A SURVEY of the sum of Church-Discipline.  
WHEREIN, The Way of the CHURCHES of NEW-ENGLAND is warranted out of the Word, and all Exceptions of weight, which are made against it, answered: Whereby also it will appear to the Judicious Reader, that something more must be said, then yet hath been, before their Principles can be shaken, or they should be unsettled in their practise.  
By THO. HOOKER, late Pastor of the Church at Hartford upon Connecticott in N. E.  ISA. 62.1. 
For Sions sake I will not bold my tongue: and for Ierusalems sake, I will not rest: until the righteousness thereof break forth as the light, and the salvation thereof be as a burning lamp  
2 COR. 13.8. For we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth.  
LONDON, Printed by A. M. for John Bellamy at the three Golden Lions in Cornhill, near the royal Exchange. M.DC.XLVIII.   

A Preface of the author, By way of Introduction to this following Discourse, Wherein the attentive Reader may understand the scope, the matter and method thereof, and how far there is a joint concurrence of most of the Elders of New-England.  
TRuth is the Daughter of time, was the saying of old, and our daily experience gives in evidence and proof hereof, to every mans ordinary observation. Only as in other births, so here, the barrenness and fruitfullnesse of several ages, depend merely upon Gods good pleasure; who opens and shuts the womb of truth from bearing, as he sees fit, according to the counsel of his own will.  
Not that there is any change in the truth, but the alteration grows, according to mens apprehensions, to whom it is more or less discovered, according to Gods most just judgement, and their own deservings.  
Sometimes God makes an eclipse of the truth at midday, that so he might express his wrath from Heaven, against the unthankfulness, profaneness, 
Rom. 1.18.  and atheism of a malignant world.  
Hence it was he let loose those hellish delusions, immediately after the Ascention of our Saviour; That though his life and conversation gave in evidence beyond gainsaying that he was true man: Though the miracles and wonders he wrought in his life and death, resurrection and ascention, were witnesses undeniable, that he was true God: yet there arose a wretched generation of heretics, in the first, second, and third hundred years, who adventured not only against the express verdict of the Scripture, but against sense and experience, fresh in the observation and tradition of living men, with more then satanical impudence to deny both the natures of our blessed Saviour.  
Some denied the deity of our Saviour, and would have him mere man. As Ebrion 
Ad annum 72. , Corinthus 
Adunnum 100 Ad annum 174. Samosatenus ad ●n●um 269. Arrius ad annum 324. Epiphanius Augustinius Magdeburgenses. , Montanus, &c c. Others deny him to be true man, as the Gnostici 
Ad annum ●37 143. ●4●. And after them followed Sabellius ad annum 257. and Manichaeu● 28●. , Valentiniani, Marrionitae.  
Sometimes when men entertain the truth in profession, but not in the love of it, and that endeared affestion, that is due thereunto, 
2 Thes. ●. 11. {αβγδ}  the Lord gives men up to the Activity of error, as the Apostle speaks, because they did not love, that the trutb should be truth, they embraced falsehood instead of truth, that so they might be deluded and damned. This made way for Antichrist, and did Midwife that man of sin into the world, and by little and little advanced him into his throne. For while men did verbally aclowledge the nature and offices of our Saviour, they did begin, though subtly, yet really, to usurp the honor and exercise of all to themselves.  

Eusebius lib. 4. in vita con●tantini. Athanasius in Evangelio de sanctis. sima Dei parasi modo fit Athanasij. Audi filia Davidis& ●brabae& inclina aurem tuam in preces nostras.& ne obi●viscaris populi tui ad te clarantis.  First, They began to encroach upon the PRIESTLY OFFICE of our Saviour, and not only to pray for the dead, but to pray to them, and to attribute too much to the martyrs and their worth; and to derogate from the merits, and that plentiful and perfect redemption w●ought alone by the Lord Iesus. The Spouse of Christ thus like the unwise virgins, was taken aside with the slumber of Idolatry, till at last she fell fast asleep: as the following times give in abundant testimony.  
Not long after, these sleeps were attended with suitable dreams, for not being content with the simplicity of the Gospel, and the purity of the worship appointed therein: They set forth a new and large edition of devised and instituted ceremonies, coined merely out of the vanity of mens carnal mindes, which as so many blinds, were set up by the subtlety of Satan, merely to delude men, and misled them from the truth of Gods worship, under a pretence of directing them more easily in the way of grace: and under a colour of kindling, they quenched all true zeal for, and love of the truth.  
Insomuch that Augustine complained, 
Augu●t. epist. 119.& tolerabilior fit cond●tio judaeorum qui etsi tempus libertatis non agnoverint, legalibus tamen sarcinis non humanis praesumptionibus subijciantur.  The present condition of the Churches in his time, was worse then that of the Jews. They were subject to the burden of leg●ll Ceremonies, laid upon them by the Lord; but we( saith the Father) are pressed with presumptions devised by men.  
And thus at once they usurped upon the prophetical and just lead our Saviour also out of his regal OFFICE, for so they are linked together by the Prophet. 
Isa. 33.22.  He is our King, he is our Law-giver; it is in his power and pleasure to provide his own laws, and appoint the ways of his own worship.  
Thus were the OFFICES of our Saviour secretly and cunningly undermined till at last that man of si●, seeing his time, 
2 Thes. 2.4. {αβγδ}. Ad annum 610 Fox.  and taking his advantage, adventured openly and impudently to challenge the chair of supremacy.  
Bonif●ce the third obtained by policy and treachery at the hand of Phocas for himself and his successors, that the Bishop of Rome, should be the head and chief Bishop of all Christian Churches.  
But the one sword was not sufficient for Hildebrand, He restend not, until by his hellish contrivements he had got two swords, to fill both his hands withall, and a Triple-crown upon his head, and carried it with mighty violence against the imperial Majesty: that whereas no Pope in former times might be chosen without the confirmation of the Emperour: so now no emperor might be chosen without the consirmation of the Pope: as appears in the story of Henry the Emperour.  
Thus while the Pope pretended to be the Vicar and Vicegerent of Christ, to supply his absence here on earth, by being caput ministeriale,: in issue he justled him out of the room and right of his HEADSHIP.  
He makes Canons to bind conscience, and so assumes the place of the chief Prophet; Gives dispensations, sends out Indulgences, sells pardons, retains, and remits sins, improves the treasury of the Church to that end, and so challengeth the place of being chief Priest. Lastly, arrogates the plenitude and supremacy of power in causes ecclesiastic and Civil, no less then two swords will satisfy, to fill both his hands, and a Triple-crown to load his head withall, and thereby arrogates to be head of the Church.  
When God had revenged the contempt of the Authority of his son, by delivering up such contemners to the tyranny and slavery of Antichrist, 
Brightman in cap 9. Apocal ad v 6.  by the space of many hundred years: That by their own experience they came to know the difference betwixt the service of God, and the slavery of men: the golden sceptre of Christ, and the Iron rod of Antichrist; who tortured their consciences upon a continual rack, held their souls smoking over the mouth of the bottomel●sse pit, put them into hell, and plucked them out at his pleasure, whence men desired to die, rather then to live.  
They then began to sigh for some deliverance from this spiritual, more then Egyptian bondage; and being thus prepared to lend a listening ear unto the truth, God sent them some little reviving in their extremities, a day-star arising in this their darkness.  
He stirred up the spirit of the Waldenses, Armachanus, Wickliff, Hus, and Jerom of prague, who openly proclaimed the usurpations of that man of sin, stoutly asserted the fullness and sufficiency of the Scriptures, cleared and maintained the deciding authority thereof in all the ways and worship of God, and so set up the Lord Iesus, as the only PROPHET of his Church.  
After them succeeded Luther, who made a spoil of the Popes treasury, marred wholly his market, and the sale of his indulgencies, and so wonderfully cooled and quenched the fire of Purgatory, and the Popes kitchen: that his holinesse, and the wretched rabble of all his black-guard, were forced to improve all their power and policy to crush the credit of that champion, and the authority of that doctrine which he taught, but all in vain.  
For the virtue of the bloody sacrifice of Christonce offered for all, the perfect satisfaction, justification, and redemption, came so strongly to be received and maintained in many places and persons of note. That now all tho unbloody sacrifices, masses, and multitudes of that trash, which the merit-mongers did studiously set forth to sale, and by which they set up themselves in the hearts of the people, grew to be abhorred of such as were pious and conscientious, and all such who would but suffer themselves to be lead by the principles of right reason. And thus the PRIESTLY office of our Saviour came in some measure to be acknowledged, and appropriated to him, whose peculiar it was.  
Only the SUPREMACY OF THAT KINGLY POWER, upon which the Pope had encroached, and maintained the possession thereof so long, was yet retained and fortified( as reason would) with greatest resolution, nor could he suffer the appearance of any approach or battery to be erected, that might seem to hazard the safety of that, but he sets him fully and fiercely against Reformation, which sticks like the cunny-skinat the hcad principally.  
Hence for the surprisal of so strong a piece, the Lord in his providence provided many means to make approaches thereunto by little and little. The Councells of Constance and basil just lead the Pope to the Wall, and took the wall of him, made him lower then the council, but let him enjoy his Headship over all his Officers and particular Churches,  
King Henry the eighth, he further clipped his wings in temporals, shook off and renounced that supremacy that he had arrogated and erected over kings and kingdoms in former ages: Only that is storied of him as his mistake, he cut off the head of Popery, but left the body of it( in Arch-Bishops, Primates, Metropolitans, Archdeacons,) yet within his realm, and the Churches there established.  
This power having a double respect: Partly to Ministers, Partly to Churches: The first of these was abated, when a Parity in the ministry came to be acknowledged and received in the Churches of the reformation. And that the sole and princely power, which was arrogated and exercised by the Bishops and their Officers, over the faithful Pastors of Christ, was cashiered, as contrary to the government and power bequeathed to each particular Officer of his own appointment, who all have Ministerium, non Dominium, are stewards, not Lords of Gods inheritance.  
But whether all ecclesiastical power be impaled, impropriated and rightly taken in to the Presbytery alone: Or that the people of the particular Churches should come in for a share, according to their places and proportions; This is lest as the subject of the inquiry of this age, and that which occasions great thoughts of heart of all hands: Great thoughts of heart in the Presbytery, as being very loth to part with that so chief privilege, and of which they have taken possession so many years. Great thoughts of heart amongst the Churches, how they may clear their right, and claim it in such pious sobriety and moderation, as becomes the Saints: being unwilling to loose their cause and comfort, merely upon a nihil dicit: or for ever to be deprived of so precious a legacy, as they conceive this is, though it hath been withheld from them, by the tyranny of the Pope, and prescription of times. Nor can they conceive it less, then a heedless betraying of their special liberties, and not selling but casting away their inheritance, and right, by a careless silence, when the course of providence, as the juncture of things now present themselves, allows them a writ Ad melius inquirendum.  
And it seems God sets out this disquisition( fall the issue on which side it will) as most suitable and seasonable to these times, which appear fruitful in discoveries: Truth seeming to be in travel, having fulfilled her appointed moneths, and the instant opportunity of her deliverance drawing on apace, as the Scripture account, may seem to give symptoms to that purpose, and such as will not fail.  
For these are the times drawing on, wherein Prophecies are to attain their performances: and its a received rule, and I suppose most safe, when Prophecies are fulfilled they are best interpnted, the accomplishment of them is the best Commentary.  
These are the times, when the knowledge of the Lord shall cover the earth as the waters the Sea: and these waters of the Sanctuary shall increase from the ankles, 
Hab. 2.14. Ezek. 47.4.5.  unto the knees, thence unto the loins, and thence become a river that cannot be passed.  
These are the times when people shall be fitted for such privileges, fit I say to obtain them, and fit to use them.  
Fit to obtain them at Gods hands, for Dan. 12.4. 
D●n. 12.4. Brightm. in loc.  people shall run too and fro, and knowledge shall increase: they shall by the strength of their desires, improve the most painful exercise of their thoughts, in the most serious search of the mystery of godliness, and bloodhound like, who are bent upon their prey, they shall most indefatigably trace the truth, and follow the least appearance of the foot-steps thereof presented, until they come to see the formings and framings in the first rise, Scire est per causas scire, and thus digging for wisdom as for hide treasures, and seeking the Lord and his will, 
Prov. 2.23.  with their whole heart, they shall find him, and understand it.  
Fit to use them, now the Lord will writ his laws in their hearts, and put it into their inward parts, and they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, For they shall all know me, 
Jer. 31.  from the least of them, to the greatest of them.  
And whereas it hath been charged upon the people, that through their ignorance and unskilfulness, they are not able to wield such privileges, and therefore not fit to share in any such power. The Lord hath promised: To take away the veil from all faces in the mountain, the weak shall be as David, 
Isa 25.7. Zac. 12.8. Isa. 30 26. Ezek. 43.11.  and David as an Angel of God. The light of the Moon shall be as the Sun, and the Sun seven times brighter. When he hath not only informed them, but made them to be ashamed of their abominations, and of all that they have done, then he will show them the frame of his house, and the pattern thereof, the going out thereof, the coming in thereof, the whole fashion thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, all the figures thereof, and laws thereof: And writ them in their sight, that they may keep the whole fashion thereof, and all the Ordinances thereof, and do them. Observe how often the Lord expresseth the enlarged manifestations of himself in ●●ose many universals.  
ALL laws, ALL ORDINANCES, ALL FIGURES. 2. Not only show all, but make them SEE ALL, and do all.  
The travel of the truth, as I said, thus drawing on, it hath pleased the Lord to improve the pens and pains of many of his Worthies( midwife like) to lighten and ease the throws of the truth, in this sharp and sore travel for a safe delivery.  
Amongst these M Ru●terford hath deserved much for his undefatigable diligence; A man of eminent abilities, the depth of whose judgement, and sharpness in dispute, is evidenced beyond all exception, by that accurate and elaborate piece of his apologetical exercitations, wherein he appears to be Malleus Jesuitarum, and of their factors and followers the Arminians, who receive their errors by whole-sale from them, and retail them out again in their particular treatises. And for these pains of his, I suppose the Churches will( I must profess for mine own particular I do) owe him much. And therefore it was a pleasing and pleasant providence, when I perceived by some books, set forth of late, that he did address himself seriously to debate of Church-Discipline, a subject, as of special difficulty, so of special advantage to the truth, and of help to the present times in which we live.  
These two things seeming to be great reserves of inquiry, for this last age of the world,  
1. Wherein the spiritual rule of Christs kingdom consists, the manner how it is revealed and dispensed to the souls of his servants inwardly?  
2. The order and manner, how the government of his kingdom is managed outwardly in his Churches?  
Vpon these two hinges the tedious agitations that are stirring in the earth turn: either having their first rise from hence directly, or by a secret influence, these fore-mentioned causes sand in and insinuate their special interests indirectly, to make up that {αβγδ}, to set forward the shakings of heaven and earth, which are to be seen even at this day.  
This being the season, when all the kingdoms of the world, are becoming the Lords and his Christs: and to this purpose he is taking to himself his great might, 
Revel. 11.16.  which heretofore he seemed to lay aside and in silence, as himself speaks in a like case. Psa, 50. to suffer wicked men to put forth their rage, according to their own pleasure, but he resolves by his Iron rod to dash those earthen vessels to pieces. 
Psa. ●.   
The first of these, to wit; The spiritual kingdom of Christ, is most opposed by a generation of Enthusiasts; and Familists, who having refined the loathsome follies of their former predecessors, do adventure to set open their conceits, with greater insolency, to the view of the world; and under the pretence of free-grace, they destroy the grace of God in the power and operations of it, in the hearts and lives of men.  
The other, which concerns the managing of the outward kingdom, unless my prospective much deceives me, is coming towards its last trial: because there is more liberty now given to each, to pled their own interests, when in former times the tyranny of Antichrist, and blind obedience unto his dictates, turned the tomb-stone of untimely silence upon all mens endeavours, butted all mens debates in their own bosoms, or else the unreasonable rigour of the prelates laboured to destroy the being of the defence as soon as it came to the birth.  
This present term of Gods patience promiseth some allowance to his people, the distressed and despised ones of Christ, sub formâ pauperis, to take leave, to lay claim to these privileges, which they have conceived to be part of the legacy bequeathed unto them by the Lord Iesus, being estated and entitled members of the visible kingdom of his Church.  
To set out the bounds of these interests, worthy M. R. hath bestowed great labour, which I have again and again attended, and as I do freely aclowledge to have received light therefrom: so I do profess I do readily consent with him in many things.  
In the number and nature of Officers, as Pastours, Teachers, Elders, &c. appointed by Christ in his Church.  
That the people hath right to call their own officers, and that none must be imposed upon them by Patrons and Prelates.  
That Scandalous persons are not fit to be members of a visible Church, nor should be admitted.  
That the faithful Congregations in England are true Churches: and therefore it is sinful to separate from them as no Churches.  
That the members which come commended from such Churches to ours here, so that it doth appear to the judgement of the Church, whence they come, that they are by them approved, and not scandalous, they ought to be received to Church communion with us, as members of other Churches wi●h u● in N. E inlike case so commended and approved.  
To separate from Congrega●ions for want of some Ordinances: Or,  
To separate from the true worship of God, because of the sin of some worshippers, i● unlawful.  
The Consociation of Churches is not only lawful, but in some cases necessary.  
That when causes are difficult, and particular Churches want light and help, they should crave the Assistance of such a consociation.  
That Churches so meeting have right to counsel, rebuk, &c. as the case doth require.  
In case any particular Church shall walk pertinaciously, either in the profession of error, or sinful practise, and will not hear their counsel, they may and should renounce the right hand of fellowship with them.  
That Infants of visible Churches, born of wicked parents, being members of the Church, ought to be baptized.  
In these and several other particulars, we fully accord with M. R. and therefore no man in reason can conceive, that I writ in opposition to his book: for then I should oppose myself, and mine own judgement: but for further disquisition and search into some particulars, which place tanti viri, craves further and fuller discovery.  
And hence, THIS NEEDS NO TOLERATION OF RELIGIONS, or estrangement of affection, in tolerating the differences of such apprehensions, and that in some things, until further light bring in further conviction and concurrence.  
It is confessed by all the Casuists, I know, and that upon a rigid dispute, that longer time is to be allowed to two sorts of people, from whom consent is expected, then from others.  
1. To some, who out of the strength of their judgement are able to oppose arguments, in case they come not so well guarded and pointed as they should.  
2. To others, the like Indulgency is to be lent, who out of their weakness cannot so easily and readily perceive the valour and validity of an argument, to carry the c●●se, and win their assent thereunto.  
Of this latter I profess myself, and therefore pled for allowance, and present Forbearance, especially considering, that modestly to inquire into, and for a time to dissent from the judgement of a general counsel, hath been accounted tolerable.  
He that will estrange his affection, because of the difference of apprehension in things difficult, he must be a stranger to himself one time or other, If men would be tender and careful to keep off offensive expressions, they might keep some distance in opinion, in somethings, without hazard to truth or love. But when men set up their sheaves( though it be but in a dream, as Josephs was) and fall out with every one, that will not fall down and adore them, they will bring much trouble into the world, but little advantage to the truth, or peace.  
Again, The Reader must know for his direction in this inquiry, my aim only was, and is, to lay down, and that briefly, the grounds of our practise, according to that measure of light I have received, and to give answer to such reasons, which might seem to weaken the evidence thereof: declining purposely, for the present, the examination of such answers, which are made to the arguments alleged by some of our Reverend Brethren, touching the same subject: because I would neither prejudice nor prevent their proper defence, which I do suppose in the sittest season, they will so present unto the world, as shall be fully satisfactory to such, as love and desire the knowledge of the truth.  
The sum is, we doubt not what we practise, but its beyond all doubt, that all men are liars, and we are in the number of those poor f●eble men, either we do, or may err, though we do not know it, what we have learned, we do profess, and yet profess still to live, that we may learn.  
And therefore the errand upon which this present discourse is sent, is summarily to show these two things unto the world,  
1. That there must be more said( then yet it hath been my happiness to see) before the principles we profess will be shaken, and consequently it cannot be expected, that we should be unsettled in our practise.  
2. Th●t I might occasion men eminently gifted to make further search, and to dig deeper, that if there be any vein of reason, which lies yet lower, it might be brought to light, and we profess and promise, not only a ready ear to hear it, but a heart willing to welcome it.  
Its the perfection of a man, amid these many weaknesses, we are surrounded withall, by many changes to come to perfection. Its the honour and conquest of a man truly wise to be conquered by the truth: and he hath attained the greatest liberty, that suffers himself to be lead captive thereby.  
That the discourse comes forth in such a homely dress and course habit, the Reader must be desired to consider, It comes out of the wilderness, where curiosity is not studied. Planters if they can provide cloth to go warm, they leave the cuts and lace to those that study to go fine.  
As it is beyond my skill, so I profess it is beyond my care to please the niceness of mens palates, with any auaintnesse of language. They who covet more sauce then meat, they must provide cooks to their mind. It was a cavil cast upon Hierom, that in his writings he was Ciceronianus non Christianus: 
Erasmus in vita Hier.  My rudeness frees me wholly from this exception, for being {αβγδ}, as the Apostle hath it, if I would, I could not lavish out in the looseness of language, and as the case stands, if I could answer any mans desire in that daintiness of speech, I would not do the matter that Injury which is now under my hand: Ornari res ipsa negat. The substance and solidity of the frame is that, which pleaseth the builder, its the painters work to provide varnish.  
If the manner of the discourse should oecasion any disrelish in the apprehension of the weaker Reader, because it may seem too logical, or scholastical, in regard of the terms I use, or the way of dispute that I proceed in, in some places: I have these two things to profess,  
1. That plainness and perspicuity, both for matter and manner of expression, are the things, that I have conscientiously endeavoured in the whole debate: for I have ever thought writings that come abroad, they are not to dazzle, but direct the apprehension of the meanest, and I have accounted it the chiefest part of judicious learning, to make a hard point easy and familiar in explication. Qui non vult intelligi, debet negligi.  
2. The nature of the subject that is under my hand, is such, that I was constrained to accommodate and comform my expressions more or less, in some kind of suitableness thereunto: for in some passages of the dispute, the particulars in their very rise and foundation, border so near upon the principles of logic:( as whether Ecclesia Catholica visibilis, was to be attended, as a Totum universale, or integral) that either I must resolve to say nothing, or to speak( though as sparing as I could of such things) as the quality of the things did require. And let any man make a trial, and I do much mistake myself, but he will be nceessitated to take the same course, if he speaks to the cause. If the Reader shall demand how far this way of Church-proceeding receives approbation by any common concurrence amongst us: I shall plainly and punctually express myself in a word of truth, in these following points, viz.  
Visible Saints are the only true and meet matter, whereof a visible Church should be gathered, and confoederation is the form.  
The Church as Totumessentiale, is, and may be, before Officers.  
There is no presbyterial Church( i.e. A Church made up of the Elders of many Congregations appointed Classickwise, to rule all those Congregations) in the N. T.  
A Church congregational is the first subject of the keys.  
Each Congregation completely constituted of all Officers, hath sufficient power in her self, to exercise the power of the keys, and all Church discipline, in all the censures thereof.  
Ordination is not before election.  
There ought to be no ordination of a Minister at large, Namely, such as should make him pastor without a People.  
The election of the people hath an instrumental causal virtue under Christ, to give an outward call unto an Officer.  
Ordination is only a solemn installing of an Officer into the Office, unto which he was formerly called.  
Children of such, who are members of Congregations, ought only to be baptized.  
The consent of the people gives a causal virtue to the completing of the sentence of excommunication.  
Whilst the Church remains a true Church of Christ, it doth not loose this power, nor can it lawfully be taken away.  
Consociation of Churches should be used, as occasion doth require.  
Such consociations and Synods have allowance to counsel and admonish other Churches, as the case may require.  
And if they grow obstinate in error or sinful miscarriages, they should renounce the right hand of fellowship with them.  
But they have no power to excommunicate.  
Nor do their constitutions bind formalitèr& juridicè.  
In all these I have leave to profess the joint judgement of all the Elders upon the river: Of enliven, guildford, Milford, Stratford, Fairfield: and of most of the Elders of the Churches in the Bay, to whom I did sand in particular, and did receive approbation from them, under their hands: Of the rest( to whom I could not sand) I cannot so affirm; but this I can say, That at a common meeting, I was desired by them all, to publish what now I do.  
Lastly, To ease the ordinary Reader, who happily is not acquainted with discourses of this kind, I shall take leave to lend him this little advice.  
The Treatise being divided into four parts, if he will be entreated to survey the Table set before the work, by a short and sudden cast of his eye, he shall presently perceive those particulars, which as so many pillars principal, bear up the whole frame.  

1. Look at the Church in its first rise and essence, The causes of it, in the efficient, Matter and Form: The Qualification of it, in its precedency, power, privileges, make up the first part.  
2. Look at the Church, as completed with all her Officers, the number and nature of them, in her elestions, and Ordinations, where the loathsome title of Independency is opened: these lay out the matter of the second part.  
3. The Church thus constituted, The power that she exerciseth in admissions, dispensations of Sacraments, and censures, especially that grand and great censure of excommunication, how it is to be managed, and the power of it lastly resolved. In these the third part is spent.  
4. The consociation of Churches in Classes, Synods, and councils, is shortly discussed in the fourth part.   
Let him be entreated to carry these along in his consideration, he will readily know, whether to refer any thing, and where to find any thing; and as readily conceive the method and manner, both of the constitution of the Church, as the House of God, and the right managing of all the occasions and affairs thereof.  
In the handling of all these particulars, so full of difficulty and obscurity, I am not such a stranger at home, but that I am easily sensible of the weight of the matter and mine own weakness: and therefore I can profess in a word of truth, that against mine own inclination and affection, I was haled by importunity to this so hard a task, to kindle my rush candle, to join with the light of others, at least to occasion them to set up their lamps.  
Now he that is the way, the truth, and the life, pave out all the ways of his people, and make their paths plain before them: led us all into that truth, which will led us unto eternal life: bring us once unto that impotency and impossibility, that we can do nothing against the truth, but for it, that so our Congregations, may not only be styled, as Ezekiels temple, but be really what was prophesied the Churches should be, in these last daies, Jehovah Shammah. In the arms of his everlasting mercy I leave thee, but never cease to wish,  
spiritual welfare in him, THOMAS HOOKER.   

TO THE READER, ESPECIALLY The Congregation and Church of Iesus Christ in Hartford upon Connecticutt.  
THe eternal blessed Lord, whose ways of mercy to his redeemed ones( as his judgements to others) are unsearchable and past finding out, hath through the contrivances of his infinite wisdom, reserved many glorious discoveries of thee for ever to be adored depths and riches of his grace in Jesus Christ, to this last age of the world. And as he hath fitted instruments for the holding forth of the mystery of Christ( the hope of glory) in that great plot and work of redemption, and application with much evidence and power to the gaining of many souls to himself: So he hath in a special manner caused the truths concerning his visible government of the Saints in this world, in communion and fellowship with himself, and one with another, according to the order of the Gospel, as with more glory to break forth, so with more power to lay hold upon the spirits of many, then in former times: So that not contenting themselves with mixed fellowships, and other pollutions in the things of Christ( the abhorred errors and mistakes of their former ways) and not finding encouragement for what they desired according to God, in the places of their then sojourning: They were provoked to make many inquiries on earth, and sand up many cries to him, whom their souls loved in heaven, to know where he fed his flock at noon.  
The favour and faithfulness of the Lord Jesus( the King and head of his Church) was not wanting to his people in this thing. He answered the desires of many in carrying them into this wilderness, where they aclowledge themselves to have received warmth and refreshing under his wings, he sent out his light and his truth, and lead them to his holy mountain, and his tabernacles.  
Among others( dear Brethren) we have been sharers in this rich privilege, a large portion hath been carved out unto us, by the hand of our blessed God in the things of his kingdom, and grace: we have for many years lived under his shadow, been fed with the dainties of his house, enjoyed the full improvement of the large abilities of faithful watchmen and overseers for our good, to whom our comforts and welfare in every kind have been precious.  
But the only wise and holy God, for our great unworthiness hath lately made a sad breath upon us by the death of our most dear Pastor( the Author of the ensuing Treatise) whereby our glory is much eclipsed, our comforts not a little impaired, and our fears justly multiplied. The stroke is direful and amazing, when such a stake is taken out of the hedge, such a pillar from the house, such a Pastor from his flock, in such a time and place as this.  
It is not our purpose or is it suitable to our condition and relation, to lay out the breadth of the excellencies wherewith through the abundant grace of the Lord he was enriched and fitted for the service of his great name, or if we were willing to improve ourselves in that kind, have our pens received an anointing for such an employment; what, we express is onely to put you and ourselves in mind of the unvaluable loss we have sustained, that our hearts being deeply and duly affencted under that sad afflicting providence, we may look up to the holy one of Israel our Redeemer, who teacheth to profit, that instruction may be sealed up unto us thereby.  
He was( as you well know) one of a thousand, whose diligence and unweariednesse( besides his other endowments) in the work committed to him, was almost beyond compare. He revealed the whole counsel of the Lord unto us, kept nothing back, dividing the word aright. His care was of strong and weak, sheep and lambs, to give a portion to each in due season, delighting in holy administrations, which by him were held forth in much beauty and glory. In this work his Master found him, and so called him to enter into his glory. Some of you are not ignorant with what strength of importunity he was drawn to this present service, and with what fear and care he attended it. The weight and difficulty of the work was duly apprehended by him, and he looked upon it, as somewhat unsuitable to a Pastor, whose head and heart and hands, were full of the employments of his proper place.  
Besides, his spirit mostly delighted in the search of the mystery of Christ, in the unsearchable riches thereof, and the work and method of the spirit, in the communication of the same unto the soul for its everlasting welfare, some discovery whereof may hereafter be presented to the world, as the Lord gives liberty and opportunity.  
Such strength of parts clothed with humility, such clear and high apprehensions of the things of God, with a ready cheerful condescending to the infirmities of the weak( which was his daily study and practise) are not often to be found among the sons of men, nor yet the sons of God in this world.  
The present discourse was finished by himself in the time of his life, and sent near two years since to be made public, but the Lord in whose hands all our works and ways are, determined otherwise. That sad providence was entertained by him in reference to the present work, with much contentedness and humble submission to the good pleasure of the most high, and if he might have enjoyed the liberty of his own judgement and desires, no further discoveries should have been made to the world of these his labours, they should have been butted in everlasting silence; but at last he was overborne and condescended to what now is again endeavoured, though before the full transcribing, he was translated from us to be ever with the Lord.  
The Reader may well conceive, had the judicious Author lived to peruse the Copy now sent, the work would have been more complete, and perhaps some additions made in some parts thereof. But we have not yet had the happiness to find among his papers what was intended in that kind.  
We have little more to say at present, but to let the Reader know, that nothing is added to, or taken from the Authors primitive Copy for the substance of it; and to assure him that his unwillingness to make his thoughts public, did not arise from any doubts in him concerning the truth of what is held forth in the present disputes, for he was abundantly satisfied therein: As he believed so he spake, but other considerations retarded his resolutions to that work.  
It hath been rightly observed that disputations in Religion, though they are sometimes necessary, yet they are usually dangerous, by drawing commonly the best spirits into the head from the heart, and, if extraordinary ●●re be not taken, abating pious affections towards God, and love towards men. But you( Brethren) who knew him, are witnesses of the prevailing lively power of the rich grace of God, in the heart and life of this Author in all respects, even unto his very end, the Lord who taught him from his youth, and enabled him then to declare and hold forth his wondrous works, forsook him not when he was gray-headed, but he went on in the strength of the Lord God, making mention of his righteousness, even of his only.  
There were some workings in his thoughts before the sending away of the first Copy, to have recommended these his labours in an Epistle to this Church, and thereby left them( to use his own expressions) as his last legacy to us: Though these thoughts of his were not then prosecuted, yet there being necessary occasion upon this great turn of providence to intimate a few words unto the Reader at this time, we thought it not amiss to acquaint you, our beloved Brethren, with those former purposes of our most dear Pastor, whose remembrance we hope will be for ever precious with you all, that you may look upon this work( the result of many thoughts and prayers) as the last breathings of his love towards you, for your establishment in these present truths. It shall be our endeavour that in due season you may have other of his labours among you, in your daily view for your further comfort and edification, and so may still hear him speaking to you in this way, whose lively voice you can hear no more. And we shall not cease to look up to the God and father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the father of mercies, and God of all consolations, for you, and for ourselves, that we may be duly sensible of the price that was in our hands, effectually humbled under any misimprovements, and conscientiously prosecute the advantages yet continued, least a worse thing happen to us, our candlestick be removed, and we left wholly desolate, in this time of the Lords riding circuit over all his Churches, and that hour of temptation which is even now over the face of the whole earth.  
Your Brethren in the fellowship of the faith of the Gospel, and deep follow-sufferers with you in this great loss, EDWARD HOPKINS. WILLIAM GOODWIN. Hartford upon Conecticutt, the 28. of Octob. 1647.   

In obitum viri Doctissimi THOMAE HOOKERI Pastoris Ecclesiae Hertfordiensis, Novangliae, Collegae sui.  

A star of heaven whose beams were very bright,  
Who was a burning, and a shining light,  
Did shine in our Horizon fourteen years,  
Or thereabout, but now be disappeares:  
July the seventh six hundred forty seven,  
His blessed soul ascended up to heaven.  
He was a man exceeding rich in truth;  
He stored up rich treasures from his youth.  
While he was in the University,  
His light did shine, his parts were very high.  
When he was fellow of emmanuel,  
Much learning in his solid head did dwell.  
His knowledge in theology Divine,  
In Chelmesford Lectures divers years did shine.  
Dark Scriptures he most clearly did expound,  
And that great mystery of Christ profound.  
He had a singular clear insight, in  
The souls conversion unto God from sin:  
And in what method men come to inherit,  
Both Christ and all his fullness by the Spirit.  
He made the truth appear by light of reason,  
And spake most comfortable words in season.  
To poor distressed sinners and contrite,  
And such as to the Promises had right.  
Which did revive their hearts and make them wonder:  
And in reproof he was a son of Thunder.  
He spake the Word with such authority,  
That many from themselves to Christ did fly,  
His preaching was full of the holy Ghost,  
Whose presence in him we admired most.  
He did excel in Mercy, Peace and Love,  
Was Lion-like in courage, yet a Dove.  
He from the largeness of his royal heart,  
His treasures was most ready to impart.  
To many Ministers he was a father;  
Who from his light, much pleasant light did gather.  
The principles he held were clear and strong:  
He was to truth a mighty pillar long.  
I can affirm I know no man more free  
From Errors in his judgement, then was he.  
His holy heart delighted much to act  
The will of God, wherein he was exact.  
No other way could with his spirit svit;  
His conversation was full of fruit.  
He was abundant in the work of God  
Untill death came, and heaven was his abod.  
At his last clause Christ found him doing well,  
His blameless life, but few can parallel.  
The peace he had full thirty yeares ago  
At death was firm, not touched by the foe.  
Of all his daies and times, the last were best:  
The end of such is peace, he is at rest.  
His lips, they were a spring and three of life,  
Unto his people, family and wife,  
In which much wisdom, health and grace was found,  
Are sealed up, and butted under ground.   

If any to this Platform can reply  
With better reason, let this volume die:  
But better argument if none can give,  
Then Thomas Hookers Policy shall live.   
SAM. ston, Teaching Elder of the same Church at Hartford with him.   

On my Reverend and dear Brother, Mr. THOMAS HOOKER, late Pastor of the Church at Hartford on Connectiquot.  

TO see three things was holy Austins wish,  
Rome in her Flower, Christ Jesus in the Flesh,  
And Paul i'th Pulpit; Lately men might see,  
Two first, and more, in Hookers Ministry.   

Zion in Beauty, is a fairer sight,  
Then Rome in Flower, with all her Glory dight:  
Yet Zions Beauty did most clearly shine,  
In Hookers Rule, and Doctrine; both Divine.   

Christ in the Spirit, is more then Christ in Flesh,  
Our Souls to quicken, and our States to bless:  
Yet Christ in Spirit broke forth mightily,  
In faithful Hookers searching Ministry.   

Paul in the Pulpit, Hooker could not reach,  
Yet did He Christ in Spirit so lively Preach:  
That living Hearers thought He did inherit  
A double Portion of Pauls lively spirit.   

Prudent in Rule, in Argument quick, full:  
Fervent in Prayer, in Preaching powerful:  
That well did learned Ames record bear,  
The like to Him He never wont to hear.   

'twas of Genevahs Worthies said, with wonder,  
( Those Worthies Three:) Farell was wont to Thunder;  
Viret, like Rain, on tender grass to shower,  
But Calvin, lively Oracles to pour.   

All these in Hookers spirit did remain:  
A son of Thunder, and a shower of Rain,  
A pourer-forth of lively Oracles,  
In saving souls, the sum of miracles.   

Now blessed Hooker, thou art set on high,  
Above the thankless world, and cloudy sky:  
do thou of all thy labour reap the Crown,  
Whilst we here reap the seed, which thou hast sown.   
J. COTTON.   

In sepulchrum Reverendissimi viri, fratris charissimi M. THO. HOOKERI.  
AMerica, although she do not boast  
Of all the gold and silver from this cost,  
Lent to her Sister Europe's need, or pride,  
( For that's repaid her, with much gain beside  

Herbert In Church militant.  In one rich Pearl, which Heavens did thence afford,  
As pious Herbert gave his honest word)  
Yet thinks, SHE in the Catalogue may come  
With Europe, Afrieke, Asia, for ONE tomb.  
E. ROGERS.   

MY Times( saith David) are in thy Hand: Neither is it meet, for us so much as, to know the seasons which the Father hath put in his own power. This is as conspicuously made good in his appointing the seasons for justifying his own cause, as of any other event whatsoever. Wherein, as he hath as great an interest; so, himself being the principal, yea, sole AUTHOR of all that is written or spoken for it, assumes the prerogative to judge and determine of the fittest opportunity, for every word, that shall be uttered, much more published in testimony thereof. This I have with silence and submission learned( as many other lessons) from his so strong and all wise-disposing Providence towards this treatise; And some other, both passages and treatises that have related to, or been intended for defence and cleared of this Argument.  
This Treatise was finished and sent over transcribed, under the eye and exact review of the eminently accomplished Author himself, well nigh Two yeeres since; who also then followed it( as I have heard) with many prayers and tears, for a blessing upon the publishing. But it was then butted in the rude waves of the vast Ocean, with many precious Saints, in their passage hither. The most of those that were affencted to this cause, did then judge, in respect of the Opportunity, and importunity of that season,( that impetuously called for a model of this way) this to be a loss not recompensable, at any other time. But God( we see, and that by this strange disaster) thought best to reserve it rather, for such a time as this: as wherein, the noise and tumultuous outcries of many, being somewhat stilled, the words of the wise, may bee( as Solomon speaks) the better heard in quiet. 
Eccles. 9.17.  And the raging violence of that hot season,( which like a fiery Oven,( as the Prophet speaks) devoured all that was cast into it) being a little moderated, and allayed, men may be better disposed to hear and consider Reason, especially coming from this hand, whom all men knew, and had in esteem, as a man of God, of more then an ordinary spirit. And perhaps some of those Reasonings, which were then, or would still have been deemed as broken and bru●sed Reeds, in the hands of others, may become in his as rods of Iron, and prevail to Victory: And those Rods, which have been turned to Serpents, become Rods again, now they are taken up by him.  
That forementioned destiny, that hath attended this book, hath, at times visited my thoughts with an apprehension of something of Like Omen to the cause itself it pleads for against the presbyterial Government: That after an overwhelming of it with a flood of obloquys and disadvantages and weapons and injurious oppressions, cast out after it, it might( in the time which God alone hath put in his own power) be again emergent; yea and shoot forth out of the same seeds of Truth, which have been scattered and butted under ground. Which hath the more ready entertainment with me, because from our first entrance into this conflict, I made account and looked for it, That this truth and all that should be said for it, was ordained as Christ( of whom every truth is a Ray and beam) to be as a seed of corn, which unless it fall to the ground and die, and this perhaps together with some of the persons that profess it, it brings not forth much fruit. All that is His, is always at first sown in weakness; but afterwards riseth in power: One Age sows and another reaps: And yet in these latter dayes wherein the light and Sunshine grows hotter and more intense, the same age may perhaps see, and enjoy both the seed-time, and the increase.  
However, certain I am of this, which may more visibly be red out of this, and a more then usual conjunction of many other occurrences falling out at this juncture of time, evidently proclaiming by a loud and powerful voice of providence, that Gods design and pleasure is( for what ends and issues himself onely knows) to renew and hold up this controversy amongst us, as if it were but new begun, notwithstanding all that sluggish backwardness in those that have been called, yea cried out upon, to maintain it; and those slight and despising thoughts in others, as not worth the pains and travail. God not onely having stirred up the spirit of this great worthy to undertake the defence thereof( whose humility and modesty to appear in Print in any other subject, considering his abilities in all kinds, both for preaching and disputing were singular) but ordering of it so, as that it should be accompanied with many other Treatises now published, or to be made public, that have as long since been prepared, but detained, 

Mr Nortons Answer to all the queries of Apollonius in Latin. Mr cords and Master Allens defence of the nine Questions and Positions from New England.  
The Reasons and Answers of the Dissenting Brethren and the Assembly, and the transactions about Accommodation all that were given in in writing.  
Mr Cottons Answer to Mr bailie, &c. The doctrinal part.   as if to bear it company, but now issuing forth as it were at once. Some of which will provoke and occasion others, or necessitate some of those engaged to make fresh Replies, or some other way to vindicate the truth.  
Yea, and which is more eminently observable to this purpose in hand, that the Assembly of Divines itself( Providence so conspiring and contriving it) should now, and not till now( though upon the Order of the Honourable House long since issued forth, a faint attempt towards an entrance thereunto was made by them) should now be set awork and betake themselves a new, to assert and convincingly make forth the Jus Divinum of Church-government, both in the general principles, upon which it is to be made forth, and the particularities thereof: And so not only take a new survey, but go over, upon a new woof, the whole piece and platform they had debated& before presented, but under A THERE MAY BE, and IT IS LAWFUL AND AGREEABLE TO THE WORD, and the like: THE LORD, by all these coincident events calling his Saints to a fresh and more serious revisall of these Controversies, as not yet determined, nor fully cleared either to the satisfaction of God or man. And moreover by this last alone,( if there were no other consideration higher and of more weight) putting in a sufficient caveat and demur to the swords plea or intermeddling, as in relation to this quarrel, pendente light, the suite as yet depending upon an other way of trial.  
As touching this Treatise, and the worthy Author of it, I intend not to preface any thing by commendation of either unto the Reader; which were indeed, to lay paint upon burnished marble, or add light unto the Sun. The trust of viewing it at the press being committed to my care, I have, out of the honour I bore to him, and love unto this cause my heart is in, endeavoured to discharge it with my utmost diligence and faithfulness: I have done it all the right I could. And Reader, be assured thou hast it here presented as it was now transcribed and sent over, without Addition or Diminution: Neither did I intermeddle so far as to look The Quotations in the Authors themselves, whom he confutes; but left them as I found them to the Copy. Onely I believe upon some Conjectures, that the Copy which perished, and was throughout revised, and perhaps added to by the Author, was more perfect then this.  
I have no more but to commend it and thee to the blessing of God.  
APRIL. 17. 1648. THO. GOODWIN.   

THE CONTENTS. A Survey of the sum of Church-Discipline.  

PART I. ecclesiastical policy Defined.  
CHAP. I. ecclesiastical policy is a skill of ordering the affairs of Christs house according to the pattern of his Word. page. 1.  
Chap. 2. The constitution of a visible Church in the Causes thereof: The Efficient and Matter. p. 11.  
Chap. 3. Of the invisible Church: Whether the invisible Church be the principal, prime and onely proper subject, to whom all the Seals and privileges of special note do belong. p. 35.  
Chap. 4. Of the formal cause of a visible Church, the Church Covenant. p. 41.  
Chap. 5. Whether baptism doth give formality or make a member of a visible Church? p. 55.  
Chap. 6. Whether profession makes a man a member of a Congregation? p. 60.  
Chap. 7. An Answer to Arguments made against the Church-Covenant. p. 68.  
Chap. 8. Wherein the precedency of a Church, as it is Totum homogeneum, is handled. p. 89.  
Chap. 9. Of the nature and being of a presbyterial Church. p. 94.  
Chap. 10. Such arguments as Mr. Rutterford aleadgeth for the confirmation of a presbyterial Church answered. p. 130.  
Chap. 11. Touching the I. subject of ecclesiastical power, where the nature of it is discovered, and the arguments brought against it answered. p. 185.  
Chap. 12. Touching the catholic and visible Church, whether to the ministry and guides of the catholic visible Church, hath the Lord committed the keys, as to the first subject. Discussed p. 217.  
Chap. 13. Of the catholic Church as it is totum representativum, in the Assembling of Pastors, &c. in a general council. p. 229.  
Chap. 14. Of the Church universal, as it is totum integral. p. 243.  
Chap. 15. An answer to Mr. Hudson, concerning the Church catholic visible, as totum integral. p. 250.  
Chap. 16. Of Church communion as it is a Peculiar privilege to the members of a Church. p. 288.   

PART. II. Of the Church considered as it is corpus Organicum.  
Chap. 1. Of the number of Officers therein, and the nature thereof. p. 1.  
Chap. 2. Wherein the nature of Ordination is discussed, and the 17. Chap. of Mr. Rutterford is considered, and answered, as touching the power he giveth to a Pastor in and over other Congregations beside his own. p. 38.  
Chap. 3. Of an Independent Church, Wherein the state of the question is opened, the distasteful term of Independency cleared, and the right meaning put upon it. M. R. his Arguments in the 13. Chap. debated. p. 78.   

PART. III.  
Chap. 1. Of the Government of the Church. p. 1.  
Chap. 2. Of the dispensation of the Sacraments. p. 8.  
Chap. 3. Of Censures. p. 33.   

PART. IIII. Concerning Synods.  
Chap. 1. Wherein M. R. 6. Argument is debated, taken out of Act. 15. and the nature of that Synod discussed, and how far that or any other Synod can be said to bind by any warrant from the Word. p. 1.  
Chap. 2. Where M. R his Arguments touching the superiority of Classes and Synods above particular Congregations are considered and answered: And they are in number 6. more set down in the 15. Chap. of his book. p. 15.  
Chap. 3. An appendix to the former Treatise concerning Synods. p. 45.    

An Analyticall Table.  
A Church considered in her 

Constitution 

Corpus Homogentum, whose 

Causes 

Efficient  
And 

material  
formal      
Qualification which is either in 

Order and Precedency.  
Excellency of 

Power,  
privileges.        
Organicum where Officers, whose 

Number 

Ruling Only.  
Ruling and teaching 

Pastor,  
Doctor.    
Supporting the 

Estates of the members, as Deacons.  
Health, as widows.      
Institution 

Election.  
Ordination.        
And 

Gubernation 

Severed 

What the watch is, which appertains to all.  
What the behaviour of all under it.    
Assembled, in 

Admission 

What to be done before they come,  
What, when they are met, in receiving such who 

Are no members, Come members from other Congregations.      
Dispensation of 

Sacraments 

Parties who have right to 

give,  
receive.    
Manner 

Common to both, as to be 

public in the Assembly.  
Accompanied with the word.    
Peculiar to 

baptism 

with one element,  
once administered.    
Supper administered. 

Frequently with distinct blessings, as there be distinct elements.          
Censures of offences. 

Private  
public, where 

Preparation to the sentence which is 

Examined,  
Cleared.  
And 

Recorded,  
published.      
Execution by 

Admonition,  
Excommunication.              
Consociation in 

Synods,  
councils.         

A SURVEY of the sum of Church-Discipline.  

