as the freemen of Rome where ever born or bred, make but one corporation; hence the Church of Ephesus (though a complete particular Church) is not called the whole city or household, but fellow citizens with the Saints, viz. of other Churches, and of the househould, Ephes. 2.19, 20. As the jewish Church was certainly but one, yet it is called Churches as you shall hear anon: as the Antichristian Churches of Italy, France, Spain, Germany, are but one whore; one Church under one head the Pope, so the Christian Churches of England, Scotland, Holland etc. which have their father's name written in their foreheads, having one faith etc. are but one woman, one Church. The one is the army under the Dragon, the other under Michael; particular Churches and Antichristian conventions are as the several Brigades, Regiments or companies of those armies. Hence the Church of God is called Army, and Armies, Cant. 6.10.13. vineyard, and vineyards, Cant. 7.12. & 8.11.12. Garden, and Gardens. Cant. 6.2. Note (Reader) that these are not spoken of the invisible Catholic Church, but of the visible Church, for officers are not set in the invisible Church; judas was an Apostle, but was not a member of the invisible Church, nor is baptism a badge of it. 2. Whereas some object that my first argument for an universal visible Church [The Apostles were universal officers, to which an universal visible Church is the adequate correlative] were good, if the Apostles had been universal ordinary officers, but they were universal extraordinary officers; therefore the Adequate correlative is an extraordinary universal visible Church. I answer. 

1. I have not heard till now of an extraordinary visible Church, which continued till the death of john, and then breathed its last.  
2. If there were then an universal visible Church, (whether ordinary or extraordinary (as to this) it matters not) it follows necessarily, that all those precedents which are brought for juda po●●●●●● Churches in Galatia, Asia, judea, do not so much as prove de facto, that the Churches than were Independent, much less do they prove de jure, that then and ever after all Churches ought to be such.  
3. God hath set Pastors, teachers, helps, governments, which are ordinary officers and offices in the very same Church, in which ●e set Apostles, Evangelists, Prophets, extraordinary officers, and therefore the same Church doth continue to the end of the world.  
4. Ordinary Pastors baptised the Corinthians into this universal visible Church, for Paul baptised none of them but Crispus, and Gajus. and the household of Stephanus, 1 Cor. 1.14, 16. with 1 Cor. 12.13. And ordinary Pastors now do baptiz into the same body that ordinary Pastors than did viz. into the universal visible Church, as hath been showed before, therefore the universal visible Church continues to the end of the world.  
5. The arguments and illustrations I have brought to hold out the universal visible Church, do suit (all or most of them) not only with the Church in the Apostlique times but in after ages.  
6. Every Apostle was as it were an Eldership of the Churches extraordinarily combined in one man, and so one Apostle being an Elder of all Churches, had universal authority in all Churches, but that so much authority in all the Churches as was to be perpetual, should be in the Elders of all the Churches, was not temporary or extraordinary, but is ever useful and necessary.    
Sect. 2. As for the defect of general Counsels etc. I answer. 

1. You seem to assert that that doctrine which supposeth a great defect in Christendom is not to be entertained, or is not likely to be the way of God, which if true, I am sure the Independent way is not likely to be the way of God, for that supposeth a far greater defect in Christendom; the Churches of Christ far more generally opposing it then the other way.  
2. There have been some general representative conventions, as the Council of Nice, Ephesus etc. The Protestant Churches a great part of this body, met at the Synod of D●rt.  
3. There is nothing intrinsecal to the Church, but that they may meet so still; the lets are but , viz. division amongst Kings and Countries etc. The deadly enmity or great remoteness of the several nations, in which Christians do respectively dwell. Had you but one Independent Congegation in England, another in Spai●, another in Turkey; you could not gather an assembly or Synod of these Churches, though it were never so needful, and though you did much desire it, as being an ordi●●● of God: yea in that 〈◊〉 (suppose you were Presbyterians) you could not have so much as a Class, and yet such a defect you would esteem your affliction not your sin.  
4. The fault is not so great as you make it: 

For 1. every Prince and State doth come as near a general assembly as they can, encouraging the Churches within their territories to combine and be, as it were, one body or Church of Churches.  
2. That is supreme authority to us which is the highest authority we can get pro hic & nunc; we hold that supreme Ecclesiastical power may be in a National or in a Provincial Church (if God shut the door of higher appeals, and he by his providence, and not we through our default, do break the line of subordination) yea in a particular Church, which same thing we hold also of supreme civil power that in some necessary cases it may be exercised in one Assembly, yea in one Family, the same thing might in some cases be said of a Jewish Synagogue when they could not have the benefit of any superior Judicatory.  
3. A general Council hath in this last age been desired and endeavoured by sundry famous Christians, though in vain.    
5. If there were such a lawful general Council we should be as willing to submit to their godly decrees as to follow their advice, though the question is not what we would do, but what we should do.     

CHAP. X. Of the word (Churches) whether it evince Independency of Congregations.  
I Omit some things less pertinent and profitable; as 

1. That the English word Church did anciently signify the place; for the Saxons, Germans, Dutch Nations, from whence this word is derived, do usually call their temples or meeting places by the name of Cyrick, Kirich, Kerck; and they call the people the Gemeine and the Gemeint; as is acknowledged by one of your friends. Guide to Zion, p. 4. Hence our Translators turn the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into Church, Acts 19.37. and our meeting places are properly and truly called Churches.  
2. That Ecclesia commonly translated Church is not necessarily so translated, but convocation or a people called o●●; though it may be at least meto●●●mically underwood of the place of ordinary public worship, as Mr Mede, Mr Fuller, and of late Mr Bifield do interpret 1 Cor. 11. which ought not to be despised, a negative civil reverence being due unto it, as to a Court-house, Senate-house, , etc.  
3. That the words Ka●●l and Gnedah do sometimes signify a dispersed multitude or company that possibly never did nor could meet together: Hence we read of a Church of Nations, Gen. 35.11. Church of evil doers, Psa. 26.5. Church of the dead, Prov. 21.16. Church of the righteous, Ps. 1.5. And the people of Israel, though divided into several Domistied Assemblies to keep the Passover, are called one Church, Exod. 12.46, 47. when I urge and prove, that usually an Assemby or Co●cio is all one with Kahal or Ecclesia; and that in this sense there were many Churches amongst the jews; the Scripture calls them. Church or Congregation often, and sometimes in respect of their several Synagogues, Tribes, and Families, Congregations, Psa. 74.4.8. No wonder therefore if the Christians of one Country, meeting in several. Synagogues and houses, do receive the dommination of Churches, which in Scripture-phrase is all one with assemblies, many whereof we confess were in Galatia, Macedonia, etc. You reply, p. 26, 27. Psa. 74.4.8. is impertinently alleged, for Congregations there is metonymically used, and is all on with Synagogues, and signifies the place and not the people at all; the Congregation was but one, having one high Priest for their chief Pastor, though meeting in its parts in many places; the Church of the jews is not called Congregations there, as Mollerus shows But suppose there be truth in all that is said, what are all these ●ceptions of the words Kahal and Ecclesia to the purpose? Can you find that ever any one Church is called two or more Churches. For except there can be found such an instance, the air is but beat●● all this while, and our assertion stands . You cannot 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.    
Rejoin. 

1. Doubtless our Translators did understand v. 4. of 〈◊〉 people (and v. 8. of the place) else why should they translated 〈◊〉 Congregations and not Synagogues: and that is the primary sign●●cation of the word; and so it is most usually taken in the Old Testament, That there were in david's or in Asaph's time any Synagogues or set stated appointed places to use your own wor●● 〈◊〉 it is hard to prove, the temple itself being not yet built.  
2. I have showed that an Assembly or Concio and a Church are often in Scripture phrase all one, and therefore seeing it cannot be denied that there were assemblies in several places, it must needs be granted, that there were many Congregations in scriptural and ordinary phrase of speech, though these were indeed but parts of the Jewish Church: and therefore it might be said to be but one congregation, having one high Priest, etc. yet it may be called many congregations because they did meet in several assemblies.  
3. If it can be showed that one Church is called Churches in the Old and New Testament, than you grant something is done to purpose for the weakening of the position. Now (besides that the Universal Church is but one and yet called Churches, as hath been showed) I allege that the Jewish Church, which you confess was but one, is called Churches, Ps. 26.12. where David promiseth to bless God in the Churches, the Original being the properest word to signify Churches, and such as you cannot say is meant of Synagogues or places. Also Psal. 68.26. which was a Psalm sung at the removal of the Ark, Bless ye the Lord in the Churches: viz. In the Church-meetings, in the several assemblies for the worship of God: Mr Ainsworth himself translateth it Churches, and parallels it with 1 Cor. 14.34. Now to say that David promised and the Israelites were commanded at the removal of the Ark to bless God in the Churches of the New-Testament, or that those texts are only prophetical, or to ●●ll of Enallage numeri, when the strength of the Argument is in the difference of the number, are strained and far fetched evasions, and such whereby I might quickly answer you, saying, The Churches of Galatia are spoken figuratively for the Church of Galatia●●. Thus I have, through the good hand of God helping me, done the task you set me, and by bargain your position should fail.  
4. If your consciences did not tell you the contrary of what you instance concerning my scope and drift (when you say, Is your scope to confound and lose your Reader in the various acceptions of the word Assembly or Church, that when they read the word [Church] or [Churches] they shall not know what to under of it); yet my rejoying 〈◊〉 this, the testimony of my conscend 〈◊〉 ●●d rather extricate my Reader out of divinities that 〈…〉, and the true reason of all my ted●●● and exp●●● 〈…〉 satisfaction and strengthing of God● peo●●● 〈…〉 GOD, 〈…〉 speak (as becometh Saints in the sight of God) are these things nothing to the purpose, you to prove that there were several Independent judging Churches in Galatia, and in Macedonia allege the words Churches of Galatia; I grant there were several assemblies in Galatia and also in Macedonia and in judea: The question is whether the texts cited do prove more than I grant; I shown that the words Kahal and Ecclesia in Scripture (as well as profane Authors) signifies Concio or an Assembly, whether orderly or disorderly, less or greater, with government in it or no: Whether is be an instituted Church or no, a whole governing Church or but a part of it. Hence though the Jewish Church was but one yet Churches are said to be in it, because there were divers Assemblies in it: Hence (as I proved in my Answer) those that met at such and such a time and place are called the Church, the whole Church, yet they were not (it may be) the half or a third part or the tenth part of the jewish Church: and hence it followeth what I would infer, that the calling of them Churches of Galatia doth not prove that each of them was an instituted visible Church uncombined is any other in point of government, seeing the Assemblies amongst the Jews were certainly combined in point of government, and yet are called Churches as well as the Churches of Galatia. It is therefore clear to me, and I hope to you too, that the word Churches proves no such thing as that they were instituted Independent Churches, though (it may be) other texts do show that some of them were complete particular Churches.  
5. You should not only say but prove that there is no other combination to enjoy all Gospel ordinances but congregational, a position which in the latitude of your words your own author's Mr Cotton, Mr Mather, Mr Tompson, and others will not own; nor I think yourselves, when you have considered wisely of the matter, for Synods are some ordinances, yea Gospel-ordinances too, and a Congregational combination (if there be no other) cannot enable us to partake of those ordinances, as you very well know.    
Sect. 2. You do but think (though you in pag. 28, intimate that you know) that those Churches were only Congregational, 1 Cor. 1.1.2. Cor. 8.1.19. Rev. 1.4. and that they are properly called Churches, and that the word Church in 1 Cor. 12.28. is read in a figurative sense; when I say, that though the believers in Galatia were called Churches, yet (for aught you allege to the contrary) they might be combined one to another, as the Churches of England, Scotland, Holland are respectively combined; for the Apostle speaks of them as one lump, 1 Cor. 5.6. with Gal. 5.9. and wisheth the anathematising or excommunicating of him that troubled them. Gal. 1.8, 9 & 5.10, 11. and the restoring with the spirit of meekness (both which I take to be acts of discipline, and Cottons Keys p. 8, 9 doth so take them) of a fallen brother, Gal. 6.1. You thus reply: As for such combination as is in Scotland, Holland without proof we cannot grant them in Galatia; and if Paul had intended, by saying A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump, that we should gather thence that they were but one Church, he would never have called them Churches in the Preface of his Epistle; if one speak in a literal sense and say a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump, doth he thereby make 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.  
Rejoin. 

1. Suppose it were granted that there were no combination for jurisdiction in those Churches, doth it thence follow that such combination never ought to be? If a national assembly of the Churches of Galatia cannot be showed, will you thence conclude that therefore there ought to be no national assemblies, and that the present assembly in England and the late assembly in New England is unlawful, possibly there might have been a special reason why the Churches of Galatia could not be combined, either because they lived too remote or under several civil Magistracies, which would not or could not have intercourse one with another, or the Magistrates being enemies would not suffer such meetings or combinations or the like peculiar reasons which now bind not.  
2. I omit your needless cavils you uncandid intimations, and to this which is the solidest part of your Reply I say, Suppose Paul had been alive before the coming of Christ in the flesh, and should have writ to the Churches (a speech used by the Psalmist, as hath been showed) and the phrase Churches of Indea which were in Christ, 1 Thes. 2.14. Gal. 1.22. seem to imply that even after the time of Christ there were some Churches it Indea which were not in Christ (as I urged in my Answer, though you put it out by and Index expurgatorius,) or suppose he were now alive and should write to the Churches of Holland or of France (as well he might without deserting the ordinary stile) and one should gather thence, that there were before Christ Independent Churches uncombined in government, or that now every Congregation in France or Holland were Independent and uncombined, yourselves would deny the warrantableness of that inference and yet could justify the propriety of Paul's speech well enough: If we may call those which we know are combined, by the name of Churches, why might not Paul call them by the name of Churches though they were combined? So that if you will maintain that the Churches of Galatia were each of them an Independent judging Church, you must seek out a better argument, for there is nothing in the proof made in the position that infers so much; and this Answer doth serve for the Church's of Indea and Macedonia as well as of Galatia.  
3. There was one special man amongst the false teachers which the Apostle aims at, Gal. 5.10. (Now this m●n could not be of every Church of Galatia but of one of the Churches) yet he writes not only, no not so much as principally to that Church of which he was, but to all the Churches of Galatia, and declareth what censure he wisheth might be dispensed (to use Mr Cottons own words Keys p. 59) against him and other corr●●● teachers. Now the strength of my Argument is this: Those which are wished to dispense censures against a false teacher or to do any acts of discipline must needs be combined; but the Churches of Galatia are wished to dispense censures against a false teacher and to do acts of discipline, therefore they were combined.  
4. Let me ask you, as sometimes you ask me, 

1. What Commentator before you did explicate the word lump as you do, denying the combination of those Churches?  
2. Why it should not be taken distributively in 1 Cor. 5. as well as here?  
3. Do you indeed hold what your exposition imports, that false doctrine doth only leaven and corrupt the lump in which it is, and one particular Congregation and not other Congregations in any case? I should have ended this business, 〈◊〉 you would tell me of leaving Indea (as you did p. 29. though 〈◊〉 was but deferred to its proper place, and no text of Scripture 〈◊〉 produced in the position for it) I alleging therefore that 〈◊〉 Churches of Indea were so combined, that they did come together, Acts 20.20, 21, 22. to be satisfied of Paul concerning an accusaetion they had received against him, and are called a Church, Gal. 1.13. Acts 12.1. and an house, Heb. 3.6. which title you say is not given to lose stones and timber, but imports jointing and knitting one to another. You Reply 1. These were not the jews of judea alone that did gather together, but of all other parts Act. 21.27.      
Rejoin. 1. You deal too cunningly, for though the Jews of other parts might be there gathered, yet they are apparently distinguished from the other believing Jews which had received the information, of which I spoke v. 20, 21. The jews amongst the Gentiles were they whom Paul was said to teach, and it may be some of those Jews did inform, but the persons informed (you know) were different from them both, and could be no other than the believing Jews or Churches of judea, and yet that they came together to be satisfied of Paul is plain, and that james and all the Elders persuaded Paul to give them satisfaction. You further Reply p. 31. That the Church Which Paul persecuted and Herod vexed is meant either of that of jerusalem or of the Saints in general, and not of the Churches of Indea.  
Rejoin. Why not the Churches of Indea, seeing jerusalem was one of them which you acknowledge he persecuted, and not it only, for they that were scattered abroad durst not stay in judea no more than in jerusalem, Acts 11.19, 20. which implies that his persecution reached all judea over, and the Churches of judea were within Herod's reach, and the ground of his kill james and proceeding to take Peter also was because it pleased the jews: Now it would please the Jews that he should vex any Christian Church amongst them in judea as well as the Church of jerusalem; and Paul also being a Jew his main envy was at the Christians of judea? 2. How dare you say Paul persecuted not the Churches of judea? Why might not they be persecuted to Damascus which was in Samaria, as well as the Saints of jerusalem? Compare Gal. 1.13. with v. 22, 23. Paul saith, I persecuted the Church of God, and the Churches of Judea heard that he that persecuted us (viz. the said Churches of Indea) now preacheth the faith; which makes it clear that the Church of God in one place and Churches of judea in the other are the same thing, as I asserted. Finally advertising the Reader, that the Printers error, not mine, putting Heb. 3.4. for 3.6. hath given you some advantage; I conclude, that the title of Churches of Galatia, etc. doth not prove that they were each of them distinct, governing, Independent, uncombined Churches.   

CHAP. XI. Whether and how the visible Church must consist of visible Saints.  
Sect. 1. THe state of the question is this. 

First it is to be meant of jews, Heathens, and other strangers to the Church, not of children born within the Church whose parents are Church-members, which are reputed within the Church and baptised as such, though no visible Saint-ship doth or can (they being infants) appear in them, and consequently this is not of much (if of any) concernment to the Reformed Churches of England, Scotland, France. For until it can be proved, that a perfect reformation of the Churches cannot be made without a new constitution, and that Churches may lawfully be gathered out of Churches, the said new constitution is to be judged unnecessary.  
2. It cannot be denied that all men are morally bound to be visible Saints, yea real Saints; yea God requireth that armies should be holy, Deut. 13.14. & 23. 9 And the Instance of Achan for relative guilt, is more suitable to the Isralites as a camp, (the passages of it being military not Ecclesiastical) then as a Congregation. City's should be holy, Isa. 1.21, 26. Isa. 64.10. family's should be holy, Psal. 101.2, 7. That is, they ought to be so, it is their duty so to be, and the words in the position nakedly considered import no more: and he that erects a family is bound (so far as he may) to erect it of such as fear God. Church-members should much more be visible and real Saints, for a Church-member (quâ such) makes more profession, enjoys more means, is in a nearer relation to God, than a soldier or a Citizen quâ such.  
3. I grant that some visibility of Saint-ship is requisite to admission, viz. profession of faith and repentance, (especially if men be not sufficiently known, and approved by experience of them, acquaintance with them, or by sufficient testimony of others that are known; or if they have been known to be Heathenish, heretical or wicked) and desire of admission.  
4. I deny not but all means prescribed by the rule, that the Church may consist of visible Saints are to be used: but I question. 

1. whether it were better no Church were erected then not of visible Saints, as you assert. p. 31. That is not wholly of visible Saints, for thus I understand you, seeing those Churches from which you gather members, consist of some if not of many visible Saints.  
2. I question also whether God doth not require Heathens and irreligious wicked persons to join to the Church, as well as to raise armies, or wage war, erect families, and that their joining to the Church by profession of faith and repentance; craving the Sacraments is not a sin, no more than raising armies, families etc. Yea it is a greater sin to neglect the one than the other, though indeed their remaining Heathen is a great abomination, and more odious in God's sight after their entrance into the Church then after the erection of Cities. But the main question as it is stated by you, p. 33. is, whether a Church should examine persons which come to be admitted, whether the work of grace be wrought in them, or not.   I hold the negative, and my reasons are. 

1. There is no precept for it in the word of God.  
2. Nor was every member at his admission into the Church, in the Apostles times called to give account of the work of grace in his heart.  
Nor. 3. Can any Congregation be named, which was appointed to judge or did actually judge, whether the work of grace was wrought in such an heart or no, and consequently whether he were to be admitted into the Church or no.  
4. Nor doth the Scripture prescribe that men should meet together for prayer and mutual conference, to be satisfied of the good estate one of another, and to approve themselves to one another's consciences in the sight of God, before they can constitute a Church.  
Nor. 5. Were those three thousands and the Apostles also satisfied in their consciences of the regeneration of all those they joined with, as Ananias and Sapphira; ●or can we think that they could in one day or had any days before, used the foresaid means of trial one o● another by prayer, conference.  
Nor. 6. That all that were circumcised and admitted into the Jewish Church, would (upon such examination) have been found visible Saints.  
Nor. 7. That jesus Christ as man, did know those thousands and myriads of jerusalem, and all judea, and all the region round about jordan, (what one man knows the people of London, of all Midlesex and of all the Country about Thames or Trent) with whom he was baptised, much less can it be proved that jesus, john Baptist which baptised them, or the disciples of Christ, (which were born and lived amongst them, and knew the great wickedness, and frequent feigned confessions and humiliations o● that people) did esteem each of them a true Saint of God, or that they did examine, and try whether their confession of sin, or profession of faith and repentance was real or but merely verbal, or that they required them to Walk in Christian fellowship with them some space for trial and approbation, or that they stayed or deferred to baptise any of them, till they saw their fruits meet for repentance, especially seeing Luke saith, Luc. 3.21. that all the people (which v. 7. he calls Generations of vipers) were baptised: if you cannot prove to the contrary of these things, I pray you acknowledge it if you can do it, hitherto you have not done it.  
8. This makes the Church's charity the rule of admission, which is but a leaden rule no certain one, some men's charity being larger, some lesser, yea the same men's charity being larger at sometimes then at others, and more to some men, as those that are of thei● opinions, kindred, benefactors etc. Then to others, whence it followeth that men of larger charity, may lawfully admit such, as they that have less charity cannot.  
9 This Tenet makes Communion with all the Apostolic Churches, and particularly with the Church of Corinth, unlawful, whereas the Apostle allows the worthy receivers to communicate in it, 1 Cor. 11. he would have no schism in it, nor separation from it, 1 Cor. 12.25. & 11.18.  
10. A man that believes he should not communicate with any of whom his Conscience is not satisfied that they are visible Saints, dareth not communicate in any Congregational Church, especially not in a great one; for if cove●ous persons, railers, (two of the very sins mentioned by the Apostle 1. Cor. 5.) or Brownists (whose errors the Apologists call fatal shipwrecks, or Schismatics, (which professedly the Apostle speaks of, 1 Cor. 11.18, 19, 20.) or Hypocrites and false teachers, (which the Scripture saith are of a leavening nature) idle persons, disorderly Walkers. 2. Thes. 3.6, 8, 12. or spiritually proud, censorious, uncharitable persons be unworthy receivers, it is an hard thing to be satisfied, that in those Churches, especially in the greater of them, there is none at all of any of these sorts amongst them, no not one.  
11. The Scripture compares a Church lawfully constituted to a draw-net, to a wheat field, in which are tares discerned, a cornfloor; and to a City; but as for the comparing of a visible Church, to a garrison town. 

1. Is a similitude invented by yourselves for your own purpose.  
2. You cannot show so good warrant for your examination, as soldiers have for theirs.  
3. It is neither necessary, nor ordinary, that each man that is admitted into a garrison should give satisfaction to all the soldiers therein, that he is a real friend.    
12. Mr. Noyes a N. E. man, saith, p. 6. p. 10. Our facility of admitting members must give testimony to the Lords dispensation of grace in the embracing of invisible members. The gates of jerusalem do stand open, Rev. 21.25. The Elders of the City of Refuge did not expostulate with such as fled before the avenger of blood in way of any explicit covenant or exquisite examination, Iosh. 20. Excess of compliments, insolemnities, formalities, punctualities are unsuitable to the simplicity and spirituality of the Gospel, and also fully forbidden in the 2. Commandment.      
Sect. 2. Reply, p. 34. If the Church be not a common receptacle but must consist of selected, then there are certain rules of reception, and rejection, and trial must be made by some, whether persons be so qualifyed according to those rules: and this the light of nature, and rule of reason leads to, though there should be nothing in Scripture expressly mentioning it.  
Rejoin. 

1. When the rule of reason, and light of nature is alleged by some for episcopacy, by others more clearly, necessarily for subordination of Ecclesiastical judicatories, and the remedy of appeals, than you decline trial by those judges, but now you do appeal to them.  
2. Your argument is a mere nonsequitur; The Church is not a common receptacle, there are rules of reception and rejection, a trial must be by some; therefore the Church must examine all those that come to be admitted, whether the work of grace be wrought in their hearts or no.   For 

1. The jewish Church, the Christian Church in the days of the Apostles were not common receptacles; yet they did receive and admit into them (respectively) many, whom they did not examine whether the truth of grace was wrought in their hearts or no.  
2. The rules of reception and rejection, are set down in Scripture, but amongst them this rule is not to be found, that the Church must examine etc. If it be, why do you not show it?  
3. If some may try persons that come to be admitted, it follows not that the Church must do it.  
4. If there may be examination of something, it follows not, that it must be of the truth of grace wrought in the heart, and that all are to be rejected which cannot give satisfactory arguments thereof.    
Sect. 3. Reply, p. 34. It was lawful and commendable in the Ephosians to try false Apostles which professed in words to be true Apostles, Rev. 2.2.  
Rejoin. 

1. You do here much qualify your tener, signifying you would accept of verbal profession of faith and repentance, if there be any thing which may (though but probably) give witness to the reality thereof.  
2. That those Apostles did desire member-ship with the Church of Ephesus, and were tried upon that occasion is not expressed or employed in the text, but rather they that said they were Apostles did in effect say, that they ought not to be set members of any Church but had the care of all the Churches.  
3. This trial was not of their sanctity or sincerity, but of their doctrine and authority; not whether they had true grace or no, but whether they had the office and doctrine of Apostles or not, which two things differ much. Indas' was a true Apostle, and yet the work of grace was not wrought in his heart, and the work of grace is wrought in many that are not Apostles.  
4. They had commission to examine them, 1 john 4.1. 1 Thes. 5.21. And for this the Bereans were commended, Acts 17.11. And the Elders or the Angel of Ephesus were in effect put upon that duty by Paul, Acts 20.29, 30. But you have no such commission for the Church to examine the work of grace, and therefore your practice is not so lawful as theirs.    
Sect. 4. The Church of jerusalem sought satisfaction concerning Saul; you will say there was cause of suspicion and jealousy concerning him; and we may say, there is now also cause of jealousy, for profession of faith and repentance is common, and the fruits worthy of it, Math. 3.8. are rare.  
Rejoin. Your practice is not so reasonable as the practice of that Church in that case: for. 

1. There was just ground of personal exception against Saul, and so there is not against every man of whom you doubt, the Apostles might suspect him still to be a jew, a persecutor, a spy, and that he but assayed to join himself to them to betray them: Protestant's in Q. mary's days, and Non-conformists in the Prelate's days, (though they held not that they ought to examine each man of the truth of his grace before they admitted them into their society) would have been afraid to have admitted known persecuting persons into their private meetings, though they had pretended to be converted, till they had known they had left off their trade of persecution, which the Apostles knew not, that Paul had done till they heard Barnabas his testimony concerning him, which they received without any examination.  
2. Fruits meet for repentance were ever rare, yet john Baptist did not defer baptism till the people brought them forth, nor was he or the disciples of Christ afraid (notwithstanding they well knew the rarity of such fruits) to admit thousands at once to baptism, against whom they had no just ground of personal exception, as they had against Saul, and therefore were afraid of him.    
Sect. 5. In Answer I allege, If the Gospel and Christian Religion was brought into England in the Apostles times than it was like it was constituted of Saints, as well as the Church of Corinth. If we look upon the latter constitution in Q. Elizabeth's time, many Congregations (Manchester for example) had visible, yea doubtless real Saints which were sufferers all Queen Maries time to be the foundationnalls thereof. You Reply. p. 35. It is uncertain what Congregation was so constituted, and what not: we neither justify nor condemn the constitution of any, but judge according to their present state; and if we see any visible Saints, (as doubtless there are many in some Congregations, and united also amongst themselves) for the sake of those few so united, we acknowledge them a Church, and in all things so far as they carry the ordinances uncorruptly, desire to have fellowship with them.  
Rejoin. 

1. It is as certain as any thing built upon humane faith, that God had a faithful people, not only in London, but in Manchester, and near to it in Queen Mary's days, witness not only tradition, but the letters of Mr. john Bradford and Mr. George Marsh,  
2. There are also visible Saints still in it, and those as much united (save that a few Anabaptists, Brownists, and Independents break the union) as the Scripture requires a true Church to be.  
3. You two show no willingness of joining with us so far as the ordinances are carried uncorruptly; for you hold that without such corruption the godly amongst us may be admitted to your Sacraments, and yet you deny to do it, we bless God we need not to it.  
4. It is a fond thing that you should urge your humane inventions, as a means to carry God's ordinances uncorruptly.    
Sect. 6. You say, Reply. p. 35. 1 Cor. 1.1.2. Shows either what the members of the Church of Corinth were at first or aught to have been, or what some of them were at that time, and aught to have been, viz. sanctified in Christ etc. As Hemingius, Gualther, Pareus do note, and say that a definition of the Church may thence be fetched.  
Rejoin. 

1. Though this text doth indeed show what some of them were, and all aught in duty to have been; yet yourselves dare not assert, either that it proves that the Church of Corinth was constituted wholly of visible Saints. or.  
2. That then when Paul writ, it consisted wholly (if mostly) of visible Saints: were all the carnal Schismatics. 1 Cor. 3.1, 2. The Incestuous person, and they that were puffed up and gloryed. 1 Cor. 5.1, 2. The Contentious persons, Fornicators, Idolaters, Drunken Communicants, deniers of the Resurrection, spoken of 1 Cor. and 6.10, 11, 15. chapters. the false teachers, despisers of Paul, impenitent persons mentioned Epist. 2. Chap. 10, 11, 12. visible Saints? you know they were not. or.  
3. That the Church of Corinth did, or aught to have examined all she admitted, whether true grace was wrought in their heart or no: or.  
4. That the Church of Corinth had better been no Church than not constituted of Saints. or.  
5. That it is necessary that a Church should be constituted of visible Saints, or else sin is committed. I conceive none of those Divines can hence conclude any of the foresaid things by me denied, nor can they rightly gather the definition of a visible Church from these words, taking Saints in the same sense that you do: for than if a Church should not consist of visible Saints, than it wanteth the definition and consequently the being of a Church. Surely none of them did judge the way of Independency to be the Scriptural way, as you would pretend to the Reader they did, at least in this point.    
Sect. 7. Reply. p. 35.1. The end of Church-fellowship is not conversion but edification, Ephes. 4.11, 12. Acts 9.31. For if it were, all unconverted ones, whether they make profession of faith and repentance or no, may enter in.  
Rejoin. 

1. Conversion is as much the end of Church-fellowship in the time of the Gospel, as in the time of the law, when all the Iews and their seed (though not all visible Saints) were within the Church, conversion to the jewish Religion was not the end of Church-membership then, not conversion to Christianity now, but conversion to true sanctity might then and now be one end of Church-membership:  
2. Your texts say that God hath given Apostles, Evangelists, Pastors and teachers for the edifying of the body of Christ; and then were the Churches edified, and walking in the fear of God were multiplied. Hence you conclude, not only that edification is the end (which indeed the Text imports) but also that conversion is not the end of Church-fellowship: The weakness of which inference doth thus appear: 

1. The Apostle saith not that edification is the only end, or that conversion is not one end of Church-membership.  
2. The Apostles, of whom Paul speaks as well as of Pastors, are acknowledged by yourselves to be sent not for edification but for conversion, though that Text (by your exposition) would as well prove that their mission, as the mission of Pastors, was not for conversion contrary to Math. 28. 19, 20. Acts 26.18.  
3. The word which we translate edifying is building, and in common phrase signifies as well the rearing of a new house, as the repairing, strengthening, and amending of an old house. And yet  
4. there can be no repairing of an old house without some addition of new materials, not can it be conceived how the Church, a collective dying body, can be built or preserved without conversion of souls.  
5. To be built, in Scripture-phrase is to have children, Gen. 16.2. & 30.3. So Sarah and Rachel are said to be built: See Ainsworth in Gen. 16. And God made the midwives' houses, Exod. 1.21. that is, gave them children; and so Pastors are given to build the Church, viz. to beget children; hence they are said to plant also, Jer. 1.10. Persons converted are the joy and crown of their Pastors, and an argument of their mission from God.  
6. Acts 9.31. saith, the Churches were multiplied 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which cometh of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Now how, I pray you, could they be multiplied without conversion of some new souls?  
7. One of your texts showeth the end of giving Apostles, Pastors, Teachers; of which we have spoken before. The other shows the fruit of the Churches, rest and peace, but neither of them doth (at least not directly and plainly) tell the end of Church-fellowship.    
3. As for the entrance of unconverted one's and persons not professing saith and repentance into the Church; I answer, 

1. Infants do enter into the Church though they neither profess faith nor repentance; and these must either be converted in the Church or not at all.  
2. Though conversion be one end of Church-membership, yet it follows not that Jews, Turks, Pagans may enter, because a profession of Christianity is required by God's law before admission, and so much care as God prescribes, aught to be taken.  
3. Though one end of conversion be hearing, yet if God have secluded excommunicate persons from hearing (as I conceive he hath (Excommunication being ultimum remedium) than he must not be admitted to the Word: So though one end of Church-fellowship be conversion to true sanctity, yet none but they that are converted to the profession of Christianity can partake in it, and so Turks and Jews are excluded.      
Sect. 8. Reply p. 36, Excommunication is to recover persons 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 living stones, 1 Pet. 2.5.  
rejoined. 

1. Excommunication and Physic are not alike in point of the life of the object, for no man gives physic to one whom he knows to be dead; but though one spiritually alive being scandalous or erroneous may be excommunicated, yet the more certainly (yea suppose infallibly) a man is known to be spiritually dead, the more liable and fit he is to be excommunicated; for Excommunication looks upon a man as sinful and erroneous, yea as incurably such, & therefore to be cut off,— Immedicabile vulnus ense recidendum, ne pars syncera. trabatur, Math. 18.15, 16. Tit. 3.10. that the other members be not leavened or corrupted by it. And yet  
2. one end of Excommunication may be the saving of the soul of the excommunicate, and yet not suppose him to be already in the state of grace; for as a known unconverted man may be admonished (if not apparently and obstinately wicked) and when God sets in with the admonition we gain our brother and he is converted, and his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus; so if God set in with the Excommunication he may be gained by it, though before he was not gained.  
3. The Apostle supposeth not the incestuous person to be alive, but to be a wicked person and spiritually dead, 1 Cor. 5.12. and yet would have him cast out.  
4. In the Churches of Asia and Galatia were some that were bewitched, Gal. 3.1. and turned to another Gospel, Gal. 1.6. and counted Paul their enemy for telling them the truth, Gal. 4.16. And some that were of the Synagogue of Satan, Nicolaitans, Balaamites, Jezebelians, many that had defiled their gariments, viz. were visibly wicked, that were lukewarm, neither hot nor cold, Rev. c 2. & c. 3. Therefore Peter writing to the strangers scattered through Pautus, Asia, Galatia, etc. could not repute them all in the judgement of charity living stones or visible Saints, but this denomination is given a meliori parte, as if a man should call a Parliament godly, wise, faithful Senators, he is to be understood that the better part of them are such, but not that all of them are such, no not in the judgement of charity.    
Sect. 9 Reply p. 36. If Excommunication be an ordinance to throw forth visible sinners, both all scandalous sinners 1 Cor. 5. and all other which will not be healed of their lesser faults being duly proceeded against, Math. 18.15, 16.  
Rejoin. 

1. I doubt whether every one that is not healed of lesser sins after due admonitions be to be excommunicated. Suppose of passionate speaking, of vain merriment, etc. if he be not otherwise . The censure of excommunication in Scripture is read to pass for grosser crimes, but no example of passing it for lesser faults, we complained of this very thing in the Prelates. Beza affirms Math. 18. to be meant of private scandals which differ only from public scandals, that the one is less known than the other; we must not (saith Doctor Sibbs) kill a fly on a man's forehead with a beetle: If every one that is not healed of every sin must be proceeded against so far as to excommunicate him; the purest Churches would have nothing to do but excommunicate one another.  
2. Suppose they were to be cast out; can you show as good warrant to keep such out, before due course of admonition, as to cast them out when you perceive that admonitions and other due proceed will not work upon them?  
3. Suppose you had good warrant to cast out all such, you cannot hence infer, that all that are not visible Saints are to be kept out nor cast out; for there are thousands that are not scandalous, and it may be (if they were admonished) of their lesser faults would strive to amend them; (Herod did many things after John Baptist) which yet you would not put in the Calendar of Saints, especially if you should examine them of the work of grace in their heart: Sometimes the thing is in medio, and we are neither satisfied that this man is a Saint, nor dare we censure him to be a sinner: Can you show that the Church ought to examine her members (yea those of which she hath no just ground of personal suspicion) whether they have committed any sin that deserves casting out? Then we will grant she may examine such before she take them in: Or could you show that Non-regeneration or the Churches not being satisfied of their visible Saint-ship (she possibly seeing more into them than she did at her admission of them) is a just cause of excommunication, though they be neither gross offenders, nor in foro Ecclesiastico obstinate in their lesser faults, than you speak somewhat to the purpose: But if this could be showed, than the Apostle needed not to give us a catalogue of divers sorts of sinners with whom we must not eat, 1 Cor. 5. for he might have given us a shorter and readier rule, saying, you shall nos eat with any, of whose regeneration you are not satisfied, or that are not in your judgements, Saints.    
Sect. 10. When I say he writes to the Church called to be Saints or called Saints, not to Saints called to be a Church or, to the Church constituted of Saints, which expression rather of the two proves there was a Church before they were Saints (See v. 1. Paul called to be an Apostle) then that they were Saints before they were a Church, though I maintain not the validity of either inference. You Reply p. 36. Can there be a Church before there were Saints? What a Church was that which had no visible Saints in it when it was first constituted?  
Rejoin. Why do you oppose an inference which I professed I would not maintain? 

the Reader certainly would have discerned the impertinency of this your Reply, if you had not in your book left out that Passage of mine.  
2. That which I said, is undeniable, that the words [Church called to be Saints] doth in the grammatical construction (rather of the two) conclude that they were a church before they were called to be Saints, then that they were Saints before they were called to be a Church: as if I should write to Mr E. called to be a Pastor, it were more rational to conclude that Mr E. was a man before he was a Pastor, then that he was a Pastor before he was a man.  
3. Any company or assembly called together by command to hear some laws and speeches whether they obey them or no, are called Ecclesia or Concio, but be it as absurd as you can make it to say; there was a Church which had no visible Saints in it, much more absurd is the other Position that they were Saints before they were a Church, considering it as an inference from this Text, whatsoever it is in itself.  
4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be read called to be holy, which is in Scripture a word of greater latitude than Saintship in English; so little children are said to be holy 1 Cor. 7.14. by a faederal holiness which cannot be called Saints or Sainted. The Papists invented this substantive Saints which the Scripture useth always as an adjective (though possibly sometimes the substantive is not expressed, of which also instance may be given in other adjectives) and from them we borrow the word.  
5. There is no more here ascribed to the Corinthian Church then is oft ascribed to the Jewish Church by the Holy Ghost, as holiness, Deut. 7.6. Deut. 33.2, 3. Psa. 79.2. and their Church is said to be a Church of Saints, Psa. 89.5.7. Psa. 149.1. and their seed holy, Ezra 9.2. so that in this there is not the least difference between Christians and Jews, save that the Jewish Church was called holy and a Church of Saints in the first place, and Christian Churches in the second, Exod. 19.5, 6. with 1 Pet. 2.9. Psa. 89.5, 7. So that it may as well be concluded that every member of the Jewish Church was or ought to be a visible Saint, or else sin was committed in it, and better not to have been a Church at all then not to have consisted of visible Saints, and that the Saints should have been separated into a distinct Church from the rest, that the Church of the Jews did or ought to have examined persons coming to be admitted, whether the work of grace was wrought in their hearts or no, and did or ought to have rejected all those of whose sincerity and sanctity she was not satified, as these things can be said of the Christian Church.    
Sect. 11. When I say, How appears it that all the honourable titles and epithets given by Paul are given with relation to Church-member ship? The Corinthians were curiched by God in all utterance and all knowledge, and did come behind in no gift, etc. So when other Saints are called beloved of God, elect, blessed, etc. their Life is hid with Christ in God; if these things be spoken of them as Church-members, than they are true of all Church-members, which you know they are not. Reply. There are some names, which show the intrinsecal nature of the things to which they are given, and they do agree to all of that kind: so [soldier] shows the  nature of an army, and [Saint] of the Church of God, but there are names  to, and separable from the nature of the things, and may be in some not in other, such are the Epithets enriched with wisdom, utterance etc. As if one should write to the army of such an one enriched with gold and silver.  
Rejoin. 1. You have a pretty distinction and similitude here, yet they are faulty, for. 

1. You beg the question and presume that to be true, which you should prove so to be; for the very question is, whether Saint-ship, satisfactory to the Church is of the Intrinsecal nature of a Church-member, and agrees to all Church-members, and is inseparable from them; so that whosoever hath not given satisfaction to the Church of his Saint-ship, or is not a Saint in the Church's judgement, cannot be a Church-member.  
2. You know that if a man be inlisted in an army, he is a member of it, though he was not examined of his soldier ship before his inlisting; yea though he was known not to be a soldier before, and is yet but in training, exercising, and learning soldiery. If you mean that Church-members are called to be Saints only in such a sense, as such a man is called to be soldier, you come short of the question.  
3. The jewish and Christian Churches are compared to an army in the books of Canticles, and Revelation, but neither the Jewish nor the than Christian Church did pretend to consist all of Saints, nor was this doctrine known, at least not practised till separated. Churches were erected by Brown, Barrow etc.  
4. As concerning the names Elect, blessed, beloved of God etc. The sum of what you answered, p. 42. I take to be this. That some of those to whom the Apostle writes, might by him be infallibly known to be elect, beloved of God etc. But all of them were judged such by Paul in the judgement of charity, which latter you prove by Phil. 1.7. But the thing is evidently false, even in that very instance you bring to prove it true, for the Apostle did not account all the Philippians to be Saints, for he expressly saith, Phil. 3.18, 19 that some were enemies to the Cross of Christ, and yourselves tell us, p. 76. That there might be dogs in the Apostolic Churches, and allege Phil. 3.2. which is as much as to say, there were dogs in the Church of Philippi, and Paul knew it when he writ this Epistle, how then could he in the judgement of charity account them all to be Saints? So that of necessity you must acknowledge, that these titles, Saints, sanctified, elect, beloved of God, faithful, were only in truth applicable to a party in the Apostles judgement; I demonstrate it thus, If in those very Epistles which he writes to Churches by the name of Saints, faithful etc. He brand some of those he writes to, to be wicked, Impenitent dogs etc. Then he doth not, cannot, without contradicting himself, count all in those Churches to be Saints; but the first is true; therefore he did not, could not account them all visible Saints. And if this text do not prove that in the judgement of Paul the Corinthians were Saints when he writ this Epistle, then much less doth it prove that they were visible Saints at the first constitution of the Church, or that it was necessary they should be such, or that they were better no Church than not so constituted, or that the Church then did or ought to examine whether men intending or desiring member-ship, had the work of grace wrought in their hearts or no, which is the practice you did undertake to justify.     