CHAP. I. ecclesiastical Policy Defined. ecclesiastical Policy is a skill of ordering the affairs of Christs house, according to the pattern of his word.  
SKill.] When we speak of spiritual things, we desire to speak in the words which the wisdom of the holy Ghost teacheth, and so we shall compare spiritual words and spiritual things together. And therefore it is, though the Government, whereof we are now to entreat, shareth, with other of the like rank, in the general nature common to them and it, and thence may( as it is) truly be called, an Art or Policy, as civil governments are styled: and there be a like parity and proportion of reason, in regard of the nature of the work: yet we attend the language of the Apostle, who, when he would instruct Timothy, touching the subject now to be entreated of, and furnish him with directions fitting and sufficient thereunto, he terms it, by knowledge or skill, how to demean himself in the house of God, 1 Tim. 3.15.  
Its the knowledge of the duty of some rule that lieth upon him. Thus knowledge how to converse and carry ourselves in Church-work, as the effect, leads us by the hand to look to the cause, whence it comes, namely the rule by the staple-precepts whereof, as by the Kings standard, this knowledge hath its being, and is bounded in its operations, the effect thus is expressed, but the cause is implied.  
Ordering.] Its the art of ordering the affairs of the Church, For so the Apostle speaks, Colos. 2.5. When I behold your faith and order, as if he would refer the whole work of the Gospel to these two heads, Doctrine and Discipline. So much of Religion, as concerns the nature and work of Faith inwardly in the soul towards God and man, that is contained in the first branch, Faith. Order, which is the second and opposite member, includes the exercise of Discipline and censures of the Church, so far, as by rule they are expressed, and concern the rectifying of the carriage of such, who are in confoederation each with other.  
This word taken in its native and narrow signification, implies the right positure of things in their proper places and ranks, when they are marshaled by the rule of Method, according to their especial precedencies and dependencies they have, each upon other. And here by a metonymy of the Adjunct, The managing of all Church-Ordinances, according to all the forms thereof, as Ezekiel speaks, the outgoings thereof, and incomings thereof, with that piety and spiritual prudence, 
Ch. 43.11.  as is most suitable to all, that time, place, and persons, and practices, can require, as dispensed by some, received by others, is understood.  
So that, when all offices and ordinances are managed in this manner, in a comely demeanour, the Church is then truly visibly Militant, becomes terrible like a well ordered army with banners. But when you loose the ranks, and rout the company, by disorderly administrations, it is the overthrow of the Army, and so of the Church.  
House of Christ.] It is the expression of the Apostle in the place formerly quoted, 1 Tim. 3.15. That thou maiest know how to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God. God is the father of all the family in heaven and earth. Christ the Head and Redeemer, the holy Ghost the Comforter.  
As the Head, so the Church which is his Body, admits a double consideration.  
Christ is a Head, 

mystical, by spiritual influence.  
political, by his especial guidance in the means, and dispensation of his Ordinances.    
The Church also is a Body, 

mystical,  
political.    
The mystical Body is the Church of true believers, who being effectually called by his word and spirit, by faith yielding to the call, are spiritually united unto Christ, from whom, as from a head, all spiritual life and motion is communicated on his part, and received on theirs. And this takes up the Invisible Church, because the union, and so the relation, in the truth of it, is inward, and not to be seen by sense. Of this we do not now inquire. It is that we do believe. The political body or Church visible results out of that relation, which is betwixt the professors of the faith, when by voluntary consent they yield outward subjection to that government of Christ, which in his word he hath prescribed, and as an external head exerciseth by his word, spirit, and discipline, by his ordinances and officers over them, who have yielded themselves subjects to his Headship and supreme Authority. For Christ having humbled himself to the death, the cursed death upon the cross, God the Father hath given him a name, 
Phil. 1.9. Joh. 13.3. Mat. 28.18 Joh. 5.22.  above every thing that is name. Hath given him all things: Hath committed all power into his hand: and hath delegated unto him, the immediate dispensation of this power. For the Father judgeth no man, and by a parity of reason, in a right sense, he calls quickens, rules no man, but hath committed the immediate dispensation of all to the son: which power he exerciseth invisibly in their hearts by the operations of his spirit: but exerciseth it visibly by his ordinances and officers in his Church, as upon his subjects, who profess allegiance and homage to him. So the Apostle, Ephes. 4. When he ascended up on high, and lead captivity captive, he gave gifts to men, some to be Pastors, some to be Teachers, all set in his Church, and all for the good of his Church.  
And as he hath a golden sceptre for the guidance of his servants, so, as a Judge, he hath an iron rod to break his enemies in pieces like a potters vessel. Bring hither mine enemies, that will not have me to rule over them, and slay them before my face.  
Hence observe obiter and by the way, that the root of this power lieth first in Christ, as a Head, and is communicated by virtue of that commission received from the Father. All power in heaven and earth is given to me, therefore Preach and baptize, Matth. 28.18, 19.  
We now see the proper and adequate subject about which ecclesiastical policy is exercised, to wit,  
The affairs of his house,] The things that appertain to the visible Church, his visible kingdom on earth. And to this place appertain the disputes, touching the difference betwixt ecclesiastical and civil Policy, what kind of influence they have each into other, together with the tyrannicall usurpation of that man of sin, and the false claim that Antichrist makes to both the swords, with all the pretences he deviseth to serve his own turn, and the false colours he puts upon his proceedings, when he would alloy his cruelty, with a farfetcht device, as though he did all in ordine ad spiritualia, and by the colour of that order, he might disorder and overturn the whole frame of all kingdoms and commonwealths, if they will not stoop to his tyranny and usurpation.  
All those controversies take here their proper consideration, as in their proper place. But our intendment being to comprehend things in short, we shall wholly leave such tedious disputes, which would trouble our work, and weary the Reader.  
Certain it is, ecclesiastical policy confines itself within the affairs of the Church, as within its proper compass. My kingdom, saith our Saviour, is not of this world; and so the weapons of his kingdom are spiritual weapons, as in the inference our Saviour fully concludes. If my Kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews. But his kingdom is not of this world, therefore his servants will not fight.  
Men sustain a double relation.  
As members of the commonwealth they have civil weapons, and in a civil way of righteousness, they may, and should use them.  
But as members of a Church, their weapons are spiritual, and the work is spiritual, the censures of the Church are spiritual, and reach the souls and consciences of men.  
According to the pattern of the Word.] This clause points where the laws of this Kingdom are to be found, and whence to be fetched. As Moses saw his pattern in the Mount, according to which he was to mould, all things in the Tabernacle: So we have ours left upon record in the holy Scriptures, unto which we must not add, and from which we must not take any thing. Christ the King of his Church, and Master of his House, he only in reason, can make laws that are authentic for the government thereof.  
And here we shall take leave to stay a little, and make this ground good before we pass, because we shall have special use of it, as a main pillar to bear up the building, of the following discourse, against the cavils of Papists and Formalists.  
We shall first explicate, and then argue.  
Church-government then is attended in a double respect, Either in regard of the 

Essentialls, or  
Circumstantialls, of it.    
Essentialls required to the completing of Church-government are, 

Partly in the persons that dispense.  
Partly in the ordinances that are dispensed.    
In the persons that dispense, the kindes of officers that are appointed to that work: the nature, bounds, and limits of their offices, all these are essentialls.  
The ordinances which these are to dispense, as preaching, prayer, seals, Church-censures, &c. all these are to be found in the word, and should be fetched from the word: and now under the Gospel, they are and ought to be the same; in all places, amongst all people, at all times, in all succeeding generations, until the coming of Christ.  
Media cultus sunt immutabilia.  
It is not left in the power of persons, Officers, Churches, nor all states in the world, to add, or diminish, or alter any thing in the least measure. 
Gen. 17.13 jun. in locum.  But as God did appoint all in the Old Testament, and those his institutions, did endure their Ever( as the Scripture speaks) i. until the coming of Christ, when the same power which appointed them, changed them, So in the New Testament where we are to expect no alteration, Christ the Law-giver he only appoints, none but he can, and he hath made known his will, that he will not change them.  
The Circumstantialls of Discipline, as time, place, the carrying on of these dispensations in civill decencies, suitable to the quality of the things, and conditions of the time, as peace and persecution: the general rules of these are in the word delivered: but the particular application admits varieties, mutabilities and alterations, according as necessities or conveniences shall appear by emergent occasions.  
That there is an immutable rule, touching the essentialls of discipline, left in the word, and thence to be fetched, we are now to prove.  

1. Argument.  
All parts of Gods worship are by God alone appointed, in the word revealed, and thence to be fetched.  
This is evident from the nature of worship, which only proceeds from Gods will, and the appointment of it is his peculiar prerogative. 
1 Kin. 12. 3●, 33.  For came it from the will of man, it would be will-worship. Deut. 12. and last. Its here true, what God doth not command God doth not accept: It is the charge he lays against all superstitious and false devices of men; They never came into his mind or heart, 
Jer. 7.31.  and therefore never have his approbation. Who required these things? He only knows what will best please himself, and his own will can make best choice.  But all Offices and Ordinances of Discipline are parts of Gods Worship: being duties required in the second command, and thither are to be referred, by the grant of all.  

2.  
The essentialls stand, either by the necessity of precept, and so immutably required, or else they are left arbitrary to the will of man to appoint.  
But they are not left arbitrary.  
The first part is evident by the fullness of the division.  
All things spiritual are either Christian duties, or else are left to Christian liberty.  
The second part is thus proved.  
If it be not in man to enable an Officer to his work, or offices or Ordinances to attain their end: Then it is not in his power to appoint Officer or Ordinance in the Church. For such appointment should be cross to wisdom in attempting it, and so frustrate in regard of the end, in not attaining it.  
But it is not in man to enable to the work, or to make the Ordinance attain its end: because the work is spiritual, and the end supernatural: And herein lies especially the difference betwixt civill and ecclesiastical power, Dominium and royal sovereignty may be seated in the one, i.e. in the Commonwealth; because they can communicate power from themselves to others, and enable others to attain civill ends, and to accomplish civill work, and in that respect they are called, {αβγδ}. A human Creation. But in the Church there is only ministerium received from Christ alone, and therefore they cannot delegate from themselves, and by their own institution any Officer, but only attend the institution of Christ.  
There is no man can have his Curate or Vicar, his Vicarius, because he is bound, in his own particular, to his place of ministry: he can appoint none because he can give power to none.   

3.  
That which is a fundamental point of Religion, that hath divine Institution, and so becomes immutable, unless Christ himself repeal it. For principles of that nature must have divine authority to appoint and to remove.  
But Church Discipline is a fundamental point of Religion. Heb. 6. Laying on of hands, being by a Metonymy of the adjunct put for Ordination, Ordination one particular, put for the whole of Church Discipline.   

4.  
If God received this as his peculiar to himself under the Law, To appoint Offices Ordinances in his word according to his will, Then it is unlawful now for any man to arrogate it: because his sovereignty is as much now as then, his word as perfect, there is no reason which can cast the balance another way.  
But this he did take as his peculiar in the Old Testament. 2 Chro. 29.25.  
Hence by the way we may lay in a caveat against significant Ceremonies instituted by man in Gods worship, as superstitious, such I mean which are appointed to stir up the dull and dead mind of man to the remembrance of his duty towards God, by some special signification, whereby he might be edified.   

1.  
Because these under this Institution are media cultus, and are so more efficacious to carry the mind and heart to God, as the Papists require, and such as all orthodox Divines condemn. Nay if it be by teaching and stirring towards these supernatural works, as Gods spiritual worship.  
Its that which the Lord condemns in Images, which tell lies, Its that which the Lord threatens to punish. Isa, 29.19. That his fear is taught by the precepts of men.   

2.  
Because such ceremonies are of the same kind and homogeneal with the significative part of the actions of the Sacrament, and upon the ground may be said to have a real and true efficacy of teaching, which properly is a part of worship: since that part of the Sacrament, which is placed in signification is so. Doth baptism consecrate the child to God? so doth the cross. Doth baptism signify the Covenant betwixt Christ and the child? so doth the cross. For its openly said by the Patrons thereof, to betoken the engagement betwixt Christ and the child, that he shall be Christs servant, and soldier to follow his colours and fight under his banner unto his dying day. And this Image though it hath no tongue to speak of its own, yet it speaks by this instituted signification put upon it and pressed by the power of the Prelates.   

3.  
Those Ceremonies which are set in the same rank with Gods own Ceremonies, in regard of their end and use, As those are truly religious because God is the appointer of them: So these must be superstitious, because mans will is the institutor of them: the parity and proportion of reason holds on both sides.  
But significant Ceremonies thus instituted, are of the like nature with some of Gods own rites. Instance the Phylacteries. Numb. 15.39, they were appointed for this end by the Lord, to be remembrancers and admonishers of the Law to those that used them, and the same place these Ceremonies supply, and are ordained for the same purpose,  
The Circumstantials of Discipline, as Time, Place, outward Decency and comeliness in the managing of Gods Ordinances: these admit of varieties and mutabilities, according to emergent occasions, which alter with the conditions of the Church.  
There is a comeliness and conveniency of Time and Places of meeting, and manner in their meeting, when the Churches are under persecution, which will be much altered, when the Churches enjoy peace and prosperity, and have Christian Kings and Queens for their nursing Fathers, and nursing Mothers. Yet in the carrying on of these Circumstantials according to the mind of Christ, among many other, these Rules lend a common influence, and are of special consequence and consideration.   

1.  
Though there be not, nor in truth can be particular precepts expressed in the Word, that may meet with all the special varieties of occurrences in this kind; yet there be general Rules, under the reach whereof, all the particulars will come, and by which they may be regulated, and that without fail. All must be done comelily and in order, without rudeness or confusion, For God is not the God of confusion, as in all the Churches, 1 Cor. 14.33. All must be done to edification, 1 Cor. 14.26. All to Gods glory, 1 Cor. 10.31.   

2.  
All these Circumstantials of Time, Place and Decency, they are common to things Civil, as well as Sacred, and serve indifferently and equally to further the useful administration of both, and therefore cannot be conceived to be any part of religious worship, nor can be ranked within the compass thereof, by any show of reason, only the ancient maxim here takes place, The later Art useth the work of the former, Ars posterior utitur prioris opere; both civil and sacred administrations use these Circumstantials, as issuing from precedent Arts, and so put forth their own actions to the best advantage, for the attaining of their own ends. As each man may meet with instances many, by easy attendance.  
There must be a right understanding of the meaning of the words, and so a grammatical Analysis of the phrase, where the promises or commands are expressed, before either our faith can believe the one, or a gracious, humble heart make choice aright of the other, and obey it. Both believing and obeying are religious actions, and both suppose the use and work of Grammar, and so of logic, about the promises and commands, and yet no man, that hath the exercise of reason about him, will say, that either Grammar or logic Analysis are religious actions, much less religious worship.   

3.  
The will of no man, neither Magistrate in the Common-wealth, nor Officer or Officers in the Churches, is the rule either of commanding or forbidding things indifferent. For if their wils were the rule, they could not err in commanding or forbidding: for the rule cannot err. They were not to give an account for those their commands, nor could be punished for any miscarriage in them. Then also, the will of the inferior were absolutely bound to yield obedience thereunto, and that without either questioning or examining the nature of it. Yea blind obedience would by this means be not only allowed, but of necessity enjoined. Nor could the inferior sin, in what ever he did in subjecting himself to the directions of the superior in such indifferent things. All which are contrary to common sense.   

4.  
The determination of indifferent things, either absolutely to be attended, or absolutely to be laid aside, when there is no preponderations or necessity to cast the balance either way, is beyond warrant; because it thwarts the nature of the things, and that merely out of the pleasure of the Imposer, which is not a rule to go by, since God by rule hath left these either to be done, or not done, as occasions are presented.   

5.  
Appointment and injunctions of things indifferent, which are either unprofitable, and have no good in their use, or be but so far prejudicial, as that they occasion a stop in a Christian course upon any just ground: Such appointments are to be repealed as unlawful. 1. For if Gods own Ceremonies were to be removed, because unprofitable, then much more ours, Heb. 7.18. 2. If we must answer for idle words, then for idle Ceremonies. 3. Things indifferent, when they are used, not in subordination to help forward moral duties, their use is unlawful. For herein lieth their use and good, that they may be in way to lend a lift to a higher end. But when they are unprofitable or prejudicial in the sense before expressed, then they are not in subordination to help forward the moral. Ergo. 4. That which crosseth the Place and Office of the governor, that he must not do or maintain: But to enjoin any thing that is unprofitable, is against his place, for his Office is to rule for their good, Rom. 13.4. But unprofitable things are not such.    

CHAP. II. The Constitution of a visible Church in the Causes thereof: The Efficient and Matter.  
THis visible Church, the subject adequate of our Enquiry, is to be attended in a double regard, either in respect of the 

Constitution, or  
Gubernation of it.    
The Church in her Constitution is considered two ways, as Totum 

Essentiale, Or  
integral.    
As totum Essentiale or Homogeneum, look at it as in the first causes, out of which she exists, and comes to be gathered, and this is called, Ecclesia prima.  
This Church hath the right of electing and choosing Officers, and when these are set in it, it becomes totum Organieum. Ames. med. l. 1. c. 33. 18. The Corporation is a true body, when it hath no mayor, nor other Officers, which happily she yearly chooseth.  We now come to inquire of the visible Church in her first constitution and gathering. 
And in the handling of this, we shall take into consideration such special Questions, wherein there appears any difference betwixt us, and our Reverend and very learned Brethren, desirous to propound things, wherein difficulties yet appear unto us, hoping some further evidence may be given for the manifestation of the truth, which we only seek, if we know what we seek: and therefore would live and learn; only while we thus believe, we thus speak.  
The causes of a visible Church, which will make most for the clearing of the subject we have in hand, are the 

Efficient,  
As also the 

material, and  
formal.      

Of the Efficient.  
Concerning the principal cause and institutor of a visible Church, there is a common concurrence of all sides, so far as I can read, and therefore I shall ease the Reader of all large discourse in this behalf.  
It shall be enough to point out the truth, as it is expressed in Scripture: namely, The institution of the Church issues from the special appointment of God the Father, thorough the Lord Jesus Christ, as the head thereof, by the holy Ghost, sent and set on work for that end. So the Apostle speaks most pregnantly and plainly, Heb. 3.31. For this man( meaning Christ) was counted worthy of more honour then Moses, inasmuch as he that hath builded the house, hath more honour then the house. Christ is set over the Church, which is, the house of God, as the son, Moses as a servant. He the master-builder, Moses as an inferior and under-workman. And vers. 4. For every house is builded by some man, but he that buildeth all things is God. This ALL is to be referred to the things that went before, to wit, the things of the house.  
What ever belongs to the Church hath God in Christ the author of it. And hence in the old Testament it was given in charge to Moses, that as he saw all presented before him in the Mount, in a lively manner, so he must be cautelous and conscientious to hold himself to that pattern, not to swerve an hairs breadth there-from, or to add any thing of his own devising. And hence our Saviour claims this as his prerogative royal, Mat. 16. Upon this rock I will build my Church. It is his house, and he knows his own mind, and therefore he only will fashion it thereunto. 
As M. R. acknowledgeth. l. 2. p. 10. Ezek. 43.11.  And from hence it is, that in the time wherein Ezekiel would limb out, and that unto the life, the Temple to be erected in the new Testament, he there lays out all the particulars by Gods special appointment; The Outgoings and Incomings, Forms, Fashions, Laws thereof, and the Ordinances thereof.  
Touching the inferior helping cause, viz, The Civil Magistrate, how far he may be said to have a hand in the erecting of Churches, It is that which hath exercised the heads and pens of the most judicious, and is too large for this place, and our purpose, we willingly pass it by, being not yet persuaded that the chief Magistrate should stand a Neuter, and tolerate all Religions.   

Of the Matter.  
Proceed we to make enquiry of the Matter, and there( though it hath not so much Art in it, yet because it hath more, and indeed more evidence, in regard of all, to whom we address this our enquiry; sith it concerns all, who seek the good of Church-fellowship, as all need it, if they were worthy to share therein. Our first Conclusion is negative.  

Conclusion I.  
Parish precincts, or the abode and dwelling within the bounds and liberties of such a place, doth not give a man right, or make him matter fit for a visible Congregation.  
Reason 1. No civil rule can properly convey over an ecclesiastical right. The rules are in specie distinct, and their works and ends also, and therefore cannot be confounded.  
Civil power hath a nourishing and preserving faculty of Ecclesiastical Orders, Officers, and their several operations. Kings shall be nursing Fathers, &c. But in their proper constitutions, they cannot meet. Imperare and praedicare are not compatible, hath been a ruled case, admitting no contradiction in an ordinary way: one is complete, and hath all the causes without the other, and therefore one doth not receive his constitution in whole or in part from the other. Civil power may compel ecclesiastical persons to do, what they ought in their offices, but doth not confer their Offices upon them. The Kingdom of Christ is spiritual, and not of this world. That Proposition then is beyond control. The second is open to experience.  
But the taking up an abode or dwelling in such a place or precincts is by the rule of policy and civility. A man hath it by inheritance from his parents, or purchaseth it by his money, or receives it by gift or exchange. Ergo, This can give him no ecclesiastical right to Church-fellowship.  
Reas. 2. That right which any man hath in Church-fellowship, Excommunication out of a Church can, nay doth take away. For Excommunication is, according to the intent of the Word, The cutting off from all Church-communion: and what ever right before he had in his admission, is now disannulled by his Excommunication. Let him be as an Heathen, Mat. 18.  
But Excommunication doth not, nor can take away a mans civil right to the house and land, the civil privileges he doth possess, or remove him from the right of his habitation, civil office or authority, he is invested in.  
Ergo, That is no ecclesiastical right.  
Reas. 3. If Parish Precincts should have right to Church-fellowship, then Atheists, Papists, Turks and profane ones, who are enemies to the truth and Church, yea men of strange Nations and languages, who neither know, nor be able to do the duties of Church-members, should be fit matter for a Church, because they have abode in such places: yea those should have right to whom Christ hath denied right, Revel. 21.27.  
Much more might here be added, but that the tenet is so gross, that I suppose any, seriously judicious, will see the error of it.  
We shall come nearer home then, and our   

2d Conclusion is,  
Visible Saints only are fit Matter appointed by God to make up a visible Church of Christ.  
The terms shall be, 1. Opened. 2. The Question stated. 3. The Conclusion proved.  
Saints as they are taken in this controversy, and in the currant expressions of Scripture, which look this way, and speak to this subject ( Saints at Corinth, Saints at Philippi, at Rome, in Caesars house) were members of the Churches, comprehending the Infants of confoederate believers under their Parents Covenant, according to 1 Cor. 7.14. and such constant expressions of Saintship do intimate, that either they were such, or at least conceived to be such in view and in appearance. I say in appearance: for when the Scripture so terms and stiles men, we must know that Saints come under a double apprehension. Some are such according to Charity: Some according to truth. Saints according to charity are such, who in their practise and profession( if we look at them in their course, according to what we see by experience, or receive by report and testimony from others, or lastly, look we at their expressions) they savour so much, as though they had been with Jesus. From all which, as far as rational charity directed by rule from the Word, a man cannot but conclude, That there may be some seeds of some spiritual work of God in the soul. These we call visible Saints( leaving secret things to God) in our view, and according to the reach of rational charity, which can go no further, then to hopeful fruits. We say and hope, and so are bound to conceive they are Saints: though such be the secret conveyances, and hidden passages of hypocrisy, that they may be gilded, not gold, seemingly such only, not savingly, known to God and their own hearts, not known to others. So Judas, Demas, Simon Magus, Ananias, &c. And therefore our Saviour proceeds with such, not as God who knows the heart, but in a Church-way, as those who judge the three by the fruit. De occultis non judicat Ecclesia, That which the Church doth not see, it cannot censure. Some mens sins go before,& some come after, 1 Tim. 5.24.  
The STATE then of the QUESTION is this. Persons, though they be hypocrites inwardly, yet if their conversations and expressions be such, so blameless and inoffensive, that according to reason directed by the Word, we cannot conclude, but in charity there may be, and is some special spiritual good in them; These are fit matter of a visible Church appointed and allowed by Christ: and that for these Reasons.  

Reason 1.  
From the nature of a visible Church rightly constituted,  
It is truly styled, and truly judged by Scripture light to be the visible body of Christ, over whom he is a Head, by political Government and guidance, which he lends thereunto, 1 Cor. 12.12. And that it is a visible politic body, appears quiter thorough the whole Chapter, but especially, v. 27, 28. Because in that Church God sets Orders and Officers, Some Apostles, Teachers, Helpers, Governments. The like to this, Ephes. 4.12, 13. Where these Officers are, it is supposed there be visible concurrences of many Saints consenting, both to choose such, and to subject unto such being chosen. Whence the Argument proceeds, 
The members of Christs body are fit alone to be members of a true Church, because that is the body of Christ, ex concessis.  
But only visible Saints, who according to the rules of reasonable charity may be conceived to have some special good in them, are only members of Christs body.   
For to have a member, which nor doth, nor ever did receive any power or virtual impression of any operation in the kind of it from the head, is not onely against reason, but against that reference and correspondence, which the members have to the head. Now visible Saints onely, according to former explication, can be said by the rules of reasonable charity, to have some virtual influence of some spiritual operation from Christ as a Head.  
Therefore Such onely are members of a Church.   

Reason. 2.  
Those are fit to be members of Christs Church, that are subjects in Christs kingdom.  
The Church is the visible kingdom in which Christ reigns, by the sceptre of his word and ordinances, and the execution of discipline. 
Isa. 33.23.  To whomsoever he is a Head, over them he will be King. He is our King; He is our Lawgiver. The Church is his House, and he is Master and Ruler of it. They who carry themselves, in professed rebellion, they are Traitors, not subjects. The members of the Body are under the motion and guidance of the Head. Wolves and Cancers are contrary to it. Members are in subordination, Wolves and Cancers are in opposition to the Head.  But visible Saints ( as formerly described) are onely subjects in this kingdom. 
Christ is the King of Saints( not of drunkards and whoremongers, atheists, &c.) they alone proclaim subjection in their practise: They onely attend to know and do the will and command of God, or in case they swerve aside, and be carried unawares and unwittingly into conspiracy, yet are they willing to see, ready to yield, and come in again. But such, who cry, hail Master, kiss Christ and betray him: that in words profess the truth, but in deeds deny it, and are to every good work reprobate, sons of Belial, who can bear no yoke, but break all cords, and cast all commands behind their backs, these are convicted rebells, but are not subjects of Christs kingdom.  
As a general of the field, he will overpower these, and destroy them as his enemies, but not govern them as liege people, and therefore he professeth to such as sent after him, that they would not have him to rule over them, that they were his enemies. Bring hither mine enemies, and stay them before mine eyes.   

Reason. 3.  
If those who be visible Saints, be not those that are only fit to be members, then those who are not visible Saints, that is such who in the judgement of rational charity, are graceless persons for the present, and give up themselves to the swinge of their distempers, they may be members.  
The consequence is beyond dispure, for contradicents divide the breadth of being.  
If visible Saints onely be not;  
Then non-visible may be.  
But this draws many absurdities with it: For then such who to the judgement of charity are members of the devil, may be conceived members of Christ. Those, who to the eye of reason, are servants to sin, may be servants of righteousness and of Christ: and those, who are under the kingdom of darkness by the rule of reasonable charity, by the same rule, at the same time, they may be judged under the kingdom of light. Those may be counted fit to share in the covenant and the privileges thereof, as Sacraments and Church society, who are strangers from the covenant, and without God in the world. All which are absurdities, that common sense will not admit.  
If it be replied, that all these may be verified of cunning hypocrites not yet discovered.  
I answer: The Argument leaves no place for the appearance of such an objection: for the terms in open expression are pointed directly against such, that in the judgement of charity were not Saints: and then the difference is exceeding wide. Those that are darkness, and the servants of sin inwardly, may to the view of charity seem to be light, and servants of Christ outwardly, and yet in charity be lead by light. But that he who in his outward practise should appear to be a slave to sin, and subject to the kingdom of darkness, should yet be conceived to be a servant to God and subject to his kingdom: Surely charity must not onely pluck out her eyes to see by anothers spectacles, but loose eyes and spectacles and all, and cease to be charity; yea be turned into folly and madness.   

Reason. 4.  
Those who by God are excluded from his covenant and meddling with that, as unfit, they are not fit to have communion with the Church: For to that all the holy things of God do in an especial manner appertain.  
Its Gods house, and there all Gods treasury lies: The keys of the kingdom are given to them: To them all the oracles, ordinances and privileges do belong, &c.  But those who hate to be reformed, and cast away his commands, God professeth, they have nothing to do to take his covenant into their mouth, Psal. 50.16, 17. 
To this Mr. R. l. 1. p. 116. answ. 2. things.  
1. That the wicked are forbidden in case, so long as they hate to be reformed, but not simply: but this hinders not, but that they may be ordinary hearers, and so members of a visible Church.  
To which I shall crave leave to reply several things.  
1. The answer, in the 1. branch of it yields the cause, and grants all that was desired or intended, namely; while they hate to be reformed they have no title, which is all that is striven for: for if they come to see their sin, and to reform their evil ways, and give in evidence of their godly sorrow and repentance, then they are no longer haters of reformation, but true reformers and repentants in the judgement of charity, and then visible Saints, and fit to be made materials in the temple, when the rubbish and unhewnnesse of their distempers are taken away. But while they remain haters, they have no title, ex concessis. Therefore that while, they are not visible Saints; which is all the argument required, and is now yielded.  
Whereas its added, that it hence follows not, that they should not be ordinary hearers of the word.  
Answer: It is true, it was never intended nor inferred; therefore the argument is untouched. For we say, as you, it doth not follow, nor need be required, for help either of the reason or the question. For let it be supposed, they may so do, nay for ought we know, they should so do, and we yet have what we would.  
It is yet further added, That being ordinary hearers and so members of a Church: Such an expression I will not now inquire how near the cause it comes, I cannot but yet conceive, it is far from the truth.  
1. If ordinary hearing make a man a member, then excommunicate persons, who are cut off from membership, are members, for they may ordinarily hear; ex concessis.  
2. Then Turks, Papists, all sorts of contemners of the truth, Indians, infidels, shall be members, for they may be, and in many places are ordinary hearers.  
3. Then in public cities, where several congregations meet, at several houres, one and the same man may be an ordinary hearer in them all, and so a man may be a member of three or four congregations.  
The second thing Mr. R. answers, is, That this argument nothing concludes against them, because such adulterers, and slanderers, which are forbid to take Gods law into their mouths, are to be cast out: but the question is, if they be not cast out, whether the Church for that be no true Church.  
To which I say, The first part yields the cause again, for if they should be cast out, there is no reason they should be received or taken in, nor have they right thereunto, nor be they fit matter for that work.  
The second clause doth wholly miss the mark again. For the question is, touching the constitution of a Church, of what matter it should be made, It is not touching separation from a Church: for the error is in taking in such as be not fit. So that the argument is yet unanswered, yea by these answers, further confirmed.  
So much may serve for the confirmation of the conclusion for the present, more shall be added in an opportune place.  
But before we leave the conclusion, we shall make some inferences from it, which may further help us in our proceedings and purpose in hand. Something hence may be collected for the discovery of sundry mistakes in the Separatists, wherein they go aside from the truth. Something observed, for to clear their way, wherein they go along with it.   

Inference. 1.  
If visible Saints be fit matter for to make a Church, Then Church fellowship presupposeth them to be such, but properly doth not make them such.   

Inference. 2.  
And hence, such mistakes in judgement or practise that do not hinder men from being visible Saints, do not unfit men from being members of a Church.   

Inference. 3.  
Hence, the holding of the visible Churches in England to be true Churches( suppose it were an error, which it is not) doth not hinder men from being fit matter for a visible Church.   

Inference. 4.  
Hence lastly, the not being in a Church, doth not hinder private Christian communion.  
The two last inferences, are the Tenets of those of the Separation, not onely extremely rigid, but very unreasonable. For if they be fit matter for public communion, they are much more fit for private: But men are or should be visible Christians before they come into Church fellowship, and are thereby fitted for it, and therefore much more fitted for private communion.  Something also may be observed to clear the way where they go along with the truth. Namely, 
Hence, They who hold visible Saints in the judgement of charity to be fit Matter, though they be not inwardly sanctified, cannot in reason be thought to maintain onely such, that be eff ctually called, justified, and sanctified, to be the onely matter of a rightly-constituted Church.  
And therefore I could have hearty wished, that Mr. Reut. would not have disputed against that which they freely and professedly grant, to wit, That hypocrites, because their falseness is coloured and covered over with appearances of piety, and so cannot be censured( as not discovered) may be received into Church communion, without the breach of any rule, because the Church therein goeth according to the rule of charity, being bound to hope all to be good ( upon grounds which shall be afterwards laid) which reason enlightened by rule cannot prove to be bad. This is yielded and therefore need not to have been proved.  
But the pinch of the difference lieth in this,  
Whether such as walk in a way of profaneness, or remain pertinaciously obstinate in some wickedness, though otherwise professing and practising the things of the Gospel, have any allowance from Christ, or may be counted fit matter, according to the terms of the Gospel, to constitute a Church.  
This is that which is controverted, and should have been evicted by argument. There is no colour for such a consequence: If hypocrites be received into the Church, according to the rule of rational charity and allowance from God, Then may profane persons also.  
It is true, The expressions of some of our brethren, as those also of the Separation, are somewhat narrow at the first sigh, and seem to require exactness in the highest strain: yet were they but candidely interpnted by the received principles, according to which they are known to proceed, they would carry a fair construction, to any brotherly conceiving: of this I speak, because I do observe, and I cannot but profess I do observe it with trouble and grief, that Mr. R. a man of such learning and sharpness of judgement, and in other things, and at other times of pious moderation, should yet so commonly, and frequently, and if I mistake not, without occasion offered many times, load the expressions of those, against whom he writes, with such a sense, that their own grounds, to his own knowledge, do directly oppose, and their own words, by an easy interpretation, may admit a contrary meaning.  
I shall constrain myself therefore upon so just an occasion, to endeavour to clear this cost, that if it be the will of God, I may for ever silence misconceivings, or misinterpretations in this case: and therefore I shall labour,  
1. To lay out the meaning of those of the Separation, out of their own words.  
2. Punctually to express, how far rational charity, rectified by the word, will go, in giving allowance to the visibility of Saints.  
3. I hope I shall make it appear, that we require no more Saintship to make men fit matter for a visible Church, then Mr. R. his own grounds will give us leave.   

I.  
1. The mind and meaning of those our brethren of the Separation is written in so great characters, that he who runs may read it, if he will, nor can he readily mistake, unless he will. Mr. Ainsworth against Mr. Berrard. p. 174. Saints by calling are the onely matter of a visible Church: yet, withall we hold, that many are called but few chosen. Hence he cannot hold, that they are true believers, nor truly converted, or truly sanctified, for then they should have been all chosen and elected, which in open words he doth peremptorily deny. The sense then can be no other but this, That Saints by external and outward calling are fit matter of a Church, for had they been inwardly called they had also been elected.  
This being the meaning of their Tenet, if Mr. R. be pleased to look into his first book, ch. 9. p. 100. he will find that he there gives his reader to understand, that he and Mr. Ainsworth are of the same mind. For he lays it as a firm corner-stone, the first conclusion that he propounds, for the true understanding of the true constitution of a Church. Saints by external calling are the true members of a visible Church. These are his words, and Mr. Ainsworths are the very same, onely he says the true matter, Mr. Ainsw. says the onely matter; wherein there can be no odds in regard of the substance of the thing intended; for true matter is that which now is enquired after, and if all other matter beside them is false, then they are the onely matter, in truth, of the Church.  
Hear we Mr. Robinson, A man pious and prudent, express his own opinion, in his own words, who thus, Justific. of Separ. pag. 112. propounds the question, and the state of it betwixt him and Mr. Bernard. Before I come to the point in controversy, I will lay down two cautions ( saith he) for the preventing of error in the simplo, and of cavilling, in such as desire to contend. 1. It must be considered, that here the question is, about the visible or external Church, which is by men discernible, and not of that Church, which is internal and invisible, which onely the Lord knoweth, we speak here of visible and external holiness onely, whereof men may judge, and not of that which is within and hide from mens eyes. For we doubt not, but the purest Church upon earth may consist of good and bad in Gods eye, of such that are truly sanctified and faithful, and of such, who have onely for a time, put on the outside and vizard of sanctity, which the Lord will in due time pluck off, though in the mean time, mans dim sight cannot pierce through it.  
So that we have expressions full. The Church consists of some who are faithful and sincere hearted: Some counterfeit and false hearted. Some really good, some really bad, onely those who appear so bad and vile should not be accepted. And doth not Mr. R. say the same?  
In the same place Mr. Robins. adds. I desire it may be remembered, that the question between Mr. Bern. and me, is, about the true and natural members, whereof the Church is orderly gathered and planted, and not about the decayed and degenerate estate of the Church and members. For we know that natural children may become rebellious, the faithful city a harlot, the silver dross, and the wine corrupt with water, the whole vine so planted, whose plants were all natural, may degenerate into the plants of a strange vine.  
The expressions are so plain that there needs no explication, nor can a man, that will deal candidly, mistake, unless one should set himself on purpose to pervert a writers meaning.  
He that holds such may be received into the Church, who may degenerate from subjection and obedience, to rebellion, from faithfulness to falseness, from a profession pure and sincere in appearance and approbation of men, to a rotten, profane and unsavoury carriage: He must needs hold, that false, counterfeit, and hollow hearted hypocrites may be members of a Congregation.  
When therefore we meet with such phrases printed and recorded, Onely the Saints, faithful, called, and sanctified are to be members of a Congregation, He must needs be exceeding weak, or exceeding wilful, that will not easily and readily give such a construction as this, Namely, Persons visibly, externally such to the judgement of Charity, not always really and internally such by the powerful impression of Gods grace. Let therefore such mistakes be for ever silenced in the mindes and mouths of such as are wise hearted and moderate. We have thus cleared the expressions of our Brethren of the Separation.  
WE shall now punctually express our own apprehensions, and with as much openness and simplicity as our shallowness can attain unto, punctulis ergo agamus.  
1. It is not the eminency of holinesse, that we look at in the entertainment of members, but the uprightness of heart: Its not the strength and growth of grace, but the truth that we attend. Rom. 14.1. Heb. 5.13.  
2. This truth we know is, and may be accompanied with many failings and infirmities, which more or less may break out and appear to the apprehension of the judicious.  
3. The judgement of this truth of grace,( as clouded and covered with failings,) is not certain and infallible, either to Church or Christian. Philip was deceived by Simon Magus, Paul misjudged of Demas, all the Disciples conceived as well of Judas, as of themselves, though he was a Thief( and bare the bag) nay though a devil in Gods righteous sentence which he passed upon him. Joh. 6.& last. The Sum is, The heart of man is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked, who can know it? The Lord himself takes that as his place, I the Lord try the heart, and search the reins. jer. 17.9.  
4. This judgement, then, of others sincerity, est tantum opinio, non scientia, and therefore the most discerning may be deceived therein, they may proceed according to the rules of Charity, and yet not pass a sentence according to the reality of truth.  
5. Charity is not censorius yet judicious( she wants neither eyes nor watchfulness) hopes all, and believes all things, that are hopeful or beleeveable, 1 Cor. 13 6. ever yields and inclines to the better part, unless evidence come to the contrary, when she hath not ground sufficient to prove an evil. She conceives her self bound to cast the balance the other way, and to believe there is some good( take it in subjecto capaci whereof now we speak) As in the eye, there must be either sight or blindness: So in the soul there must be either some measure of grace, or else habitual wickedness, or that we call a graceless condition.  
If Love directed by the rules of reason and religion hath not sufficient evidence of the one, she believes the other: and in probabilities, where the weight of the arguments falls, love falls that way, and she hath warrant so to do, and by that means her persuasion comes to be poised.  
6. The grounds of probabilities by which charity is poised according to rule, are either taken from the practise or from the knowledge of the party.  
The way and ground of our proceeding according to both may be expressed in this proposition.  He that professing the faith, lives not in the neglect of any known duty, or in the commission of any known evil, and hath such a measure of knowledge as may in reason let in Christ into the soul, and carry the soul to him: These be grounds of probabilities, by which charity poised accorcording to rule may and ought to conceive, there be some beginnings of spiritual good. I shall explicate both in a word. 
1. He must not live in a sin] Its not having but living in sin: not to be surprised and taken aside with a distemper, but to trade in it, is that we here attend. And it must be known sin] also, Such, to wit, whereof a man is informed and convinced by the power of the word, and the evidence of reason, otherwise sincerity may stand with a continued course in an unknown corruption, as the fathers did continue in polygamy. But he that commits some gross evil, and expresseth no repentance for it, 
1 Joh. 3.8.& 5.19.& 3.10. 2 Tim. 3.5.  or after conviction persists in the practise of known wickedness: rational charity accounts such workers of iniquity, evil doers, such as be of the world, and lye in wickedness, and by this the children of the Devil, are known from the children of God, He that hates his Brother, and doth unrighteousness. In a word, such, if they were under the discipline of Christ, would be counted pertinacious and should be cast out of a Congregation, therefore should not be received into it.  
2. There must be so much knowledge as may let in Christ into the soul, and led the soul to him] for there is a breadth of ignorance in some, like a dungeon so dark and loathsome, that reasonable charity will readily conclude there can be no grace: Isa. 27.11. It is a people that have no understanding: therefore he that made them will not save them: without understanding the mind is not good.  
And in this sense and according to this explication, we do directly deny that proposition of Mr. Rutt. lib. 2. pag. 259.  
This Proposition is false ( saith he) Those only we are to admit to the visible Church, whom we conceive to be Saints, and are in the judgement of charity persuaded they are such.  
This proposition, in the meaning formerly mentioned, we say, is true; and we require no more Saintship to make persons members of a visible Church, then Mr. R. his own grounds will give us leave and allowance to do.  It is one principle maintained by Mr. R. that profession and baptism do constitute a member of a visible Church. lib. 2, p. 25. 
Whence I Reason.  
What is required of a man of years to fit him in the judgement of the Church for baptism, that and so much is required to make him a member.  
But visible holinesse ( ut supra) is required to fit a man of years to be baptized.  
The consequence admits no denial, because to be baptized and to be admitted a member, infer each other:  
The assumption is proved by the constant and received practise of John the Baptist, Mat. 3.5.6.  
When Jerusalem and Judae●, Scribes, people and Souldiers came to be baptized, they confessed their sins, vers 6. It was such a confession, as amounted to repentance, for the Baptist so interprets it: Bring forth fruits worthy repentance and amendment of life, verse. 7.8. and their own words evidence as much, Luke. 3.5.6. What shall we do? The advice of the Apostle requires as much. Repent and be baptized, Acts. 2.38. and the works of this Repentance, and the aim of baptism imports as much. For the remission of sin doth call for such competent knowledge of Christ, and of remission of sins in him, that they may make way for the sight of the need of a Saviour, and also of going to him.  
Again 2. when M●. R. thus writes, lib 2. p. 99, The ignorants and simplo ones among the Papists, have not rejected the Gospel obstinately in respect it was never revealed to them, yet the simplo ignorance of points principally fundamental makes them a non-Church.  
Whence I Reason thus.  
That Ignorance which maketh persons to be no Church, that will hinder a person from being a true member of a Church.  
But there is a simplo ignorance of points fundamental that makes people a non-Church, by his own confession.  
Therefore, by his grant, there is an Ignorance, that will keep a man from being a member of a true Church. and there is no point more fundamental, then Christ to be the foundation ston, laid by God, whereon our faith and we must be built.  
A Third ground we take from Mr. R. is p. 196. l. 2. where he hath these words. Faith to speak properly doth give us right to the seals, and to speak accurately, a visible profession of the Faith doth not give a man right to the seals, but only it doth notify and declare to the Church that the man hath right to the seals, bocause he believes, and that the Church may lawfully give them to him.  
Whence I Reason.  
That profession which must notify to the Church, that a person is a true believer, that must notify THAT HE HATH TRUE GRACE.  
But the profession that M●. R. requires, must notify to the Church that a person is a true believer.  
And if it notify thus true faith, it must present such grounds of probability to charity rectified by the rules of reason and religion, that they will cast and carry the scales of a mans judgement that way, and the evidences of grace to a charitable and reasonable consideration will overweigh all the evidences that come in competition or comparison with them, otherwise they cannot notify a party to be a believer, but sway judicious charity to the contrary side.    

3. Conclusion,  
Churches constituted of fit matter may be corrupted by the breaking forth of scandals, and pestered with scandalous, persons which may fo far be tolerated, until in a judicial way, the censures of the Church be exercised upon them, according to the rule of Christ, and they thereby reformed or else removed and cut off from the body.  
There be three branches in the conclusion, which hold forth evidence of truth at the first sight, and therefore we shall not stay long upon proof.  
That Churches rightly constituted may soon be corrupted,] the Scriptures are pregnant which testify it, and experience is so plain, it is past gainsaying, at Corinth, Galatia, Sardis, Laodicea, &c. And above all, this is to be seen in the Church of the Jews, the canker of falseness in doctrine, and corruption in manners, had so far eaten into the very essence of the Church, Hos. 2.2.9. that the Lord threatened her to give her a bill of divorce, and to cast her out of his sight as not his wife.  
2. Yet in such declining times, when diseases grow deadly, there is allowed, and a toleration of necessity must be so far granted, until Juridice by a judicial proceeding the evil be examined, the parties convinced, censures applied for Reformation] For the Ordinances of Christ and rules of the Gospel serve, not only for the constitution of a Church, but for the preservation of it. That is the main scope of our Saviour his government: first, to gain a sinner if it may be, for he came not to condemn the world( men can condemn themselves fast enough) but to save it, and the censures of the Church are sufficient to recover the sick and diseased, as well as to nourish the sound.  
And hence our Saviour requires time of trial, if they may be healed, and until that be over, they must be tolerated. Cutting off is only used when things come to extremity. If he will not hear, let him be as an Heathen. &c. Therefore had he heard and submitted to the censure of the Church, and been gained thereby to repentance and reformation, there had needed no further proceeding.  
But in case they prove incorrigeable and irrecoverable by the physic used, they are then to be abandoned. Purge out the old leaven. 1 Cor. 5. cast out such an one.  
And hence it is evident, the corrupting of a Church constituted gives no allowance to bring in corrupt members to the constitution of a Church, but the contrary, if a pertinacious member should be removed by the rule of the Gospel, then such a one should not be admitted.  These Conclusions premised: the arguments of Mr. Rutt, against the visibility of Saints to be right matter of a Church, will admit an easy answer. 
1. Argument, is taken from the manner of receiving members in the Apostles Church, where there was nothing but a professed willingness to receive the Gospel, howbeit they received it not from the heart.  
Answ. There is not only a professed willingness to receive the Gospel, but a practical reformation, that in the judgement of charity gives ground of hope there is something real, before the contrary appear. And therefore Peter who received Simon Magus, upon his approbation of the truth and outward conformity thereunto in the course of his life, when his practise proclaimed the contrary, the Apostle rejected him, as one in the gull of bitterness and bond of iniquity, who had no share in Christ, and therefore certainly would not suffer him to share in the privileges of communion, so persisting without repentance.  
2. Argument. If the visible Church be a draw-net, where are fish and filth: an house, where are vessells of silver and gold, and base vessels of brass and wood: Then in a Church rightly constituted, there may be believers and hypocrites.  
Answ. The argument is wholly yielded, and the cause not touched, much less concluded, as may appear by the state of the question taken in a right meaning.  
The like may be said to the third argument, touching the man that came to the wedding, not having on a wedding garment, for it seems by the text, he carried it so cunningly in appearance, that onely the Master of the feast perceived it, others did not discover it, before his coming in.  
The three last arguments having one and the same bottom to bear them up, admit one and the same answer.  
If the Churches of Israel, Judah, Galatia, Sardis, Laodicea, were Churches truly constituted, and yet in them were many wicked, profane, unclean; then visible Saints are not onely fit matter allowed by Christ to make up a visible Church.  But they were Churches truly constituted, and yet had clean and unclean mixed among them. Therefore, 
Answ. The consequence is denied, and the cause is given in the third conclusion, because such are onely by rule to be tolerated for a time, until the censures be tried upon them. But if then they prove incorrigible they are to be removed and excommunicated. So that the edge of the argument may be turned most cruelly against the cause it would prove.  If in all these Churches the unclean and profane were to be excommunicated: Then such as they, were not to be admitted. But by Gods command they were to be excommunicated. 
Therefore such as they were not to be admitted. Its certain Christ allows the Toleration of some in the Church for a time, whom he doth not allow to be taken in as fit matter to make up a Church.  
The rest of his Arguments propounded in his second book. p. 251. labour of the same mistake, and the like answer releeves the reader without the least trouble. For let him carry the conclusions formerly propounded along with him in his consideration, and refresh his memory with the caveat and caution that was put in by Mr. Robinson, when I cleared the opinion of those our Brethren of the Separation; That our Question is not, whether members now received, and visible Christians in the eye of charity may so degenerate and break out into scandalous courses and apostasies, that they may be scandalous, and that grossly: But the Question is, whether in the orderly gathering of the Church, such according to the way and warrant of Christ can, and ought to be received.  
And therefore to dispute, The Church now gathered hath wicked and ungodly in it, and such as be not visible Saints: Therefore it may be gathered of such, is so broad unconsequence, and makes the Church door so wide, that Mr. R. his own principles will proclaim it to be the broad way that leads cross to the tenor of the Gospel. For I would make a collection, that shall carry a parity of reason with Mr. R. his Inference, which cannot stand with his own grounds.  

1. Such as were in the Church of Israel, in Deut. 29.  
2. Such as the false Apostles, Nicolaitans, followers of Balaam and Jezebels doctrine, 
Rev ●.& 3.1.  who were members of the Churches of Asia. 3. Such who were schismatics, Railers, Partakers of the tables of devils, 1 Cor. 6.10. with chap. 10.20.   
Such may be received members, according to the order of Christ.  
But such as these are openly scandalous.  
Therefore such as be openly scandalous may be received into the visible Church.  
And this doth not only set open the Church door, but pulls down the Church-side, and its that which M. R. himself gainsaies, and that professedly and in terminis. lib. 2. p. 251. Let him therefore but defend his own opinion, and the like defence will maintain our cause from the force of these arguments.  
His fourth argument taken from the 3000. in Act. 2. is answered before.  
His fifth. is p. 253. Thus:  
If we are to bear one anothers burden, and so fulfil the law of Christ, and if grace may be beside many sins, yea if Simon Magus his profession was esteemed sufficient for to give him baptism: Then it is not required, that all the members of the visible Church, be visible Saints, as before explicated.  
Answ. The consequence fails, for all this may be, namely, there may be many weaknesses, and yet visible expressions of repentance to reasonable charity, and it is certain there were such in Simon Magus. For what Peter exacted at the hands of those, Act. 2.38. Repent and be baptized; he would and did follow the rule of Christ which he had received and delivered to others, and therefore required as much at his hands.  
The examples of Asa and Solomon, the one breaking out into open persecution, the other into toleration of gross Idolatry, are here very impertinent, and prejudicial to M. R. his own defence and confession: For if such as these may be received; then openly scandalous may be entertained, which he denies, ubi supra.  
His sixth argument is,  
If onely visible Saints should be received, then we are not onely to try ourselves, but to examine and judge carefully one another, and that every one must labour to be satisfied in conscience anent the regeneration one of another.  
Answ. M. R. maintains we should be satisfied in the judgement of charity that persons are such: for he holds, 1. that we must beware they be not scandalous. 2. They must be such as may be baptized by the order of Christ; and these must repent and profess their faith in the Lord Jesus. 3. They must be such as by their profession must notify they be true believers, ut supra. lib. 2. pag. 196. Therefore, They must try and examine them that they be such, and these grounds give warrant thereunto.  
Argument seventh.  
If many be brought and called to the visible Church on purpose both in Gods revealed intention in his word to convert them; and in the Churches, that they may be converted: Then the Church doth not consist of those who are professed converts.  
Answ. The proposition fails. Those who are converts in the judgement of charity, may yet in Gods intention be brought into the Church, that they may be truly converted.  
But if he mean, that the Church doth of purpose receive them into the Church to be converted, then it is cross to his own Tenet, and a person may be received to the seals of the Covenant, who doth not notify that he hath faith, nay the Church may receive them to the seals, whom she knows have no right to the seals; for she knows they are not invisible members, which in M. R. his judgement onely gives them right.  Having thus cleared our way, We shall take leave in few words, to take into further consideration and examination some expressions of M. R. in chap. 9. p. 99. l. 1. where near the end he hath these words. 

1. Assertion. of M. R.  
1. We say that there is nothing more required, as touching the essential property and nature of being members of a Church as visible, but that they profess before men the faith; desire the Seals of the Covenant, and crave fellowship with the visible Church.   

2. Assertion. of M. R.  
2. " Preaching the Gospel is called a note of a true Church.  
We shall take these into consideration, in the order that they are propounded; and   

To the 1. Assertion.  
Those that have a show of godliness and deny the power thereof:  
The Apostles charge is, that, we should turn away from such. i. e. Renounce all voluntary, and unnecessary familiarity with such: For the condition, unto which we are called by God, may happily necessitate a man or woman to hold constant and intimate familiarity with such, in point of conscience, by virtue of their calling. A godly and pious wife must do the duties of a wife in the most inward and intimate manner of familiarity with her husband, though profane and wicked: The bond of relation necessitates thereunto. But were it that she was free, she were bound in conscience neither to match, nor to maintain any special familiarity: because she is now at her choice, and her society is voluntary, and thence to be avoided. Whence the argument groweth on.   

Argument. 1.  
If I must not enter into a voluntary or unnecessary familiarity with such, who have a show of godliness and deny the power thereof: Then am I bound much more, not to enter into a special and spiritual society and fellowship of the faith.  
Because this is much more, then ordinary and civil familiarity, and there is much more danger.  But this first part is the charge of the Apostle, therefore the second is undeniable.  

Argument. 2.  
Again the Apostles advice is plain and peremptory. If a Brother be an Idolater, or covetous, &c with such a one eat not, 1 Cor. 5.11.  
If he be unfit for civil, much more for spiritual society and communion, and therefore both are to be avoided, as far as in my power, and according to my part, I shall be able. For it sometimes so falls out, that I cannot remove a wicked person from my spiritual communion, because it is not in my power to cast him out, whom a congregation will keep in, yet I must by virtue of the Apostles charge, ever oppose, and protest against the admission of such, and the other of the brethren should according to God, keep him out of communion, as unfit wholly for spiritual fellowship, who is not fit for civill familiarity.   

Argument. 3.  
They who should be cast out of a congregation by the rule of Christ, those are unfit to be received in.  But men may have all those three properties ( suppose a common and ordinary drunkard) i.e. profess the faith, is eager after the seals, most desirous of society with the Church; as counting it a disparagement not to be born, if not admitted to the Sacrament; and yet such a one should be cast out; therefore also kept out.  

To the 2. Assertion of Mr. R. Which is,  
That it is vain to say the preaching of the word is no essential mark of the true Church, is made good by distinguishing three things. 1. Single and occasional preaching. 2. settled preaching or the settling of the candlestick. 3. The preached word with the seals. Whence the answer in the sum issues thus. It is not the single, but the settled preaching of the word, established and remaining in the Church, which is a mark of it.  
Answ. How ever the tenet seems to be vain, yet it will not vanish so easily.  
By settled preaching of the word] Is meant a constant opening and applying the Scriptures in one place to one people.  
By mark] Is meant, not any common accident or adjunct which doth indifferently agree to other things, as well as the Church, for then it could never be said to notify the Church, in that it may notify many things besides. But it must be a differencing and distinguishing note, and therefore it must be proprium quarto modo, as they call it, and inseparable.  
These things confessed, which received rules of reason evince; I thence dispute.  That which is separable from the Church, and common to something beside that, cannot be a note of the Church. 
This is evident from the right explication of the terms.  But settled preaching of the word, and constant opening and applying the Scripture to one people, in one place, is separable from the Church. 
As suppose a Minister should preach many years, to a company of Infidels in one place. Nay suppose a lecturer speak constantly to a company of people, which resort from several Churches, unto the same Auditory.  
Here is settled preaching, and yet here is no Church; and therefore this is a separable adjunct, and no note.  
If it be replied, that you must consider settled preaching, as established and remaining in the Church.  
To that the answer is; This plea is yet too narrow, to cover the nakedness and weakness of this assertion. For upon this grant, the dispute must follow one of these two ways. The settled preaching of the word taken with the Church, is a mark of the Church: and this is irrational, to make the Church a mark of itself. Or the meaning must be this; settled preaching, whilst it remains in the Church, is a note of the Church: but this nothing helps, for the inference remains as feeble as before. For if such a settled preaching be but a common adjunct or separable accident, in the nature of it, let it be where it will be, it will never, nay it can never be a proper note to that thing, as Sensitiva facultas in homine, is not a mark of a man, though in a man.      

CHAP. III. Of the Invisible Church. Whether the Invisible Church be the principal, prime, and onely proper subject, to whom all the Seals, and privileges of special note do belong?  
MAster R. lib. 2. p. 242. distinct. 3. Is pleased to suggest a serious advertisement unto us, which being well considered, many of our erroneous mistakes,( as he says,) may seasonably be recovered, and we brought thereby to a right understanding of the things of Christ.  
Among other of my Brethren, I do profess my scope in this inquiry, to be onely this, to see the way of truth, and to walk therein: and therefore shall gladly lend a willing ear to his direction and advice, that our errors being thereby discovered, we may see and shun them for time to come.  
That particular truth, which will be like a sea-mark to teach us how to steer our course and compass aright, is by him thus expressed.  
THE INVISIBLE CHURCH catholic is the principal, prime, and native subject of all the privileges of Christians, &c. and the CHURCH VISIBLE, as she is such, is no ways such a subject: the non-consideration whereof we take to be the ground of many errors in our reverend Brethren in this matter.  
This is his seasonable warning, unto which I readily attend: and because I would not creare molestias,& serere lights sine causâ: I shall crave leave to make inquiry into two things, wherein my stick is most, that being convinced and satisfied in them, I shall readily sit down in silence, and submit to the evidence of better reason, then mine own.  

1. Whether the invisible Church be the principal, prime, and onely subject of the Seals of the Covenant?  
2. Whether the holding of this conclusion will necessary make us forsake our doctrine touching that power we give to the people, and our assertions of Independency and congregational Churches.   
I choose to restrain the proposition to that particular mentioned, because there appears the greatest difficulty, to my dim and shallow apprehension. As also because the through explication of this which is most familiar, will of necessity force and draw in with it a real consideration of the rest.  
That I may be plain and punctual in our proceeding, I shall take leave, and I hope without offence, to set down the contrary.  
The Invisible catholic Church, is not the prime and onely subject of the Seals, and therefore not of all privileges of Christians, by any argument that Mr. R. hath here alleged for proof or confirmation hereof.  
When I say, the prime and onely subject, I understand the meaning of {αβγδ}, according to Mr. R. mind and exposition, quod convenit {αβγδ} convenit {αβγδ}  
Though his exposition of the rule is neither safe nor sound, yet it is a safe ground in dispute to take principles in that sense and meaning, which is confessed by him, with whom we dispute.  
To come to the matter in hand, I shall endeavour two things.  

1. I will consider what he hath said for confirmation, and show what reason yet I have, to persuade me not to yield to his proof.  
2. I shall propound such arguments as I have, which wholly hinder for the while, from entertaining this opinion.   

To the 1.  
The 1. argument which Mr. R. allegeth to prove that the visible Church, as such, hath not right to the seals, but the invisible, is this,  

Lib. 2. p. ●48.  Those onely who are within the covenant have right to the seals. And this is Peters argument, Act. 2.38. to prove the baptizing of infants.  
But only the invisible Church hath right to the covenant.  

I Answer.  
People may be said to be within the covenant two ways.  
Either, 

Externally in the judgement of charity.  
Internally and spiritually, according to the judgement of verity and truth.    
Externally those are within the covenant, who expressing their repentance, with their profession of the truth, engage themselves to walk in the ways of God, and in the truth of his worship, though they have not for the present that sound work of Faith in their hearts, and may be shall never have it wrought by Gods spirit in them.  
And of persons thus in covenant the Apostle speaks in Act. 2. and that to Mr. R. his apprehensions elsewhere, as it will appear easily to any, who will weigh the context.  
That being in Covenant is here understood, which was visible and intelligible to the Apostle, according to the grounds of judicious charity, otherwise the Apostles counsel had not been of warrant to carry them to the practise of baptism, if he had given them direction upon a misconceived ground: nor had they reason to have followed his direction. For the reply had been easy.  
Invisible Christians have only right to Seals: But whether we be such, we for the present do not know: and its certain, you can neither see, nor know, for truth of grace is invisible to man.  
But the being externally in Covenant, is thus intelligible by the Apostle, therefore this is here attended.  
The first is proved, and the second is as plain.  
The Invisible works of grace, which do make the Church Invisible, are to be believed, cannot be seen, nor come within any certainty of human knowledge, And this is not only confessed in the general, but acknowledged also to be meant in this place. 3000. were added to the Church, who could not all be approved, to the consciences one of another to be true converts.  
Clear then it is from the scope of the place, the ground of the Apostles counsel, and the nature of the promise here expressed, 1. That being externally in covenant is here attended. 2. That such a being in covenant doth give right unto the seals, else the frame of the Apostles reason and counsel had fallen to the ground.  
The proposition thus cleared, the Minor is to be denied as false: and the contrary tenet, That only the Invisible Church hath right to the Seals, will draw unavoidable difficulties with it, and give such advantages to the Adversaries of Gods grace, and the dispensation of his Ordinances, that they will hardly be regained.  
We are compassed about by Mr. R. in this ch. l. 2. p. 247. with a crowd of accusations, to hold one of the grossest of the Arminian, Popish, Socinian Doctrines: and upon all occasions we hear Ad nauseam usque, of our soldered with the errors of Socinus. Catch. Cracov. Nicholaides. &c. How justly, we have in part touched, and shall add something in the season thereof.  
But I would be loathe any of our tenets maintained professedly by us( not fathered upon us injuriously,) should lay such a corner-stone to build up the wretched doctrine of the Anabaptists, as this of his doth.  
For let Mr. R. help us to answer the Anabaptists upon his grounds, thus reasoning.  
Those, that I cannot know have any right to the Seals, to them I cannot give the seals of the Covenant in faith as the Apostle calls faith.  
But I cannot know that Infants are of the Invisible Church, which only gives them right to the seals.  
Therefore I cannot of Faith give the seals to them.  
If M R. will grant them the proposition, that they may give the seals unto such, whom they cannot know have any right to them, They will go away triumphing, as well they may. For they have such a hold, that all the battery of the strongest Arguments is not able to drive them from.  
If M. R. help the minor with a distinction which he useth, l. 2. sect. 5. in the variation. p. 185.  
Faith in Christ truly giveth right unto the seals of the covenant, and in Gods intention and decree, called voluntas beneplaciti, they belong only unto the invisible Church: But the orderly way of the Churches giving the Seals is, because such a society is a professing or visible Church, and the orderly giving of the Seals according to Gods approving will, called voluntas signi& revelata, belong to the visible Church.  
This salue is too narrow for the sore. For the distinction will either make God order the giving of the Seals, to such who have no right, and so impeach his wisdom, to appoint the giving of the seals to such, to whom he gives no right to receive them: or else it doth implicare plainly, and the several expressions contain apparent contradictions. For this voluntas signi, which allows the Church visible to give the Seals, it either gives another right besides that which the invisible members have, or else it gives no right. If it give another right. then the invisible Church hath not only right, which is here affirmed. If it give no right then the visible Church doth give the Seals orderly to such who have no right to them, as far as we can see: which was beforc denied in the grant of the proposition.  
Quid plura? I must confess such is my feebleness, that I cannot see how this can be avoided. For ask the question, How come hypocritical professors to have right unto the Seals? As members of the visible Church they can have no right: they are the very words of M. R. p. 249. The visible Church as the visible Church, hath no right unto the Seals, therefore they as visible have no right. And Invisible members they are not, and therefore can have no right that way. Either then the Church must give them no seals; or else give them seals, when she cannot know they have any right, for indeed they have none, since of the invisible Church they are not, whereby they may claim a right: and being only of the visible Church, she can give no right: and so she administers seals orderly to such who have no right any ways to them: and this an order without order.  
For these reasons now expressed it is, that I cannot see weight enough in M. R. his arguments to persuade my judgement to be satisfied in the proof.  
Having then gained so much, that in a true sense it is a truth that the visible Church is within the Covenant, and hath right to the Seals, according to the warrant which God hath left in his word: Let us in short inquire  
Whether there is not allowance given us in the would, to give to the Church visible titles of special note; and this also is an especial privilege, which is by M. R. denied to the visible Church.  
1. Its called the flock, or Church, redeemed by the blood of God.  
2. Its styled the body of Christ.  
All this in a savoury sense( according to former and familiar explication, speaking still according to the Judgement of charity, which is the only line, according unto which our conceivings are to be lead) is safe and true.  
The first is expressed, and to my apprehension, with as much evidence, as can be desired. Act. 20.28. Attend to the whole flock. {αβγδ}, to feed the Church of God, which he hath purchased with his blood.  
The Church here is according to us, congregational: to Mr. R. its presbyterial. But take it either way, it must needs be visible.  
That over whom Elders and Officers are set to attend and fed, by doctrine and discipline, this must needs be a visible Church. For unless they did see them and know them, how could they execute censures upon them?  
But THESE are called the Church redeemed with the blood of God, then which style, none can be more glorious.  
If any man say that the elect and invisible are only there intended by that name. I answer. That conceit is cross to the very grain of the words, and the scope of the text, For they must attend {αβγδ} to the whole flock. The charge puts no difference betwixt person and person, nor must their care be different. Nay upon this ground the Elders should not know what their care was, nor upon whom they should bestow it. For they might reply, Lord, we cannot search into thy secrets, to perceive who are elect and invisible Saints; we cannot discern them, and therefore we cannot tell how to feed them: whereas by the currant and common sense of the Scriptures, taking redeemed and sanctified as visibly, though not really such, the stream of the text runs pleasantly, without the least appearance of a doubt.  
Its called the Body of Christ, 1 Cor. 12.27.28.  
These evidences of truth once taken in and entertained, A way is readily made to the right understanding of all Mr. R. arguments so far as they seem to cross any opinion and practise of ours.  
And Secondly, Those heavy Inditements which are laid and pleaded against us, will be wiped away with a wet finger, For hence it follows,  

A Church may be visibly in Covenant, which hath not an infallible assistance, but may err in Fundamentals: which may fall away, and not endure as the daies of heaven. And that is his first and fifth Argument.  
A Church may be visibly redeemed by the blood of God, and be called the body of Christ be styled by the name of Sons and daughters of God, and yet not be really and inwardly such: which is his second Argument.   
The third is answered before.  
A Church may be visibly redeemed and taught outwardly by the spirit of Christ, as he is political Head of his Church, which was never taught inwardly, nor effectually brought home to Christ, which is his last Argument.  
Hence again all those heavy inditements which are charged upon us, are wiped away, nay they melt away of themselves before the explication of this holy truth of God, as snow before the heat of the Sun.  They who hold a visible Church to be externally within the Covenant, and the redeemed ones of God, his sons and daughters, to be his body and house, of which Christ is the Head and husband in A VISIBLE MANNER: They cannot be said, by the inference of any right reason, to maintain: That Christ died for all such in Gods intention, Or, That all such are chosen to glory: Or, That God intendeth to save all such; There is not a colour of any consequence from such a ground, to make good such a conclusion. 
We have done with the first thing, which we propounded, namely, I have shewed the Reason, why M. R. his proof doth not evince the cause for which it is brought.    

To the Second  
I shall now propound such arguments which yet hinder me wholly, from yielding to the opinion. and that I may narrowly express my naked thoughts, The Conclusion I am to prove, I thus propound.  The Invisible Church catholic is not the prime and principal subject of the Seals of the Covenant; they do not {αβγδ}, belong to it, which is according to M. R. his mind, they do not belong to all them and only to them, {αβγδ} 

Argument. 1.  
1. If those who were graceless, and had no interest in Christ, had yet a command from God to receive the Seals had warrant from his word to require them: Then they had a right from God( i.e. an outward or visible right, in foro Ecclesiae, for of that we speak) to partake of them. This admits no denial. For there can be no better right, then Gods command to enjoin, and his word to warrant us to challenge any privilege.  
But such who were graceless and without any interest in Christ, and so none of his Invisible members, have Gods command to enjoin, and his word to warrant them to receive the Seals: as ishmael, Esau, and all the males were enjoined to be circumcised. All the families of the Jews were commanded to eat the Passeover, many whereof without all question, were not Invisible and believing members of Christ.   

Argument. 2.  
2. If many believers, who were sincerely such, had yet no warrant or allowance, because of that, to partake of the Seals of the Covenant, Then the Seals do not of right belong to all invisible members as the prime and principal subject thereof.  
The nature of the terms evidence the truth of the proposition. For warrant and right carry a parity of reason with them.  
The Assumption is made good by instance thus.  
Job and his godly friends were Invisible members of Christ, yet being strangers from Israel, they are expressly forbidden to eat of the Passeover. Exo. 12.48.   

Argument. 3.  
3. If the Invisible Church be the prime subject, to whom the Seals do appertain, then they belong immediately to them, and to all others by their means, and this the rule of {αβγδ}, infers undeniably. Therefore in an orderly way, they must first be dispensed to them, and from them communicated to others. As heat is first in fire, and from fire communicated to other things,  
But this M. R. elsewhere overborne, as it seems with the beauty of the truth, doth plainly deny. p. 18.2. The orderly giving of the Seals belongeth to the visible Church, and by this device the visible Church must have them firstly, and the invisible from her.  
Which is professedly cross to the rule formerly mentioned, as all men grant.   

Argument. 4.  
4. Rom. 11.17. The true Olive is there the Church of the Jews, the fatness thereof, is all such privileges as appertain thereunto. The way and means how the Gentiles come to partake thereof, is by their engrafting into the Church visible. And this is the received interpretation of the most judicious Beza, Pareus, Willet, &c. and the context will constrain as much if it should be denied.  
Whence I thus reason,  
The Olive is the prime subject of that fatness that issues from it, and appertains to it.  But the visible Church is the Olive: the Seals ( as other privileges) are part of that fatness, which appertains thereunto. Therefore the visible Church is the prime subject of them. 
Before I leave this place, I shall commend to M. R. his review, and the consideration of the judicious reader, what is writ by himself. lib. 2. p. 260. If any after they be received, shall be found not to be added of God, because they be not regenerated, yet we are not to cast any out for non-regeneration, even known.  
If you be bound to keep such in a complete Church state, I suppose you will not deny them the seals, and then they shall partake, and you shall give the seals to such, whom you know have no right to them, because they are known not to be of the invisible Church: because they are known to be non-regenerate persons.  
We have now finished the main buffonery, and given in our Reasons, why we cannot yield to M. Rutterf. his advertisement.  
We shall add one word touching the other particular propounded to debate, which was this.  
Whether the holding of this conclusion will necessary make us forsake our doctrine of Independency and popular government, so far as we give power to people to act in Church affairs.  
For Answer I yet conceive.  
The holding of the former error will neither help us out of an error, if we be in it, nor yet help Mr. R. to confute that opinion, or to bring us out of it. For the holding of one error will not help a person to see, much less recover him out of another. But this appears to us, by that which I have answered, to be an error. Therefore, this were enough for the while, to cause me to wave the inference.  
But that which carries greatest weight with me, is, That conclusion which overturns Mr. Mr R. his main principles touching the government of a visible Church: That will rather confirm our proceedings, then weaken them.  
But this conclusion now in debate doth so: as may thus appear. That which puts all offices and the exercise of them; and the seals and the dispensation of them into the hands of believers: That overthrows the pillar, principles of Mr. R. concerning the government of the visible Church.  
But this opinion, that makes the invisible Church, the prime, principal subject of all christian privileges, and so of all offices, officers, and the dispensation,( for these are such) doth put all offices and officers, the seals and dispensations of them into their hands.  
This part can be onely questioned, and it is thus confirmed.  Because this conclusion or opinion puts the formalis ratio of all these offices and ordinances into the hands of invisible believers: and ●●at also is evident, Because it makes it agree to them, {αβγδ} 
If Mr. R. rid his hands of this argument with any reality of truth, he must show some essential cause of offices and officers, of the right of seals and the dispensations thereof, besides the invisible Church; and that his conclusion and the interpretation which he hath settled, will not suffer.  
I will onely suggest this to him, to occasion him to clear this cost to purpose.  
Those terms or things, which contain all the essential causes of each other, beside them there can be no formal, or essential cause added. For then all the essentialls should not be there.  
But those which agree {αβγδ}, these contain the essentialls each of other. For this is the nature of those things which are convertible or reciprocal, according to all the rules of right reason, unless there be a new logic made, which yet never saw light. Homo est animal rationale. A man is a living creature endued with a reasonable soul: and every living creature endued with a reasonable soul, is a man. An entire man consists of a soul and body so organized, and whatever consists of such parts, is an entire man. The one of these take up as much as the other: and all the essential causes of the one, are comprehended in the other: otherwise they had not been of equal breadth or capacity, which a reciprocation requires.  
Of this kind are the catholic invisible Church, and all Christian privileges, they agree thus reciprocally.  
Whatever hath these, is the invisible catholic Church: and the invisible catholic Church hath all these. And therefore  
All the essentialls of these privileges are therein included. And therefore beside or without this, none can be added upon Mr. R. grounds.     

CHAP. IV. Of the formal cause of a visible Church, the Church Covenant.  
WE have done with the material cause of a visible Church: and we have seen that such as be visible Saints make up that.  We are now come to consider of the formal cause, that which makes the Church to be that which it is and gives the specifical nature( as we use to speak) thereunto. 
For take all the faithful whether they be seemingly or sincerely such, scattered up and down the face of the whole earth, these are but like scattered stones in the street, or timber felled in the woods, as yet there is neither wall made up, nor frame erected.  
They who be sincere are truly said to be the mystical body of Christ, built upon him by a saving faith, and so enjoy union to, and communion with the head: But they cannot( to common sense) be thought to make up a visible communion when they are, not only severed one from another, but it may so fall out, as in times of persecution, they may be wholly unknown each to the other.  
This Invisible communion by faith makes up the Church militant taken mystically, and it is but one in all the world: But the Church we are to attend, must be visible: so may as may comely meet together in one place, who as they have the right to all ordinances, so they may enjoy the use of them in Christ his order: and so they must be, and accordingly are styled many. The Churches of Judaea, of Galatia. &c.  
That then which gives the formality of these Churches we are now to inquire: and the conclusion we maintain this, mutual covenanting and confoederating of the Saints in the fellowship of the faith according to the order of the Gospel, is that which gives constitution and being to a visible Church.  
We shall consider 

1. What this confoederating is.  
2. How it is expressed.  
3. The Reasons of the conclusion.    

1.  
This confoederating and covenanting implies two things.  

1. The Act that is performed betwixt some men for the while, and so passeth away in the expression.  
2. The State arising from the Act of obligation, which is nothing else but that relation of these persons thus obliged one to another.   
The Sum in short is this. By mutual engagement each to the other, such persons stand bound in such a state and condition to Answer the terms of it, and to walk in such ways, as may attain the end thereof.  
And the right conceiving of the nature of the thing, I mean, the incorporating of men together, will constrain the judgement to yield this.  
For consider these severals.  

Consideration 1.  
Its free for any man to offer to join with another who is fit for fellowship, or to refuse. Its as feee for another to reject or receive such who offer, and therefore that they do join, it is by their own free consent and mutual engagement on both sides; which being past, that mutual relation of engagement, is as it were the sement, which soders the whole together: or like the mortising or brazing of the building, which gives fashion and firmness to the whole.  
Whence it is evident, First, that it is not every relation, but such an engagement, which issues from free consent, that makes the covenant.  
Secondly, This engagement gives each power over another, and maintains and holds up communion each with other, which cannot but be attended, according to the terms of the agreement.  
And lastly it being of persons, who were wholly free, each from the other. There can no necessary tie of mutual accord and fellowship come, but by free engagement, free( I say) in regard of any human constraint.   

Consideration. 2.  
This covenant being taken up in a Church way and for spiritual ends, therefore in reason should be of such, who are fitted thereunto, namely, visible Saints: there is great cause, why such, who thus are to engage themselves, and enter upon such a society, should be careful and watchful to search sedulously, and labour to be acquainted with each others fitness and sufficiency in judgement, and spiritual discerning to such a service: and because the work also is of so great a weight; It in reason calls for serious humiliation and seeking unto God, for to go along with them, and to vouchsa●e his blessing and presence unto them, when they enter upon the same.  
And hence it is the manner of our Churches, that there is both more through observation thereof attended by such touching the their estate and condition, and seeking of God by such by solemn fasting and prayer, when such a work is first entred upon, then is attended in taking in, or receiving of all the members that desire to join themselves to the fellowship of the Church afterwards.    

2. How the Covenant may be expressed.  
This Covenant is dispensed or acted after a double manner.  
Either 

explicitly, or  
implicitly.    
An explicit Covenant is, when there is an open expression and profession of this ingag●ment in the face of the Assembly, which persons by mutual consent undertake in the ways of Christ.  
An implicit Covenant is, when in their practise they do that, whereby they make themselves engaged to walk in such a society, according to such ●uless of government, which are exercised amongst them, and so submit themselves thereunto: but do not make any verbal profession thereof.  
Thus the people in the parishes in England, when there is a Min●ster put upon them by the patron or Bishop, they conctantly hold them to the fellowship of the people in such a place, attend all the ordinances there used, and the dispensations of the Minister so imposed upon them, submit thereunto, perform all services that may give countenance or encouragement to the person in this work of his ministry. By such actions, and a fixed attendance upon all such services and duties, they declare that by their practices, which others do hold forth by public profession.  
This Mr. R. cannot be ignorant of, as our opinion and professed apprehension: and I would entreat the Reader to observe once for all: that if he meet with such accusations, that we nullify all Churches beside our own: that upon our grounds received there must be no Churches in the world, but in N. England, or some few set up lately in old: that we are rigid Separatists, &c. Such bitter clamours, a wise meek spirit passeth by them, as an unworthy and ungrounded aspersion: but the wise-hearted and conscientious Reader, will reserve an ear for the innocent. Audi alteram partem.  
Quest. If it be here enquired: How far the covenant is of necessity required?  
Ans. According to foregoing expressions, the answer may be cast into these conclusions following.  

1. An implicit Covenant preserves the true nature of the true Church, because it carries the formalis ratio of a confoederation in it, by which a Church is constituted. For implicit and explicit are but adjuncts, and these separable from the essence. And therefore the essence and being of the covenant may consist with either.  
2. In some cases an implicit covenant may be fully sufficient. As, suppose a whole congregation should consist of such, who were children to the parents now deceased, who were confoederate: Their children were true members according to the rules of the Gospel, by the profession of their fathers covenant, though they should not make any personal and vocal expression of their engagement, as the fathers did.  
3. Its most according to the completeness of the rule, and for the better being of the Church, that there be an explicit covenant. For 

1. Thereby the judgement of the members comes to be informed and convinced of their duty more fully.  
2. They are thereby kept from cavilling and starting aside from the tenor and terms of the covenant, which they have professed and acknowledged, before the Lord and so many witnesses.  
3. Thereby their hearts stand under a stronger tie, and are more quickened and provoked to do that, which they have before God and the congregation, engaged themselves to do.     
Hence also that question receives its explication and answer namely.  
Q. How far this covenant requires cohabitation?  
Ans. And here several cases, which carry much variety with them, do of necessity call for various considerations, discovered by following directions.  

1.  
Such cohabitation is required, which is necessary for the dispensation of Gods ordinances, the administration of Church-censures, for otherwise, the end of the covenant would be made frustrate, and the benefit of the whole prejudiced. And hence there must needs be such a cohabitation of officers and a convenient company of members, that they comely and conveniently m●et together to the exercise of all Gods Ordinances, Acts. 14.27. 1 Cor. 11.26.& 14.23.   

2.  
Cohabitation in the same strictness is not required, nor can be attended by all in the same manner: but if the special calling in some, or the public behalf of the Church in others, do call for some exceptions, without the prejudice of the exercise of public ordinances( ut supra) such exceptions may, nay in truth, should be granted. For the policy of the Church and other rules, as they are not in nature, so they should not in their use be in opposition, but in subordination, each to other.  
Instance. Merchants whose employments are in far countries, and as the 107. Psal. occupy their business in the great Ocean: their business and employments lie there, and their absence usually is for many moneths, sometime for some years: they may be allowed to attend their course.( But others should not, nay others cannot, be so dispensed with) and yet these are said to cohabit; because the place of their abode is there in the issue.  
Hence upon the same ground the Church may sand out some, either to begin plantations, in case the body require it, or to help on some others who want able guides to succour them in their beginnings, before they can attain a Church-state. And it sufficeth they have such under their care, and in their power, to recall them, or take an account of them, as they see fit.  
Solomon sent ships to Ophir, which returned not by the space of some years, All states may be compelled to sand some men to Sea for traffic; sometimes by way of just war, and yet no prejudice done to any rule of Christ, or Church-order in that case    

3. The reasons of the Covenant.  

1.  
The first is taken from that resemblance which this policy hath with all other bodies politic.  
Every spiritual or ecclesiastical corporation receives its being from a spiritual combination.  
But the visible Churches of Christ, are ecclesiastical or spiritual corporations, Therefore.  
The first part of the Argument, hath reason and common sense to put it beyond gainsaying. Each whole or entire body, is made up of his members, as, by mutual reference and dependence they are joined each to the other. Thus Corporations in towns and cities, as they have their charter granted from the King or State, which gives them warrant and allowance to unite themselves to carry on such works, for such ends, with such advantages: so their mutual engagements each to other, to attend such terms, to walk in such orders, which shall be suitable to such a condition, gives being to such a body.  
Its that sement which soders them all, that soul as it were, that acts all the parts and particular persons so interested in such a way, for there is no man constrained to enter into such a condition, unless he will: and he that will enter, must also willingly bind and engage himself to each member of that society to promote the good of the whole, or else a member actually he is not.  
The polished and hewn stones prepared with great comeliness and conveniency, gives yet no being to a house unless they be conjoined and compacted together, and thence the whole frame comes to be constituted and made up.  
It is so with every particular Church rightly gathered. It is a City, Heb. 12.22. a house 1 Tim. 3.15. the body of Christ. Eph. 4.13.16. 1 Cor. 12.12.27.28 And all these places are spoken of particular visible Churches. For where Pastors and Teachers are set, and exercise their work; where members are knit and compact, and effectually edify one another, there must be a particular Church, not the catholic and to this purpose speaks M. R. l. 2. 302.  
A Church in an island is a little city, a little kingdom of Iesus Christ, Being then spiritual cities and corporations, the members must contain in them all the essentials which make up the whole. Visible Saints being the matter, this their union and combination must make up the Form.   

2.  
Those who have mutual power each over other, both to command and constrain in case; who were of themselves free each from other, in such a way by all rules appointed by God in providence: They must by mutual agreement and engagement be made partakers of that power.  
But the Church of believers have mutual power each over other to command and constrain in case, who were before free from each other.  
Therefore They must by mutual agroement and engagement be made partakers of that power.  
The second part or Assumption is evident by the course of process and proceeding which our Saviour prescribes. Mat. 18.15. If thy Brother offend &c. where we have a legal and orderly way laid forth by our Saviour, in which brethren only of the same Church, ought to deal one with another, which they cannot exercise with Infidels, nor yet with other Christian, as our own experience if we will take a taste, will give in undeniable evidence.  
I may as a Christian, meeting with an offensive carriage in another, rebuk him for it: But if he will not hear me, shall I call in one or two, he departs the place, refuseth to come. Let me go tell the congregation they sand for him, he refuseth to come, because one Congregation hath no power over another, one Classis over another: But each have power over their own, as M. R. grants. Each member hath power over another: Each over Archippus, not only to tell him by entreaty, but in a legal way to convince him, and in case of pertin●cy to bring him to the Church, and there to complain of him. For he is a Brother as well as any of the rest, and therefore the process of our Saviour lieth as fair against him, as against another.  
Beside, all th●se are degrees of binding, each makes way for the other, and the gaining and forgiving is a degree of loosening, Nay in case he shall be detected and brought to the Church for heretical doctrine, or some heinous villainy, take M. R. his principles, in case the Classis will not censure him, he will grant the congregation may reject such a one, and make him no Pastor to them, and I suppose that will prove a power, which can take away the chief power an officer hath from him. This learned Whitaker( vir undequaque maximus) hath disputed and concluded, De council. cont. 3. q. 5. c. 3. p. 600. Si Petrus ipse remittitur ad Ecclesiam, tanquam ad superius quoddam tribunal,& jubetur ad eam aliorum delicta defer, tunc sequitur, Ecclesiam Petro, vel quoquam alio, authoritate majorem.  
Again he affirms Christum generaliter loqui si frater in te peccaverit &c. if therefore the pastor, the teacher, if Peter, if Archippus, be frater, Each brother hath as good law against Archippus, as Archippus hath against him, and the proceeding must be the same. For Archippus must remit him to the Church, if he were the meanest brother.  
Obj. But happily it will be replied: Whitaker disputes of a general council, what power that hath over the Pope, not of a particular Church.  
Ans. True he doth so. but it is as true that he gives a proportionable power to a particular Church: hear his words and let the impartial reader then weigh them. Ergo fateamur oportet, per Ecclesiam, corpus multorum, non unum episcopum, coetum hominum, non unum aliquem hominem intelligere.  
And to remove all doubt, that can be made, he adds. Et si particularis quaeque Ecclesia maiorem habeat authoritatem in judicijs, quam Petrus, vel quivis homo particularis, tunc multò magis universalis Ecclesia quae in concilio generali repraesentatur.  
I add once more, Take it of a general council, and this will yet lend no relief to the answer in the least measure.  
Every member of the general council hath power in the censuring of a delinquent( In M. R. judgement) that is, in passing a censure or sentence in the council.  
But brethren or lay-men( as they are termed) are members of a general council. Therefore,  
Each Brother hath power to censure a brother in case of delinquency.  
The Assumption then of this second Argument is found and firm.  
The Proposition is proved by instance and experience.  
If others had no Church-power over this or that party, if he would have refused to come into their fellowship and joined with them, then it was his voluntary subiection and engagement that gave them all the power or interest they have. And let any man use his own experience, it will evince as much. several christian men come from far, into places, where Churches are planted. By what right or power can this Church charge or challenge him to sit down in that society? or by what duty is he bound to close with them in that way? As it was in his liberty to come into that place, and amongst that people: so it is in his liberty to change that place, and go to another people, to refuse this, and choose to member with another Congregarion.  
In a word, If they have no power over him without this, then if they have any, it is by this.  At primum verum. Ergo, 
Thus we red, Act. 5.13. the rest durst not ioyn. Luk. 7.30. when the publicans were baptized, the Scribes are said to reject the counsel of God, being not baptized: and neither John nor any else had power to constrain them to undertake such a service.   

3. Argument.  
If voluntary combining Churches together, makes them a classical or Presbyterian Church, as M. R. confesseth l. 2. p. 320. A convenient number of Churches having ordinary conversing one with another shall voluntarily combine themselves in one society. This last gives in the formality of classical membership. So his words are.  
When God hath made him a combined member, now by Institution of one Presbyterian Church not of another: though by ordinary converse with other Churches, in case of scandal, his example may prove prejudicial and infestuous to others, yet this Presbytery must proceed in excommunication against him, because he is only combined with them.  
If thus a voluntary combining makes a man a member of a Church classical, then a voluntary combination will make a member of a Church congregational. For there is the same reason to the substance of the work: especially upon M. R. his principles, because he would force the institution of a classis and synod from the same place of Scripture. Mat. 18. l. 1. p.  
If there be one and the same Institution, then there is one and the same ground and cause of constitution.   

4. Argument.  
That society of men who may enjoy such privileges spiritual and ecclesiastic, unto which none can be admitted without the approbation and allowance of the whole: That society must be in an especial combination, as members making up the whole. Because such an act argues a combined power, which the whole hath, and not any member alone: and that they cannot have, but by their agreement.  
But a particular Congregation is such a society who enjoy such spiritual privileges, unto which none can be admitted without the approbation of the whole.  
They who have power to choose their ministers and rulers, they have power to admit or reject such, who offer themselves to be members.  
The last Argument is taken from Induction.  
If the Inventory of all other respects being brought in, none can constitute a Church visible, then this only must,  
Its not Christian affection that can make it. For such are so united that never saw each other, and shall never enjoy the society of each other.  
It is not cohabitation. For this falls within that dispute of civill precincts, which we have formerly proved, gives no being to an ecclesiastic society.  
Meeting in one Assembly unites not persons together. For Infidels and Turks( 1 Cor. 14.) may come into Church-assemblies to hear the word, as is confessed on all hands, and yet are not made members for that reason.  
It is therefore in the house of God, as it is in other houses. We must become covenanting servants, if we have any interest there, or think to challenge any privilege there.  
To this M. R. answ. lib. 2. p. 125.  
The enumeration is sufficient, For the seal OF baptism and A PROFESSION OF THE TRUTH, is that which maketh one a member of the visible Church, 1 Cor. 12.13. we are all baptized by one spirit into one body, and can you deny the covenant that is sealed in baptism, and by this we are all the citizens and domestics inchurched and received into the visible Church.  
Of this we shall inquire at large.     

CHAP. V. Whether baptism doth give formality or make a member of a visible Church.  

Answer Negative.  

Reason. 1.  
IF there be a Church, and so members before baptism: then baptism cannot give the formality. Because forma is causal, and so is in nature before formatum.  
But the Church now considered as totum essentiale, is before baptism.  
For Ministers are before baptism: else baptism may be administered lawfully by such, who are not Rulers, Pastors or Teachers which is denied by all Orthodox Divines, and I question not, but by M. R. And there must be a Church of believers to choose a Minister lawfully. For none but a Church can give him a call, and without a Call he cannot administer.  
To this M. R. answers. l. 2. p. 219.  
It is false that the Church ministerial, which only can baptize, is before the Officers for they should then be before themselves, which is absurd.  
To which the reply is easy.  
That we speak not now of the Church, as ministerial, or as totum Organicum, but as totum essentiale, which is before Organicum. therefore the argument is wholly untouched: nor doth the answer reach the reason at all, it secretly confutes it self and confirms the cause. For, If baptism cannot be before a ministerial Church, nor that before a Church congregational, which must make choice of a ministry, then such a Church is much before baptism.  
Beside let it be supposed that at the coming of some godly zealous Christian and scholar into the country, and a company of Pagans( many) are converted to the faith, I ask whether these may not join in a Church-fellowship, and choose that man Pastor, and whether that choice was not lawful according to God? Therefore here is a Church before a Minister, and so before baptism.   

2. Reason.  
If baptism give the form to visible membership, then while that remains valid the party is a visible member. for where the form is, the formatum must needs be, if the principles of reason may take place.  
But there is true baptism resting in the party, who hath no visible membership: as in an excommunicate, in him that renounceth the fellowship of the Church, or when the Church is utterly dissolved then all Church-membership ceaseth. for Relata mutuo se ponunt& tollunt. And yet baptism is valid.  

M. R. Answer. p. 220.  
This is against yourselves and doth as well prove that baptism is not a seal of the covenant of grace, For an excommunicate person may remain externally without the visible Church, when baptism remaineth a seal, and may be a seal of grace or privilege, which is interrupted or removed in act, but remaineth in habit. As to be the eldest son of a King, may be a seal of the sons heirship, and yet he may for a fault be disinherited and cast out.   

Reply.  
The first part of the Answer is no whit satisfactory, nor doth remove the force of the Argument. For let it be granted that an excommunicate person may remain externally without the covenant to the judgement of the visible Church, and yet baptism be a seal of it, because baptism is but a separable adjunct unto the Covenant whose efficacy may be hindered( and therefore the spiritual good) by the unworthiness of the receiver, though in its own nature, its the end of baptism to do that, and as much as in it lieth, doth and would do it, but the act of it is hindered by the wickedness and unworthiness of the receiver.  
But the reason is far otherwise, when baptism is made the form of membership, and therefore the inference will be far other, namely,  
Though a separable adjunct may be severed from his subject; or the effect thereof( which often is) may be hindered: yet its never heard that the form of a thing could be and remain in its full vigour, and the formatum not to be. If to be the eldest son of a King, had given the formality of the possessing of his inheritance, that could never have been taken away: but he should have stood possessed thereof. But so it is not in case some notorious fault disinherit him, onely that makes him capax subiectum remotè, but that which gives the formality of possession, is an heir well-deserving.   

2. M. R. adds.  
" The Church and Church-membership are relata secundum esse, not secundum dici, or relata, {αβγδ}.  
But baptism and Church-membership are not so perfect relates, but baptism doth remain, and Church-membership may be dissolved. The burgess ticket, whereby a man hath right to all the City-priviledges, may remain, when the man for some crime committed against the City, hath lost all his City-priviledges, and is not now a free citizen: in which case his Burgesse-ticket sealeth nothing to him.   

The Reply is.  
This answer which should maintain the cause doth fully yield it, For if Church and Church-membership be relata secundum esse, and yet baptism comes not within that compass, then certainly it gives not the formality to Church-membership; and that upon a double proof.  
1. If Church and Church-membership be perfect relata, without baptism, then are they mutual causes one of the other, and receive no constitution, or essential causes elsewhere. For, Relata constant ex mutuâ affectione.  
2. If baptism give the formale to membership, it then stands in the same kind of relation, as Church-membership doth, as giving the specifical and proper being to membership.  
But that you say it doth not, and therefore it cannot lend the formality to it.  
Lastly, Let it be yielded that baptism and Church-membership are not so perfect relatives, for that we question not, but that( which is granted) it is forma, and then forma& formatum mutuò se ponunt& tollunt.  
That of the burgess ticket, if it seal nothing of his city-priviledges to him, it remains a writing, but no Authoritative means of freedom, and therefore not a formale of his freedom. For if it had given him his Burgesse-ship, the corporation would have provided for the taking away of that at the first, as well as the taking away of his liberty. As the King sends for the broad Seal, when he will out the Lord Keeper, of his power and place.  
Further the grant that baptism sealeth other things, and is valid to that end, but sealeth not membership, This, I say, destroys the cause, which it is brought to defend, to wit, That it cannot be the form, for the form remaining, the formatum will certainly continue.    

Reason. 3.  
This tenet doth of necessity evidence the Church of Rome, to be a true Church, which is thus gathered.  
Where all the members are true members, there the Church is a true Church.  
But all the members in the Congregations in Rome are true members.  
Assumption proved.  
They who have the true form of a Church member, they are true members.  
But all the members of the Church of Rome have received true baptism, and so the formality of true members. Therefore,  
Therefore the Church is a true Church.  
But this last is false, therefore the first also.   

Reason. 4.  
That which is a Seal of the Covenant and our incorporation into the Church visible, that cannot be the form of it.  
At primum verum, Ergo.  
The Proposition is proved, because the seal comes after the thing s●aled in nature: but the form goeth before it.  
M. R. l. 2. p. 213. 214. 215. 216. is very large to lay forth the nature and efficacy of seal and Sacraments, and his dispute is to good purpose, and to edify the Reader, in that point, unto which I willingly yield in all the severals thereof, for the sum and substance of the expressions. Namely, That the Sacraments are signs and seals, and exhibitive instruments of the increase of grace. Nor do I know any of ours that ever spake or writ otherwise.  
And what he grants in this, gives in testimony to the truth of the Argument and confirms it strongly, only let the right sense of some words be weighed, as they should, and not racked beyond the inrendment of the authors mind,  
For when it is said that Sacraments are not appointed to make a thing that was not, but to confirm and establish a thing that was.  
This is the easy and ordinary sense of such phrases, to wit, A Sacrament doth not give grace, where it was not, but confirms grace where it was. It begins not grace in such as have it not, but increaseth and confirmeth it in such as hav● it, which is the same he bestoweth ●o many pages, and so much pains to prove, which is confessed without any further trouble, and so all that labour might have been spared, And we crave no more, then what is thus acknowledged on all hands.  
For if the Seals do not work grace, where it was not, but suppose the first grace wrought, then the Sacrament sealing our incorporation into the Church, It presupposeth this covenant first made, only it adds a further confirmation thereunto.   

Argument. 5.  
The Church was visible when there was no seal, neither circumcision nor baptism.  
Therefore these do not constitute it or any member of it. Gen. 17.10.11.     

CHAP. VI. Quest. 2. Whether PROFESSION makes a man a member of a Congregation.  
Answ. We shall first inquire the meaning of the Question and the intendment of M. R. and so lay down the state thereof in the severals of it.  
2. Then give in our Arguments why we cannot give our consent to this tenet.  