CHAP. XII. Of a Church Covenant.  
Sect. 1 YOu say. Reply. p. 37. That the combination of Saints into one body by some kind of covenant, either express or implicit, or by some kind of special bond, doth make a true Church. The Shechemites Gen. 34.15, 16. could not become one with the seed of jacob, but by coming into the same Covenant.  
Rejoin. 

1. Surely you understand this of adulti, persons of age, not of infants; for that infants born in the Church (suppose an Independent Church) give any consent to their being or baptising in that Church, it cannot be said.  
2. You hold (I suppose) that those infants, whose parents did voluntarily combine into a Church and are fit matter for a Church, and have continued from their childhood in the fellowship of that Church, need not any new agreement or covenant to make them of that Church.  
3. You deny not (it seems) that there is an implicit covenant, (they are your own words) though some have no less fond then confidently carped at the expression, as implying a contradiction, but now the case is altered, yourselves do use it:  
4. This implicit covenant or consent employed in actions is in our Congregations, for amongst us (Christians that dwell in a vicinity or neighbourhood, as hath been showed Chap. 2. that they ought) are one Congregation, they choose or submit unto, and maintain the same individual officers, as john, Thomas; frequent the same numerical meeting places, Sacraments, and other ordinances, and so are distinguished from other Congregations of Christians dwelling in other vicinityes, submitting to and maintaining other officers, as Andrew, Thomas etc. Paul and Barnabas, assembling a whole year with the Church at Antioch, (though they did not covenant themselves into it) are said to be within that Church, Acts 11.26. cum. cap. 13.1. And therefore if implicit covenant, agreement, or combination doth make a true Church, we are not deficient therein.  
5. As for that of the Sichemites being one people, (that is to say) one Church, or one people to God, as elsewhere you phrase it. I conceive that Simeon and Levi did not pretend them to be one Church, neither would this have been an acceptable motion to an Heathenish Idolatrous people, nor would Circumcision alone have effected it, (Edomites and others were Circumcised, and yet were not of the Jewish Church) except they had renounced their idols, and become Proselytes. 2. I conceive the poor Sichemites had no thoughts of altering their Religion for a wife, nor would the men of the City (in all probability) have so unanimously consented to it, they might look upon Circumcision as a national rite, and by being one people they do interpret themselves to mean of a civil union, viz. dwelling, trading, marrying one with another, enjoying the  and substance one of another, Gen. 34.21. Of any overture or pretence of Simeon and Levi, or any desire or hope that the Sichem tes had, that they should be one Church, one people to God, partakers of the same Sacrifices and ceremonies, there is no mention; I conceive therefore it is but your gloss; what covenant is involued in Circumcision, we shall show hereafter.    
Sect. 2. Reply. p. 38. Relation and combination to domestic ends and purposes is the form of a family; unto politic and civil ends is the form of a Commonwealth etc. And so relation, and combination of so many Saints as may well meet in one place, unto the enjoyment of Church-ordinances doth make a Church.  
Rejoin. 

1. Do you not mean that this agreement, or covenant is only of them that are sui juris? must every member of the Commonwealth, as mean men, servants, women, children, per se, at least implicitly, consent to their relation or combination in the Commonwealth, and every particular member of a City and family also, or he else is not to be judged one in that Commonwealth, City or family; and do you hold the same of Church-relation?  
2. Do you mean that this covenant is not only between inferiors, and superiors, but between equals, viz. that all the subjects of the Commonwealth must agree together to be one, all the children and servants in a family should agree to be one, all the wives of David and all the wives of Solomon did agree to be one; and not only that there is an agrrement between Magistrates and subjects, Masters and servants, (as we acknowledge also between Ministers and people) but that there must be agreement, or covenant of the wives amongst themselves, the servants amongst themselves, the subjects amongst themselves, and that this is the form of a family, or of a Commonwealth; and so consequently Christian's agreement to be a Church is (you say) the form of a Church.  
3. Do you mean that any former agreement or covenant, made by our parents unto Domestic, Politic, or Ecclesiastic ends and purposes doth not bind us, their children and successors; but notwithstanding the same we (without a particular and personal consent) are not of the same family, City, Commonwealth, or Church that they were of. I pray you express yourselves plainly.    
Sect. 3. Reply. p. 38. A solemn express, and verbal covenant or agreement, we assert necessary to the purity and strength of a Church, how should Saints and they alone living promiscuously in the world have communion together without express verbal consent, which yet we judge aught to be, if the rule be well attended, Rev. 22.27. & 22.14. And how else such looseness as in our Parssh Churches (from which we may remove into another Parish without rendering a reason, the members in a natural body, the stones in an house are not so loosely set, to which a particular Church is compared Eph. 2.22. 1 Cor. 12.27.) may be prevented, therefore we conceive a covenant necessary for such purposes.  
Rejoin. 

1. You assert here more than I can yield unto, For. 1. The Scripture gives us no precept or precedent of such a solemn express and verbal covenant, which you assert necessary to the strength and well-being of the Church: For. 

1. Church-covenant hath reference to Church-state, and Church-duties as such; as marriage hath to conjugal duties as such, Apol. for Church Cou. p. 3. & 25. This doth distinguish it from the covenant of grace, and other covenants which have no more reference to those duties, (if so much) as to other duties.  
2. Your Church-covenant binds men to walk in all the ordinances of God, which in the known sense of your Church, expressed by your confession of faith, and by your practice, is no other than to walk in the congregational or Independent way, now no Scripture doth require that men should covenant to walk in that way.  
3. Your Church-covenant is not only with God, but with a particular Congregation, which doth difference it from all those covenants that are made with God only, and not with any Church.  
4. Your covenant is public, vocal, express, and this doth distinguish it from all those agreements that are only employed in actions; as one that dwells in Manchester joins in choosing and submitting to the Constables and other officers, pays lays and taxes, assists officers, and bears office if required, doth tacitly agree that he is a Manchester man, and yet we do not say he hath entered into covenant, or that none can be a Manchester man but by covenant.  
5. Your solemn covenant is before the choosing of officers, which distinguisheth it from all such covenants as are made by a Church having officers.  
6. It binds mwn not to departed without leave-asking, which though it be no ordinance of God, but a politic invention; yet it doth infringe much the liberties of the Church. members, with else in some cases might lawfully departed without leave. ask.  
7. If a man cannot in Conscience consent to your covenant, he shall be secluded from the Sacrament though he be never so fit and holy.  
8. Your covenant doth translate men and remove men out of our Churches into yours, and makes them members of a distinct Church, whereas Scripture-covenants at the most did but confirm (if so much) men in their Church-state; If you can show such a Church-covenant as this in Scripture, or that hath all the essentials of your Church-covenant, than I shall incline to believe it, (not only lawful but) necessary to the Church's wellbeing, but I cannot believe any thing to be necessary to the strength and purity of the Church, if it cannot be found in Scripture: some have said, If set forms of prayer had been lawful, Christ would have prescribed them: I may much rather say, if this Church-covenant were so necessary, Christ would have prescribed it.    
2. Any separation or division that is of God may be brought about without our own inventions. The Christians did separate them-themselves from amongst the jews and Heathens, and the Protestants in Queen Mary's days from the Papists, and yet without any such vocal express covenant that we read of.  
3. If such looseness in our Parish-Churches be so great an evil, then take you heed you be not guilty of that great evil by making that looseness greater than it is, or by God's law ought to be; Is it a greater evil for men that remove their habitation, then for those that do not remove it all, to departed from their Parish-Church without rendering a reason? 

Is it not a greater evil to add to the commandments of God our own carnal and politic devices, and to lay a yoke or covenant on our people which God hath not laid on them for preventing of some inconveniences which Gods law doth not enable us to prevent?  
2. If there be any local bounds (as by Scripture rules hath been showed there aught to be) that inconvenience must necessarily happen, but to this I have spoken before Chap. 2.  
3. The place in Eph. 2.22. is apparently not meant of a particular Congregation but of the universal Church which is called the City, the Household, the Temple, and all the Christians of the particular Church of Ephesus were not the whole City but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fellow-citizens with the Saints, not the whole household but of the household, not all the temple or building but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are built together with other Saints and Churches, which also are part of the City, Temple, Household, building as well as they.  
4. in Cor. 12.27. when he had said ye are the body of Christ, he corrects himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if he should say, ye are not the whole body, but members in part of that body, and others are part of that body as well as you, for into it both Jews and Gentiles are baptised, v. 13. viz. into the universal Church, and in this sense these Scriptures do not serve your purpose; and therefore you say (but not rightly) that a particular Church is there compared to a body and an house.  
5. Yourselves, I know, hold not that Church-membership is as in dissolvable, as the members of a natural body are one from another, which are not separated without ruin of the part separating if not of the whole body, nor can that member be willingly separated from its body or joined (with any good effect) to another body.       

CHAP. XIII. Whether Deut. 29. or Gen. 17. be precedents of a Church-Covenant.  
Sect. 1. THe Covenant in Deut. 29.1.10, 11, 12. respects Reply p. 39 principally Church-duties more than other duties of the moral law, v. 16, 17, 18. for he warns them of Heathenish worships, and would engage them by an holy Covenant to all Gods holy worships of the Passover, and all the offerings of God's prescription, which were to be brought to the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation,— though a Covenant binding to some duties of the moral law may be made by two or three persons of several Churches, and yet not make them members of a distinct Church; yet if they Covenant to walk together in the constant enjoyment of all Church-ordinances, this would change their state and make them a Church.  
Rejoin. 1. Those verses contain in them Moses admonition and exhortation to the people, v. 10. Ye stand this day all of you before the Lord your God— v. 12. that thou shouldst enter into Covenant with the Lord thy God and into his oath which he maketh with thee this day, etc. that they should not serve the gods of Egypt or of other Nations, lest there should be amongst them man, or woman, or family, or tribe, whose heart turneth away from God; but there is not the least mention of Passover or other Church-duties which you say that Covenant did engage them to; and therefore it doth not appear by those verses that the Covenant more principally respects Church-duties more than other duties of the moral law; some part of the moral law is mentioned and interpreted, viz. the first Commandment, but nothing spoken of Church-membership; Every particular servant of God ought to take heed of Heathenish worships which is there required, and not a Church only. I appeal to you, may not, ought not, every man, woman, family, or tribe (to use the words of v. 18.) make a Covenant with God that he, she or they will not turn away from the Lord to go and serve the gods of the nations, as Jacob covenanted for himself, Gen. 28.21. and Ruth cap. 1.16. and Joshuah for himself and his house, Josh. 24.15? May not any two or three amongst us covenant that they will keep the first Commandment, which in this text is paraphrased on, Thou shalt have no other Gods before me, viz. not the abominations of Egypt nor their idols, v. 17. of some duties sealing their union and communion with the body of the Jewish Church and celebrated when the whole body was assembled, I find mention in your book, but not in the book of God in the place cited. 3. Suppose it true that persons covenanting to walk together in all Church-ordinances which God requires of a Church would make them a Church and change their state, yet it is not to the point, for the question is, whether two or three of several Christian Churches, covenanting in the very words of v. 16, 17, 18. on which you build, That their hearts should not turn away from the Lord their God to go to serve other gods, or that they would not serve or worship images; would this make them one Church together? And if it do not, how can you say this was a Church-Covenant? 4. This was not an express vocal Covenant on the people's part, which you are to prove necessary to the well-being of the Church; for it was made with them that were absent as well as with them that were present; now they that were absent, however they were included, did not, could not (if they that were present did) make a solemn express verbal Covenant: Mr Cottons opinion you shall hear hereafter.  
Sect. 2. When I answer that a Covenant in general doth not make a Church (nor a marriage) and that Scripture-Covenants are not with appropriation and application to this Pastor or people, viz. that they would serve with this people or Pastor rather than with that, therefore they are not Church-Covenants. You reply page. 40. Who ever read or heard of a Covenant in general of duties to be done without application to persons mutually engaged to perform such duties? The Covenants in Scripture were no such Covenants, they were applied to Israel and to the Gentiles that should join to Israel, and so they were a separated people from other nations by Covenant, Exod. 12.47, 48. The Jews by the Covenant of God were to serve God rather with this people then with that.  
Rejoin. 

1. You ask who hath read or heard. I answer Mr E. and M T. have I suppose read the N. E. Elders apology for Church-covenant, out of which that phrase, and most part of the sentence is taken. why do you quarrel with me, or rather with the Elders of N. E. beating them on my back.  
2. Yourselves will say, A covenant to serve God, to endeavour after the enjoyment of all God's ordinances, A covenant to perform Church-duties, is not a Church-covenant except they covenant to enjoy God's ordinances, and perform Church-duties together: a man promiseth to marry, a woman promiseth to marry, this doth not make them many and wife, except they promise to marry one another, and do so; Surely you do not think these expressions ridiculous.  
3. I speak (as you might discern by my phrase) of the Churches and people of the new testament not of the old, and so did the Elders of N. E. for they speak of distinguishing one Church from another, a speech proper to the new testament.  
4. Suppose there had been before Christ some other Church which had worshipped God as purely, and enjoyed God as fully as the Jewish Church did; would such a covenant as this you speak of Deut. 29. have bound all that took it to be of the jewish Church, and not of the other? I think you will not say it, I dare say you cannot prove it:  
5. However we yet want a solemn verbal express covenant by which the Jews and Gentiles converted bound themselves to be all of one Church, though they were one Church, and did not want any thing necessary to the strength and purity of the Church: for Mr. Cotton himself saith that God propoundeth and giveth a covenant to a people, and they accept it, though not in express words, yet in silent consent, and he citys, Gen. 17.7. Deut. 29, 10. ad fin●m. Cap. 30. Way of the Churches. p. 3.    
Sect. 3. Reply. p. 40. There is a covenant between Pastor and people, but it groweth out of the covenant amongst the people, who must first be one before they can agree in one to choose a Pastor; There was a covenant with Abraham and his house, by virtue of which Israel was the Lord's people in Egypt, before there were Pastors over them; and it was so in the wilderness before Aron and his sons were chosen.  
Rejoin. 

My speech was dis-junctive, if a Church-covenant imply appropriation, either to this or that people, or to this or that Pastor, or both, the speech is true.  
2. That the covenant between Pastor and people is emergent from a covenant amongst the people is gratis dictum, and so stands, till you show a people covenanting to be a Church together before they had officers.  
3. That Israel was the Lord's people before they had any Pastors over them, is a gross untruth. The first born (until Aaron and the sons of Levi were separated for that work, were unquestionably Priests and Pastors) yea Adam was a Priest to himself and family, and therefore it is said that Cain brought of the fruits of the ground, viz. he brought to his father that he might offer it to the Lord, so both ancient and modern Interpreters do expound it, and they had Priests before the giving of the law, which questionless came with them out of Egypt, Ainsworth in Exod, 19.22. and those young men, Gen. 24.5. are interpreted to be the first born of the several families, and these continued till the Levites were substituted in their places.    
Sect. 4. Reply. p. 40. To be one people to God in a professed solemn way by entering covenant with God, and to be a Church is all one; and this is asserted, Deut, 29.12.13.  
Rejoin. Neither the text, Deut. 29.11.12. nor my answer had the words [one people] in them, but [a people] you force in the word [one] that you may have some pretence for a covenant. The Scripture shows us not that a people, or a people of God is equivalent to one people. 2. England, Scotland, and Ireland, are or may be the Lords people in a professed solemn way by entering into covenant with God; will you hence conclude that they thereby are all made one Church? God foretells that many nations shall be joined to the Lord, and be his people, Zach. 2.11. The Christian Gentiles are called God's people, and that by covenant. Hose. 2.23. The Jews scattered in Pout us, Asia, Cappadocia, and Bithynia are called a poculiar people. 1 Peter 2.9. And therefore by your logic they are all one Church.  
Sect. 5. Reply. p. 41. To prove there was a covenant at the founding of the jewish Church, and so of Christian Churches, you urge, That all the Proselyted Gentiles entered into the Church by the seal of the covenant which was Circumcision, and converted Heathens, and the infants of Church-members are brought into the Church by baptism, which is the seal of the covenant of grace, and especially of that part of it which concerns Church society.  
Rejoin. 

1. You know my meaning was not that there was no covenant at all, but that there was Church-covenant, no solemn express verbal covenant which you assert to be necessary to the strength and purity of the Church. The Jewish Church (qua Church if not qua Jewish) was founded first in Adam's family, then again in Noah's; (hence yourselves argue from their families that 7 or 8 may make a Church, so it continued in Shems' family, (who (as some most probably think) was M●l●his●d●ck, who being a Priest must needs be within the Church, and yet all this while you have no colour for a Church-covenant.  
2. If the bringing in of converted Heathens, and the infants of Church members into the Christian Church by baptism, (of Circumcision we shall speak afterward) be a sufficient evidence that the Church is founded by covenant, than the Reformed Churches are founded in covenant as well as yours, yea as well as the Primitive Apostolic Churches, for the same argument you bring why they were founded in covenant suits fits all the Churches (for aught I know) Gentiles converted and infants of Church-members being brought into them all by baptism, and consequently, they that forsake the Reformed Churches, are (coeteris paribus) covenant-breakers, as well as they which forsake your Churches.  
3. That Congregational society is a part and a principal part of the covenant of grace, I understand not. For if it were so, then. 

1. It would follow that Adam and Eve While alone till they were so many as would make a Church, were not wholly partakers of the covenant of grace.  
2. That a true believer excommunicated (though for the name of Christ) is deprived in part of the covenant of grace. Yea that every one that is not a Church-member wants a part of the covenant of grace, and a principal part too.    
4. Nor do I believe Paptism to be a seal of Congregational communion principally: Because 

1. The Apostles (as you say p. 56.) might baptise in all the world, and not only in the Church.  
2. Paul himself was baptised before he did assay 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to join himself to the Disciples.  
3. You cannot show of what Congregation all those that were baptised by John Baptist, by the Disciples of Christ were, or that they were of any, and if they were of none, than the seal of Baptism in reference to a principal part of the Covenant of grace was set to a blank.  
4. Baptism doth admit us into that one body consisting of Jews and Gentiles, 1 Cor. 12.13. else if Baptism do admit only into one Congregation, than a person so baptised is an alien to other Congregations, as he that is a member only of one Corporation is a stranger to all the rest.  
5. Whereas you ask, how those that are many become one amongst themselves, and distinct from others of the same kind, as Corinth was one in itself and distinct from Cenchrea (for parish bounds were not then on foot) so that the members and officers of one were not the members and officers of another, what can it be but some agreement or covenant explicit or implicit? I answer the same way of uniting and distinguishing Congregations and Churches which the Scripture holds out to be practised in the primitive times cannot be denied to be sufficient now a days, partly by local bounds and limits, and partly by an implicit Covenant (which here you confess to be sufficient) or an agreement employed in actions, submitting to the same officers, frequenting the same Sacraments, etc. of which we have spoken more Chap. 2.  
6. Whereas you demand p. 41. Did not the joining of the believing Gentiles to the family of Abraham by circumcision make them more truly members of the Church than they were before? Were they not afterwards accounted of the Jewish commonwealth and invested into all their spiritual privileages which they had no right unto before, though they were converted persons and Gods servants.      
Rejoin. 

1. That Passage of mine [their Covenants did not make a Church more truly a Church, or more truly members] had apparent reference to the Covenant in Deut. 29. pretended to be a Church-covenant, the believing Gentiles were not a Church or members at all before their believing, and therefore not capable (in propriety of speech) of being made more truly such.  
2. You show not that the joining of the Gentiles to the jewish Church was by solemn express verbal Covenant, that they would be a Church together.  
3. That believing Gentiles after Circumcision were always accounted of the jews commonwealth, viz. under their civil government, had a portion of their land, I deny and put you to prove, and if they all were of that Church, it was but per accidents, because there was then no other Church to which they might join: had God pleased to have erected several Independent Churches amongst the jews, their circumcision had sealed them no more into one of these Churches then into the other.    
Sect. 6. Reply p. 41. 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 otherwise, let it appear that he was in Church-state before that time, and we shall look for a Covenant before that time: We read nothing of Abraham's family that they were a professed people to God before that time.  
Rejoin. 

1. You speak but doubtingly; you know that if it be not certain that the Church was now constituted, it is impossible to demonstrate hence (what the Position asserts) that the Church of the jews was constituted in Abraham's family by Covenant, no more than it can be certain that A. B. sold his land for ready money, if it be uncertain that A. B. did sell his land.  
2. But for ought you say they were in Church-state before, though not professedly and openly separated, yea they might be one of them and yet your words be true, if they were not both.  
3. I conceive they were in Church-state before, for God called Abraham and blessed him with a promise of Christ, Gen. 12.1, 2, 3. and Abraham believed the Lord, etc. built altars, called on the name of the Lord, God appeared to him and made him promises, was blessed by and paid tithes to Melchisedeck the Priest.  
4. Was not Lot a professed servant of the Lord, and Sarah and Hagar, one of the worst in Abraham's family, Gen. 16.9, 10, 11? Abraham was the Priest of his family, and when he offered sacrifices upon the altars he builded, did he not offer sacrifice for his family as well as himself? Doubtless Abraham before circumcision as well as after, did command his chidrens and household to keep the way of the Lord, Gen. 18.19. his family willingly, for aught appears, even 300 and more left their own Country and Idolatrous kindred at Gods call, Gen. 17.4, 5. Iosh. 24.23. Isa. 41.2. and came into the land of Canaan, and this they did visibly and professedly bringing no Idols with them that we read of; were none of these arguments of Church-state and of real profession and separation from the world?  
5. You tell us, p. 28. that usually when any heads of families were converted, some of the household were converted with them, and was Abraham's family to be excepted?  
6. You reply p. 42. We read not of any symbol of Church-state by which they were separated from the rest of the world before circumcision.    
Rejoin. But would you have any symbol of Church-estate which God hath not instituted? You assert, that Adam's and Noah's family was a Church. You say p. 43. there might be a Church in Sem's family: You cannot deny that there was a Church before Abraham's time: Had that Church any symbol of Church-estate which Abraham's family wanted? What was that? I believe you cannot show any; and if he had all the symbols of Church-state which God had then instituted, or any Church before him had, it was enough; take heed lest by your reasonings against the Family of Abraham being a Church you utterly overthrow the Church of God before his time every where else also. 7. You say, This distinguisheth him and his family not from the world alone, but from the believers of his time: Melchisedeck and Lot though holy men were not in his state, nor had his privileges.  
Rejoin. Melchisedeck and Lot might be circumcised though we do not read they were, and if he was Sem, then by virtue of a natural precedency in age (as Mr Noyes supposeth) he was a Priest of Abraham's family as well as his own, and they were sons of the same Church, and if Melchisedeck and Lot were of one Church with Abraham before, Abraham; receiving of circumcision could not thrust them out of that Church which they were of before, though they did not (suppose) lie under the same command of circumcision that Abraham and his family did; if God required them to be circumcised, they (its like) heard of it, and doubtless being holy men would not slight Gods holy Ordinance. 2. What is all this to prove that a solemn express verbal covenant is necessary to the purity of the Church; if Melchisedec was of another Church was not his Church (for he being a Priest had one) whether constituted in Covenant or no, as pure as Abraham's that was constituted by Covenant.  
Sect. 7. I said, The Covenant in Gen. 17. is taken only for God's part of it or his promise to Abraham, Gal. 3.16, 17. not for man's part to God whereof we now speak. you reply, The Apostle seems to make use of the promise of God made to Abraham and his seed in the Covenant, Gen. 12.3. & 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 the Covenant was reciprocal. Junius and Paraeus.  
Rejoin: He seems, (you say) multa videntur et non sunt, many things seem what they are not: dare you say that the Apostle makes use of the promise, Gen. 12. and Gen. 22. and excludes, Gen. 17? Was not this as solemn glorious a promise as any made to Abraham, might the covenants, Gen. 12. & 22. be taken for God's part of the covenant, or his promise (as you confess) and may not covenant in this place be so taken? Paul speaks of promises and may include them all, this, as well as those. 2. Paul might if he had pleased have taken occasion from the subject in hand to have spoken of Abraham's part of the covenant. 3. Put case the covenant was reciprocal (as you say it is expounded; I am not so furnished with books as formerly I have been) it follows not that it was explicitly reciprocal on Abraham's part, nor that it was a Church-covenant, nor that an express solemn verbal Church-covenant is necessary to the wellbeing of a Church. You Reply. Cong. way justif. p. 31. The Position saith nothing of an express vocal covenant, and you by bringing in these words do alter the question, we hold not an express vocal covenant necessary to the being of a Church. And when we say it is necessary to the purity and strength of a Church; our meaning is not that it is a standing ordinance of God, that the Church should be united by a vocal expression of their mutual consent, (which we call the covenant) so as that subscription, signals, or silence itself as a sign may not be a lawful testification of their consent, but it is fit and convenient that it should be expressed in words, and so words are necessary as one, and usually the fittest expression of our minds.  
Rejoin: 

1. If you understand only an implicit covenant or agreement employed in actions, we never denied it, the Scripture approves it.  
2. If a man may judge of the Position by the definition given by N. E. men of a Church-covenant. Apol. p. 3. That it is a solemn public promise before the Lord, or by your practice which commonly have an express verbal covenant; or by your own assertion of the necessity of it to the purity of the Church. I did no wrong to bring in a vocal express covenant, and to show that abraham's was not such a one.  
3. If vocal expression of mutual consent which you call the covenant, be not a standing ordinance of God, as you confess it is not, then how comes a solemn express verbal covenant, or agreement to be necessary to the purity and strength of a Church, if it be no standing ordinance of God?  
4. Subscription, signals, and silence itself as a sign do suppose a verbal, and express covenant written, repeated or read to them or by them; and if the said verbal express written covenant, be not the ordinance of God, than subscriptions, signals, silence itself as a sign, do not much more qualify the matter, then if vocal expression were required, prove that subscription to a Church-Covenant, signals, or silence as a sign are the ordinances of God, and it shall serve the turn: Suppose Abraham's family did not vocally covenant to be a Church together, did they subscribe, give signals, or keep silence as a sign of it?  
5. If words be necessary as one, and usually the fittest expression of our minds? how comes it to pass, that in neither of the text cited (as Mr. Cotton acknowledgeth) they did accept the covenant by express words? Cotton. way. p. 5.    
Sect. 8. Reply. p. 42. But you check yourself as if over-hold; and therefore say, Indeed 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. Reply. Circumcision doth argue necessarily that there was a covenant before, of which it was the sign and seal, was not Isaac in covenant before he was Circumcised, and did not his Circumcision seal so much? This order is always supposed 

1. God's promise.  
2. Man's faith.  
3. The sign and seal of both— ●●in baptism.    
Rejoin. 

1. You are much mistaken, I see no cause to check myself, but you rather for omitting part of the Answer. viz. Gods covenanting with Abraham did not impose, or suppose an express vocal covenant on Abraham's part, (although when God appeared visibly and spoke vocally, there was more colour for an express covenant then now he doth not) nor always an implicit Covenant. The children not yet born could not give so much as an implicit assent etc. Which strongly proves (though Gen. 9.9.10. which speaks not properly be left out) that they with whom God did Covenant, Gen. 17. did not (for aught appears by the text) make a solemn verbal express Covenant.  
2. That Circumcision was a seal of the Covenant between God and Abraham, that Isaac was in Covenant I grant, but you know very well, That to be in covenant & to make a covenant are two distinct things; you should have showed that they made a Covenant, and you ask whether Isaac was not in Covenant, you children and mine not yet born, or but of a year old, may be in Covenant, but they cannot be said to make Covenants: we blame you not for being in Covenant, but for making Church-Covenants express verbal etc.  
3. The order you speak of. 

1. God's promise.  
2. Man's faith.  
3. The sign and seal is a right order in adult is, and most true of Abraham.   1. The promise was made, than he believed, then was Circumcised, but what is this to an express verbal solemn Covenant, or subscription, signals before his Circumcision? I presume you speak not of Infants; for Isaac (you know well) did not, could not believe nor make profession of faith before he was Circumcised.  
4. If Circumcision in the old testament, and now baptism in the new, be such a certain sign of Church-Covenant; you need not to ask whether a baptised person be in Church-Covenant or no? for his baptism doth prove him to be in Church-Covenant, as well as Circumcision did, all that were baptised by john Baptist, or the Disciples and Apostles of Christ, and Paul himself before he did assay to join to the Disciples was in Church-Covenant, because he was baptised by Ananius, and all those that were baptised in our Churches, were in your judgement in Church-Covenant with us; and if you persuade them to leave us; how do you clear yourself of being accessary to their breach of Church-Covenant? I add How prove you That Melchisedeck a Priest, and Lot which were not of his seed, nor of his family were out of Church-state? That a believer is not a son of Abraham, nor an heir of the promise and Covenant made to Abraham, if he be not in Church-state by Covenant, all which you seem to imply when you say the Jewish Church was constituted in Abraham's family by Church-Covenant. The family of Shem was the Church of God long before this. Gen. 9.25, 26, 27. You Reply. p. 43. We assert not that they were out of Church-state, but if they were not Circumcised, they were not of Abraham's Church, nor could they have partaked of the passover, had it been on foot, any more than other believers, not joined to Abraham's family as Cornelius.    
Rejoin. 

1. You have not yet proved that Abraham was not in Church-state before Gen. 17. This demand you answer with a deleatur.  
2 If Melchisedeck and Lot were of another Church than abraham's, can you prove that that Church also was made by Covenant, if it was not, than every Church is not (as you assert) founded in a Church-Covenant.  
3. If Melchisedeck was not a Jew (as I believe he was) Let certainly was one, Cornelius was certainly a Gentile, Melchisedeck (if he was Shem) was Abraham's progenitor, and Lot was his kinsman, and so nearer to the family of Abraham then Cornelius was, but of Melchisedeck and Lot see before. You Reply further. It is one thing to be a son of Abraham, as a believer and heir of promise: another thing to be the son of Abraham, as a professed Covenanter with God, and bearing the symbol in his flesh; in the former sense Abraham was the father of all believers, though uncircumcised, in the later of the Circumcised, which were also of his faith, as the Apostle shows. Rom. 4.11, 12.    
Rejoin. Rom. 4.11, 12. Shows that Abraham was the father of all that believe, whether Circumcised or uncircumcised (that is in Scripture language you know) jews or Gentiles, the Jews had the symbol in their flesh, the Gentiles had not: but what is this to the purpose, you assert the Covenant, Gen. 17. to be a Church-Covenant, than I conceive it follows from your opinion, that believers which are not now in Church-state by Covenant are not heirs of that promise, and put you to prove it, or (if you had pleased) to renounce it; your text doth rather prove that he was the father of all believing Gentiles, whether joined to an instituted Church or no; and that such believers are heirs of that promise and Covenant. 2. You say every believer is the son of Abraham as a believer and heir of promise. But what promise mean you if not that Gen. 17. my demand was, and is, whether a believer out of Church Covenant be not an heir of that promise and Covenant, Gen. 17! If you grant he is, than it will follow that it was not a Church-covenant, if you say he is not, I pray you speak plainly, I sometimes find it more difficulty to discern the strength of your Reply, then to confute it. 3. A single person, two or three persons may undoubtedly be professed covenanters with God, and so may be children of Abraham in that, but to be the children of Abraham as bearing the symbol of that covenant in his flesh; no believing Gentiles, whether in Church-covenant or no, baptised or unbaptised can: for the Scripture, yea common sense tells us that neither baptism nor Church-membership do leave any symbol in the flesh, you are able enough to express yourselves; if you would make your meanings more plain, our discourses would be more profitable to the Reader. Lastly you reply. p. 43. Though it be probable there was a Church in the family of Shem, yet that place proves it not, and that Church might be of another constitution than this in Abraham's family; this hinders not but that the Church in Abraham's family was constituted by covenant.  
Rejoin. 

1. If there were a Church in Shems' family, it is less matter whether that text proves it, and yet if the thing had been denied I could have proved it.  
2. You take too much delight in multiplying Churches, and diversifying their constitutions; one Church whereof Melchisedeck was, (for you will not assert that he was out of Church-state) another Church where Lot was, (for I imagine you will not assert that Melchisedeck and Lot were both of one Church)  
3. A third might be in the family of Shem (if you hold him not to be Melchisedeck.) and a  
4. in Abraham's family, what three or four Churches at once? and that before Christ too, and those or some of those of different constitutions, and yet all agreeable to the will of God? I suppose if necessity had not driven you to seek Churches to take Sanctuary in, you would not upon so little ground of Scripture have deserted the received and most rational opinion; That there was but one Church at once before Christ's time. But surely the more Churches you find out, the more work you have to do to prove they were (as you say, all Churches are) founded in Covenant, especially if you should prove that a solemn express verbal covenant was necessary to the strength and purity of each of those Churches, or (if you wave that) that subscription, signals, silence itself as a sign were used.     

CHAP. XIIII. Of members promising at their admission to give themselves to the Church. 2 Cor. 8.5.  
Sect. 1. TO show that 2 Cor. 8.5. doth not uphold that practice, I urged, that the givers are not the members of the Church of Macedonia (as you for your advantage phrase it) but the Churches of Macedonia, and therefore if this do prove union or Covenant, it is of the members of several Churches, and not of one only.  
Reply. The allegation in answer. to 9, Pos. pag. 73. runs thus. So to the Church (according to God) to be guided by them these words [according to God] are left out, whether wilfully or by oversight I conclude not.  
Rejoin. I never professed nor intended that the Positions and Scriptures alleged, should agree punctually and verbatim to the places set in the margin, nor could I effect it without some (in mine opinion) unfitting alterations of them as they were alleged to me, and for evidence that I tied not myself to the Printed books (as at the first coming out of my examinations, I advertised one of your brethren) I sometimes alleged no book at all, even where you know I might, as Pos. 4. Other times that by comparing arguments which otherwise came to hand with the Printed books, I might probably intimate (and if my conjecture should fail, it were no great matter) from whence they were taken, and also evidence the truth of what I said in my preface. That Independency for the most part produceth the same texts in Print, which she did in preaching, writing, conference. I alleged Printed books, the bystanders mentioned in the preface, with these or the like clauses. See almost the same argument verbatim, the like you have, this though not so fully. This seems to be taken out of— These Scriptures are alleged though not with such tartness etc. And sometimes I alleged for one position (the 2. for example) two or 3. Printed books, differing possibly more than in Phrase one from another, which are so evident signs, that I tied not myself to the Printed books, that I cannot but wonder if you did not observe it, which had you done, you needed not to have fought so much with your own shadow; for if it be acknowledged that the Scriptures alleged prove no such thing, as they are produced for (whether they be in Printed books or no) I (as I told you in my preface) have my full end. Besides the very first Position is not the very same with the place cited in the margin, In Answ. to 32. q. p. 35. You have not gathering of Churches named, though the Position name it, and many other things added which the Position includes not, and you do not there quarred with the difference of the Position and citation, possibly one of you may remember, that at a lecture set up by you in Chesshire, for the promoting of the Congregationgational way, (which abundantly justified the setting up a Counter-lecture in Manchester afterwards at the motion of a very godly Minister there was a conference, and at that conference, Acts 4.19. & 5.29. were urged for gathering of Churches in the very words, or as near as could be) of the Position: Lastly some persons not the meanest in the Parish can witness how sundry allegations of Scripture have come to my hands. Surely if you have but a little charity and ingenuity, this may satisfy you. 2. In this Position, the leaving out the words [according to God] doth not hinder but that Answ. to 9 Pos. p. 73. which hath those words in (though I observed it not till you told me of it) may be alike allegation, (which is all I said in my margin) though not the very same with the Position. And I dare appeal to you, must not that man which gives himself first to the Lord to be guided by him, be necessarily understood that he gives himself to the Church to be guided by them, according to God and no otherwise. But if you will blot paper with suchweak unjust exceptions I will not deign to answer. 3. I wonder that you should tax me with leaving out two or three words (which I was not bound to put in) & yet in the same place leave out the Principal part of my answer, though you mention part of it in your defence, yet you mention it not as my answer, but as your free confession. viz. That it is not said, that they gave themselves to the Church or Churches, but to us that is to Paul and Timothy, which were not so much as set members of any particular Church etc. 4. You do not answer the whole strength of the exception. For. 

1. The Position speaks of a promise and Covanent; the text saith not, that the Churches of Macedonia did promise to give themselves etc. And yourselves in this point wave the Position saying, there was no intent to prove union or covenant of a Church, but subjection of each member; what is not a promise to give ourselves to the Church a covenant? The text speaks of their giving themselves to the Lord, to Paul and Timothy by the will of God, but not of their promising so to do, to do a thing, and to promise to do it, are two distinct things; especially when the promise, and not the performance is the thing controverted whether it be appointed of God or no.  
2. The Position saith that every member doth so promise at his admission: the text saith not that the members of the Church of Macedonia did so promise, or give themselves at their admission into the Church: but that the Churches gave themselves to the Lord and to his Ministers, specially in this duty of charity to be guided by them, and to contribute liberally according to their exhortations.  
3. If the practice of the Church of Macedonia be made use of by way of allusion, and the argument be good a comparatis, as you plead, than it is a far more parallel and proportionable case, that Churches should give themselves to the Lord, and then to their officers according to God to be guided by them, than that members (you mean officers and all) should give themselves to the Church, for Paul and Timothy to whom the Churches gave themselves were officers, they were not a Church to which members gave themselves; If this which is more agreeable to the text suit your liking, there will be no more controversy about this, we may pass to the next.     

CHAP. XV. Wheher Acts 2.47. doth prove that a Congregation may be a Church before it have officers.  
Sect. 1. Reply. WE take Churches for such Churches as the Apostles planted in all plapes, when they had converted a considerable number of persons, into which Saints are wont to be gathered, that they might be built up and edified by the ordinance, Acts 9.31. And unto which Pastors were given to reside with them and oversee them. Acts 20.28. Or we take Church as Amesius takes it. Coetus fidelium speciali vinculo inter se conjunctorum ad comunionem sanctorum inter se constanter exercendam. Such a company is the Church before it hath officers, for it is their privilege to choose their officers.  
Rejoin. It is granted that in a general sense a few private men without officers, yea few women without men, yea 20 members of several Churches may be called a Church, that an assembly in Scripture-phrase is all one with a Church, the word Church may be taken for a mystical Church. 2. It cannot be denied by you or me that Synecdochi●●s the Church may be taken either for the officers apart from the people, or without consideration of them, or for the people apart from the officers or without consideration of them. But the question is what is a Church properly so called; the Elders of N. England say, A Church properly so called is the body Politic consisting of people and Minister, Answ. to 33. q. p. 46. They cite also Mr. Banes saying of Math. 16. The word Church (saith he) we understand not figuratively, taken metonymically for the place. Synecdochically for Ministers, but properly for a body Politic, standing of a people to be taught, and teachers, and governors: I profess myself to hold as they here express themselves, for these reasons. 

1. The Church is not one member but many, viz. not one sort of members but composed of variety, as hath been said. Chap, 4. Hence the Church is described as an organical body of divers members, Rom. 12.4, 5. And if all were one member (that is believers only) then where were the body? A corporation, an army properly so called doth consist of governors, as well as governed.  
2. Word, Sacraments, censures, yea all sacred worships (you say) may be observed to belong to the Church, but none but professed Anabaptists, and Morellians hold that Christians united without officers have power to preach, and to administer Sacraments or censures.  
3. The Churches we read of in Scripture were organical Churches, yea those by you spoken of. Acts 9.31. might be such, for aught appears, they were edified, how but by officers, which (elsewhere you say) were given for their edification, Ephes. 4.11. or by ordinances, by the word and Sacraments, which they could not regularly enjoy without out officers; if you mean by prayer, reading, hearing, conference, this you will acknowledge they might have had without enchurching.  
4. That the Apostles taught Christians to unite themselves together without officers, and to call themselves a Church, or do any any act of Church-power or that they planted Churches any other ways then to convert many Christians in a City and to ordain Elders over them it cannot be showed.  
5. As for Amesius his definition of a Church if it be to your mind; I am sure it is not in your usual language, for he speaks of communion of Saints which you use to distinguish from Church-communion; if Church-communion be not included then you in effect tell us p. 39 that such a bond will not make them a Church, and if Church-communion be included, how Church-communion in Sacraments and censures can be lawfully had without officers, and what that is I cannot see.  
6. A man may have a privilege to choose a wife and yet not be an husband, nor she a wife till they be married; a free State may have a privilege to choose a King, yet they cannot be a Kingdom till they have chosen him; so it may be the privilege of the people to choose their officers and yet not be a Church properly so called till they have them: for it is their privilege to be a Church together, yet they are not a Church before they are one. Lastly, it is a contradiction to say the Apostles planted Churches and yet those Churches were without officers, for the Apostles that planted them were officers of them if they had no other.    
Sect. 2. Reply p. 46. You grant that the Church Act. 2. had not ordinary officers, for none were then appointed: Act. 14.23. shows they were Churches before the Apostle ordained Elders in them.  
Rejoin. 

1. You take full as much as I granted, and possibly I granted more than I needed, but I in a Parenthesis (which you leave out) spoke of the 70 which might be ordinary officers or extraordinary, and their commission might be in force or no for aught I determined, but it is as like they were Elders of that Church as no; seeing Act. 11.30. we read of Elders in that Church as extant we know not how long before that time, and we read not of the institution of any officers amongst them save the 12 Apostles, 70 Disciple, and 7 Deacons.  
2. In the first plantation of Churches the Elders that planted them must needs be before the plantation, and the spiritual fathers before their children.  
3. Acts 14.23. proves not your assertion, for Apostles and Apostolic men did ordain Elders in some Churches where Elders were before, yea they joined with Elders in the ordaining of other Elders, as 1 Tim. 4.14. cum 2 Tim. 1.5. and 1 Tim. 15.22. cum Acts 20.28. Acts 19 Yet grant they were without Elders, that only proves that they were called by the name of Church, and so are officers sometimes so called as distinguished from the members, but neither of them are properly called by the name of Church.    
Sect. 3. Reply p. 46. And though there were general Elders— yet neither these nor any other Elders do ingredi essentiam Ecclesiarum, nor is it any formal reason why a company of believers are a Church because they have Elders— then their privilege to choose their officers would be when they have them, and they cannot choose them when they want them, for than they are not a Church, and so can have no such power, and this is uncomfort able, for the death of an officer might be the unchurching of a people; members mentioned apart from the officers are called the Church. Act. 20.28. Phil. 1.1.  
Rejoin. 