I.  
THe meaning of the question will best be discovered by our inquiry of the nature of profession, what it implies, and how it is taken in this discourse.  
1. PROFESSION in the most frequent and familiar apprehension, signifies the public manifestation of our assent to the doctrine of Faith, as in the word delivered and received by us, and our resolution to persist in the maintenance of the same. And then it is commonly used in a way of distinction from practise. And thus we say many profess fair, but their practise answers not their profession. And in this sense I suppose he doth not, nor indeed can he take profession, as serving his purpose.  
For an excommunicate, who is cast out of the Church for his sinful carriage, may notwithstanding in his judgement avouch all the truths of Scriptures, and outwardly desire to enjoy all Gods ordinances, and yet this gives him no formality of membership, because he may have all these and be cut off from membership.  
2. Profession is yet larger, and includes also a suitable carriage in the life, so far as the profession which is made, is voided of scandalous courses.  
3. As Profession must not be too narrow, so we must be careful not to make it too broad, as to exact more then is compatible in truth unto it. Namely Such a profession of the faith and assent to the doctrine of truth, is not here exacted, as that a person should not be counted to hold forth a profession of the faith, that( happily through ignorance and mistake) shall hold something differing from the truth, and from the apprehensions of many other both persons or Churches which profess the same.  
As suppose a Christian maintain Justification by Christs passive obedience only; Reprobation in massa corrupta; whether Children have habitual or actual faith also. Such mistakes which may fall in some particulars, wherein pious and prudent men are of a different Judgement, do not make a person to be such a one, as doth not profess the faith savingly, so as may make way for membership in a visible Church warrantably.  
Profession conceived according to the compass of the former explication, doth make( i. add a causal power with baptism to) a member of the visible Church, and so a member of all the visible congregation on earth.  
The expressions of M. R. which led me thus to conceive his meaning are divers in divers passages of his books, lib. 1. c. 9. p. 116.  
This doth not hinder but yet they may hear, and so be members of a Church, l. 2, p. 125. 3. last lines. when a person removes from one Congregation to another, he makes a tacite covenant, to serve God in all his ordinances, w●th that new society; but he is not therefore made a member of the visible Church, for that he was before. l. 2. p. 95. A called Pastor is a member, of the visible Church, before he be called to be the ●astour though he be no member of any particular Congregation.( which expressions carry a kind of mysterious difficulty with them, we shall take liberty to look further into them in the following discourse) Lastly, lib. 2. p. 194. the 2. last lines, he hath these words. He who is a member of one visible congregation, is by his baptism and sincere profession, and his professed standing in covenant with God, a member of all visible congregations on earth, and is baptized into all congregations on earth.  
Hence then we have two things to discuss.  
1. That this profession makes not a member.  
2. Being made and standing in his professed Covenant with God, or is not a member of every particular Congregation on earth.  
To the first.  

Argument. 1.  
1. That which opposeth and hinders the work of baptism, and so hinders the constitution or formality of membership: that doth not help it forward.  
Because this is made the most especial ingredient in the constitution of that relation.  
But Profession lawful and warrantable may do so.  
For suppose a man profess the whole truth of God, only he differs or mistakes in this, that all the Churches on earth are ill gathered, and therefore he dares not, and so refuseth to be baptized. This profession is a warrantable profession( as it hath formerly been explicated in the third conclusion) and yet this hinders the work and dispensation of baptism in the sense their specified: and therefore hinders, and helps not to the constitution of membership.   

Argument. 2.  
2. That which gives membership to a party, who had it not before, that can restore membership when he hath lost it. But this cannot restore membership lost.  
That power which Iuridicè cast him out, that must Juridicè or regularly receive him in.  
But the power of the Church in virtue of his consociation in that he falsified it, cast him out, and therefore must also receive him in upon his humiliation and subjection to the covenant again.  
Whereas if possession and baptism were sufficient to do the dead, baptism remaining the same, as before his excommunication, and now his profession being renewed, there is the whole formality of membership, which experience evidenceth to be false.   

Argument. 3.  
3. That which gives actual existence to a member, must give interest to a totum actually existing, and therefore to some particular Congregation.  
For existentia est tantum Individuorum. Individuals only exist, and since such a person is an individual member, he must have respect or reference to the whole that doth actually exist, and this the general nature of the catholic Church doth, in the particular Congregations only.  
Beside if he be a particular member, he must be comprehended within the compass of members, But all the members of the Church catholic( take it as an integrum) are comprehended within particular Congregations, therefore he must be a member of some of them, or else he comes not within the compass or number of members.  
Lastly, to be a member to the catholic Church firstly, that is to be a member to an whole, which a man nor did, nor could see, nor do any homage to, nor receive any direction or influence of government from, This, I say, is such a sublimated imagination, that I must confess, it is beyond my shallowness to conceive. I do believe, beyond the breadth of any mans brain to express.  
That which is said afterwards, That a member is cast out of the catholic Church antecedenter, will prove an apparent paralogism, and we shall try the truth and strength of it, when we come unto that place.  
The Proposition then hath free pass.  
But( I assume) this profession gives no interest to any particular Congregation.  
That which equally and indifferently belongs to all, that can make no particular appropriation to any one, why rather to this, then any other.  
But this profession is equal and indifferent to all, as well as to any one, Therefore It can give no appropriation to any particular. No more, then if a woman love all Christian men, with Christian ●ffection, therefore she is a wife to this or that man. So it is here, it is not general profession that will serve the turn: but there must be a peculiar engagement and appropriation, to this or that particular body.   

Argument. 4.  
If a party become a member of a Church by this profession, then the Church hath Authority over him.  
( For so she hath over her members) and can proceed against them in case of desert,  
But by this profession no man hath authority over a party, for if they have any, let them claim it, and their own experience will easily evidence their mistake, 2. How can or why should one Church claim it more then another?   

Argument. 5.  
If this profession would give membership, then a man might make himself a member of this or that congregation, whether they would or no, nay, without the privity of the Congregation.  
A man baptized goeth into Africa, or to the utmost parts of the earth, he comes where many of the Churches of Christ are, he hath been baptized, and doth profess, and this is enough to make him a member of any Church, and therefore he hath right amongst them, as a member, whether they will or no.  
We have done with the first.  
The second now comes into consideration, namely.  
Q, Whether a person, who is a member of one visible Congregation, is, by his baptism and sincere profession, and his professed standing in covenant with God, a MEMBER OF ALL THE CONGREGATIONS ON EARTH.  
Ans. Negatur.  
This tenet I cannot see how it can stand with the principles of truth, or with M. R. his own grounds.  
Not with the principles of truth, because it draws many inconveniences with it, ne quid gravius dicam?  
1. If he be a member of all the Congregations on earth, then he can perform the duty of a member unto all.  
But that is impossible.  
2. Look what liberty or power a man hath in one particular Congregation, as a member, he hath the same in all. because he is a member every where.  
If so, then he hath as much in choosing all the Officers of all particular Congregations and in maintaining of them.  
Then he cannot be cast out of one Congregation, unless all the Officers of all others do cast him out.  
Nay no Officers of one Congregation shall proceed against him, for he will depart to another, because he hath as much right there as here: and the Officers of those Congregations are his Pastors and Teachers, whose Judgement, presence, and concurrence, he may justly require, and none can justly deny, before any admonition or Church censure shall pass against him.  
3. Hence I cannot see, but it must of necessity follow, that one particular Congregation must be another, Ephesus must be Smyrna, and Smyrna must be Thyatira, For I reason thus.  
Where there be the same individual members, there of necessity must be the same Individua●● Integrum: and the ground is undeniable from the received rules of reason Integrum est totum, cvi partes sunt essentiales. Therefore the same members carry the same essence which they giv● unto the whole.  
I assume then from the former grant.  
There be the same individual members, of all the particular Congregations.  
For if one professor be a member of every particular Congregation, then by a parity of reason, All particular professors must be so: and so all of them members of one particular congregation, and so of every one.  
Hence, there being the same members of every particular congregation, every particular Congregation is the same, and thence it will follow that Ephesus is Smyrna, and Smyrna to be Thyatira.  
Hence, when Smyrna is destroyed, yet Smyrna remains, because it is the same with Thyatira, and that yet stands. &c.  
Again secondly, this cannot stand with those principles of Mr. R. that are granted, and maintained, as maxims, which admit no denial, l. 1 c. 7. p. 72.  
We deny that Christ hath given power of jurisdiction to one particular congregation over another.  
Every member hath right to meddle with the Congregation whereof he is a member.  
But a man professing, being baptized into one, he is a member of every particular congregation upon earth, therefore a member in every province and nation. Therefore the members of this province may sand messengers to the Synod of another province. For the members of the Congregations of that province, may sand messengers to the provincial Synod, But the members of the Congregations in this Province, are members of the Congregations of that Province, because they are members of all the Congregations on earth, Therefore they may sand messengers to the Synod of that Province.  
And this is a ready way to turn all into a chaos and confusion, and therefore certainly is not the way of God, who is the God of order, not of confusion.  
Hence that expression of M, R. which he lays as a peremptory conclusion, will prove not to have so much certainty and solidity, as might appear at the first sight.  
It is folly to seek for difference of particular Congregations, for Church-covenant makes not the difference, for a Church covenant is common to them all.  
The Reply is.  
That particular Congregations and Church-covenants do not differ in their general nature or essence, is a truth, and confessed on all hands, as that which is suitable to common sense. For things common or general do not difference particulars, because in them they all agree.  
But there is a specificating, or to speak more narrow, an individual formality, which makes a real difference in the particular nature of this church, from that.  
1. The rule was of old, Genus cum formâ constituit speciem.  
2. If this and that particular combina●ion of Churches give a peculiar being distinct to this Classis from another, then the like may be in particular Congregations. That M. R. grants, and therefore this cannot be denied.  
3. This Congregation differs really from another, habent se ut res& res, therefore there must be answerable grounds whence this reality of difference must proceed.  
4. If they differ only in accidents, those must be common or proper, If common they then bring in agreement and no difference. If proper, then they arise from some propriety, and peculiar formality of the being of each Church. Nay,  
5. How comes it that this Church hath power over this person, which another hath not, but that he hath a peculiar interest in that, and they in him by special engagement?  
Lastly in all voluntary Covenants, which arise from the free consent of party and party, there is no difference to be found in those Covenants, but in the peculiar and individual formalities of special engagements, which pass betwixt party and party, and therefore the difference is there alone to be sought, and there alone it can be found.  
Should a man come to a servant, and tell him, I am a master of servants, and it is a folly to seek for differences, for household covenant, or servants covenant, makes no difference; for servants covenant is common to all, there is only a difference in number, and some accidents, as there is betwixt many servants in my family. Therefore thou art my servant, and must do the work of my fam●ly.  
Should people of one Congregation come to the pastor of another, and tell him; come and bestow your pains constantly with us, for its all one, as if you did it with your own people, for its folly to seek for differences in covenant, betwixt Pastor and people, for that makes no difference, since the covenant is common to all. There is only a difference in number and accidents, as there is betwixt the Elders which we have in our Congregations, Therefore you are our Pastor, and must do the work of our Congregation.  
That a man should be a general Husband to all women, or a woman a general wife to all men, because marriage-covenant is common to all, It seems strange at the first sight, and therefore its counted folly on our part to seek any difference here, and we are content to bear the charge of folly for it.     

CHAP. VII. An Answer to Arguments made against the Church covenant.  
WE have thus positively set down, what yet we conceive to be the mind of God touching that which formally constitutes a Church. I perceive M R. his spirit carried with a marvelous distaste against this way: we shall as we are able, labour to remove all mistakes and misconceiv●ngs, that the mind of the Reader, may not be misled with the multitude and throng of expressions, many whereof come not up to the point in hand.  
To level the path in our proceeding, we shall lay these considerations following, to fill the uneven ditches, that the devices of men have made in this high way of holinesse.  
1. Relation, As such, is not the foundation of a free covenant,( whereof we now speak) Because there be some relations founded in the acts of nature, in the putting forth whereof, there is neither the observation nor consideration of the parties required. As when twins are born together, or one within the distance of a twelve month one from another; those have the relation of brethren and sisters, and yet it is without the apprehension of either: the relative tie, and the duties issuing therefrom, have their rise and power from the impression of the rule of nature.  
And hence when the Reader shall meet with the name of covenant, which proceeds from such a root, let him know it makes nothing to this cause.  
And hence also it follows, that such relations and duties, proceeding therefrom, may be multiplied without any covenant at all, much less needs there the multiplication of any covenant, according to the specialities which attend upon them.  
2. Covenants are attended either in the rise of them, by such as are the first makers of them, or else in the communication of them, or the bonds they lay upon others, after th● entrance made. Thus the covenant once made by the mutual and free agreement of the parties, it may be communicated to others without their consent, as namely to their children, because they are as the Scriptures speak in their loins, under their power and dispose, and therefore can make such an agreement and engagement for them. So it was in Israel, Deut. 29.9.10. And the like course is commendable in the times of the Gospel, So that a Minister is Minister to the children born of the parents who have chosen him, and the children of covenanting parents are in covenant with the Church by virtue of their parents covenant.  
3. Amongst such who by no impression of nature, no rule of providence, or appointment from God, or reason, have power each over other, there must of necessity be a mutual engagement, each of the other, by their free consent, before by any rule of God they have any right or power, or can exercise either, each towards the other. This appears in all covenants betwixt Prince and People, Husband and Wife, Master and Servant, and most palpable is the expression of this in all confoederations and corporations: from mutual acts of consenting and engaging each of other, there is an impression of an engagement results, as a relative bond, betwixt the contractours and confederatours, wherein the formalis ratio, or specifical nature of the covenant lieth, in all the former instances especially that of corporations. So that however it is true, the rule binds ●uch to the duties of their places and relations, yet it is certain, it requires that they should first freely engage themselves in such covenants, and then be careful to fulfil such duties. A man is allowed freely to make choice of his wife, and she of her husband, before they need or should perform the duties of husband and wife one towards another.  
4 This Covenant once made, if any relations be inferred, and so were virtually included in it, or do result from it, as there is none, so there needs no new covenant, to make up those, or to require the exercise of duties unto them. As he that binds himself to be a covenant-servant, he binds himself to walk with his fellow-servants in the family according to the order thereof: these follow from the first covenant, and are included in it, and inferred from it.  
5. If you take the covenant of the Gospel, in so full a breadth, as that it should include what ever is warranted by the Gospel, then this Church covenant, may be truly said to be included in it.  
But if it be taken in the narrowest acceptation[ believe and live] Then it is not the Covenant of the Gospel. For that is inward and invisible in its own nature, betwixt God and the soul only: But this is visible betwixt those who do profess the Faith. That concerns all, and at all times, to do the duties of it, i.e. to believe and to live. But this concerns only those who are in this Church estate. So that in case the Churches are dissolved, and through persecution scattered, they are not then bound to the duties of this confederacy.  
It is then an ordinance of the gospel, and warranted by the Gospel, but it is not in propriety of speech the covenant of the Gospel.  
And this also is here considerable, that we may discern things that differ: The making of the confederation belongs to the Gospel, but being made, it hath also a confirmation from the law. As the appointing of baptism and Eucharist, belongs to the Gospel, are ordinances thereof, but being instituted, they stand by virtue of the second Commandment, and must be observed by virtue thereof. A man may be within the covenant of the moral law, and yet not be bound to the duties of a husband, unless he make a particular covenant with such a woman to be her husband.  
And hence there is a broad difference betwixt duties and duties as the difference is large in the respects upon which they do arise. Many duties flow from the general and necessary duties of morality, which reach a man as a creature, with reference to God as a creator, or else to his fellow-creatures. And hence this relation from a rule of nature, it hath nothing to do with a free covenant, that must come between the persons and their duties. But in that they are creatures they must do homage to their creator, and duty to their fellow-creatures.: If a neighbour preserve their honours, lives, goods, good names, yea be merciful to their beasts, because such a creature, But there must intervene a new covenant betwixt parties and parties by mutual and free consent, before they either should or can take up another sort of duties, People must by mutual consent grow up into engagement one with another into a corporation, before they should do the duties of a corporation. A servant must covenant with his Master, before he need or ought to serve him as a Master.  
And here these two things are apparently distinct. To Swear to do the duties of a servant, when he is one, doth not make him a servant. But to engage himself and enter into covenant, that doth make him to be a servant. The like to this, we may say touching the choosing of Pastors, Teachers, Elders, Deacons, these are ordinances of the Gospel, and there is a peculiar covenant betwixt those that choose, and those that are chosen, which is not the covenant of the Gospel in precise consideration.  
The substance of this was in the time of the Law, and that covenanting among them issued, as it seems, from the Gospel, They were a called and select people unto God, Amos. 3, You only have I known, of all the nations of all the nations of the world, and therfore received into visible covenant, to walk in the ways of God, and the truth of his worship: and God engaged himself, that he would bless those privileges, and the use of them, to their good, and the good of their children, reserving secret things to himself.  
These grounds being laid, we shall attend M. R. his reasons against this covenant. l. 2. p. 88.  

Argument. 1.  
All will-worship laying a bond upon the Conscience, where God laid none is damnable.  
But to tie men to enter into Church estate by Covenant, so that without such an oath or Covenant, persons should have no right to the Seals of Gods grace: is will-worship, and binding where God hath not bound.  
Assumption is proved thus.  
That a Minister swear the oath of fid●l●●y to his stock is lawful, that a Father swear to perform the duties of a Father, a Master the duties of a Master is l●●full, But to tie an oath or Covenant so to his ministry, to lay a band of Covenant upon a Master, that he 〈◇〉 in conscie●●● and before God no Minister, no Master, &c. except he swear to perform the seduties, is to lay a bond where Christ hath laid none.  
Ans. That example of a Father, because it results upon a rule in nature, without any free consent required, it reacheth not our cause. vide supra conclus. 1.  
The two other instances are either apparently misapplied, or else do undoubtedly confirm the cause that they would seem to confute. For I will ask any man living, that will not lay aside human consideration, whether any man can charge another to be his servant, or he challenge another to be his master, unless there be a mutual covenant and engagement passed betwixt each to other, the one to pay and provide for him, during his time: The other ties himself to do him honest and faithful service such a time for such wages, do not m●ns speeches proclaim as much? he is such a mans covenant servant.  
It is so here in a Church way, The person engageth himself, by solemn promise, to walk with this society in the ways and worship of Christ. The Society receives him, and engage themselves so to walk with him and towards him. As it is in the covenant of any corporation civill. The like may be said touching a Minister and his people, That which makes him a Pastor to this people, is the choice of the people, as freely taking of the person to be their shepherd and guide, and the engaging of themselves to submit unto him in the dispensation of his office according to God: The acceptation of the call and engagement of himself to take that office and charge according to Gods appointment and their choice, makes them his flock. And without this covenanting there neither is, nor ever was, or will be, Pastor and Flock.  
So that these instances brought in for proof, cut the throat of M. R. his cause. As Master and Servant, Minister and People, come to stand in such estates and relation one to another, so come the Church and a person that is received to be a member to stand in their respects.  
But a Covenant gives formality of being to the former, and therefore so to the latter.  
These phrases of M. R. to swear to perform such duties, p. 89. to tie by an apostolic law and practise, the oath of God to such duties, either are misprinted, or else they miss the conclusion wholly, which they should prove, For we do not make the swearing to do a duty to be our covenant, for that is as far differing from our question almost, as heaven is from earth.  
A witness comes into the court, ties himself by oath to swear the truth, here is no covenant betwixt man and man at all. So that these things are seriously to be distinguished and differenced.  
1. An agreement of persons, one to, and with another to combine and consociate in the ways and worship of Christ.  
2. The doing of these duties.  
3. The swearng they will do them, when they are combined The fir●t of these is the form of a corporation. The other two, may be done when they are incorporated. Thus 1. Man and Woman engage themselves each to other by way of contract. 2. Being contracted they do the duties. 3. They may swear and bind themselves to God, they will do them. I have sworn and will perform it, that I will keep thy righteous Judgements.   

Argument. 2.  
That way members are to be inchurched, and enter into Church-fellowship, which way members were entered into the Apost. Churches. But members were not entered into an apostolical Church, by such a covenant but only they believed, professed belief, and were baptized. When the incestuous person is reentred, It is said only 2 Cor. 2. that he was grieved and testified it, and they did forgive him, and confirm their love to him. ver. 7.8.  
There is here no Church covenant. Act. 8.12. Samaria received the word gladly, believed, and was baptized. Simon Magus baptized. Act. 8. Cornelius and his household. Act. 10. The Church of Ephesus planted. Act. 14. Of Corinth. Act. 18. Of Berea. 17.10. Philippi. Act. 16. Thessalonica. Act. 17. Rome. Act. 28. we have no express vocal covenant.  
Ans. The proofs here alleged as precedentiall, are of three sorts.  
1. Touching the receiving of the Incestuous Corinthian after his repentance. But that doth not overthrow the covenant, but confirm it, For their forgiving and confirming their love again to him, was cross to his excommunication, and therefore an estating of the person into that corporation and communion which formerly he did enjoy, his subjecting himself in so solemn a manner to the rule of Christ in the Congregation and Church, and craving acceptance at their hands, and entertainment into the like privileges of communion, of which he was deprived by reason of his sin, and their ready receiving and entertaining of him into that relation and state, and confirming their love to him in that behalf, is a full engagement of the Church to him, and of him again to the Church.  
Whereas had his profession at large made him a member, he had been a member whether the Church would have received him or no: or if his baptism had made him a member, as long as his baptism had remained, his membership had continued, for whiles the forma remains, the formatum must needs be also. This examample will appear most pregnant, if we do but parallel it with the like in a civil corporation. A person, a member of the corporation and in combination with them, through his ill carriage is disfranchised and put out of his place and privilege; if he shall express that sorrow and reformation, that suits the quality of his sin, and give satisfaction to the Company, his subjecting himself to the Company, and power of the combination, and their receiving and entertaining of him upon such terms, is an express recovery and renewal of the Covenant again, and by that an estating of the party in the same condition and relation in which he was.  
The rest of the proofs carry no concluding force with them. For if there be any force in the Argument, it must lye here.  
2. If no Church-covenant be there expressed, then there was none. The feebleness of which consequence appears at first sight. For to reason from one or some places against the expression in any place, is to conclude from an imperfect enumeration of some species, to deny the genus, which is a fallacy. It was not expressed in one or two Evangelists, therefore, in none. It is not said in three or four of the Prophets, therefore in none of them. We know it was the rule which the Apostle prescribed before baptism, Repent and be baptized, Act. 2.38. So the Baptist trained up his disciples. To reason therefore this profession of repentance is not mentioned in these places, therefore either was not here done, or that it is not in other places required, carries no force of reason with it.  
That lastly of Act. 2.41. As many as received the word gladly, were baptized, and there were added three thousand. But these were not gathered as you gather.  
M. R. takes this place as wronged by us, and therefore he resolves to deliver it out of our hands: 1. Because these did not first meet frequently for prayer and special conference, until they were satisfied touching the good estate one of another. 2. They could not set apart and celebrate a day of fasting and prayer, and dispatch the confessions of thirty hundred within such a time.  
Answ. If we cast an eye to the fore-going conclusions, it will appear that such fasting and prayer is only required at the erecting and laying the foundation of a Church, and so also such frequent meeting, before they enter into so solemn engagement, and the setting up a holy Church unto Christ. But these solemnities are not expected in the taking in of several members, nay the addition of all the ordinary members to the body. Besides, these were members of the Jewish Church before. The stroke that fell upon their spirits by the ministry of the Apostles( for I do not think that Peter only preached) was so extraordinary, and carried such an apparent discovery of the presence and power of Christ, that without any miraculous power of discerning, their expressions might make way for members of the Jewish Church no find acceptance with this apostolic, and Christian Church now beginning.  
Its added by the APOLOGY of the Church-covenant.  
1. That they professed their glad receiving of the word, and renouncing that froward generation.  
2. Being baptized they continued in fellowship, that was Church fellowship, for it was not the exercise of the Sacrament, which the Syriack conceives.  
To this M. R. answers, They could not continue in the Apostles fellowship and doctrine before they were added to the Church: for steadfastness in doctrine, and saving themselves from the froward generation, could not be but habitual holinesse, not perfected in six hours. Now the same day, vers. 41. in which they gladly heard the word, they were both baptized and added; and therefore their steadfast continuing in Church estate, can no ways make them members in Church state.  
Answ. True; nor is the Argument urged in that manner, but the dispute lies from the effect to the cause in that particular of it: In that they gave constant attendance to the ordinances of Christ, and in that fellowship, as taking themselves bound thereto, it argues they took themselves engaged thereunto by that subjection they did express in renouncing their former society, and desiring and receiving acceptance from the Apostles and the Church, so as such carriages carry the reality of a Covenant.  
Whereas it is said, If they had returned to Pontus again, they had returned added to the Church.  
It is easily replied. Had they returned with a purpose not to have walked in that fellowship, it is sure, they had not been of that Church by their baptism: for ALL Jerusalem then, and Iudaa, and the cost about jordan had been members of the Church by the baptism of John.  
Obj. 3. But here is no word of a Church-covenant, which was necessary to have been intimated, if there had been any such thing.  
Answ. If it be not mentioned, therefore it was not, non sequitur. 1. If the thing be there, we need not trouble ourselves for the word. And if Calvins judgement may be taken, who expounding [ Libenter amplexos eorum sermonem,] he thus writes, Adjunctos Christi discipulis fuisse, vel in idem corpus insitos& perseverasse in doctrina. And I shall offer to M. R. his consideration, That when there is a solemn baptizing into a Church, that ever implies that the person is made a disciple of Christ, Mat. 28.19. For upon that ground their commission warrants the administration of baptism: and so to be a disciple of Christ, is to be engraffed into the body of the Church, and to be as the Apostle hath it, Fellow-heirs, and of the same body, Ephes. 3.6. which is spoken of the visible Church: And therefore though many believed in Christ, joh. 12.40. Yet they would not confess him, or become his disciples, because they feared they should be cast out of the Synagogue. And hence it is that this embracing the word, this being made a disciple, its expressed by the word {αβγδ}, added to or incorporated, as in Act. 2.41.& 5.14.  
Whereas all the people were then said to magnify them, and therefore to approve of their doctrine, and so confess the truth and goodness of it; yet there was more required to this Church-work, and to become a disciple. And therefore its added, The believers were added, i.e. they confessed their sins, and became disciples and followers of that doctrine, and so engaged themselves, and covenanted also for their children, to follow that truth of the Gospel. And if this being a disciple include not thus much, how can our Divines use this, as so strong a testimony against the Anabaptists, to make good the inference? If the converted father was baptized: Therefore their children also, unless they engaged themselves in Church-covenant for their children also?  
Follow this order of the Apostle, Let them be members of Congregations. Let them express the work of repentance with that power upon their souls, as these did, and receive the word with gladness, Our principles formerly propounded, will make way for their admittance.  
The place thus expounded, finds much liberty and content to be in our hands, and will not be delivered, by all the reasons alleged by M. R. to go away from us.   

Argument 3.  
If baptism be the seal of our entry into the Church, 1 Cor. 12.13. as circumcision was the seal of the members of the jews visible Church: then such a Covenant is not the formal reason of our Church-membership. But the former is true, as I shall prove hereafter: Ergo, so is the later.  
The proposition stands, because all baptized are members of the visible Church before they can swear this Covenant, even when they are infants.  
Answ. The Proposition fails, nay fights against itself. For if it seal up our membership, and Covenant with the visible Church, then is it after-membership, and therefore not the formal cause of it, for then it should be before it.  
Again, If it seal up our membership, as circumcision sealed up membership in the Jewish visible Church, then certainly it presumes the Covenant, for so that did, Gen. 17.10, 13. He that is born shall be circumcised: so that he was in Covenant, and so called a holy seed, before in his own person he could make a Covenant, but was included in the Covenant of his parent.  
And if M. R. be of another mind, we desire he would tell us, How children of believers are said to be holy, if not by a federal holiness? and if so, then by the visible Covenant of their Parents. For many children are SO holy that have parents not spiritually and invisibly within that Covenant. Ergo.  
Lastly, The proof is also false, namely, children are members before they are in this Covenant, because though they do not covenant personally by themselves, yet they are included virtually in the Covenant of their parents, Deuteronomy 29.10, 11.   

Argument 4.  
The Church-covenant either is all one with the Covenant of Grace, or it is a Covenant divers from the Covenant of Grace. But neither ways can it be the essential form of a visible Church: Ergo. The Covenant of Grace cannot be the form of a visible Churcb, because then all baptized should be in Covenant with God, which our brethren deny. If it be a Covenant divers from it, it must be of another nature, and lay another obligatory tie, then either the Covenant of works, or the Covenant of Grace: and so must tie to other duties, then either the law or Gospel require of us, and so is beside that Gospel which Paul taught, and makes the teacher, though an Angel from heaven, accursed. lib. 2. pa. 93. Bona verba.  
Answ. The Covenant of Grace is to be considered, either according to the benefits of saving grace given in it, or according to the means of grace offered. It is not the Covenant of the Gospel in the first sense; but it is within the verge, and contained within the compass of the Covenant in the second sense. And hence the consequence upon which the stress of the cause( as it is urged by him) lies, vanisheth wholly. If it be distinct from the Covenant of grace, then it doth oblige us to some other duties, then the Ordinances of the Gospel require. For it hath appeared before, That a man may be in the Covenant of grace, and share in the benefit thereof, who is not in a Church state; and a man may be in a Church state, who is not really in the Covenant of grace: And therefore a Church state, and the Covenant of the Gospel, in the former sense expressed, are different. Yea it hath been proved, That all are bound to come within the Covenant of the Gospel, who are not at that time bound to come into the Church estate, nor yet to do the duties thereof.  
M. R. when he is to answer to this difference, l. 2. p. 93. Ubi suprà, he grants, That an excommunicate person may be in the Covenant of grace, and yet cut off from the visible Church: and yet denies the consequence, but gives no reason of that denial, but only speaks of another thing, which toucheth not the pinch of the Question in hand.  
A believer ( says he) in the Covenant of grace, may not do a duty to a father, brother, or master, and yet it is a weak consequence, that there is a covenant or oath betwixt these, brother and brother, Son and Father, Master and Servant, commanded by a divine law of perpetual equity to make such to be in such relation.  
We confess this is a weak consequence, and is of his own making, and therefore may as easily be confuted as it is propounded, but this is our consequence.  
A man may be within the covenant of grace, and not within the covenant of the Church, and therefore the one is not the other. For if two things be the same in themselves, so far they be the same in the third, and where the one is, the other will be. So that the Answer stands in the full vigour wholly untouched, only he speaks of other things, some not touching the cause in hand, some that will not stand by a rule of truth.  
Those expressions touch not the cause in hand, namely when he thus writes.  
The covenant of grace teacheth us to confess Christ, to walk before God, to join myself to a visible Church. But none can conclude in right reason, that it is a divine law, that necessitates me to swear another covenant, then the covenant of grace in relation to these duties.  
Ans. Its true, no law binds to enter into another covenant, then the covenant of the Gospel: because these duties result out of relations, which arise from the nature of the creature in reference to God, but come not within the free and voluntary covenant which is made by the voluntary consent of the parties. But take the same expressions as looking at a covenant which issues from the willing consent betwixt man and man, as master and servant, man and wife, and it will be evident at the very first sight, that it is false.  
For to say there is no divine law to necessitate a man to enter into another covenant for marriage, beside the covenant of grace, before he can do the duty of an husband, is to go against the experience of all ages, the common sense of all men. As though a person might adventure to take the place and do the duties of a husband to a woman, who never made a covenant of marriage, and tell her he hath been in the covenant of grace many years, and there needs no other, there is no law necessitates him or her to make a marriage covenant together, I suppose a person might suspect the man had not only lost his honesty, but his pru●ence also.  
Should some Nimrod of the world come upon a poor solitary people, and tell them that the covenant of grace and the Gospel, teacheth the people to pay tribute to their Prince, and the Prince to exact it. They both profess this Gospel: There is no divine law to bind them to make another covenant of King and Subject, and therefore now they must pay, and he must exact tribute at their hand. I suppose the poor people, out of their own sense will tell him, that there is indeed a covenant required between God and man to make men Christians. But there must be another covenant betwixt Prince and people, to make them Rulers and Ruled: other wise he could expect no homage from them, nor they protection from him.  
Hence the author of the Apology suggesting to M. R. that it is not the word only that giveth power to the husband over his wife, but the covenanting of the wife with the husband. He answers, " This is all which with colour of reason can be said, and therefore labours to decline the dint of the dispute, because it carried such a troop of inconveniences with it, affirms that those places of Scripture were not brought to prove the Pastors calling to the people, or their relative case of subjection to him: but only they prove that the covenant of grace and the Gospel layeth a tie of many duties upon us, which obligeth us without the coming under the tie of an express, vocal, public oath.  
And I wonder who ever denied this: let the man be brought forth, and bear his blame and shane, that should be so voided of sense, only let it be here also remembered, that also this is wrested by strong hand, and confessed, that there be in some conditions a Covenant that comes between persons, as betwixt man and wife, Master and servant, before they can come under these relations, which was denied in the 93. pa. immediately preceding. Such is the brightness of the truth that it cannot be overborne.  
That which is next added, is partly a craving the question, and the proof is yet insufficient to make it good, Because I profess the Faith, and am baptized. I am a member of the visible Church, without such an oath: Because the covenant of grace, doth tie me to join myself to some particular Congregation. &c.  
Reply is.  
That of baptism is answered. 2. The ground of that which is added is a mistake, to wit, If the Covenant of the Gospel tie me to join myself to a visible Congregation, Therefore there is not a covenant required to do that.  
If this be a good consequence, take the like, If the Gospel require me to seek for the help of a godly pastor, that may rule and teach me. If it require me to mary and not to burn. Therefore there is no Covenant required to make me a husband to a woman, that I must mary; nor a sheep of that shepherd who must guide and rule me in the Lord. If these be false, then the former is as feeble and weak, for they both carry the same parity and proportion of reason.  
Some expressions which here fall from the pen of M. R. are to my apprehensions, new Paradoxes. As, A called Pastor who hath gifts, and a calling from the Church, is a member of the visible Church, before he be called to be their Pastor, though he be a member of no particular Congregation.  
The difficulties are these.  
1. That a Pastor may have a calling from the Church, before he is elected by a particular Congregation, and so be an Individuum vagum, a Pastor of all people, and yet of no particular people.  
2. That a person may be a member of the visible Church, and yet be no member of it, and that I will infer from his own words, Thus,  
He that is no member of a particular Congregation, he is no member of a visible Church. But a Pastor may be a member of a visible Church, and yet no member of a particular Congregation. Therefore he may be a member of the visible Church, and yet no member The second part M. R. affirms. I prove the proposition.  
If all particular Congregations are all the members that the visible Church hath, Then he that is not a member of a particular Congregation is no member of a visible Church: for that which comes not within the numqer and compass of members is not a member.  
But all particular Congregations are all the members that the visible Church hath, Therefore he that is not a member of a particular Congregation is no member of a visible Church.  
But of these, thus much by the way occasionally we shall entreat more fully of them, when we come to the place of the calling of Ministers.  
In the end of the 95. pag. lib. He plainly professeth, That when one doth enter a member to such a Congregation, under the ministry of A. B. he cometh under a new relative estate by an implicit and virtual Covenant, which is cross to what was affirmed before, p. 92. The rest of the examples either confute his own assertion, or else do not reach the Question in hand. For we have shewed before, that excommunicates when they come to be restored, they renew the Covenant with the Church, and the Church with them.  
That which is added, touching a Church newly erected, she then becomes a sister-church with others, yet she needs not a new Covenant to accomplish it.  
Ans. No certainly, the reason is from the third conclusion, supra. Our Covenant once entered upon, all the relations, that depend upon that, or may be inferred from that, are included in that Covenant, and therefore needs no more. As a woman being in Covenant with her husband, all the duties to his kindred are required by that, and flow from that Covenant, there needs no other.  
Especially that inference is a wide mistake. If I must have a new Covenant to bring me into an estate, which issues only from free and voluntary consent; Then I must not honour men in several relations, as Physitians, Lawyers, learned Philosophers, unless I take up a particular Covenant. I say, such a consequence hath no shadow of reason in it, nor the least appearance of any approach to the cause, because the honour we owe to each man, as a neighbour, in his place and condition, is founded in a natural relation we have, as fellow-fervants to the great God and creator of all mankind. And therefore we must love God, and all things of God, in our neighbour, which concerns us: and therefore we must preserve the honour, life, goods, good name, of all, whether Lawyers, or Philosophers, or Physitians. Let me infer from hence.  
That I should therefore do the duty of a servant to him that is not my master: of a husband to her that is not my wife, is a very weak inference, and carries no proportion of reason withit.  
He adds, pag. 97.  
Though there be a tacit Covenant betwixt a new member of a Congregation, and A. B. Pastor, and they come under a new relation, Covenant-wise ( which I grant) this is not the point in question. But this new Covenant is that which by necessity of a divine Commandment, of perpetual equity maketh the new adjoyner a member.  
Answ. We are now then at the last, almost come to ourselves, for we are come to this, That there must be a new relation Covenant-wise betwixt parties in estates and conditions, which issue from free consent betwixt them, before they can be tied to the duties of that estate, by being in the Covenant of the Gospel, the contrary whereof was affirmed, p. 93. juxta finem, and 94. lin. 1. to the ninth.  
Hence therefore that which the Apology expressed, to wit, That it s not the rules of the Word touching man and wife, Magistrate and subject, that makes people in such an estate, but the Covenant that is made betwixt them to those ends. I say, this was by him to be answered, pag. 94. but yet stands in its full force, and not weakened, nay not touched, nay in truth confirmed by this grant.  
Lastly, That is made the great hinge of our debate, that I think never came into our thoughts, neither waking, nor sleeping, namely, That this new Covenant betwixt a person, and A. B. Pastor, did make such the new Adjoiner, a member of a new Congregation.  
I answer, I would fain have one of ours produced, that either in writing or printing ever said any such thing, or any thing that carries a shadow of any such conceit; when its well known to all, that know our principles and practise, we profess the Church is a true Church, as Totum essentiale, before her officers, and the choice of them. The particular persons are members before this choice, and therefore are not made such by this choice or new Covenant.   

Argument 5.  
If this Church-covenant be the essence and form of a visible Church, which differenceth between the visible and invisible; Then there have been no visible Churches since the apostles daie●, nor are there any in the Christian world this day, save only in N. E. and some other places.  
The Answer is open, and hath been formerly intimated, in the opening of the nature of the Covenant, and the manner of the expressing thereof, to wit, It is either implicit or explicit. The Covenant is preserved for the substance of it, whether of the ways it comes to be acted. And all the Churches that ever were, or now are, true Churches, either in England, Holland, France, &c. have, at least, in them an implicit Covenant, which is abundantly evidenced by the constant practise, which is performed, and is also required at the hands of all that are members therein.   

Argument 6. and last.  
A multitude of unwarrantable ways, partly go before, partly convey this Church-covenant.  
Answ. If the ways were unwarrantable that conveyed the Covenant, or went before it: if yet they do not touch the nature of the Covenant, that may yet be lawful, when they are unlawful. As it is in the Covenant of marriage. A man may upon wrong grounds, upon wrong ends, undertake such a work, proceeding also in a disorderly manner, and yet if the substance of the Covenant be right and good, the marriage is lawful in itself and substance of it. But let us hear the ways that are so unwarrantable.  
1. It is a dream, that all are converted by the means of private Christians, without the ministry of sent Pastors. l. 2. p. 120.  
Answ. I confess it is a dream to say so, or think so. And if any do dream of such a device in the night, let him own it, and defend it in the day, we own it not. Is it likely that any man is so forsaken of reason, as to say, that the Apostles when they came to plant Churches, that private Christians, not they, converted the people? And if they converted all those first Churches, where is the man that will affirm, that All[ All,] are converted by private Christians? Though its possible that private Christians may convert some, Act. 11.19. Beside, materials of new gathered Churches with us, are such, as have been converted by Ministers in their several Congregations.  
2. Its an unwarrantable way, to say that Pastors, as Pastors, are not sent to Indians.  
Answ. There is warrant enough to affirm that, and evidence enough to prove it; As shall appear in the handling of the ordination and power of a Pastor.  
3. Absurdity. That men must be satisfied in their consciences, touching one anothers conversion.  
Answ. That the members of Churches should be visible Saints, and that to reasonable charity, we have formerly proved: and that such should so profess, as that the soundness and truth of their faith may be notified to the Church, is granted by M. R. and this is as much as we desire, and so we doubt not, but Ananias, Simon Magus, &c. did appear such to the judgement of charity, which always judgeth the best, unless it can prove the contrary.  
4. Unwarrantable way. By what warrant of the word are private Christians, not in office, made the ordinary and only converters of souls?  
Answ. There is no word that warrants it; and I know none of us that affirm it, that all are converted by private Christians. The sound of such an absurity is so continually in the ear and mind of M. R,( but from whence it comes, I know not) that I see it finds such welcome, that he is willing to repeat it twice, rather then to miss the remembrance and mentioning of it, and therefore he repeats it as a double absurdity, this fourth being the same with the first, and by this way he may fill the number of unwarrantable ways easily.  
If by ordinary, he understand that which is frequent in a course of common providence, which is neither miraculum, nor yet mirandum, for the extraordinarinesse thereof, I suppose each mans experience will evidence this truth, That the endeavour of persons out of office, hath been blessed, and is blessed to the conversion of divers, and that without prejudice to the office and ordinance of Christ. But were all this granted to be unwarrantable, what is such a conceit to overthrow the Covenant? That may be yet a truth, though such apprehensions may be false, but the Proverb is true, He that counts a man his enemy, he is content to go much out of his way, that he may lend him a blow: If there may be any blemish cast upon the Covenant, it skills not from what cost it comes.  
5. What warrant have the sister-churches to give the right-hand of fellowship to a new erected Church? For to give the right-hand of fellowship is an Authoritative and pastoral act, as Galat. 2. When James, and Cephas, and John perceived the grace that was given me, they gave unto me and Barnabas the right-hand of fellowship.  
Answ. Suppose the sister-churches had no warrant to give the right-hand of fellowship, yet the Covenant for all that may be warrantable. And yet the quarrel must hence be maintained against the innocent Covenant. As the lion quarreled with the lamb for mudding the water, when she drank many miles below his watering.  
But let us see the heinous unwarrantablenesse of this course of giving the right-hand of fellowship to sister-churches. The first cause is, because it is an Authoritative act, as Pareus, Beza. &c.  
Answ. The authors give in no evidence this way. For the words of Pareus in the margin, lib. 2. p. 161. show the contrary. It is made Intimae conjunctionis symbolum, but not authoritatis. Intimate love, friendship and familiarity doth not infer authority. But Beza his words put it beyond question, Porrexerunt manum, quod symbolum esset nostrae in Evangelij doctrinâ summae consensionis. Why M. R. should construe, symbolum consensionis to be symbolum authoritatis, is beyond my understanding. But if Interpreters help not, yet his Argument it may be will settle the cause, therefore he repeats this again, and adds this reason. By no authority can they receive them as members of the catholic Church, for this receiving is a Church act, and they have no Church power. The frame stands thus,  

Argument 1.  
They who have no Church-power, they can put forth no Church-act.  
Answ. The Proposition is apparently weak. The Church can put forth an act of counsel, of approbation, of love, of conjunction, as well as an act of power.  
M. R. grants that one single Congregation hath no power over another, one Classis over another, one provincial Synod over another: Yet I suppose he will not deny, but these may counsel, reprove, approve, reject or convince one the other.  
One Church, or many Congregations, may meet with the Heathen, may teach them occasionally, convince them, encourage them, and yet have no power over them. Many Churches being sent to the Parliament to declare their judgement, touching any thing in agitation, may approve of their counsel and determinations, if holy, or disallow them, confute them, if other, and yet I do believe, he will not say, they have authority over them.   

Argument 2.  
They cannot upon two or three hours sight, hearing none of them speak, be satisfied in their consciences of their regeneration.  
Answ. If they shall hear positive testimony of experienced and approved witnesses of their constant and conscientious walking without all scandal: If they shall hear the expressions and professions of repentance towards God, and faith in our Lord Jesus: This is Argument sufficient to the judgement of charity to hope they are visible Saints, when nothing upon knowledge or proof to the contrary is given in.   

Argument 3.  
And that wherein the greatest weight lies, is this, What a meeting is this, of divers sister-churches to receive a new sister-church? It is a Church, I believe, meeting together( and yet it is not a Congregation) and it is an ordinary visible Church. For at the admitting of all converts to the Church order, this meeting must be. Surely here our brethren aclowledge, that there is a Church in the N. T. made up of many congregations, which hath power to receive in whole Churches. This is a Visible, Provincial or National Church, which they otherwise deny. If many Churches meet together to approve of the way and proceeding of a Church gathering by our judgement, then we aclowledge a Church Provincial and National.  
Answ. The consequence hath no colour of truth in it. Did ever any of us deny the consociation of Churches in way of counsel and advice? and yet consociation is one thing, and the constitution of a new species or kind of a Church is another.  
Suppose two Congregations now newly erected and gathered, which have no power over one another, should meet together to consider and consult touching the sin and offence of some classical Church; Is this then a Provincial or National Church? Suppose two Congregations of two several and distinct Classis should be sent by either of the Classis to concur with a Church in an iceland, now to be gathered, to see and consider of their way, and to lend them direction and approbation, and this done ordinarily. Here is a Church-meeting: A Classis it cannot be, because they are two only Congregations of the Classis: and Provincial it is not, nor yet National: Therefore there is now a new Church made up of many Churches, which is neither Classical nor Provincial. When will there be an end of such inferences?  
6. We see no warrant, why one, not yet a Pastor or Elder, should take upon him to speak to a Congregation, though they all consent that he speak.  
Answ. If M. R. will look into the practise of the Church of Scotland, or to his first Book. He shall find, that there be such, who must have their gifts of teaching tried; and therefore may and do teach, before they be chosen: here is preaching and Church preaching and praying, and yet there is no Pastor. And yet this will abide the measure of the golden reed.  
7. He adds, We desire to see such a Church action, as Act. 2. where 3000 were added in one day.  
Answ. We also join our desires with his, and should be glad to see such a day, for we see no unwarrantablenes then, nor would be now, if all circumstances did concur.  
The 8th is answered in the 3d.  
The 9th which tells us of an encouragement to be good stewards of the manifold graces of God, we see it warrantable to provoke each man to traffic with his talent.  
But that all, who enter, are sworn to attend public prophesy, it happily may be found in M. Rathbones coranto, which he picked out of some mans letter, who writ he could not tell what: nor could he read happily aright what he wrote. For I know no such custom of the Churches of Christ amongst us.  
10. Here are Church acts, and the power of the keys exercised, in preaching, praying and discipline, and yet no stewards nor officers of the house who have received the keys.  
Answ. That of preaching and praying hath been answered in the sixth. And if by an act of discipline, any act of the power of the keys be meant, its then plain, there may, an act of that power be put forth without any officer. For an officer, and so other members may be admitted, and in case rejected and excommunicated by the Church.     

CHAP. VIII. Wherein the Precedency of a Church, as it is Totum homogeneum, is handled.  
WHen we look at the Church, as Totum essentiale, we attend two things in it 

1. How constituted in the causes of it.  
2. How qualified and adorned.    
The first hath been dispatched in the fore-going Chapters, wherein we have endeavoured to prove, That visible Saints are the only true Matter, and Confederation the only true Form of a visible Church.  
We are now to inquire after the second, viz. such qualifications, which are of special weight, and do in an especial manner belong to the Church under this consideration.  
Qualification then is either in regard of the 

Order or precedency of it before 

Officers, or  
Presbyterial Church.    
Excellency of it in 

Power.  
privileges.      
Touching this congregational Church, if we look at the Order and Precedency of it, we have two Questions that offer themselves to our consideration.  
1. Whether a company of believers, thus visibly consociating themselves, are truly called, and are in truth, and indeed, a Church, in the phrase of Scripture, before they have Officers?  
The trumpet here gives an uncertain sound: and therefore we cannot tell well where to fasten, M. R. his expressions are so full of variety. Sometimes he seems to speak the same with us: sometimes to be of a differing mind. One while he lays the weight upon a ministerial Church, as including officers therein. Another while he seems not only to deny the Church, thus considered, to be Totum organicum, but to deny the Church to be a Church, without Officers.  
To avoid therefore all offensive mistakes, we shall in short set down, what we conceive to be the truth in this case: and so we shall occasion Mr. R. more fully to explicate his mind.  
When the Church is called Ministerial, that word may be attended in a double consideration.  
1. Generally, as implying any delegated power, in the exercise of any Church-acts in way of subordination under Christ, and by power and appointment from him. Thus a number of believers or visible Saints now consociated, hath power of admission of new members, and election of Officers, according to the order of Christ, and in case the officer chosen shall prove heretical and obstinately wicked, they have power to reject him, and make him no officer unto them.  
All these are granted by M. R.  
But these are acts of Church-discipline largely taken, and acts of power. For to give a key of power, and to take away a key of power, argues power in so doing, according to the institution of Christ.  
How far the Church may upon just grounds, and for just cause proceed to excommunicate, we shall afterwards inquire.  
2. Ministerial is taken more strictly, as it seems Mr. R. would by his expressions make us conceive: then it implies an Office-power, or power of Officers, and so it calls for Ministers, i.e. Officers. And in this sense it should be without sense to affirm, That the Church should be Totum organicum, without organs: That the Church should consist of Ruling officers, and Ruled-people, when it is without all officers.  
These things being premised, our apprehensions are thus laid down.  
The Church of Visible Saints confederating together to walk in the fellowship of the Faith, as thus, it is Totum essentiale, It is before all Officers.  

Argument 1.  
God hath set Officers in the Church, 1 Cor. 12.28.  
Therefore the Church is before the Officers.  
As the setting of the candle in the candlestick, presupposeth the candlestick. The Church is the candlestick, Rev. 1.20. The Officers are the candles.  
M. R. answers, God hath put and breathed in man a living soul: Therefore he is a living man, before the soul was breathed in him.  
" Friend, The logic is nought.  
Reply, A friendly warning is good: but the logic may be good also, for any thing that is here said. For, It is said, God made man of the earth, i.e. The body of man of the earth; and he breathed into the nostrils of that body, or into that body so made by that mean, the breath of life. And I suppose, to affirm, the body was made before the soul was infused, that the body, which is the subject to receive the soul, must in nature be before th● soul, is very good logic. And thus the comparison holds betwixt the Church, as totum essentiale, and the Officers. But to take man in a proper sense, as an effect consisting of body and soul, and to say in propriety of speech, God breathed life into an effect that had life, God put a form into an effect that had a form, no law of language will admit such an expression, much less the rules of reason bear it. For the form is put into the matter, and is there in nature before the effect exists. It neither is, nor can be said to be put into the effect.  
Besides, Here is yet a further advantage to the cause in hand, in that the Church is not only the subject in which these Officers are, as totum essentiale: but by virtue of her choice, she is causal of the Officers call: and therefore in reason must be before them.  
M. R. answers secondly, The Church is the Candlestick, not simply without candles and lamps: the Church ministerial is the Candlestick, and the Ministers the candles: and by the candles setting in the Church, the Church becomes a ministerial governing Church.  
Reply, It's cross to all mens apprehensions and expressions, that the Candlestick should be no longer a Candlestick, then the candle is in it; why do work-men sell them for Candlesticks, other men count them so, buy them for such, before they put any candles in them? Is not a subject truly affectum ad arguendum, affencted to argue a separable adjunct, and so truly called a subject, though his adjunct be not there, and be actually disposed with him? What kind of logic this is, let the Reader, that hath any logical judgement in him, judge.  
As if one should say, It is not a Corporation of Aldermen, or freemen before the Maior be chosen. It is true, it is not a complete corporation of Maior and Freemen, unless there be both: but that hinders not, but they be a corporation of Free-men united amongst themselves, though there be no Maior. Nay, they must be a corporation, before they can choose a Maior: and therefore they must in reason and nature be before him. A man cannot be a husband, before he have a wife, yet he may and must be a man wooing a woman, before he can make her a wife.   

Argument 2.  
If the Church be not a Church without Officers, then as often as the Officers die, the Church death also. Nay, when the Church shall have just occasion( as such its possible may be) to reject her Officers for heresies, or gross villainies, When they reject them, do they therefore destroy the Church and themselves in so doing, when they labour to preserve themselves, nay use the means for their preservation?  
Doth a Corporation, when it puts out a wicked Maior out of his place and privileges, do they therefore destroy their own liberties, and nullify their Corporation by that means, which is the especial way and mean of their safety and comfort?  
One would think that such Arguments were sufficient to cast a cause, carrying such sensible evidence with them, and yet M. R. strength can turn aside all.  
He answers, When the shepherds are removed, the tents cannot be called, the shepherds tents: and persecution doth often deface the visible face of a ministerial Church: and to remove the Candlestick is to remove the ministry; as to take away eyes, and ears, and hands from the body, is to hurt the integrity of it.  
2. All communion ministerial, whereby we are a body visible, 1 Cor. 10.16. eating one bread, may well be loosed, when Pastors are removed.  
Reply. When the shepherds are removed, the tents cannot be called, The tents where the shepherds are, yet they may be called, The tents fit to receive them, and in point of that fitness, they are the same they were before they were chosen, and remain the same.  
Its true, to remove the Candlestick is to remove the ministry: because the ministry and Ministers have their dependence upon the Church. Destroy the man, the whole, you destroy the parts. But it holds not contrariwise. It is true, in a ministerial, i.e. an Organicum totum, when you take away any part, you lame the integrity of it; but you do not destroy the essence and nature of it, as totum essentiale. Socrates may loose a limb, an eye, an hand, and so he is not an entire man, consisting of such members, yet he hath totam naturam& definitionem hoins, in regard of his essential causes.  
That which is added, is yet more beside the cause; For its granted on all hands, That where Officers are not, there is no communion in the Sacraments. Is there therefore no Church communion? Such consequences come not within the compass of the cause.  
We have done now with the first Query, and made it clear,  
That this Church is before all Officers, and may be without them.  
The second QUESTION now comes into consideration.  
Whether there be any Presbyterian Churches in the New Testament of Christs appointment and institution, or only Congregational?    

CHAP. IX. Of the Nature and Being of a presbyterial Church.  
THe Qualification of the Church, as totum essentiale, consisted in the Order and Precedency of it, in regard of her true Officers, and that we have now dispatched in the answer to the former question.  
Consider it now, as it stands in comparison and competition with that, which our Brethren call a Presbyterian Church; and here we shall take in the second question. Which, however it fall far lower, if we look at the proper place thereof, yet because it fits our purpose in hand, and the laying open of the nature thereof in this place, will give light to that which follows, we shall use this Crypsis of method, to make our next enquiry about IT: and this enquiry may be referred unto four Heads.  
1. Wherein the essence of a Presbyterian Church consists, and how made up.  
2. Lay down some grounds, which may clear the right discovery of such a constitution.  
3. Reason from such grounds against it.  
4. Answer such examples as carry some semblance at the first appearance touching it.  

Section 1.  
A Presbyterian Church results, and ariseth upon three main principles, which are as the pillars of its special constitution.  
1. There must be several Congregations, made entire of such members, as Christ hath appointed, to make up an integral body, of Officers which rule; and people, which are lead and ruled by them.  
2. These Congregations neighbouring together, so that their communion may be accommodated with more ease, and incourageable conveniency, and the scandals that may prejudice and taint by their infectious example, may be more easily cured and removed: And such a number of them should enter into combination each with other in the concurrence of common government, which may relieve the common good of all.  
3. These so combined, are to sand their Rulers, according to mutual agreement, to manage the great censures of Christ, and determine the emergent doubts and difficulties that may arise amongst the combined Congregations: and to such dispensations and determinations all the several Churches combined are to submit, as to acts of jurisdiction, proceeding from such, as are set over them in the Lord for that end.  These Elders and Presbyters of these combined Churches, thus assembled, are called, A Presbyterian Church: because this Representative body is made up only of Presbyters and Elders. 
And of this we are now to inquire, and to lay down such grounds, as may clear the enquiry and discovery of such a constitution: and these are as followeth.   

Section 2.  

Ground 1.  
There is no power of jurisdiction 

Jurisdiction when it is taken in the largest sense, it hath a respect sometime to the fraternal power of the community, which they may and do put forth according to their place, and the privilege Christ hath licenced them with. And therefore they are said to judge, 1 Cor. 5.( whereof we shall entreat fully, when we come to the proper place thereof, but I intend it not in this place,) and therefore when I speak of the power of the community, I call it judgement, following the phrase of Scripture.  
2. There is jurisdiction official, the specification whereof lies in this, that take it in the peculiar manner of dispensation, it issues only from the office, and can be acted, but by an officer, and so I here look at it, as ever having an eye to order, which in the phrase of the School, carries an office with it.  , but that which ariseth from the power of Order, which stands by the appointment and institution of Christ.  
By power of Order, following the expressions of the School, Papists, and other Writers, I understand nothing else, but Office-rule, at which they all look.  
And jurisdiction to be the exercising of that, as fit object and matter of things and persons are presented. For the very nature of the terms gives in testimony to this truth, Executio juris, or, Dictio juris, the Authoritative proclaiming or executing of this kind of power, being jurisdiction. This act presumes a Ruler, and that an Office, and a Call to a place of power, fit for that end and purpose.  
And hence the School, when they will give their understanding leave to exercise the liberty of reasonable men, according to the rules of reason, they confess as much, as this amounts to, and may necessary be collected and maintained from their own principles.  
For Scotus and Thomas, and with them their followers, 4. Sent. dist. 18, 19. define the power of the keys by binding and losing; and in the binding and losing all jurisdiction 
I take here what serves my purpose in hand, to wit, jurisdiction in a narrow sense, but mean not to take all that they give, as intending to include the exercise of all power thereby. ,( in their sense,) is contained: and this presumes a key, a place and office, unto which the person must be called; a power wherewith he must be invested, before he can put forth those acts.  
So Capreolus and Durand: Capreolus, 4. Sent. distinct. 19. conclus. 1. Potestas conficiendi,& potestas clavium est unum& idem.  
Only when they would gratify their great master the Pope, and do homage to the Church of Rome, they then device a way to put out the right eye of their reason, and to crook the rule and cross their own principles, that they may promote the primacy and plenitude of the power of the Pope.  
They would, The inferior Priests to have the power of the keys, and this power of order to extend itself ( quantum est de se) to absolve all; and therefore Christ saith indefinitely, quorum remiseritis &c. whosoever sins &c. But the use of this power must be presupposed according to that commission granted to Peter, and so the Pope ordinarily, that he may extend it, or restrain it as he will.  
So Durand: Per ordinationem Ecclesiae factum est, ut quilibet sacerdos non posset absolvere:( ubi supra contra secund●m conclusionem.) Thus men are forced to turn the edge of their reason against an acknowledged truth, and that against ord●nationem Christi, to maintain Ordinationem Ecclesiae,& tyrannidem Papae.  
But whatever they conceit, the evidence of the truth is so undeniable, that it will constrain the understanding to yield to that which is here required. For this Jurisdiction( in the sense I take it) in the exercise thereof, either requires one called or authorised by office: or else any without this authority may do it. But none is a Steward unless set over the Family. Governments are not in the Church, unless they be appointed by Christ, 1 Cor. 12.27.28. yea the blind Pharisees could grope at this in the darkness of their delusions, as appears by the question they put unto our Saviour, 
Mat. 21.23  BY WHAT AUTHORITY dost thou these things, and who gave thee this Authority? So that the putting of this Jurisdiction and Rule i. e. Authoritative or Office jurisdiction( whereof we now speak) into the hands of any, who are not appointed to the Office of rule, is merely the usurpation of that Man of sin, or a preparation to bring him in; or a remainder of him, not fully cast out, not the native and natural institution of our Saviour, the Lawgiver of his Church, and therefore you shall observe,  
What ever may promote the plenitude of the Popes power, and bring the last resolution of all thither, It is so given to some of his creatures in eminent place, that in issue it may be confined within the compass of his Triple-crown. Hence the Bishop, which is the Popes vice-gerent, he will dispense his power to his poor underlings by such pittances and allowances, that the poor Snakes may be trained up by their daily experience to aclowledge, where the treasury of this power is stored up, and whether they must go to fetch it.  
Hence First, He must be made a Deacon, and allowed to red, but not preach; to administer baptism, but not the Supper; not that one Sacrament is of greater eminency then the other: but that the servant must know, they have no power further then they have his allowance.  
At the next turn he is made a Priest, and to that he hath fresh writings, and fresh Seal, and fresh ordination. And when that is attained, yet he cannot preach in any Assembly besides his own, but he must have a licence and allowance for that. And all this ad placitum.  
And therefore when all is granted, he must do none of these, if his Lord Bishop be present, and will officiate in his own person. So much power the Bishop hath over so many Parishes, that by this means his power being received from the Pope, the fullness may be derived from him, and returned to him again in a ready way.  
But( as I said) this is the Popes usurpation, not Christs institution.  
Hence the second ground I lay down, is this.  
There is no Office in the Church, but only such which are appointed by Christ; and therefore there is no jurisdiction or rule can be exercised, but only by the officers of Christ.  
The first part of the conclusion hath been cleared before.  
1. Officers and Offices are Coronation mercies: gifts which proceed only from the Ascention of Christ. Eph. 4 11, 12. When he ascended up on high,— He gave gifts unto men, some teachers, some Pastors, Its Christs prerogative royal to bestow such gifts.  
2. They are proper means of his worship, and therefore it is only proper to him to enjoin them.  
3. It is in his hand only to bless and succeed them in their spiritual dispensations, to the attaimment of those supernatural ends. Mat. 28.20. and therefore it appertains to him alone to appoint.  
The inference of the second part of the Conclusion is clear, from what was formerly proved.  
All jurisdiction must issue from an Order or Officer.  
But there is none, but Officers of Christ allowed in the Church.  
Therefore no jurisdiction spiritual, ecclesiastic, can be exercised, but by an Officer of Christ.  
And therefore Surrogates, chancellors, Arch-deacons, Deans, Officials, Vicars-general, Abbots, Monks, Friers, Cardinals, jesuits, &c. which are hatched and spawned, by the pride and luxury, ambition and tyranny of that Man of sin, as vermin and strange creatures out of the slime of Nilus; They are none of the Orders and Officers of Christ. And therefore have no authority by any right from him to exercise any jurisdiction in his Churches, or amongst his people.   

Ground 3.  
Hence, He that is now called, and appointed an Officer according to God, and the rules of the Gospel, as he needs no other power, but that of his Office, to authorize him to execute it, So there is no power, that can by rule and right hinder him in the due execution thereof.  
For it is in Christ alone, as to appoint the calling and Office; so to lay out the bounds and limits, to specify the several actions and operations thereof, therein required; and to exact the performance thereof. Therefore they must attend to teaching and exhortation, Rom. 12.7, 8. They must rule with diligence, take heed to themselves, and to the flock, Act. 20.28. They must bind up the broken, recall the straying, tender the weak, Ezek. 34.4.  
True, by violence and cruelty they may be oppressed, persecuted, imprisoned, and by strong hand hindered from doing their work, and then God calls for suffering, not doing; otherwise, Whether it be better to obey God or man, let any judge, Act. 4.19.  
Hence, These two, Order or Office, and Jurisdiction, are not members or species of power, put in way of opposition one against the other, but are in subordination one to the other.  
Hence, There must be an Office before the Jurisdiction, or Rule issuing there-from.  
Therefore, Where, there is no office, there is no right of Rule or jurisdiction, as such, whereof we here speak.  
Hence, They, who have the same, or equal Offices, they have the same and equal Office-rule or jurisdiction.  
Hence, What ever is added, beside office, it adds no jurisdiction or rule ecclesiastic at all to any.  
From these grounds thus laid, I shall take leave to dispute.  

Argument 1.  
If the Churches combined have no more power, then they had before they were combined; then they can exercise no more jurisdiction then before: and therefore have no Presbyterial power; are not distinct Presbyterian Churches.  
But they have no more power after their combination, then before.  Therefore no Presbyterian jurisdiction: and so are no Presbyterian Churches. 
The Assumption, where the doubt only lies, is thus made good.  They who have no more offices nor officers, then they had before, they have no more jurisdiction; as in the first ground. 
But they have no more officers; because each sand their own.  
Therefore they have no more power.   

Argument 2.  
If they have jurisdiction, then, either over all the Churches in the combination, or only over some.  
Not over some only in the combination, for that is contrary to their institution and definition of a Presbyterian Church.  
Therefore they must have jurisdiction over all particular Churches; it may be ten or sixteen more or less in the combination.  
But this they have not.  
If they have jurisdiction over all these, then are they Officers, Pastors, Teachers, Ruling-Elders, in office to them all. For there must be an Office, and so Officer, before jurisdiction, as in the third ground. There is no jurisdiction exercised, but by an Officer; as in the second ground.  
But to say they are Pastors of them all, is to make a road and ready way for Pluralities, Tot-quots, Non-residencies, &c.  
The proof of the minor, namely, If they have jurisdiction over all, then are they Pastors and Teachers, &c. This M. R. denies.  
Though they rule many Congregations, yet they do not bear that relation of watchmen and proper Pastors to every one of these Congregations, that a Pastor of a particular beareth to his particular flock. l. 2. p. 325, 326.  
Thus M. R. becomes like Naphthali, gives us pleasant words, but I fear they are but words, 1. Then we will see how they will accord with himself. 2. How with truth.  
I. His own words, lib. 2. 335. are these.  
We think the relation of the Eldership to a whole classical Church, is not founded upon an office different from the offices of Pastors and Elders, which they have and are clothed with, in relation to their particular Congregations; but authoritative acts of the same office.  
Whence, I would reason,  
If the relation of the Eldership to a Classical Church be founded upon the s●me office that a Pastor hath to his particular Congregation; then the Elders bear that relation of watchmen to a Classical Church, which a Pastor doth to his particular flock. For where there is the same office of Pastor, there is the same relation of Watchman and Pastor, the one issuing from the other.  
But M. R affirms the first: namely, that the relation of the Eldership to a Classical Church is from the same office, which Elders had in relation to their own.  
Ergo, They are proper Pastors to the one, as to the other.  
Again, They who put forth authoritative acts, which issue only from proper Pastors, as in that relation, and in regard of the office, they are proper Pastors to such, upon whom they exercise such acts, otherwise they had no warrant to put them forth.  
But that also he affirms.  
II. We shall secondly inquire, how it suits with the truth.  
These authoritative acts, which are put forth, issue from him, either as a Pastor, or as no Pastor, Ruler or no Ruler:  
If as no Pastor, then acts of jurisdiction, and those authoritative, and supreme may be expressed and exercised by one, who is no Ruler.  
And this M. R. and all men gain-say.  
If they proceed from him, as a Pastor, then as a Pastor of his particular, or as a Pastor of another Congregation.  
Not as a Pastor of another Church, beside his own. For then one man may have two pastoral offices, and two Churches, which is contrary to Scriptures, and all sound Divines.  
Ergo, They must proceed from him, as he is Pastor to his own particular flock, Quod fuit demonstrandum.  
Again,  
If he put forth such acts as a Pastor, then those upon whom he puts them forth, either are his flock, or are not his flock. His flock they must be, if he be a Pastor and shepherd to them; for that the nature of relation requires.  
If his flock, then either the same, he first had, his Congregation, or another.  
The Churches combined cannot be his Congregation, because these are many and distinct. Ergo, He must be a Pastor of many flocks: namely of his particular, And these also. And so there is a ready way and road, for Pluralities and Tot-quots, Quod fuit demonstrandum.  
And let the Reader COMPARE these expressions.  
It is true, they are called the Elders of the presbyterial Church of Pergamus, but there is a general and DIFFERENT RELATION from that which each Pastor doth carry to his own flock lib. 2. p. 326. lin. 4, 6.  
And these words, p. 333. the three last lines.  
The Relation of an Eld●rship to a whole classical Church is founded, not upon a different office from the office of Pastors and Elders, which they have and are clothed with, IN RELAtion to their particular flock.  
How these will suit, we cannot see, without some help from M. R.  
Consider we now the DIFFERING ACTS that are in the Eldership of a Presbyterian Church, from a congregational, as M. R. lays them down.   

Difference 1.  
The Presbytery are Elders to the classical Church {αβγδ}, not in things proper to each Congregation, but in things common to all, or in that which is the proper object of Government; to wit, those things which rather concern the consociation of the thirty Churches, then the thirty combined Churches in particular, lib. 2. pag. 326.  
The practise of the Classis opposeth this expression. For take a private offence, admonish then the offending party. 2. Upon not hearing, take one or two: 3. The offending party persisting, let him bring it to the Church.  
This is proper to the Congregation: Yet by Classical principles, the particular Congregation must not admonish: For that Church, that must speak to the Offender, in case he do not hear, that Church may cast him out. So the words, Mat. 18.17. If he will not hear the Church, let him be as an Heathen. But the Classis allows not this.  
Again,  
Suppose the party be admonished by the particular Congregation for this his private fault, thus persisted in, and yet shall continue to be obstinate: This obstinacy, is, Res propria, to this Church, Why may she not now cast him out without a Classis? For this pertinacy did innotescere only to the Church.  
If it be said, When he is cast out, the neighbouring Churches must shun and avoid him, upon knowledge given.  
I answer, so must the Churches of another Classis, of another Province; and therefore there is no more need the one should have a hand in the censure then the other.   

The second Difference M. R. adds( p. 326.) is this.  
The Presbytery doth rather take care of the regulating of the acts of Governing in all these Churches, then the Governed Churches.  
Answ. They express their care in these judicial acts, and that directly and immediately upon scandals and scandalous persons in any Congregation under the Presbytery, both censures of Admonition and Excommunication; as also in the direct decision, and so removing, at least stoping any error of any member arising, so that they fall upon the Church to be governed directly.   

The third Difference.  
The Elders of the classical Presbytery are Elders to all these Churches, as the Elders themselves are in Collegio Presbyterali, and properly, as they are in Court. So he.  
But I assume; The Elders there, are proper Pastors of their own particular Congregations. Therefore they must( if at all) be so here.  
That these differences do not in the least measure show a different relation from that which each Pastor doth carry to his own flock, appears thus,  
Those acts which a Pastor puts forth in his proper place to his proper flock, those cannot show any different relation in that office.  
But all these actions specified, a Pastor doth put forth to his proper flock, when he acts as such a Pastor. Instance.  
A Pastor in an iceland, where, as a Pastor he cannot teach, admonish, excommunicate, but in caetu Congregationali, not severed from his Church( as we say) or his Consistory, or Collegio Presbyterali( as they say) yet this doth not hinder, but he puts forth these acts in relation to his proper flock. Therefore if an Elder in a Classical Presbytery put forth the like actions, these do not prove, nor can hinder, but he may still be to them as a Pastor to a proper flock in those regards.   

Difference 4.  
The Presbytery hath a Church relation to all these thirty Churches not taken distributively, but collectively, as they all are united in one Church classical, under one external Government.   

Answer.  
1. If the Presbytery put forth acts of jurisdiction upon those Churches distributively, as they are severed; then they have a Church-relation to them distributively considered. For jurisdiction issues from Church-relation, and indeed from Church-office, else it could never be exercised.  
But that their practise evidenceth, for they admonish, censure, several persons of several Churches.  
2. These Churches taken collectively, are nothing but a Classis, or so many Pr sbyters meeting together: and to say they are Elders over Elders, and exercise Jurisdiction over them, hath been conceived absurd in the like case by Mr. Rutherfurd.  
That which M. R. adds in the next place, p. 327. As  
Elders of an Independent congregation are not Elders of their single congregations, bring separated from their Court, and extra collegium Presbyteriale.  
This Assertion at first sight seems a Paradox. For if their office remains the same, when separated as well, as when assembled, when in the Court and Congregation, as out, & contra. Then their relation holds, and their jurisdiction.  
At verum primum.  
Its true they never put forth public acts of jurisdiction, but in the Court, nor act of pastoral teaching and administration of Sacraments, but in assembled Church: Doth any therefore conclude, That they are not teachers, nor have both Jus, and Power of teaching, when they are separated from the Assemblies?   

Difference 5.  
Classical Elders in the Court have power of jurisdiction in relation to this Presbyterial or Classical Church: but they have not properly an ordinary power of Order to preach to them all, and every one. 327.   

Answer.  
If this jurisdiction issue from the same office of Pastor, then they have power of order; and that to preach.  
But that it so issues, hath been shewed, and is also granted.  
M. R. adds.  
The Elders of a particular congregation have power of order, and power of JURISDICTION without the Court: but they have not power of CHURCH-JURISDICTION, but in the Court. For there is a difference betwixt power of jurisdiction, which Elders have as watch-men, and a power of Church-jurisdiction which Elders have not, but in foro Ecclesiae.   

Answer.  
If they have the same office, whence all these acts of jurisdiction arise, as well without the Court, as within; then they have the power of jurisdiction, as well without the Court, as within.  
Its true, they cannot exercise some acts of jurisdiction, but in Court; no more can they put forth the acts of public preaching and administering sacrament, but in foro Ecclesiae. Yet I never yet heard any man affirm, That they had no power to do these, when they were not in foro Ecclesiae, as though their entering into the Assembly should add this power.  
That example of the great Sanhedrim toucheth not this cause, or else destroys it, if it be paralleled in all the particulars of it. I will suit it with a more sensible pattern every way alike. A Justice of peace in the country, or burgess in a Corporation, are chosen to be members in Parliament, the one a burgess, the other a Knight of the Shire: Here are now two special places or Offices distinct, and here we can see a plain and open difference. And if M. R. will grant the like, that when a Ruler of a Congregation is appointed a member of a Classis, he hath a new office distinct from the office he had in the Congregation, we shall then know where to find this classical mystery, and discover the crossenes of it to Christs Government.  
He adds lastly.  
I distinguish the proposition: If they be Elders in these common affairs, which concern Government in general; then are they Elders in feeding by the Word of knowledge, and in Governing in all the particulars which concern the Government of each Congregation: that I deny, says he.   

Answer.  
1. Its obvious to each mans apprehensions, that every Elder and particular governor in his Congregation, as he hath the nature of an Elder in general: so out of power he can, and doth put forth general actions that are common to other Elders, and so also meet with those general things which concern Government in general. For where the act is, the object must needs be in its proportion, and all this he doth without any Classis in his particular station. For the species determines the act of the genus: as Socrates confines the acts of human nature to himself.  
2. Its well known, That the Classis meddles with the particular offences of particular persons in all particular Congregations, even such which are as special, as any Elder in an iceland doth meddle with in his own place.  
3. If all acts of jurisdiction, whether they be authoritative preaching, as well as authoritative governing, and that in particular, as well as in general, issue from one and the same office; why there should be the office over all, and towards all, and not the same act, no word warrants.  
4. Its as undeniable, There be general acts in preaching and watching, which are common to all Congregations, which the Classis nor do, nor can dispense conscientiously, because they cannot attend them. Nor yet will it suffice to say, That he was Pastor to the catholic Church before, for then before this combination he had as good power to exercise jurisdiction, as any who be in the combination. But M. R. his own principles will not permit such an Assertion: For he affirms, That one Congregation hath not power over another, one Classis over another: and therefore these Pastors and teachers are Officers by an especial appropriation, which others out of the circuit are not.   

Argument 3.  
That course which divides the things which God hath joined together, and ought fo●●ver to go together, that is unlawful.  
But to sever jurisdiction and teaching, is to part the things that God hath joined together. For both issue from the office of Pastor and Teacher, and if one be required, by the same reason may the other be exacted: and yet the Presbyterian combination severeth these. The first part is past denial.  
The second I shall thus make good.  
What acts and duties the office of a Pastor requires to a flock; those acts and duties an officer or Pastor is bound to put forth.  
But ruling and teaching belong to the office of a Pastor and Teacher, because they have the power of the keys, and to them it appertains to use all these in binding and losing, as the flock shall require: And these cannot be fully used in binding and losing, but by teaching and ruling, Act. 20.18. 1 Pet. 5.1, 2.  
Again, Those actions of their office, which are of necessity required to procure the end and good of the flock, those they must put forth.  
But both these of teaching and ruling are of necessity required to attain the end of their office, and that is, The gathering and perfecting of the Saints, Ephes. 4.12. And this will not be attained, but by the use of all these to their best advantage; both teaching and ruling being serviceable, according to God, for the quickening of the soul in the ways of grace, and the preventing and purging out of all that leaven of sin, which may be prejudicial or hurtful to that work of the Lord.  
To this M. R. answers many things, l. 2. p 329.  
As grandfathers and Fathers do bear a relation to the same children divers ways: both are Fathers, but both are not begetting fathers: So also do the Classical Elders, and Elders of a Congregation bear divers relations to the flock.   

Reply.  
If they have such relations to their flocks as grandfathers and Fathers, then, as a Grand-father cannot be a father; or a Father, a Grand-father, to the same child, so an Elder cannot be a proper Elder, and a Classical Elder to the same Congregation.  
These relations of Grand-father and Father come from several grounds, from which the relative respects issue. But classical and proper Elders issue from one and the same office, which they have, and are clothed with, in relation to their proper flock, l. 2. 333. yea his words are express. Elders proper and classical have not two offices, but only they perform two acts of one and the same office. lib. 2. 334.  
Lastly, he answers.  
The judicatures of Classis and Congregation do not differ formally or specifically, but only in more or less extension of power, lib. 2. p. 338.  
From whence to my understanding, such collections seem fair and to follow undeniably.  
If there be one office in the constitution, then there is the same definition of an office belonging to the Elder of a Classis and Congregation: then the same causes, then the same election and choice. Then what he doth by virtue of his office to one, he is bound to do to the other. Then what operations he putteth forth in the one, he can put forth in the other.  
Again, If they differ but in extension, then vis intrinseca and intensive is the same in the Elders of a Congregation, as of a Classis. Therefore there is no specifical act, that the one puts forth, but the other can put forth, as occasion shall require. For, Gradus non variant speciem. Therefore in case there be objective matter presented for Ordination or Excommunication in a Congregation, they can put forth such operations: for they have the same intrinsical and intensive power, and in that are all the causes of these operations seen, when a fit object is presented.  
Those expressions that in the Court Assembly at Jerusalem, Act. 15. they are Elders in relation to the whole Churches of Antioch, Syria and Cilicia, and the Gentiles, collectively taken, in those dogmatical points: And the same Elders were in special manner Elders to the congregations of Antioch, Syria and Cilicia, taken distributively.  
The Reply is, The Elders did the one as counsellors, they governed the other as Rulers, as we hope will appear in its proper place.  
But that other, to wit, l. 2. 330.  
By that same official power, that a Pastor teacheth his own flock, viva voice, by vocal preaching as a Doctor, he teacheth other Churches by writing.  
This is an invention, I confess I never heard, nor saw before, and whether ever it saw light or no, I cannot tell: only I suppose it will not be offensive to make some enquiry after it, if it be but for mine own information.  
Clear then it is, He teacheth other Churches by writing.  
But that this, thus teaching of Churches comes from the same official power that he teacheth his own flock vivâ voice, is questioned upon these grounds.  
1. It crosseth the nature of the office.  
For, first, That official power by which he preacheth to his proper flock, he received by election from the people, stands bound to them, may be rejected by them in case of delinquency notorious.  
Secondly, By that official power, he can require all his to hear.  
Thirdly, In case they gain-say offensively, to censure.  
If his writing proceeds out of that power, then by virtue thereof he could challenge and require them to read it, and censure them for not reading. Nay, upon this ground he should not only have power over the Churches within the Presbytery or Classis, but over those, who are under other Classis, nay other Provinces, Nations, &c. Nay the case may be that he may have official power over all the Churches in the world, for they all may be taught by his books and writing: yea, those that are infidels, and yet have but knowledge of the language, they may be taught by this, and why may he not be Pastor to perform acts from his office to them all?  
2. It misseth that right ground of power: for if this power proceed from his office, then it is some where required, that each man should as well print, as preach. For to preach vivâ voice is required of every Pastor, out of his office: but if printing issue from the same office, the one should as necessary be required as the other: and hence, what he preacheth he must print: for he is bound to teach his people vivâ voice, by virtue of his office, and if his office calls for this, he is bound to this also, as well as to that: but that we find writ in no Gospel that I know of.  
3. That which another may do with as much authority and more; I mean authority of truth, as being more able, yet being out of office, That cannot belong to the power of an office.  
When it was asked, Whether are the Classical Elders, Ruling Elders, or Teaching Elders to the classical Church?  
M. R. answers p. 330. They are both, and they are neither in divers considerations. They are teaching Elders in all the Congregations distributively taken: They are ruling in all collectively taken. They are teachers {αβγδ}, in some reserved acts, not constant teachers. Its true, he that is a ruling Pastor, is also a teaching Pastor, but not to that same flock always.  
The Reply is,  
When we inquire, What kind of Elder a Classical Elder is, we are  told, that they are Elders teaching in all Congregations distributively, i.e. take classical Elders, as they are Congregational Elders; and that is all one, as to say, No classical Elders, and then they are teaching Elders: for so far as they have reference to their proper flocks, they were teaching Elders before the combination, and so all that is gained, is this, A classical Elder, as he is no classical Elder, is a teaching Elder; and so there is not a distinction, or divers consideration of a classical Elder( which should have been the term distinguished) but a non-consideration of him, as such.  
Further, It hath been often said, That these acts of the Elders, issue from one and the same office: now where there is one and the same office, there is one and the same officer, and so the same power of teaching and ruling, and the same duty.  
Lastly, We have here that for granted, which before we concluded, That a person may have many flocks: he may be a teaching Pastor in one, and a Ruling in two or three, or thirty: for its affirmed, That a Ruling Pastor is also a Teaching Pastor, but not to that same flock always. Therefore he may have many flocks. And so the Lord Bishop may be a teaching Pastor in the Cathedral at Canterbury, but a Ruling Pastor in all the Province collectively taken.  
Obj. He arrogates this alone as one.  
Ans. But show a rule of Christ, why the Elders may not give that to him, and liberty to take many to help him, as well as you join many to concur with him in that work.  
I believe he hath no power to take many with himself to rule a Province of 30 Churches, besides his own. And I believe you have no rule of Christ to join many, to rule many Churches, beside their own particular charges. A shepherd ought to have but one flock: one is as much as he can rule, one is as much as he hath authority to rule. Relatorum unum uni tantum.  
Its lastly added, p. 330.  
Neither is this true, because power of jurisdiction is founded upon power of order, Therefore teaching should be every way defensible with ruling. For the Eldership convened in Court, and only formalitèr in foro Ecclesiae, in this Court hath Church power of jurisdiction, in a Congregation, and in this Court they govern: But the Eldership in this Court neither doth preach, nor can preach.   

Reply.  
Ruling and teaching appertain to the Pastor in suo more, and as his peculiar properties, and therefore they are made a description of them, Rom. 12.7, 8. with 1 Tim. 3.5.  
2. His flock will need, and every shepherd should do the one, as well as the other.  
3. Without both he cannot fulfil his ministry, and attain his end in procuring the good of his flock commended to his care. Therefore the reason alleged here, and propounded formerly, hath no evicting force in it.  
For the Elders, if Pastors, and in office, when from the Court, then have they Church jurisdiction cut of the Court. But the first is true.  
add hereunto also, That all public censures ought to be dispensed in the Congregation; and there, I suppose, its not onely possible that the Elders may preach, but they must preach also.   

Argument 4.  
That which lays a burden upon teaching Elders, which God never laid, nor are they ever able to discharge, that is not suitable to Gods will and Word.  
But this Classical course doth so.  
The Assumption, which only can be questioned, is proved by M. R. his words, who imposeth an office-care upon one over many flocks, when as one is sufficient to improve all abilities of the most able Minister on earth: And therefore the Apostle appointed Elders in every Church, and charged them to attend the flock, not flocks.  
Besides, I had thought the loathsomeness of pluralities had been not only hissed out of the world, but abhorred of all conscientious men.  
M. R. that he might remove the loathsome distaste, wherewith this reason loads the cause, he labours, Clavum clavo pellere. And therefore would bear the world in hand, That the way of watching over sister-churches, and other Christians of other Congregations( which we and all the world allow, as that which piety and Christianity, the law of Religion and Reason require) to be as dreadful, for onerous, careful, laborious watchfulness in way of conscience as to be bound thereunto by way of office.  
To which I say, GOD FORBID.  
His Reasons are mainly two.  
1. We have a divine command, that we be our brothers keeper, and this watch calls for like onerous, laborious care, as if we were in office.  
2. We make the ground and foundation of governing a classical Church, to be that bond of love and union of one body of Christ, and this bond of lovely and brotherly consociation commands, and ties us to do no more in governing and helping other sister-churches, then if we had no further warrant to promote their edification, then the alone relation of brotherly consociation.  
The sentence is somewhat imperfect, and that it may reach his purpose, I think it must be thus expressed. The bond of brotherly consociation tieth us to do as much, as if we had no further warrant then this: for to say, that brotherly consociation tieth us to do no more, in governing sister churches, then brotherly consociation can do, is true, but wholly impertinent, and of no proof to the point in hand; and wholly misseth M. R. his scope, w●ich is to compare the bond and burden betwixt brotherly consociation and office-imposition, as if that there were a parity betwixt them.  
For REPLY, we shall examine, 1. the truth of the Assertion, And 2. give answer to the reasons alleged for it.  
1. Touching his Assertion itself, we shall oppose one that is professedly contradictory thereunto.   

Assertion.  
There is not the like care, onerousnesse and labour required in duties of Christian watchfulness in a brotherly way, as to do the duties to others, to whom we are bound in way of office-relation.  
And this imparity appears, partly, in the preparations required to the services; partly, in the execution of them.  
1. For preparation to the work of teaching, which the Pastor and Teacher are to attend, by their places, labouring in word and doctrine,( that as good stewards they may lay in provision old and new, and be able to divide the word of truth aright) they are to bestow their whole time and strength, and that constantly to this end. 
1 Tim 4.13, 16.  Therefore they are enjoined to attend to exhortation and teaching, the main bent of their daily studies must go that way. They must search to know the state of their flock, Search the Scriptures, 
Eccles. 12.10.  and study pleasant words, which may with most plainness, and profit, and power convey the truth to the understanding of the meanest under their charge. And therefore they must not be entangled in the affairs of this life. 
2 Tim. 2.4.  They must lay aside the attending of tables, 
Acts 6.4.  and give themselves to the word and prayer. The Apostles professed to take this course( though extraordinarily gifted and assisted) as occasion did require.  

Acts 6.2, 3, 4.  If the Apostles laid aside the care of the poor in dispensing the treasury, because that would hinder the work of the ministry; if there had been any work of like care and onerousnesse, Why should they not have laid aside that also? I cannot see it: and therefore they judged not the exercising the acts of Christian helpfulnes of this nature.  
In a word, to make preparation for the work of the Sabbath, and the public dispensation and administration of Christs holy things, if the improvement of time and strength be constantly required, if brotherly consociation required the like care, and laid the like onerousnesse upon a Pastor in Christian duties of love, they were no more able to discharge both, then to be Pastors to two or three Congregations, which all men confess to be cross to Gods command. But blessed be God it is far otherwise. His ways are full of mercy, wisdom, pity and goodness, and he exacts no more of his people, then in an evangelical way they are able to perform.  
And therefore in our Christian watch, I am bound only to administer occasionally, rebukes, counsels, comforts and exhortations, as I meet with brethren of other Congregations, and I see their occasions require it, so far as God puts present ability or opportunity into my hand, all which labour and burden is lighter then the nail of the little finger, compared with the body of that care and burden, which concerns a Teacher in office towards those, to whom he is bound by that relation.  
2. Look we again into the dispensation and execution of these services, the imparity also will appear plainly.  
If an officer hear of a scandalous course of such, who be his sheep, he is bound to make diligent search touching the truth thereof, and upon proof made, he is bound to convince and admonish: If he shall not hear, to take one or two; if not hear them, then to complain to the Church, of such a delinquent.  
But thus I am not bound to bestow my time, and employ my care with all Christians, with whom I shall meet, in the compass of the same Classis, or the same Province: for it is impossible, I should so do. If I hear of many scandals, that many have given in several Congregations, Countreys, nay, as the occasion of traveling and merchandizing may require; a man shall be forced to see many in many places: Must now the traveller or merchant lay aside all his business, and deal with all these? Or in case he return home, the pressures of his employments calling him thither, Must he needs go into France, Germany, Holland, to proceed against such Delinquents? I suppose each man sees the absurdity without spectacles. Its impossible any man should attend such a proceeding. And therefore, blessed be our Saviour, who never required it, never laid such a burden upon any to practise in this manner; but hath provided in his infinite wisdom a nearer course, which may be followed, with comfort and conveniency: He hath appointed guides in every Church, i.e. Ruling Elders, who are eyed wings to the people, over whom they are placed; they are at hand, they are by office appointed to deal in such cases, and they live and converse one with another, have charge over them, and authority put upon them to that purpose, and are set apart from other entanglements to attend the improvement of all ordinances, for the good of those under their charge, that their evils may be seen, preached and reformed.  
Nor let any man think to ease this inconvenience, by saying, that a person is a proper Pastor to the one, and a Pastor {αβγδ} to the other removed: for this device, like a warm hand, stroke the sore, but will not cure it. For by this it is granted, that pastoral care is far more onerous and laborious, then Christian and brotherly care in some sense, which is now our question.  
2. Its affirmed in the place, and often expressed by M. R. That there is but one, and the same office, whence all this watchfulness issues towards all. And therefore as it hath the same bond, so it requires the same service: And therefore all such conceits are merely coined, to cousen mens consciences, and so to keep them quiet, but they will never go at the great day of account.  
For the question will be, Hadst thou the same pastoral relation to the one as to the other, as thy sheep? If thou stoodst bound to them as thy sheep, by the same Office and Call, the needs of both thou wert bound to supply, and the good of both thou wert in like manner bound to promote, Ephes. 4.13, 14.  
3. But lastly, M. R. his own expression will not admit any such consideration, as this: for he intends the comparison betwixt brotherly care and pastoral care to a mans proper stock. For his words are these,  
I clear it in this, namely, That there is as great care and onerousnesse, in foro Dei, lies upon a brother, as upon a Pastor, in the watching for the good of a brother. A man is a gifted preacher in a Congregation, in an iceland, there is no other gifted of God to preach the Gospel, but he only: I would think, as a brother, he were under as great an obligation of care and laborious onerousnes of conscience, to bestow his talent for the gaining of souls by preaching, though he were not called to be their Pastor, as if he were called to be their Pastor.  
The case is here evident, that Mr. R. his intendment is to compare the care of a Pastor over his proper flock, and brotherly care over Christians together.  
And here also I must crave leave to differ wholly from Mr. R. his opinion. For it is granted, that this gifted person is not called to preach, nor will the people in the iceland so aclowledge him: Therefore they are not bound to maintain him: Hence I should rather think thus,  
He that useth his general calling so, as that he destroys his particular, he useth it disorderly: For these are in subordination, not in opposition.  
But so to preach( being gifted, as in the example given) is to use his general calling( for he doth what is done out of Christian charity) so as that he destroys his particular: For he must of necessity lay aside the attending tables, i.e. his worldly occasions: that would and did take his time and strength, if he come to bestow himself in his preparations and dispensations in a Pastor-like manner, i.e. as Pastors use to do.  
Besides, To do as much in a general way of charity, as that which amounts to the work of a particular calling, is to confounded general and particular callings, which God, and rule have distinguished.  
When M. R. saith,  
I desire to know what the naked relation of authority or jurisdiction addeth to this care and onerousnesse in point of labour by preaching the Gospel.  
Its easy to return, That Jurisdiction implies an office: an office doth not only add a special bond, but requires more service with the greater improvement of time, and strength, and constancy therein, as it hath appeared before.  
2. The two Reasons, which M. R. propounds for proof of the conclusion, have not solidity enough to settle the understanding of a man seriously judicious.  
The frame of the first Reason of M. R. is this,  
If we have a divine command to be our brethrens keepers, then our watch in that regard carries and requires as much care and onerousnesse as office-watch.   

Answer.  
The consequence is to be denied, as no way suitable to the rule of truth, as it hath appeared at large in the former enquiry, and this one thing is also enough to make it palpable. I am bound by that divine command to keep many brethren from danger, with whom I occasionally meet with once or twice in my life: and therefore can relieve them no more: Am I therefore bound by my office to watch no more, nor lend no further relief to such as be committed to my care? Will it go for good pay at our appearance before Christ, to say, I am bound by office to watch no more over the people left to my care and custody, then I am bound as a Christian to be my brothers keeper, in a Classis or Province? Many of them I could never see, or very seldom lend any succour unto in all my life: Therefore I am bound to do no more to those that are under my charge: If I occasionally meet with them, to do good occasionally to them, but never to bestow my time and strength constantly to attend their comfort, to bind up the broken, to recall those that go astray, and to heal and help the feeble. The second Reason comes out of the same mint, and in form its thus.   

Reason 2.  
If the foundation of governing a classical Church be the love and union of the members of one body of Christ: Then there is as much care, onerousnes and labour, which is required in brotherly consociation to help, as the care and onerousnes, which is required in office-help, or that which is required in the jurisdiction, which comes from officers. The first part is true: Therefore   

Answer.  
The Proposition deserves a denial, as not having a semblance of truth in it. Because I love all such as are consociated with me under one National Synod, whom I never had a sight of, never came to speech with all, with whom I could never meet to do good to them, or receive any good from them in converse: That therefore I should stand bound to put forth the like onerous, laborious care for their spiritual good, as a person that stands charged with them in way of office, one would certainly conclude and readily, either those officers do too little, or else I am bound to do too much, more then I possibly can attain unto.  
The officers must do too little, if they should discharge an office towards such, whom they never saw, nor knew; never did any good to them, nor received any good from them.  
Or else I should be bound to do too much( more then its possible I can attain unto) If I should stand engaged to comfort, counsel, direct, reform, and proceed in censure against such for their evils, which officers must do by Christs appointment, being sent to gather and perfect the Saints, when I shall never converse with thousands in the nation, nor they with me, until my dying day.   

Our 5. Argument.  
If they be Pastors over all the Congregations in the circuit, then they were new chosen by the several Congregations, or not.  
If they were not chosen, then a Pastor may be a Pastor by an especial appropriation to a people, of whom he was never chosen, which is cross to the rules of the Gospel, and the nature of the relation.  
If they were chosen by them all, then each of them is bound as much to all, as the first people, and therefore as much to preach and perform pastoral acts to the one, as to the other. 2. Here is really non-residency brought in. Nor will it satisfy, they are Pastors {αβγδ}, for if they stand in the same relation of a Pastors office to a Classis, as a Pastor doth to his own flock, then they must be chosen thereunto, and are Pastors properly, for so Pastors are to their own flock.  
But each Pastor in the combination stands in the same relation of a Pastors office to a Classis, as a Pastor doth to his own flock.  
Both propositions are M. Ruter. The mayor, l. 1. p. 56. l. 2. 201, 102.  
The Assumption or second part. Lib. 2. 329, 333, 338.  
Mr. R. tells us, l. 2. p 344. That they are called Elders at Ephesus, i.e. of every Church in that combination, in that sense, that Kings are called Kings of the nations, not because every King was King of every nation: for the King of Edom was not the King of Babylon, yet, in cumulo, they did fill up that name, to be the Kings of the nations: So are Elders of Jerusalem called, in cumulo, Elders of all the Churches of Jerusalem collectively taken. And as it followeth not, that the King of Edom( because he is one of the Kings of the nations) is elected to the Crown of Chaldea by the voice of the Nobles: so it is not a good consequence, such a number are called the Elders of the Church of Jerusalem, therefore the several Churches should choose them and submit to them.   

Reply.  
It is true, these are good words, but it is as true, they do not touch the cause in hand, much less confute it, if they be rightly considered.  
The Kings of the nations are so styled by way of distinction, because of the special rule they have, distinct from the rule which is erected in the Church: And the fair and familiar meaning is, This King is Ruler over those people that are within the compass of his nation or territory: another over his people, and so every one over his own particular subjects, and hath no Kingly rule at all in anothers kingdom: so here the Elders of the Churches are and may be so called, because they feed and rule within their particular Congregations, but exercise no rule in anothers Church, no more then the King of Edom doth in the Kingdom of Chaldea: and therefore the members of one Church, as they did not choose, so they should not submit to the rule of the Elders of another Congregation, no more then a subject in Chaldea, as he did not choose, so should not submit to the King of Edom; by this expression our cause is confirmed, not confuted.  
M. R. adds,  
If all the Kings of the nations did meet, in one Court, and in that Court did govern the nations with common royal authority and counsel in those things, which concern all the kingdoms in common, then all the nations were bound to obey them in that Court. And when they do consent to the power of that common Court, tacitly they consent, that every one of those Kings shall be a chosen King of such and such a kingdom.   