1. Though they were general officers yet (as I told you) they were Elders particularly of the Church of Jerusalem and acted therein as Elders, for that Church then was the universal Church, the Apostles (or 70) had no present exercise of their pastoral authority any where but there, they did preach, administer Sacraments, ordain there and only there. Can a regiment complain of want of a Colonel? May it not rather say it hath a good one, if a faithful and wise General, which hath no other soldiers but that regiment, become a Colonel to it?  
2. I suppose yourselves dare not assert that the Church of jerusalem was then an incomplete Church, and yet you account every Church wanting officers to be an incomplete Church.  
3. If officers be not essential to a visible Church properly so called, than neither authoritative preaching the Word, dispensation of Sacraments and discipline are not essential to such a Church, or they are in the hand of Church-members.  
4. Concerning the unchurching of a people by the death of an officer: 

1. You say Pos. 2. that 7 or 8 may make a Church; What if 4 or 5 of these dye and leave but two or three? What if the men die and leave the women? These that are best make not a Church.  
2. The Pastor may die, and yet the Church not dissolved at his death, they may have other officers if they have none at present, but the shepherd being smitton, the sheep are scattered, yet they may have ere long: In an elective Kingdom. if the King die, the Kingdom is actually dissolved till another King be set up.  
3. If all the officers of a Church do die, this doth not so un church it, as to deprive them of God's love, nor divorce them from God, or from the ordinances in other Congregations, but only so that for the present they are uncapable of the Sacraments and other Church-ordinances amongst themselves till others be set over them, and this you must needs acknowledge.    
5. Acts 20.28. Phil. 1.1. will give no certain satisfaction, for 

1. It is granted that the name Church may be given to officers or to people as distinguished from one another, as also you acknowledge, that the word Covenant is sometimes taken for God's part to man, sometimes for man's part to God, but when it is properly taken it includes both.  
2. The word Church. in Acts 20. is but distinguished only from Elders, not from all the officers, and from feeding. not ruling Elders; for that the ruling Elders are said to be made Bishops by the holy Ghost is not probable.  
3. Phil. 1.1. will prove that there were Saints in Philippi distinct from Bishops and Deacons but not that they were a Church without them, much less that they were a Church properly so called. Lastly, If you can show by Scripture that any company of people without officers did or ought to exercise Church-power, or that they might receive in, or cast out members our of the Church, it shall suffice, we will not contend about names, nor will the name of the Church avail, if this power cannot be proved by Scripture.       

CHAP. XVI. Of Election of Ministers and other officers.  
Sect. 1. Reply p. 47. THe Position saith not that a particular Congregation hath full and free power without seeking the help of advice and direction of a Synod, Classis or Presbytery, but without the authoritative help thereof.  
Rejoin. 

1. Then you allow both that there should be Synods, Classes and Presbyteries, and that they should be advised with about election; prove you that any Congregation did ask or seek the direction or advice of any Synod, Classis or Presbytery in election of officers (which you press as a duty and holy ordinance) and I will show you that they used authoritative help of a Synod, Classis, etc.  
2. I approve your approbation of Mr Cottons modesty in not taking on him hastily to censure the many notable precedents of ancient and latter Synods which have put forth the acts of power in ordination etc. Which Author though he speak not expressly of election, yet if acts of power may be put forth in another Congregation in one thing, they may be put out in another.  
3. When I say, we hold it a privilege of the people (especially if they proceed wisely and piously) to elect their officers. 1. You vainly ask, Reply, p. 47. What people? Is it a people-priviledg or a Church-previledg to choose Ecclesiastical officers? R. You are too willing to contend, Scripture warrants me to call un-officed men, Church-members or others, by the name of people Heb. 7.5. and yourselves p. 59 yea in the last line of this very page use the same word in the same sense which you quarrel at: that a Church, viz. a company of people knit together by express public covenant or agreement hath the only power of choosing officers, I put you to prove.  
4. You ask, What if they do not proceed wisely and piously, is their privilege lost? Would it then be no injury to intrude any officer on them? Is the privilege of a Church-officer or Master of a family lost, if he use it not wisely and piously? Must they not be directed and exhorted to use it rightly, and the privilege remain still with him, we have Junius of our manned.    
Rejoin. 

Then I conceive the Presbyters ought to keep the charge of the Lord, and not to ordain hastily, though the people should elect suddenly, 1 Tim. 5.22. Lest they should be partakers of other men's sins, viz. of that unwise and ungodly Election.  
2. A master of a family may rule his house so unwisely and impiously that his privilege of Governing it, yea his liberty and his life may by the Magistrate be taken away from him; A Church officer (your selves assert) may be censured, yea deposed for unwise and ungodly managing his trust.  
3. Yourselves hold not (I suppose) that it is the privilege of the people to have an unwise and ungodly election confirmed, but rather an injury to them.  
4. The Church of Boston in New England did choose (or would have chosen) a notorious familist to have been co-teacher with Mr C. would you have the Elders to have ordained him, or the Synod to have approved him?  
5. If you grant that whensoever a people do choose unwisely and ungodlity, the Presbytery or Synod should oppose, and refuse to ordain them, and that without such ordination they may not lawfully officiate, it is enough as to my present purpose, and this at least if not more, you seem to grant, by equalling the case of a Church mis-electing to the case of a Mr of a family, or a Church-officer mis-governing both which may lose their privilege and power by a. busing it, especially for a time till they be more wise.   Sect 2. I ingenuously confess I have always and still do in my opinion and practice propend that people should elect their Minister they being thereby engaged the more to love and obey him and his call to them made more unquestionable, yet the Scriptures you bring (though (as I conceive) as perument as any other, and your defence of them upon the matter as strong as the cause will suffer) are unsatisfactory to me. To your first text I answered, that it is likely that Assembly was not a body politic but occasional only (not part of Church-government being as yet 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 Act. 2.44. The company was not without Elders. The Apostles (if not the 70) were present, all the Churches and Elders that were at that time in the world were present, in respect whereof it may be called an acumenical council, (The Apostles being Elders of all Churches) rather then a particular Congregation. If there had been any more Elders and Churches they must have convened upon that occasion to choose an Apostle who is a Pastor of all Churches. The choice was limied by the Apostle Peter, 

1. To the persons present.  
2. To those that had accompanied the Apostles all the time that the Lord Jesus went and out amongst them, and by God the director of the lot (to whom properly the election of an Apostle doth belong) to Mathias.   You reply p. 48.1. There is a contradiction, if they were but the sounder parts of the Jewsh Church than they were not a Christian Church, and if no Christian Church, how were the Apostles Elders of it, how was it an ecumenical Council the Churches and Elders in all the world being present.  
Rejoin. I do not at all contradict myself, for 

1. To he Christian and to be the sounder members of the Jewish Church was then all one.  
2. The Apostles being members of the than jewish Church hinders not but that they might be Elders of all the Churches in the world (as Christ was a member of the Jewish Church, & yet head of the whole Church Christian or Jewish) in several respects.  
3. If you will have it to be a Christian Church (as you affirm) it was liker to a general Council than a particular Congregation.   You further reply, 

1. Is there not some mistake in point of truth? There were added to them 3000 souls (to them) to whom? To those who were yet members of the jewish Church, than these separated ones who were added were members of the jewish Church, for they came into their state to whom they added, and so they were separated a●d not separated which agrees not toy. 47. where they are all called a Church. R. Here is indeed a mist ache yea a great one too in you, for the words (to them) or which you build are not in the original but in the translation only, but of the whole matter see cap. 4. sect 3.  
2. Though they were unseparated in Act. 1. it follows not that they were unseparated Act. 2. but if the Christians had still been members of the Jewish Church yet the 3000 Christians could not be said to be added to the jewish Church (whereof they were members before their conversion to Christianity) but to the professors of Christianity. You further reply p. 49. That the company was not straituod in their liberty, but acquainted with their privileds in this matter by these Elders, that their limiting was nothing lut necessary direction, that it was but in one thing, for aught that appears ●●l that accompanied them were present and who could be so fit to be as Apostle as one of those, 1 Joh. 1.1.    
rejoinder. To that which hath been largely said to this before, I add, 

1. That a hundred and twenty were not all the believers of Jerusalem, not the major part of them, though taking in only men of note, and Disciples of the longest standing in Christ's school, even those that had accompanied with the Apostles all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out amongst them, begenning from the Baptism of John unto the day of our Saviors ascension (of whom v. 21, 22.) which were the twelve, the seventy, and some others which Christ sent to preach, as Luke 9.60. it is very probable the number of these did not exceed an hundred and twenty: And this was a different meeting from that spoken of v. 14. as is evident by the transcision. And in those days, for no impartial man which reads and considers the wonderful operations of the Sermons of John Baptist, Jesus Christ, the Apostles, and the Seventy, as in other places, so in Jerusalem, can conceive that an hundred was the total number of the believers there, or the major part of them.  
2. You tell us, p. 15. That it is less safe and warrantable to draw inferences from patterns, where there are diversity of kinds of them about the same thing: Now in this point of election there are diversities of kinds; The 12 Apostles, and the Seventy, were chosen by Christ himself, Luke 6.13. & 10.1. others appointed to preach by Christ himself, Luke 9.60. The people chose seven, whom the Apostles appointed over the business. Acts 6. Paul was chosen by God immediately, Acts 9 The Presbytery separated Paul and Barnabas by Imposition of hands, Acts 13.1, 2. and Timothy, 1 Tim. 1.14. & 1.18. The Elders of Ephesus made by the Holy Ghost, Acts 19.6. with 20.28. Lastly, in this Text they were not only limited and restrained in election, but they were limited and restrained from election of any, they were only allowed to present two (which also had they not had an extraordinary particular warrant at that time for, it had been high presumption for them to have done) and to offer them to the choice of the Lord; and the very way and means of tendering them to God's choice, was limited and restrained to lots; a course not now pactised.    
Sect. 3. Reply, p. 49. 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, v. 26. by the common suffrage of them all Mathias was numbered, etc.  
rejoined. 

1. If they were all (or (but almost all) Officers (as hath been in part proved before) the Apostles, the Seventy, and others, what will this advantage you, that by the common voice of the Officers Mathias was so numbered?  
2. You know, that they did not ordain or elect Mathias rather than Justus; and they had no more to do, when God had chosen Mathias, then to accept him, by an orderly subjection to Christ's will, as people do, or aught to do, to a Governor made by supreme Authority, and yet their acceptation of him is not an act of power, but of obedience.    
You Reply farther, p. 39 We read but of one Church and the Elders thereof present at the ordaining of Paul, Acts 13.1, 2, 3, 23. Whereupon Paul calleth himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Rejond. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 11. I doubt whether Paul calls himself and Apostle separated with reference to Acts 13. possibly it was rather with respect to the Pharisees (one of which he was) which were said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. I doubt also, whether Paul was then ordained an Apostle, for he was chosen by God, and Ananias laid hands on him that he might receive the holy Ghost, Acts 9.15.17. some years before, Gal. 1.15. and he preached, Acts 9.15, 17, 20, 28, 29. yea, he had fulfilled his ministry, Acts 11.26, & 12.25. even at Antioch, where hands were imposed on him: Therefore, I conceive, the holy Ghost minding to have Paul and Barnabas preach in other Churches, as well as they had done in Antioch, willeth the Prophets and Teachers there to let him go (for so the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may signify) and the words following import so much, that they laying their hands on them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sent them away; and Paul and Barnabas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being sent forth by the holy Ghost, went to Seleucia, Cyprus, etc. and therefore Paul is not considered as an Apostle, but as an Elder of Antioch, one of that Presbytery, which may be the reason why they are immediately before said to be in that Church, v. 1. and amongst the Presbyters thereof: And this rite of Imposition of hands, was a solems commending them to the grace of God, Act. 14.26. and as Elders they returned & gave account to the Church, which an Apostle was not bound to do. Yourselves say, p. 123. Paul and Barnabas did not now go forth by virtue of their Apostolic Commission, for so they needed not to have been separated by fasting and prayer, and imposition of the hands of the Eldership, for they had Apostolic commission long before'rt. How will you reconcile yourselves with yourselves? but if you can, and do maintain, That Paul was then ordained an Apostle, than it will infallibly follow, That the Eldership of Antioch did administer Ordination (which you grant is an authoritative act) with reference to other Congregations: As also if the One hundred and twenty did choose an Apostle (whether they were a particular Church, or the Eldership thereof) they did an act of Church-power, with reference to other Churches, if you do not consider them under the notion of being then the universal Church, or all the Officers of it.   

CAP. XVII. Of the choice of Deacons, Acts 6. And of the Elders, Acts 14.23.  
Sect. 1. TO Acts 6. I answered, For the Deacons or Overseers of the poor, though people may better discern of men's fitness and ability for that office than the ministry, and their liberty of choosing was a good means at that time to abate their discontentments, because of former neglect; yet at their election there were all the Churches and Elders in the world, and more there could not have been in any case; such necessity hath not Law. Yourselves acknowledge Synods an Ordinance of Christ, useful in sundry cases (as in case a Church being leavened with Popery, Arminianism, Antinomianism, Libertinis●s, Anabaptism, etc. should choose a Minister like themselves: If such a case had happened, they could have had no more of a Synod at that time than they had; the company, Acts I. did nominate 〈◊〉, but they that prayed, which is likely was the Apostles, did appoint them, v. 23, 24. The people chose seven, such as they were directed to choose, set them before the Apostles which did appoint them over the business, prayed and imposed hands. You Reply, p. 49. Why are Deacons and overseers for the poor made Synonima's? have We had Deacons all this while? Who ordained or imposed hands upon them according to the pattern?  
R. 

I added, Overseers for the poor to explain and limit the word Deacons, which in Scripture phrase is a general word, usually signifying and translated Ministers.  
2. That I might show that the work of the Deacon was to oversee the poor according to their institution, Acts 6.  
3. That I might (with a learned holy man before me) discover in our Churches low at ground, those Officers which are specified in Scripture, though with some defects: Interest of Engl. part 2. p. 33. who also instanceth in Overseers for the poor refined by the late Statutes, 43 Eliz 2.3 Car. 4. to be the Deacons. You further Reply p. 50. They had direction to enable them to discern aright in choosing Deacons, and by direction they 〈◊〉 be able to discern aright in choosing other Officers: A godly people or Church rightly constituted for the manner, wi●● be able to discern of wholesome and powerful Doctrine, of humane learning, they may wit ●●●●le ado be informed; upon this ground the people should choose Deacons, not other Officers, and so limit your first grant.    
rejoined. 

1. They had Apostolic direction, and all the people were f●●u of the holy Ghost, Acts 4.31. but we have not such infallible direction nor extraordinary gifts.  
2. Even a godly people or Church, which (you say) is rightly constituted, and hath good direction, cannot sometimes judge of a man's fitness for the Ministry: The Church of Boston in New England would have chosen Mr. Wheelright a Familist to have been co Teacher wish Mr. Cotton: The Brownists, Anabaptists, Familists, would be esteemed a godly people and rightly constituted (especially those which being first Independents do afterwards turn such) yet they usually choose a Pastor or Teacher of their own Way, and the manifold Blasphemous, Hrretical, Schismatical Doctrines of these Times, especially amongst those which are for Indepency doth flow from this fountain, and their Ministers, if they will not lead, or at least follow them into those giddy Opinions, are despised, so unable are some Congregations, which in your sense are rightly constituted and Well directed to discern Shepherds from Wolves. So the Churches of Galatia counted Paul an enemy, and the Church of Co●inth was like liar sometimes to entertain a false then a true Teacher.  
3. However you talk of direction, or of information, you hold, That the Election of a particular Congregation, whether she have direction, or no, will take it, or no, is valid, and cannot be frustrated but by herself,  
4. You deal not fairly; For   

1. you untwine those passages which I twisted together, placing the strength in all of them joynely, and not in any one singly, quae non prosent singula juncta juvant, that you may break them better when you have sundered them.  
2. You are too forward in making inferences for me from every of them, which I would but make from all of them, jointly considered.  
3. I desire you to express, whether your conscience do not tell you, That what I have said is 〈◊〉 most certain truth, Tha● people may better discern men's fitness and ability for oversight of the poor, then for the Ministry, and whether yourselves judge the cases alike: Do you count it necessary to have the advice of other Churches in the one, as in the other; or that the help of God should be so solemnly craved in the one, as in the other.    
Sect. 2. Reply, p. 50. Then by your speech the liberty of choosing Deacons was granted to them of courtesy; Doth any thing appear to make this a Reason that this liberty was? would not they have been as well pleased if the Apostles had done it? all magnified the Apostles: would the Apostles nourish a sinful 〈◊〉 of discontent in the people, by giving them that prividedge which belonged not to them? these are dangerous glosses.  
rejoined. 

1. That which you conceive so absurd in me, yourselves say in effect, p. 96. It was suitable to the holy and self denying frame of the Apostles Spirit, jure suo cedere, to remit something of his own right— And the Apostles concurrence with the Church (you mean the Church's concurrence with the Apostle) seems to make more for the Church's peace, who are now more likely to subscribe to the equity of those proceed of which themselves have the cognizance, then if it were carried by a transcondent and superior motion of Apostolic power: That you speak of Excommunication, and may not I speak the same of Election of Deacons, which if the Apostles (with whose managing of the contributions the Grecians were displeased) should have nominaeted, the Grecians might still have suspected some fraud or partiality; and therefore they might allow the people to nominate some whom they might appoint over the business, as they were ever careful to avoid suspicion of wronging any this way, which made them for satisfaction of such as contributed to the poor Saints at Jerusalem, to desire them to approve some man to carry it, 1 Cor. 16.3.2 Cor. 8. 19.20. That the Apostles did somewhat condescend to the multititude— and that there was a peculiar reason for it, especically in that tenderness of the Church, and to put off from themselves all sinister suspicion, is asserted also by Bucerus, diss. de gub. Ecclesiae apud Apoll. p. 104.  
2. You much wrong yourselves and your Reader, in calling that assertion of mine (which you cannot deny to be true and pertitent) a dangerons gloss.    
You add, p. 50. Your meaning (in saying there were all the Churches and Elders in the world) is, there was but one Church and the Elders thereof, at the time, in the world: 'Tis true, the Apostles and Members were there, for these elected, and the Apostles directed; But did they interpose their authority in election! Did they take it out of the brethren's bands? Did they not put it into their b●●ds, in commanding them to look out seven men?  
rejoined. If you had faithfully transcribed all my foresaid answer, it might have prevented these exceptions; for, 

1. That if they had been the strictest Presbyterians in the world, they could have had Elders of no more Churches present then there was.  
2. The people did not set them before the Apostles, that the Apostles might give direction, but that the Apostles might ordain them, which yourselves yield to be an authoritative act.  
3. Though the people did nominate and propound some persons which they had looked out according to the direction, yet those so nominated were not Officers by their election, before the Apostles approved them, prayed and imposed hands on them; for the Text expressly saith, That the Apostles (it saith not, that the people) did appoint them over the business; therefore it was but clectio oblata & preparatoria, not perfecta, these seven had not been Officers, had they not been appointed by the Apostles, nor were the Apostles any way bound to approve whomsoever they should have chosen.  
4. Yourselves do not, dare not assert, That the people did do any authoritative act; for you elsewhere expressly yield; That the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Authority doth not hang at their girdle; and if that be true, than all the authority which was interposed in that Election, was by the Officers, and not my by the people.  
5. Did not the Apostles interpose their authority when they prescribed the number of seven, and neither more nor less, Acts 6.3. had it not been a sin against authority, if they would not have chosen so many, or twice, thrice as many?  
6. The authority of Synods by way of Inrisdiction, b●●h been proved Cap. 8.    
Sect. 3. To Acts 14.23. I answered, Paul and Barnabas ordained Elders by suffrages given by lifting up or stretching out of hands (for so the Greak word usually signifies, though not always, Acts 10.41.) but that the pe●ple did ordain Eiders by Election without the Aposiles, it saith not; bu●●●ther the contrary (viz.) that they stayed from Election and Ordination of Elders till the Apostles came to advise and assist therein: The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies rather to give, then to gather suffrages: As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth imply the Election of more Churches than one, and year imports 〈◊〉. Election of ●o more Churches than those there spoken of S. th● p●ra●e Paul and barnabas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 d●●h not imply that any Church or other persons, besides Paul and Barnahas, did elect there presbyters. To this you Reply, p. 51. We do not affirm, That the coopie did it without the Apostles, the Aposiles guided them.  
rejoined. But do you not affirm, That they might have done it with the Apostles? The Position speaks of a Congregation without Officers that she hath full and free power to elect them, yea, though she hath no Officer to guide or assist.  
You add p 51. Concerning their staying from Election and Ordination, we read not of it, their advising we grant; what other assitance the Apostles afforded, we understand not, unless they led the people by their own suffrage, and so they night 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 with out the peoples, seems unreasonable: When hath it been known that two persons alone in the presence of many others, have gone to voting by lifting up of hands? the one must say to the other, If thou be for such a man to be an Elder in this Church, left up thy hand: a most ridiculous course, one man to gather, and another to give; they two might better have gone apart and agreed. for two persons can and nothing by vote, if they be contrary one to another.  
rejoined. 

1. You do read of Churches which were (as yourselves hold) without Officers till the Apostles came; and you read not that any Church without Officer did elect or ordain their first Officer; what call you this, if it be not a staying from Election and Ordination till the Apostles came?  
2. As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not always signify suffrages (as would have appeared to the Reader of your Book, had you fully transcribed my Parenthesis) so there was no necessity I should grant that it doth so signify there; for as God who is but One in the forenamed place, is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so Paul and Barnabas being Two, may in this place be said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without absurdity: Stephanus in bis Treasure of the Greek tongue, upon the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith, That when it governs an Accusative case (as in this place) it signifieth not to give suffrage, but to ordain, create, elect. The Text doth manifestly restrain it to Paul and Barnabas (as well as the other Text doth restrain the choosing of the brother to the Churches there spoken of) for the substantive of this participle is Paul and Barnabas, not the people. But if you can show that the word is taken in any good Writer for gathering suffrages, or taking the consent of others (which I believe you cannot) than I will grant that they did lead the people by their suffrage: but if it signifies only choosing, or ordaining, or giving their own voices, they might do that as well by stretching out their hands (which with Ecclesiastical Writers imports as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to lay on hands) as by lifting up of hands; for I read it disjunctively, though you by altering my word [Or] into the word [And] do read it copulatively; and then, what is here to note, That the people did concur with Paul and Barnabas in that action; yea, That that action was whelly the people's, and that Paul and Barnabas. did but direct them in it, or at most lead them by their suffrage.  
3. Those passages, If thou be for such a man to be an Elder, hold up thy hand (which, you say, was a ridiculous course for Paul and Barnabas) were not (I easily believe) used by them, nor by any Primitive Church, either when Officers or Members were admitted; for who hath read or doth believe, That the One hundred and twenty did lift up their hands, when each of the Three thousand were added; or that when Matchias as seven Deacons were chosen, they lift up their hands (though I have read of such a practice amongst the Heathens?) if you think they did, show when, and where they did it. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not only in Scripture, Acts 10.41. but in Ecclesiastical Writers, is used where the suffrage of the people is not intended, nor included, but (it may be) professedly excluded. Lastly, bethink yourselves, if these Elders were made by the holding up of the hands of the people, and this be the sense of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, than the sense of it cannot be, that they were made by the Imposition of hands of Paul and Barnabas; for that one and the same word should at once both signify the lifting up of the people's hands, or the voting of the people, and the stretching out of Paul of Barnabas hands, or their imposing hands in Ordination, is no whit probable.     

CHAP. XVIII. Of Ordinination of Elders by non-Elders.  
Sect. 1. TO your proof from Num, 8.9, 10. That a Congregation wanting Officers may ordain, I answered, That Congregation had Officers, Aaron the High Priest, and many other Priests, Num. 3.4. You Reply, p 52. Those Officers could not lay their hands upon them, for a special Reason, viz. The Levites were given to God, and they were given to Aaron and his sons, to God's service, and therefore they must be preson●e●, not by Aaron and his sons; but before them, Num. 8.13. Laying on of hands was the more of those that offered and gave them, not of those that must receive them, Num 3. 6●. & 8.13. with 18.2.  
rejoined. 

Your Argument is this, They for whose service Officers are gives, must re●eive them, but not ordain them; which if you would prove (as you 〈◊〉 not) it would make as much or more against Ordination by the jewish Church, as by Aaron and his sons, for the Levites were given for the service of the Congregation, Num. 16.8. ye●, and Aaron too. You say, p. 54. That Officers us given for the service of the Church, and that the service of the Ministry is 〈◊〉 service of the Church; will you hence conclude the Church must receive then, therefore she must not ordain them?  
2. The seven in Acts 6. were presented, not by, but before the Apostles; will you hence infer, That there was a special reason why the Apostles should not have ordained them, but the people.  
3. It this were a special reason, & a good one too, why Aaron and his sons might not ordain them, yet they had other Ecclesiastical Officers, Exod. 19.22. See Aynsworth is locum, even the firstborn (as Son the firstborn of Noah by privilege, if not by birth, is judged to be Melchizedek the Priest) in whose place the Levites came; and was there a special reason also why they might not put their work upon the Levits by ordaining them, as Moses did on Joshuah his successor, Deu. 34.9. and the Apostles on the Deacons which succeeded them in part of their charge, Acts 6? I pray you show, if you can, some special good reason for it. You farther say, Will it not hold a majore from the greater, if in the Old Testament the people did ordain in the presence of Officers, than they may in the New much non in the want of Officers?    
rejoined. 

I believe you dare not say that it will hold.  
2. If it would bold, ye you cannot show that the people did ordain.  
3. Every particular Congregation runs not parallel with the whole jewish Church. The Apostle, Gal. 4.1, 2. 〈◊〉 serts, That the Jewish Church was but one child in nonage, and the universal Church (since that partition wall was trodden down) was but the same child● grown to full age, and is not multiplied and made many children (as you fancy) but only one still, though by clearer manifestations, and larger accessions, ripe● and bigger than before: Now that in the Universal visible Church there should be no Officers, is a strange supposition, not true in the time of Antichrist greatest rage and reign, Rev. 12.6, 14. As for a particular Congregation, it is but a part of the Church, as hath been showed.  
4. You know it will hold as well, yea better, if the people might in the Old-Testament ordain in the presence of Officers, than they may in the New Testament ordain in the presence of Officers; and to this purpose Mr. Noyes a N. Engl. man argueth, ●. 15.    
Sect. 2. when I say that all the children of Israel could not lay hands on the Levites, but some in stead of the rest, which were most likely to be the Elders; you reply, what Elders? eclesiastical Elders there were none but Aaron and his sons, they were therefore Civil Elders (not as Civil but) as they were the chief and Principal men, and we hold that the gravest, wisest, and prime of the congregation (in want of eclesiastical Officers) ought to do it in behalf of the rest.  
Rejoin. 1 There were other Ecclesiastical Officers beside Aaron and his sons, viz. the firstborn till the Levites came in their places as page. 54. you confess they did: See Ainsworth in Exod. 24.5. And they did ordain in the name of the rest; Aaron and his sons were not in stead of the firstborn, nor did put them out of Office, as the Levites did, and yourselves dare not deny that if there were other Elders besides Aaron and his Sons, they were more likely to ordain then any civil Elders, or other men. When I further answer, That all the congregation and all the Elders of the congregation are all one Exod 12.3. with verse 21.  
You Reply, 

1. that it doth not appear that they were all one, for when God saith, speak ye to all the congregation of Israel, he meant really that congregation should be spoken to, not the Elders only, for the ordinance was as well appertaining to the congregation as to the Elders. Moses was to speak to all the congregation but not immediately, but by the Elders, this doth not confound the congregation and the Elders, for then the Elders killing the passover, though the people had not done it, had fulfilled God's command.  
2. Though the Congregatïon and the Elders should be all one yet is the congregation and Ecclesiastical Elders all one.  
3. if they should be all one in some place, yet in Num. 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.    
rejoined. 

1. if that God meant all the Congregation of Israel should be spoken to; and that the Passover did concern them all, Yet the question is whether God bade Moses speak immediately to all the Congregation as a collective body, or meant, he that Moses should immediately speak to all the Elders only, and they should speak unto the people, If the former, then Moses sinned in that he himself spoke not immediately to all the People (which yet was impossible he should at once do) if the latter, than God calls the Elders to whom Moses immediately spoke, by the name of all the Congregation, and so we else where find, and yourselves cannot deny but that Elders in the Old Testament as distinguished from the people are sometimes called by the name of Church?  
2. Why may not the Ecclesiastical Elders be called the Congregation or Church as well as the civil? Moses here receives a command for an Ecclesiastical not a civil Ordinance, viz. the Passeover in which Ecclesiastical Elders had most to do, and therefore Moses would be sure to speak to them; but you do not express your opinion [though an unwary Reader may conceive you do] but only ask a question and make a supposition.  
3. I pray you resolve me who were the Ecclesiastical Elders in Exod 12. before Aaron and his Sons were made Priests, or dare you assert it to be your opinion [how soever you wriggle] that the Congregation had no Ecclesiastical Elders at that time when the Passeover was instituted, or that those Elders [I mean the firstborn] were put out of Office before the Levites were put in, I would think you dare not assert so groundless a thing.    
Sect. 3. I Answered that the Levites were separated to their work, and taken from amongst the Children of Israel, cleansed and offered before the Lord by Moses and Aaron respectively according to Gods express appointment v. 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 borne, v. 16.17.18. as they laid hands on sacrifices which was a special reason and peculiar to those times: if the people did ordain the Levites, they did not choose them. If this be a binding pattern, you will lose Election, while you contend for a popular Ordination.  
You Reply p. 54. It was obediential, but principally for another reason, the service of the Levites was the service of the Children of Israel, which formerly the first borne performed, therefore Israel must lay hands on them, that is put that work upon them which was theirs, for as the laying on of hands on the sacrifice did put the sins on the sacrifice: so the laying on of hands, did put the service upon the Levites, Num. 3.7. Num. 8.18.19. and herein is a parity, for the service of the ministry is the service of the Church, and the Officers perform it for the Church. Yet this reason would not have been, nor is good in the presence of Officers, had there not been a special reason, because the Officers are to transact her affairs for her. As for Election, we have examples enough in the New Testament, for such a privilege we need not fly to the old.  
Rejoin. That the service performed by the Levites was formerly performed by the first borne, That the first borne did sacrifice for Israel, I grant; The Priests did sacrifice first for their own sins, then for the sins of the people, Heb. 7.27. but that Israel did sacrifice by their Priests, or that the power or authority of sacrificing was in the Congregation, or that the Priests did sacrifice by any power they had from the Congregation is an unjustifiable opinion, The Priests were neither chosen, nor ordained, nor authorized by the people, God always did single out whom he pleased to the Priesthood. The Elders, not all the People did lay hands on the Sacrifice even when the whole Congregation had sinned, Levit. 4.14.15. It was never the service of the whole Congregation to offer sacrifice to God but of the first borne of Aaron and his Sons, no more than Saul might Sacrifice: That the service of the Ministry is performed for the Church, I grant finaliter for the good of the Church, and all good Ministers do make themselves (as Christ himself did) in this sense servants of the Church, and are willing to spend and be spent for them, acknowledging that they are for the Church and not the Church for them equally, but if you mean that the service of the Ministry is vice Ecclesiae, and by authority received from the people, or that they do the people's work when they baptise or administer the Sacrament, or when the Priest did offer Incense, or that your people may be said to baptise, administer Sacraments, preach to themselves by you their Pastor and Teacher, or Rule over themselves by their Elders, that is a phrase of speech and a tenet not warranted by the word: Ministers are in the New Testamen called the Ministers of God, of jesus Christ, of the Gospel, of the Word, of the New Testament, but not servants of the Church, of this or that Congregation.  
2. I Demand why this should be a Pattern in Ordination and not in Election, & you almost tell us you have no Examples for Ordination by people in the New Testament and therefore you fly to the Old when you say of Election you have Example enough in the New Testament to settle it on the people, you need not fly to the Old. your principal examples, have been already weighed.  
Sect 4. IF you can but produce one Instance from the New Reply p. 54. 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, and the pattern of Numb. 8 waved. rejoined. 

1. By the Words In Another Congregation. I suppose you mean not in the presence of another Congregation, but for the use and benefit of another Congregation to officiate there; yourselves say the 120 Act 1. were to be considered only as a Particular Congregation, and yet they did choose an Apostle which was Pastor of all Churches: why might they not have ordained him?  
2. Yourselves say, that the Presbytery of Antioch did Ordain Paul an Apostle; which if so, than they did ordain an Officer for other Churches, yea even for Rome, to which he Writing calls himself (with reference (you say) to that ordination) an Apostle separated Rom. 1, 1. and the truth is, they did not by this imposition of hands enable Paul and Barnabas to officiate in the Church of Antioch, for that Paul had done a Twelvemonth before, nor were they to stay there but to be sent thence.  
3. The Presbytery that Ordained Timothy was not the Presbytery of the Church of Ephesus, that Church was not founded [your self say] till Act 19 yet Timothy● exercised his function before, and Paul wisheth him not to neglect the gift (viz. to use it in the Church of Ephesus) which was given by the laying an of hands of the Presbytery (some say at Lystra.)  
4. If sundry Congregations in jerusalem were under one Presbytery, which is clearly proved Cap. 5. If there be an Vnivers all Visible Governing Church, If a Synod have authoritative power of which see cap. 8.9. than it is a clear case that Elders may have power of Ordination in several Congregations.  
5. Division of the Church into Congregations, and fixing particular Elders to them is no further of Divine Institution then order and edification did fi●st occasion, and do still require it should be so, as the whole Tribe of Levy fed all the jews in common (for aught we know) while they were together; and afterwards when the tribes of Israel came to be fixed in their several divisions, the Levitess alo were scattered and fixed amongst them, so the Apostles notwithstanding theri general commission did feed the church in common while there was but one particular Church, and afterward when Churches were multiplied, did for edifictaion and order's sake, agree upon a division of themselves, and had their several places Ordinarily to Officiate in Gal. 2.9.2 Cor 10.13.14.15.16. as soldiers and watchmen of any regiment (to which Ministers 1. Tim 2.3. Isa. 62.6. are compa'rd) have their several wards, limits, and gates, which they look to, and take care of; yet so as they all are the Soldiers and Watchmen of the whole city, and ministers may teach and Govern several congregations in common, by consent of all parties Interessed, if it shall be found most for their edification, as it is in some reformed churches at this day; for all Ministers and officers of the Church are given to the whole church for the gathering and building of it. 1. cor. 12.28. Ephes. 4.11.12. and they are to teach and rule and perform all ministrations with reference to it, and the best advantage of it. And yet (that I may prevent an usual objection) there is difference enough between Apostles and Ordinary Elders; for the Apostles were to teach and rule not only Churches and Flocks, but Pastors, and Ministers also, being men of an higher Orders 1 Cor. 12.28. Eph. 4.11, they were immediately called of God, Gal 1.1. Infallible in their Doctrine, Gal. 1.7.8, & 5.2 endowed with extraordinary gifts Act 2.1, 2, & 8.18. were enjoined ordinarily to travel abroad to plant Churches Math 28.19 they might act authoritatively any where without a call or consent, and might shake of the dust of their feet, against such Ministers, or others as did not receive them, Math. 10.14. their Commission was irrepealable, their limits were large. Gal. 2.9. one Apostle had authority over all the Churches whether he were present or absent. But a Minister is not of an higher order, nor hath power over his Fellow-Ministers, nor hath an immediate unrepealable call, is not infallible, nor in these times extraordinarily gifted, he cannot act authoritatively, either in an ordinary or occasional way, either inpreaching, administering the sacraments or the like, without the call or consent of persons Interested.  
6. You cannot show any one Elder that was ordained by those that were only of that particular congregation where he was to officiate byvertue of the said ordination.    
Sect. 5. Lastly, if it be unlawful for unofficed men to ordain, then [at least in case a congregation have no Elders] the Elders of other congregations must ordain Elders there, or else they can have no ordination without sinful surpation of Presbyterian Power: now for the unlawfulness of unofficed men's ordination of Elders; consider first what ordination is. It is the solemn setting apart of a Person to a public church-office. so it was voted in the Assembly nemine contradicente, or it is in Scripture phrase, an appointment of men over some church-business: Act: 6.3. Imposition of hands the usual and most approved ceremony of ordination, notes 1. a visible designation of persons to be in office. 2. a separation of them to God in that office or work, Act. 13.1.3. Rom. 1.1.3. a putting of that work and service upon them, as laying hands on the sacrifices, did put sin upon them. 4. A benediction of them that their labour may be to the glory of God and good of the Church. 5. a signification to them in God's name that his hand is with them in all that they do in his name and by his Authority, to guide, strengthen, and protect them. 2. Let us consider who hath the power and Authority to ordain: viz. Officres only, for first, The Apostles [which did where ever they came leave the Elders and people to the exercise of that right which belonged to them] did not leave to non-Elders the power of ordaining though it had been much easier to have writ to the churches that they should ordain their own Elders then to have come themselves [as Act. 14.23] or to have sent Timothy or Titus for that purpose, 1. Tim. 5.22. Tit. 1.5.  
2dly. There can no Instance, no not one be given in all the New Testament of any Officer upon whom an unofficed man did impose hands in ordaining him. 3. They that do ordain do put some of their work upon the person ordained; but Preaching Baptising, etc. Is it not the work of any non-officed men. 4. He that ordains blesseth him that is ordained, and without all contradiction the less is blessed of the greater, Heb. 7.7.5. Ordination [vou confess] is an Act of authority, but non-officed men have no rule or authority. Cotton Keyes p. 5.6. The two Brethren in their answer to Mr. Herle page 48. do allow that a Church wanting Elders, may request the Elders of other Churches to ordain Elders for her, and they that are so requested have a calling to come. 7. Yourselves say p. 110. It is essential that ordination be done by the right Subjectum capax of that ordinance, and allege, 1 Tim. 4.14. laying on of hands of the Presbytery, Tit. 1.5. Act. 14.23. to which I add Act. 6.2.6. & 13.1.2.1 Tim. 5.22. 2. Tim. 2.2. which texts do not only prove that Ordination is to be done by the right Subjectum capax, but also; that Elders are that Subjectum capax. 8. their being deputed by a Congregation or not deputed varies not the case, till it be made to appear that though no other non-Officer may ordain, yet the Church may lawfully depute a man, and a man so deputed may lawfully ordain. Where hath the Congregation any charter for this? Sect. 6. When I allege that you tell us that it is a main Pillar of Popery to proportion the church now to the outward policy in Israel, and that Christ's faithfulness above Moses consists in as full determination of God's worship in the New Testament, as in the old that we are as strictly tied to the Gospel Patterne, as the Jews were to the old Testament, you reply p. 55. The foundation of the Antichristian Hierarchy is laid in the proportion betwixt the jewish policy, & the policy of the christian church, yet use may be made of the Old Testament where the new is silent, do not you conclude Infants must be baptised, not because the new expressly saith so, but because you find in the old Testament that Infants were circumcised.  
Rejoin. 

1. Then the foundation of the Antichristian hierarchy and of Popular ordination is one and the same, viz. the proportion between the jewish church and the christian.  
2. Yourselves confess that the New Testament is not silent in this matter, for it shows [say you p. 110] that ordination must be done by the right subjectum capax of it, of which I spoke in the next precedent Section.  
3. The covenant of grace to which the controversy of Paedobaptism hath reference is the same in the old and new Testament, but ordination is an Act of Government and policy, and you tell us p. 86. That Christ hath not appointed the jewish Church in matters of Government to be a Pattern to Gospel Churches, but that they should be conformed to spiritual Patterns and Precepts left by Christ and his Apostles, amongst which this is not to be found, that the people may ordain.  
4. Baptism of Infants hath better ground in the new Testament than your popular ordination  
5. you say it is an Essential in government that ordination be done by the right subjectum capax, therefore that by your own confession must be directly determined. And 〈…〉 deny not yourselves to have certain knowledge of Essential, in government, and the people think, you are assured, that it is lawful for non-officied men, in case a church want Officers, to ordain. Sect. 7. When I ask why should we in ordination of Officers be guided by the old-Testament and not by the New? and why should we follow the Ordination of Levites rather than of Priests for a pattern of Ordination o● Elders? You Reply I. no hands at all were laid upon the Priests, they were anointed and consecrated 8 c. but you would not have ordination of Elders turned into consecration after the manner of Priests.    
rejoined. No I would not indeed, and therefore I would not have the Ordination either of Priests or Levites a pattern for ordination of Elders, as you may see by the last question above, why should we in etc. whereunto you give no direct answer, but Popish-Priests will be anointed using such a like argument from the anointing of the Priests as you do for popular ordination from the ordination of the Levites.  
2dly: you Reply. p. 55. what was done to the Priests was not done by any Ecclesiastical person but by Moses the chief Magistrate.  
Rejoin. 1. Surely you know that Moses though he was the chief Magistrate, was also an Ecclesiastical person. Psal. 99.6. Moses & Aaron amongst his Priests; and that he did offer sacrifice (which had he been only a civil Magistrate (as Saul) he could not have done) at the time of the consecration, Exod. 29.11.12.13. 12. at it were to show that he consecrated Aaron as a Priest, not as a Magistrate. 2ly. This puts me in mind, that I told you that the Levites were by Moses separated to the work from amongst the Children of Israel & cleansed & brought before the tabernacls of the congregation, and set before Aaron and his Sons, and Offered as an offering to the Lord; Num. 8.6, 7, 13, 14. which was more (to say nothing what Aaron did) then was done by the children of Israel towards the consecration of the Levites, and your evasion that he was a civil Magistrate will not serve your turn. 3dly your reply, the Elders of the new Testament are rather the successors of the Levites then of the Priests because there was no Hiearrchy amongst them and therefore the pattern of their ordination is rather to be followed.  
rejoined 

1. The Levites are often called Diaconi, Deacons and the Deacons seem in the Prophecies to be pointed out by Levites, and Elders by Priests Isa. 66.21. I will take of them for Priests and Levites, which (as yourselves say, p. 71.) is spoken of the New Testament.  
2. There was an Hierarchy amongst the Levites hence we read of the Princes and overseers or Bishops of the Levites, 1 Chro. 15.16, 22. 1 Chro. 9 33, 34, 2 Chron. 35.9. Nehe. 11.22. & 12.42. when you have consulted better with Scriptures (as you bid me do, and God-willing I will do in these dangerous times wherein men father their bastard opinions on God) and with Bertram de politia judaica. p. 101. You will find an Hierarchy amongst the Levites as well as amongst the Priests, and also that there is no footing for ordination by non-officers no more then for the Antichristian hierarchy.    
Sect. 8. I alleged in my Answer that there was no mention in Mar. 16.15. Mat. 28.19, 20. of the celebration of the Eucharist you Reply, p. 56. The Apostle having Commission for Baptism could not want it for the Eucharist, which sealeth the same Covenant which baptism sealeth.  
rejoined. Very true, therefore Ordination being an Act of Presbyterial power, as well as Baptism, the Apostles did not want it though it be not mentioned. I further said that preaching and baptising were first to be done to the nations, therefore they are there mentioned: you Reply. That was not the sele reason, but because they were principal works and in reference to the subject persons about which they were to be 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. rejoined. 1. You allow my reason to be good, though it be not the sole reason. 2. The reason you add is not good for the Administering of the Supper is as principal a work as Apostolical as Baptism, it seals the same Covenant (as you confess) requires as much if not more Authority might have been Administered in all the world by the Apostles as well as Baptism and so might ordination also. 3. If the Apostles might Baptism any that were not in the Church, then how could their Baptism be a seal principally of Church-Communion as you have asserted. I further urged. That the Apostles did practise Ordination and we suppose that they went not beyond their Commission Act. 6. etc. 13. & 14. And a Commission to Elders we read as well as practise, 1 Tim. 4. You reply, That the Position saith not that Ordination is within their Commission, but that there is no mention thereof when they first received their Commission and the page out of which the Position is exerted, makes mention of some works within their Commission not mentioned, viz. prayer, and Act. 6.4. is quoted for it. But indeed you are injurious to the Authors of the Answ. to 32. q. p. 71.  
rejoined. 