Reply.  
These are words which darken, and by a mistake misled the reader from the mark, but rightly discerned and searched into, do nothing make for the cause; for, when it is said, they meet in Court, and govern the nations with common royal authority, this authority was a new superadded authority, which came not from the King of Edom, or from that royal office( let me so speak) of the regal power he had there, for then it should have belonged to none but him. But this is a common royal authority, and that was another authority wherewith, not only he, but all the rest of the confederate Princes were invested, as well as he, and that was wholly distinct from that Kingly power, that each King had in his own kingdom, and was received, when by the choice of the people or the Parliaments in all the kingdoms, they set up all those confederate Princes: Suppose the King of Edom, Babylon, Emperour of Persia, Prince of Transilvania, Duke of Florence: &c. this one and joint power of confederate Princes, to act in such a manner, in such things, with such limitation, as distinct from that particular princely power they had in their own territories. This is the truth in the example, and let M. R. parallel this in the case in hand, and we shall soon come to an agreement, namely,  
That the Elders who had special office, and the power of it in their proper charges, yet when by the combination of all the Churches they are to meet in a Classis, and have power put upon them to act in such things and in such a manner, which they never had before; this is not now an office of a Pastor, but the power of a Commissioner, wholly distinct therefrom; and that is a human creature of mans devising: the Churches dealing therein, as the civil states do, who have allowance, and they in this case take allowance to add and institute new places and new powers in the Church, so that they were all chosen Commissioners, but never a one of them was a Pastor, which is that which M. R. will not allow, and yet this frame is not able to gainsay it.  
The issue then is, had they been Pastors, they must have been chosen and maintained, which was the consequence of the reason, and stands untouched, upon that supposition. But they are Commissioners: And that his words intimate, which the nature of the thing forceth unto, that they promise tacitly obedience and subjection to every one of the Kings of the nations, not simply as they are Kings in relation to such a kingdom; that is, by parity, and proportion of reason, the people promising subjection to Elders, not as to Pastors, but as to Commissioners, which are human creatures of mans devising.   

Argument 6.  
The classical Church consisting of so many Elders in a Church representative, meeting together, to exercise Jurisdiction by joint concurrence: therefore the acting and issuing of determinations and censures, must either be carried on by the joint agreement of all, or else of the mayor part: for if the fewer or lesser number might cast the balance in cases propounded, then the weaker should overbear the stronger( for they have all equal power in the Commission to the work) and then some few of those to go on one side, and many on the other side, if the fewer should have the casting voice, then the lesser weight should carry the scales against the greater, which is irrational. Again, upon this ground, the part should not only over-rule, but destroy the whole, which is absurd. Whence then it is plain, that the greater part hath the power in their hand, to pass sentence in way of decision, as when it is past, to put it into execution.  
But what if the most have the worst cause, and err in their judgement and practise?  
The answer is, While the fewer do protest against their proceedings, they quit their hands of sin, and that is all they can do: but the sentence must take place: only, if there be a way of an appeal left, they may take the benefit thereof in their opportunity.  
These premised, which cannot be denied, I thus reason.  
That course of government, which nullifies the power of the Elders and people of the Congregation, and their proceedings in a righteous way, that is not a power of Christ.  
But this doth so: as instance,  
The greater part of the Classis may sentence a member of a particular Church to be excommunicated, when the Elders and all the people judge and that truly, not to be worthy of that censure: here the power of the Elders and people which act in a way of Christ is wholly hindered.  
To this M. R. answereth, That,  
De jure, the power of the greater Presbytery in this case ought to be swallowed up of the two voices of the Elders of the Congregation.  
1. But this we have heard is cross to all the orderly proceedings of Christ, and rules of reason, that the weaker should overbear the stronger, the part, the whole.  
2. This lays open a gap to endless dissension; for upon this ground, some few will say, we have the truth on our side, and therefore your votes, and expressions, though the apprehensions of so many, should give way and are to be swallowed up by our argument, and must therefore never appear in sight more.  
Lastly, Who must judge, which party hath the better end of the staff, whether the fewer or the greater number be in the right? either the greater party must judge, or else there must no judgement pass at all, and so it will be in the power of a few to disturb, yea disannul all public proceeding, and bring present confusion upon the whole.   

Argument. 7.  
From the former ground I reason in the seventh place.  
That course and proceeding which cannot attain his end, is not appointed by our Saviour, whose wisdom fails not, nor can be frustrate in its preparation.  
But the Classis excommunicating, and the people and elders of the Congregation refusing to submit thereunto, their excommunication would be of no force, for they would still maintain communion, and they could not relieve themselves, let them have their full scope to exercise all their Church-power to the full.   

Argument 8.  
This jurisdiction they now exercise, either issues from the power they had before their combination, or from some new power they have received since their combination.  
Not from the place and power they had before the combination, for M. R. maintains it, as a principle, That one Congregation hath not power over another: and reason evidenceth as much. For why should they or how can they, challenge any power over one, but they may challenge power by the same ground over all?  
If this jurisdiction issue from some new power, That must proceed from some new order or office received from their combination. For Jurisdiction issues from order, as in the first ground, and no jurisdiction in the Church can be exercised without an Office appointed by Christ, as doth appear by the Second ground.  
But there is no order or office added to them at all, for they were Pastors and Teachers and Rulers before the combination, and there be no other officers appointed by Christ.  
And therefore this place and power put now upon them, is( I fear) an invention of man.  
Before I leave this place I shall offer some considerations, collected from the former disputes, to the judgement of the Reader, that he may relieve me and himself, in his most serious thoughts in secret.  
1. A Pastor of one Congregation hath not power over another, for one Church hath not power over another, therefore the power he receives must not come from the office of a Pastor, for that he had before; and yet lib, 2. p. 133. it s said, This power issues from one and the same Office in the Congregation and in the Classis.  
2. A pastor as he stands in relation to his Congregation, and in reference to the Classis, hath not two, but one Office. p. 329. 333. And yet they are elect to the Office of a pastor in the Congregation. l. 1. and lib. 2. p. 201. But not elect to the Office of a Pastor in reference to the Classis: lib. 2. 345.  
Which( say I) is very strange, since there is one and the same office.  
3. The powers of a Congregation, and of a Presbytery, are not formally nor essentially different, lib, 1. p. 332. Where powers differ not formally, say I, their operations differ not formally: and yet the pastor, he doth not, he needs not, he cannot, watch, over the classical Church, he cannot preach to them constantly, they be not constant teachers to watch for the souls of them all, lib. 2. 330. Archippus is not an elder so as he hath to answer to God for their souls. lib. 2. 326. They are denied to be Elders in freding by the word of knowledge, lib. 2. p. 327. But this, I say, to preach, watch, and feed, Elders do and mu●t do, by virtue of the essence of their office. Therefore they have acts formally differing;  
And therefore have powers formally differing.  
4. There is one and the same office which Elders act by, in a classical and congregational way. lib. 2. 329. If there be( say I) one and the same Office, then it relates after one and the same manner, then to the classical and congregational Church after one, and the same manner; If then the congregational Church be their proper flock, so is the classical Church their proper flock. Quae sunt idem inter se, illa sunt idem tertio, And if one and the same office, then its received at one and the same time.  
But these are denied in this dispute. The classical Church cannot bear relation to one man, as their proper Elder. lib. 2. 344. 345.  
5. Power of Jurisdiction proceeds from the power of order. l. 2. 329 330.  
And therefore, say I, they who give no office, give no power.  
But the combination of Churches gives no office to Elders, who were in office before they combined.  
Therefore they could give no power.  
And yet the dispute saith it doth, and the doctrine of a classical Church must of necessity maintain that principle.  
Either these are mazes and mysterious twistings, or I confess I am much mistaken.  
Lastly, I would entreat the serious Reader to observe, what depths there lye hide in this device,  
1. A Pastor may be a pastor in relation to a Church, and yet never be chosen. For a classical Elder is so: and why may not a bishop be so?  
2. Would you see a person that hath the formal essence of a pastor, and yet never did, nor is bound to preach? so a classical Elder is to his classical Church, and why may not a Bishop also have the like?  
3. Would you see a person, that hath the Office of a pastor to teach, but must have no power to rule in chief acts of jurisdiction? behold it is the poor Pastor of a Congregation, preach he may, and administer the Sacraments he may in his own Congregation; But the Classis keeps the key of jurisdiction, they must sand in his censures, excommunications. And why may not a Bishop do so, if ye will?  
4. Would ye see a person exercise Jurisdiction over Churches, and yet not be bound to preach to them? behold the classical Pastor doth so, And therefore why may not a Bishop rule a diocese, and preach only at his Cathedrall?  
It is all that can be said, that many are joined with that one in joint power to do this.  
True, But what if the Elders met in the Classis, should give power to one man to take many to himself, and exercise all the Jurisdiction without them, not as a moderator only, to order the actious of the Assembly, but as having the power of a judge.  
HE IS THEN A PERFECT BISHOP.  
And I desire a rule of Christ from the Churches in the combination, to convince the Elders meeting of an error for choosing one amongst themselves, and putting upon him the Jurisdiction of a Judge, which will not condemn themselves for choosing many Elders of other Churches, and investing them with Jurisdiction of Judge-like authority over so many other Churches, beside their own.  
For if they have liberty to institute and commit a power to many which Christ never appointed, why may they not have the same liberty to institute a power, and commit it to one which Christ never appointed?  
For when it is affirmed and confessed, that one Congregation hath no power over another, therefore if they receive this power over other Congregations, Its not the Office of a pastor or teacher that gives that power, for that they had completely when they were officers but of one Congregation.  
Therefore the power they receive from the combination must be no office-power.  
Therefore it must be some other power, beside that.  
Therefore Combination gives some power to many, beside the power of office, that Christ hath not appointed, and that is a human invention.  
And why may they not give the like power to one man? and let him take Surrogates, Deans, Arch-deacons, and chancellors to himself: this is but a human invention, as the other.  
In a word, let M. R. give me but one place of Scripture, or one sound reason for it.  
1. That a person may be a pastor to a people, by whom he was never chosen.  
2; And that he may be a pastor( as the Office of a pastor is appointed by Christ) to such, to whom he neither can nor should preach constantly.  
3. And that he is bound to exercise Jurisdiction of censure, and decision of doubts to such, to whom he neither needs, nor indeed is bound to feed by the word.  
4. or Lastly, that the Churches may give power to a man or men that Christ never appointed.  
And I shall profess I will willingly yield the cause. But they must either make good the three first, or else prove the latter, or else the pillars of the presbyterial Church will fall.     

Section. 3.  
We have now done with one sort of grounds, whereby the constitution of a presbyterial Church may be discerned.  
We shall add another, and thence also dispute.  
It is then confessed on all hands, and granted often by M. Ruterford,  
That a Church in an island may dispense all the Ordinances of God, of Ordination and excommunication, because it is a Church properly so called.  
1. In that it is a little City, and a little kingdom of Jesus Christ, having within itself power of the word and Sacraments.  
2. And also that it is a Church, and hath the essence of a Church, to which agree the essential notes of a visible Church. Now preaching of the word, and administration of the Sacraments, are essential notes of a visible Church.  
From this ground I would thus reason.  
If a Church in an island may dispense all the censures and all the ordinances then every particular Congregation may.  
But the first is granted.  
Therefore the second cannot be denied.  
The Proposition is evidenced many ways. Where there is the same power appointed to the same ends, there may be and indeed ought to be the same operations. But in every visible Congregation rightly constituted, there is the same power, and that appointed to the same ends.  
This second part admits no denial, because sense and experience give in testimony. There be all the Officers which Christ hath appointed in the one as in the other.  
All are enjoined to put forth all their operations, and to fulfil the work of their ministry, and the duties of their calling, one as the other, and the end is the same in both, the gathering, and perfecting of the Saints.  
The Proposition is proved from that principle of reason, that operari sequitur esse, The operation answers the constitution.  
The third ground formerly laid, confirms the same.  
Where there is an Office or power appointed by God, there needs no other power, but the Office, to authorize to the work, and it requires the performance of it.  
And lastly, If the power be the same, and the end the same, then the power must be frustrà and in vain, if it should not be put forth to the end. And the power should be wronged, and the institution of Christ also, if it should be hindered in the attaining that end.  
And let any man show any power, right or ability, that a Church in an island hath to dispense any Ordinance: and it will clearly appear every particular Congregation hath as much, For,  
1. All the dispensations of such a Church issue from the intrinsical power of the Rulers called by Christ to the work, and so it doth in all other Congregations.  
2. If neighbourhood of other Churches, be but a separable adjunct, it can add nothing to the constitution, and so to the operation of the Church, for the nature of such adjuncts touch not the essence or constitution of the thing in any measure.  
But neighbourhood is but a separable adjunct, as experience and common sense can testify; because either death, or dissension may take away some Churches, and nullify them, and yet some particulars are preserved.  
3. Suppose a Church gathered and erected on a continent in the wilderness, and is there alone. If this Church could act all these censures, and dispense all Ordinances, before any other was planted by them: and if those that come after, do abridge them of that liberty, they have power over them: but power they have none, for one Congregation hath not power over another.  
4. Besides, Those operations which a Congregation puts forth, out of the authority of the Office and Officers, which they have received from Christ, and for which they are called, those operations ought not to be abridged.  
5. Nay, If the Officers and Offices remain the same, they ought not, they cannot be abridged. Where the same intrinsical power of constitution according to God remains unaltered, there the operations remain the same.  
Obj. If it be said, they should submit to a combination of Churches, as well as combine as members of a particular Congregation.  
Answ. This is, Petere principium, To beg the question.  
2. Suppose they will not, then the other Churches cannot exact or command that, no more then a particular Congregation can command me to be a member.  
3. They ought not so to combine as to prejudice the operations of that power, which they have received of Christ, and which they are enjoined to put forth accordingly. And let there be any warrant shewed out of the word, that any person or Church hath power to hinder the operation of a pastor or ruling elder, in any one act of his office, more then in another.  
And Lastly, It hath been proved, that the addition of any thing besides an Office adds no power or right of Jurisdiction. Ground third supra.  
6. If the ground of the combination be of no force, nor carries any validity with it. Then the combination and classis falls with it.  
But the ground which is given, is a mere fallacy, and hath no validity in it, Namely, The preventing or curing the taint and pollution that a scandal will bring by the nearness of cohabitation.  
That this is no ground it will thus appear.  
If the scandal in an ordinary course may, and will fall out among those that are nearer, then many in the combination: then this nearness is not a sufficient cause of it.  
At primum: As in case members trade among people of another Classis, and give scandalous example there.  
2. They who live at the outside of the combination, are nearer the Congregation of another Classis then their own.  
3 The scandal given, it goeth far and wide into the provinces and nations also.  
Besides, the righteous proceeding according to the rule of Christ in a particular Congregation is a cure appointed to remove the polluting and infecting power of the scandal, be it done never so far off, or never so near.   

Section. 4.  
The third sort of grounds taken from the nature of a Church.  
1. A Church in the Gospel is never used only for Elders.  
2. There cannot be a Definition given, that will agree to a congregational and presbyterial Church.  
3. If the Congregations be species specialissimae of a true Church, then there can be no lower species resulting or arising from them, as this doth,  
4. If every Congregation hath all the integral parts of a Church, then it is an entire and complete Church.  
But it hath all sorts of Officers, as Rulers and People ruled.  
5. If the Classis add no other Officer to them, then they add no new power of such Jurisdiction, because that issues from them.  
6. Every Integrum is made up of his members, therefore in nature they are before, therefore Churches before Classis. Therefore what each have they receive from them, therefore they have no Officers but from them, therefore both Ordination and Jurisdiction come from them.   

Section. 4.  
How far a particular Congregation is bound to meet in one place  
Our practise here will be the best exposition of our opinion, and that is usually thus.  
In case the Congregation grow too big. and therefore be forced to swarm out, Or in case they transplant themselves from one place to another; So that, par● be forced to go before to make preparation for those that follow, we then sand one Officer with the smaller Party, and the greater number remain with the rest: and yet are all but one Church in our account, and under one Presbytery of Elders, chosen Rulers of the Congregation.  
But when the Congregations are fixed, and they established in peace, and settled with support about them, there should be no more, then may comely and comfortably meet together, to partake of all Ordinances, the use and benefit of the labour of their Officers.  
Hence an Answer may be easily accommodated to the examples, which M. R. brings, for the evidencing of a Presbyterian Church.  
1. That of the Apostles Church will in no wise svit his end, or serve his turn, or make good the question. For to make up a presbyterial Church, there must be many Congregations, many Elders appropriated to these Congregations, which have power over their own only, and not over others: These must combine, and upon the combination these Elders must assemble, and dispense their censures, and set down their decisions.  
But there were no Elders appropriated to their several charges and Churches, which had power only over them. And such Elders the Apostles could not be, because though they had all power in them, yet they had no power limited, for that did implicare, and contradict their apostolical commission.  
The rest of the examples, of Antioch, Ephesus, Rome, though it were granted, that upon their greater growth and increase, and so want of Elders, they might meet in divers places for the while, these might still be under one Presbytery, their Officers in a distinct manner attending upon them. And therefore Gersom Bucerus his answer suits here, Quis adeò ineptire sustinuerit, &c. that because they met in divers places they were under divers Presbyteries or Elders.  
2. It doth not appear out of any text, nor any evicting argument gathered therefrom, that( setting aside the Church of jerusalem) they should need meet in several places.  
3. Let it be considered, whether by Church, many Churches may not be intended, as Saul made havoc of the Church, i. of all the faithful members of all Congregations.    

Having discovered the constitution of this presbyterial Church, we are now to consider of CHAP. X. Such Arguments as M. R. allegeth for the confirmation of a presbyterial Church, Answered.  
WHich we shall suddenly dispatch, because we have held the Reader somewhat with the longest in this debate. His first argument is taken from the Church mentioned in Mat. 18. and his reason is this. If Christ alludeth here to the Synedry and consistory of the Jews, with which his hearers were well acquainted: Then a presbyterial Church of Elders collected and combined from many Congregations, is here understood.  
But our Saviour alludes here, unto the Synedry and Consistory of the Jews.  
Therefore A presbyterial Church is here understood.  
Answ. Both the Propositions may safely be denied: nor is there any evidence that can evict the certainty of them: for as M. Robinson says well, The manner of our Saviours proceeding is so plain and obvious to an ordinary apprehension, that it may easily and familiarly be perceived.  
The alluding to the Jewish Synagogue would add little light to the process now propounded: Should our Saviour mean a particular Syoagogue, they had not the power of excommunication in their hands: for the Church of the Jews was a national Church, and unto Jerusalem the males were bound to repair three times in the year: and if they were not cast out from hence, no excommunication could be complete. For they had their liberty thither to appeal in weightiest matters, and the delivering a man to the Devil was a matter of greatest consequence, that could befall him, and therefore he would in reason see the through trial. And to say, that our Saviour alluded to the national Church of the Jews, is to confounded the government of the Gospel, with that of the Law.  
2. This were to sand a man to a general counsel, not to a Classis yea to sand him thither, where he was not like to find relief: for the plaintiff might be dead and butted, before the council could be gathered.  
3. The direction of our Saviour points out apparently some standing tribunal, and that at hand. Such a Church whereof both the parties were members: That when two witnesses could not set down the offender, The Lord Christ raised an whole Church, as the body of the army, to overbear his obstinacy: I would willingly see how a Church in an island, a solitary Church upon a continent, or haply two Congregations sitting down together, or how the first Church at Jerusalem, Act. 1.23. could take any warrant to exercise any act of discipline against an offender from this place; or from any word of the Gospel, UPON THIS GROUND.  
Lastly, It doth not follow the allusion had been to a Classis( for there were none but a national Church) but rather to a Consistory suitable to the Synagogue.  
The Proposition also admits a just denial: for an allusion is only a similitude: and the similitude may lye in some particular, beside the quality of the Judge, as thus. As the offender that would not hear the supreme Judge was cut off, so look you must at the particular Congregation, as the chief tribunal; and therefore he who will not hear her speak, let him be cast out and accounted as no member of the Church.  
And that the resemblance could not lye in the judge, this seems to evidence it; because the Judgement in the Sanhedrim, was mixed( as the phrase intimates, Deut. 17.12. 2 Chron. 19.) partly of ecclesiastic, partly of civill Iudges, who, as the case did require, had their hands and voices in the verdict, which carries no resemblance in our Church-work.  

Argument. 2.  
The Church of believers convened together is still a Church met together, for hearing the word and receiving the Sacraments, But this is a Church assembled not to prophesying or praying, but to rebuking and judicial censuring.  

Answ.  
The Church meeting together, though the scope be for prayer and prophesying mainly, yet not only: For they may be jointly attended, the administration of all Christs holy things may, nay most properly should then be attended: as when the preaching of the word is ended, the censures also may be administered: nay, unless some peculiar casting circumstance require the contrary, they should so be.    

Argument. 3.  
The Church here spoken of, is such a superior and judicial seat, as ought to be obeied in the Lord, under pain of excommunication. But a multitude of believers are not such a judicial seat.  

Answ.  
The Minor is the question in hand, and indeed part of the conclusion to be proved, namely, whether a particular Congregation, be the highest tribunal, or a classical Church. And M. R. takes one part of the conclusion to prove the other.  
If the congregational Church be not highest, then the classical is.  
The Minor should have been proved, and not propounded nakedly.    

Argument. 4.  
Whatever Church may excommunicate, every member thereof convened with the Church may inflict all inferior punishments.  
But all the members convened cannot inflict lesser punishments, as women and children cannot rebuk openly.  

Answ.  
The consequence is feeble, as shall appear from the nature of delegated public power, which is committed by Christ to persons capable thereof, which women and children are not; the women for their Sex, Children for want of exercise of their understanding, being excluded.  
Doth any man reason thus, because people have power to choose their Officers, therefore women may put in their voice in election?  
If the Body of a corporation may put out a mayor upon just desert, therefore women and children. No, the wise God provides that the votes and judgements of these should be included in the male and chief of them, and in them they should be satisfied, and therefore the Wife is appointed to ask her Husband at home.    

Argument. 5.  
Those to whom the essence and definition of a ministerial Church, having power to excommunicate, doth necessary belong: these and these only, are understood under the name of the Church. But so it is, that the essence and definition of a ministerial Church having power to excommunicate, agreeth not necessary to a great Company of believers assembled Churchwaies.  

Answ.  
Both the propositions with a fair interpretation admits a denial, as being clearly false.  
1. The proposition. Because a Church neither as Totum essentiale alone, or as it ariseth to be Totum integral, is here only understood. But the second sense and signification is here firstly attended; because both people, and elders have their power, parts, and places in this work in a right order and manner: when there be Elders, they must led: but when there are none, the Church can exercise many acts without them, or can elect them, and with them exercise all the rest. So that when it is said, a ministerial Church is here understood, the word ministerial admits several significations; either Ministers without the body exclusivè, and that is false: or the Ministers with the body inclusivè, Now a ministerial Church in the fairest sense aims at both. In the first sense the Proposition is false, in the second it doth not conclude. To whom the essence and definition of a ministerial Church, i.e. a Church of Ministers without the body having power to excommunicate doth necessary belong, these and these onely are here understood. This is false, and M. R. himself will refuse it. lib. 1. p. 226.  
2. The Minor involves many things in it, and therefore it only troubles. For when its said, The essence of a ministerial Church, to whom power of excommunication appertains, agrees not necessary to a company of believers.  
Here be three things 

1. There is a ministerial Church.  
2. This hath power to excommunicate,  
3. This agrees not to believers.    
1. It is confessed, and hath been largely proved, that by believers of a visible Church, we mean such, who are so visible to the view of charity, though not such in truth. And therefore I wonder that M. R. should again trouble himself to prove that which no man denies.  
2. That these believers combined are a Church before they have guides, and have power also to excommunicate, that we hold. But they have not a ministerial power taken in the narrowest and strictest sense, as here; they have not formally the power of Office, potestatem Officij, yet potestatem judicij, the power of judgement they have, as after shall appear.    

Argument. 6.  
The Sixth Argument refers to former proofs, and we also refer to former Answers.   

Argument. 7.  
The Seventh Argument taken from Paraeus authority, That there can be no complaint to a multitude, needs no answer, being evidently, experimentally false, how often, how ordinarily are complaints made to Parliaments?   

Argument. 8.  
If the house of Cloë complained of an open fault to the holy Apostle Paul to crave his directions and help in way of reformation, having authority in all Churches then complaints must be to Elders only, and excommunication acted only by them, and secondly, The Holy Ghost gives direction and rules about receiving complaints to the Eldership. Tit. 1.13.  

Answ.  
1. The consequence is denied. For Cloë might have made her complaint to ony one of the members of Corinth: but choose rather to do it to the Apostle, because his apostolical power would be helpful in that case.  
2. When there be Elders in a Church, all the complaints must be made to them, and the causes prepared and cleared, and then by their means they must be complained of to the Church. Thus Paul adviseth Titus, to hear complaints with the Elders, and by the Elders to complain to the Church. Now to reason, complaints must be made by him, and Elders to the Church, therefore they must be made only to them, and not to the Church, is a very weak consequence.  
3. Its granted by Divines there can be no proceeding to excommunication, but with the tacite consent of the people, therefore to them the complaints of the evils must be made by the Elders.  
4. I would know, in case many Brethren have just occasion given by the elders in a Church of an island, whether may they complain, and to whom, if not to the body of the people, and they must know the complaints, before they can give consent to the censure.  
5. Suppose there be gross and heretical doctrine preached by Officers, for which the people may justly reject their Pastours, in case they will not recant, and be humbled, as all confess: whether must the people reject their Pastours for such evils, and never speak to them? or if the evil must be required, and called for to trial, may not a complaint be made to these people, before they come to examine and try?  
Nay suppose all the elders but one, in a Congregation should be delinquent, dwelling only by one other Church, should the complaints be carried to the one Elder, and not be carried by him to the whole body, when it is prepared?    

Argument. 9.  
That Church is here understood to whom the keys were given, Mat. 16. But they were given only to a classical Church there.  

Answ.  
The Minor is barely affirmed: and therefore it sufficeth for the while to deny it, the proof shall be given in the proper place.    

Argument. 10.  
The only apparent argument against this interpretation is weak, and therefore this sense must have no strength in it.  

Answ.  
Both the parts fail, For 1. That is not the only apparent argument that is here remembered, which either is or hath been given by persons of a contrary judgement.  
2. If that was weak, yet it doth not follow, that the different sense is clear, and the interpretation strong: because there may be many better reasons rendered haply then there were yet alleged.  
But let us attend the evidence, whereby it is proved, that the word Church in the new testament is sometimes taken for Officers only: M. Ball seeing the strength of the reason coming down the Hill upon him, which at least might, and indeed doth cast such a strong suspicion upon the cause here propounded, leaving of it alone, desolate, destitute of the least loving look of the allowance of any text, that might be a second in the field. The good man, according to that sagacity and sharpness of dispute, wherein he excelled, bestirs himself, and musters up all his forces seeks far and wide to win some consent, but at last all comes to this, That a man may suppose some such thing here, but cannot get one place to speak professedly for him.  
And to say the truth, were the word Ecclesia rarely used, and that the thing itself had been out of ordinary consideration, it had been a fair plea to have said, the Scripture is very silent touching this subject, and the word seldom used: and therefore no marvel there wants consent. But when the thing is so often, so ordinarily handled in all the Evangelists and Epistles: the very word commonly, constantly treating about the same subject, and yet it should never be taken in the new testament in this sense, It gives a shrewd suspicion, and such as cannot be wiped out, nor comfortably born, that the sense is here fathered and forced upon the place, but is not the natural and native meaning of it, but some changeling put into the room.  
Let us then hear what M. R. adds. Rev. 2. The Angel of the Church of Ephesus, &c. Here Angel stands for the whole Church, and the whole Church is wrote unto under the name of the Angel of such a Church, which may thus be demonstrated: because not only the Ministers, but the people, who have ears to hear, are commanded to hear, what the spirit saith unto the Churches.  
2. The thing now questioned, and to be proved, is, whether the word Church is put for Elders. Now I would fain know, whether M. R. or any man can say, that the name Church here is taken for Elders only, all the passages of the text, all the quotations tell us the contrary, therefore here is not a syllable or a show of any thing to evince it.  
When the whole Church is wrote unto, and the Epistle superscribed to the Angel, this intimates something touching the signification of the name Angel, but nothing at all touching the name Church, so that the thing is wholly mistaken.  
Beside, that which M. R. would, touching the Angel, will hardly down with any discerning man. True it is, that by Angel many may be intimated, the word being taken collectively, as, The Angel of the Lord pitcheth his tents about the righteous. This sense hath good authors, and good reason: but that the whole Church should be understood in that word, will hardly stand with the context: for see how strangely and harshly the words will sound, To the Angel of the Church of Ephesus, i.e. To the Church of the Church of Ephesus; I suppose a man will find little reason in such Rhetotick.  
A second place is, Act. 18.22. Paul called in at Jerusalem and saluted the Church. It cannot be thought in reason, that the Elders only were there saluted, nor by that word intended, because it appears by the next verse, that the Apostles scope was to confirm the hearts of the Disciples in all this voyage of his, and therefore had an eye unto the weakest; and those that wanted his sweet refreshing: and in all probability the Church hearing of his arrival, assembled to give comfortable entertainment, and so to be comforted by him.  
The rest of the Answer is not only that which we grant, but the most rigid of the separation prove, that in the old Testament the Hebrew and the Greek word used by the Septuagint is so understood: and therefore it is granted, without any loss to the one, or gain to the other.    

Argument 11.  
The Church that the plaintiff must tell, that Church is to admonish publicly the offender. But that is the Church of Elders, 1 Thes. 5.12.13. 1 Tim. 5.20. Luk. 10.16. for they only are to receive public complaints, and to rebuk publicly, as Tit. 1.13. 1 Tim. 5.19. 2 Tim. 4.2.  

Answ.  
This hath been fully answered in the eighth, whether I refer the Reader: only remember he may, that by the order of Christ, the Elders are to receive the complaints, and to prepare them for the Congregation, and then they are to report them unto the people, and they to hear and receive them, and they are to pass a judicial sentence, the Elders leading the action in an orderly manner, and taking their consent thereunto. Therefore the incestuous Corinthian was said to be rebuked of many, and to be judged of them also, and that not only by the judgement of discretion, for so they might judge those that were without, yea they are required legally to forgive him, and therefore they did as legally and Judicially bind him.  
Lastly, What will M. R. say of his exspectants, who preach publicly, and therefore do instruct and reprove publicly, as in 1 Thes. 5.12. 2 Tim. 4.2.    

Argument 12.  
The twelfth argument hath received its answer before, arising out of a mistake which hath been often spoken to, because neither women alone, nor children, will make a Church, nor have any public power put into their hands for that purpose.   

Argument 13.  
The Thirteenth Argument is propounded, as though there was no great weight laid upon it, and therefore I thought to pass it by wholly at the first: yet upon second consideration, I conceived it not amiss to intimate a word to remove a ston out of the way, though it be so small, that any man who could stir his foot, need not stumble at it.  
The probability here presented is this,  
That Christ could not well mean a visible Congregation of people and Elders convened, 1. Because if they did convene to worship God in spirit and in truth, they meet in Christs name, but there is some other thing required that the excommunicating Church meet for the actual exercise of discipline: for besides meeting in Christs name, there is required that they meet with Pauls spirit and the rod of discipline: so that Pauls spirit, as an Elder, is required, who hath the power of excommunication, as requisite to this meeting.  

Answ. 1.  
Whenever the Church meets in Christs name, she hath Christs power to execute all acts of discipline as well as doctrine, having her right constitution.  
2. Its clear in the text, the Church might and should have cast out the Incestuous Corinthian without Pauls provocation, nay without his knowledge, or consent by sending, and therefore the Church is blamed, in that she did not so.  
3. The holy Apostle for their provocation to the work, and encouragement in it, expresseth his consent, that his spirit concurred with them, and did give full approbation to their proceeding.  
4. This his spirit doth not dispense the excommunication, nor give them power to do that which they could not do before, but encouraged them to go on in the work which they had formerly neglected, and was so necessary to be performed.     

CHAP. XI. Touching the first Subject of ecclesiastical power, where the Nature of it is discovered, and the Arguments brought against it answered.  
BEfore we can propound the state of the controversy, in which the stress lies, and add such proofs as may be suitable to settle that which we conceive to be the truth, we must of necessity crave leave to preface something touching the nature of ecclesiastical power in the general, and lay out the several parts and branches of it, wherein it is expressed, and may best be perceived by an understanding Reader; because this will give light to that which follows, and will daily help to discover the mistakes of such arguments which are brought to darken this truth.  
Ecclesiastical power made known unto us usually in Scripture under the name of keys, the sign or adjunct being put for the thing signified, the ensign of authority for authority itself.  
This power is double, 

Supreme and monarchical,  
Delegate and ministerial.    
1. 
Rev. 1.18. and 3.7. Isa. 9.6. Phil. 2.  The Supreme and monarchical power resides onely in our Saviour, can onely be given and attribued to him, and to none other: He is the King and Law-giver of his Church, the Head of his Body, and the Saviour thereof. He alone hath the keys of David, openeth, and no man shutteth; shuts, and no man opens: He must have all power both in Heaven, and Earth, that must possess that place of Head-ship, execute the office and opeations thereof; and that none but Christ hath, and therefore none but he can have the privilege, what ever is pretended to the contrary: And of this we do not inquire in this place.  
2. There is also a subordinate and delegated power, which is proper to our present disquisition, and it is nothing else, but A right given by commission from Christ to fit Persons, to act in his house, according to his order.  
By right] is meant a jus or {αβγδ}, which according to God certain persons possess in their external administration, issuing from such special relation, which attends them in their condition, unto which they are called, and appertains to no other, unless they be in like estate, and this is given by Christ; so that they h●ve no right, but by allowance from our Saviour; they have no more, it goes no further, is no other, then what he appoints: he gives laws, and sets limits how to bound it, and they may go no further then their commission will carry them out.  
We add, its given [ to fit Persons,] because those are here intended, who according to God are onely capable thereof, to wit such Persons who are made able to receive this power, and to put forth the practise thereof; and hence Women, because of their sex, and Children because of their weakness, and mad Men, 
1 Cor. 14.34.  because of their distempers, are disenabled, and so excluded this privilege.  
And upon this ground it appears how all such consequences, with which we meet so often, conclude just nothing. If power be in the Church of believers, then Women and Children might exercise it: So Mr. Ball, Mr. Reutherford. This inference comes from a false supposition, and so the conclusion fals to the ground; for that is taken for granted, which ever was, and for ever ought to be denied, tha● Women and Children were fit Persons appointed by Christ to manage this power, which is cross to the letter of the text, and contrary to the opinion and profession of us all, and therefore I here mention it that the Reader may look at it, as not worthy the consideration when ever he shall hereafter meet with it.  
It is lastly said,[ they must act according to Christs order;] for God is not the God of confusion, but of order; and therefore as all power is from Christ committed to the Church; so it is both received and exercised in that order which Christ himself hath ordained. The whole Church is an Army terrible with banners: The whole Army is in daily fight, but all the the parts do not fight in the same manner, but each Person keeps his place& positure. The power is in the whole firstly, but each part knows his rank, and acts after his own order and manner; The Officers in theirs, and the members in theirs; The whole acts some things immediately, something mediately; but all is acted by it, or by power received from it.  
This power, for explication sake, is thus distinguished;  
Its either a power 

In many, when combined and this is potestas 

Judicii  
Donationis    
In one, when given to him; this is potestas Offici.    
1. The power of judgement; the whole may be and doth act in admissions and excommunications: for the reason is alike in both. Ejusdem est recipere, rejicere. To invest with privileges to cut off from privileges: The Apostle speaks, All, as an act of all. 1 Cor. 5.12. yea judge them that are within; cast out therefore from among you.( i.e.) From amongst the Body and Members of the Church,( The incestuous person was not onely among the Elders,) and they are bidden to cast him out; the words carry a causal power with them, {αβγδ} cast out from among you, v. 13. and this is called judgement by the Holy Ghost, which is the ground why we keep that expression.  
2 The power of gift or election is that which the people have, as the corporation hath power to choose a mayor, and to give him authority to do that which they themselves cannot do: So it is with the Body of a congregation, who do elect and leave the impression of an Office upon men gifted, though they be not such formally themselves, nor can be said to labour in word and doctrine to be rulers, to dispense Sacraments; only what this giving is, is to be understood with a grain of salt, and requires a wise and wary explication; and therefore this power may be attended, 

1. In the rise and reason of it.  
2. In the manner how it is communicated.  
3. In the first subject or {αβγδ} in which it is received.    
I. The rise of this power, and the reason, why it is necessary to be attended in a Church constituted, will specially appear, if we eye the end, which always steers the action among such as be Agents by counsel.  
In all combinations there is and will be some common end: That end must have means to attain it, to these means and rules each man must bind himself to attend,& in case he do not, to submit to another, to be directed and reformed, or else to yield to the whole, that he may be consured and removed therefrom. For otherwise the end cannot be attained, nor the means attended with profit, or any powerful success in reason.  
For if each man may do what is good in his own eyes, proceed according to his own pleasure, so that none may cross him or control him by any power; there must of necessity follow the distraction and desolation of the whole, when each man hath liberty to follow his own imagination and humorous devices, and seek his particular, but oppose one another, and all prejudice the public good.  
In the building, if the parts be neither mortised nor braced, as there will be little beauty, so there can be no strength. Its so in setting up the frames of socities among men, when their mindes and hearts are not mortised by mutual consent of subjection one to another, there is no expectation of any successful proceeding with the advantage to the public. To this appertains that of the Apostle, Every one submit unto another.  
mutual subjection is as it were the sinews of society, by which it is sustained and supported.  
Hence every man is above another, while he walks according to rule; and when he departs from it, he must be subject to another.  
Hence every part is subject to the whole, and must be serviceable to the good thereof, and must be ordered by the power thereof.  Salus Populi suprema lex, 
It is the highest law in all Policy Civill or spiritual to preserve the good of the whole; at this all must aim, and unto this all must be subordinate.  
This potestas judicii appertains to all, as 
{αβγδ}, Math. 18.15.  
{αβγδ}, 1. Cor. 5.12.  both which express acts of proceeding in a judicial manner.  
Hence each man and member of the society, in a just way, may be directed, censured, reformed, removed, by the power of the whole, and each may and should judge with the consent of the whole: this belongs to all the Members, and therefore to any that shall be in office, if they be Members. They are superior as Officers, when they keep the rule: but inferior as Members, and in subjection to any when they break the rule. So it is in any corporation; so in the Parliament. The whole can censure any part.  
This ground being laid,  
That Objection, in which many place so much confidence, is easily answered and the mistake thereof is made manifest.  
If the people should censure the Pastor, then there should be Pastors of Pastors, and the sheep should be Shepherd, not sheep.  
Answ. The consequence is feeble, as appears from the former ground; because the People judge not as Officers, but as Members of the whole, to whom by virtue of the common laws of combination, they have subjected themselves in case of delinquency to be ordered for the Common good.  
The feebleness of this Objection will more fully appear, if we take it in the like. Take a Classis; suppose the several Pastors or many of them offend, the rest admonish and proceed in censure against them: the Objection grows on as strongly; here be Pastors of Pastors.  
Nay yet further, let it bee supposed, which is possible, that all or most of the Pastors offend, and the Ruling-Elders with the rest, according to the allowance of Christ proceed against them( be it for Heresy or Error broached and maintained) here the inferior do censure the superior, those of one order judge such as be of a superior.  
2. The rise of this power appears from a principle laid in nature. Its a staple rule, which claims entertainment without any gainsaying.  No man by nature hath ecclesiastical power over another; by constraint it cannot be imposed regularly, as in part we have formerly heard. For coactive power expressed by outward constraint and violence, is cross wholly to the Government of Christ in his Church, ( Whose kingdom is not of this world.) 
And therefore from his own inference, worldly power, and worldly weapons, he wholly rejects, and none of his Churches are to use: these swords are to be put up. The arms of the Church are holy and spiritual ordinances, they look at spiritual ends, reach the spiritual man, the conscience, by spiritual( and therefore so far moral) censures.  
As nature gives not this power, so a Civil Ruler should not impose it. What ever is done here in the constitution of Churches, is done by an ecclesiastical rule, not by a rule of policy.  
What ever is dispensed by an ecclesiastical Rule, a Civil power cannot dispense it: because that is his sphere in which he moves, and acts only within that compass, his end being {αβγδ}.  
If then nature gives not this: nor Civil authority imposeth this: it comes not by constraint; therefore it must come by mutual and free consent.  
And the very nature of the practise speaks as much. Why doth this or that man combine with such in such a place, and not with others in another cost? its merely out of mutual and free consent on both parts. For as I have no power to press in upon them, further then they will admit me: no more have they any power ecclesiastic over me, unless I freely submit and subject myself thereunto.  
If a Christian convert should come from China into a country or City, where there be multitudes of Churches set up, according to the rules of the Gospel: none of them have power to compel him to join with any one more then another, but he may freely choose that which is most suitable to his own heart and affection, and may be most serviceable to promote his spiritual edification.  
From all which premises, the inference is undeniable, So far, as by free consent their combination goes, so far, and no further, the power they have one over another reacheth: because this is the foundation, upon which it is built, and the root upon which it grows, which I desire may be attended, because we shall be forced to have recourse to this principle in our future proceeding.  
II. The second thing to be inquired, is, The manner how this is communicated. Those who are thus met together, having power dispersed among themselves, they voluntarily consent to unite this their power, and to devolve it upon one, to whom they will submit, walking by rules of Christ, and confining himself within the compass thereof. So that this right of rule, thus united and devolved upon one, is Officium, or the right of Office properly so called. 
Eph. 4.11.12. 1 Cor. 12.28.  Christ gave some to be Pastors, some to be Teachers. He alone, out of his supreme and regal power, doth furnish them with graces and abilities, appoints the work, lays out the compass thereof, the manner of dispensing, and the order and bounds of their dispensation.  
The Church by voluntary subjection gives them this united right of rule to be exercised over them, and this is their outward calling by which they are warranted to act, and to put forth their abilities and Ministerial authority over such a people.  
And hence again, it is more then plain That men may give a call and power to such and such to be Pastors, and yet themselves not Pastors.  
The inference is undeniable, thus,  
A divided right, which is in many, is not an united right yielded by many, and devolved upon one. A divided power is not an united power.  
A Pastors power, or power of Office, is an united power from many. The peoples is a divided power, lying in many combined, and therefore not the same.  
Hence the power of Judgement is not the power of Office and therefore the Fraternity may have the one, when they have not the other.  
Hence, The Elders are superior to the Fraternity in regard of Office, Rule, Act, and Exercise; which is proper only to them, and not to the Fraternity.  
The people or Church are superior to the Elders in point of censure; each have their full scope in their own sphere and compass, without the prejudice of the other.  
No man conceives that the place and office of the mayor is prejudiced because the corporation can for just causes censure him, though nor any nor all of them can exercise his office.  
No man conceives the place and power of a King prejudiced, because a Parliament for just reasons can proceed against him.  
No man thinks that the honour and supreme privilege of an Emperour is impeached, because the Princes and States can depose him, in case he falsify and break the fundamental laws of their consociation and agreement.  
Hence, The censure of excommunication for the act is common to Elders, and Fraternity: only for the manner of managing of it, its peculiar to the Elders to be leaders in that action; and thence it is, They are called, {αβγδ} Heb. 13.17.  
These things are now laid down by way of explication: the probation and proof shall be brought in the proper place of it presently.  
Hence again, they do not give the power( which formerly they had) away from themselves, and cease to be what they were, as in civill offices, and amongst civill persons it usually fals out. A man sels his office, and ceaseth to be what he was before he sold it. Its not so here; but by voluntary subjection, they give an united right to another, which none, nor all of them ever had formaliter, but virtualiter only,& therfore the power of Judgement over each other they keep still, and can by that proceed against any that goes aside, though he was an officer.  
Its true, The Officer may by a superior united right, call them together, they cannot refuse. He may injoine them to hear, they may not withdraw. He may enjoin them silence, if they shall speak disorderly or impertinently, he may dissolve the congregation, and they must give way while he delivers the mind of Christ out of the Gospel, and acts all the affairs of his kingdom, according to his rule; and as it suits with his mind; he is thus above the whole Church: but in case he err and transgress a rule, and becomes a Delinquent, he is then liable to censure, and they may proceed against him though not by any power of office, for they are not officers, but by power of judgement which they do possess.  

SECT. II. The third thing to be enquired. Where this power is seated, as in the first subject, and there M. Reutherford his arguments expressed in Lib. 1. Cha. 1. of his Discipline are weighed and answered.  
This controversy touching the first subject of the power of the keys, is of all other of greatest worth and weight, and therefore both needs and deserves most serious search and trial, that if it be the good pleasure of the LORD, we might come to a right understanding thereof, and thereby a ready and certain way might appear to clear and settle our proceeding in most of the things that follow.  
We shall to this purpose crave leave to speak something for explication, something for confirmation of that which we do conceive to be the truth; which is this, namely, The power of the keys is committed to the Church of confederate Saints as the first and proper subject thereof.  
To remove the distaste, with which the minds and hearts of most have been taken aside, as touching this truth propounded, it will not be unseasonable, nor unprofitable, by some plain and short explication, as by some purging pill, to remove that malignant humour of prejudice, which hath eaten so deep into the apprehensions of men, that they are not willing to give any welcome entertainment to this part of Christs counsel.  
We will endeavour to scatter such fogs, which would keep the Reader from the full sight and assent unto this way, by the following propositions.  

PROPOSIT. I.  
That the power of the keys is seated in the Church as the proper subject, is no novel opinion, and new ●oined device of later dayes; but hath been of old professed and maintained, and that by men of able judgements in all ages: so that it hath antiquity and authority to honour it, as far as that honour will reach.  
This I propound, not, as placing any casting or convicting power in this evidence. For a cause is not the less true, because of late discovered; but onely to stay the stomachs of such, whose expectations are not answered in any opinion, unless it be moldy with age. We will suffer yeares to speak a little in this behalf.  
The place of those that Peter sustained in Matth. 16. to them the keys were given.  
But that Peter speaks in the name and sustained the place of the Church; the testimonies and authorities of several of the ancient, and those of great esteem, are plain; as Origen, Hilary, Augustine, frequently, expressly, pregnantly, together with troops of our Divines, who with one consent give approbation hereunto; as any may red in Parker de poli. Eccles. Lib. 3. C. 2, 3.  
That I may save mine own labour, and suffer every man to receive the praise of his own pa●nes.  
Nay Mr. Ruth●rford yields thus much, Lib. 1. Cap. 2. Pag. 21' We oppose Fathers to Fathers, saith he. So that the Fathers by his own confession writ for this.  
again, Master Rutherford speaking touching excommunication, thus writes, Lib. 1. pag. 49. Here grave Beza, our Divines, Calvin, Bucer, Bullinger, Melanchton, Bucan, Paraeus, Rivetus, Sibrandus, Junius, Trelcatius: The Fathers, Cyprian, Jerome, Augustine, nazianzen Chrysosthome, Ambrose, Theodoret Theophilact, require all to be done, plebe consentiente.  
And why should their consent be required, if it was merely matter of compliment, If the Elders should do it, or indeed could do it without them. For if it be in the peoples power to hinder the excommunication from taking place, then the Elders onely have not a power given them of Christ to manage this: unless we shall lay that imputation upon the wisdom of Christ, that he shall appoint a means of Reformation and purging the Church, that in an ordinary course cannot attain its end, which is deeply prejudicial to his faithfulness, wisdom, and power. And therefore Peter Martyr is peremptory and definitive in his expressions touching this point. Loc. come. de excommunicat. Sect. 9. Unde concluditur, non absque consensu ecclesiae quempiam excommunicari posse.   

PROPOSIT. II.  
The keys of the kingdom by way of Metaphor signify all that Min●steriall power by Christ dispensed, and from Christ received, whereby all the affairs of his house may be acted, and ordered, according to his mind, for the attaining of his ends purposed and appointed by himself. All that power; and therefore all such means as are sufficient to open the kingdom of Heaven to such as stoop thereunto, or to shut the kingdom of Heaven against such, who will not come under the authority thereof, is called keys.  
The Key of Royalty is in the hand of Christ, who is the head and King of his Church. The Key of Charity, as it is sometime called( but very improperly) is in the hand of all believers, when out of Christian love they lend some help unto such, with whom they meet, to further them in the ways of life, but have no power in a judicial way to proceed against them in case they refuse, because they are not in a visible Church. The Key of subordinate power which onely such, and all such have, who are combined in a special Corporation, and come under the external government of the sceptre of Christ in the gospel: such have good law,( as we use to speak) to proceed against any, that will not stoop to the rules, and be ordered by the laws of that kingdom of his.   