1. You are injurious to me to accuse me of injury to the Authors of the Answ. to 32. q.  
2 What ever their meaning be if yourselves will plainly acknowledge (what you seem to do covertly) that those words in that position will not justify Ordination by non officers I have attained my end.  
3 That passage of yours That Ordination is nothing else but the accomplishment of Election, I must take notice of it here, it may be I shall not meet with it elsewhere, and in direct opposition of it, I say, That Ordination is more than the accomplishment of Election, yea it is of more moment than election; for, 1. laying on of hands (not lifting up of hands (as you speak) is reckoned amongst the Principles, Heb. ●. 3.2 The charge is more express that Ordination rather than election should not be hastily and suddenly done. ● The description of persons fit for Office is much more large in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, which were to ordain, then in any or all the Epistles written to the Churches to whom Election is conceived to belong.  
4. The Apostles by Ordination rather than the people by Election are said Act. 6. to uppoint the 7 over the business.  
5. Fasting and Prayer was specially with reference to the ordination of the seven, rather than to the Election Act. 6.    
Sect. 9 Ordination by the Prelates (notwithstanding what is said of Hierarchical, and Prelatical men) is more lawful and valid than ordination by non-officers; for the Prelates were Preshyters, and so more enabled by the word to ordain then any non-Presbyters. Prelacy though an humane Institution did no more annihilate their being Presbyters than Pharrisaism did the Jewish Priesthood, and they did ordain as Presbyters, for Bishops and Presbyters are but made one order by the very Papists, which also judge, that if a Deacon should be made Bishop par saltum, he hath no power to ordain Presbyters; and although the Prelates partly through their own usurpation, partly through the sloth or Pusillanimity of the Presbyters, partly by law and cannon were invested with too much power; yet they did not ordain Presbyters without the assistance of other Elders, and their ordination comes nearer to the Scripture-way of ordination by the Presbytery, than ordination by non-Elders (especially by one) can do; and is by the Scripture-rules, by the present Parliament, as formerly also by the reformed Churches and godly non-conformists, (notwithstanding their opposition to Prelacy) judged valid, and not to be changed for any popular ordination. When the Church was in the wilderness, when Antichrist most reigned and raged; God did preserve some foundamental Doctrines, and the essence of Baptism and Ministry; and they (that is her Pastors) did feed her there, Rev. 12.6, 14. before there was any Popular ordination. If you deny these things show the contrary of them.   

CHAP. XIX. Of the Church's power to Censure her officers from, Col. 4.17.  
Sect. 1. When I allege that the Church of Coloss had other Elders besides Archippus, You reply p. 58. 

1. What officers there were therein, and with that Church appears not.  
2. Though they had officers, yet the command is directed to the Church without express consideration of any officers amongst them, and the brethren are not excluded from joining with the officers in that which is commanded, Col. 4.17.    
Rejoin. 

1. You dare not say there was no ruling nor preaching Elders, besides Archippus though you seem to argue that there was not, It may be Philemon, to whom Paul writes as to a fellow labourer, was there, seeing Onesimus his servant is said to be one of the Colossians, Col. 4.9. Epaphras was also an officer, though absent, v. 12. If they had no officers with them but Archippus (which is not credible) yet Tychicus a Minister, and Onesimus might from Paul join with the Church in that admonition.  
2. I might as well say, it doth not appear that Archippus was of the Church of Coloss, for the Apostle seems to have done with the Colossians, only wils them to salute them in Laodicea and Nymphas, who (its like) was a Laodecean, and then to cause this Epistle to be read in the Church of Laodicea, and read the Epistle from Laodicea, and say to Archippus, who as one writes was Bishop or Pastor of Laodicea, and not unlikely, that a cold Church might have a cold Minister, nor unagreeable to the context. But it is as probable that Philemon and he were joint Pastors or Coloss, Phil. 1.1. Bullinger saith that Philemon was Bishop or Pastor of Coloss, and then it is probable Archippus was his partner: But if it be denied that Philemon was of Coloss, it will hardly be proved that Archippus was.  
3. If there be not express consideration of officers, yet an implicit consideration may serve the turn.  
4. That brethren in their, sphere may join with the officers is not questioned, but that the brethren of a Church distinct from Elders, have power to censure their Elders.   I deny 

1. Elders have authority, but such brethren have none, as you acknowledge, now that they which have no authority, should have power to censure such as have authority, is a strange and new tenet.  
2. The Apostle which doth all things fitly, directs Timothy about receiving accusations against Elders, but he doth not direct any brethren in that matter. Now every Apostle as also Timothy and Titus, were as it were an Eldership of the Churches extraordinarily combined in one man.  
3. When the Prophets speak by two or three the other Prophets, not the body of the people were appointed to judg●●●, and in that sense as well as in any other. The Spirit of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets.  
4. The power of ordaining and making Elders is not in hands of Non-Elders; therefore jurisdiction over Elders to to censure, depose, excomunicate them is not in their hands.    
Sect. 2. I answer Paul bids Timothy fulfil his Ministry, 2. Tim. 4.5. This doth not suppose Timothy to be faulty or to be under censure, and it may be Archippus Paul's fellowlaborer was not faulty, and then this admonition was no censure and therefore it is alleged to no purpose. You Reply, p. 58. 1 Expositors do judge him faulty, as Zanchy. 2 There is a difference between, Make full proof of thy Ministry, which respects persons himself and others: And fulfil thy ministry which respects the work itself in the duties of it. 3. It is one thing when the Apostle a superior writing to a person and inferior, gives him good Council, and amongst other things enjoins him to make full proof of his ministry, and another thing when he writes to a people without any occasion, and without mingling it with other exhortations of like nature, and excites them in an abrupt manner to say to Archippus, see to the ministry of the former there are many patterns which imply not faultiness, 1 Pet. 5.1, 2, 3. Tit. 2. ult. for the latter where is there a parallel place? therefore there is a strong presumption that Archippus whom the people ordinarily must hear in silence & are now put upon it to admonish him, was not faulty. congregational way justified, p. 7. You argue thus; Paul bids Timothy fulfil his ministry, 2 Tim. 4.5. yet this doth not suppose Timothy to be faulty, and then this admonition was no censure, and thence you infer, therefore it's alleged to no purpose; it had been more tolerable if you had said therefore it may be it is alleged to no purpose.  
rejoined. 

1. My meaning is plainly this, It may be Archippus was not faulty, and then, (viz. if he was not faulty) this was no censure, and (if this was no censure) it is alleged to no purpose, These are hypothetical propositions, and are not grounded upon a possibility but upon supposal of Archippus his faultlesness, and that being supposed, they are not only tolerable but justifiable without it may be.  
2. The authority of Zanchy you do not much regard, nor any other humane authority, which is not to your mind: you know well if matters between us, should be put to the arbitrement of Commentators, they would not cast them on your side.  
3. Notwithstanding your critical difference of the Greek words, our translators conceived that fulfil or make full proof are either of them consistent with the Original, therefore they put one in the text the other in the margin.  
4. Was it not a duty for Timothy to make full proof of his Ministry as well as for Archippus to fulfil it, and if so, doth not the requiring the one of Timothy suppose a defect in duty as well as requiring the other of Archippus?  
5. As for the abruptness of the speech, nothing is more usual in the end of Paul's Epistles then abrupt speeches.  
6 grant they do amount to as much (as your selus reckon them to) viz. a strong presumption that Archippus was faulty, that is but as if you should say, There is strong presumption, that the Church is commanded to censure him, that is there is but weak proof.  
7. Strong presumption cannot carry away the cause, for there are strong presumptions on the other hand, 

1. That Paul inscribes an Epistle to Philemon and him, at or about the same time, Isaacson Chron. and doth not tax Archippus at all.  
2. That in that Epistle he calls him his fellow-soldier, a very honourable Epithet.  
3. If these words were then understood to imply faultiness then this Epistle being read in the Churches of Coloss and Laodicea would shame Archippus publicly before he had (for aught we know) any private admonition, these considerations with many others may weigh down your strong presumption, of the contrary.      
Sect. 3 I answered that admonition doth not always suppose authority, for this may be an act of charity a well as of authority? Paul might admonish Peter, and one brother another of the same Church, though Paul had no authority over Peter, nor fellow-members one over another. Gal. 2.11. Math. 18.15, 16. You Reply p. 59 Church-admonition is some degree of censure, for it is a leading step to an higher censure, till it come at last to excommunication; call it what you will censure it is, and that is all the Position doth assert.  
R. 

1. The Position doth assert that the Church doth not only admonish by way of charity, but that she hath power to censure doth admonition imply power? can you say properly that Paul had power to censure Peter, because he did admonish him, or that a woman hath power to censure a Church-member, yea a Church-officer; because upon occasion she may tell him his fault between him and her, and yet this may be a leading step till at last in come to excommunication?  
2. I would you had expressed whether in your opinion, this admonition did suppose authority in the people or no? if you say that the people have no authority to admonish their Pastors, you as I conceive wave the position:  
3. When one of your Churches doth admonish another, this is Church-admonition; and is (you say) a leading step to an higher censure, viz. Non-communion, yet I suppose you will not say, one Church hath power to censure another.   I further answered. That Private members cannot censure judicially or un-Church the Congregation though they be bidden plead with their mother plead. Hos. 2.2. You Reply. If they may plead, than they may withdraw from the Congregation off from their officers, when they will not be reclaimed, Which though it be not a judicial and positive censure, yet must be granted to be negative,  
Rejoin. 

1. The consequence is naught, a wife may plead with her husband in many cases (and a child with his parent) in which, she may not withdraw from them.  
2. The question is, whether we may conclude, that they that are bidden plead, have power to censure the Church judicially you intimate, that we may not so conclude.  
3. They might plead with the Church before Christ (I grant the text bears it) but that then they might withdraw not only from her corruptions, but from her Communion; and that into a distinct Church (as the manner of some now is) you cannot prove:  
4. If pleading do by consequence prove withdrawing, yet sure it doth not prove that they should withdraw from the Church before they plead with her, but that they should first plead with her, and if she will not be healed withdraw from her.  
5. You might have done well to have explained and proved by Scripture or sound reason, that there is an unjudicial censure as well as a judicial, a negative censure as well as a positive, and that they which may only censure negatively and judicially may be said (as it is in the Position) to have power to censure, otherwise the Reader happily may think these distinctions were but invented to help in a strait.  
6. You hold that women may withraw (and indeed they having learned of their great grandmother are too apt to do it & to persuade their husbands also) and have women poof the keys? Or is this any key at all? Or do you mean that the Church's admonition of Archippus doth prove only a negative unjudicial censure, such as private men may have one toward other, yea toward the Church, or a positive and judicial censure, if you hold the former than we differ less, if the latter, more.    
Sect. 4. I answered the coloss: were as well to cause that Epistle to be read in the Church of Laodicea, as to say to Archippus, yea the word [cause] seems more authoritative than say ye, yet our brethren hold not that one Church hath not power over another Church; if it had been said of Archippus Cause Archipyus and say to Laodicea you could have made notable use of it. You reply p. 59 [Cause] in the original is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not command ye, but work ye, effect ye, endeavour ye, that it be read and so interpreted, it is not so authoritative as say ye, for say ye take heed seem more imparative: The Greek word translated Cause imports no more than endeavour ye.  
R. 

1. You tol us p. 99 there is a the fold causing by way of authority or by way of moral suasion, this later, say you, the Apostle speaks of here, but if it had been said cause Archippus, some would have told us that causing by way of authority is here meant, and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to make or cause a thing to be done, and that there is no classic Greek writer in which a man is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 any thing which he doth only endeavour and not accomplish.  
2. You say, say ye etc. seems more imperative then make ye or cause eye who ever said so? thought so (if yourselves do) you do not show us that these is a twofold saying, one authoritative and the other swasive as you say there is a twofold causing, nor do you show us any place of Scripture where saying is taken for authoritative saying, and yet if you did it were not good reason a genre ad sp●ci●m affirmative, no more than if a man should say, causing is sometimes by way of authorits therefore it is so here.  
3. The word say ye may be translated tell ye to Archippus as well as Math. 18.17. (which is the very same word) tell the Church, or that place in Matthew may be translated say ye to the Church as well as this say ye to Archippus, as you being acquainted with the Greek tongue know well enough; now if both of these places had been translated say or tell they would not have sounded so much for your purposes: I conclude therefore there is as much or more force in these words to prove the Collossians power to cause an Epistle to be read in another Church, as to say Archippus; but I maintain not that they had of themselves power in either.    
Sect. 5. I concluded the Church cannot excommunicate their whole Presbytery no more than the Presbytery excommunicate the whole Church; the Church hath not received from Christ an office of rule without her officers, Cotton Keyes. You reply p. 60. This withdrawing is a negative excommunication which is some kind of censure though not so authoritative as the positive.  
Rejoin. 

1. I observe that this negative censure, is now swelled up to a negative excommunication.  
2. That it is grown up to be authoritative, though not so authoritative as the Positive.  
3. You deny not but that in case of Apostasy, scandal, obstinacy of the Church? the Elders as Mr. Cotton saith, may denounce the judgements of God against the Church, and withdraw from it; and therefore we may invert the Position and say. The officers have power to censure the whole Church if they see just occasion and prove it, because they may withdraw.  
4. A man by the law of nature, may withdraw from his crud father, or Master, (or a wife from her husband that seeks to kill her) for the safety of their lives, and men (and women also) ought to forsake a Church in the Communion of which they cannot be saved, but this is not an authoritative but a natural act, yet sure women have no power over their husbands, over their Churches and Ministers.  
5. Is not negative excommunication of the officers by the Church tantamount with Positive excommunication (saving the pronouncing of the sentence) which is not much material if the thing if self be effectually done without it.     

CHAP. XX. Of Tithes, and settled Maintenance.  
Sect. 1. Repl. p. 61. YOu discover your apprehensions thus. 1. That Tithes are Jewish maintenance.  
rejoined. 

1. What you or I apprehend is not material, but what we prove.  
2. What mean your by Jewish? That they were ceremonial, and abrogated by Christ. I believe you mean so; but than you should show wherein the Ceremony did consist? where, what is the analogical resemblance of things prefigured? wherein consists the signification of them? All ceremonies properly Levitical were either of mystical signification, or typical of something belonging to Christ and his kingdom.  
3. If by Jewish you mean, used among the Jews, I grant it, (and that they were used amongst the Heathens also; Amsworth on Gen. 14.20.) but this doth not make them unlawful, yourselves being judges; for, pag. 67. you labour to prove by Chemnitius, and by comparing Joh. 8.20. with Mar. 12.61. That the Doctors in Christ's time were maintained by contribution, and that the treasury of the Temple (which sure was no Gospel-ordinance) was both to maintain the Doctors and the poor, and thence you will gather the lawfulness of maintaining Ministers out of the Church's stock.   Are Contributions lawful, because they are Jewish; and Tithes unlawful, because they are Jewish? If the manner of maintenance in Christ's time be so much looked at, than I dare say, yea I did say in my Answer though you left it out, and now justify that you might better allege Mat. 23.23. for manner of maintenance; for there Christ expressly saith of Tithes, yea of the smallest tithes of mint, annyse and cummin, These things ye ought to have done, etc. Which if it had been spoken concerning Sabbath-day contributions, or maintenance out of the Treasure of the Temple, or Church-flock, that it ought to be done, or not to be left undone; you would not have fetched such a compass for proving the Divine institution of such maintenance; nor have urged Chemnitius his testimony, if you had so plain a one of Christ.  
Sect. 2. Reply, p. 61. Because Tithes were settled on the Levites upon consideration of having no inheritance amongst their brethren.  
rejoined. 1. It is evident that Tithes were not settled on the Levites as Levites, nor proper to the levitical officers. Paul to the Hebrews, c. 7. v. 5, 6, 8. expressly affirmeth that Melchizedek (after whose order Christ the greatest Priest was, Heb. 5.6. (and not of the order of Aaron) and who represented Christ) did receive Tithes, and by his receiving of tithes proves him to be a more excellent and eternal Priest; for in the Law men that die receive tithes, but Melehisedeck received tithes, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth. Paul saith not, the Priests and Levites receive tithes, but Melchisedeck (of whose order Christ was) receiveth none: This would have been an argument for your purpose; but he in effect saith plainly, that the payment of tithes was not proper to the Levitical Priesthood, but paid also to Melchisedeck the type of Christ: for the Apostles purpose was not only, nor chief to advance 0208 0108 V 3 Melchizedecks, but Christ's Priestheod above Aaron's, yea 0208 0108 V above Melchizedeck's, which in token of his greatness received tithes, Heb. 7.4. and was not made after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life, and of whom it is witnessed that he liveth, v. 8. as Christ also, Rev. 1.18. Secondly, you do dictate, not prove, that Tithes were settled upon the Levites upon consideration of having no inheritance amongst their brethren; for the contrary is evident, viz. They had no inheritance amongst their brethren, upon consideration that they had Tithes, etc. because God had given them Tithes, First-fruits, etc. and the Lord was their inheritance, therefore he said unto them that among the children of Israel they should have no inheritance, Num. 18.24. Deut. 18.1, 2. and yet you think men should believe it without any pretence of proof. Thirdly, in the margin you say, see John Selden of Tithes, but neither cite book, chapter, nor page, nor do you by any letter direct us for what part of this Section you cite him, whether for this or some other particular in it, nor have I his book; I did once see it, but was neither then, nor am now any further versed in this controversy than your book doth occasion me to be: And yet I suppose Mr. Selden, being a learned man, doth not hold Tithes unlawful; why then do you so abuse him to set him so in the margin of such a section, in which (as you tell us in your last) you prove Tithes unlawful by the Word of God, as though his book did bear witness to such an untruth? but as I remember, he counts it a sin against God's law, Prov. 20.25. to alien Tithes. Consult you again with him. I will credit your report of his opinion, if you do distinctly and deliberately relate it. Fourthly, It must not be understood that the Levites had no inheritance at all, for the contrary appears, they had forty eight cities and suburbs, which were 2000 cubits from the wall on every side, Numb. 35.2. Leu. 25.32, 33, 34. though Judaea (as oft times upon other occasions you assert) was but a small country. Jeremy a Priest's son buys a field of his uncle as next a ki● Jer. 32.7, 9 Barnabas a Levite having land, sold it, Act. 4.36. Yea for aught you know (except you have studied more against tithes, than I for them) the cities of the Levites (though a small tribe) might equal, yea excel the portion of any tribe in Israel, besides their tithes and other their great revenues: therefore you cannot say that they had no inheritance at all, though they had none such as other tribes had, so separate from the rest, so bounded, so entire together, but they had their inheritance by parts and pieces, as Jacob had prophesied, and God in wisdom disposed, both that the land should be but divided into twelve parts, and the children of Joseph should be two Tribes, Josh. 14.4. and that the Levites should for the better instruction of the people be scattered amongst the tribes, and have their maintenance also where they lived.  
Sect. 3. Reply, p. 61. Tithes were appointed together with Offerings, Mat. 3.8.  
rejoined. 

1. That text saith that they were taken away together, God was rob of them both at once: but that they were appointed together, it saith not.  
2. The text mentions them together; yet this (if you have no better argument) proves not that they were of the same nature. Fornication, eating of blood and things strangled, prayer ever the sick and a●●●inting them with ●yle, are not of the same nature, nor alike commanded or forbidden, and yet the first two are mentioned together, Act. 15.29. and the other two, Jam. 5.14.  
3. The text implies they were at the same time due, and required of God, but not that they both were appointed at the same time and upon the same grounds.  
4. How do you make it appear that all the Offerings there mentioned were ceremonial, and now unlawful? Is it ceremonial to offer to the Church-stock or treasury, because the Jews did so? Yourselves, for the credit of such offerings, say they were used amongst the Jews; and I dare say, you hold that it is lawful upon good occasion to keep a Day in the month or year, a Fast or a Feast, though we know the Jews did keep fasts or feasts on the same day.    
Sect. 4. Reply, p. 61. Tithes 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.  
rejoined. Here is another mistake. The text saith not that tithes were paid to the Priests, but to the Priest the son of Aaron, the successor of Aaron in the High-Priests office; as the very citation in the margin led me to Num. 18.27, 28. which faith, that the tenth of the Levites (amongst whom the Priests, as to that, were comprehended) was to be given as the Lords heave-offering to Aaron the Priest. But tithes were paid by Abraham, Gen. 14. vowed by Jacob, Gen. 38.22. Asserted by Paul, not to be proper to the levitical Priesthood, Heb. 7, are not (that we know) of any typical or mystical signification, as the Highpriest (we know) was; therefore they are not of the same nature. If tithes to the Highpriest be now unlawful, the reason is because there is no Highpriest now; Christ hath made that office void, it was typical and plainly ceremonial, and not because Tithes are unlawful. And these, or some of these, are the answers we give to them that tell us we might as well keep the Sabbath of the 7. year, as of the 7. day.  
Sect. 5. You reply, p. 61. That you see no ground for settled stinted maintenance, to last from year to year, if it must arise from the Church, and not come from the State, as in some countries it doth: because, if the Church must maintain the 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.  
rejoined. 

But what if Tithes were ceremonial and Jewish? is set maintenance ceremonial also? Of what mystical or typical signification is that? or is it grounded on equity and moral reason? Doth not the Scripture, Ezek. 45.1.5. allude to a certain and settled maintenance that should be given to the Ministry? and in comparing it with servants hire and wages, 1 Tim. 5.18. and to a Soldiers pay, 1 Cor. 9.7. both which are certain.  
2. Had God more care of the maintenance of the Ministers of the Old Testament, then of the New? As the father allotting his son some portion of lands and revenues, or allowing him to be capable of certain maintenance which none can deprive him of, doth express more care of him then if he should make him uncapable of such maintenance, and assign him to his friends at large to be maintained as they thought fit.  
3. When the Minister hath set-maintenance, he knows better how to proportion his living, his alms, his expenses for the public, his provision for his children, and how to keep hospitality (as the Scripture requires he should)  
4 Tithes are not in one sense settled or stinted maintenance; for they are more or less, according as the husbandman soweth and God prospereth, as Corn is little or much, good or bad, well or ill gotten, dear or cheap; they that receive Tithes do rise and fall with them from whom they receive them.  
5. Where do you see ground in Scripture for settled and stinted maintenance to last from year to year, if it come from the State? how prove you that the State may lawfully settle such maintenance, and the Church may not? Can the State settle God's blessing to make it abide with them in an equal manner without increase or decrease, any more than the Church can?  
6. Do you see ground for set stinted maintenance for a time, as a quarter of a year, or half a year, or a year, (as you intimate you do) only (you say) you see not ground it should last from year to year: Can the blessing of God be settled and made to abide with men in an equal manner without increase or decrease, a year, or half a year, or a quarter?  
7. When maintenance is given from the State, must it not come out of the Subject's purses? (You would not have the Parliament men out of their proper purses to maintain all the Ministers in the kingdom) And out of whose purses can it so fitly come, as from those which are bound by God's law to maintain their Ministers?  
8. Do not Tithes come from the State, or from the King (which as to this is all one) Did they not voluntarily at first give them? and when some by Law did fall again into their hands at the dissolution of Abbeys, they might either give them to the Ministry, or dispose them to private persons, or possess them to the public use; the present inhabitants or countrymen having no more legal right unto them where they were assigned to the Ministry, then where they were assigned to other persons and uses; for when they bought or took their Lands, they did not think of buying or taking the Tithes, or did the sellers or setters think of setting or selling them; if they had, they would have required more money for the sale or lease.    
Sect. 6. Reply, p. 61. There is 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, and persons who are much poorer in Estate than others, but have larger Lands than they, 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, some in the increase, others 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 not belong, and they are so much the more disabled i● supporting the Ministry to which they do belong.  
rejoined. 

1. Is there not as great an inequality, when Tithes are paid to a Gentleman (possibly a Papist) as where they are paid to the Ministers? Or do you intent, that as well the Parliament-men and others should be wronged of the Tithes legally due to them, as the Ministers?  
2. Is it any inequality or unrighteousness that men should pay their debts which they are legally bound to by their own consent, because it falleth out that a poorer man may pay more than a richer? When a fifth part of the land became Pharaohs, Gen. 47.26. was it unequal or unrighteous that they which possessed much lands, should pay for the fifth part of them more to Pharaoh, than richer men that had less lands did? Is it unequal or unrighteous, that he that hath a greater quantity of ground, should pay a greater Rent or a greater chief, than a richer man that hath less?  
3. You count it lawful for the State to allow settled maintenance; how can they do it any way, but there will be some pretence of inequality or unrighteousness? If the State do allow an Independent Minister 40. l. 50. l. or 100 l. per annum out of the sequestered Tithes of a neighbouring Parish, may not the people complain of inequality and injustice, as well 〈◊〉 if they were of a Ministers own parish, and paid their tithes to him?  
4. If any inequality or unrighteousness be now or hereafter, the Parliament may from time to time rectify it.  
5. If Tithes be so burdensome (as you say they are) to the poor, what if it be possible to find some poor Church-members to pay much more to the Contributions then their tithes come to? Nor is their act merely voluntary, it is expected they should give something every Lord's day; and two pence every Lord's day, Fast and Feasting day, cannot be less than 10. s. per annum; it may be his Tithes comes not to two shillings, and he is not worth 10. or 20. l. Surely your rich ones do not keep their proportion with your poor ones, and for every ten or twenty pounds they are worth, pay two pence per diem.  
6. Conscience tells us, that every one should have his own; but conscience in sundry cases doth not determine that this or that is mine, nor must I be mine own Judge in it; even good men are partial in their own cases (as Judah and David) though just in other men's: therefore the Laws we live under must determine it.    
Sect. 7. You say in [Congregat. way justified, p. 8.]. If Christ our Lord hath appointed no such thing as stinted maintenance, than it is unfit for the Church to settle stinted maintenance.  
rejoined. 

1. Your conclusion should be, Therefore it is unlawful. A thing may be unfit, at least in opinion, and not unlawful.  
2. Hath Christ appointed that the State may settle maintenance, and forbidden it to the Church? or may the State plead exemption from Christ's appointment any more than the Church? See above, Sect. 5.    
Reply, p. 61. 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 Magistrate be a Christian or a Heathen.  
rejoined. 

1. What then? is it therefore unlawful? Maintenance from the State is not had but in peaceable times; therefore it is unlawful too? Public meeting-places for worship cannot be had but in peaceable times; are not they unlawful too? And sometimes the Church-treasury may be rob & spoiled; the free and public peaceable exercise of Religion cannot be had but in peaceable times; you will not therefore conclude that they are unlawful?  
2. For lasting; the trade of the Begging-Friars outbids your Church-stock; for the Ministers may beg, whether times be peaceable or troublesome, whether the Magistrate be a Christian or an Heathen, whether there be maintenance out of the Church stock or no.  
3. The tithes amongst the Jews were paid to the Jewish Priests in the time of Christ and his Apostles; if the Apostles had been never so desirous of them, they could not have had them: The Christians were very poor, in respect whereof, for fear of offence, the Apostles did preach freely in some places, having neither maintenance from Church nor from State, but working with their own hands. And yet you say that set maintenance from the State is not unlawful, though such maintenance neither was nor could be on foot for the first 300 years.     

CHAP. XXI. Of Minister's maintenance out of the Church-stock and Lordsday Contributions.  
Sect. 1. YOu say, p. 62. This maintenance out of the stock of the Church, we think we see most warrant for from the New Testament, & as most probable we once disputed; but neither then, nor now, are we peremptory in it. And in your last you say, That the Ministers are to be maintained by such a stock as is raised by weekly contribution; because it is not absolutely clear in the Text, at least to us, we thought fit to dispute it only as probable.  
rejoined. 

1. Then it seems the Scripture annexed to the Position, is not sufficient, pertinent, and full of power to prove it. And in this I praise your modesty.  
2. Your applying of the commendation of Jugurtha to yourselves in your last, That he did pl●rimum facere, & minimum de se loqui, is no act of your modesty.   The Independent Answerer of Mr. Prynnes Quaere's, saith, Independents are the meekest men upon earth; and you, by your own report, are men that do much, and say little. Surely few think so but yourselves.  
You say, p. 62.1. 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 Ecclesiast. p. 1954.  
rejoined. The one Text saith, The women ministered to Christ of their substance; The other faith, that Judas had the bag. But that the women's contribution was given every Lord's day, or that it was put into the public treasury; Or that Judas bag out of which Christ gave somewhat to the poor, had not Christ's proper goods in it, but the Church's stock; that Judas was a kind of Deacon or Church-officer, it saith not. 2. That Christ's maintenance was wholly out of a stock that was raised by contribution, yourselves do not assert; nor were the Apostles maintained in the work of the Ministry out of that bag, save only when they were at home as being of Christ's own family.  
Sect. 2. Reply, p. 62. We consider what was done in the Apostles times, Act. 2.45. & 4.35. there was a Stock then, but raised after an extraordinary way, and yet by free contribution; they brought their whole estates and put them into a common stock; which was but a temporary business, and not astrictive unto all times. Now out of this common stock, the Apostles and all others that had need were maintained; and the Apostles had at first the oversight of this stock.  
rejoined. 

1. They could not have any other way of Church-maintenance at that time.  
2. Yourselves acknowledge, First, that a settled maintenance may come from the State; And must it come from the State and the Church-stock too? Secondly, that that was but a temporary business, and not astrictive to all times, else it would hold that there must be a community of all things in the Church.  
3. What is this to Lordsday contributions for the Minister's maintenance, of which the Position speaks?    
Sect. 3. Reply, p. 62. You say, There were Deacons chosen, which had the oversight of the treasure of this Church; for the Apostles gave themselves to the ministry of the Word & to Prayer, Act. 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: 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 dispose as the Labourers had need, and their office was not to oversee the Poor alone.  
rejoined. 

1. That the Deacons came so into the Apostles place, that the Apostles meddled with nothing, but received their maintenance from the Deacons, or that men laid their money at the Deacons feet, it appears not in Scripture.  
2. The contrary rather appears; for not only Paul took great care of the poor divers times and in divers places; and James, Cephas, and John, (not the Deacons) did desire him to remember the poor, Gal. 2.10. but the Antiochians, Act. 11.30. sent the relief for the poor brethren which dwelled in Judaea, to the Elders, not to the Deacons. Now Agabus and other Prophets came lately thither from Jerusalem, v. 27, 28. and Barnabas and Paul that went with it, knew to whom to deliver it, yet they lay it down at the feet of the Elders (not of the Deacons) which imports that Agabus, the Prophets, Barnabas and Saul, did know that the Apostles and Elders had somewhat to do with it, at least to take for their own necessity as they did before, and not to be at the disposal of the Deacons; and if Barnabas and Saul had conceived it to be God's ordinance that the Apostles and Elders should not meddle with reception, they would have brought it to the Deacons whose office they knew well enough, nor would the Elders have received it at their shands, but have sent them to the Deacons.  
3. That the charge of the poor belongs to Pastors, is the judgement of Pareus and others, which do hold that the greater and higher office doth include in it the less and lower.  
4. By this doctrine, Pastors, if they have means of their own, ought not to receive maintenance out of the Church's stock, except they have need in the judgement of the Deacons or of the Church, as other poor Saints have.    
Sect. 4. P. 63. You tell us, That the office of the Deacons is not temporary, but perpetual. But what is this to prove Ministers maintenance by Lordsday contributions, or out of the Church-stock? Yes, say you, In the Commandment which respects the necessity of the Ministers, Gal. 6.6. the word is the same in the Greek which is in the commandment to distribute to the necessity of the Saints Rom. 12.13. Heb. 13.16. and signifies to communicate. But what then? 

1. The word communicating is a general word, and compriseth all duties whereby men do mutually help one another, Calv. on Heb. 13.16. Can there be no communicating, except the Deacons do receive it and pay it over to the Minister? except there be Lordsday contributions and a Church-stock? You know the contrary.  
2. That place in Gal. 6. (which only speaks expressly of Minister's maintenance) is understood of private, as well, yea rather than of public contribution. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of all his goods, by which is meant not only money which may be fitly brought to the Congregation, but other good things according as there is opportunity, ability, and necessity, some of which cannot be fitly brought into the Congregation.  
3. Your own Texts do declare, that the Scripture distinguisheth communicating to the necessity of the Saints, and communicating to their Ministers, and that these two are not both one; f●r than Paul might have said, Give unto the Church-treasury for public uses, for the maintenance of the Ministry and of the poor; to both which if there were a Church-stock, they might contribute in one act, but he speaks of several acts, yea kinds of contribution.    
You say further, That the word there used signifies often, Church-communion; and that the Apostles meaning may well be, that it should be upon days when the Church meets in communion. Hence it is that Deacons are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 1. Cor. 12.28. which being interpreted, may import a person that receives something for another, and it may bear receiving of a just reward for another, and so not for the poor Saints alone, but for the Labourers also. But what then? Is it your meaning, that every day the Church meets in communion, they are bound by the law of God to contribute to their Ministers, whether they be lords-days or no? 2. Is Church-communion any whit violated, if the Minister himself do receive his own maintenance from others besides the Deacon, and some other day besides the Lord's day? Yourselves confess, you would not be understood to exclude private distributing or communicating to the Ministers or Members. 3. As for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1. If it may import such a person, that doth not prove it doth so in this place. 2. The most proper signification of the Word is help or holding up a man or thing that is weak and ready to fall, and so it is taken for relief of weak poor and miserable persons, Luk. 1.54. He bathe helped his servant Israel. And the properest acceptation of a word is first to be cleaved to, unless there be (as here there is not) some convincing reason to the contrary: Now the Deacons were to help the poor and needy. 3. Beza conceiveth the Ministry of the widows is also meant, I Cor. 12.28. as well as of the Deacons. Did the widow also receive a just reward for another? And whereas you allege, that this communicating or distribution is called a Sacrifice, Heb. 13.16. and that sacrisice was wont to be brought to the door of the tabernacle, and that it comes most freely when it is brought, etc. I answer, 

1. If contribution and communication be called a sacrifice, Heb. 13.16. (as it may well be, for first, it should be freely offered; secondly, it is in stead of the sacrifices required of the Jews, which were very chargeable; thirdly, it is as pleasing to God as sacrifice) Yet that proves not that the intent of the Holy Ghost is, in calling it a sacrifice, (as you would make your Reader believe) that it should be brought to the public assemblies every Lord's day. If a man from that appellation should infer, that only Ministers should communicate or distribute, because they only might offer sacrifice; That distribution is not to be made to men, because sacrifice; were only to God; That a man must contribute morning and evening, as they did offer sacrifice; That contributions are propitiatory, as s some sacrifices were, yourselves would cry out, Non sequitur, Nonsequitur, and so do I; for you know that private distributing or communicating to Saints or Ministers is a sacrifice as well as public; so also is Prayer, Psal. 140. I. Praise, Psal. 50.23. Righteousness, Psal. 4.5.  
2. The Church may have a stock by contributions gathered on the weekday from house to house, or otherwise, or by monthly, quartetly, yearly contributions, and many other ways besides weekly contributions.  
3. The Church may have a stock by weekly contributions, and yet that stock not be for the Minister's maintenance. Surely I cannot think that yourselves do think you have solidly proved this manner of maintenance out of God's word.    
Sect. 5. Reply, p. 64. You confess that the occasion of this Institution, I Cor. 16. '. was collection for the poor Saints at Jerusalem; that there are no other Churches mentioned upon whom this institution was enjoined, but Corinth and the Churches of Galatia. Notwithstanding, if we consider several particulars of the Injunction, we may probably conjecture that be had a further scope in the commandment, than the occasion doth import. 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 were many; and that at Corinth; and there cannot be a reason rendered why all other Churches that were called to the duty, Rom. 15.26, 27. 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.  
rejoined. 

1. That there is an institution here of a Church-stock for the maintenance of Ministers, occasioned by the collection for the Saints at Jerusalem, is fancied by you, but not confirmed.  
2. You can show no Church which was not required to contribute in the said extraordinary case that was appointed to have such collections; nor can you show that all those which did contribute, (as the Churches of Macedonia, 2 Cor. 8.1. or Antioch, Act. 11.29.) did do it every Lord's day: And you may observe the Apostle faith not, So I have ordained in the Churches of Macedonia, nor So I have ordained in all Churches; but only, As I have ordained in the Churches of Galatia.  
3. You merely presume (but prove not) that there were many Churches, a great many of Churches in Galatia; Though it were as big as England, can you show any more Churches in Galatia then two, Antioch and Laodicea?  
4. The reason why we believe not that other Churches were bound to the same manner of doing, is because we read it n t. Show where we may read it, that we may believe it.    
Sect. 6. Reply, p. 65. The Apostle binds this contribution to the Lords day, in all these Churches; if he had no scope to make this an Ordinance in all the Churches, be might have pitched upon some other day. 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 ●gr● is often rendered, as Scapula observes and gives instances abundantly, etc. Why must this contribution be every Lord's day, inreference 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, they might have had the longer time allotted them, and yet have given it at once; or the richer and abler might have given it at once, and the rest at. wise, or thrice, or four times; but they must give it Lordsday by Lordsday, without missing one Lordsday: 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.  
rejoined. 

1. Amongst us, Collections for the Palatinate, for Ireland, etc. have been appointed on the Lord's day, as being the fittest day, most people meeting, the Minister might exhort and excite them to this duty; and yet you know we account it not an Ordinance in all Churches, and so it might be with that collection which might be appointed on the Lord's day, without any such scope as you pretend.  
2. The preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often rendered distributively, I grant, but not always, nor necessarily. In the first chap. in all the New Testament, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is translated in a dream, speaking of one, not many dreams.  
3. When it is taken distributively, it is not always so to be understood of every, but of sundry, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 2.46. They broke bread, not in every house, but in several houses.  
4. However you understand it, this is certain, that Paul would have no gatherings when be came, and then he intended to come shortly, 1 Cor. 4.19. even when be had passed through Macedonia, which journey he then was entering upon, 1. Cor. 16.3, 5, 6, 7. and probably there were but few lords-days, may be two or three, before the intended time of his being with them.   And we ourselves, whose people are richer, and the time more prosperous, have had for the Palatinate or some other extraordinary occasions, collections more Lords days then one in some places, to make the sum more considerable.  
Sect. 7. Reply p. 65. They are bound under this injunction, 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; 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: 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 exposition of Paul's words; he would have gatherings then to cease, Paul would not have them then to begin, lest there should be nothing in readiness when use should be made thereof.  
rejoined. Paul saith, that there be no gatherings when I come, or (if we must pedantically translate the Greek) That not when I come, than gatherings be made; he saith not, That there be no gatherings for the Saints of Jerusalem when I come, but in the general, that there be no gatherings when I come. 2. He saith not, That not only when I come, gatherings be made; nor saith he, That not when I come gatherings begin to be made. And therefore you that at first confidently and jointly said, The Greek words are against his exposition, and that I am more guilty of corupting the Text than you; do afterwards abate of your confidence, saying that I am divers (as one of you thinks) from Paul in my exposition. The Lord knoweth your thoughts, and not I.  
Sect. 8. Reply, p. 66. You say, Consider the manner of performing this act; every one must not keep it with him, but 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, 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 the Churches by an every Sabbaths contribution.  
rejoined. 

1. The words are, Let every one lay by him in store, which seem to import rather a laying up in private then in public.  
2. If it was the common treasury of Church-stock, it was only for the relief of the poor Saints of Jerusalem, not of the Officers of the Church of Corinth.  
3. Finally, if the Churches own poor do rather require weekly contribution for their relief, than the poor of other Churches; if the Belgic churches have Lords. day's contributions for their poor, if these contributions be according to Scripture, yea grounded on this Text, wherein doth this stock or treasury of the Church respect Ministers?    
Sect. 9 To prove that it doth respect Ministers, you say, pag. 66. The stock raised by selling of estates, and laying them down at the Apostles feet, respecteth the very Apostles; why then s; hold 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) He tells us, The Doctors in Christ 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 Jonn 8.20. and compare it with Mark 12.41.  
rejoined. 

1. Now at last you are welcome home, for you have been Wand'ring from the question all this while, and I have (though somewhat unwillingly) followed you with intent to fetch you home.  
2. If it be conceived that the stock raised by selling estates did respect Ministers, there is more warrant for that opinion, (though it may be though that the Apostles, quà Ministers, did then take no maintenance but quà needy, Act. 4.35.) from the Text, than there is for Minister's maintenance by Lordsday contributions from this Text.  
3. Though I rendered you reasons in my Answer, and have taken notice of your Replies in this rejoinder;   yet because you still crave more Reasons, I will give you some. 

1. The Apostle saith not any thing of gathering any Church-stock or treasury, but that which should be sent to Jerusalem, v. 3. Whom you shall approve I will send to bring your gift to Jerusalem, not making the least mention of the maintenance of the Ministry, or other necessities of the Church of Corinth.  
2. He sent this Collection to them of Jerusalem under the notion of poor Saints and Brethren, and not under the notion of Officers. quà such, though they (if poor) were also relieved by it.  
3. If the Apostle had any further scope of gathering a Church-stock for maintaining the Officers, as well as the poor of the Church of Corinth, he might plainly have expressed it, and doubtless he would, saying in this or the like manner, I have ordained in the Churches of Galatia, that not only the poor of Jerusalem, but their own Officers should be maintained by contribution; seeing the mentioning of the several uses of the Church-stock, viz. 

1. for their officers,  
2. for their own poor,  
3. for the poor of other churches and other necessities would have provoked them to a more liberal contribution, which was the main design of the Apostle.    
4. N. E. men do not generally preach or practise the maintenance of Ministers by Lordsday contributions, but (as Mr Weld saith, p. 59 Their weekly contribution is properly intended for the Poor, according to 1 Cor. 16.1. yet so, as if much be given in, some (burches do (though others do not) appoint the overplus towards the Minister's maintenance. In which words, 

1. he expresseth their opinion, that the contribution (1 Cor. 16.1.) Was properly intended for the poor.  
2. That some Churches appoint not any part of it towards their Minister's maintenance.  
3. That those that do it, do it but conditionally (if much be given in, if there be an overplus) and in a secundary way, which is not the manner of your Churches, which (or at least some of them) make it an ordinance of God.    
5. The setting up of this way of Ministers maintenance is the grand design of Heretics and Schismatics (though some godly men in the simplicity of their hearts may approve it or actin it) for some or all of these ends. 

1. That they may strengthen the hands of Cormorants, who under pretence of Reformation, and abhorring Idols, do now (as in the days of Henry the 8.) commit sacrilege, viz. That do take away to private use things deputed to holy uses, or maintenance and furtherance of God's worship, (for what is the sin of sacrilege, if this be not?) by the received custom and consent of the Churches, by donation of Princes, legacy of Testators, several Acts of Parliament and Magna Charta, and do alien them from their general end; whose sin consisting in devouring that which is holy, or devoted to the service of God and his Church, Prov. 20.5. Leu. 27.28, 30. and in abrogating the Testaments of men, Gal. 3.15. makes them worse than Ananias and Sappirah, which did only withhold part of that which they had pretended to give to the Church, though before they gave it it was in their own power; but these do take away that which neither they, nor (it may be) their ancestors did give, but others, strangers to them, and long since dead.  
2. That they may make way for their own maintenance in their several separated Congregations, as of Divine institution, whether they be tolerated or no.  
3. That they might put an imputation of covetousness and burdensomeness upon the Ministers of the Gospel (as the false teachers did upon Paul) who therefore took no maintenance at all (though he might) but wrought with his hands, that he might take off that imputation.  
4. That they might catch men to their party, because this way is for the people's profit.  
5. That they might discourage Learning.  
6. That they might set the People aloft over their Ministers.  
7. To bring the Ministers which cannot in conscience comply with their unsteady unsound people, to baseness and beggary, and that they might neither have learning, nor leisure, books nor spirits, to oppose their ungodly ways.    
6. As for Chem●itius, I have spoken before, and now add, You do not produce him to say, that the jure it aught to be so now, but only de facto, it was so then: he saith, contributions was the maintenance amongst the Jews, not that it ought to be so amongst Christians.     

CHAP. XXII. Of the burning Mountain cast into the Sea, REVEL. 8.8, 9  
Sect. 1. TO show that that is not rightly applied to settled endowments brought in to the Church, I urge, that Kings and States are called mountains, Zach 4.7. Casting of mountains into the sea implieth great commotions and troubles, Psal. 46.2. Their burning with fire signifieth their opposition and fierceness, whereby they become destroying mountains, or (as the Septuagint, whom the Penmen of the New Testament much follow) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a mountain on fire, Jer. 51.25. But I find not that settled and stinted Maintenance is in any Prophecy understood by a mountain burning with fire cast into the sea.  
You reply, p. 68 that Constantine did bring in great riches and settled endowments to the Clergy of the Church, and that this may be clearly evidenced from credible Authors.] But why do you not show this in your first or second book, and that those Authors meant not of Constantine's donation, which is justly accounted a fiction? What other settled endowments did he give to the Clergy, and to whom? and who are those credible Authors that assert it? You further reply, If Kings and States be called mountains, so is prosperity in riches and honours. Psal. 30. Thou hast made my mountain to stand strong, that is, my condition so prosperous: And sea in Scripture is the Church sometimes, or the Religion of the Church, Rev. 13.1. & 15.2. Therefore casting of a mountain into the sea, may be, bringing prosperity and casting riches and honours upon the Church; and though mountains should be in your sense for Kings, when almost Regal riches and honours were cast upon the Prelates, and the ambition of Prelates did set the world on fire, it might be called a burning mountain.  
rejoined. 

You know Kings and States are called mountains. The most learned and godly Interpreters of Prophecies, Brightman, Mede, etc. tell us so; you need not to If it.  
2. The place Psal. 30.7. may be understood of David's Kingdom in which God had settled him; it was a Psalm at the dedication of his house, v. 1.  
3. Do you hold indeed, that Kings may not cast any riches and honour upon the Church? how are Kings nursing fathers and mothers, if the Church be as poor and beggarly as when they were enemies? how can the Kings of the earth bring their glory and honour into it, Rev. 21.24. Why might not Constantine bring in settled endowments, as well as the State allow settled maintenance? are they not both one? yet the one you hold lawful, and not the other.  
4. I had nothing to do with ampla praedia, the Position was of settled endowments. Even N. E. men bring it against them, and I understand it of set maintenance, which may be either less or more, which you deny to be lawful from the Church: therefore the leaving out of ampla praedia (minding you always of what is said in answ. to Pos. 8.) was no fault in the producers of the Position.  
5. You should show that settled endowments given to the Church, are in any prophecy called a burning mountain cast into the Sea: but because you cannot do it, therefore you acknowledge (Congr. way justified, p. 9, 10.) that the interpretation is but probable and doubtful, and that you dare not speak definitively of it. And so I leave it; minding you only, that many which seemed most Anti-Prelatical, do justify the Bishops setting the world on fire.    
Sect. 2. You tell me of my misinterpreting and misreporting of T.W. to W.R. p. 59 I shall relate the case, and leave the determination of it to any ingenuous indifferent person. It is thus: New-England men being asked, Whether they do allow, or think it lawful to allow and settle any certain and stinted maintenance upon their Ministers? do answer, But for settled and stinted maintenance, there is nothing done that way amongst us, except from year to year, because the conditions of Ministers may vary, etc. Mr. Weld saith, For a way of settled maintenance, there is nothing done that way, except (mark the exception) from year to year. And a little before he saith, The Church usually meets twice in the year, or oftener, to consult and determine of the sum to be allowed for that year to their Ministers, and to raise it. Whether it may not be hence inferred, that there is a way of settled and stinted maintenance in New-England for a year at least, let the Reader judge, I will not contend about it: That the people in New-England, when the work is done, do consult and consider the Minister for the year past, or that the Minister doth not know till the year be up what he must have, (in which respect the condition of the meanest servant is usually better than his) is scarce agreeable, I think, to the letter of Mr. Wields words, or to the practice of New-England, where (as Theodore de la Guard, p. 39 saith) They generally find and practise as the best way, That the Ministers have seasonable and honourable maintenance, and that certainly stated. But our work is to find out the mind of God, not of man.   

CHAP. XXIII. Of the distinction of Pastors and Teachers, on EPHES. 4.11.  
WHen I say, that Ephes. 4.11. proves not that Teachers must be distinct from Pastors, as Apostles are distinct from Evangelists; you reply, p. 70. You cross the opinion of many Orthodox modern Writers,— whether you translate some Apostles, or these Apostles, the matter is not weighty, nor are you advantaged by it. The greater question is, who these Teachers be, and what their work is? whether School-Doctors, to train up Youth in the knowledge of Arts and Sciences, especially of Divinity, or Teachers of the whole Church, and their work to doctrinate the Church by words of knowledge, which seems more consonant to the Scripture. And Zanchy, Pareus, Bucer, and many others are of this judgement, whose Reasons yourselves (in the Congregational way justified, p. 9) thus abridge. God gives distinct gifts to Pastors from those he gives to Teachers; for to one is given a special faculty of Exhortation, to the other a clearer understanding of doctrine, and consequently they are distinct officers. And you conclude your Reply, p. 70. with these words: So that if we do put any false gloss upon the Scriptures by misinterpreting of Ephes. 4.11. yet more modest language had becomed you, seeing such Reverend and learned men, whom yourself so much honour, have gone before us in this exposition.  
rejoined. 

1. The force of my argument (to which you answer not at all) was not (as you would in both your books make the Reader to believe) that the article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was translated [some] or [these] but that the said article is not inserted between Pastor and Teacher, as it is between every of the rest; to show that there is not the same distinction between them as between each two of the rest, as appears plainly by my answer, though you take no notice of it, having fit occasion, and being minded of it by me: I would not so deal with you.  
2. That you have the authority of Zanchy, and of some reverend men besides on your part in this Position, I do not deny, nor do I want such on my part; but I would see with mine own eyes, not other men's.  
3. To the reasons alleged (as you say) by Pareus and Bucer, for the distinction of Pastors and Teachers from difference of gifts, which is grounded on Rom. 12. I answer, 

1. It takes not away the exception made against the proof of this, by Ephes. 4.11.  
2. I suppose the Apostle did not intent, no not in Rom. 12. (though he might intent it there, and yet Ephes. 4.11. be impertinently alleged for proof of it) that each of those several gifts should constitute a several officer; for then there should be seven officers in the Church, viz. Prophets, v. 6. Ministers and Teachers; v. 7. Exhorters, Givers, Rulers, Showers of mercy, v. 8. For all these are equally by the disjunctive particle [Or] severed one from another; for it is not sufficiently cleared to me, that Prophecy and Ministry, or Ministry and Teaching, or Teaching and Exhortation, are in the Apostles sense all one, or one the genus, and the other the species. And yet Mr. Gillespy hath done most learnedly & accurately in that point.  
3. Difference of gifts, without an institution from God, cannot make a different office. James and John (it may be) had a special gift of terrifying sinners, and are called sons of thunder, Mark. 3 17. and Joses a special gift of comforting weak Saints, and called the son of consolation, Act. 4.36. Yet no man will upon this ground conclude them to be different officers; one Pastor may be excellent in one gift, another in another, possibly some men may be excellent in both gifts: Paraeus himself, a little after the place by you cited, saith, The Apostles did excel in both gifts, and they are indeed common parts of the Episcopal or Pastoral office, and therefore are conjoined, 1 Cor. 14.4. And it is evident, 

1. That every Pastor should be apt to teach, 1 Tim. 3.3. which word is of the same original with this in Ephes. 4.11.  
2. That Pastors are called Teachers, (the very word that is here) 1 Cor. 12.28. (which runs parallel with this Text, & may be well fetchr into explicate it) and also in Isa. 30.20. Act. 13.1.  
3. The Scripture doth ascribe the work of feeding with knowledge and understanding (which upon supposal of the distinction of these officers is the work of the Teacher) unto the Pastor, Jer. 3.15.  
And lastly, words joined together by a conjunction copulative, are often exegetical and explicative one of another, as in the example produced by me, 1 Pet. 2.25.   And the Apostle purposely omits the distinguishing and dividing particle [some] inserting it between Apostles and Evangelists, but not between Pastors or Shepherds (for the word is the same with 1 Pet. 2.25.) and Teachers, where [Teachers] tells us what he means by Shepherds, as Bishop doth expound Shepherd in the other place; And there is no parallel in all the Scripture doth prove that [And] doth stand for [Some.] From all which jointly considered, I conclude, That Ephes. 4.11. is not sufficient, pertinent, and full of power to prove that Pastors and Teachers are by God's institution distinct officers. And yourselves also seem so to think, when you conclude your Reply, p. 70. with these words, So that if we do put a false gloss upon the Scripture by misinterpreting Ephes. 4.11. etc.       

CHAP. XXIV. Whether every particular Assembly be Zion, the place of God's special presence.  
Sect. 1. WHen I say, that every particular Congregation is not Zion, but one of the Assemblies of Zion, Isa. 4.5. That the Hebrews which were divided into many Congregations, are not said to be come to many mount Zions, but to mount Zion, Heb. 12. And that the Scripture warrants not the expression of an hundred or a thousand Zions. You reply, p. 71. That Zion was a mountain contiguous to Moriah upon which the Temple was built, in which God vouchsafed a special presence, and unto which the Tribes went up; and by a metonymy is frequently put for the temple, and the people that repaired thither and assembled there, and so for the Church of the Jews, which consisted of many assemblies, and yet was but one Church, and the Temple was but one which was called Zion, and so Zion 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, not Nationall, much less Universal, as hath been proved: therefore the congregational Church is Zion the special place of God's presence.  
rejoined. 

1. A question of names and words is of no great moment; yet in opposition to that which is most common with Congregational men, (yea with confessed Heretics and Schismatics) to call each of their Congregations by the name of Zion, which in their sense imports that it is an entire visible church, Independent of any Ecclesiastical judicature, and that the greatest presence of God is there to be found, and that combination of many Zions is unnecessary, yea sinful; I truly observed, that there was but one Zion in the Old and New Testament, and that the Scripture warrants not the expression of an hundred or a thousand Zions.  
2. The Temple is one expression, and Zion another: the Scripture may, yea doth acknowledge many temples of God, not many Zions; every Christian is a temple, not a Zion; yet if you do betake yourselves into the temple, I will follow you thither rnd fetch you thence.  
3. The visible Church in 2 Cor. 6.16. is not called a temple; but every Christian in whom the spirit of God dwells, 1 Cor. 3.16. yea his body is the temple of the Holy Ghost, 1 Cor. 6.20. even that body which may be joined to an harlot, which is especially sinned against and abused by fornication, viz. his natural body (as Christ called his natural body a temple, Joh. 2.19.) and that body which might be unequally yoked with unbelievers, 2 Cor 6.6. one way whereof was by unequal marriages, and of it the Apostle chief speaks, and not of any visible Church or Society as such.  
4. It hath been showed that the visible Church may not only be congregational, but Nationall, yea that there is an universal visible Church. And in Ephes. 2.20, 21, 22. (which yourselves interpret of the visible Church) the Church of Ephesus is not said to be the whole city, house, or temple, but to be built together with other Churches and Christians, and all the building groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord. Of this temple all the Churches to which Peter writes, 1 Pet. 1.1. are living stones, not so many living temples, 1 Pet. 2. Thus many Nations shall in the day of the Gospel be joined to the Lord, and shall be God's people, and he will dwell amongst them, Zach. 2.11. so Antichrist is said to sit in the temple of God, viz. in the Church universal, 2 Thess. 2.2.4 See also Rev. 11.1. and Mr. Cotton (Keys, p. 56.) saith, The new Jerusalem is many particular churches combined, all which are yet but one city, one tabernacle, Rev. 21.    
Sect. 2. Reply, p. 71. Yet this hinders not but that the language of the Old Testament, when it speaks of things of the New Testament, may be used in the Old Testament, yea in the New also, as in Zach. 14. 19 Isa. 66.20, 21. So in Isa. 4, 5. we may as well read of the assemblies of Zion, though there be no such thing, but each assembly is Zion; as of the feast of tabernacles, when in the days of the Gospel there is no such thing, but it is spoken by way of allusion; because Zion was then but one, it is spoken of as one still, and yet it is more than one.  
rejoined. 

1. That the language of the Old Testament may be used in the Old Testament or in the New, is not denied: yet it is considerable, if the word Zion be read perhaps two or three hundred times in the Scriptures, and never taken for one particular Independent congregation, as you frequently use it; if you could find Zions in the plural number, you would judge it to be a justification of your appropriating the word to a particular assembly, and full as good an argument for the Congregational way, as the term [Churches] which you say (though untruly) is not found in the Jewish church.  
2. If you can prove it to be as ceremonial, that Zion should consist of many assemblies, as that the feast of tabernacles should be kept, and the one be as evidently abrogated as the other, than you say something, or otherwise it is nothing. If a man should endeavour to prove from Isa. 4.5. that the Church should be at least one assembly, you would not sure stop his mouth with the feast of tabernacles. Now if I allege that there shall be assemblies of Zion in the New Testament, I suppose you can find no ceremony in the plurality of the number.  
3. That there is but one Zion, is the language, yea the constant unchanged language of the New as well as of the Old Testament, yea when it is applied to the Christian church; and no example there is to the contrary; but the feast of tabernacles is not constantly, not frequently, not once (that I remember) applied to Christian worship in the New-Testament; and therefore the case is not alike, though you make itso.    
Sect. 3. Reply, p. 72. Now that there are many mount Zions, yourself do really confess. We know you hold, 1. That the Church of the Jews was called Zion. 2. That the visible Church in the days of the Gospel is Zion; 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? You say the Hebrews which were divided into many Congregations, are said to be come to one mount Zion? If so, than the Congregation of Christian Gentiles may be called another mount Zion.  
rejoined. 

1. All this doth not so much as prove (though it confidently affirms much more) that there is two Zions, one in the Old Testament, and another in the New. The Jewish church and the Christian notwithstanding may be but one Church, one Zion, though under a different state and condition.  
2. I hold not there are as many Zions as particular visible Churches; but you grossly misunderstand my words. A believing Jew and a believing Gentile may be (you will acknowledge) of one particular Congregation, and so of one Zion; much more may I say, that they both may come to one mount Zion, yea many people, all nations may flow unto it, Isa. 2. ●, 3. I never said nor thought that the Hebrews did come to one mount Zion, and Christian Gentiles to another, but all to one. You see you are far enough from proving what you would have us believe, that every particular assembly of Zion, Isa. 4.5. is a distinct Zion.  
3. Whereas you ask what greater absurdity it is to say there are an hundred Zions, then to say there are an hundred or a thousand Churches? I affirm it is a far greater absurdity; for [Churches] is a term used in the Old, as well as in the New Testament, for particular assemblies meeting for the worship of God, as hath been showed; but [Sions] is a term not read in the Old or New Testament, as yourselves do silently confess; for though you be put upon that work, yet you do not show it.    
Sect. 4. When I ask whether you have not found God present in our assemblies? have not you by faith closed with the promises of God in the use of ordinances amongst us? You grant that God is present with us in our assemblies, nor dare you deny (though you do not expressly grant it) that he hath promised his presence to us, or that you (sometimes) did by faith close with the promises in ordinances amongst us. 2. But you assert that God is most present, vouchsafeth a special presence with his people gathered into a body, compacted together in an instituted Congregational Church, which you call the order of the Gospel, the way of Christ; concerning which I demand, 

1. Have both of you, and your Members, since your entrance into the Churchway, felt such a special presence of Christ in ordinances, as none of you did before?  
2. If your way be not the way of Christ, and the order of the Gospel, is not then the conceit of a greater and more special presence of Christ in your way, a strong delusion? As when men fall off from your Congregations to Antinomianism, Libertinisme, Familisme, or but rigid Separation, they persuade themselves (you know) that they have a greater and more special presence of Christ after they have left you, than when they were with you. If I have solidly answered your Book (which I leave almighty God, and ingenious impartial Saints to judge of) than your way is not the order of the Gospel, nor the way of Christ.  
3. That God might give his presence, though there be some error, you grant, alleging Rev. 2.1. with Rev. 2.14.20. and afterwards (you say) He vouchsafeth a special presence amongst such Churches, Rev. 2.1.   So then God not only might, but he doth give his presence, yea his especial presence to such Churches as have not only some error, but gross error; for all the seven Churches of Asia were golden candlesticks, and God walked in the midst, viz. equally near to each of them, notwithstanding Balaamites, Nicolaitans, Jezebelians, many that had a name to live and were dead, many that had defiled their garments, viz. were visibly wicked, many lukewarm, etc. were amongst them; only Philadelphia had nothing reprehensible (by which Mr. Brightman who so long since prophesied of these times, conceives the Church of Scotland to be typified) by the Spirit of God: will you say that all the 7 Churches were alike in the way of Christ, in the order of the Gospel? or will you revoke your own speech, that Christ was specially present with them? Surely if God should not vouchsafe his special presence where there are some errors, and gross ones too, your Churches should not have it.  
Sect. 5. Whereas Mat. 18.20. is alleged to prove that Christ hath promised his special presence to a congregational church above all other societies and persons; I answered, 

1. That Christ in that place promised his presence to those which are not a Church, even to two or three, which will not make a Church.  
2. That faithful people, though women, whether Church-members or no, are not to be excluded from this promise, though they make not a congregational church.  
And 3. That Christ's presence is promised to the Apostles, and their successors the Elders, Mat. 28.20. and to the assemblies of Zion, or Churches jointly as well as severally, Isa. 4.5. Rev. 2.1. & 21.22, 23. & 22.3, 4, 5. To which you reply, p. 73.—    
There is a figure in the number, 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 his presence. Pareus upon these words. It is an argument that the judgement of the Church shall be ratified, because Christ himself will be present 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 (say you) we shall less doubt of our exposition, having so learned and well-approved a Commentator to stand by us in it.  
rejoined. 

1. What is that figure, and where is it found? v. 17. or v. 20. or both? If not both, how doth it appear that the one is literal, and the other figurative? Mr. Cotton saith (Way, p. 53.) that those two or three are not considered as a Church-body, but as a sufficient number of witnesses to join with the brother offended. Mr. Voyes another N. E. man saith, those two or three do refer to the Preshyterie; and so you may well doubt of your exposition, having such godly learned Divines of your own way against you in it.  
3. I durst appeal to you, whether you would interpret two or three in v. 7. & two or three, v. 20. after a different manner, if it were not (as you conceive) for the advantage of your cause.  
4. It is too familiar a thing with you to allege one or two Commentators interpreting a Text thus or so, whereas yourselves know that if the controversy between you and me should be determined by the major part of the godliest and learnedest Commentators, your part would be nothing; nor are you ignorant that even godly men writing against the Papists, and being than not in fear of contrary errors, did write less cautelously than otherwise they would have done.     

CHAP. XXV. Who are [without] in the Apostles sense, 1 COR. 5.  
Sect. 1. I Said, that those without, of whom the Apostle speaks, were unbelievers, Pagans and Heathens without Christ, without visible profession of Christianity (for so I meant) and out of the universal visible Church, as well as out of a particular Church. To which you reply, that those without, whom the Apostle had not to do with, stand in opposition to those within the Church of Corinth.  
rejoined. It is harsh to say that the members of the church of Jerusalem, Rome, etc. should be without to them that were of Corinth; or that a visible Christian not joined to some particular Church, should be excluded out of the universal Church. Paul, Act. 9 and the Eunuch, Act. 8. were of the visible Church before they were joined to any particular Congregation. It Paul had converted those women, Act. 16. which could not have been brought into an organical congregation, they might have been baptised and so counted within the Church. A man may be detained by violence from joining, driven away by persecution, incommunicated it may be unjustly, in which case he is not a member of a particular church; it were hard therefore to say he is without the visible church. They that are without, are opposed to any man that is called a Brother; but all Christians in Scripture-phrase are called brethren, whether they be of the same or of several congregations, yea though one should be unjoined to any congregation, as Paul whom Ananias calleth brother Saul, Act. 9 17. And the Apostle writing to several churches, wills them to love as brethren, to love the brotherhood, 1 Pet. 2.17. & 3.8. Lastly, they are here said to be without, which Paul had not to do with by judging them; but of this more afterwards.  
Sect. 2. But you reply, If this exposition of yours be true, than the judgement of the Church of Corinth did extend to the landsend of Christianity, to the confines of Paganism, and consequently any one Church hath power to judge any Believer in the world; for he saith, Do not ye judge them that are within, V 12.  
rejoined. Nothing so; for [Ye] there is to be understood of the Corinthians, as members in part of the universal visible church, 1 Cor. 12.27, 28. Yourselves tell us, p. 65. that the Epistles do respect persons according to their capacities; so this judging those that are within, respects only the church of Corinth, (suppose he writes only to one church; for we would not mingle questions, lest we should darken the light) according to her capacity, viz. You judge all within your limits, all of the city of Corinth, the Cenchrean church all within that town, and other Churches pari ratione & authoritate within theirs: So ye are God's husbandry and God's building, 1 Cor. 3.9. that is, ye are part of God's husbandry, of God's building. So, 1 Cor. 12.27. Ye are the body of Christ, (viz. as he immediately by way of correction doth interpret himself) Members in part. And in 1 Cor. 3.21, 22. he saith, all things are yours, Paul, Apollo's, Cephas. Now Paul and Cephas were officers of all churches; his meaning therefore is, that they are yours, viz. yours amongst others; and All things are yours, viz. all things belong to the Universal church (of which the Apostles were properly officers) and to you as members. And so it is no more but this. Ye are, amongst those, that judge them that are within. So Calvin and Beza might have written to one or two English Bishops, and said, You silence all Nonconformists, and yet might well enough have been understood, that they had but silenced all within their Dioceses, and other Bishops had done the like in theirs.  
Sect. 3. Reply, p. 74. Suppose the Apostle had known a member of the Church of Corinth (whatever he appeared outwardly in the frame of his conversation) to be indeed without God, 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? and why should a Church-unbeliever be subject to the Apostles judgement, and an Heathenish unbeliever exempt from it, if Church-membership did not make the one obnoxious to that judgement, more than the other?  
rejoined. 

1. By your argument (p. 36.) he ought not to be excommunicated; for you say, Excommunication supposeth men to be alive in the judgement of charity, but such a one as is known to be without Christ, is not supposed to be alive.  
2. We assert, that if he have committed some gross sin, and appear to the Church obstinate therein, he may be excommunicated, though he be supposed to be truly engrafted into Christ.  
3. I dare not say, that one known by the Apostle to be without Christ, which hath committed some gross sin (as heresy, adultery, or some other work of the flesh, Gal. 5.) if he being admonished, do hear the Church and submit himself, aught to be excommunicated, Tit. 3.10. Mat. 18.17. A member of the visible Church, though indeed without Christ, and so discerned by an Apostle, cannot be judged to be without Christ in foro ecclesiastico, he appearing (as you put the case) outwardly otherwise in the frame of his conversation.  
4. I never said nor thought but a man must be within the Church, before the Apostle could excommunicate him; yet it hence follows not that he must be within this or that particular church, or within the Church in your sense. Of I'resbyterian calculation I shall speak in the last Section.    
Sect. 4. When I urge that the Apostle opposeth fornicators of the world, and fornicators that are brethren: You reply, that Persecution in the Primitive times was levied against those which did join themselves to the Churches, or otherwise visibly (as Paul at his first conversion by preaching) declared themselves to be Christ's disciples. That the brother opposed to the fornicators of the world, is not be that by the internal and invisible grace of faith is a brother, and dare not ●●enly profess Christ, but a named and professed brother. Fervicators of this world are to be understood of it as it stands in opposition to the visible Church.  
rejoined. The Apostle forbade them to eat not only with scandalous Church-members, but with all Brethren (not those which are brethren only in foro Dei & conscientiae suae, by the internal and invisible grace of faith, whereof it is impossible the Church should take notice, De non existentibus & non apparentibus eadem est ratio) But those that were brethren in foro ecclesiae, did make profession of Christianity, were called brethren, and yet were scandalous. I am not so senseless as to think that the Church was bound to take notice of the internal, invisible, and unprofessed grace of faith in a man's heart; why do you so largely disprove it? 2. A man may be a brother, that is, a Christian, and disciple of Christ, (as Paul was (it is your own instance) at his first conversion) before any such enchurching; yea every visible Christian is so; for by priority of nature every Christian is first of the universal visible Church, and so in that respect called a brother, and secondarily of a particular congregation. An Heathen is not first converted into this, or that, or the other Congregation, but first into the Church catholic, then into this or that Congregation. Now the Apostle saith not, if any man that is called a brother, and is a member of a particular Congregation, with such a one eat not; but you (contrary to the rule (Non restringendum ubi lex non restringit) say, if a man be called a brother, and be not of a particular congregation, he is without as well as an Heathen, and the Church hath no power to censure him, nor doth the Apostle forbidden us to eat with such an one. And so you make scandalous Church-membership, not scandalous professorship of Christianity, to be the formal objective cause of our separation and withdrawing from them.  
Sect. 5. When I say, Without are dogs, sorcerers, Rev. 12.15. such as Paul had not to do with, What have I to do, & c.? v. 12. (And yet he had to do with all Christians by his illimited Apostolic power, whether they belong to that, or any other Congregation, on no) such as God judgeth, or are loft to the immediate judgement of God. You reply, p. 76. There might be dogs in the Apostolic churches, as well as without, Phil. 3.2. and with such dogs Paul had to do. A strange speech to proceed from you, who elsewhere maintain that the Apostolic Churches did consist of visible Saints and that Paul in the judgement of charity did think all the Philippians to be Saints, Phil. 1.7. and if I grant that there might be dogs as well within the Churches as without, what gain you by it? you further reply that Paul had to do with the dogs of the Gentiles; he received a Key of knowledge to open the Kingdom of Heaven to believers, and to bind them that would not repent and believe under the guilt of impenitency, but Paul had nothing to do to judge (with the judgement mentioned in this place viz. by the Ministry of the Church of Corinth) those that were without the combination of that Church; the Apostles had received no such Power, to judge those persons to excommunication by the Ministry of a Church that were never in fellowship with the Church.  
rejoined. 

1. Master Cotton tells us that the key of knowledge, saving knowledge, or (which is all one) the key of faith is common to all believers, and he distinguisheth it from the key of Power. Cot. keys p. 6.7. but it may be this is not the key of knowledge you mean, but you have made another.  
2. Paul opening the Kingdom of Heaven to the Gentiles in case they would believe and repent, and binding them under the guilt of impenitency and obstinacy, if they would not repent (though you prove not that her did so bind any Gentiles) was done by Doctrine, not by Discipline, by preaching, not by censures (of which this 1 Cor. 5. evidently speaks.) Had Paul any thing to do to judge or censure the Heathens to be excommunicated, which were never within the universal or particular Church?  
3, Paul had not to do indeed to excommunicate out of the Church, them that were never in the Church; for that is impossible how can he be excommunicated that is not within the universal visible Church, for excommunication is a casting out of the Church, not out of the invisible Church (for that cannot be) nor out of a particular visible Church only, but out of the universal visible Church; as Baptism doth admit into it, so excommunication doth cast out of it; and as they may be received to Baptism, and not admitted into a particular Church, as Saul and the Eunuch; so they may be excommunicated though they were not set Members of a particular Congregation, but if they were never within the universal Church they cannot be cast out of it; for that employs a contradiction.  
4. The judgement mentioned in this place, is not the judgement of Paul by the Ministry of the Church of Corinth (as you assert) for he doth expressly distinguish them, what have I to do?— Do not ye judge? Paul saith not what have you to do to judge, nor what have we to do to judge, (for so it may seem that he included the judgement of Corinth with his own) but what have I to do, etc.   Now though the Church of Corinth, could only judge those that were within her limits (as other Churches could also within theirs) and therefore might judge the Incestuous Person, suppose he was one of them, and lived amongst them: yet the Apostle did deliver to Satan, Hymeneus and Philetus, without the Ministry of any Church (that we read of) and certainly the Apostle had Power to judge all Christians, all of the universal visible Church, whether within a particular Congregation or no; for which I alleged the Authority of the Elders of New- England in the marginal citation which you leave out.  
Sect. 6. Reply p. 77. 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; else by whom shall believers not joined to any particular Congregation be judged? why shall this Congregational, Classical, Provincial, National Church, judge them rather than that? may they be judged by all, or any one? 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? if a Church may judge one out of the combination, why not 1000.10000. Yet we are fare from judging those beneevers in England and Scotland, which are not joined in our way to a particular Congregation, therefore to be altogether out of Church combination, and not crpable of the Ecclesiastical judgement of their Churches.  
rejoined. Every Christian is to be accountable to the Church, or Churches where he doth reside, and that Congregation, or classis of Congregations is to receive him to such Ordinances as he is meet for, and to censure him if he do offend (As in the time of the Law, if a man was found slain, the next city must expiate the Murder, if the Murderer was not known, Deut. 21.1, 2, 3. or punish him if known) for first, It is the duty of every Christian to join to that particular Church of God, where he doth reside on near unto him; and those with whom he doth reside, are to admonish him so to do. but if he shall obstinately refuse, they may order that the brethren of those Churches should not eat nor have familiar society with such an offender.  
2. Members of that Congregation or classis of Congregations, within which an Heretic or Scandalous man doth reside, are in most danger to be infected with Heresy or Scandal You will say, he hath not consented to be of that Congregation, and therefore is not subject to her judgement. I Answer. 1. If it be his sin, he hath not joined, than one sin cannot free another from being censured, If a Malefactor at an Assize shall refuse to be tried by God and the Bench, or by God and the Country, shall he therefore be left to the immediate judgements of God? 2. It may be he hath consented to it; 1. In Parliament he and we all are included, which hath set bounds and limits. 2. He possibly was borne and baptised in it, and 3. It may be he received the Sacrament in it, frequents prayer and preaching there; or at least, 4. he voluntary sits down in that Parish or Vicinity, the inhabitants whereof by Law or custom in general consent of Ministers and Members do belong to that Congregation, and so may be interpreted to have consented in his deeds, though in words he deny it: A Cambridge man that dwells within the City of London, doth by deeds profess he is a Londoner, though in words he may deny it; no Christian dwelling in Corinth could escape the censure of the Church of Corinth by pretending to be of the Church or Cenchrea, 2. If there should yet be a question, what Congregation should judge such an offender, yet he might be judged by a Provincial (for this is one benefit of combination of Churches) or National Assembly; or if there were a universal council, all Christians should be subject to its Eccelesiastical power, whether Members of a particular Congregation or no, and may be excommunicated upon just occasion, not only out of particular Congregations if they be Members of them, but out of the Church universal; for though it might be doubted to what Church this or that man doth belong; yet it can scarce be doubted in what province, in what Nation an offender doth reside, and to which he by right doth belong: The Church of Ephesus is commended for trying the false Apostles, which did not acknowledge themselves Members of that Church (for this had been inconsistent with the aim of Apostleship) else grievous Wolves, false Teachers might have crept in amongst them, and drawn Disciples after them, to Blasphemy, Idolatry, etc. without blame.   

CHAP. XXVI. Of the Authority of Elders.  
WHen I say though Elders be not Lords over God's heritage yet they are Leaders and Guides, yea Shepeards', Rulers, Overseers, Bishops, Governors, and not only Precedents of the Congregation, Moderators of her actions, or as the foremen of the jury, you think your felves wronged, and express yourselves to grant, that Elders does rule as Stewards, as Captains, as Guides, or Leaders; and his grant is large enough; for Stewards and Captains may take or put out Servants and Soldiers, without the others of the family or company, intermeddling by way of Power therein, yet I could have wished, you had showed what more Power then of a Moderator or Precedent of a Synod, or foreman of a jury, or Speaker of a Parliament House, practically you give the Elders in election of Officers, receiving in of Members, or casting them out, or other acts which are properly act of Discipline and Government; for a Moderator may put matters to Vote, open the doors of speech or silence, advise or council the Assembly, pronounce the sentence, keep order, etc. But why do I put you upon this? you say they rule as Stewards and Captains, yea as Guides and Leaders, which Titles in Scripture Phrase (in which I presume you speak) do signify the Power of civil Magistrates Act. 23.24. Mat. 27.2. and indeed Presbyterian Government in this sense in opposition to Praelaticall and Popular Government you cannot deny, seeing the Scripture saith, they have the Rule, they feed and govern the flock. Heb. 13.7, 17.1 Tim. 5.17.1 Pet. 5.2. Acts 20.17, 28. The Keys (which in the Notion of them do carry Power and Authority properly so called) are committed to them Matth. 16.19. and Power to remit and retain sins Joh. 20.28. and they are over the People in the Lord, 1 Thes. 5.12. and the Titles which are given to civil Magistrates (at least to subordinate ones) are given to the Elders of the Church, and they (as you say afterwards) are Governors to the Church in the descending line of Power, though thy be but Ministerial Governors in an ascending line that leads to Christ, the only Monarch or supreme Governor of the Church.  
Sect. 2. when I urge that Matth. 20.25, 26. forbids Kingly or Lordly power in the Ministers of the Gospel, for the two Apostles still dreaming of a Temporal Kingdom, and being Kinsmen to Christ, did expect some temporal honour and advancement, Christ saith not there was inequality among the Priests of the jews, or amongst the Priests of the Gentiles, or between the Priests and the People, but it shall not be so amongst you, but very aptly and pertinently to their petition answereth, the Princes of the Gentiles, etc. propounding himself verse 28, whose Kingdom is not of this world for an example to them; yet had he no intent to equal them to himself in Church Power, or other Ministers to the Apostles, or the People to the Presbyters. You say in your Reply p. 79. Admit that the Apostles were such babes as to imagine that Christ would lay down his spiritual Kingdom, and take up a temporal, and that any or all of them desired an eminency one above an other therein, yet it will not follow that Christ speaks nothing by way of reproof of ambitious aspire in the Spiritual, but only in the temporal Kingdom of Christ; he expresseth the disparity betwixt civil policies, where one or more rule with Lordly Power, and the rest are in subjection, and Spiritual policies, where Christ only rules with Lordly Power, and one Apostle or Minister hath no Authority at all one over another, but are fellow servants.  
Rejoind. 

1. You must needs admit you cannot deny that they did still dream of a temporal Kingdom Matth. 20.21 Acts 1.6.  
2. The Apostles were not such babes as to imagine that Christ would would lay down his spiritual Kingdom over the souls and consciences of his People; but they are babes that imagine (as you intimate) that he could not take up a temporal Kingdom, except he did lay down his spiritual Kingdom; for spiritual and civil Government which were confihenti in the person of Moses, Eli, Samuel, were much more consistent in the person of Christ, God and Man.  
3. I said not, that it will follow that Christ spoke nothing by way of reproof of ambitious aspire in the spiritual Kingdom of Christ; they may also be included, though ambition in civil matters be the thing here directly and principally & intended, and I hope the Reader by reading the whole answer in my book, which is curteled in yours, will understand me aright.  
4. Nor denied I that inequality of men of the same office may be here forbidden, (save only that reason and order, if not Scripture, do require presidency, moderatorship) one Apostle is not to be above another Apostle, one Elder (as such) above another Elder, etc. Yet you cannot deny, that had Christ's main scope been to forbid inequality of the Ministers of the Word, an instance of the inequality of the Jewish and Gentilish Priests had been more pat then of the Gentile Princes.  
5. As our Saviour's meaning was not to exclude the Apostles from being in Ecclesiastical power above Elders, Elders above Deacons, and himself above all; so neither was it his meaning to equalise believers in Church-power with their Presbyters, or one Elder or the lesser part, to many Elders or the major part; and consequently he speaks nothing against Presbyterian government, or the government of the Church by Presbyters.  
6. It may be said of Civil policies, that one supreme Magistrate is not above another, but they are all fellow-servants.  
Lastly, whereas you say, pag. 80. That corruption of Church-governors in an usurpation of Ecclesiastical domination, is of more dangerous influence to the Church, then if they should usurp some branches of Civil power. I answer, 

1. What you can show to be a corruption of Church-government, an usurpation of exorbitant Ecclesiastical domination, God forbidden that we should not abominate it: and I expect that you shall be as willing to abominate Anarchy, which is far worse than tyranny. These four or five years hath brought forth more blasphemies, heresies, errors, schisms, frenzies, strong delusions proceeding from the spirit of lying and giddiness, than four or five Ages before. And also that you should abominate popular usurpation of Church-government, which God did abominate in Corah, Dathan, and Abiram, and their congregation, and did severely punish, as also he did the men of Bethshemesh, 1 King. 6. for but looking into the Ark.  
2. To say that Presbyterial government implies usurpation of exorbitant ecclesiastical domination, is a bearing false witness against the Reformed churches of Scotland, France, Holland, etc. and tends to exasperate the Civil Magistrate against them as usurpers of undue power. And the same may much more truly be said of Independnt churches.      
Sect. 3. When I answer, that Diotrophes being but one, was liker to a Prelate then a Presbytery; yet S. John doth not blame him simply for accepting or having pre-eminence, or for taking upon him to answer in behalf of the Church to which S. John writ, or for taking to him the power of commanding, forbidding, excommunicating, but for loving pre-eminence, 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. You reply, 1. p. 82. Brother, a horse in the abstracted notion of unity, being but one, is liker a Prelate then a Presbytery, which are many; but Prelacy doth not consist in unity, but in usurpation of undue unscriptural power over their brethren. A Classical Presbytery may be as like to Diotrophes, as a Prelate; 'tis alike, if not equally Prelatical, when fourteen or fifteen exercise a Jurisdictional power over their brethren, as when one man doth exercise it in two or three several Counties.  
rejoined. 

What mean you? Brother, a horse; It's well you said not an Ass. Let us be grave and serious. Though Prelacy do not consist in unity, yet in a Prelate unity and usurpation meet together, so they do not in an horse.  
2. Prelacy in the most usual sense, and in the sense of our Nationall Covenant, is nearer to Monarchical then to Aristocratical government; so also in the sense of the Reformed Churches, and the old godly Nonconformists, which did not esteem Presbyterian government to be Prelatical.  
3. You jump notably with the Malignants, which say that a Parliament may be as tyrannical as a King; and when answer is made that it cannot be thought that a Community will destroy itself, they reply, Yes, a Representative kingdom may endeavour to destroy the Collective, and then the power is in the body of the people, and you (mutato nomine) say little less. And no wonder if you should (as some do) speak as expressly against representative Civil, as Ecclesiastical judicatories seeing many Independents have the undoubted marks of real malignancy upon them, viz. they have as truly laboured to divide the Kingdoms, to divide the King and his people, to make divisions in Parliament, City and Kingdom, to nourish and foment those divisions, to hinder help from Ireland, to retard the work of Reformation, as Canterbury and Strafford did, to pick and pack Parliament-men for their purpose, and to awe his Majesty's liege people by an Army, to the destruction both of privilege of Parliament, and liberty of the Subject.  
4. You told us, p, 47. That you did approve of Mr. Cottons modesty, who would not hastily censure ancient and latter Synods for putting forth acts of power in Ordination and Excommunication. Surely now you may say (what I, when I search and try my own ways find cause to say) Video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor. Is the preserving the government and discipline of Scotland, preserving of Prelacy? Is setting Presbyterian government, the reviving of Prelacy? Are all the Reformed churches, all the old Nonconformists (save you, and the Brownists, Anabaptists, Familists) Prelatical? Are they covenanted against, and aught each in his place endeavour their utter extirpation? Doctor Ames saith, The Reformed Churches of France have their association and combination without any Hierarchy: [Fresh suit against Cerem. p. 91] Which is as much as to say, without any Prelacy.  
5. May a Classical Presbytery exercise undue, unscriptural power over their brethren, and in that capacity be as like to Diotrophes as a Prelate; and may not a Congregation in that respect be as like to Diotrephes as a Classical Presbytery? for she may also exercise undue unscriptural power, as the Church of Roterodam did in deposing her Minister, and every Congregation doth, that doth depute a Non-Elder to Ordain; for the Scripture gives not a Church of believers that power; and when a Non-Elder doth ordain a Pastor, he is Prelatical in the highest degree, For first, one man ought not to ordain a Minister, but a company, 1 Tim. 4.14. Act. 13.1, 2.2. They that ordain Elders, should themselves be first ordained Elders, which he is not.   Also when a Congregation without officers do exercise the power of the Keys, she is Prelatical, yea super-Prelatical; for the Prelate by office as a Presbyter, hath some power of the Keys, which Non-Elders have not; and the Prelate had Presbyters to assist in ordination of Ministers, and to join in Imposition of hands, which sometimes in Congregational churches is not observed. 5. I need not tell you of some of N.E. which call their godly Ministers Baal's Priests, Popish factors, Scribes, Pharisees, Legal preachers, persecutors, and the Church of Boston there, the whore and strumpet of Boston, as well as you call us Prelatical. Nor need I to tell you, that extraordinary courses may be taken in extraordinary cases, and that some things are necessary to be done when Reformation is in fieri, that are not fit when it is in facto esse. But I must needs mind you, that I shown in my Epistle before the Quares, which you pretend to answer, the differences between Prelatical and Presbyterian government, which though you did not take so much notice of it as to transcribe it, nor can the Reader of your books perceive that there was any such thing in it, yet because it is safe for the Reader, it shall not be tedious to me to repeat it, for the further clearing of that Government from the aspersion of Prelacy. In the Prelatical government, the Prelate only called and counted himself a Bishop, (a name common to Elders, Act. 20.17.28. Tit. 1.5.7.) he challenged Ecclesiastical jurisdiction above his fellow-Ministers to belong to him as a man of a higher rank, challenged to one what doth belong to a College, did not associate Congregations, but subjugate them to him, and himself would be subject to no Presbytery; he made the Cathedral and mother-Church superior in power to the rest: but the Presbyterian way is a social way as between friends, confederates, brethren, where all judge, and all are judged, all things done communi Presbyterorum consilio, where no Congregation is above another Congregation, no Minister above another Minister, though the major part of them (as of Congregational members, though equal one to another) be above the minor part, where every Elder is left to enjoy the office of an Elder, and each Congregation left to the freedom of the Congregation in what belongs to them, and they able to perform. The Prelate's power was altogether  to those Congregations that were under it, they did not consent unto it, nor sent Commissioners to assist or concur in it; but Classes and Synods are aggregates made up out of their mutual associations into one, and do in matters of common concernment strengthen and help particular Congregations walking according to rule, and reduce such as walk not in truth and peace, but are leavened with error and variance. The Prelates urged Subscription, Ceremonies, had civil power to imprison, fine; were Barons, and so had votes in Parliament; they had their Chancellors, Commissaries, Surrogates, Deans, Chapters, Archdeacon's, Rural Deans, Proctors, Apparitors, Singing-men, Choristers, Summoners. Their Courts were remote from many of the people, they were expensive, oppressive by exaction of Fees; they (or some of them) promoted Tyranny, Popery, Arbitrary government, suffered ignorant, profane, Popish, Arminian, Socinian Ministers, which the Presbyterian Government where it is in full strength, as in Scotland, doth not.  
Sect. 4. Reply p. 8. You might more properly have said that John did not blame him simply for usurping or exercising pre-eminence; for accepting presupposeth an offer made of the thing accepted; now it is more than probable that the Church never offered him that pre-eminence, nor if she would, had she any such power; exorbitant pre-eminence usurped over the whole, both the Elders his equals and the fraternity (which yet have a share and interest in the passing of Excommunication) is here spoken of, not any lawful pre-eminence; for then a moderate and well-tempered love of it were lawful; By the same reason that Diotrophes is excused in regard of the materiality of his action, may the corrupt Princes, of whom it is said, Isai. 1.23. Every one loveth gifts, be excused from their bribery and corruption. 3. You say It is probable that John writ somewhat concerning Discipline, as the receiving of certain brethren; a business in which the fraternity had some interest as well as Diotrophes and the rest of the Elders, and therefore he wrote not to Diotrophes, or to the Elders alone, but to the whole Church. But Diotrophes riseth up, he alone commands, forbids, excommunicates; and yet say you, (or else you say nothing to purpose) be is not blamed for it. If Diotrophes were not to blame being a particular Elder, to take upon him the power of the whole Eldership, yea and the whole Church; why may not a brother do that which belongeth to the fraternity, an Elder do that which belongs to the Presbytery, or to the Classis or Province, and yet blameless?  
rejoined. 1. You grant Diotrophes was an Elder of the Church of Corinth, and is it not probable he had a primacy of order, or some pre-eminence amongst the Presbyters by reason of parts, or age, & c? whereunto he was chosen by his brethren, and whereupon he made answer when John writ to the Church, as Precedents, Moderators use to do when Colleges, Synods, Societies are writ unto; and if so, the word accepting is not an unmeet expression. 2. That the text speaks of an exorbitant pre-eminence usurped over the whole, you assert, but prove not, the express words of the text are loving pre-eminence or primacy, not having pre-eminence (the word I used) not usurping it (the word you use.) The pre-eminence might be lawful, and yet the love of it be blamed in Scripture, as money, pleasure, uppermost rooms, long clothing, salutations, may be lawful, Prov. 21.17. Mat. 23.6. Mark 12.38. as yourselves confess: yea, the Prophet doth not reprove Princes for receiving of gifts or rewards, (notwithstanding your instance to the contrary) but for corrupt inordinate loving or receiving of them. Saul did lawfully receive gifts, and they were men of Belial that brought him none, 1 Sam. 10.27. though to love gifts or rewards, or to receive them so as to delay or pervert judgement, be a great sin, Isa. 1.23. 3. By what logic do you conclude Diotrophes is not here blamed, ergo he is excused from the guilt of solitary excommunication, in regard of the materiality of the action, or he is not here blamed, therefore he is not to blame, etc. Are all men in Scripture blamed, yea and simply blamed, (for that was my word) for every thing in which they were to blame? 4. I indeed had no thought of excusing him from guilt in solitary excommunication, or exercise of any Ecclesiastical authority, (which I have publicly witnessed against, both lately and long since) nor well know I whether he was solitary, or only principal in that work, nor how far the Church was guilty of it: That he alone did rise up, and command, and forbidden, and excommunicate, the Scripture saith not, neither did I say it or think it, much less did I say he is not to blame if he did so. They (for aught I know) might join with him, and yet he only be blamed by name, as being the head of the faction, and they doing it by his inducement and instigation, (as the rebellion of many, yea in a sort of all the congregation of Israel, is from the principal actor called the gainsaying of Corah, Jud. v. 12.) for how one man in the very Apostles times could excommunicate members out of a Church so great, well gifted, and fully furnished with officers as Corinth was, if the Elders and people had been against him, or have hindered John from coming to them, I cannot see. Might they not have received John, and have, some one, or all of them, writ to him to that purpose, whether Diotrophes would or no? seeing the Elders certainly had, and you say the fraternity also had, a share in those weighty businesses.  
But possibly this was one of those false teachers which brought the Corinthians into great dislike of the Apostle Paul their spiritual father, 1 Cor. 4.13, 14. 2 Cor. 10.1. and was of an ambitious spirit, v. 12.18. (your selves take it for granted he was of that Church) and if so, than he might very easily bring them into dislike of John. 5. Suppose any Church-power (which you esteem most lawful) should have loved pre-eminence, should not have received John nor the brethren, and have forbidden them that would, and have cast them out of the Church, might not John have writ on this manner, and sharply have rebuked them, without any intent on his part of reflecting upon the lawfulness of their power, but only upon their ambitious and corrupt use of it?   