PROPOSIT. III.  
Where these keys of subordinate power are seated, as in the first subject: these are communicated by means of that, to all other, that partake thereof.  
Firstly in the Church, and by virtue of the Church, they are communicated to any that in any measure or manner share therein. heat is firstly in fire, as its proper subject; and therefore if it be found in any other thing, it is by reason, and because of fire. The Iron or water is hot, because they have fire in them that heats in them. The faculties of sense belong firstly to the sensitive soul, and they are never found in any subject nor act by it, but onely where the sensitive soul is. So it is with this delegate and subordinate power, it is firstly in the Church, and its communicated to none, acts in none, but by mean of her. Whence its clear, that it suits not the rules of reason,  
1. To cast some part of the power upon the people firstly, some part of the power upon the Rulers: As though there were two first subjects of this power, which the letter of the Text gainsays, To thee I will give, not To them: To thee, as representing one state or condition of men: To thee bearing the place of Elders or sustaining the person of believers. And therfore to answer the scope of the question, we must lay forth what is meant by keys in the general, and then show to whom that power belongs, and by their means is communicated to others, in order and manner as Christ hath appointed.  
2. That conceit is more wide from the mark, if any shall make but one first subject of this power, and yet have others to share in this power, and not by means of that: for this is indeed to speak daggers and contradictions. As if all power could be said to be in one firstly, and yet to be assoon in another, as in that.   

PROPOSIT. IV.  
The power of the keys take it in the complete nature thereof, its in the Church of believers, as in the first subject, but every part of it is not in the same manner and order to be attended for its ruling in the Church: but in the order and manner which Christ hath appointed.  
Its in her radicallyo and originally, as the cause subordinately under Christ; and it may there be acted by her immediately, as potestas judicii in admission of members in the absence of Ministers, in censuring by admonition, for each man is a judge of his brother; and there is a judicial way of admonition, when the parties are in such an estate, that in foro externo they can make process Juridicé against each other. So also there is potestas doni, as in all elections, they are acted by the joint approbation of the people.  
Or else its from her communicated unto some particular and special members, and exercised by them, having received it from Christ by her means, as all the Officers of the Church have their call and receive external right of their administration from her. As sensitiva facultas is originaliter in animali: but is acted and communicated in the proper specifications thereof, according to the order and method of natures proceeding. The soul doth not see but by an eye, makes an eye and sees by it. So the Church makes a Minister and dispenseth word and Sacraments by him.  
And because the name Minister hath been in common use, especially applied to Rulers, therefore a ministerial power is put for power of Office, and so ministerial power is only in Rulers. But as it comprehends all power delegated from Christ and subordinate to him, then its as large as the power of the keys in the general.  
Whence it is evident, according to the double acceptation of the word, there may be a power ministerial in the Church of believers generally taken, and yet a power ministerial onely in Rulers taken in a narrower sense, namely, the power of Office is only in the Rulers formaliter, in the Church radicaliter,& causativé.  
The power of judgement is in the Church formaliter, and in the Rulers directive, they out of an Office-power leading the whole proceeding therein. And that for these reasons.  
Arg. 1. Is taken from that received principle, which is confessed and yielded on all hands. Ejusdem est instituere& destituere. Whence I should thus reason.  
They who have power to censure and depose their Officers, in case of heresy or other iniquity persisted in, they have power of judgement formally seated in them over such. This Proposition admits no denial. They who can take power from another, they must of necessity have a power above that other in that regard.  
But the Fraternity have power to censure and so to depose an Officer, in case of heresy or iniquity persisted in: for they gave power to their Rulers by election; therefore in case of Delinquency, they may and can take it from them upon the principle formerly received, therefore they have power of judgement seated in them.  
Arg. 2. If it be in the power of the Church and fraternity to admit members, Its then in their power to cast them out( which is an act of judgement) when just cause is given, and they justly deserve it. For admitting in, and casting out carry alike parity and proportion of reason, are of the same and equal extent and issue from the same ground.  
But it is in the power of the Fraternity to admit members, as it appears in the admission of Officers, before any can be received into the Church.  
Arg. 3. Either the people have power to put forth a causal virtue in passing the judgement and censure upon the delinquent, or else it belongs to their place, and is their duty onely to consent.  
But this later cannot be granted. To consent to evil, and say Amen to an unjust censure is sinful, and so not their duty: But the sentence given by the Elders may be unjust.  
To say they may and should dissent, will bring as great inconvenience unto the cause upon their grounds. For if they may and should dissent from the unjust sentence passed, then according to rule and reason they may hinder the execution of the sentence of Excommunication; for if they will jointly keep communion with the person, whom they will cast out, the Elders cannot attain their end in the sentence. Therefore they are not appointed by Christ to execute the sentence alone; unless we shall say, that Christ appoints means, which cannot attain their end, and that in an ordinary course( for this may ordinarily fall out) which is to blemish the wisdom and faithfulness of our Saviour in managing the affairs of the house of God.  
Arg. 4. That Church which is meant in Matth. 18. That Church hath chief power in censuring any who are refractory, as the letter of the text gives in evidence.  
But by Church there is not meant the Presbytery alone.  
Assumption proved.  
That which crosseth the rule of righteous proceeding appointed by Christ, that is not Christs meaning in the text.  
But to understand it of the Presbytery alone, crosseth the rule of the righteous proceeding appointed by our Saviour.  
That which stops and disannuls the last part and degree of the process appointed by our Saviour, that crosseth his appointed proceeding in the censure.  
But this doth so, as shall appear by a double instance. Suppose three Elders in the Church, and they all under offence have been convinced in private: one or two witnesses have been taken: and yet they will not hear; what can now be done? The Brethren, who are offended must tell the Church, i.e. the Elders, that the Elders have offended, which was done before, and which to do is irrational, to make the guilty party a Judge in his own cause.  
again, suppose two of the three be offenders, and these two will not hear the first or second admonition, then the aggrieved party must complain to the Church, i.e. to the third Elder, and so one should be the Church: or else this last degree of process should wholly be disannulled: both which are contrary to reason and the wisdom of Christ.  
Arg. 5. If the power of judgement be in the Rulers only then it is either in some of them, and by them derived unto others: or else it belongs to all equally by the same commission; there can be no third way devised.  
But neither of these can be granted as true.  
To have rule given to one by him to be delegated to all others, As to have one chief( as namely Peter) and to have all other to repair to him, and to derive the power from him, is apparent Popery.  
And it cannot be delegated to all equally by the same commission: because those, who are equal in commission, are equal in power, for those two keep place one with another, and are of equal extent.  
But its confessed, that all the Rulers, who dispense the keys, have not equal power. The Teaching Elders are in degree and office both differing from the Ruling Elders, and superior to them,  
Arg. 6. Let me add this as a sixth reason.  
The Church mentioned Matth. 18. hath power to proceed in Excommunication, against what brother or brethren will not hear it. If he will not hear the Church, let him be as an Heathen.  
But the Rulers alone have not this power. As instance,  
Suppose that one of the Rulers should complain of the body of the fraternity, touching error in doctrine and wickedness in life. In case they will not hear the Rulers, the Rulers may, nay should Excommunicate them, ( i.e.) Three or four Rulers 400 or 500. brethren: which if granted, it will thence follow, these Rulers should not only censure the Church of the fraternity, but destroy themselves also, as Pastors and Rulers. For where there is no Flock, but all scattered, there is no Shepherd. But being lawfully Excommunicated, ex concessis, there is no Flock, but all is scattered, therefore their office as Shephers is destroyed.  
Besides it is observed by Ames, that a Church or body of a people combining, cannot be excommunicated; because then a Body having and retaining its essence, should be cast out of it, which is impossible.    

SECT. III.  
Let us now see, what be the Arguments which Master Rutherford propounds for the confirmation of his Tenet: That the Officers, those not of one Congregation, but of many, have the power of the keys conferred upon them, as the first subject.  
' That it is not to be holden, which is not written.  
But its not written, either expressly or by good consequence, that all the faithful lay hands on men for Ministry, as Titus, Paul, and the Presbytery do, 1 Tim. 4.14.  
Or where all the faithful bind and loose and receive witnesses judicially against Elders, as Timothy and Peter have authority to do.  
Answ. This first, and his second and third Argument touch not the Question as it is stated, and may in a right sense be granted, without any prejudice to the cause; for the sum of all the three Arguments amounts to thus much, That Office-power is formaliter in some select person, who hath ministerial spirit and gifts: and this we all grant. Nor can Master Rutherford show any sober and judicious professor or writer of Reformation that maintains the contrary. Parker, Ames, Robinson. This last in his most rigid times of sharpest Separation, thus professeth. 
Justif. Separ. p. 134.  That the Government of the Church before the Law, under the Law, and in the Apostles times, was, and so still is, not in the multitude, but in the chief; an● then he adds, It never came into their hearts to deny this: o●ly( as he saith) it is one thing to govern the Church, another thing to be the Church. Its confessed then by all, that Office-power is in the hands of some select persons: but it doth not thence follow, The power of the keys is firstly in them.  
This general answer was enough to put by, what is said in these three first Arguments. But for more full satisfaction, we shall take a more special survey.  
1. Office-power, is but a little part of the power of the keys: like the nibble of the Key: and therefore that may well be in Officers, and yet the power of the keys not be firstly in them, but in such, who gave that power and gave that office to them; and therefore had a power before, theirs did give what they have, and can take away what they have given.  
2. Not only the Officers, but Offices also, are included in the keys, as being of that ministerial power, by which that Kingdom of Heaven is opened, and the Gospel dispensed: and both Offices and Officers, as all ordinances are Christs gift to his Church Ephes. 4.11. He gave some to be Pastors and Teachers, and not only for his Church, but to his Church, as Master Rutherford confesseth with Chrysostome, and shall be afterwards more fully disputed. So that these suppose the Church to be before both, and to have the power of both.  
3. Nay, I confess, I cannot conceive,( if any man will give but way to what reason will readily led unto,) but that he must be constrained to aclowledge, that they cannot be attended under the respect and relation of Officers, to whom the keys be promised; for these are Mr. Rutherford his words.  
These Offices, that essentially include both the power and the exercise of the keys, be given to some select persons. Therfore they are given to some that are not Officers; therefore those cannot undergo the relation or respect of Officers, to whom these keys are promised. For how unpleasant, and I suspect also untrue, is such a construction of our Saviours words: To thee, who bearest the place and person of an Office, I will give an Office. Thou who art an Officer, shalt be made an Officer. Thou that hast an Office, to thee I will give an Office, and yet this must be the sense of the Text, if Peter to thee I will sustain the place of Officers here, and not the place and room of the Church of believers: For to them it is given, to invest fit persons with such power of office, that so they may from Christ and by delegation from them execute it, according to the limits laid out by CHRIST.  
4. If this complete power of binding and losing be given to the Officers firstly: then either as Teaching, or as Ruling, in the special work, or else as Officers sharing in the general nature of rule, which is affirmed of them both.  
If this power belong to Teaching, qua tales, then to infer from Master Rutherford his own ground: Quod convenit {αβγδ}, convenit {αβγδ}. to them as such: then onely to the Teachers, or onely to Rulers: But that is a confessed falsehood.  
If it belong to them as Rulers, in regard of that common or general nature of Ruling: Then is there the equal and same power in both, Teachers and Rulers: For the general nature is the same and equal in both. But that also is untrue.  
These things premised, let us take a taste of the particulars.  
If all the faithful may not lay on hands,( as Titus and Paul;) nor receive witnesses judicially( as Peter and Timothy;) Then they are not the first subject of the power of the keys.  
Answ. The consequence is false, even from his own grounds. For the ruling Elders cannot so lay on hands. Nor so receive witnesses judicially, as the teaching Elders do: and yet they have the power of the keys.  
Object. 2. To whomsoever Christ giveth the power of the keys, to them he gives a ministerial Spirit, by way of Preaching, and special ambassage to entertain sin.  
Answ. This is also unsound upon received principles. For the ruling Elders to whom the power of the keys is given, yet have not this ministerial gift, by way of special ambassage to bind and loose.  
Nor doth the answer which is here suggested, satisfy, Pag. 9. when it is affirmed, That the power of Preaching is not given formally to ruling Elders, yet it is effectually in the fruit given to them.  
1. For they who receive the power of that same Commission,& consequently both the same and equal power, they must have it formally, as well as others. But the first is true, and hath been proved.  
2. The power of preaching effectually cannot be said to be given to him; who hath no causal hand in that. But so it is here, this power effectual hath no causal hand in it: for the explication evidenceth as much, in that it is said, There is a judicial and authoritative application of it in the external Court of Christ. For this application of the word thus dispensed, implies, that the preaching is issued and ended.  
3 There is a judicial power in making application of the word preached by any of the Members, who have power to admonish and reprove judicially.  
Master Rutherford his fourth Argument.  
The Church is complete in its Government, suppose there be no power of the keys in the community of believers. And therefore its superfluous to place them there. pag. 10.  
Answ. This was the Assumption to be proved; but the proof is wholly mistaken, and the contrary to that is expressed: to wit, In case believers have power to Excommunicate, &c. Then the Eldership is voided and a fixed finger, and there is no necessity of exercise of keys as Elders.  
But to answer to his words when they come not home to the proof of the proposition denied. Though the people have potestatem judicij, yet there is necessary, that the Elders should have potestatem Officij.  
Arg. 5. The multitude of believers must have this power either from heaven or from man: If from heaven, then from the law of nature, or some divine positive law.  
Answ. It hath appeared before in Matth. 16. and Matth. 18. That there is positive institution and appointment of our Saviour to this purpose. But when it is added by him that it is not found in the New Testament that Christ hath made all Rulers, and hath left none over other in the Lord.  
It hath often been said, and fully opened before: To have power of the keys is one thing, and to be Rulers and guides is another: even as far differing, as to say, the Court of Aldermen, or a Common council can proceed against the mayor, being a Delinquent, and yet none of them are in the place and office of a mayor.  
And hence this overturneth not the order established by Christ, because the members and body have this power, and put forth the act, not as Officers, and {αβγδ}, but as members of a Corporation mutually Covenanted to submit each to other in case of Delinquency, and mutually to judge each other, though in the manner of the dispensation of the censure, as touching the leading of the action, as guides, according to their place and Office, that is proper to the Officers; which is the Answer to the seventh.  
Hence also there is a peculiar authority of Office-power, which is not in the flock: and yet there is a power of judging, which is in the whole, and is part of the power of the keys: and these two thwart not one the other, which is the Answer to the eighth.  
Arg. 6.& 11. These two turn much upon the same hinge, and may receive answer upon one and the same ground, being rightly opened.  
Arg. 6. Pag. 12. If the power of the keys be given to believers, as such, under this reduplication: then all believing women and Children have authority over the Congregation. For a Quatenus ad omne valet consequentia; and all should be Pastors.  
Arg. 11. If the power of the keys be given to believers as believers, then all and only believers have the power of the keys. Quod convenit {αβγδ} convenit {αβγδ}. But this is false, because many believers may be excommunicated and that justly, in which case they remain believers, and yet have no share in the keys.  
Also many have the power of the keys, yea be Pastours, and yet have no faith. Joh. 6.70. Matth. 7.21.  
Answ. It is something strange to me, that Mr. Rutherford confessing that those against whom he writes, do constantly aclowledge, that there is no more, but an unblamable profession of Faith required, to interest a man by way of Charity, to be accepted as a visible Saint, and as a member of a Congregation, and yet so usually and frequently to suppose they required sincerity, or else there would a nullity follow of their membership.  
I shall shortly recall what hath been recorded upon proof, and so expedite an easy answer to all that is said. Such visible Saints, which combine in a holy Covenant one with another, and are allowed by Christ as fit to receive delegated power by way of Commission from him: these are the subject of this ecclesiastical power. So that it is not believers, as believers, that have this power, but as believers Covenanting and fitly capable according to Christs appointment, that are the first subject of this power. For believers that are as scattered stones, and are not seated in a visible Church or Corporation, as settled in the wall, these have not any Ecclesicastiall power, according to which they can be proceeded withall, or can proceed with other in like condition with themselves. Beside, these believers are such in Charity who come into visible combination, not such in reality, from these grounds which have been formerly proved and now repeated.  
The Answer, is evident. This power is given to such believers, who are counted fit by Christ and capable, which women and Children, deaf, and dumb, and distracted are not. And therefore the consequence of the sixth Argument failes in the first branch. The power of the keys doth not make a Pastor, and therefore its false in the second branch.  
again, though the rule of Master Rutherford Quod convenit {αβγδ}, convenit {αβγδ} failes much, according to the fundamental laws of logic, which he will easily find upon second thoughts, and so the bottom of the Argument breaks wholly under him: I shall notwithstanding let that pass, and speak to the matter, wherein there is a worse mistake, because the question is wholly missed.  
Visible Saints and believers accounted according to the rules of Charity, are the subject matter of the Church: and therfore when they are justly excommunicated, though in Gods account and by virtue of that secret seed of Grace, they may be Saints inwardly, yet before their recovery, they are not Saints visible, to the rational eye of Charity.  
again, close hypocrites, as Judas, may be unbelievers really, and yet seemingly appear to be Saints. Is it I Master say all the Disciples fearing themselves as much, as suspecting Judas. And therefore the profession is sufficient to keep such in their Office, and to evidence that all their actions are valide, which they ministerially perform.  
Arg 9. If Christ give his keys, he gives answerable gifts to use the keys. But such gifts he doth not give to all believers.  
Answ. Such onely are to be members of the visible Church, who are in charities judgement visible Saints: and those who are such, they have received an anointing in some measure, as that they will hear and can discern the voice of Christ, and will follow him, and submit to him. Such are able to discern false Doctrine and false Teachers: such are able to choose themselves Pastors, as being able to relish the favour of spiritual administrations, and to feel what Key will best open their lock: can see and discern what courses be sinful and scandalous, persons obstinate and pertinacious therein. If such have power to reject false and erroneous teachers, as well as choose them, they have in reason power and skill to discern scandalous offenders and to reject them. This is not an Office-calling, but calling to be a member of a spiritual corporation, which is Mr. Rutherford his first demand: and therefore there needs not the tongue of the learned for this work: nor a spirit to come upon them in more then an ordinary manner to discharge this judgement. And their carelessness in not watching, not purging is reproved, 1 Cor. 5.2.3. So Master Rutherford hath all his demands satisfied in so many words.  
That which is further added by way of inquiry:  
God never calls to a place, but he leaves rules and directions for to order and guide themselves answerably thereunto: But the Word hath no Canons how the people should order the keys.  
Answ. The places are express, the directions plain, Matth. 18.17. If thy brother, &c. wherein the Lord doth as it were put the finger to the fescue, and point out all the several passages touching their proceeding, even from the first to the last. And as in one peculiar duty of admonition, wherein the greatest both danger and difficulty lay, the Lord is pleased to point out the way, and to put it almost past question: the like proportion should be held, and constantly attended in the other duties of brotherly love, to build up each other in their most holy faith, 1 Thes. 5.11, 12, 13. 2 Thess. 3.14. Heb. 13.17. Rom. 16.17. Observe those that cause dissensions among you, &c.  
The last dispute of Master Rutherford issues from that so ordinary and often mistake, in not differing the power of judgement from the power of Office, and confining the power of the keys unto too narrow a compass, as though the authority of Office was there onely to be attended, when it hath appeared, that it is of far larger extent: whence the consequence is very feeble.  
If God require such abilities and qualifications in Officers, which he doth not in all believers, then the power of the keys is not in the Church. I say, this consequence hath no colour in it. because the power of the keys is of larger extent then the power of Office, and thence it is, where the other is not, and requires not so great abilities to the managing thereof, as the other doth, which is of greatest eminency.  
The 10. Arg. Which would blemish this opinion, because it makes the Government of Gods house democratical, is reserved to another place, where our answer shall attend it; only for the present, we shall record that staple rule.  
The Government of the Church, in regard of the Body of the people is democratical: in regard of the Elders aristocratical; in regard of Christ, truly monarchical. And its such a compound of all these three, as that a parallel example to the like perfection, is not to be found on earth.   

SECT. IV.  
We have now done with these Arguments which we find in Mr. Rutherfords first Book; there be four more mentioned, lib. 2. p. 9.10. to the 14. which now we shall endeavour to address an answer unto; and they are taken from Matth. 16. Touching which place, let these two things be attended in the entrance once for all, because we shall be constrained to have recourse unto them, in the consideration of the Arguments following.  
1. Its affirmed by Mr. Rutherford, p. 9.  
The keys are given to Peter, as representing the Church-Guides especially, though not excluding believers, giving to them popular consent: and not to believers as united in a company of persons in Church-Covenant, excluding the Elders.  
These are his own words, which if we compare them with our former explications of the first subject of ecclesiastical power, it will appear to any that will lay aside prejudice, That we so give the power ecclesiastic to the Church of believers radically, that by their means we communicate the power of office to the Elders, and do seat office-rule formally in them. So that they are not excluded from having power, but not to have it first, but receive it from the Church; who under Christ, and according to his appointment, convey the same by an outward call unto them.  
2. Let it here also be remembered, which is yielded on all hands, that by keys in this place, not some, but all delegated power is to be understood, which is appointed by Christ, as sufficient to attain his end of binding and losing, opening and shutting heaven.  
These things premised, the Arguments as they lye in order propounded by Mr. Rutherford, l. 2. p. 9. are these.  
To that Church are the keys given which is buil●ed on a ro●k, as an house, the house of wisdom. Prov. 9.1. The house of God, 1 Tim. 3.15. Heb. 3.4. by the doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles: by Doctors and Teachers, whom Christ hath given for the building of his house, Eph. 4.11.  
But this house is not a company of professing believers united by a Church-Covenant, and destitute of Pastors and Teachers.  
Therefore such a Church is not here understood.  
He proves the assumption.  
The Church of believers combining in Church-Covenant, but wanting their Pastors and Teachers, is not wisedoms house, nor builded by Pastors, and Doctors given to edify and gather the body: but they are only the materials of the house, yea wanting the Pastors, they want ministerial power for pastoral preaching and administering the seals.  
Answ. The assumption fails: and all the proofs are not able to prop it up from falling to the ground. For they are but bare affirmations of many particulars; which either are so many untruths, or mistakes of things that have some truth in them. As,  
1. It is untrue, that combined believers in Church-Covenant, wanting Pastors, are not wisedoms house, since we have formerly proved that such a Church, taken as Totum essentiale, is before officers, and may be without them, and what can be more plain, when the Scripture affirms, Act. 14.23. That the Church by lifting up of hands did make and choose them Elders? in reason they must be before their Elders. When Paul chargeth the Elders to watch over the flock, over whom the Lord had made them overseers, he implies, there is a flock distinct from their overseers; when the Church rejects her officers as heretical doth she then destroy herself, and cease to be a Church, because they cease to be officers?  
2. It is untrue, that believers thus covenanting are only the materials of the house; when we have formerly proved, that such a confederating company, hath the materials and formals, required to the constitution of an house. If combination can make a presbyterial Church, why not also a congregational Church?  
3. It is a mistake and not a full explication, of that which hath a truth in it. i. e. That wanting Pastors, they want the power of edifying the body of Christ, which is required in a visible Church. For the answer is, when they want Pastors, they want that power that Totum Organicum hath to edify: but they want not that power, with a Church, taken as Totum essentiale, should have to edify itself: but it hath power to choose officers, and so to provide for pastoral preaching and administration of the seals by their means.  
Lastly let Mr. Rutherford tell us, how God set Teachers in the Church, if Teachers are before the Church.  
Obj. 2. To these are the keys here promised, who are stewards of the mysteries of God, 1 Cor. 4.1. servants of his house, 2 Cor. 4.5. who are to behave themselves well in Gods house, 1 Tim. 3.15. who are to cut the word aright. But a company of believers in Church Covenant, and destitute of officers, are not stewards by office, therefore to such a company the keys are not given. The Proposition is proved by the allegation of several testimonies of scripture and consent of interpreters; the clavis, a key, signifies office-power. Isa. 22.22. Isa. 9.6. Rev. 3.7. Rev. 1.18. Rev. 9.1.  
Answ. If by stewards we must understand those who are described and intended in the places quoted, 1 Cor. 4.1. 1 Tim. 3.15. &c. Its certain the Ruling Elder must have no key of binding and losing, opening or shutting: for all those places do properly intimate the Teachers and Pastors office.  
2. The proofs, brought here for confirmation of the proposition, do not touch the thing at all, for which they are brought; or else they reach not the Conclusion in the right and full meaning, which they should have confirmed; Most of them make nothing to the purpose, as Isa. 9.6. Rev. 3.7. Rev. 1.18. all which speak of the supreme and monarchical power of Christ, and therefore do not in the least measure look at that Stewardly and delegated power of which we speak, and the texts speak, and the proposition speaks in express terms, for which they were brought.  
So that there remains but one more( Isa. 22.22.) to be considered; that also comes not home to the conclusion, which was to be settled: only proves that which no man ever( I think) denied, that key in phrase of Scripture, sometime signifies a power given to a Steward.  
But what is this to the place Matth. 16. or our purpose? for this may be granted; that key sometime signifies a power given to an office, and yet by keys here are not meant that power only, much less a power firstly delegated to them. And if the Reader be pleased to recall some things formerly propounded, this will readily appear. By keys is here meant all power, which serves for the shutting and opening the doors of the house ( ut supra) but beside a stewardly power, there is requisite for this end, a power of the spouse and wife of the family; to her it is the Lord Christ, as her husband, hath given power to admit into the family, and reject as just occasion shall require; and in such cases, and for such ends to judge also; because such acts cannot be done without judgement; to her it appertains to call the Steward to his place, and put him into his place, and so to put a key of office, by election into his hand.  
The issue hence is this.  
To those are the keys here promised first, to whom firstly and originaliter, though not formaliter all power belongs; but to the spouse of Christ, the Church of Covenanting believers, all power originaliter belongs: for she can admit, reject, and judge, she can call to office, and put in office: and therefore though all power be not formaliter in her, yet all comes originaliter from her.  
And this hath been the opinion and apprehension of the most judicious in all ages, which makes me wonder why Mr. Rutherford should thus writ, I think while of late, never any Interpreter dreamed, that in the text, Matth. 16. The keys of the kingdom were given to all believers, understanding believers for the Church; I say, I wonder he should thus speak; when that man of a large and multifarious reading as Mr. Rutherford is, cannot but know otherwise, if he will but recall what he knows; nay let him recall and remember what he wrights. l. 1. p. 21. we oppose fathers to fathers, speaking of this point, and therefore confesseth, that the fathers spake and writ so.  
Object. 3. To these in this text doth Christ give the keys, to whom he giveth warrant and official authority for the actual exercise, to wit, of opening and shutting. But this warrant and official authority of binding and losing Christ giveth to Peter onls as representing Teachers and Elders, therefore he only gives to Peter this official power, I will give to thee the keys, &c. ther is his power, and authority granted: and whatsoever shal be bound in earth, shall be bound, &c. there is his warrant for the exercise of the act of his power.  
Answ. This Argument labours of the like disease with the former, and the conclusion, in a fair sense, may be yielded without any prejudice to our cause, or hazard to the question controverted betwixt us, namely, That only to Peter, as representing the place of Teachers, is the official authority of the keys given,( as will appear in the things premised in the entrance.) Officers may have this official power formally, and yet the power of the keys may be originally in the Church, and this office-power virtually proceed from them.  
2. The Proposition is apparently false, to wit, To them the power is given firstly, to whom warrant and official authority for the actual exercise of the keys is given: I say this is false; because 1. the power of the keys is far larger then office-power: as to admit, reject, &c. 2. There is power before office-power, which virtually communicates and conveys it to the officers, who are made partakers thereof.  
When it is added. Now if the keys be not given to Peter, as to a Pastor, then Peter and Pastors by this place as Pastors, neither have the keys, nor official warrant to preach, and to remit and retain sins; and if by this place they have it not, we desire to see a warrant from Christ, before he went to heaven for Pastoral Preaching.  
Answ. Though the keys be not firstly given to them there, yet here they may have good warrant for their office-power, because the Church, who hath received power to admit, reject, judge, choose and refuse, doth by Christs allowance and warrant call them to that place, and invest them with that office. Again that Commission Matth. 28.19. Go preach and baptize, John 20. Whose sins ye remit they are remitted, gives warrant abundantly to that work of preaching.  
Mr. Rutherford lastly adds p. 12. To bind and loose are acts of official power: and of Pastors, Rulers, Feeders: I prove the Antecedent, because To bind and loose by all Interpreters, Augustine, cyril, &c. and the evidence of Scripture, is, by public and pastoral Preaching to remit and retain sin. But pastoral preaching doth not belong to believers.  
Answ. Binding and losing, look at them as in the place, and in their largest sense, they comprehend the exercise of all the acts of the keys, or Church power, which may attain this end: and those acts are not only by public preaching( for then the Ruling-Elder should have no key to bind or loose) but also by admonitions, excommunications, admissions, which as we have formerly proved, issue from a power of judging, common to the people with the Pastor, and not appropriate to the Pastors only.  
Lastly we so give the keys to the Church, that yet she doth not exercise any act of Office-rule without Officers, whom she calls to that end.  
Object. 4. If Christ neither in Matth. 16. nor in Matth. 18. doth say, that the keys, for the act of the keys,( to wit, binding and losing) are given to the Church of believers without their Officers, then neither place proves it. But Christ doth say it, therefore the text doth not bear it.  
That Christ doth not say it, he proves; because speaking of the Church in the first part of the verse, he changeth his proof, I will give to thee, not to the Church. But its answered, The promise is made to Peter, because he gave a confession of Christ, in the name of believers. To this Mr. Rutherford replies. If the keys be given to believers, so Covenanting; I ask, whether they be given to them, a true or a false profession intervening, as the nearest cause of the gift of these.  
We answer, if by false profession, such a one may be meant, which may agree unto hypocrites, covertly such, yet appearing outwardly unblamable, we grant it.  
To this Master Rutherford replies. Then the keys are not given to believers, because they are believers, and united unto Christ as his Spouse. 2. then this Author saith amiss, that the Church instituted by Christ is a company of godly men, whereof Peter was one. 3. Our brethren prove the keys to be a part of the liberty of the redeemed ones: but counterfeit professors are not such.  
Answ. All these consequences issue from that so often and ordinary mistake of visible Saints; and if the Reader shall remember how to rectify his judgement in the right understanding thereof, the answer will be easy and familiar, namely: visible Saints, which are members of the Church, they are externally united to Christ; and not internally always: they are faithful and godly to the judgement of Charity, but not in reality and truth: they are redeemed visibly, not inwardly and efficaciously.  
Its added lastly by Master Rutherford, That Christ speaketh to Peter, as one representing the Apostles, and not as to one representing all believers, is clear, first, because by the confession of our brethren, binding and losing are denied to many that make Peters confession, thou art Jesus the son of the living God, as to believing Women and Children, and many out of Church-estate.  
Answ. When Master Rutherford makes that the conclusion he would confute, that Christ speaks not to all believers in the person of Peter, we affirm the same, and that he knows, and in many places expresseth; and therefore it was sufficient to lay aside the consideration of all his proofs: yet that we may not leave the place voided, we shall speak shortly to the particulars.  
Let it then be remembered, that Peter speaks in the name of a community of Disciples believing and professing the faith with one joint consent and agreement. For the words are plain and differencing, Matth. 16.15. But whom say ye that I am? Yea in way of difference and distinction from those some and others mentioned in the foregoing verses, Some said, he was John Baptist, some Elias, others Jeremias, or one of the Prophets. These here understood by some and others, were in reason not unbelievers onely, but man believers also, and yet in a differencing way our Saviour adds, whom say ye my Disciples, who ha●e walked in the profession of the Faith? Peter in the name of these thus having confessed the Faith, and upon that joint confession now instituted a Church by Christ, in the next words, in the name of these,( I say) Peter a●swers; and therefore not in the name of Women and Children, which is Master Rutherfords first Argument.  
Object. ●. He adds. If believers as giving Peters confession and builded upon the Rock Christ, by this place are made a ministerial Church by Christ, and gifted with the power of the keys: then the official power of preaching and binding and losing should be made as stable and firm from defection, as the Church of elect believers.  
Answ. The Assumption is denied: for as it hath been often said, The Church here, to whom the keys are firstly given, though they have a virtual power to call men in a right order according to Christ, unto Office, yet they have not formally official power: nor is the one, I mean the official power, of like stability with the Church. For the Church may be without them, and in case they fail, as in gre t Apostacyes and universal declinings of the Churches, they may, and yet the visible Church never did, nor can, so totally fail, as all our Orthodox writers, and Master Rutherford confesseth.  
Object 3. Those to whom Christ gives the keys, do represent the person of Christ, and who despiseth them despiseth Christ, and he that honoureth them, honoureth Christ, which is evidently spoken to the Ministers of Christ, Matth. 10.40, &c. Now Scriptures never make all believers ambassadors in Christs room, &c.  
Answ. The representation of Christ as his Stewards and ambassadors, belongs onely to such who have Office-p were, and are Rulers in his house, and this power is but part of the power of the keys here mentioned: and therefore the Church may be the subject of the keys firstly and originally, and virtually communicate Office-power unto her Ministers, whom she calls, though formally she hath not that power, nor so dispenseth it, and therefore the Proposition is to be denied as apparently false: namely, those to whom Christ giveth the keys here in Matth. 16. those represent his person, as ambassadors, because the Spouse had a power in the family before the Steward was entertained in to the family by her.  
Object. 2. Those to whom the keys are given, do authoritatively forgive and retain sins, and their acts are valid in Heaven. But the Church or company of believers, wanting their Officers, by no Scripture can authoritatively forgive. When it was answered, that believers out of Office may forgive. 2 Cor. 2.10. He replies that the place in the Corinths is controverted, and we doubt not ( says he) but of the same nature, with the power of excommunicating 1 Cor. 5, 4.  
Answ. That phrase of Authoritative forgiving being a little cleared, the stress of the Objection will readily be taken off.  
The word Authority in the ordinary speech is sometime taken for power, and lies in equal latitude with it: but in its proper signification, as in this place, its put for Ruling and Office-power.  
Retaining this sense, which must needs be intended, and the expressions of Master Rutherford in this place intimate no less: The proposition admits a ready answer by a rational denial. There is a power of judgement, which the fraternity have, and they forgive judicially. There is a power of rule and Office, and the Officers forgive Authoritatively, as Rulers. Of the first, the place of the Corinths is understood: for any other of other Churches, or such as were of no Church, might, and indeed should have forgiven the incestuous person, charitatively, out of charity, as Christians; but its spoken here in reference to his former censure, and so for his receiving in again, and those in a Church onely must, and indeed can do this.  
The like and same answer suits the 5 Objection, merely issuing from the same mistake, as namely, when he says.  
To those only are the keys given, who having Pauls spirit, which is a spirit official to preach and excommunicate, may convene and deliver to Satan. Ans. The distinction of judicial and official powerfully discovers the falseness of the proposition, and preserves the power in his first and proper subject, according to former explication.  
We have now done with all the objections, which we meet withall, touching the first subject of Church-power in Master Rutherford his second book; unless it be those which fall in with a fresh disquisition of the catholic visibe Church, where we shall attend them. Only before I pass from hence, I shall crave leave to offer some things to consideration touching this 16 of Matth. A place upon which all sorts have pressed in, first or last, to claim some privilege to themselves. The Pope will needs have all power belong to him as Peters successor: The Prelates they claim the next place for pre-eminence as peculiar to them; The Elders and Officers of Churches conceive it best suits their ministerial condition, and now at last the Fraternity lay in for some allowance to themselves, and that they were looked at, in the first intent of Christ. My purpose is only to propound some things, that may occasion some wise-hearted to settle the meaning of the text by undeniable evidence; we shall therefore make our approaches upon the sense of the place, by the propositions following.  

PROPOSIT. I.  
Key, being an ensign of power: by keys in the plural all delegated power for the ordering of the affairs of the Church, is here understood, as the use of the keys expressed in the words doth fully evidence. For all power that the Lord Christ hath betrusted his Church withall, aims at this end, to open and shut, bind and loose.   

PROPOSIT. II.  
These keys and power must be given to a single society( as Mr. Rutherford is wont to speak) i.e. to a sort or condition of men under some special relation. To thee as a single society, not to them.   

PROPOSIT. III.  
This single society under such a relation and respect, share alike in equality of this power promised to them, the reason is this: Those which have the same commission share alike in the same and equal power, because the power they do possess and partake of issues only from their commission, but there is but one and the same commission given to all: I will give to thee &c.   

PROPOSIT. IV.  
This single society here related unto, cannot be the condition of Rulers: because to the persons here intended all power is given. But all power is not given to the Rulers firstly. For there is a power before the power of Rulers, to wit power of election, and so admission into their places, And that both these acts imply a power, is thus made plain. An office is a key, and consequently comes under the power of the keys: and to give that key implies a power. 2. If excommunication argues a power, then also admission doth the like, in that there is a parity of reason on both sides: one gives that, which another takes away.  
again, should the condition of an officer or an elder be related unto, It must be either the Teaching-elder alone, and then the Ruling-elder, and his power is excluded: or if the Ruling-Elder alone must be meant, then the power of the Teaching-Elder must also be denied: and then how can All power be here meant by these keys? Nor can the general nature of a Ruler, as belonging to both teaching and ruling be attended. For then both teaching and ruling should have the same equal power, having one and the same commission, but that the word and all wise hearers deny.   

PROPOSIT. V.  
Hence this power of the keys, cennot be given to one single society of men formally in all the kinds of it, because it requires several kinds of subjects formally different: As some Ruling, some Teaching, some electing. Hence it follows undeniably, These keys, and the power signified by them, must be given to such, who have some of this power firstly, and formally, and originally, and virtually can give the rest of the power, which so given, may be fully exercised in all the acts of binding and losing, according to all the necessities of the Church and intendment of our Saviour Christ. And this may readily be accomplished and easily apprehended to be done by a Church of believers: They can admit, elect; this formally belongs to them: and officers being elected by them, the whole government of the Church, will then go on in all the operations thereof, and be fit to attain the ends, attended by our Saviour. The first thing which was of difficult explication, is thus dispatched.  
The second wherein the greatest stress lies in this iniquiy, is, Whether the Church mentioned in that text, be the visible or invisible Church.  
After many thoughts floating in my mind, what might be the meaning of our Saviour, one expression of Mr. Rutherford, l. 2. p 9. 10. made me recall former considerations. His words are these.  
Though the building of this Church on the Rock, Christ, may well be thought to be the inward building of the catholic and invisible Church in the faith of Christ yet as it is promised to the Church, to the which Christ promiseth the keys of the kingdom of heaven, it can be no other beside external and ministerial building by a public ministry.  
Which expressions occasioned me to recover many of those debates, which before had been stirring in my bosom, whether the Church there, might not in a safe sense be conceived to be the visible Church: and all things weighed, my apprehensions came to be inclined and biased that way, and that for this reason, until better reason appear.  
That Church is here meant, which is built upon the rock Christ by the visible confession of Peter, as explycated immediately before.  
But the invisible Church is not built by a visible profession, such as Peters was.  
This second part or Assumption will find ready acceptance, by reason of the opposition betwixt visibility and invisibility.  
For the Proposition that is made good, by the meaning of the words; Thou hast made a confession of myself a rock; and therefore art called {αβγδ} and upon myself, so confessed, will I build my Church.  
The main argument that makes against this interpretation is this. That Church is here understood, against which the gates of hell cannot prevail. But against the visible Church the gates of hell hath prevailed. Therefore.  
Answ. The visible Church is attended in a double respect.  
Either as this or that particular congregation.  
Or else as a Church universal existing in the particulars.  
And in this latter sense, it is taken in this place: and then it is a sure and confessed truth, That the visible Church doth not fail; and this is the judgement of all the orthodox, as Mr. Rutherford grants, l. 2. p. 107.  
And in this sense, ( salvo meliori judicio) is that place to be understood. 1 Tim. 3.15. that thou mightest know how to behave thyself in the House of God. This house is the visible Church. For 1. Timothy is instructed how to demean and carry himself in it; therefore he must be acquainted with the house, and the occasions thereof; and to demean himself suitably thereunto, which is inconsistent with invisibility. 2. This direction was to continue to all succeeding officers, even to the end, and that in all their particular charges: and therefore must be a pattern of a Church, or a Church as existing in its particulars, which Christ will have while the world continues. For Eph. 4.12.13. There must be Pastors and Teachers, until all the faithful be gathered into the unity of the Faith, and acknowledgement of the son of God. Dr. Ames. Medull. l. 1. c. 31.37.     

CHAP. XII. Touching the catholic and visible Church. To the ministry and guides of the catholic visible Church hath the Lord committed the keys, as to the first subject.  
BEfore we come to the scanning of this great controversy, which hath exercised the hearts and pens of the most learned in this age, we must of necessity clear the terms of the question, in a word or two, that so the breadth and scope of it may be laid out in its full bounds and limits, least otherwise we be at a loss, when we come to apply ourselves to special difficulties, which will appear in the particular arguments which come into consideration.  
1. By key, as we have heard, we are to understand a power delegated from Christ, to dispense and administer the holy things of his house, according to his own will, prescribing an order to that end: the keys being an ensign of this power, and put by a metonymy for the subject, the power itself.  
2. What is meant by the catholic and visible Church.  
When I had red over Mr. Rutherford once and again, I was at a stand in mine own thoughts, to determine certainly what was his proper intendment. I profess in a word of truth, I would not willingly misconceive his meaning, and so wrong him and the truth, but the variety of his expressions forced my apprehensions also to vary; sometime his words seem to cast this catholic visible Church, upon the general nature of a Church, or a Congregation taken in the common nature thereof; and this I could willingly embrace. Thus many of his phrases seem to sound.  
To what principal subject hath the Lord given reason and a faculty of discoursing? is it to Peter or John? No, no: It is for and to the race of mankind: the case is so here, l. 2. p. 2. 91. So speaking again of the same matter. l. 2. p. 293. So he giveth by order of nature to his Church in general.  
Sometime again his expressions seem to intimate an ecumenical council, which is the catholic Church representative, l. 2. p. 304. It doth not follow: because the catholic, representative, visible Church, is the first subject of the keeyes, &c.  
Lastly sometimes his expressions seem to point out a catholic visible Church, in the integral nature thereof, as an integrum arising out of all the particular congregations as the members thereof. This kind of difference his words intimate. l. 2. p. 311.  
general councils are neither necessary to the being, nor to the well-being, but only to the best-being of the catholic Church; here he apparently distinguisheth a general council from the catholic Church in this debate.  
The like phrase is found. l. 2. p. 304. Which of these doth most svit with his meaning, I cannot( to speak ingenuously) peremptorily define. The law was old, Cum bonis bonè agier oportet. I confess my thoughts have inclined me most unto the second, as that he intended an Oecomenicall council, because when he comes to apply himself to some of the objections which are made, his usual discourse in the full current runs that way. Though, if I might have had my secret desire, I could have wished he had intended the first: because therein we should come near to an accord.  
That I may deal sincerely in regard of the truth, and inoffensively, in regard of so worthy and learned a man as Mr. Rutherford, I shall take leave to set down my apprehensions, such as they be, touching all these senses, thus explained; let the truth prevail, and the Reader judge.  
Taking the catholic Church in the first sense, as eyeing the nature of the Church in general,  
Its that which suits in a great part with our opinion and apprehensions: we shall therefore gather in upon the right explication of this truth, by the conclusions following.  
When we say a congregation of visible Saints covenanting to walk in the ordinances of the Gospel, is the prime and original subject of the power of the keys; I suppose it is obvious to common sense, that as we do not, so we cannot understand it of this or that individual congregation, as though they only had it, or none but they, or as though they had it firstly, and all from them: this, I say is obvious even to envy itself. For what meaneth those clamours of Independency, which are cast upon our persons and opinions, if we should hold that one particular did depend upon another? And in that we maintain this as a truth, that every particular congregation hath equal power with another, and complete power, taken with all his officers, to the exercise of all ordinances, we do by such an Assertion profess that this power is common to them all, and therefore cannot be proper to any, but only in the individual and special determination thereof.  
The issue is this then, That the power of the keys belongs firstly to a congregation of covenanting believers, not as this congregation, but because a congregation of such, and thus I do conceive ( salvo meliori judicio) that of our Saviour is to be interpnted, I will build my Church, taking a visible congregation of visible covenanting believers, as that which is a pattern and a sampler,( as I may so speak,) which leaves an impression upon all the particulars, as common unto all, and is preserved in all: and it will never fall out, but there will be some or other particular, in which it will be preserved, as we shall speak afterward, when we come to the special scanning the place; and in this sense it is, the Lord Jesus never wants a visible Church, on earth, though this, or that visible may, doth, and will fail, as we see by plentiful experience and proof out of the word, in those famous congregations of Corinth, Galatia, &c.  
A Congregation of Covenanting visible Saints, being a GENVS to all the particular congregations, which are partes homogeneae or species thereof: hence it follows.  
1. That a congregation doth firstly communicate its whole nature to every particular Church, and with that all the power and privileges that did appertain unto it, it doth equally and indifferently bestow upon them. As it is a received rule in reason. Genus est totum partibus essentiale. And therefore doth communicate his whole nature firstly and equally to all his species, and all those properties that did appertain to his nature by it and with it, it conveys to all of them indifferently.  
2. And from this ground it is, That each congregation hath all Ecclesiastical power that is seated in the general nature of the Church, each particular assembly hath as equally and completely conveyed to it, as any other, and can act all of it without the other. As this and that particular man, as Tho. John, Jeremy hath all the nature equally and completely communicated to them, and can put forth the operations of that nature fully of themselves, and without the help of any other.  
3. Hence catholic Church( in this sense) is never to be seen, but in particular congregations, nor yet ever exerciseth its power and operations alone( or seorsim) but only in the several assemblies, Genus nec existit, nec operatur nisi in speciebus. The nature of Animal is only to be seen in homine& bruto. The nature of man it only acts, only exists, in particular men. Hence the nature of the Church catholic, or general, comes to be determined and confined to its particular, and being determined, it only acts in that: and is regulated by that particular in which it is, and to which it gives its constitution, together with the special or individual nature in which it is. The old rule was.  Genus cum forma constituit speciem. 
I will take leave to exemplify for the help of the meaner sort whose apprehensions meet not with these in their ordinary road. This Corporation is a special kind of a Corporation: This man and woman are husband and wife, or their contract is a marriage contract. Here Corporation taken in the general nature for the body of a people combined in a civill way for civill ends; this general nature, and whatever privileges are so proper and peculiar, as that they cannot be separated there from, both the general nature and all such privileges are truly attributed to& affirmed of this and that particular corporation as the general of the special, and this general comes to be determined and specificated, by the individual and formal combining of this special company of persons: and that makes it this corporation. And that general nature as it comes to be conveyed to this particular, is confined to and acted only by the power of that particular: so that though this corporation hath the general nature which is common to all corporations, yet have they not power nor privilege, but in their own place.  
So that marriage contract, which is general to all of that sort and condition, it comes to be determined by the particular contracting of these, added to the general: whence it is evident, that beside a marriage covenant in the general, there must come a particular contract betwixt this man and this woman: else they will never be man and wife; still the rule holds, Genus cum formâ constituit speciem. The general nature of marriage contract, comes to be determined only in this particular, so that he is a husband only to this woman, this woman is wife only to this man.  
And hence by the way, the weakness and fallacy of that conceit will easily be discovered, That profession in the general, should make a man a member of all particular Churches on earth.  
Hence fifthly, From the first ground it follows,  
5. That each particular congregation is complete and independent, for the exercise of all acts and dispensations belonging to a congregation or Church, without any reference to any other congregation, because they are distinct species, which firstly and equally participate of the nature of the genus, and so of all those privileges that equally, and indifferently appertain thereunto.  
6. Hence again, the general nature of a Church, as it i● preserved, so the full good, in the full Latitude thereof, is promoted and advanced, by the particular Congregations, which are the species thereof; for this is a collection which naturally and necessary follows and flows from hence.  
7. Hence a Classis( which ariseth from particular congregations, and yet not from all, but from some, and that from some members of particular congregations, sent out for counsell-sake, to consider what might be useful in the behalf of the Churches) it can be mo species of a Church: for a particular Congregation is species specialissima, whence it comes, the nature of the Church in general, and of the species in particular are complete, without any such a Classis; and therefore all Church-power, and the exercise thereof is full and complete in point of Jurisdiction without it. And therefore Jurisdiction cannot be firstly there, because if the nature of a Church be complete without it, then the power and Jurisdiction of Church-government is complete without that, and not first in that.  Upon these grounds thus laid and debated, we shall address an Answer to all Master Rutherford his Arguments, unless they fall under this conclusion in the sense formerly explicated. 