CHAP. XXVII. Of Independents likeness, and unlikeness to Corah, Dathan, and Abiram.  
Sect. 1. WHen I desire you calmly to consider whether investing Non-Elders with Ministerial power, placing Church-power in the body of the Congregation, complaining of the Elders that rule over them in the Lord, for taking too much upon them; be not the gainsaying of Corah? You in the Cong-way justified, p. 38. say, Your reasons to prove our way is the gainsaying of Corah are weak; For first, this schismatical company would utterly have taken away the Power of Moses, and Priesthood of Aaron, and so when they had officers, would have destroyed their officers, We only in the extraordinary case of an utter want of an Eldership hold it fit to ordain by persons deputed by Preachers (such as have been Ministers) as deputed, or by Elders elected.  
rejoined. 

I could wish for your sakes the reasons were weaker than they are.  
2. That Schismatical company did not oppose Moses as a Magistrate, but as a Minister, and therefore they said, All the people of God are holy; Not, all the people of God are wise, valiant; truehearted, which are the virtues of the Magistrate, (sympson's Sermon before Parl. July 26. 1643.) And they did not claim to rule the State, but to offer incense, Num. 16.3.5.10. Hence Aaron's rod budded, not Moses his rod.  
3. That they would have destroyed their officers, is more than I know, or you prove, only they did usurp upon the office of the Priests: yet here you grant, that if you should endeavour to take away the power of the Magistrate, or to destroy their officers, than you were like to Corah indeed.  
4. Your extraordinary case is now too ordinary, viz. at the erection of each of the Churches of Independents, Brownists, Anabaptists, Familists.  
5. The case of Vzzah in staying the Ark, 2 Sam. 6.6.8. and of saul's sacrificing, 1 Sam. 13.9, 10, 11. might seem to be extraordinary, yet the Lord was very angry.  
6. If any Preachers do ordain that have been Ministers, they do renounce their Ministry before they do ordain. And as for the elect Elders, they are (when they do ordain) but persons elected to be Elders; for election of the people doth not make the officer, as hath been showed.  
7. That the Church hath any commission to depute a man to ordain, I read not, and Non credimus quia. non begimus. If Corah, Dathan, and Abiram had had a deputation from the Church of Israel to have offered incense (as it may be they might have had) this would have made the sin of the Church greater, not theirs the less.  
8. But if you may here be excused à tanto, or à toto, yet the Anabaptists (with whom you close too much) which ordinarily do place the power of administering the Sacraments in disciples that are no officers, cannot be excused.    
Sect 2. Cong. way just. If placing Church-power in the body of the Congregation, were the gainsaying of Corah; then because election of Officers Act. 6. is a branch of Church-power, and was placed in and acted by the body of the Church, than that Church was guilty of the gainsaying of Corah.  
rejoined. 

1. You do not answer my argument, but make a counter argument.  
2. Placing of Church- power in the Body, is undoubtedly the gainsaying of Corah, Num. 16.3. All the Church is holy, viz. hath power to do the Priest's office— Wherefore lift ye up yourselves above the Church of the Lord?  
3. That election, Act. 6. was but a nomination of some officers, and a setting them before the Apostles, who appointed them over the business, and made them officers, and that this was an act of Church-power placed in the body of the people, the text saith not. But of this more in its proper place.    
Sect. 3. Cong. way justified. It is not true that our cause allows or enjoins complaining of the regular exercise of the power of the Elders that rule over us; we honour and obey the Elders of our several Churches, and also the Elders and Members deputed of several Churches meeting occasionally to rectify disorders, etc. But for stated Classical Elderships, and your several gradual Judicatories swallowing the Votes of the Elders of particular congregations, Ordaining, Depriving &c. these are not Powers ordained of God.  
rejoined. 

Corah, Dathan, and Abiram, did not, nor (I believe) would confess that they did oppose any Ordinance of God, but only the pride and usurpation of the Priests.  
2. If Classical Elderships and gradual Judicatories be powers ordained of God, as hath been showed they are, than you are guilty (as you implicitly confess) of the sin of Corah, and do resist lawful authority as they did.  
3. That which makes me to suspect your Way of this sin, is, 

1. This is a sin of the New-Testament as well as of the Old, Judas, v. 11.  
2. It was not so much a sedition against Moses the Magistrate, as a schism against Moses the Minister and Aaron the Priest.  
3. They did gather a Gnedah out of a Gnedah, a Congregation out of a Congregation, Num. 16.1. the Chaldee understands it of taking, that is, of withdrawing of himself, saying, And Corah separated himself; and Solomon Jarchi also expounds it, He took himself aside to be apart from the congregation, and Dathan and Abiram also took men and separated themselves, or Corah took them all into a distinct Gnedah or congregation, v. 5.16. Psal. 106.17. Now who they are that plead for withdrawing, separating, gathering themselves from a true Church into a distinct Congregation, you very well know.  
4. As also to whose opinion the gainsaying of Corah is most suitable in the very expressions of it, All the church or congregation is holy, you Elders take too much upon you; wherefore lift ye up yourselves above the church of the Lord? The church hath the power of the Keys, the church may depose and excommunicate (if she see just occasion) all her Elders.  
5. The authors of that Schism were no blasphemers, heretics, or fundamentally erroneous, no adulterers nor grossly vicious any way (that we know of) but in likelihood they were men of good report and repute; the Text saith they were famous in the church, and though they be called wicked men, v. 26. that was but in relation to their Schism, which is a work of the flesh, Gal. 5.20. and shows men to be carnal, 1 Cor. 3.1, 2, 3. and the original word signifies restless turbulent men; the Greek hath it hard men.  
6. That schism pretending power and liberty (and questionless profit too; for if the Priests work might be taken of them, why not their tithes and wages?) took mightily: for, 

1. 250 Senators called to the Assembly, the Greek translates it Council, of the Governors, Statesmen, famous and renowned, joined themselves to these Schismatics.  
2. The Congregation, yea many doubtless religiously affected, in the simplicity of their hearts favoured them, v. 19.22.   And though God appeared in an unheard of way against them, yet all the congregation judged that Moses & Aaron did oppose the people of the Lord, appropriating that title to Corah and his company, as though Moses and Aaron were not God's people, but enemies, for which murmuring God sent a plague, v. 41. 45, 46, 47.     The Lord preserve the Parliament and people of the land from this abominable sin, and grant that the dream may be to our common enemies, and the interptetation to them that hate us.   

CHAP. XXVIII. Whether the Church appear to be a particular Congregation. MAT. 18.  
Sect. 1. IN Cong. way justified, you profess yourselves to hold that the exercise of Church-power by the Congregational church is founded upon this text, as the observation of the Christian sabbath is upon the 4. Commandment. I join issue with you, and observe that you grant, 

1. As the 4. Commandment did at the first promulgation of it, and afterward command the keeping of the seventh-day Sabbath, so this Text did first send the offended party of the Jewish church to the Jewish church, while that Church remained in power as you acknowledge.  
2. As the 4. Commandment doth equally command any day in the week (which God by other Texts doth require to be kept) after the expiration of the Jewish sabbath, so this Text sends the people of God to any Church which after the dissolution of the Jewish church should be in strength by virtue of a charter from heaven.  
3. That he that shall affirm that the first day of the week is to be kept holy, rather than the 7. or 6. is enjoined by the fourth Commandment (other Texts set aside) doth abuse and wrest the 4. Commandment; so he that asserts that this Text doth so prove that the Church must be only congregational, not Nationall and Ecumenical, doth wrong this Text.  
4. Hence also may be inferred, That if a day or time of the same extent was there commanded to the Jews, and after the expiration of the Jewish sabbath to Christians, than a Church of the same extent as was amongst the Jews, (which was a Church consisting of subordinate Judicatories, and was Nationall (assoon as it was capable of being such) and in a sense Occumenicall) is here prescribed to the Christians after the expiration of the Jewish church.   And this is as much (or more) than I intended for it; my professed work was only to vindicate the Text from the congregational way, not to urge it for the Presbyterian, as you would make the Reader to believe. If I at this time do solidly vindicate the said text, I do as much as I desired; the chief of your other texts on which your opinions are pretended to be built, have been and shall be examined; Though I might spare my labour in this point; yourselves confessing that Mat. 18. doth not prove that the Church must be congregational, which I would have persons concerned to take notice of: yet I will give the Reader a taste of your Reply.  
Sect. 2. Reply, p. 86. The sinew and strength of your reason is this. It is necessary that the judging Church in the times of the Gospel should answer in the manner of its judicature to the judging church in the time of the Law; therefore the Gospel-Church ought to have gradual judicatories and appeals as the Jewish church had. The main hypothesis whereof is unsound; for it is necessary that the Judging church in the time of the Gospel should be conformed to spiritual precepts and patterns left us by Christ and his Apostles, and Christ hath not appointed the Jewish church to be a pattern to Gospel churches; so than Churches of Presbyterian complexion are not here understood, for there is a vast difference between them and the Jewish church.  
rejoined. 

1. The sinew and strength of my reasoning is not that which you pretend; it is plain in the words to be this. If Kahal (and Ecclesia with the 70) signify the company of Elders, as well as the body of the People, and a Church with graduate Judicatories and Appeals; then this Text doth not prove (whatsoever others do, or do not) that the Church must be a particular Congregation as opposed to Classical, Provincial. National, etc. But the first is true, therefore the second. And this argument is good and strong yourselves being judges.  
2. It is enough for me to show that it doth not conclude for the congregational way, though I should not show that it makes against it, or for the Presbyterians. The argument you propound is your own, not mine, nor would I put the matter of it into fuch form, did I use the argument. 2. You show a vast difference between our Churches and the Jewish; but doth this prove that the subordination of Ecclesiastical judicatories amongst the Jews was ceremonial, or that we may not reason for it from the analogy of the Jewish church? Anabaptists may and do render many differences between Judaisme and Christianity, Baptism and Circumcision: and yet notwithstanding from them all we may conclude from analogy the lawfulness of Paedobaptism, and Christian Magistracy. There is a vast difference between the Priests of the Law and Ministers of the Gospel; yet the Apostle by analogy reasons from the one to the other in point of maintenance. In things most like it is easy to find some difference, none of your differences do clear that subordination of Ecclesiastical judicatories was ceremonial amongst the Jews, or unlawful amongst Christians, and therefore they are not pertinent. But what are those differences?    
Sect. 3. Reply, p. 87. 

1. The Sanhedrim did not consist of chosen men sent out by the Synagogues, but of Priests and Levites. R. If it did not consist of chosen men, (which you say, but do not prove) yet God hath appointed us to choose men for the Synod, Act. 15.2. The Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 determined or ordered to send Paul and Barnabas and certain others with them. This is as truly an ordinance of God, as that was then.  
2. That the Sanhedrim did consist of none but Priests and Levites, you too barely and boldly affirm. It is said that Jehosaphat did set of the Levites and Priests, and of the chief of the fathers of Israel, 2 Chron. 19.8 for the judgement of the Lord, and for controversies. You reply further, p. 87. that there was one chief by office, 2 Chron. 19.11. but in the Classical way all are equal in point of office. R. The High-Priesthood was ceremonial, and therefore it must be abrogated: but that the Sanhedrim quà a superior Judicatory, was ceremonial, is the thing you should prove. 2. If in the Classical way all be equal in point of office, how comes it to pass that you charge that way to be Prelatical?  
3. So far as the high Priest, Amariah, or any other was but a Precedent of the Sanhedrim, so far reason and light of nature, if not of Scripture, shows us that we may follow the pattern.    
Reply, p. 87. Thirdly, you reply, The Sanhedrim dealt with civil matters, Deut. 21.5. Synods with ecclesiastical.  
rejoined. 

1. Their civil laws were divine, not drawn up by Princes or Parliaments, but by God himself, and so as being God's laws, the Priests were the Lawyers and did interpret them, and tell de jure what of right aught to be done, yet de facto the Ecclesiastical Sanhedrim did put no man to death, nor inflict any civil punishment.  
2. The rest of the things, as time, place, statednesse, are but circumstantial, or ceremonial things (in which no one ever said that Church-government in time of the Gospel should bear conformity with the Jewish church-government) or are elsewhere spoken of, and some of them are impossible now to be had.  
3. I remember when you find but one Expositor interpreting a Text according to your mind (as p. 74.) you say, Surely we shall less doubt of our exposition, having so learned a Commentator so well approved of, to stand by us in the same.   Now you know we have a cloud of faithful witnesses which argue for Classes and Synods from this text, year Mr. Cotton himself (Keys p. 24.) Churches, faith he, have a brotherly communion amongst themselves; look then as one brother offended by another, and not able to heal him by the mouth of two or three brethren privately, is to carry the matter to the whole Church; so by proportion if one Church see matter of offence in another, and be not able to heal it in a more private way, it will behoove them to procure the assembly of many Churches, that the offence may be orderly heard, judged, and removed. Mr. Parker also in his Politacclesiast. l. 3. c. 24. and multitude of other Non-conformists and foreign Divines cited by Mr. Paget in his defence of Church-government in the Presbyterial, Classical, and Synodal assemblies, p. 44, 45, 46.  
Sect. 4. Reply, p. 87. The Synagogues might be under a superior Judicatory, for they were but parts of a Church, a Positique Nationall church: but particular Congregations are entire and complete Churches, and may transact all God's ordinances, walking in truth and peace amongst themselves.  
rejoined. 

1. What if the Synagogues were as complete and entire Churches in all matters of perpetual and moral concernment, as particular Christian congregations are. For, 

1. there were Assemblies there.  
2. Those assemblies are called Churches, Psal. 26.12.  
3. In them was reading, Act. 15.21.   Preaching, Act. 18.20. Ruling, yea rulers, at whose request Paul preached, Act. 13.15. Censures, as excommunication, or casting out of the Synagogue, Joh. 12.42. & 9.34. & 16.1, 2. What moral ordinance waa wanting in the Synagogue, which was to continue in time of the Gospel?  
2. That Congregations are entire and complete Churches, you can never prove in your sense, nor that they can transact all Church-ordinances, the contrary hath been proved.  
3. Power of Church-government is not left to every or to any Nation as it is a Nation, but to the Church, not because it is National simply, for a Provincial or Presbyterial Church, yea a Congregational, may have power of government; only the nearer any Church is to the Universal church, the more authority it hath, and the further off, the less.    
Sect. 5. I cannot but mind you, that p. 88 you deal unjustly, 1. In that you would make the Reader to believe, that from that single proposition, The Gospel was writ principally for the Jews, some say in Hebrew, I conclude, that congregational men do not apply it rightly, yea that the Christians that are Gentiles may not make a right use of them. You know my purpose was only to show the great probability of taking the word Church in Mat. 18. in the same sense that it is taken amongst the jews, and in the Hebrew tongue. 2. In that you divide the argument, and then encounter with the several peeees of it, and say of the several pieces of it, We cannot but despair of ever seeing the premises delivered of the conclusion; and, How shall we do to get the conclusion willingly to follow these premises?  
rejoined. 1. Seeing you want help to make a Syllogism, and cry out, What shall we do? it is an act of charity to direct you. Do but joint the Premises together, put them in form, do not wrong them, strangle not the child in the place of bringing forth, and they will very easily deliver themselves of the genuine and natural conclusion, viz. that this Text doth not prove that the Church in the time of the Gospel must be only congregational, not Nationall, Provincial, etc. and that they which thus allege this Text do abuse it: and this was my scope. 2. Notwithstanding this was my scope, yet by the providence of God some arguments are couched in my answer, which imply that by the word Church the Presbytery is meant, because he speaks to the Disciples v. 1. or Apostles, which elsewhere are said to have the power of binding and losing, Mat. 16.19. joh. 20.23. and were not ordinary believers, but Elders, 1 Pet. 5. See my answer. 2. That he rather meant a Church with subordination, than a single Independent assembly, it is thus covertly argued. The notion of a particular Congregation is not agreeable to the Jewish church, which you say is here spoken of in the first place; but the notion of a Church with distinct judicatories is agreeable to it: and these two arguments might incline you to judge that he speaks of the Presbytery, and of a Church with distinct judicatories, but in your Reply you take no notice of them.  
Sect. 6. Reply, p. 89. Though this place 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, National, &c, churches; because 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, Act. 6.3. 1 Cor. 5.4. c. 11, 12, 14, 16. but of any stated, Classical, Provincial, Nationall, and Ecumenical churches, there is deep silence in the Scriptures of the New-Testament, no precept for erecting of such, and no laws nor officers provided for churches. Christ sends the people to such a Church as hath a charter from heaven.  
Rejoind. 

1. You implicitly acknowledge that the word Church is not understood only nor chief of the people as they stand in opposition to their guides; then if a Church have but one guide, and he sin, can the Church proceed against him or no?  
2. You also in saying, this place may lawfully be understood of the congregational church, do imply that there is no necessity it should be so understood.  
3. All these chapters are cited only to prove two precedents, viz. that the Church of Jerusalem and the Church of Corinth were only two particular Congregations, and we have fully cleared that the Church of jerusalem consisted of many assemblies.  
4. Act. 6.3. will not prove the contrary; for, 

1. That meeting was for the choosing of Officers, wherein I suppose you require not the presence of women and children, though (possibly) others of your way do.  
2. They had several tables (possibly 7. for every Deacon one) and not one table only, v. 3. The word [table] is the plural number: now several tables to receive the collection of one Congregation, are neither usual nor needful.  
3. How 8000. or suppose but 5000. new Converts, and the many thousands converted by John Baptist, Christ, and the 12 Apostles, and 70 Disciples before Christ's death could at that meeting upon the Apostles motion all of them know the seven men, and so unanimously agree upon this new business, without considering and consulting apart (especially seeing they were of divers languages) is a thing incredible: most probable it is, that the Grecians that murmured against the Hebrews, did apart choose one or more of of the Deacons, as suppose Nicolas the Proselyte of Antioch.  
4. Whereas you name Cenchrea, though you bring nothing to prove it was only one particular assembly, and your men pretend that it was but a little town, I read that it was a very well frequented populous town, most famous for the station of the ships, and so might be large enough to contain in it many Church-assemblies, as well as many Haven-towns in England do.  
5. There are no officers appointed by God for National churches, but the same that are for lesser churches; surely there may be National churches without National officers, as in Scotland. The office of a Precedent, Register, etc. nature may teach it National Synods (which yourselves hold lawful) as well as congregational Judicatories.  
6. For Laws, there are some laws for Synods, whether National, Provincial, or Ecumenical, and there are some acts of Church-government which by the laws of Christ every particular Congregation is unable to perform, as I have formerly showed.  
7. Seeing there is deep silence in the Scripture of this Position, that every Church must be only Congregational and Independent in opposition to Classical, Provincial, etc. and seeing also there is a charter from heaven for combination of Churches into Classes & Synods, and for the authoritative power thereof; therefore they which say that Mat. 18. must needs be meant only of the former, and cannot be rightly applied to the latter, do abuse and wrest that Scripture.  
Lastly, Mr. Cotton himself saith (Keys, 47.) that the promise of binding and losing is not given to a particular Congregation when it is leavened with error and variance. Ecclesia litigans non ligat, Clavis errans non ligat.     But then a Synod of Churches or of their messengers may judicially convince and condemn error, search out truth, determine, declare, and impose the way of truth and peace upon the Church.  
You say, a Synod must not assume authority of censuring Delinquents. Wherein you oppose Mr. Cotton; for how can a Synod of Churches impose ways of truth and peace upon a litigating erring Church, if she have no authority to censure the said delinquent Church, nor any member of it, except she herself will do it. I leave you three to consider of the matter.   

CHAP. XXIX. Of the power of the Keys, in MAT. 16.19.  
Sect. 1. Reply, p. 89. The power of the Keys we seat not in the people, as contradistinguisht to their Elders, but in the whole Church by a most wise and divine dispersion of power into the dissimilar parts of the Church; Elders have an authoritative power, the people have a power of liberty in point of Censures, so that reclamante ecclesia there can be no excommunication.  
rejoined. 

1. Who made these Keys, especially this key of Liberty? cannot they that make Keys, make Locks too? If God have made these Keys, I pray show me when and where? If the Scripture do not witness that they are true Keys, I shall think them to be picklocks, and fit with the Pope's keys to be thrown into Tiber.  
2. A Key in all men's judgements was wont to imply office and authority; they that have no office, have no keys that I know of at their girdle. In a family, or in a corporation or city, servants and citizens have some liberties, privileges and interests, which yet have no stroke in ordering the Keys in city or family.  
3. Do not yourselves give the people without officers (or as distinct from them) a Key of authority? Tell me, I pray you, is not Ordination an authoritative act, an act of government? And yet you say (Pos. 10.) the brethren may ordain. Is not Church-admonition as a step to an higher censure, an authoritative act, an act of government? and yet you say the brethren may admonish their officers, yea and excommunicate them, at least negatively, which you say is not so authoritative as the positive, but yet you imply it is authoritative. Do you hold that Elders do receive their authority from the Church of Believers, or no? If you do, than the Church of believers hath authority, else she could not give authority. If you do not, you forsake your own principles. If ye hold that the people's denial of consent (when a case is voted) doth bind the Elders, and the Elders denial of consent doth not bind the people; then the people have more authority than the Elders. If you say, the Elders and body of Members have each a negative voice, than you make the Church to consist of two  societies, which you cannot prove by Scripture.  
4. Your speech, Reclamante ecclesia, etc. must be rightly understood, or else it is not true: the sentence of Excommunication may be valid in foro, though not in facto, in respect of right, though it cannot take due effect; as an Outlawry may be good in law, though the people will not withdraw from the person outlawed: if the people had a negative voice which might illegitimate and disannul the act of the Presbytery, than they had greater authority than the Presbytery. A necessity of the Members consent doth constitute Church government in a Democratical frame; in Rome, Athens, etc. they had Magistrates, yet the government was democratical. But certainly it belongs to the Elders, which are stewards of the mysteries of God, 1 Cor. 4.1.2. Tit. 1.7. (and not to the whole family) next under the Lord, and by his direction, to take in and turn away servants; and Elders have full power to baptise, upon making of a disciple, without any intervening act of the Church, Mat. 28.19. and this power was exercised by John Baptist, Mat. 3.6. Luk. 3.7. and the Disciples of Christ, Joh. 4.1, 2. and the Apostles, Act. 2.37, 38, 41. Act. 4. & 5. & 8. etc. no mention being made of a Church or Congregation voting for their admission into the Church by baptism.    
Sect. 2. When I answer that Peter and the rest to whom Christ directs his speech were Apostles in office and commission though not yet sent out into all the world; you tell us that the term Apostle is equivocal, as noting, 

1. One authorised to dispense Doctrine and Discipline amongst all Nations, Mat. 28.19. and in this sense Peter was no Apostle.  
2. As one sent out by a temporary commission to preach and work miracles amongst the Jews only.    
rejoined .. 

1. That they were not called Apostles by Anticipation only is very clear as any historical thing is, for the Text saith, he chose, made, and named the Apostles, Luc. 6.13. Mark 3.13. Mat. 10.1. and that he sent them, Mark 6.7. Mat. 10.5. Luk. 9.1.  
2. The term of Apostle is not equivocal, for (if yourselves do not equivocate in the word equivocal but take it in a logical sense) it imports nomen common and diversas rationes or essentiales definitiones, so canis a dog, is an equivocal term being taken for the dogstar, or a living dog, or a painted dog, now sure (you know) that Peter had more of an Apostle than the dogstar, or painted dog hath of a living dog: nor do you think I believe whatsoever you pretend that Peter was an Apostle of one kind one while, and another while of another, that Judas was of one kind of Apostles and Mathias of another. The Apostles without equivocation had the same office at first, they had at last, only their limits were enlarged? you father your distinction upon me but I own it not, Peter was authorised to dispense doctrine and discipline any where, the Apostleship included a general commission in it, but Christ immediately after he made them Apostles prohibited them from going to the Gentiles or Samaritans Mat. 10.2. and so I meant, they were not yet sent out into all the world, as neither they were long after they undoubtedly had commission to teach all Nations, nor was James all the time of his life (that we read of) sent out into all the world but abode in Jerusalem to his death and yet was as truly and fully an Apostle as any of the rest.  
3. The 70. which were not Apostles were sent forth by a temporary commission to preach and work miracles amongst the Jews only, by your definition they should be Apostles all the life time of Christ as well as the twelve. And whereas you say, Reply p. 91, that the promise of the keys was not made to Peter as authorized to dispense doctrine and work miracles among the Jews, nor was be an Elder invested with authoritative power of government, he could not Excommunicate by himself or all the rest of the twelve with him, but must shake off the dust of his feet against them, Mat. 10.    
I answer, the Apostles were then sent forth to baptise, and did actually baptise which you acknowledge to be the work of an Elder and allowed to receive maintenance. 2. The Apostles had authoritative power of government immediately after they were Apostles (as also Jesus himself more fully had) though it is not mentioned that they did much exercise it, either because the power of the high Priest and of the tribe of Levi was not to cease till the death of Christ, or because Christ the great shepherd was then upon earth authoritatively to govern all his disciples, as he thought good [but indeed he himself did neither vote in Synagogues nor in Sanhedrin that I know of) or for some other special reason, yet when one was casting out Devils in Christ's name the Apostles forbade him (the word imports either a forcible or authoritative Prohibition) as the Church of Rome forbids meats, and marriages, 1 Tim. 4.2.) Luc. 9.49. Mar: 9.38. and Christ doth not blame them for taking on them to forbid, but for forbidding what they should not. Lastly, the shaking the dust off their feet, was a renouncing of their communion, a real pronouncing of them to be unclean, unworthy that the Apostles should tread upon any dust of their land, a delivery up to God's judgement, and was only prescribed to men in office.  
Sect. 2. Reply. p. 92. The thing promised may be considered two ways: 

1. As a reward in general of grace and mercy, and so it was promised to Peter as making such a glorious confession which he did not make as a general officer but as a believer. I say unto thee.  
2. As importing a power of opening and shutting, and so it is promised to Peter as a believer, and in him to all those that make the same holy confession, yet not to be executed by any under the notion of a believer only, but imports an office or state under the capacity whereof it was to be executed; and Christ doth herein promise that capacity, viz. that Peter should be as a member, as an Elder, as an Apostle, no believer at this day merely as a believer though externally confessing Christ with the mouth may have any share in executing the power of keys unless he be a brother joined to some Church or an Elder.    
rejoined. 

1. This distinction was made (I think) for this present purpose, and you can make more of them, if there be cause, but the Position in the Grammatical sense of the words doth not express nor imply such a thing.  
2. If the power of the keys considered as a reward of grace and mercy was promised or given to Peter as making such a glorious confession, than it was not profession of faith nor in churching that moved God to give him the keys, but sincerity and sanctity whence it follows. 

1. That Peter did not speak in the name of the rest of the Apostles (for his personal sanctity and sincerity of profession could not procure a reward of grace and mercy to them all) but by the context it appears that he spoke in the name of them all, for v. 15. Christ saith to them not to Peter only, and v. 20. he charged the disciples (not Peter only) that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ implying that they did know it, and Christ knew they knew it, which (as man) he could not do without their confession of him, and this we hold against the Papists, nor can you deny it.  
2. If the keys were promised as a reward of grace and mercy than Judas could not partake of the keys in that respect, for to him being an hypocrite there belonged no reward of grace and mercy,  
3. Nor can any Minister or member that is not a vessel of grace and mercy, receive any part of the power of the keys under that notion.    
3. The Position imports that Christ's speech to Peter, I will give thee the keys, etc. conceives Peter in some present capacity, and not only in a promised capacity, for it argues that the Apostles were not considered as general officers, because that commission was not yet given them. And Peter and the rest did actually baptise, which doth imply they were already officers, and therefore your speech that Eldership & Apostleship were then but promised them cannot be true.  
4. The Text is so far from asserting that Peter's church-member-ship made him capable of the execution of the power of the keys (which you say it did) that ● it doth expressly distinguish the Church from Peter for having named the Church, v. 18. say not And I will give to it the keys, but I will give to thee the keys. 2. The Church here spoken of is not any particular congregation against which the gates of hell may prevail, as they have prevailed against Rome, Jerusalem, etc. but either the universal visible church, or the visible church, neither of which the gates of hell can utterly overthrow.  
5. Keys in Scripture phrase do import office and authority either Magisteriall, Rev. 1.18. and 3.7. Or Ministerial, Isay 22.22. But all church-members are not officers, and you sometimes say that unofficed men have no authority.    
Sect. 3. When I say, If the keys be given to Peter a● a believer, than they are given to all believers making Peter's confession whether in chuch-convenant or no, whether church-members or no, whether males or females, for a quatenus ad omne valet consequentia: you having first granted that the power of the keys is promised to every believer making Peter's confession though it cannot be executed by them except they be in such a capacity of state or office. You reply p. 93. That axiom will not hold when we speak of a sovereign Lord acting in a transcendent way of liberty, nor of a rational creature moving according to choice and election. If one looking upon a servant as faithful, should promise him all the keys of the house that he should open and shut to all the rest, it will not follow that every other faithful servant may execute that power or that he may execute it as a faithful servant.  
Rojoynd. I knew well before you told me that it is one thing to promise to give the keys to a servant because he is faithful, and another thing for that servant to execute the power of the keys quâ a faithful servant, everlasting Priesthood was promised (as you truly allege) to Phineas because he was zealous for God, his zeal (and especially Gods own free love) moved God to give it him, but did not enable him to exercise the Priestly functions, only his calling to the Priesthood did thereunto enable him. 2. That the words in the Position [as disciples and believers] are to be interpreted by, because they were disciples and believers, therefore as a reward of grace and mercy, a further office was promised to them you strangely presume; yet yourselves hold not that God did look upon Judas (of whom the Position must needs be understood, as well as of the rest of the Apostles) as faithful, and did therefore promise him the keys as a reward of grace and mercy. 3. What the opinion is of the Elders of New-England out of whose book the Position seemed to me to be taken (though I meddle not with it as such, but take it in terminis) the Reader may see Answ. to 32. q. p. 44. and p. 49. etc. Where they expressly affirm that church-power, church-government the keys are committed to the whole Church, and that some exercise of it is in the whole Church as distinct from the officers, yea, over the officers themselves if they offend; and therefore I wonder that you should say in your last clause, that the Elders of New-England do not give authoritative power to the Ruled, but to the Elders, seeing in the 22. position set down by yourselves, the thrones and Crowns, Answ. to 32. q. p. 45. are by them aleadged (as I upon supposal the position might originally be theirs noted in the margin) to be ensigns of authority and governing power in church-members, and in your last, you assert this to be the allegation of the Elders of New-England, and that it may be they are able to maintain it, though you by reason of your weakness dare not undertake it, you have need to come with another distinction to reconcile yourselves, and to show how that Position can be asserted by them and yet give authoritative power to the Elders and not to the members.   

CHAP. XXX. Of Excommunication, Delivering to Satan, In 1 COR. 5.  
WHen I urge, that Paul's blaming of the Believers as well as the Elders, doth not prove that they had power to put away the incestuous man; for he blames the women that did not mourn, but were puffed up as well as the men, and yet the women by your confession had no such power: You reply, When an Epistle is writ to a whole Church, it doth respect particular persons according to their several capacities. Now women are not in a capacity of dispensing Church-censures, therefore the reproof extends not to 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.  
rejoined. 1. Your rule is good and sound, but gains you nothing; for hence it follows, that whosoever by Scripture rules is in capacity to administer Church-censures, is only blamed for not dispensing them, whether Elders, brethren and sisters, or Elders and brethren, or Elders alone; and they that are not in that capacity are not blamed for not dispensing censures, though they may be blamed for being puffed up, and not rather mourning. That Elders are in such capacity, we both agree; that brethren are in it, I deny: if therefore Scriptures do not affirm that Brethren are in such capacity, than this place (which respects particular persons according to their several capacities, and puts none into a new capacity) doth not blame the Brethren for not dispensing Church-censures, no more than it doth blame women. You beg the question, and take that for granted which I deny, and you should prove, and interim you prove that which was never denied. 2. If you call cutting off of offenders an act of liberty, I pray you what is an act of authority?  
Sect. 2. When I cite Mr Cotton speaking of Paul's excommunicating alone, 1 Tim. 1.20. you leave out the citation, and would make the Reader believe it was only my speech, and yet you do not profess to deny it, nor to argue strongly against it, only you say, If we should deny it, we could argue probably for the negative. R. I will not justify Mr. Cotton, at least not in that expression, Paul did excommunicate. For, 1. as in my Answer I left it in medio, whether Excommunication and delivering up to Satan were the very same thing or no, propending rather to the opinion which differenceth them. So now I know not any necessity why they should be the very same; for though every Excommunication, Clavae non errante, be a kind of delivering up to Satan, yet every Delivering up to Satan, especially in those times, was not Excommunication. Job was delivered up to Satan, Job 2.6. so were those that were possessed with Devils, and yet were not excommunicated When the Apostle saith, he hath in readiness to revenge all disobedience, 2 Cor. 10.6. That he hath a rod, 1 Cor. 4.21. That when he comes, he will not spare, 2 Cor. 13.2. he doth not (I conceive) mean it of sharp rebukes, or of excommunication, which were not so proper and peculiar to the Apostle, but the Church might have done that before Paul came. 2. I will not meddle with the question whether the Apostle might or no, did or no act in excommunication with the concurrence of the Church; though I could answer your arguments for the one, and bring as good or better arguments for the other. Mr. Cotton (whom it most concerns) is able to defend himself, I leave him and you to end this matter as you shall see cause. Of the subject excommunicating we shall speak afterward.  
Sect. 3. When I urge that the Apostle saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I have judged or decreed already as if I were present, to deliver such a one to Satan, which imports rather that Paul himself would deliver him to Satan, then that he exhorted them to do it. Indeed he commands them to put him away, as he writes to them to restore him again, to see whether they would be obedient in all things, 2 Cor. 2.9. and he would have it done when they were gathered together, that the people might behold, approve, and execute what was decreed. You reply, p. 97. That the words may be said to import the one rather than the other, and yet in their proper sense import neither. The Publican was justified rather than the Pharisee, and yet the words do not positively import that either of them was justified: And yet you have a good mind to make the Reader to believe that Paul himself delivers him to Satan, and not the Corinthian Church.  
rejoined. 

1. You can cavil at any expression, and turn my words any way. When in answ. to Pos. 5. I say, that the words [Church called to be Saints] do rather of the two import, that there was a Church before there were Saints, then that they were Saints before they were a Church; though I added by way of interpretation of myself, that I did not maintain the validity of either inference, you there argue against me (notwithstanding my said selfe-interpretation) as though I had positively asserted that there was a Church before there were Saints, and now you say of the very same phrase of speech that it doth positively import neither the one nor the other. This is not fair.  
2. Concerning the Publican, I answer. 

1. You have no ground to the contrary, but that he was justified.  
2. You cannot show any place in Scripture where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 employed or expressed is so indifferent a term.  
3. Most (if not all) Interpreters conceive from that place that he was justified.  
4. Our Saviour's speech following doth seem to back that exposition, he that humbleth himself shall be exalted which is to be understood of true humility and true exaltation.  
5. I dare appeal to you whether the words, Matth. 10.28. rather fear him that is able, etc. do not positively import that we must fear God, and whether the words John 3.19. they loved darkness more than light, do not imply that they loved one of them, and so may that of the publican, and my speech also.    
3. The Grammatical Syntaxe of the words will best bear that Paul himself had decreed alrealy to deliver him, and for this I dare appeal to any that hath competent knowledge of the Greek tongue, Camero, a learned Critic understands this of some special Apostolic power, saying, the Apostles words are diligently to be weighed for he would not or could not so speak if he spoke of any ordinary power. 2, Unto this delivery, the Apostles presence was requisite at least that he should be present in spirit, and that is the reason of the phrase [as though I were present] and of that [and my spirit] v. 3, and 4. Now the Apostles presence was not necessary to excommunication.    
Sect, 4. But you urge that doubtless an accusative case importing the subject delevering must be understood either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not the first, for then probably he would have said I have delivered him to Satan and commanded the Church to take notice of it, and abstain from him. 2. The Apostles judgement was passed at the writing of this Epistle, and therefore his judgement was not an actual casting of him out, but only a judgement that the Church of Corinth should pass the judgement of Excommunication against him.  
rejoined. 

1. The words naturally and genuinely run, I have determined already, or I have decreed already to deliver etc. and the want of an accusative case is an argument that he spoke of himself as if I should say, I determine to oppose error and you should say we determine to defend Independency, or as Paul 1 Cor. 2.2. saith, I have judged or determined (for the original word is the same both there and here) to know nothing save Jesus Christ.  
2. The Apostle could not say, I have delivered him, etc. for he had not then done it, his determination only was then certified in this Epistle, and not the performance of it.  
3. You strongly run away with a conceit that it is granted, that delivering up to Satan and excommunication are terms equipolent which I grant not because the propriety of the Greek phrase is best preserved by saying Paul was determined to do the one, and the church enjoined to do the other, for he saith not I am determined to purge out the old leaven, or to put away the incestuous person nor (saith he) deliver ye such a one to Satan, or I appoint you to deliver such a one to Satan, as he saith, Purge ye, out ye away, etc. and therefore your arguments, precedent and consequent which are built upon this supposition are to me of no weight.    
Sect. 5. Reply. p. 98. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 notes such a transaction of an ordinance as Paul could not do being absent, for he did nothing by proxy. Now must the whole come together and look one upon another and imagine him to be excommunicate because Paul had so judged him, and after this dumb show to departed, therefore we conceive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be understood as going before the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and relate to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to that rule of Gramarians, etc. Si infinitivus & Participium praecedens pertinent ad ●●ndem personam non additur accusativus personae sed subintelligitur.  
rejoined. 

1. That the Apostles might deliver to Satan without such a public solemn transaction, public binding and observable exemplary ejection as you speak of, you have heard before.  
2. That the Apostle did nothing being absent, is not true, for handker-kiefs and aprons going from him did cure many that were sick, and doubtless he might have cast out Satan as well as deliver to Satan absent, aswell as present, though he did not so usually and commonly practise it.  
3 you cannot extract out of your grammar rule that a Genitive absolute depending on the nominative to the verb standing as it were in a parenthesis (which being left out the sentence would be perfect) should take away the necessary dependence which the infinitive hath on the verb, and interest the action of the infinitive in another person having no other ground, but only Rhetorical placing by which it stands nearer to the Infinitive than the verb doth.  
4. There might be good reason to require the assembling of themselves together, though he only did deliver to Satan. 

1. That the Church might behold it and be afraid, might repent of their glorying and being puffed up, and take heed of the same sin lest they should meet with the same punishment.  
2. That there might be more shame and confusion upon the Incestuous man's spirit, as when a Malefactor is openly punished.  
3. That they which were in capacity to dispense church-censures might more solemnly excommunicate hi●.  
4. That the rest (if they also must be gathered) might give a popular consent and approbation to the sentence, and execute it in withdrawing from him; some of these reasons were given by me in my answer by way of prevention, but you left them out that your objection might be more plausible.  
5. If the Church of Corinth by an extraordinary commission had been enabled in Pavl's absence of body and presence of his spirit to deliver the Incestuous person to Satan that cannot be drawn into ordinary imitation.  
6. As for your other passages I find you misaprehension of my opinion to be the ground of all or the greatest part of your discourse, you conceive I grant that delivering up to Satan and excommunication of the incestuous person is all one, possibly I did not so clearly in my answer express my conceptions as I might and ought to have done, out of a fear of multiplying questions.   Whereas you say in p. 96. The Church in 1 Cor. 5.7.4.5. is made by the holy Ghost the subject excommunicating, I grant you that the Church in v. 7, 8. 13. was the subject purging out or putting away (if you will) the subject excommunicating with this proviso that as imposition of the hands of the Presbytery is by yourselves p. 96. called the concurrence of the Church in Ordination, so the acting only of the Presbytery in excommunication may be called the concurrence of the Church. As the whole Church, which Act. 15.22. is said to send messengers and decrees to Antioch was in the judicial passing of those decrees only the Apostles and Elders Acts 15.2. and 16.4. and 21.5. 3. I assert not that Paul did command the Church to deliver the Incestuous person to Satan, nor that excommunication was an act belonging to the Apostolic function I know it may and aught in cases requiring it, be transacted by the Church. I assert not that there were no other grounds of Paul's writing to them to put away the wicked person but to try their obedience, I only say if Paul did write to them to deliver him to (Satan as you strongly affirm) some other way then by church-censure then the Church of Corinth was in obedience to Paul and by his spirit to deliver him up, and every Church hath not the same power, and this was the reason of those passages Paul by Apostolic authority bids the Colossians cause an Epistle to be read in Laodicea, etc. I grant that whatsoever power the fraternity and the Presbytery of the Church of Corinth had the fraternity and Presbytery of all such Churches as Corinth was hath to the end of the world, but deny that the fraternity of that or any other Church hath power to dispense church-censures, and that it is that you should prove.    
Sect. 4. When I say that bidding them purge out the old leaeven and put away from them that wicked person &c, must not be understood as if Elders and people were equally authorized thereunto, etc. You reply, p. 100 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, there is nothing in the place by you alleged that doth import thus much, the King for a miscarriage in a cause may reprove the Jury as well as the Judge and not imply that Judge and Jury are equally authorized etc.  
rejoined. 

1. The Position in the letter saith, that he did reprove the brethren of the Church of Corinth as well as the Elders that they did no sooner put him away, implying that the brethren were to put him away as well as the Elders.  
2. The Position in the scope of it seems not to me, if I understand it, to make any difference between the power of Elders and of Brethren: Mr. Cottons words are, There is no word in the Text that attributes any power to the Presbytery apart, or singularly above the rest, but as the reproof is directed to them all, so is the commandment directed to them all, Cottons way, p. 99 You bring in Mr. Cotton expressly giving all authority, properly so called, to the Eldership, allotting only popular power of interest and liberty to the people. I would suppose he doth not contradict himself; and yet me thinks in his late book called the Keys, he comes nearer to the truth then in the former called the Way. I know not how to reconcile him, I leave it to you to do, which are better acquainted with his manner of speaking.  
3. If N. E. men may interpret the Position, (which I conceive might be, and you assert was taken out of them) they do hold that the Members of the Church have authority and governing power. I will not gloss on their words or meaning, or on your distinction of authority properly so called, and not properly so called: let the Reader judge as he pleaseth, I count these unnecessary unprofitable debates.  
4. Your comparison of Elders and people, to Judge and Jury is not proper; for the Jury is not all the County or Corporation, but only some select dozen of men out of many, and so the Ruling Elders are liker to the Jury than all the Congregation. 2. The judgement of the Jury is a judgement (I think) of authority properly so called; for they condemn or acquit the party in some degree, though not completely.    
Sect. 5. Reply, p. 100 And lastly, A man would think you did acknowledge that the People in suo gradu were authorized to purge out the old leven, and put away the wicked person, which questionless is some act of governing power; and yet in the Catastrophe of your Discourse you wipe the Fraternity clearly of all such acts. This is is a riddle.  
rejoined. 1. I do acknowledge that the people, yea the women, are authorised in suo gradu to put away the wicked persons, viz. by withdrawing from them being excommunicated: yet sure, women's withdrawing is no act of governing power, but of obedience to it; for you say Women are prohibited by positive law from having any Church-power, (though (it is said) women do exercise power in some of the new Churches in London.) When the Steward of a family hath discharged a naughty servant, all the servants are authorized to withdraw from him, yea if need be, to turn him out of doors. The withdrawing of people from an outlawed person, is no part of the Judicature, or of power, but of obedience. Briefly, he that executes an authoritative command, may be said to be authorized to that act (as to execute a malefactor) though himself be not a governor. And so I have read your riddle, and Oedipus may save his labour, unless he come to observe, (but any ingenious Reader that minds the scope and drift of the Position and of your discourse, may do it) that while you have been catching at this or that shadow, you have not given us one solid argument to prove (what you should prove) from 1 Cor. 5. viz. that the Brethren must concur with the Presbytery by way of authority, or by way of power: Or unless he will judge whether that which you put out of my answer as guilty of a grand misprision, be guilty or no, viz. Numb. 5.2. The children of Israel are commanded to put out of the Camp every Leper; yet the Elders did judicially make clean or unclean, Leu. 13.3. Deut. 17.13. yea sometimes they alone did put the Leper (as Vzziah, 2 Chron. 26.20.) from amongst them. The allusion to the Leaven is not to be too far strained; for every woman or child in their private house without the consent of the Church might cast out leaven, but yet they cannot excommunicate: The Apostle, 1 Cor. 14.31. bids them all prophesy one by one, yet our brethren do not hold that all sanctified persons which in any place call upon the name of the Lord Jesus, Cor. 1.1, 2. were by this precept bound to prophesy. Also in 1 Thess. 5.12. he beseecheth the Thessalonians to know them that are over them, etc. which he speaks to Believers; and not to the Elders. So when he speaks of the acts of governing power, it is to be understood of Elders, not of Believers.  
rejoined. I now add, that the Priest wanted not authority to pronounce judgement of excluding the Leper, until he had consent of the people. The Priests alone did make him polluted or clean, viz. did authoritatively declare him so, The Priest alone might shut him up seven days, Leu. 13.3, 4, 5, 6. and yet all the children of Israel are commanded to put away the Leper from amongst them, as well as the Church of Corinth is commanded to purge out the old leven, and to put away every wicked person; though this punishment was inflicted by many, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by the Elders which were many, and not by all the whole Church in your sense.   

CHAP. XXXI. Whether REV. 2.11. & 4.14. prove that Church-Members have power and authority.  
Sect. 1. WHen you say, the Lord Jesus reproving the Angel of Pergamus, sends his Epistle not to the Angel, but to the Church: I add, not to the Church, but to Churches. And, 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 not the sin of one Church only, but the neighbouring churches 〈◊〉. But this you deny. You reply, p. 101. If you should unto this inference of the Elders add an hundred more of your own, yet this will not prove that the Inference 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 inferences from the text. It is harsh to say John wrote to all the seven churches, ergo not to Pergamus: if the suffering of Balaamites in the church of Pergamus was the sin of the neighbouring churches, than it may be securely affirmed it was the sin of that church.  
Rejoind. 

1. Revel. 2.11. being brought to prove that the church may concur by way of power with the Elders to cast out Balaamites according to your opinion, because the Spirit speaketh not to the Angel to whom the Epistle is inscribed, but to the whole church; I demanded whether they held that Churches might join by way of power to cast out the Balaamites? They denied that. Then I said, the Text doth as well prove the joining together of Churches by way of power, as the joining of one Church with her Elders, yourselves shall be judges in this case between me and the allegers of the Position, speak conscionably (I pray you) may not I as well infer from, Rev. 2.11. that the suffering of corrupt persons and practices is the sin of Churches, and that Churches may authoritatively or by way of power concur for the casting out of Balaamites out of the Church of Pergamus, as you or any other can infer it was the sin of one Church, and that one Church only must concur authoritatively, or by way of power with the Angel; have you warrant for the help of the Independent way to vary from the text, and to turn Churches into Church, the plural number into the singular number, and have I no warrant to keep close to the words in opposition of it.  
2. I told you in my answer that Congregational men do deny that Churches should exercise such power, as the scope of the Position would infer from these words that our Church should exercise with her Elders; I plainly shown that they cannot infer the one and deny the other as they do; now you very strangely leave out those words [But this you deny] whereby my answer builded upon that denial doth not appear to your Reader so pertinent and strong as it is indeed. For you count it absurd, and too like the Presbyterian way that Churches should concur by was of power to cast out offenders out of any Church, and thither therefore I brought the alleadgers of the Position, and there I left them.  
3. Yourselves do not vindicate the inference made in the scope of the Position, but say it may be still doubted whether theirs, or mine, or any, or all, or none be true inferences.  
4. I neither affirmed that the suffering of the Balaamites was not the sin of the Church of Pergamus, nor that it was the sin of neigboring Churches, but I said (and you cannot deny it to be true) that I may gather from the text aswell, that it was the sin of Churches, as of one Church, yea, better than that it was the sin of one Church only.    
Sect, 2. Reply p. 102. When you say Christ reproving the Angel sends the Epistle to the churches, we suppose you mean the other six churches; the seven Epistles were of immediate concernment in a distributive sense to seven several churches; it is undeniably manifest that the Church of Pergamus was guilty of suffering Balaamites and other wicked persons; but to have so much faith to believe that all the rest of the six churches were guilty of suffering Balaamites and Nicholaitans yea, even Ephesus and Philadelphia; to prove that the seven Churches were governed by a joint and common Presbytery, hic labor hoc opus est. But suppose such a common Presbytery 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 the neighouring churches in a Synod? and if all, or the major part of the Elders of the 7 Churches did neglect, why are the Elders of Pergamus only reproved?  
rejoined. 

I pray you tell us whether the words [The spirit saith to the Churches] doth prove that only one Church and not Churches are spoken to by the spirit.  
2. Whereas you suppose I mean the other six churches of Asia, and tell of a common combined Presbytery amongst them all, Episcopal men make each of those Churches an Episcopal Sea having other Churches under its jurisdiction, and you fancy to bring them all under one combined Presbytery, both which are extremes; had I meant either of them I could have so expressed myself. I meant only churches in the same sense that the text means, and determined not what that meaning may be, but say once again, if it could be proved from Rev. 2.8. that the Epistle directed to the Angel of the Church of Ephesus was of immediate concernment to one Church, than it may be thence proved that it is of immediate concernment to churches, & sic de caeteris, v. 11.17. and one is as clear as the other; and yourselves I hope mean not to contradict the sacred Text, whatsoever be the meaning of it.  
3. Mr. Brightman a godly learned man doth conceive that each of those seven churches did typify one or more Nationall Churches; for instance, Laodicea doth typify England, Philadelphia (in which the spirit of God finds nothing reprehensible) Scotland, Geneva, etc. each of which have several congregational Churches within their combination.  
4. My thoughts I shall deliver in these propositions. 

1. The Church of Ephesus did consist of more congregations than one, I evince it first by the multitude of believers there, Paul continuing Preaching there for the space of three years, Act. 20.31. & God gave special success to his Ministry so that many believed, and there were many also which used curious Arts who brought their books and burned them before all men, the price of which was 50000. pieces of silver, so mightily grew the Word of God, and prevailed, Act. 19.18, 19, 20. and a great and effectual door was opened to him, 1 Cor. 16.8, 9  
2. By the number of Elders, Act. 20.17. the term All being again and again given them v. 36, 37. Paul settled there about twelve disciples which Prophesied, Act. 19.1.6.7. and doubtless in any single Congregation many Elders and Prophets, especially in those times of extraordinary gifts, could not find employment. The second Proposition is, that the Church of Ephesus had but one Presbytery, Rev. 2.1. Act. 20.17, 28. The third Proposition is, that congregations and assemblies are in Scripture phrase called Churches; so the Jewish Church which unquestionably was but one, is called Churches, as hath been showed, and the several assemblies were ruled by one Presbytery; and so the meaning of this place is, that the spirit speaketh not only to the Angel of the Church of Ephesus, but to the several assemblies of the Church. As Church and city, do expound one another, so there was but one Church comprising all the Christians within Ephesus if they were 40000. as Church and Assembly do explain one another, so they were many churches, 10.20.30. it may be, and yourselves will acknowledge that if this be true of Ephesus, it may be true of Smyrna, Pergamus, etc. that they also consisted of more Congregations than one, though perhaps it be not so evident.    
5. Your large discourse to prove that the seven Churches were not under a common combined Presbytery, is not only impertinent (for no one holds that opinion that I know) but also in part insufficient; if it were to any purpose I could discover the weakness of it; but I shall take notice only of your last thing.    
Sect. 3. Reply. p. 104. The sad condition of Presbyterian churches is such that if wicked men be suffered in any congregation in the world, all the churches in the world are guilty of it; for the same obligation that lies upon a classical church to reform the congregation, lies upon a Provincial church to reform the classis, upon the Nationall to reform the Provincial Synod, upon the Ecumenical to reform the Nationall; though inferior churches should fail, the Ecumenical should see it reform, and if the Ecumenical fail, all the churches of the world are guilty.  
rejoined. 

1. That there is, or aught to be the same obligation in all respects between all the Churches in the world, as there is between the Churches of a Nation, Province or Classis, I never asserted (but the contrary) why then do you let such a proposition as this go naked without any proof? What, are all the Churches in the world guilty, if wicked men be suffered in any particular Congregation? and doth Presbyterianisme bring such guilt? Oh if you wrong it, and the glorious Churches of God, what can you answer when they rise up against you at that Day?  
2. If the Angel of the Church of Thyatyra suffer that woman Jezabel, God will indeed cast them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation; but the rest in Thyatyra, as many as have not this doctrine, and which have not known the depths of Satan, be will lay upon them no other burden but to hold fast what they have already, Rev. 2.22.24. but you (it seems) will lay upon them the burden of all those fornications, idolatries, seductions, impenitencies which any of those with whom they were in communion were guilty of, though they mourned for it, and laboured to amend it, but could not.  
3. The faithful in Pergamus are said to hold fast God's name, and not deny his faith; and yet they had amongst them such as held the doctrine of Balaam, and of the Nicolaitans which did not hold fast God's name and faith, Rev. 2.13.14. Dare you say that the godly and orthodox were guilty of these abominations, because they were comembers with them of the same church.  
4. If one of your Church be a Brownist (whose errors the five Apologists call fatal shipwrecks) or an Anabaptist (which goes beyond the Brownists) or hold some other error, or is fit to be cast out for some sin, do you hold yourselves guilty of that error or sin, though you should do your best to reform them, or to cast them out, and could not do it? And if a member of a particular Church may be guiltless of the sins of his fellow-members, yea of the Churches suffering wicked men, if he do the duty of his place against them, than why (I pray you) may not a particular Church be guiltless of the sins of other Churches?  
5. The external impediments why an Ecumenical church cannot meet, you have heard before. If an Englishman should be taken prisoner in Turkey, and cannot return shall he be guilty of all the misgovernment of his family. in his absence, which he prays against, mourns for, and endeavours what he can at such a distance to amend? Surely God will be to him a more equal and merciful Judge.  
Lastly, yourselves do hold communion of Churches too for counsel, though not for jurisdiction; yea, you hold that Churches ought to have a 〈◊〉 one of another; are you thereupon guilty of all those heresies and blasphemies that are broached by men which at first were Independents, if you do admonish them of their error, and renounce communion with them, and use what means you can to reclaim them?    
Sect. 4. I read in Rev. 4. that four and twenty Elders distinguished from believers, c. 7.8.11.13.14. not four and twenty Saints or members were clothed and crowned, by which I understand the officers of the Church, alluding to the four and twenty orders of the Priests, and the four beasts represent the Christian churches through the four quarters of the world, alluding to the four camps of Israel bearing in their standards the same beasts. By your exposition, the Elders which (you say) are signified by the four beasts, are excluded from governing power, for they sit not on thrones, nor have crowns on their heads; Their crowns and thrones are no more ensigns of power and authority, than their white raiment of Priesthood, (Cot, keys, p. 16.) But they are not Priests by office; they cannot do Pastoral acts, as baptise, etc. neither have they authority to govern: Every Christian man or woman, Church-member or other, hath a crown, and sitteth on a throne, viz. is spiritually a King and Priest to God, Rev. 5.10. Finally, governing power properly so called you acknowledge none but in the Elders alone, 1 Cor. 12.28. Rom. 12.8. Heb. 13.17. The people's power (you say) is more fitly called liberty and privilege, too mean a thing to be represented by crowns and thrones.  
This my answer to Rev. 4. you blot out by an Index expurgatorius; and being justly taxed for it in my Epistle before my Quaere's, you say, That in the copying out of your Reply for the Press, it was omitted, but whether casu or consilio, casually or purposely, we cannot say. I pray you whom should I ask, if you know not? You tell us how godly and able men having proved a thing by plain texts of Scripture, do add probable ones, though more obscure.] But I pray you where are those plain texts which do solidly prove that Church-members are to sit on thrones, or that they have authority and governing power? You express yourselves unwilling to defend the Position by virtue of the Text, at least in that expression, viz. of authoritative and governing power.] Why then do you not ingenuously confess that the Text doth not prove the Position? You say, that it may be N. E. men are able to maintain it by virtue of the Text.] Then it may be authority and governing power may be duly settled on Church-members as distinct from officers, by God's word. You say that the exposition that I give in my answer seemed probable to one of you, yet upon further inspection you have some exceptions against it, though you do not absolutely reject it.] But if my exposition seem probable, and you do not reject it, why do you except against it? 

1. You say, the four Beasts are full of eyes, Revel. 4.8. but you read not of any eyes that the Elders had.] I answer, it was convenient to mention the beasts with eyes, that it may not be thought the Churches were bruitishly ignorant; but to mention Elders with eyes was superfluous, seeing they are men, and of the gravest and wisest of men, and you may presume they had eyes, for the Text tells us not that they were blind.  
2. You say, the four beasts do lead the 24 Elders in the worship and service of God, Rev. 4, 9, 10. etc. 5.8, 11. Now Churches do not lead their Officers, but Officers the Churches.] I answer, 

1. The Elders are sometimes set before the four beasts, Rev. 7.11.  
2. If I should say, When the Society of Duckenfield doth communicate, the Elders do break the bread, therefore the Church of Duckenfield doth lead her Officers, you would laugh at that consequence. The case is the same. When those beasts give glory and honour, (you may read, shall give glory and honour) the 24 Elders fell down, therefore say you the Church doth lead her Officers.    
3. You say, As for your allegation, Rev. 7.9, 11, 13, 14. that Elders are distinguished from believers— we discern not that they are any more distinguished than the four beasts are.] I answer, You may discern more distinction; for one of the Elders (not any of the four beasts) speaks of them as of another sort then themselves in some respects, v. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, These are they, not We are they, etc.  
4. You say, Mr. Conon asserts some privileges of Church-members, which are privileges of Kings wearing crowns, viz. to transact nothing by themselves, but by their officers? 2. Their consent is requisite to the judgements that pass in the Church.) I answer, 

1. I thought that a Church, viz. the non-officed members, had nor transacted things by their Officers to express their royalty, but for want of authority per se to administer Sacraments.  
2. That their consent had not been a royal consent, as to Acts of Parliament, but a popular consent.  
3. No exposition can be given of the words, but some exceptions may be made against it.  
4. All your exceptions together are not of such weight, no not with yourselves, as that you da●e because of them reject the exposition I gave.  
Lastly, if you do maintain the position that Church-members have authority and governing power, you contradict yourselves.       

CHAP. XXXII. Of taking Christ for their only spiritual Prophet, Priest, and King.  
Deut. 18.15. Act. 7.37. Psal. 110.4. Heb. 5.4. Isa. 9.6, 7. Rev. 15.3.  
YOu profess that you do not appropriate this to the Congregational churches, as if in these offices Christ were so only hers, that no five or six, or one particular Saint out of Church-fellowship, no Classical, Presbyterial, or National Church may take him for their only Prophet, Priest and King. You condemn any that have thus expressed themselves, you call it a cup of abomination, and say in whose sack soever it be found, let him suffer according to his demerits. Yea that all the churches of God, yea all the people of God may deservedly condemn such, that it favours of most detestable pride and censoriousness that it is a thing of greatest abhorrency to our thoughts, if it fall on this side blasphemy against the holy Ghost.  
rejoined. 

1. The texts cited prove that Christ is a King, a Priest and Prophet, but not that Congregational churches do only so take him.  
2. You insinuate that it may be found in the writings of some on your right hand, you may mean the rigid Separatists which if it be, I am sure it is found in the writings of those that in point of government are Congregational men and Independents, and neither Presbyterians nor Prelatists, but some of them members of your Churches.  
3. I read in one that is merely a Congregational man, viz. Mr. B. that our Ministers and those that are converted by them do deny Christ's Kingly Government, and that a main thing is wanting, viz. Christ's Kingly Office, and that they refuse Christ for their only King, and other words to that effect.  
4. That this is a doctrine devised by myself, and Scriptures fixed to it to make you odious (as you say in your last) is a most uncharitable ungrounded surmise, & yet you are as peremptory in i● as if you infallibly knew that never any one of the Congregational way had ever in speech or writing vented such a thing, I will not bring against you a railing accusation, only I say you know not of what spirit you are, it is well if yourselves be not guilty of such practices.  
5. You own the Position in terminis, and do I doubt not apply it to your society, but as it is by me controverted (you say) you own it not: what do ye not hold that a Congregational Church rather than a Presbyterial doth acknowledge Christ to be the only King, etc. You say little less, when you say, that our way (as you conceive) is not suitable to the will of God delivered by Christ as a Prophet, nor to the Laws of Christ as King and yours is conformed to that will and laws, but I asked you what Scripture doth so witness, and you return no answer. I dare say you cannot make your speech good.  
6. Yourselves in your last, p. 36. do complain of me for such divulging to the world the doubts of brethren wanting light. and addressing themselves to me for satisfaction, and say it will make them tender how they seek satisfaction from me for the future, and yet you often call upon me to name my authors, but as the brethren were not displeased but some of them desirous of the publishing of the first book, so I will notwithstanding all your provocations be tender of their names as of mine own, and be willing to spend and be spent for them, humbly hoping that (as heretofore I have been) hereafter I more fully may be God's Instrument for their settlement and satisfaction in the way of God.     

CHAP. XXXIII. Whether 1 TIM. 6.13, 14. proves the unchangeableness of the Discipline of Christ.  
Sect. 1. WHen I say, it seems by the words Thou O man of God, I give thee charge that thou keep this commandment (viz. which immediately precedes) concerning faith & 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 Evangilists which succeeded him we know none) not to the churches, for example not to the Church of Ephesus to whom Paul writes nothing of government, though in his Epistles to Tymothy he writes almost of nothing else, and chargeth the Elders to take heed to the flock and look to the wolves, Act. 20.28. You Reply, p. 107. Do these words, Ephes. 4.11, 12. nothing concern Church-Government?  
Rejoind. Yes, in general terms, but they are not spoken to the Church as the proper subject or party to act in, or manage government, which was the sense I spoke in, nor do they tend to invest any but Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, Teachers with Church-power, only they make the Church the object about which, and for the good whereof that power is to be used, whom the Apostle would stir up to a good esteem and profitable enjoyment of the ministerial power, but not to assume or challenge it to, or execute it by Non-elders.  
Reply. p. 107. If you will acknowledge that the things written to Timothy concern Elders, Deacons, believers out of office according to their several capacities, than we will 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.  
rejoined. I expressly excluded that large and lax sense (which you here mention) in saying not to the Churches, not to the Church of Ephesus in opposition to that hint (which I had good reason to suspect was in the position) that churches in your sense, and not the Elders only are the subjects, actors, executors in the rules given (and so you should mean speaking to purpose) nor can I admit it, for some things in this Epistle are merely and solely for his personal use, I mean, in opposition to the Church, and all ordinary persons in it, as these, cap. 1.2, 3, 4.18. cap. 4.14. and cap. 5 23. and some things are for the use of some; and not of others in the Church, cap. 2.9, 10. and cap. 3.2, 3. and 8.9. and cap. 5.2, 3, 4, 5. and cap. 6.1, 2. and 17. 2. If you mean that the things in the whole Epistle are not for Timothy's personal use, but for the use of the whole Church objectiuè or finaliter, for the good and benefit of the whole Church in their several capacities in and about which they are exercised, you say the truth; but what is this to prove that all the commandments concerning Timothy are directed to the whole Church to be executed by her, and not by Timothy, or the officers only.  
Sect. 2. Reply. p. 107. 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 beat 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? or if to his successors, than it must be the ordinary Elders, not the Church, you mend non the matter, must Elders only, and not believers follow after godliness, righteousness, faith, & c?  
rejoined. 1. I might without any harshness or absurdity argue that the commandment preceding concerns none by way of obligation but only Timothy himself, or if any else, his successors the ordinary Elders, and that none are to perform the duties of v. 11, 12. in the sense here used by virtue of this Text but he or they; for what harshness and absurdity cannot it be to say that Bishops only are to be blameless, to have but one wife, to be vigilant, sober, etc. by virtue of cap. 3. v. 2, 3, 4. or that Deacons only must be grave, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, etc. by virtue of v. 8, 9 and that their wives should be grave, v. 13. though other men besides Bishops are to be blameless, the husband of one wife, etc. for that which is spoken in Scripture to, or of one particular person is sometimes appliable to others. 1. When the subject matter is of common concernment, and a general duty, as Mark 13.37. or secondly, when there is a parity of persons, as what is commanded to one as a father, Magistrate, Minister, etc. is obliging to other Fathers, Magistrates, etc. in this sense Pastors and Elders so fare as they are called to the same public charge that Timothy was, are by virtue of this text to follow righteousness, etc. but other Christians are obliged to the same things no further than they are of common concernment and required of them by other texts of Scripture. 2. That it may appear that the Apostle is here dealing with Timothy as an Evangelist or Elder of the Church it is easily observable. 1. That some things are in this Epistle directed by Paul to Timothy for him to convey over, communicate, and procure to be observed by others under his charge, such are those in cap. 2.1, 8, 9 etc. cap. 3.2, 3. etc. v. 8. etc. cap. 5.4, 5, 8. etc. cap. 6.1, 2, 17. in his laying down these things, the parties whom the duties concern are particularly nominated to Timothy, and he is willed to put them in remembrance of these things to command, teach, and give themin charge, cap. 4.6, 11. and cap. 5.7. and 6 2, 17. 2. That other things are directed to him for himself to execute and observe in his own person, he bearing a particular office different from, and superior to all others in that Church of Ephesus, and that which had for its object all the officers and members in that Church with the duties of them all, and this appears to be the principal part, and his Instruction in this the principal end, of this Epistle, cap. 3.14, 15. cap. 1.2, 3 4. Of these things, some are so personal that they cannot be applied to any in that Church but himself, as cap. 1.2, 18. and cap. 4.14. and cap. 5.23. Others are for his instruction and excitation to the discharge of his office, as cap. 1.19.4.6, 7, 11, 12, ad finem, cap. 5.1, 2, 3, 7, 19, 20, 21, 22. cap. 6.2, 5, 11, 12, 13, 14, 7, 20. and although many of these for the matter of them and in part are the duty of others and particularly of Elders, yet in a sort they are personal, and in their formal and full consideration can be only obliging to Timothy: which may be ' yet more evident. 1. By the singular compellations and personal addresses to him in them, as Thou, thou my son, son Timothy, thou O man of God, O Timothy. 2. The limiting circumstances of time and place, c. 1.3. c. 4.13. 3. The nature of the office he was here set to execute, viz. that of an Evangelist, 2 Tim. 4.5. 1 Cor. 16.10. by virtue of which he had a peculiar way of performing the said duties, not compatible to others, & of which none of the rest were capable of, and therefore they could not be obliged to the acts and rules of it as he was for whose direction this Epistle was written, c. 3.13, 14. 4. The deep and reiterated charges given him by name about these things, without any partners adjoined to him, c. 1.18. & 5.21. & 6.13, 14, 20. which to those which then were not in being, could not formally be delivered, nor could they with any congruity be taken hold of by, or pressed upon others then in the Church of Ephesus. 5. Had these things as well as others concerned all, or any besides, he would in all likelihood have ordered him to have published the whole to all, as he doth in such a case, Col. 4.16. 1 Thess. 5.27. and not have directed him to impart some things in particular as he doth, c. 1.3. & 4.6.11. & 5.7. & 6.2.17.18.19. What I have said of all that in this Epistle is spoken to Timothy by name as his duty, and of peculiar obligation to him, may be applied to the Text in hand, and there are yet in it some things more which may be noted as characters of appropriation to him as an Evangelist or Minister, viz. 

1. The way of expressing the command, Fight the good fight of faith, v. 12. which agrees with what he had said, c, 1.18.19. This charge I commit unto thee son Timothy etc. It is evident that the charge there is the office of an Evangelist or Minister, as appears by the designment of him to it by Prophecies, which is further witnessed by that in c. 4.14. the executing of this office is there termed warring a good warfare, and holding faith and a good conscience, which expression the Apostle (when he speaks of the Ministry of the Gospel) takes up often, and seems to affect, as 2 Tim. 2.3, 4, 5. 1 Cor. 9.26. 2 Tim. 4.7. and as Beza notes, Moses useth the same metaphor, Num. 4.3. Now mind the agreement of these two places, viz. c. 1.18.19, and this of c. 6.12. and you may discern they both deliver the same thing, and the one is a repetition of the other; As there Timothy is spoken to by name, son Timothy, so here, Thou O man of God. There a charge is given, so here, v. 13. There mention is made of his designment to his office by Prophecies, so here of his calling to the same, Whereunto thou art also called. As there the matter commanded is to war a good warfare for the custody of the faith, so here, Fight the good fight of faith. So that as face answereth to face in water, so do these places, each to other, both looking upon the work of the Ministry committed to him.  
2. The reasons he urgeth him withal to this in the same verse, Whereunto thou art also called, s●. by Ministerial vocation; for to understand it of his calling to Christianity, common to all other Christians, would make it of no such special force: And the words, Hast professed a good profession before many witnesses, do point at the public discharge of his Ministry, or else may reslect upon his solemn vow made at his ordination, wholly to dedicate himself unto, and employ his uttermost endeavours in the service of God, as is noted in the late learned Annotations.  
3. The occasion upon which, he brings in this commandment, and the charge added, viz. the heterodoxe teaching of others, v. 3. in opposition to whose corrupt doctrine he requires him to decline in his Ministry their errors, and to propagate and propugne the truth.  
4. The title or notion under which he is now speaking to Timothy, Thou o man of God, v. 11. a stile proper to Ministers, 2 Tim. 3.17. vid. Beza in locum, as to the Prophets in the Old Testament, 1 Sam. 2.27. 1 King. 13.1. & 17.19.   By all which it doth appear (I hope) that that the Apostle is here dealing with Timothy as an Evangelist or Elder of the Church. But say you,  
Sect. 3. Reply, p. 108. It is not necessary that the words, Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold, etc. should be understood of faith and holiness in the Ministry of the Word, which is but one part of the good fight of faith, the other part is fought in the universal conflict of an Evangelists conversation against the world, flesh and devil.  
rejoined. 

The words taken out or abstracted from the place where they are set, may be stretched to more; but the restriction which I have given, if well weighed, leave us but this.  
2. If a share of this fight stands (as you say) in an Evangelists conversation, yet still the commandment may be peculiar, an eminency and exemplariness being required of an Evangelist or Minister in his conversation as such, c. 4.12. The enemies in this fight bending themselves more against such, then against ordinary persons, as gaining more advantage by it if they prevail.  
3. If the word faith be here understood of sides qua ereditur, or doctrine of Christianity (as you take it in your next page) it is more properly and directly said to be fought for by a Minister in his public ministry, then in his life, Gal. 1.23. The Apostle delivering a Bishop's part, saith, he must be one that holdeth fast the faithful word in teaching, (so the margin, Tit. 1.9.)  
4. If this Commandment reach to the conversation, will it ever the more yield a bottom for a perpetual form of Church-government? You go on, Reply. p. 408. How can these words, Fight the good, etc. drink up the whole meeting of the words? And it may seem too gross to tear in piecemeal the continued exhortation, v. 11, 12. and to apply the words [this commandment] only to that in v. 12. R. But my words carry not in them a dividing between v. 11.12. nor a referring of the charge following to the 12. verse; for the words I used, s●. faith and holiness, may comprise the whole of those two Verses: what is there in them of commandment, which may not be reduced to these two heads? Your bold censure of the thoughts of my heart I pass over.    
Sect. 4. When I urge that [this commandment] extends not is the whole Epistle, nor to every precept and example of Discipline in gods book, or to the whole way of Discipline. Against this you oppose and assert, p. 109. that the words relate to the Rules concerning Church-government in the former part of the Epistle.  
rejoined. Say they do, yet in so doing they relate not to the whole way of Discipline for all Churches, not to the essentials of it (which is that you have to make good) there being divers parts of that Discipline, yea (as you will upon second thoughts grant, I suppose) essentials not found laid down by precept or pattern is this epistle. What is there in it about Excommunication, and other censures by the people or ordinary Elders? What of election or ordination of Elders by the people? What of Church-covenant Qualifications of persons capable of membership, & c? You should therefore enlarge your assertion, (which seems large enough already) and say that the Apostle relates in these words to all fore written books of Scripture, which have any thing of Church, government in them, or else you do not make good the Position by the Text, nor do you prove what I required you in my answer to prove that the words [this commandment] do extend to every preccept and example of discipline in God's book, which clause you answer not but with a deleatur, wherein you deal wisely in your generation to shape my answer so as that you might better reply to it. 2. For proof of your assertion you say, Consider the cohaerence: The Apostle having in the former part of this Epistle insisted on the several duties of the officers of the Church, he commands them in the later end of the second verse of this chapter to teach and exhort these things.  
rejoined. If we do consider the coherence, we shall find that the Apostle had insisted most on Timothy's own duty, in which indeed other officers may read theirs, so fare as they are analogated with him in the Ministry, and somewhat of the qualifications of the persons eligible to the offices of Bishops, Deacons, widows, cap. 3. and cap. 5. that so Timothy might know how to regulate in such cases. 2. You greatly and plainly mistake the text, for it is not them that in the second verse of this chapter he commands to teach and exhort, but him viz. Timothy; you could have wished (perhaps) it had been them, to have brought in the several officers to a nearer interest in the charge we are about; but the cohaerence here will not stretch to it. Thirdly, as this [them] for all the officers is an altering of the text, so it is against sense, and commonly admitted principles that it should be so; for who on your or our part will grant, that all officers, even Deacons, Widows (then, as it is held, officers) shall exhort and teach these things and that authoritatively by this commission, not only (as you distinguish) by virtue of a gift. Fourthly, you strangely misinterpret the words these things teach and exhort in making these things there; to be the several duties of the officers of the Church delivered in the former part of the Epistle, for who so reads over the two beginning verses of this chapter unto which this clause is the close and epiphonema, will in one instant perceive what he means by these things, scil. the duties of Christian servants to their masters, which this Apostle with Peter saw cause more than once to press, (the contrary practice reflecting much upon the name of God and his Gospel) and therefore wils Timothy to teach and exhort these things, yet you pass over this clear Inference of the words, and seek a longer stretch for them, which I suppose none will follow you in, that would not be lost in a dark labyrinth. You proceed in your coherence and say, Next he arms him (now you come again to the right person) with instructions how he should carry himself towards those that should teach and exhort the contrary, v. 3, 4, 5. R. The contrary to what? To the duties of servants immediately preceding, v. 1, 2. and not to the duty of Church-officers formerly (as you say) laid down as you would insinuate; and if you will not yet agree to my sense, observe the characters given of the contrary teachers in in v. 3, 4, 5. and judge whether they have not more direct contrariety to the doctrine of Servants duties, v. 1, 2. than to Church-officers duties, any where before in this Epistle laid down? former argument to bear the sense I have cleared it to have) and so may your following paraphrase on v. 11, 12. and your transition to this text as a charge laid on Timothy as an Evangelist or Pastor. But what is in all this tending to pitch the charge upon the matter of Church-government situate so remotely from this passage, though treated on in this Epistle? Yourselves have found out now at length a nearer dependence for it upon a subject of a different nature, sc. v. 11, 12. on which I shall suffer it to rest, and take the coherence or relation of it to the rules concerning Church-government in the former parts of this Epistle, yea in every other book of Scripture, (which the Position supposeth, and you should make to appear) to be a mathematical, invisible, and imaginary line.  
Sect. 5. Reply, p. 109. Now lest these things should be conceived of a temporary nature, he saith v. 13, 14. I give thee charge, etc. that thou keep this commandment 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 Ch●ist his second coming. And so Dr. Whitaker against Duraeus urgeth it.  
Rejoind. 

1. This clause, till the appearing of Jesus Christ, extends in some places, as annexed to duty no further than the parties term of life, 1 Cor. 11.26. and so far as this command either pointeth at the office of an Evangelist, or otherwise obligeth Timothy, it can extend no further; for Timothy cannot keep that commandment, either by doing it himself, or by charging others, any longer than his own natural life.  
2. What if this charge be taken in your extension of this clause, so far as by it any perpetual office in the church, or duty is commanded, (and further you contend not to lengthen it) yet if the commandment take not in the body of the Epistle, as I have (I hope) sufficiently, and shall yet more evidently evince, it nothing serves your turn.  
3. The expounding of this clause so extensively, will make against you, and help to prove that by this commandment, v. 14. cannot be understood all the rules of discipline in God's word, no not all the rules in this Epistle; For. 

1. in this Epistle many things concern Timothy's person and office as he was an Evangelist, (which office you will grant is not now in the Church.) Now if this commandment is to be kept in the Church in all ages, than those many things must remain out of the verge of this commandment, and by consequence it extends not to all particulars of discipline in the Epistle.  
2. There are some things in the Epistle about Discipline of a temporary nature besides, as the office of widows, and their washing fee●, c. 5.9, 10. I conceive you dare not assert that either of these are perpetually necessary unto the second coming of Christ, and of such unchangeable obligation as you make the words to import.  
3. Some things in this Epistle are either incompetible or unsuitable to Timothy himself, to whom this commandment and all contained in it is given) as the women's duty, c. 2.9, 10. the Wives duty, c. 3.11. the Widow's duty, c. 5.4.9. the Servants lesson, c. 6.1, 2. though these things he might give in charge to them they concern, yet he could not keep them in person, as you even now paraphrased on keeping, nor can it be conceived that such things should be imposed on Timothy with such a deep obtestation, either as the only, or as a principal, or as a representative subject of them.  
4. The word [this commandment] might me thinks be enough to have kept you in from such a wide acception: Can so many things as are packed up in this Epistle, so miscellaneous in nature, so manifold in form of speech, commands, prohibitions, declarations, assertions, admonitions, exhortations, instructions, consolations, all be reduced to this one word of the singular number, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 especially if the observation of several authors, David Heinsius exercit. sa. in Ephes. 6.1. Critica sacra Graeca in vocab. & apud illum alii, do hold, viz. that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies only an affirmative precept, not a negative, of which sort (besides those things which are not precepts at all) there are divers in the Epistle.      
Sect. 6. Reply, p. 110. You define or describe Discipline to be the whole System of, and comprehension of Divine rules, precepts or precedents for the external order of the Church, which are not of a temporary, but of perpetual use and equity till the appearing of Christ; and by essentials we mean such particulars included in this System, as if any thing be wanting, something is detracted from the perfect and complete order of the Gospel. But your definitions of Discipline, and of Essentials, are throughout one and the same; and although you make the genus of Essentials some particulars included in the system of Discipline, importing there are other particulars non-Essentials, yet in the special form and differences ye make Discipline and Essentials equipollent; for if Essentials be such particulars of the System of divine rules for the order of the Church, as if any of them be wanting, something is detracted from the perfect and complete order of the Gospel; and if Discipline be the whole system of divine rules for the external order of the Church, which are of a perpetual use and equity, Are not these two of equal limits? That which will admit of no detraction from the perfect order, is as comprehensive as the whole system of such orders. 2. In these your definitions, you implicitly contradict the Position which you pretend to defend; for it saith, The essentials of Discipline are unchangeable; importing both that some things in Discipline are not Essentials, and that Non-essentials are changeable; but your definitions do make all things in Discipline essential, and of perpetual use and equity. You further say, That only persons rightly qualified should be admitted to society in the Church, is an essential, Isa. 56.6, 7. 1 Cor. 1.1. Phil. 1.1. This in the general is 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.  
rejoined. 

1. You say, whether this or that; but you should have named the right qualification, and shown it to be such, (else we are as far to seek as before) For if it be not a right qualification, (which you do not affirm) but a suppositious one, an Essential is not in controversy; the attributing essentiality to that which it belongs not to, makes not that which is truly essential to be indifferent; so that we are never the nearer for this instance.  
2. You cite three Scriptures in your margin, to prove that only persons rightly qualified to be admitted to Church-society, is an Essential.   To which I answer, 

1. to Isa. 56. It is questionable whether it speak of Church-communion; for, 

1. The Eunuches doubtless were already in Church-communion.  
2. The sons of the stranger are said to be joined to the Lord already, and joining to the Lord you usually interpret of being in Church-communion by covenant, Act. 5.14. & 11.24. Jer. 50.5, 6. Zach. 2.11.  
3. The Proselytes which were already in the Church, are called Levim, copulati, adhaesores to the Lord, the very term here given to the sons of the stranger.    
2. If Church-communion were unquestionably one of the things, yet yourselves dare not say that it is the principal thing here promised, for which those qualifications are required; the chief things are, To be made joyful in God's house, to have our sacrifices and  offerings accepted, to have a name better than of sons, etc. For the attainment of which all agree those qualifications are required; but to conclude thence that the Church must require all those qualifications to Church-communion, is as much as to say whatever qualification God requires to make us capable of three or four privileges, the Church must require them all to one, though that one be the least and lowest, and an outward privilege which a reprobate may be capable of, and the other inward, special, spiritual privileges proper to the elect.  
3. That is a promise, and Gods promises are not the rule for such as have the exhibition of the things promised to be guided by; meat, drink, lodging, safety from the plague, admission to the Word, Prayer, Fasting; each good thing is by God somewhere or other promised to persons so and so qualified, (see for instance Isa. 33.15.16. Psal. 91.1.2.14. Psal. 25.8.)   Must therefore men see that persons must be so and so qualified, before they give them meat, drink, , or preserve them from the plague, or admit them to pray, hear the word, or to fast with them? But of the qualification of Church-members, as also of your other two Texts, I have spoken before. You further reply, p. 110. That the members of the Church be united by a right medium, is essential 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. R. That is not an Essential of discipline that is before it, and can be without it; but such is this union by a right medium: union or coalition of a society must needs in time as well as in nature precede the ordering and regulating of the said society; if it may be called essential to discipline, yet than it is not within the Position, for that speaks of the essentials of discipline: It is essential to discipline that the Members should be reasonable creatures: but you will not say that this is an essential of discipline within the verge of the Position. 2 If you know not an implicit covenant, Mr. E. and Mr. T. will teach you, and bring in Dr. Ames to teach you also, p. 37, 38. and see this rejoined. 3. Whereas you stand for the explicit covenant to be the right medium, etc. and so essential to discipline, let me mind you to keep to your definition of essentials,;;;; which as ye say are such particulars in the system of divine rules, either precepts or precedents, as if any of them be wanting somewhat is detracted from he complete order of the Gospel: Now you having yet given neither precept nor precedent out of the Script. how can you put it among the essentials? 4. None that I know do hold that the legal bounds of the Parish are the right medium of uniting a Church, nor that they are the necessary limits of a Congregational church, (though the cohabitation of comembers hath been showed to have ground on the Scripture and reason, c. 2.) But say they do, I do not, cannot make those bounds to be a medium uniting the Church; common reason saith, that Puncta terminantia non sunt continuantia. 5. Whereas you cite three Scriptures in your margin (I suppose) for an explicit covenant: I answer, Act. 2.41. & 5.13. speak of adding to and joining of those that had before been Jew's by profession, to the Apostles and the rest; but of joining by covenant, and that an explicit one too, into a congregational church (to which the Apostles themselves were never so joined they speak not one word. What 1 Cor. 12. should do in your margin, you that set it there can best rel, I know not. You add, that Ordination, Excommunication, etc. be done by the right subjectum capax of these Ordinances, 1 Tim. 4.14. Tit. 1.5. Act. 14.23. is an essential part of discipline. But whether Churches in some cases may ordain by deputies no Church-Elders, or whether in an ordinary way the power must be in the Eldership of particular Congregations, or in a compound Chassique Eldership, is a great controversy.  
rejoined. 

It had been contended by you, that the text 1 Tim. 6.13, 14. relates to the rules of Church-government in this Epistle, and therein bottoms the assertion of a discipline in essentials unchangeable, and to be kept till the appearing of Christ. Now one of those rules you have about Ordination, 1 Tim. 4.14. delivered by precedent (a rule in your definition of discipline) and others also cited by your in margin, Tit. 1.5. Act. 14.23. and no other way of Ordination can you find out in the Gospel; therefore by your own confession, Ordination to be only by a Presbytery, is an unchangeable perpetual law.  
2. That Ordination is not in an ordinary way in the Presbytery of a particular Congregation, but in a compound Classic Presbytery, is no such great controversy: but whether it may be, or in some cases must be, that not only neighbouring Elders should be present and advise, (which yourselves require) but also that they should anthoritatively act in Ordination, this thing is spoken of before.  
3. You may possibly hold Holy kiss, Oil, etc. lawful and convenient, though you hold them not essential; if you do not, others are of opinion they are ordinances of God, and do act accordingly.    
Sect. 7. Reply, p. 110. The remainder of your examination drawn out into seven particulars, though we cannot assent to every thing in them, yet we shall pass them over, because though they were all granted, yet it may be clearly deduced from 1 Tim. 6.13. that Christ hath left but one way of Discipline for all Churches, for these are no parts of the discipline left by Christ to the Church, which in the essentials of it is unchangeable. Rej. You do not only not transcribe nor answer the seven particulars, nor leave them quietly out, but pass a scornful censure upon them: let the Reader read them, and what you except against them in this and your last, and judge between us 2. But I pray you, is not the office of an Apostle and Evangelist (to omit sundry other things in those 7 particulars) a part, and an essential part of the discipline left by Christ to the Church, 1 Cor. 12.28. Eph. 4.11. and mentioned too in the Epistles to Timothy, 1 Tim. 1.1. 2 Tim. 4.5. and yet they were but temporary, not perpetual, though the Seekers expect such officers now also; but indeed if Discipline were by you rightly defined a System of Divine rules which are not a temporary nature, but of perpetual use & equity than it were impossible and would imply a coutradiction that it should be changeable. Lastly, when I ask a narrative of your way, especially of what you count essentials, you answer, we thought to have satisfied you herein, but that work is done to our hands by Reverend Mr. Cotton; and we be are a work of the same nature by the Congregational men of the Assembly is upon the anvil; we are not obliged to give forth a narrative of our way more than the Presbyterians are of theirs.  
rejoined. 

1. I would you had bestowed that pains not so much for my satisfaction (though I do desire it) as for the satisfaction of many hundreds, and the rather because Mr. Cottons way and keys cannot both be a true narrative; for the keys lie cross the Way, and whether of them you fully own (if either of them) I know not; in this your Reply you question, or deny that which is asserted in them both, and the Publishers of both of them were not of the same judgement with the book they published.  
2. As for the work of the congregational men of the Assembly which you say was then on the anvil, I wonder when it will come off ever or never, the Assembly hath long long expected it, your party hath promised it, they were once made a Committee for that end, and some made that business a pretence to excuse their not so frequent coming to the Assembly, that hitherto (as Mr. Duraeus and Mr. Apollonius complain of their unwillingness to declare their opinions) they have refused to give up a narrative, either because any one of them is not at a point in his own judgement, nor resolved where to fix, they having professed to keep as a reserve, liberty to alter and retract, which if their model were given in, they could not so fairly and honourably do; or possibly they are not all fixed in one and the same point; possibly they cannot agree amongst themselves (for it is easier to agree in dissenting then in affirming) or possibly if they seven agree, some other brethren may not like it, or others that at present are a strength to them and expect shelter from them, and they would not discontent any party, Brownists, Anabaptists, etc. or for some other reason which we know not but sure there is none yet.  
3. For the Presbyterian government, you have sundry books of the Scotish Discipline, of the French and Dutch Churches, yea the Assembly hath given up to the Parliament an entire platform of Church-government which (we hope) they will at least when they are petitioned by the Kingdom so to do, command to be printed; for my part I shall not stick (God thereunto enabling me) to do any thing for our way, which I desire you to do in behalf of yours, I prae, sequar.     

CHAP. XXXIV. Whether a Minister may act Ministerially in another Congregation.  
Sect. 1. WHen I say 1 Pet. 4.15. speaketh not of the Church or of the Elders, more than of any other men, nor meddling with the affairs of other Churches, but with other men's matters, and such meddling for which they suffered from the heathens in those days, Let no man suffer, etc. and is of no more strength against the power of a Presbytery over particular Congregations then against the power of Parliaments above other Courts: You Reply p. 112. You say true, the place meddleth neither with the one nor with the other, nor was produced to any such purpose.  
rejoined. 

I said in my margin, the like words are found Answ. to 32. q. and you dare not say, they are not found there.  
2. As for the Position, whether it be the same with the saying of the Elders, it maketh no matter unto me, I have at once answered all these imputations.  
3. Yet surely upon second thoughts you will clear me of doing any gross wrong to the Elders (yet though the Position should be acknowledged to be taken out of them.) in adding to the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 1 Pet. 4. because, 

1. That is the only place of Scripture where that word is used.  
2. Yourselves confess the Elders do allude to that place, and you justify their so doing.  
3. Either the Elders do bring this as a proof of the Position, or they affirm it gratis without proof.  
4. That they bring it as a proof, the particular [for] doth witness.  
5. You may believe that this Text was produced against the Presbytery by others, if not by N. E. men in the place cited, and seeing you acknowledge that it can witness no such thing, I have my full end.      
Sect. 2. When I assert your Inference from Acts 20.28. 1 Pet. 5.1, 2. supposeth that the flocks mhere mentioned were two particular Congregations, which is impossible to be proved. You reply, it supposeth no such thing; only implieth that there is something in those Texts against Ministers performing ministerial acts to other Congregations.  
rejoined. The position speaks of a particular Congregation, and your tenet confines Ministerial power within a particular Congregation, and pleads the Elders restraint to the flocks in the Acts, and Peter respectively, for a Minister's restraint to his particular Congregation; if then it be not granted that those flocks are particular Congregations, as I said that is impossible to be proved, so now I say, it is impossible to prove the position from them; you know it would be a silly argument to say the Elders in Ephesus, Pontus, Galatia, etc. are tied within their flocks of Ephesus, Pontus, Galatia respectively, which were or might be many congregations apiece, therefore a Minister may not act ministerially beyond his particular Congregation, and therefore (as I suppose) when you come in your next page to argue severally from these Texts, you put this for a Postulatum, that the flock at Ephesus was but one Congregation. 2. If this be not taken for granted, that the flock of Ephesus, and the other, may each of them contain several Congregations, there is much more for a combined Presbytery to govern jointly many Congregations, and for a Minister to act beyond the verge of a particular Congregation, then is against either of them therein; for 1. Those at Ephesus are called one flock, one church, as also they in Peter are called one flock; now if this one flock was many congregations, they must needs have a medium, a way of union, or something wherein they are one, as the same fold, pasture, guides, viz, Church-ordinances, Pastors. 2. The Elders in both the places have a joint, adequate, general and promiscuous charge without any parcelling or limitation, that can import a distribution of the flock spoken of (the words [over which] in the one, and [amongst you] in the other place, being terms distinctive of the flock spoken of, from other flocks not distributive of the flock into several flocks) and in Acts 20. it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 take heed to all the flock, which flock if it contained many Congregations (as you say the Inference supposetth not the contrary) than they have a call and warrant to act ministerially out of the bounds of one Congregation.  
Sect. 3. Reply. p. 112. The Texts in Acts 20.28. gives this charge. Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, &c, their charge extends to none of them beyond the flock over which the holy Ghost made them overseers in the work of feeding.  
rejoined. 

1. If you mean by their charge the commission and trust which was given them at their Ordination or admission to the Ministry, you speak besides the book; for here it is not described, these Elders were officed and ordained before, only here they have an occasional visit and charge upon Paul's passing by Ephesus, and taking leave of them, which delivers to them as much as Paul thought fit and necessary to impart to them on that occasion, as John the Evangelist upon occasion delivered a young man (say the Ecclesiastical stories) to a Bishop or Pastor.  
2. If by their charge you mean the charge in the Text, if that do extend no further than the flock of Ephesus, will it follow that they may not do any ministerial act beyond the limits of the flock?   I cannot judge so. 

1 Because the Apostle is here delivering them their fixed constant set task and duty, and therefore speaks to them under the title of overseers or daily watchmen, not simply their whole duty, or the utmost bounds of what they have to do, either in ordinary or occasionally, and he is urging them to their duty with relation to their particular charge, but sets not down their whole duty as Ministers of the Gospel. It is an error to take the function or calling of the Ministry and a pastoral charge identically; the function of a Minister was attributed to the Apostles and Evangelists, Ephes. 3.7.2 Tim. 4.5. yea to Tychicus, who is for such, commended and sent both to the Colossians, c. 4.7. and to the Ephesians, cap. 6.21. and yet neither the Apostles or Evangelists nor (possibly) Tychicus had the pastoral charge of any one particular Church only.  
2. This is an unjustifiable way of argumentation and denied by that known logic rule, Testimonium non valet negatiuè.   The Elders must feed this particular flock of Ephesus, therefore they must feed none else upon any occasion, or this text mentions not that they may feed any other flock then that, therefore they may not in any case feed any other. Timothy must charge some at Ephesus that they teach no other doctrine, etc. 1 Tim. 1.3. ergo he must charge none else, nor anywhere else: he must command and teach these things, 1 Tim. 4.13. observe these things, cap. 5.21. exhort and teach these things, cap. 6.2. keep this commandment, v. 14. he must charge the rich that they be not highminded, etc. v. 17, 18, 19 therefore he must command, and teach, observe, exhort, keep, charge no other things than those respectively: yet this is the strain of your argument here, and in your following discourse all along.  
Sect. 4. Whether there were more congregations in Ephesus, or but one, no Elder could then, or can now feed by Word and Sacraments in a constant way any more than one Congregation, and consequently if they feed ministerially other congregations, they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
rejoined. 

1. If your argument be ab impossibili, and that there is a contradiction implied in an Elders feeding more than one congregation, I must deny it; for some Elders there were that did it, viz. the Apostles, Evangelists, and Prophets; and I read of the Elders of some of the Germane and Belgic churches, which do execute their offices promiscuously over many congregations; ab acta ad potentiam valet consequentia.  
2. If you mean your proposition de 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, potestate of authority and warrant, that no Elder can warrantably feed more than one Congregation, you beg the question: the Elders in the Apostles times taught and ruled in common, within a certain circuit containing many congregations, as it is very probably conceived by some; and Division of the church into congregations, and fixing particular Elders to them, is no further off Divine institution, than Order and Edification did first occasion, and do still require it should be so as hath been said.  
3. If it be granted (what you say we grant) that Elders cannot in a constant way feed any more than one congregation, yet if we distinguish (as your own words hint to us) of a constant fixed quotidian feeding in all the acts of a Pastor and Overseer, and of a feeding successive, interchangeable, occasional, and partial, and yield your Proposition as understood of the former (which can only be applied to the Text) and deny it if taken of the latter, what will you gain hence? seeing you cannot conclude by this argument against a Ministers exercising some ministerial acts sometimes in another Congregation, or his being a Minister to several Congregations successively.  
4. Your often reiterated brand of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, you should take from off us to yourselves, and that out of your own words and practice compared, if the work of feeding by the word and doctrine be one principal work of the Elders; then, not those Elders which feed by the Word whomsoever, and as often as they can, are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; but those which are no Elders, and take on them to feed by Word, and those who are Elders, and hold they may not act ministerially out of their own congregations, yet do feed by the Word (yea some in a constant way) other congregations, are by your own rule 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.    
Sect. 5. Reply, p. 113. It is more than probable that the flock at Ephesus was but one congregation; 

1. Ephesus was a city, and we do not read of more congregations of Saints constantly meeting in any city then one.  
2. The Church of Jerusalem, Corinth and Antioch, were we think as numerous as Ephesus, yet none of them more than one congregation: the Holy Ghost witnesseth that they ordinarily met in one place, as before was showed.    
rejoined. 

1. If it be more than probable, than it is no less than necessary: but me thinks yourselves seem to suspect your proofs will not reach to so much, seeing you modify them thus— We do not read— We cannot think. These are but feeble props for a demonstrable conclusion, yet it behoved you to assert this, or (as I told you now) you could challenge no leave to argue from this Text, though you would make countenance as if this needed not, and now you lay hold on this for a basis, but it will not stand by you: For first, your argument à testimony negatiuè is an inartificial argument, and will not hold, as was before said; if it would, we may as well say è contrary, we read not that the Saints in any city were only one congregation.  
2. You read of more Saints residing in a city, then could constantly meet for the worship of God in one congregation, and consequentially you road of more congregations (unless you will say, though they could not meet in one, yet they met not in divers, but were uncongregated, which were to impute a great sin to them.) This hath been formerly evidenced. That the Holy Ghost witnesseth that each of those Churches met in one place, and that ordinarily, I leave you to consider.    
Sect 6. Reply, p. 113. They are called one flock, one church. We have declared that one instituted Church, and a Congregation, is all one, when Church is properly taken; and in this place there is no necessity of a figure, therefore the charge runs to the Elders to feed the church, viz. the congregation at Ephesus, and to that they are so limited.  
rejoined. 

1. Those to whom Peter writes are called one flock; yet sure you will not say that they were but one congregation; the Inscription of that Epistle, and your own Interpretation next following, will forbid you.  
2. What you have declared before, is I hope sufficiently answered.  
3. Many churches congregational associated or combined in one Presbytery, may as properly be called a church as many Christians may which belong to one congregation.   I would fain see you evince the contrary, and know your meaning distinctly in that distinction of properly and improperly, with and without a figure: you are oftentimes pressed with multiplicity of Scripture instances for the word church taken for more than one congregation; your distinguishing thus at random and in general can satisfy none about these instances: Let me give you one instance, it is in Act. 15, 22, and let me hear what impropriety there is in [church] there, it is a Church assembled, and acting in the ordinances of Jesus Christ, and it is not a particular congregation; your Authors as well as ours acknowledge it to be a Synod of churches, and it is as hath been said a Church imposing burdens, making decrees for many churches, which you will not grant single congregations may do: A church made of many particular assemblies, was a proper term when the Jewish church stood, and in the Old Testament; how comes the propriety in this point to be so much altered? I had thought there had been fewer figures since, and not more: but because you will needs put a figure on the word, when it is used otherwise then for one congregation. I pray you erect your figure, and state what it must be; you can find none such figures, but what will fall upon that acception which you will have to be the only proper one; there is as much necessity of a figure in your exposition as in ours, but it seems figures are necessary (yea and new-coined ones too, for the old ones will not serve) to help out your improbabilities. 4. What will the conclusion so long looked for, be from all these premises? certainly but possible, (which is far from probable, and further from more than probable, which it was promised to be) for that which follows upon no necessity of the contrary, and no improbability of the thing, will amount to no more. Your conclusion should be, that the flock at Ephesus was but one congregation: but this hath so little strength in the premises, that you have thought good to set it aside, and only to join the Church at Ephesus and the Congregation at Ephesus together with a Viz. presuming that they are both one in the Text, but not proving it. After all this feeble or fallacious dealing, you in the close of all bring in, [And to that they are so limited] whereas if the former assertion of Ephesus being one Congregation had followed sound on your pre●●s●●, yet this had still been in controversy: so that here you doubly commit that grand solecism in argumentation, of putting more in the conclusion than was in the premises.  
Sect. 7. Reply, p. 113. Flock in 1 Pet. 5.1, 2. is to be taken figuratively and distributively of necessity, and the charge of feeding the flock is to be limited by the words [amongst you] and thus it must be understood— You Elders in Pontus, feed the flock amongst you, and you Elders of Galatia amongst you, and each in every place feed the flock where you be. And yet more distributively— Ye Elders in this city, feed the flock among you, and ye Elders in that city, feed the flock amongst you. Now the Saints in Galatia were not with the Elders of Asia, nor the Saints of one city with the Elders of another city; therefore the Elders were by commission to look to the Saints in every city & place where themselves were, and not to others where they were not; if they should take authoritative inspection over other Saints, they should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because all Elders are bounded to the Saints amongst themselves.  
rejoined. 1. This is an ill compacted argument (if you did intent it for one) and may thus be taken off. 1. This toucheth nothing the binding of a Minister to one congregation, but only insists on a tye to one city or region inclusive of many congregations; Galatia had churches in it, Gal. 1.1. and so had Asia, Rev. 1.11. 2. This offers not to confine him in all acts to that place, but only in authoritative inspection, (it is your own word) which can mean no more than administration of discipline. 3. This reacheth no further than to a limitation of him in those acts to that place while he is there present (which is natural and necessary ex parte adjecti) ●o that if he should thence remove, or but travel for a few days to another city or country, he might (as this argument runs) ye● he ought to feed the flock in each place where he is. 2. Whereas you say the word [flo●k] is to be taken distributively, and to be limited by the words [amongst you] let me ask, if it be distributive, how can it be limited? The words [amongst you] are more properly distinctive then distributive, and point out what flock he chargeth them to feed. 3. You cannot prove that this charge is the commission of the Elders (as you call it) nor a full recit●● thereof, but a charge insisting on some part of the Ministers duty, viz. of feeding or overseeing. 4. When you say the Elders must 〈◊〉 look to the Saints in other cities or places where themselves were not, you condemn your own practice of Allotriepiscopacy, in that you gather and constitute your Churches of Members dwelling in several towns and countries many miles distant one from another, and from your Elders. Thus this term you so often bandy, rebounds to yourselves still. 5. Whereas you say that all Elders are bounded, etc. I demand, was not the Apostle himself an Elder? as v. 1. and might there not be within the circuit of those countries mentioned c. 1.1. other Apostles and Evangelists amongst them either in Pontus or Asia & c? and will you say these also were so bounded by this Scripture?  
Sect. 8. You go on to overthrow my exceptions against the Positions, arguing à testimonio negatiuè laid in by two instances. A Communicant must examine himself; will you thence infer that none else must examine him? (You change this word [him] into [himself] which change altars the sense, & fits it to be more liable to your answer.) The Theslalonians are to know them that were over them, and laboured amongst them, and esteem them very highly in love for their works sake, therefore they must not hear or at least not esteem highly for their works sake the Pastors of other congregations, 1 Thess. 5.12.13. and, Reply, p. 114. Your reasoning is not good nor candid in comparing things disparate; you argue from works of common Christian duty, unto works of office very improperly.  
rejoined. 

Disparate things may be compared in their common or generical nature, wherein they agree.  
2. I do not argue so improperly as you charge me to do; I bring in those instances as examples of the like way of arguing to yours, to demonstrate the invalidity of the form of your argument, and therein I do not transire a genere ad genus, but instance in relative duties of Pastor and People, such as your argument proceeds upon; they are thus, if drawn out a little large. A Pastor is to examine his Communicants: this by your arguing will not hold; for a Communicant must examine himself, therefore none else may examine him. Again, The Pastors of other Congregations are to be esteemed very highly, etc. But this according to you will not hold; for the Thessalonians were to know them that were over them, etc. and to esteem them very highly, therefore they must not esteem other Pastors. These are bad inferences, 'tis true, but they are of the nature of yours, and I brought them to evince yours to be bad.  
3. Suppose I had instanced in duties of a generical nature, yet a negative argument fetched à testimonio will stand no more in them, then in relative duties. You further reply.—    
The Parliament writes to the Colonels of Lancashire, to govern well the soldiers and people amongst them, therefore they are not to govern the people and soldiers of Cheshire; this inference is good. But 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 honour their own Commanders, therefore they must not honour other Commanders; this is weak argumentation.  
rejoined. Surely all these arguments are alike to him that knows what an argument is, they are all irregular, and serve rather to overthrow one another, then to prove any thing, in as much as they run from a positive rule negatively; all the difference amongst them is, the first hath veritatem consequentis, happens to have the consequent Proposition true, which the other hath not, there is in none of them verit as consequentiae, if they be truths they are not rightly inferred; For, because the Colonels in Lancashire are to rule in Lancashire, it doth not thence follow that they are not to rule in Cheshire, unless it had been said in the Antecedent they are to rule only in Lancashire. Apply now to the case, and see what you get by your newdevised examples. To make an end once with this obvious fallacy; whether you pitch upon precepts of a common nature or of office, a positive rule applied to a definite object will not limit the duty as solely appertaining to that object, unless the object expressed be adequate to the act or office. (Now whether it be so in the Text now in agitation, whether the flock intended be the adequate object of the office of feeding, is the thing in controversy.) The Lord saith. Judge the fatherless, plead for the widow, Isa. 1.17. must they therefore judge, plead for no rank of people else? Defend the poor and fatherless, do justice to the afflicted and needy, saith God to Judges, Psal. 82.3. must they defend, do justice therefore to none else? Timothy must give attendance to reading, exhortation, and doctrine, 1 Tim. 4.13. must therefore he attend to nothing else? Parents must bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, 1 Tim. 6.2. must therefore they bring up none else but their children? Christian's must distribute to the necessity of the Saints, Rom. 12.13. must they therefore do good, distribute to none else? No argument can be weaker to ordinary understandings; yet such is both that which you take to defend, and that wherewith you defend it.  
Sect. 9 When I urge that, taking heed to the flock, and feeding it doth include administration of the Word and Prayer, which you confess may be done in another congregation, you reply p. 115. Yourself doth not place a parity in all these. You will preach to the Heathens as heathens, and not give the Sacrament to them; you may preach before Ordination, for approbation; you may preach to a congregation in Scotland, and yet not act authoritatively in their Synods.  
rejoined. There may be a disparity in all these, and yet not grounded on the reason you render, but it comes to pass (as I understand) thus. 

1. Ministerial acts and ordinances of the Gospel, some have a larger scope and extend to more, others are confined more ex parte objecti: hence Heathens may be admitted to hear, but not (as such) to Baptism or the Lord's supper; and of Christians, some may be baptised, which may not be received to the Lords table; and of Communicants, some may be called and ordained to office in the Church, and not others; and these latitudes on part of the object or persons whereabout the acts are conversant, are circumscribed by Scripture rules. Though therefore one may preach to Heathens, and not give them the Sacraments, the reason is not because to dispense the Sacraments is more an act of feeding, or more strictly ministerial and authoritative then Preaching, as to baptise is not less ministerial than to administer the Lords supper, yet it hath a wider object; but because the one ordinance is more limited on the part of the object to whom it is to be dispensed, than the other; but this is not the matter in question it is a limitation ex parte subjecti or agentis which is enquired for, to wit the Minister's confinement in his acts where persons are on their part capable, so that he may dispense them to men of his own congregation, but for want of power and authority cannot dispense them to any, though never so fit, out of his own congregation.  
2. The subject or agent of Ministerial acts may be supposed limitable ex parte actaum, so that he may perform some acts, when he may not others; or ex parte objectorum, so that he may perform the acts to some persons, and not to others capable of them. The former kind is your second instance; One may preach before Ordination, for approbation and in order to it, but not administer the Sacraments before it, not because they are not both purely and equally ministerial, but, 1. because he that so preacheth is a Minister in fieri, and but in fieri, and so (as in natural and moral beginnings of things, some acts flow out of the principles of constitution before others) may do somewhat that is ministerial, not others. 2. and chief, because there is a special warrant for his Preaching for approbation, and a special necessity of it, in as much as he is to be proved in his gifts before he be ordained, 1 Tim. 3.10. & 5.22. and his gifts for preaching cannot be otherwise tried then by his preaching: but there is no special warrant for, or necessity of his dispensing Sacraments for trial's sake, there being no gift necessary to his dispensing the Sacraments, but what may be discovered by his preaching and praying, or if there be any it may be otherwise descried then by acting in those ordinances, (as a lawyer's abilities are better discerned by drawing books, then by aff●●●ing the label and seal) But neither is this the thing in question betwixt us. The limitation of the agent in relation to the object; which is the latter restriction of him before mentioned, is that wherein the knot lies; to the unlosing of which you may observe  
3. We must distinguish of ministerial acts thus: 

1. They are either absolute, and such as flow from the principles of the ministerial office, or relative, such as spring from a Pastoral relation or state.  
2. Again, they are either properly, peculiarly, specifically ministerial, it common, general or generical, agreeing both to a Minister and other ruling Officers or Elders of the Church.  
3. And again they are either solitary, such as are performed by one alone, or social, joint acts, such as cannot be performed but by a plurality; of the former sort in first, second, and third distinctions, are administrations of the Word and Sacraments;     Of the latter sort in all the three distinctions, are acts of Church-government and discipline. In the former, to wit absolute or irrespective specially ministerial and solitary acts, a Minister is more free to execute, and positis omnibus requisitis ad agendum, he may dispense them as occasion is ministered to all persons capable of them. In the latter, the relative, common and social acts, he is more restrained as to the execution of them; the reason hereof is, to the former there is required on his part an office and calling, but to the latter there is required not only an office, but also Pastoral or Presbyterial relation to those over whom, and a consociate state with whom they are to be exercised: and hence it is that one may preach to a congregation in Scotland, but not act authoritatively in their Synods (at least not without a good call thereunto, with which he may vote in their Synods as well as the Scotish Divines do in ours) And the reason is not because this is more ministerial than that, but because Preaching is a more absolutely, independently, properly, and solitarily ministerial act; acting in Synods is a Ministers work relatively, generally and socially; it is a complexe act, to which is required residence, relation, or pastorship, and consociation. Thus you have my reasons of the disparity you observed.  
Sect. 10. Reply, p. 115. 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 others; some acts are so annexed to office, and are so authoritative, that they cannot, be performed but where office and authority is; others though they be authoritative to that people over whom persons performing them are officers, yet they may be performed by a gift without office to another people, and are not authoritative to them.  
rejoined. If this distinction should go for good, yet how can you clear yourselves from failing, yea crossing the Position, and your own argument fetched out of that of Peter, and from yielding in stead of answering it. The allegers of the Position, and you, contend that when the Apostle chargeth the Elders, 1 Pet. 5.2. he confines them in their acts of feeding each to one congregation, yet here you burst asunder this limitation and bound so much pleaded for, in your distinguishing acts of feeding, and giving some of them to an Elder to exercise them out of his congregation to another people, yea you give away some of them to others out of office. If the Elders in the Texts be here restrained by Peter to their congregational flock in the acts of feeding (as you have largely argued) they are so limited either in some of those acts or in all. 1. Not in some only; for first the Apostle chargeth them with feeding and overseeing, without making difference of acts. 2. You said before, Taking heed, and Feeding, doth include the administration of the Word, and Prayer, and Sacraments, and Discipline; and what other acts are there of feeding, and of this charge you have before affirmed to be limited by [amongst you]? 2. Not in all; for yourselves say in this distinction there are some acts of feeding may be performed to another people then that over whom the persons performing them are officers. 3. If this charge be necessarily a limitation of the Elder to the object Flock, it is as necessarily (at least) a restriction of the work of feeding to the persons spoken of, the Elders, (show any reason why the limitation in the Text should not tie the one way as well as the other) and if so, the acts of feeding cannot belong to any out of office. 3. However you may distinguish of acts of feeding, yet ministerial acts (which is the term in the Position, and of which the question is) cannot be thus distinguished of, unless you will say some ministerial acts are annexed to office, others not; or some are authoritative, others not; or some ministerial acts are merely ministerial, others may be done out of the Ministry, and then how are they ministerial? Truth is, take this term to be your subject in distinguishing, and I cannot see how you will make your membra dividentia agree with, or participate of your division. 4. According to this distinction, First, the same individual act may be authoritative, and not authoritative, in reference to two sorts of persons, viz. the persons to whom the agent is an officer, and others to whom (as you hold) he is not an officer, and so contradictoria will be simul vera. Secondly a man may have office, and that authoritative, and do an act of that, office which is authoritative, and yet not act authoritatively, High dignus vindice nodus. 5. All your former arguments for the Minister's confinement to his Congregation, both from this and other Texts, is now at last resolved into this, as to some of his acts, that he is not confined in re, but only in notione, which consisting only in conceptus, will make no difference in the act but according to this distinction, it may come to be thought fit for the Minister to take up some ministerial habit, (as the manner was lately that it might be discemed when he acts as a Minister and when not. Lastly, (for the unsoundness of this distinction, as it is applied by you, I shall have fuller occasion to discuss hereafter) whereas you call in the Elders Answ. to 9 Pos. p. 78 to stand by you in it, let me bring in the remainder of their words which you leave out, If that question were propounded to any Minister, so exercising in another Church which was once to our Saviour by the high Priests and Elders, by what authority dost thou do these things, and who gave thee this authority? let that Minister whosoever he be study to make an answer: and retort them thus on you, you say here, there are some acts of feeding which though they be authoritative to that people over whom the persons performing them are officers, yet they may be performed without an office, etc. let him that holds or exercises any such acts in such manner (suppose preaching which was the subject of that question of the high Priests Matth. 21.23.) study to make answer to it. If he say by no authority, but by a gift, then. 

1. He answers not the Elders question which demandeth by what authority, &c nor can he positively answer it.  
2. Either this giftednesse is a sufficient warrant, and then he hath authority and so doth it authoritatively, or else its insufficient; and then he is convinced as a transgressor and presumptuous, and he and you must quit this, and find out another distinction to salve your disparityes which can hardly be so strange and incongruous as this.    
Sect. 11. When I urge, If the relation of Ministers and people be mutual, If the people may receive the Sacrament from one that is not their Minister, than the Minister may administer it to them that are not of his flock, you reply p. 115. In one sense all that you say is true; they may so do by recommendation, but then this recommendation is as it were a dismission, differing not really, but only in time; Recommendation commends them for a time into the fellowship with that Church, and dismission for continuance: when persons of another Church do orderly intermingle themselves with this or that Church, than they are as Members, and Pastor is as their Pastor, and so he might dispense the Sacraments to them.  
rejoined. 

In New-England, members well known and approved do mutually without exception communicate each of them at other Churches, even so often as God's providence leads them thereto, and they desire it, and this is done by virtue of communion of Churches, and sometimes without letters of recommendation. See Answ. to Pol. 9 p. 78. Cottons keys p. 17. way p. 103. F.W. to W.R.p. 10.  
2. We still ask why may not a Minister officiate inanother church, recommended or as it were dismissed by his own aswel as a member of another communicate in his by recommendation?  
3. Belike you are pinched with the argument, that you are glad to use such amphibolous terms, as it were a dismission as his member, as his Pastor, but observe. 

1. Your Author Master Cotton gives a reason of this, both more genuine and cross to this of yours, for we (saith he) receive the Lord's Supper, not only as a seal of our communion with the Lord and with his members in our Church, but also in all the Churches of the Saints; if so, then what need you, or how can you say truly, that a member of another Church coming to receive at yours, is as it were dismised or dismembered from the other Church, and is become as a member of yours, and you are as his Pastor?  
2. I ask is he not still really a member of the Church he comes from? is he not under another Pastor of another Church? if you deny these things it would overthrow that communion of Churches which Master Cotton reduceth this mutual receiving one of another to, and would make membership and Pastorship like a cloak to cast off and put on alternation upon every slight occasion of going from home, and eturne; and if you yield or affirm the said things, than you must recall those words wherein you say Recommendation differs not really from dismission; for if it do not, then is he really dismissed from the Church he comes from, and is not as one of them he comes from, but as one of them to whom he is resigned and recommended. Cottons way p. 104. In what Church then to place him or whether he be in either, according to you, I cannot resolve: and I am sure to say he is a member of both, would be incongruous to your Principles and to reason.  
3. In saying Recommendation differs not from dismission really, but in time, is a contradiction; for things that differ in time must needs differ really, ut res & res, quorum incipiente vel desinente uno non incipit vel desinit alterum. else you must needs say, eadem res est & non est, but you are not happy in your distinctions, the less wonder it is that in some things you err; for qui bene distinguit bene docet.  
4. The Argument for all this that you have said must still press you; if this man a member of another Church may come to your Church, why may not the Pastor of his Church come? and if he as a member may receive, why may not his Pastor as a Minister preach and administer the Lords Supper? is not the one as strictly tied in by his Church-Covenant in his relation as the other in his? is not recommendation of a Minister as truly a dismission of him as recommendation of a Member?      
Sect. 12. Reply p. 110. But it will not follow that therefore he may act ministerially out of his own Church and people, in and among another Church and people; Magistrates and Subjects are Relatives, and if any Subjects of one County come to another County and be wronged, there he may require justice from the Magistrate of the County where the wrong is done him, and receive it, but the Magistrate may not therefore go from among his people to another County, and dispense justice amongst them. So of Ministers.  
rejoined. 

1. The similitude is not truly laid down; for a Magistrate of this County, and a Subject of the Kingdom, are not relata as such; a County-Magistrates correlative is a Subject and Inhabitant of the said County: And if you had so put your comparison, what could you have inferred from it?  
2. The similitude is unfit even in that for which you bring it; 

For first, a County-Magistrate is tied within local bounds in administrations, whether to his countrymen or to strangers, but the case of a Pastor is not so, especially with you which admit of no Parochial or local bounds, (which we think requisite in some cases, not possible in all) to the circumscribing of a Church, or the Pastorship of it, but enlarge the Pastors leave to officiate any where in the world, if his Church remove thither, and the Church may remove whithersoever. Secondly, a Magistrate as he may do a stranger justice in his own County, so he may as well execute justice on him within the same: but you will not allow another Church's member to be censured in this Church, though he may communicate there. Thirdly, I should easily grant that a Pastor may not go from his own congregation to act with the Key of power (wherein only he resembles a Magistrate) or to exercise jurisdiction in any other: That he is at all times and cases fixed to such a circuit, but as a Colonel, Captain, &c (which possibly sometimes may be the governor of such & such a castle, defender of such a country, etc.) or any Martial commander may do acts of government wherever his Camp removes: so may he do his office, by your own confession, wheresoever his Congregation is present: but a Magistrate may not do justice, no not to his own citizens no more then to strangers, out of his liberties.  
2. Acts of justice and judgement by Majors or other Magistrates our of their territories, are not only unlawful, but null in Law; but sure you hold not that if a Minister preach in another congregation, by virtue of office, baptise, administer the Sacraments, Ordain, or the like, that those acts are altogether null and void, as if they had not been baptised or ordained, and that they ought to be rebaptised or reordained.  
Lastly, the County-Magistrates power is bounded by express laws or orders of the King or State; but you can show no Divine Law, for the bounding of a Minister to a particular assembly, yea whether there be any such laws or no, is the question, which you must not beg.      
Reply, p. 116. We grant, that not one only of another Church, but two, three, six, eight, (which it may be are the whole Church) may be received to the holy Communion: but we demand who shall recommend them? and without recommendation they cannot orderly be received; or suppose they commend themselves, they are now swallowed up in the fellowship of the other Church, and counted pro tempore members of it, and have not the consideration of a distinct church. And though it be 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 give it to them alone. If a whole Town should come and live in another Town, they might have the justice of that Town from the Magistrate, which cannot dispense justice to them abiding in their own place.  
rejoined. 

1. If you grant that a Pastor may administer the Sacrament to another Church coming into his assembly, as you say you do, than first, May not a Pastor and his Church upon some occasion go to the meetingplace of another Church, and there perform the same ministerial acts by consent of all parties interessed, as he may do if that other Church come to his Church's meetingplace? Doth the place make any difference in your opinion? Secondly, May a Pastor (if his flock be present) administer the Sacrament to another Church (which possibly may be an hundred times bigger than his own) and may he not, if his flock be absent? doth the presence of his church add so much to his power over another church? Sure these things are gratis dicta, without Scripture, without reason.  
2. As for recommendation, I answer first, M. Cotton & the Elders of N.E. (as I shown before) yield another way of communicating betwixt Churches besides Recommendation, so that this bar is needless and untrue, if they must be Judges. Secondly, if Recommendation be so needful for a whole Churches communicating with another Church, it may be had from its officers & from other neighbour-churches, or from members of that church to which they come and join, which are able to testify of them. Thirdly, whereas you suppose they may commend themselves, this is of all other reliefs the weakest as good as nothing, a mere formality; sure Recommendation with you is very needful that must be thus patched up, rather than wanted; when it is thus helped out, it stands you in great stead.  
3. As for coming of one Church to another, I rejoin, first, If they communicate with this other church by virtue of communion of churches, they must needs be considered as a distinct church; Communion is (at least) between two, and imports plurality and distinction betwixt the parties; Identity destroys communion, which consists in the conveniency or agreement of persons or things in aliquo tertio, and not in a coalescency of them in one. Secondly, whatsoever they are counted, howsoever considered by you, this temporary fellowship makes them not indeed one church with that they communicate with. Your way of constituting churches, and your everlasting covenant; [Cottons Way, p. 104.] wild not brook such an easy and interchangeable putting together into one, and parting again of churches: your considering them as one, then, when they are not such, is the error of your Conceptus, and salves not the matter in hand; in this case deny it if you can: A Minister acts ministerially to another church, and now you have brought two churches together in communion, let me inquire, May not their Elders act in common to both? are the Eldert of either suspended in this conjunction? and if so, of which are they that are to be suspended? and why not a third, and a fourth church come to them after the same manner, and the Elders of all join interests in ruling, what will lack to make up here a Classis or Presbytery of many churches? Thus you are unawares coming into our tents. Thirdly by this you plainly teach, a Minister acts not ministerially but in the presence of his Congregation; and the authoritativenesse of his acting, and lawfulness of his authoritative acts depends on their being assembled with him. But, first, it is the presence of Christ which gives authority and efficacy to his Ministry, Mat. 18.20. which is promised to him always, and with no such limitation, Mat. 28.20. Secondly, some Ministerial acts are required of him in private, Jam. 5.14. 2 Tim. 2.15. 1 Tim. 4.13, 14, 15, 16. He is to charge privately the people, that they live not inordinately; Cottons keys, p. 21, 22. and he may act authoritatively in a Synod of churches, where his Church is not collectively (which is your sense) present. Of the difference (as to this) between a Magistrate and a Minister, see Sect. 12.    
Reply, p. 117. The Scripture alloweth the recommendation of the members of one Church to another, Rom. 16.1. 2 Cor. 3.1. But can you produce any place where the Minister of one church hath acted ministerially in another church?  
rejoined. 

1. Neither of the places you cite for recommendation of members, mentions any thing of mere members, but both speak of officers. Phoebe in Rom. 16.1. is termed a servant of the Church, Mr. Cotton calls her a deaconess of that church, [Way, p. 103. Keys p. 17.] And that in 2 Cor. 3.1. speaks of Paul himself as not needing recommendation to, or from them, as do other teachers, for of such he had immediately before discoursed, c. 2. ult. and much in this Epistle the Apostle useth this collation, as c. 10. & 11.  
2. Your demand annexed should in equity and correspondency to your own attestation, be, Can you produce one place where the Ministers of one church are recommended to another? And this I can (though your places for Members recommendation be not found) and may as strongly therefore infer their acting ministerially in other churches upon their recommendation to them, as you (with Mr. Cotton) conclude for the communicating of members in other churches from such supposed recommendation of them thereunto.   See for the recommendation of Ministers, 2 Cor. 8.16, 18, 19, 22, 23. Act. 15.22, 25, 26, 27, 32. Col. 4.7, 8, 10, 11. Ephes. 6.21, 22. Phil. 2.19, 20, 21. and your own place, 2 Cor 3.1.  
Sect. 4. When I produce Mr. M. & Mr. T. granting that Elders have a power to ordain Elders in other churches by request of that church where the Elders are to be ordained You reply, p. 117.  
Not by their own proper right, not as Elders or Officers, but as of better gifts and greater abilities; and their power is derived to them from those congregations which entreat them; if they acted as officers, than they might act without entreaty, for entreaty makes them not officers; and if they were officers before, entreaty is not needful to enable them.] rejoined. This reason is not good. 

1. A man may be entreated to do that which he hath office and authority to do, Act. 16.9. 2 Cor. 8.4. with 19 Mar. 9.23.  
2. When there is an office and calling to do a work, there is requisite on the part of them to or for whom it is to be done, a consent, and whether it be signified in the form of an entreaty or otherwise, is nothing material. In censures you give some proper power to the Elders, and yet require the people's consent in passing them: In this matter of Ordination you hold the Churches consent necessary, though their own Elders did transact it, and their acting therein (you will grant) to be authoritative.  
3. You say the same of Elders acting in their own congregations: therefore the Elders deriving power from the Church, is no hindrance but that they may have it from Christ to another congregation upon their request, as to their own.  
4. Let me ask you, 

1. How can the Church (according to you) delegate its power to persons out of itself?  
2. Whether is this act of deriving power to the Elders of another church, an act of authority or no? If it be, than the Church acts authoritatively to persons of another church; and if the Church may, why may not also the Ministers? If it be not; then the Ordination performed by them is either done by no authority, or by an authority underived from the church to which they are entreated.    
5. If the Church may derive power to Elders of another church in point of Ordination, why may she not translate it to the Elders of two, three, or four churches? why not to a classis of Elders? and why not her interest in other acts of power as well as this? You have thus a power to become Presbyterians with us, if you will.    
You further reply, p. 117. And if they act as officers in another congregation, than they may in all congregations.] R. So they may act in any, positis omnibus requisitis ad agendum, but they act not formally as officers of another congregation, but as officers of the same classical, provincial, or national church, and as joined in government with that church.    

(Part of this, and the whole 35. Chapter [of the Preaching of gifted men] Waits a farther occasion.)  
FINIS.