I.  
First, he would have the Apostles to receive the keys in the name of the whole catholic ministerial guides. Because they must stand in the place and room of a single society, when they received that Commission, whose sins ye remit, shall be remitted. Joh. 20.  
Answ. 1. The Apostle in that Commission were extraordinary persons, and were sent into all the world, to lay the foundation of the gospel, by an apostolical power, and in this sense they have no successors; nor did they stand in the room of any.  
2. When they did supply the room of a single society, I demand, what society was it? Neither of Ruling Elders, nor of Teaching Elders. It must be a single society, and one relation they must undergo; what ever will be affirmed, will be prejudicial to his cause. For if they were in the room of Teaching Elders, then Ruling Elders have by this Commission no right to the keys. If they supplied the room of Ruling onely, then the teaching Elders must claim nothing from hence.  
again, I would willingly know, when they supplied the room of either of these, whether they supplied the room of all of them, or of some of them? If of all of them, whether severally executing their Offices in their places, or combined together in a Classis or Synod?  
If it be affi●med,( which cannot be denied with any reason) that they supply the room of these as they be severally executing their Offices,( For their Authoritative preaching is one part of binding and losing) then each particular ruler may bind or loose, excommunicate and absolve in each particular Congregation, as well as in a Classis.  
Nay because they are first Elders in the particular congregations before they be in a Classis or Synod, and there succeed the Apostles as Rulers: then they may be, nay must be there, the first subject of the keys, because there they first succeed the Apostles in binding and losing by official Preaching.  
If it shall be said, the Apostles represent Elders, as they are conjoined in an ecumenical council. This belongs to some only: for all Elders never met in an ecumenical council. Beside this is not proper to Elders, for brethren there meet also: whereas this relation the Apostle here supplies must be common to all that single society, and onely to that single society, whose room they sustain.  
The naked truth is, the Apostles here, as in Matth. 28.19. Mark. 16.15. are extraordinary men whom none succeed. And as they are ordinary Presbyters, or supplied their place, so they supplied the place of Deacons, Act. 6.1, 2. and had virtually, and so could exercise, the power of all Officers. And therefore lastly when they supply the place of Elders, this shows what an Elder should do in his order, and according to his place, but whether he be the {αβγδ} of Church power, this evinceth not; but in no manner or measure evidenceth any thing touching the combination of Elders, or their power.  Before we address a particular answer to the Arguments next ensuing, we must recollect some former considerations that the Reader may carry them along as his compass to steer by. 
1. The common nature of Church and Officers onely exists and works, and is preserved in the particulars.  
2. The complete being and power of Churches or Elders in the full compass and Latitude of both, thus existing, includes not onely the common, but the peculiar nature of the individuals together with the general: And therefore if we look at them, as in consideration severed from their individuals, they onely exist in our understanding, whereas the reality of their natures onely exists in the particulars. There must be a particular combination of a people, beside a combination in general, before the full and complete nature of a Corporation will be existing, or can be so conceived. The like may be said of other free contracts.  
3. Hence the Lord never sets up Churches or Officers, gives power to them, and requires the execution of power from them, but ever the Lord looks at the particular in the general& the general as determined in the particular: The Reason is, because the existing and working of Churches and Officers is only to be seen, as it only appears,& is expressed in the individuals. As when God makes an Officer by election, erects a Church, its a particular Church and individual Officer; therefore the individual there first exists, and the general in the individual.  
Hence lastly upon the same ground, and for the same reason, as the general is divided into his particulars, so the generals are preserved in them. All visible members exist in particular Congregations, and are perfected by Ordinances therein.  
Let the Reader take these particulars with him, and they will pilot him so, as he may see his passage through all Objections that shall be presented in his way.  
The second and fourth Objections are these.  
I pray you consider, that Christs intention, in giving the ministry, is not for a Congregation of 40, 50, 100, as if he intended to impawne all power therein, but intended the edifying of his body catholic, and the coming of all to the unity of the Faith. A Congregation cannot be all Saints. This power is clearly given that body, which the Lord is to make a perfect man, according to the measure of the fullness of Christ, Lib. 2.290.  
The sum of this is repeated, as the fourth Argument, 2. p. 293.  
To that Church hath Christ given, as to the first Church the Ordinances and ministry which he principally intended to perfect, to gather, and to bring to the unity of the Faith.  
But he principally intended to perfect, to gather, and to bring to the unity of the Faith in a perfect body, by these ordinances and ministry, the whole catholic visible Church: and secondly this or that Congregation.  
Answ. 1. Mr. Rutherford shall answer Mr. Rutherford Lib. 2. Pag. 248. Where he professedly disputes out of this place of Eph. 4. for a Church invisible to be the first subject of all ordinances, Christian privileges, and Officers, on this manner.  
Hence let me reason thus,( saith he)  
The Church whose gathering together, whose unity of Faith &c. and growth of that measure of the fullness of Christ, that the Lord intendeth, by giving to them for that end, some Pastors and Teachers: Eph. 4.11.12. must be that Church to whom all the promises of the Covenant and privileges do belong.  
But the Lord intendeth the gathering together to the unity of the Faith, to the knowledge of the sons of God, and growth of the measure of the fullness of Christ, only of the invisible, elected, and redeemed Chuhch, not of the visible, professing Church, nor doth the Lord sand Pastors or Doctors, upon a purpose of gathering the Visible Church.  
Thus Master Rutherford is of several apprehensions, and one undermines another; and upon the former grant this cannot stand, much less conclude.  
Come we a little nearer to the mark, and try the particulars.  
First examine the Proposition.  
Those whom Christ doth purpose to bring to the unity of the Faith, and the fullness of the stature of Christ, &c. Eph. 4.11, 12. those are certainly such who shalbe saved. And therfore must of necessity be true believers. For they alone attain the perfection formerly mentioned.  
And it is as undeniably evident, that ordinances and Ministers are not given firstly to such, I mean to true believers, as Mr. Rutherford is express in several passages of his book. The intendment of salvation from God, and the g●ving of Ordinances and ministry keep not equal place each with other; nay Master Rutherford will tell us, that such an opinion sides apparently with the Arminians, L. 2. P. 248. The proposition then is utterly untrue.  
Let the Assumption come to its trial.  
But God doth principally intend to bring the whole catholic visible Church to the unity of the Faith, the acknowledgement of the Son of God, and the fullness of the measure of the stature of Christ.  
Answ. The whole visible Church consists of good and bad, wheat and tares, elect and reprobate, as it is confessed by Mr. Rutherford and by all judicious men.  
And doth God intend to bring reprobates to the unity of the Faith and the fullness of the stature in Christ? I know that Mr. Rutherford will not say so, so that both the premises failing, the conclusion must needs fall with them.  
Ans. 2. Secondly, what is all this to the controversy in hand? The question between Mr. Rutherford and us, is this; That to the ministry and guides of the catholic visible Church, the Lord hath committed the keys, as to the first subject: But let the former conclusion, and the whole frame of the reason be granted, to wit, that Ordinances and ministry are given to the catholic visible Church of believers( for these must here be understood, as being distinct from Ministers and guides) yet this proves not the keys given to the guides onely. For the former we can grant in a safe sense according to our former explications, and yet we shall deny this latter, as not finding any sufficient proof for it.  
Answ. 3. Lastly, apply we the Argument to that cause and question in hand, as controverted betwixt us, and it will appear that it fights strongly against it.  
To that Church which Christ principally intends to bring to the unity of the Faith and the acknowledgement of the Son of God, is to them gives the power of the keys, as to the first subject.  
But the gathering of the ministry of the catholic Church, the perfecting of them, and bringing of them to the unity of the Faith, and the acknowledgement of the Son of God, Christ doth not principally intend.  
Therefore unto them are not the keys given as to the first subject.  
Thus we have done with the second and fourth Arguments.  
Arg. 3. If all power ministerial be given to a Congregation( by our brethrens confession) under the name of a flock of redeemed ones, as the body of Christ, Act. 20.28. Col. 1.18. Then it belongs to the catholic Church. For of them these titles are verified, and agree first to the catholic visible Church, as is clear Col. 1.18. Eph. 5 25, 26. 1 Tim. 3.15. Eph. 2.19, 20, 21. And so they come to our hand.  
Answ. I am glad we are come so near, if indeed it be so: why do we not then shake hands? for that is it which we seriously and earnestly desire, If it was that will and good pleasure of God. Let us then inquire whether Mr. Rutherford his mind and our meaning agree, and then we shall most willingly fall in with him.  
This catholic Church, as before admits of a threefold apprehension: either as it implies a covenanting congregation of believers: or 2. Totum representativum? 3. or Totum integral. If he means the first, as it is the meaning of the Scripture, we have what we would, and Mr. Rutherford his conclusion fals flat to the ground.  
If the catholic Church hath the power of the keys given firstly to it, then the Ministers and Guides thereof, are not the first subject of them.  
But the catholic Church i. e. according to us, A congregation of Saints covenanting( as before we have explicated the question) hath the power of the keys, therefore the Ministers or Guides are not the first subject:  
The Proposition admits no gain-saying, because the catholic Church and the Guides are different and distinct in common apprehension,  
The second part Mr. Rutherford grants to wit, That the ministerial power of the keys, is given to a congregation, under the name of the flock, &c.  
And hence his cause must needs suffer shiprack, sailing by these shoals, for I suppose as Mr. Rutherford, must as he doth, difference betwixt the Church-catholick as the spouse and body of Christ, and the ministry thereof.  
But here he grants, that this power is given to the spouse and body. Therefore not firstly to the ministry. Beside, the places which he allegeth, and seems to allow, evince thus much.  
Paul sends for the elders of Ephesus, and bids them take heed to the flock, over whom Christ hath made them overseers, therefore this flock is distinct from their overseers; and if unto such a flock the power ministerial be given, it cannot be given to the overseers firstly.  
Hence the flock is not the catholic Church, take it as an integrum of all congregations, for its only at Ephesus; and over it, not over all the world, where they made them overseers.  
Nor can it be meant of an ecumenical Church, upon the same grounds; yea by his own confession else-where, it is not so to be taken. Taking catholic in this sense, according to former explication, i.e. the general nature of a Church, as existing and acting in the particulars, we have what we desire, and our cause is confirmed by this means, nor confuted.  
That which is added, p. 291. 292. adds no force to this Argument, nor hurt to our cause; namely its said, The whole catholic Church visible, is made one visible ministerial body, and said to have organical parts, as it is described, Cant. 6.4. by eyes, teeth, temple, and so to have particular Churches under her.  
Answ. All this is true, in a true sense, and urgeth not the conclusion at all. For the general nature of officers, is answerable to the general nature of the Church, I mean it is of the like latitude. And conceive all particular congregations so constituted, they may be called unum genere, i.e. they all, are Church so gathered and constituted. This particular Church is a Church, and so all the particulars they have the nature of a Church attributed to them, and affirmed of them, as the genus of the species.  
And thus the nature of the Church, and so the power of the keys in the Church, take them completed in their full being, they include the particular in the general, and determine the general in the particular: and so the nature of the Church and power of the keys, exist firstly in the particular, are therein acted and in that determined, which is all we call for, and our cause requires in the explication of it. So that we are to seek neither for the nature of the Church, nor the power of the keys acting or exsisting but in particular congregation: As the genus only exists, acts, and is seen in his species.  
The fifth and seventh arguments belong to another place, where we shall attend them. The sixth is little or no whit differing from the third, yet we shall propound it, and make a return unto it.  
Arg. 6. Because Christ hath not given the power of the Ministry, ordinances, and jurisdiction to the single congregation, as to the first subject, upon the ground that our brethren speak, to wit, because the single congregation is that spouse, to which Christ is referred as an husband, and that body to which he carrieth the relation of a head.  
Nor is it that adequate number of ransomed persons, of sheep, of lost ones, to the which Christ doth carry that adequate and complete relation of a Saviour, King, governor; therefore that visible Church, for whose salvation Christ hath given the ministerial power, must be the larger visible Church.  
Answ. If the Reader be pleased to look back to the first conclusion, in the explication of the cause, or the preparation we made to the Answer of the second Argument, it will appear that as we do not, so we cannot understand our question of the first subject of the keys to be an individual or single congregatino: as though that individual had it firstly and all from it: when the clamour of independency doth proclaim the contrary. How can we maintain every individual congregation to be independent, if one did depend upon another? whereas its well known, that we maintain each congregation hath equal power with another; therefore we say that the power of the keys belongs to a congregation, as existing in its particulars, and therefore equally belongs to all particulars, in all which the general with the particulars are preserved and perfected.  
The complete being of a Church attended, as in Scripture phrase we find it, and as it suits with the rules of reason, it comprehends the particular in the general, and the general comes to be determined in the particular; and therefore the Tenet Mr. Rutherford propounds, is not that which we maintain, but that which he is pleased to make to himself.    

CHAP. XIII. Of the catholic Church as it is totum representativum in the assembling of Pastors, &c. in a general council.  
WE have thus dispatched the first member of the controversy, touching the first subject of Church-power, or the power of the keys, namely, it doth not appertain to the Gides of the visible Church, Take it as Totum genericum, or universale.  Let us now consider it, as Totum representativum, i.e. as the catholic visible Church is, represented in the Convention and assembling of the Pastors of all several congregations, in a general or ecumenical council. 
And according to this acception of a catholic visible Church, the whole course and current of Master Rutherfords dispute in the several answers and explications that are returned to Arguments propounded, is to be understood. The words are faire and full lib. 2. p. 305. The power of the keys, by order of nature is onely in the catholic representative Church, as in the first subject.  
Before we proceed to the pinch of the debate, we will look about us a little, that we may see where the way lies. For the path to these general councils hath been so long disused, that it s almost grown out of sight, and as he sometimes speaks in a like case, The high ways are unoccupied.  
1. Remember then we must, There be two things, wherein the qualification and so the commission and warrant of a member of a council consists especially. The material ground of Commissioners at Assemblies, is their gifts and fitness. The formal ground is, the Church-calling, and sending them. Parker de Polit. l. 3. c. 18. Materiale ex donis internis pendet, formale ex deligatione ecclesiae, and this Assertion is approved by Mr. Rutherford, and confessed by all ours, that I met withall, l. 1. p. 213.  
2. The Churches may sand, and if they will follow the pattern in the word, they must sand learned and holy men unto Synods, besides Pastors, Teachers, Elders; so Luke hath it Act. 15.25, 
De council. controv. 3. q c. sec. nestr.  26. and therefore its an Argument which learned Whittaker allegeth, from the nature of a Synod: That since a general council doth represent, universam ecclesiam, there should be some of all sorts and orders of men sent thereunto: As Pastors, Doctors, Elders, Brethren, who should as it were personate, and supply the place of the whole.  
3. All these so sent and assembled in the council, have a decisive and definitive sentence in the acts that shall be made, decrees and determinations that shall pass. This is made the hinge and the very casting difference of the controversy betwixt us and the Papists, whereby our men vindicate the liberty and power of the brethren met in council, against the usurpation of the Pope and his Proctors, whereby they would arrogate and monopolise all authority of deciding and determining controversies unto the Prelates, 
ubi supra contr. 2. q, 3. c. 1.  And therefore Bellarmine would carve out all the authority to that crew and company, and says, Apostolos judicasse, Presbyteros consultasse, plebem audivisse tantum. But Whittaker states the question, as the common received judgement of all the orthodox, and so maintains that which is openly contradictory to the Popish conceit. Nostra vero haec sententia est, non solos praelatos habere jus definiendi in conciliis, said homines quosvis idoneos eligi posse, qui ad concilium mittantur, eosque liberé pronuntiare debere.  
Hence this Representative body is but a part, as it stands in reference to the catholic visible Church, and therefore it is said, not to be a Totum in that relation, but representare totum, by way of delegation or commission given eo nomine, or in that respect. The acts of this company carry a kind of proportion and resemblance to the body which it represents: that what they in virtue of their delegation do, its all one or the like reason, as if the body represented did it. Look at them, as they are now assembled, they are an entire body resulting out of the concurrence of all the several members so concurring.  
We see now what the nature of this representative body is: we shall now draw nearer to the mark, and make application of this to the particular in hand. Master Rutherford expresseth the question in these terms Lib. 2.289. To this Church universal visible hath the Lord given a ministry, and all his Ordinances of Word and Sacraments principally and primarily. And to the ministry and guides of this catholic visible Church hath the Lord committed the keys, as to the first subject.  
But we shall look off from this place, and take those words which are most plain, as the bottom of our debate, Lib. 2. Pag. 305. The power of the keys, by order of nature is only in the catholic" representative Church, as in the first subject. From Pag. 300 to 309. And the scope of all his answer in the most candid and faire construction that can be made of them, looks this way.  
again, by power of the keys, we understand all the power of Ordination, excommunication, &c. Which in the current and common apprehension is comprehended therein.  
And the reasons which yet carry and cast the balance to the negative part, and our apprehensions for the present that way, are these.  
1. We shall attend Master Rutherford his own explication, as that which he must take for granted and good, as admitting no just exception, namely, Quicquid convenit {αβγδ} convenit {αβγδ}  
It must agree to all and only to that kind. Whence the Argument grows on, thus,  
That which firstly and onely belongs to the catholic representative Church, that neither was, nor can be before it. The very nature of the terms gives in testimony undeniable unto this. For it cannot belong to it onely, if it belong to others beside it: nor to it firstly, if to others before it.  
But the power of the keys was before the representative Church, yea before it had any being. For the Churches had the keys and the exercise of them by the space of 300 yeares, after our Saviour, when as yet there was not the name of an ecumenical council heard of in the world.  
Beside, from the former grounds agreed on, touching the constitution of a general council, its plain: That the Churches delegate all, both persons and power from themselves to the making up of such a general Assembly. And therefore they had all Officers, and they the exercise of their Office-power before that day long.  
Nor will that distinction relieve the cause in this distress, to wit, that in order of nature they are onely firstly in the representative, but in order of time they are before in other subjects; nay the medicine makes the cause worse, though it was sick before. For that a proper quality should be in time before his proper subject, which gives it its being: and that it should be, in time before its own nature, wherein his being lies, is beyond the relief of all the rules of reason. Beside, that several things being compared together, one might be before another in nature, when it was simul and together with another in time, hath been usually said,( and yet by some usually questioned, in that time ever attends nature) but that the same things should be in time, before its nature had any being( as this distinction would bear us in hand) I suppose is unheard of.  
2. If the power of the keys should be given to an ecumenical council as to the first subject: Then those should have and formally exercise the power of the keys, who were no Pastors nor officers in those acts.  
But that is denied by master Rutherford, ergo.  
The proposition is proved, because the decrees and determinations of the council and their actings, in their decisions and definings are no proper works of a Pastor,& nor do they proceed from these offices or officers as such. Thus Judicious Ames. Bell. enerv. Tom. 2. c. 2. de council. p 10. Definire in conciliis generalibus non potest esse pars muneris Pastorum, quia tum Pastor nullus ecclesiae Primitivae, et pauci tantùm sequentium saeculorum munus pastoral potuissent implere.  
And the ground is sure and safe. Acts which are common to Brethren, as well as to such as be officers, Those are not proper, nor do proceed from an office or officer as such, but from some root or respect which doth indifferently belong unto both, as its evident in the case in hand, because they all act as messengers: for that as we heard even now, gave the formality to the member of a Synod, and by power and warrant of this proceeding issued from thence.  
Beside we heard before, that the council consists of brethren, as well as Elders, and the power of determining and binding issues jointly from all, and to maintain the contrary is judged an open point of Popery by Doctor whitaker. uti supra.  

3. Arg.  
3. If the power of the keys belong firstly to the ecumenical council. Then it belongs to all other, by virtue of that, for this the rule, {αβγδ} doth require. If none have this power, but onely this subject, then this power can go no further then this. For this {αβγδ} and {αβγδ} require: where ever Risibility is, there the nature of man must be, because it agrees to it firstly to Richard John. Jeremy, not as this or that individual, but as they have the nature of man in them.  
And hence there can no power of the keys( as ordination excommunication. &c.) be put forth but by the virtue of an ecumenical council giving in their influence first to that work: which is contrary to the evidence of scripture, and the experience of all ages.  
And before I leave this argument I shall take leave to make some inferences from it, such as necessary follow from the nature the thing according to the practise of all Arts, proceeding from the unfallible evidence of like precepts.  If all the power of the keys be firstly and onely in the catholic representative body. 
Hence in all other by virtue of this  
Hence this is as necessary to the well-being of the Church as the power of the keys, because the Churches have not this power but from hence. Hence, this representative Church is necessary to the been esse of a Church, not onely ad melius et optimum esse. For it is as necessary as the power of the keys: but that is necessary ad been esse, by Master Rutherford his confession. Hence this power of the keys is here most perfectly; because here firstly. Hence most constantly and ordinarily? If firstly, onely, and always here, and in others by virtue of this, then it is here most constantly and most ordinarily.  
All these follow undeniably from the rule {αβγδ}, nor can there be given any reason to the contrary. Take any example in any act, and upon this ground these inferences will flow naturally and beyond exception. Risibility belongs to the nature of a man. Therefore is there firstly, onely, always. Therefore, constantly, perfectly. Therefore its derived from hence to all others, that shall be made partakers of it. Therefore take away the nature of man, and destroy it, you destroy this faculty.  
From hence its clear, that the contrary expressions to these, dropped here and there by Master Rutherford without which he could not decline the dint of the Arguments alleged against him, are so many Assersions contrary to the truth and the nature of the rule, {αβγδ}.   

4. Arg.  
If the power of the keys be here firstly and onely; then it can exercise them without all doubt lawfully: and in the right exercise thereof can attain its end.  
But the first part is denied by Master Rutherford Lib. 2. Pag. 418. I much doubt if a catholic council can formally excommunicate a national Church. And indeed he may well doubt it.  
For suppose that many persons in the particular Churches of the Nation shall complain of the evils of the Churches, and groan under them: The excommunicating of these Churches, would inflict the punishment as well upon the innocent, as the nocent, for the communion would reach the one as well as the other, and so the censure should proceed upon them as well who deserved it not, as those who did deserve it.  
But secondly its certain, if the Churches refuse the sentence, the power of the council can never prevail to attain its end.   

5. Arg.  
Let me add a last Argument taken from Master Rutherford his own expressions, which are these. Lib. 2. Pag. 289. To this universal Church visible hath the Lord given a ministry, and all his ordinances of word Sacrament, principally, and primarily: and to the ministry and guides of this catholic Church visible hath the Lord committed the keys as unto the first subject.  
Whence I should thus reason.  
To the ministry and guides of that catholic visible Church hath Christ committed the keys, as to the first subject, unto which he hath given his word, ordinances, Sacraments, ministry primarily. This proposition is in terminis expressed and affirmed by Master Rutherford, nay determined as a conclusion beyond all gainsaying.  
But( I assume) to an ecumenical council, as the Totum representativum of all Churches, God hath not primarily, given to his ministry, word, Sacraments, ordinances.  
Therefore an ecumenical representative Church hath not the keys given to it, as to the first subject.  
The Assumption( which onely needs proof) sense and experience, the nature of the thing, Master Rutherford his confession in cases parallel and of like nature doth abundantly confirm. For its well known to every man, that after the Ascension of our Saviour, by the space of 300 yeeres, there was no general council in the world, were there neither Ministers sent, word not Sacraments dispensed, Pastors and Teachers executing their office, performing the d●ties of their places and charges, all that while to those, to whom, and for whose good, they were principally and primarily appointed?  
2. Each man knows, that the council consists principally of those, who are Elders and Pastors in other Churches, and will a mans sense suffer him to say, that there must be Ministers sent to, teach and feed, and watch over these Ministers.  
3. Nay doth not the examples and records of all ages evidence, that the preaching of the Word, administration of the Sacraments, &c. nor primarily nor secondarily is here attended? but the scanning of controversies, deciding and determining of doubtful questions.  
And lastly when Master Rutherford denieth Ministers to have a pastoral charge and watch over a presbyterial Church: because that watch onely is appropriate to the particular Congregations, the care of whose souls they stand charged withall: By parity of reason. he will in no case impose this upon any Pastor, to be a constant watchman over a general council: not only, because its more then he can discharge, beside his care of his particular flock, but also, because it would seem irrational, that there should be a Pastor, and so a Ruler over those, whom he makes to have supreme rule over all Churches.  
Hither appertains the seventh Argument of Master Rutherford touching the keys given to the catholic visible church: and therfore I formerly reserved it for this place, and shall now take it into scanning and consideration, and it is this, Lib. 2. c. 295.  
When any scandalous person is delivered to Satan, he is cast out of the whole catholic Church, therefore he was before his election, a member of the whole catholic Church. For he cannot be cast out, who was never within, and when he is excommunicated, his sins bound, as in heaven, so on earth, i.e. not onely in that tract of ground, where a handful of a little congregation independent ( as they say) of 10, or 20, or 100 doth ordinarily feed, but in all the visible world, where God hath a Church, and all, both within the little congregation and without, are to repute him as an hear then and a publican.  
Answ. When we inquired touching that which gave formality to a member of a Church or congregation, we then at large debated the question, namely, That visible profession did not make a man a member of a congregation, much less a member of all the particular congregations on earth, whether we refer the Reader. Only, we infer from that which was then proved, that he who was not a member of all Churches, he cannot be said to be cut off from all because he never was engrafted into them: no more then a member of one individual man, being cut off from his body or person can be said to be cut off from another, because these two men have the nature of man common to them both: or more plainly; because a member of one Corporation is dis-franchised and condemned to perpetual imprisonment, as traitor, therefore all other Corporations should dis-franchise him also, because these two are species of a Corporation in general.  
True it is, when one Church of Christ hath righteously cast out a man, All other congregations should account of him as such an out cast, approve of the sentence of the Church, unless any thing appear to the contrary, and they should so express themselves, towards him, as such a one, whom the Lord Christ hath sentenced and judged as a heathen: and therefore becomes all, who are the subjects of Christ to judge so of him. As all the subjects of he kingdom do account him a traitor, and carry themselves towards him, as such a one, who is convinced and proceeded against, as such, in one City or Corporation.  
This is the aim of that answer which Master Rutherford allegeth, from some, who say, That the party is excommunicated onely out of that Congregation, whereof he is a member antecedenter; because Christ hath given the power of excommunication only to the Church: But he is excommunicated to all other Churches onely consequenter, by consequent.  
To this Master Rutherford says; I answer the plain contrary. He is antecedenter and formally delivered to Satan by the power of the catholic visible Church, which is put forth in exercises and acts, before that Church, whereof he is the nearest member. Even as the left hand doth cut off the finger of the right hand, which otherwise should infect the whole body. Now it is not the left hand onely that cutteth off the contagious and infectious finger, but the whole man. Deliberate reason and the will consenteth it should be done, for the preservation of the whole. The left hand is a mere instrument, and the loss of the finger, is a loss to the whole body: and the finger is cut off the right hand not antecedenter onely, by the power of the left hand, but by the intrinsical power that was in the whole body. Its true the contagion should creep through and infect the right hand first: and therefore incision is made upon the right hand first. When the Eldership of the Congregation delivers to Satan, it is not done by that power, that is intrinsical in the congregation onely, but by the power intrinsical, that is in the whole universal Church. lib. 2. pag. 296.  
We shall here pause a little, and as travellers use to do, view the cost how it lies, because the path seems dark, and the passage somewhat hazardfull.  
I Answer then, If the catholic Church put forth a power intrinsical in the excommunicating of the offender and delivering him to Satan,( as it is here said:) It must be either an ecumenical council, or a representative body of all, that must do this; or else all the Churches must have a hand in it.  
1. An Oecumenik council cannot excommunicate. For that which is not, hath no being, cannot put forth any operation. Non entis non est operatio.  
But a general council was not after our Saviour by the space of 300 yeeres. There hath been none of late, by the space of many hundreds, and when there will be any, no man knows.  
And therefore it can put forth no intrinsical power in this censure of excommunication, neither antecedenter, nor consequenter.  
2. Nor can all the Churches be said, by any evidence of reason to have a hand, or put forth a power to this work. For Master Rutherford his own principles are, one congregation hath no power over another, one Classis over another, one provincial or national council, hath no power over another. Whence the inference is plain.  
They who have no power, much less supreme power over another, they can put forth no power over another.  
But( ex concessis) many Churches, Classis, Synods have no power over a congregation therefore they can put forth no power, much less antecedenter to this work.  
3. again, they who put forth a power intrinsical to excommunication, they must do it according to Christ his rule, and suitable to order prescribed by him.  
But in cases of excommunication, especially those of obstinacy, the rule of Christ, and the direction of the gospel require, they should examine, convince, admonish, before excommunication.  
And therefore they must be thoroughly informed and fully acquainted with the offence, if they proceed regularly.  
But all the Curches cannot be thus informed with the offences of such, who are excommunicated, nor yet are bound to be, antecedenter, to the dispensation of the censure. They are not bound to receive all the complaints of every particular Church, to hear and examine all witnesses, not bound to convene the offending party, nor hath any Church but that, whereof he is a member, power to do it.  
And therefore according to the rule of Christ, they cannot put forth a power antecedenter to the excommunicating of him.  
4. Beside if all the Churches put forth a power antecedenter to the excommunicating of the offender, before, the particular Church: then the sentence is known and past before the sentence of the particular congregation proceed: then there is no place left of Appeal to other Churches, because their judgement is past, therefore they need not require their judgement, but this Mr. Rutherford will in no wise allow, nor is it consistent with his principles nor indeed with reason.  
5. If after the excommunication past in a congregation or Classes, when other Classes, Synods, congregations shall come to be acquainted therewith, and the proceeding therein, as irregular and unjust, they shall reject the sentence, as not suitable to the mind of Christ, and protest against the proceeding; They who in their judgements ever disallowed the sentence, and by their endeavour labour to repeal and oppose it; They cannot be said in reason to put forth an intrinsical power, and that antecedenter in the execution of it.  
And I suppose the Churches, who are of such a judgement would wonder to hear a congregation thus speak to them: Here is an offending Brother cast out of our society, for such obstinacy in evil: we have cast him out consequenter, but you have put forth an intrinsical power antecedenter to our act, else it could never have been done.  
I suppose, if a provincial, national, ecumenical council( that would condemn them for their sentence,) should hear them so speak, they would presently protest their innocency; and that they had no hand in it, they were never acquainted with their proceedings, for if they had, they should have professedly opposed them therein.  
Lastly, if the whole catholic Church put forth a power antecedenter in casting out every particular offender out of the Church: they also must needs put forth their power antecedenter in receiving him in: which reason and the experience of all ages gainsays. That a congregation should consult with all the Churches on earth, before they absolve a penitent offender: there was no such law delivered to the Church of Corinth in that case, but as he blames them, because they did not cast him out, before he wrote: so he wisheth them to receive him in again into communion, neither staying nor expecting, until a general council was called for that end.  
The similitude which Mr. Rutherford useth, hath a handsome colour to cousen the inconsiderate Reader, but being seriously weighed reacheth not the cause in hand.  
It is true, the left hand doth not only cut off the contagious and infectious finger, but the whole man. Deliberate reason and will consenteth thereunto; and the finger is cut off, not by the power of the left hand onely, but by the intrinsical power in the whole body. I say all this is true, and there is very good reason it should be so: because the mind and will, and so the whole hath full and sufficient power in itself, and that peculiarly and properly appointed by God and nature to preserve itself, and prevent infection in any member, and rather to cut of the infectious part, then that the contagion should spread to the ruin hey the whole.  
And it is so exactly in particular congregation; the chief officers, as the mind and will and the rest of the Brethren, as the whole, have intrinsical power given them by Christ, and should put it forth in his name, and according to his order to remove an infectious member. But how unsuitable is it to require the same of other Churches, because they excommunicate in the general nature of a Church with them, when in truth they have no power over a particular Church, and therefore as they cannot, so they should not attempt any such thing? For to lay aside now the consideration of an independent congregation, we will propound only, Mr. Rutherford his own principles for proof in this case.  
Its confessed by Mr. Rutherford that a Church in an iceland hath power of excommunication in herself: and therefore she may put it forth alone. And yet I suppose Mr. Rutherford will confess, that a party so excommunicate is to be accounted a Heathen to all Churches as well, and as much, as any excommunicated out of a Church that hath neighbouring Churches near it: notwithstanding no other Churches have, and therefore can put forth no power, in the executing of that act of excommunication done by a Church in an iceland.  
The same also may be said of Classes and provincial Synods, in regard of other Synods and Classes, over whom they have no power, by his own grant, and yet a person excommunicated in one regularly, is so accounted of by all.  
And common sense will constrain a mans judgement hereunto.  
The mayor and Aldermen of one Corporation, must first be privy to the offence of any member in the Society, and then they have power to proceed against him, without either the power or privity of another corporation, though they be both members of the same kingdom, and both species of a corporation, the common nature whereof is attributed to them both: because there is peculiar power left to them in their own place and precincts. The like may be said of a particular congregation.  
These grounds thus made good by reason, will give in evidence against several expressions of Mr. Rutherford as distant from the truth.  
That sister Churches receive members of other Churches to communion by an intrinsical authoritative Church power.  
If he mean such an authoritative Church-power, as a congregation puts forth in excommunication, such a power these should put forth in admittance to communion: Its an Assertion neither safe nor sound, and a mans experience will teach him the contrary: For by authoritative Church-power we can enjoin our own members to come to the seal, or else censure them, but we cannot so deal with others, if it shall seem good to them to refuse to come.  
He adds, Christ hath given an intrinsical power to many consociated Churches to cast out a contagious lump, otherwise the consociated Churches are to exercise the punishment, of the avoiding the excommunicated person, as an Heathen, which followeth from a power which is no ways in them; what conscience is here?  
I Answ. A good conscience rightly guided by rule; For if by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established, as the Lord and his Law speaks: then much more shall a fact be established, that hath not the testimony of two or three, but of a whole Church, it may be so many hundreds to bear witness thereunto. And no man, nay no court in the world, can but yield to this evidence, before something appear to the contrary, unless against conscience they shall lay aside the express Law of God.  
We shall propound a narrower case then this, and yet its so plain that it will carry the judgement of any considerate man with it. Suppose a party going to some remote place, whether his occasion leads him, intends to join with the Church of Christ there set up: another person privy to his intention, and knowing the man undeserving, he gives intimation to a friend under his own hand and two others, that the party is scandalous for oppression and cozenage: when he shall desire entrance and acceptance, the letter is shewed, and witnesses discovered, and he justly denied admittance, with is a just punishment justly inflicted upon him, and that which a good conscience.  
In the case in hand, the argument forceth a fortiori. If we may account a man scandalous, and carry ourselves towards him as such a one, under the witnesses of two or three, before the contrary be manifested: much more may we account a person justly excommunicated and demean ourselves towards him in a manner suitable to such a condition under the testimony of a Church of Christ, until something shall appear to the contrary.  
But suppose the Church err, and cast out the person clavae errant? shall a man in a brutish manner practise according to their proceeding, and not discern whether the censure be justly or unjustly inflicted?  
Answ. This is not to practise after a brutish manner, but to proceed according to such rules, better then which nor reason nor righteousness requires any: For under such a testimony the person stands justly excommunicated in mine account, and I must judge so if I will judge righteously. Jnstance. A person is accused in open Court of Treason upon three witnesses, which are pregnant and peremptory: The judge cannot but condemn the man, as such a malefactor; and in case he should make an escape, all that hear of the proceeding, they are to account him such a one, and to proceed against him as such, and yet cannot be said to practise brutishly, but piously and righteously, according to rules of reasonable nature, which God hath revealed in his holy word, until the testimony given in be controlled and disannulled; so it is here.  
Lastly I shall present unto the Reader and to Master Rutherford what himself hath writ in another place, and so leave this argument. lib. 2. p. 320. we find these words, the question being there propounded, since a scandalous person living betwixt two neighbouring presbyteries, and so likely to infect both equally and indefferently by his offence, why therefore should he not be cast out of both?  
Master Rutherford his answer is this.  
Though he dwell in the borders of two classical presbyteries, yet since God, the God of order hath made him a combined member now by institution of one presbyterial Church, not of another, he is to be excommunicated by the one, not by the other.  
A man would think at the first blushy, If one classical Church do not excommunicate antecedenter: by the same proportion of reason many must not, nay none but his own classis do excommunicate him, and therefore how can the catholic Church be said to do this antecedenter? but Master Rutherford best knows his own meaning, and this will occasion him to explicate it.    

CHAP. XIV. Of the Church Universall, as it is Totum integral.  
ANd to deal candidly in this as in the former course of our dispute, we profess our aim in this inquiry is, onely to give in what evidence we can, to the clearer discovery of the Truth. For I cannot find any expressions in Master Rutherford that fully fasten this sense upon any passage of his dispute, and it is not in my thoughts to father any thing upon him, beside what he fully expresseth.  
For our more clear and direct proceeding, I shall take leave to inquire. 1. What is meant by a catholic visible Church taken in this sense, as Totum integral.  
2. Whether such a Church is to be found in the New Testament.  
3. Whether the Lord Christ hath set Officers here, as in their first subject; and to them so set, the power of the keys doth firstly appertain.  
To the first.  
That the catholic Church hath some time such a respect, as Totum integral, I now and then find amongst Authors. Ames Medull. lib. 1. c. 32. par. 5.  Ecclesia particularis respectu Ecclesiae Catholicae, quae habet rationem integri, est membrum. 
His meaning is, if we look at particular members and particular Churches as aggregated together, that which results and ariseth from the confluence and concurrence of them all, we put the respect of Totum integral upon it, and so it is called ecclesia Catholica.  
And for the right discerning of this, and differencing of some considerations about it, The Reader must take notice that three things are to be attended for the distinct understanding of this Totum, that he may sever it from former respects, unto which we have spoken and discern the nature of it from the general nature of a Church, between which there is an exceeding vast difference.  
1. Then, the particular persons and Congregations, the members of this Church catholic taken in this notion and consideration, contain in them the essential causes of it, out of which it ariseth, and is constituted: Whereas Totum universale contrariwise contains and communicates causes to particular Churches.  
2. Hence, these particular persons and Churches are, and must be in nature before this Totum integral i.e. This catholic Church thus aggregated: and this follows from the former, in so much as the causes are in nature before the effect.  
3. Hence this totum in proper and precise consideration, though it be ever with its members, yet is distinct from them, as that which ariseth out of them. As a man is neither body nor soul, but an integrum, a third rising out of them both.  The Reader must carry these along with him, because haply we shall have recourse to them, as occasion shall require. 
The second things to be enquired, is,  
Whether this Church is to be found in the New Testament.  
When this Quaere was presented unto Master Rutherford by way of Objection, thus, You cannot demonstrate out of the Scripture, that there is such a thing in the New Testament as a catholic visible Church.  
He answers in these words, Lib. 2.418.  
I conceive the subject of 1 Cor. 12. is a catholic visible Church; we do not understand a political visible body, with ordinary visible government from one man, who maketh himself the Vicar of Christ, the Pope, whose members are Cardinals, Bishops, and such like, but the catholic body mystical of Christ, and that as visible.  
We see here Master Rutherf. his expressions presented before us; but what his meaning is, I confess, I cannot clearly perceive, as, 

1. What is the meaning of that phrase, mystical as visible.  
2. What is the thing intended by it.    
1. I do not readily conceive his mind in such an expression; we understand the body mystical of Christ as invisible. For the mystical body of Christ, in common and current sense is constantly taken for the invisible body of our Saviour. Now to consider an invisible body as visible doth implicate plainly; and is, as if a man should say, I will consider whiteness as it is black, and therefore this seems not to be his mind: but it may be he takes mystical in another figurative meaning: or haply the expression is mis-printed. It sufficeth to point at it, to occasion further explication.  
2. What is the thing here intended, is as hard to find out fully.  
When I observed that he puts visible in a kind of equal breadth and latitude with mystical: That being Totum integral of all the parts aggregated, I could not but imagine, his intendment was to take visible in the same sense. Beside Lib. 2 pag. 222. I find him distinguishing the Pastors of particular Congregations from the Pastors of the catholic Church, whereas had he taken catholic for universal, then the Pastors of one must be the Pastors of the other. For genus is only existing in its species, and there only can be seen, and so consequently attended.  
These are probabilities which sway my judgement that way. But I find also that sometimes he puts in the word universal to express his meaning of the place. And this casts the balance the other way. So that I cannot say, he meaneth by catholic Church visible, a totum integral. And therefore I shall not oppose it as his sense, but onely dispute against it, as not the sense of the place; and that these Reasons following persuade me for the present.  

1. Arg.  
That Church is meant in 1 Cor. 12. in which God sets Teachers, Helps, Governments as ordinary Officers firstly, vers. 28.  
But he sets not these firstly in the catholic Church visible, as totum aggregatum,( before explicated.)  
The Assumption, where onely the doubt lies, is thus proved. Because the setting of the officers in the Church( I speak now of those which are ordinary) is by the Election of the people, and therefore this setting and officers set must be there, where the election is: this election or call being the foundation, whence the relation between Pastors and people results, and so become in relation one to another, gives mutual being each to other, are together one with another.  
But clear it is that election is in the particular Churches, Act. 14.23. Act. 6.5. Tit. 1.5. and therefore there these ordinary officers are firstly set by God.   

Argum. II.  
In what Church Pastors are firstly set, over them they have firstly and primarily Pastorlike power in preaching, ruling, and dispensing the acts of their office. The nature of the office, Gods charge and command, the end at which they must aim, and for which sent, evinceth this. Act. 20.21. 1 Pet. 5.2.  
But ordinary Teachers hatve not this pastoral and official power over the catholic Church, as will thus appear.  
Those whose power by the Law and order of Christ may be refused in all congregations, but in their own particular; They by no law of Christ have right of pastoral power in any, but in their own particular charges and Churches; otherwise the Lord Christ should set a man in his office, and by rule and law others may for ever refuse the exercise and power of his office over whom he is set.  
But the power of ordinary Pastors may by law and order of Christ, be justly refused in all congregations beside their own. As suppose all congregations have Pastors of their own, they may justly refuse any to preach, or exercise any Jurisdiction amongst them.  
Whereas he that hath power to preach as a Pastor, he hath authority to enjoin those, who are his flock, to attend him, though they should refuse it: yea to exercise his office, though they do not desire it. For it is not red in any gospel, that the Lord Christ hangs the performance of a Teachers office upon others desires, but upon his own duty, with which he stands charged with by virtue of his place.  
For I might lastly here add( though many other reasons are at hand, yet I will not multiply, because I know not Mr. Rutherford his mind in this behalf, and I would not trouble the Reader without cause) I say, I may here add; If a man be a Pastor to all Churches beside his own particular: Then he is either the same Pastor to both, or another and divers. This last none will own; therefore he must be the same to both; and he that hath the same pastoral office, he hath the same power and jurisdiction in both, stands in the same manner bound to both, because right of Jurisdiction issues from his office-call.  
These mists then being removed, the meaning of the Apostle is this; God hath set in his Church, i.e. in a Congregation existing in its particulars, and so in all particular congregations, the extraordinary and ordinary officers, according to the extraordinary and ordinary occasions thereof; and this sense suits with that, which we explicated in the first part of this dispute, touching a catholic visible Church as Totum universale; and hence that quaere which carries the only difficulty with it receives a full satisfaction, l. 2. p. 401.  
This indefinite speech( says Mr. Rutherford) must by good logic have the virtue either of one universal, or a particular proposition: If they say the first, we have what we crave: if they say the second, they fall into the former absurdity, for God hath placed Apostles in the whole Christian world.  
Answ. If Mr. Rutherford crave no more but this, that every particular congregation should be the species of a Congregation, we willingly grant him his desire: but to affirm, that the reason is the same of Totum aggregatum, is as far wide, as east is from the west. And that his cause gains nothing by this grant, is plain: for thus the nature of a Church exists only, acts only, is to be seen only in the particulars, doth equally and firstly communicate his nature to the particulars, so that no Church hath more power then another, nor yet power over another, having upon this ground and grant an independent power of its own: As each species hath firstly and independently the nature of the genus, which so existing in it, comes to be confined to it, and wholly to be ordered by it. As we shall give in evidence, by instance of many particulars, that we may relieve the Reader thereby.  
Thus the common nature of a Corporation exists in all particular congregations, and so its common to all to have mayor and common-council,( I speak ex supposito) which government and Governours existing in and determined by the particulars, have only power in their own place: The mayor and council can exercise no authority in another corporation. To reason therefore thus, if the nature of a corporation be common to all, and the King hath set mayor and common-council in all and every one of them, therefore the mayor of one, may rule in another corporation; I say such an inference, will in no wise follow.  
The like may be said of like example. All states set Generals, Colonels, Captains in their Armies: The king sets constables in all Towns; Sheriffes in all counties. If any shall reason thus, If this be common to all Towns to have Constables, Sheriffs in all counties; therefore a Constable may exercise his office in another town, or a sheriff in another County: each mans experience will give in evidence to the contrary. And the ground of the Argument taken from the community of the nature of such things, will not enforce it, but infer the contrary, if seriously considered.  
The sense of the Text thus opened, the Arguments gathered out of the several verses will easily receive their answer: This then is the sense, as hath been proved A congregation or Church existing in his particulars is the Church here meant, and therefore all particular congregations are here intended.  
And its true, that in all particular congregations( those extraordinary gifts and miracles being now ceased) there be the ordinary officers of Teachers, Helps, Governments, &c.  
2. Its true of all particular congregations, that they are one body in themselves, and are one in the common nature of the Church, and these take in all visibly baptized into one Spirit.  
3. Its true that in all these particular congregations all Jews and Gentiles are comprehended, that come within the pale of the visible Church. For the whole nature of the general exists in the particulars.  
4. Its true, that the members of each particular congregation have need each of other, and one particular Church of the help of another, as occasion shall require.  
5. Its true of all particular congregations, that their members should not make a schism one from another.  
6. Its true of all particular congregations, that the members do and should especially care one for another, and suffer one with another.  
7. Its true of all particular congregations, that by immediate commission God set Apostles, whose power of rule reacheth to them all, but ordinary officers he hath fixed to their particular places and stations, each one in the individual congregation by the which he was called, and over whom he is appointed.  We have now done with our inquiry touching the catholic visible Church: we shall remind the Reader of two things, which may be of special use, and so we shall put an end to this dispute. 

I.  
1. From the foregoing discourse he may discern, wherein especially the opinion of Mr. Rutherford appears, touching this catholic visible Church, with any certainty. As namely, Its certain that Mr. Rutherford holds the power of the keys belongs firstly to the catholic Representative Church; for to this purpose his words are most express. l. 2. p. 305. The power of the keys by order of nature, is onely in the catholic representative Church, as in the first subject.  
2. Its not to me certain, what he holds touching the catholic visible Church, considered either as Totum universale, or integral: what probabilities his expressions carry either way, we have formerly intimated out of several places: and therefore I think it most faire, to fasten nothing upon him, unless his words were fully and conclusively clear.  
Lastly its certain, that if the power of the keys be in the catholic representative Church, as the first subject, they cannot belong firstly to the catholic Church, either as Totum universale or integral: The distance and difference betwixt these three according to former explication is so great and vast.   

II.  
again let me remind the Reader, what light the truth hath gained, if we look at it, as laid forth in the right frame of it. As thus.  
1. The common nature of a Church, and so the nature of officers in that proportion, are only existing, acting, and become visible in the particulars, as their species.  
2. Hence all officers and office-power, as the nature of the Church, so their nature, is equally, firstly, independently, communicated to all particular congregations: so that they do not receive office nor office power, one particular from another, or more particulars, because all particulars share in all equally and firstly, as species partake of the nature of a Genus.  
3. Hence it is not lawful for the Churches to give away this their power unto others, nor lawful for others to take it away from them. And therefore they should not, by combining themselves with others lose this, nor should other Churches, by combination take this power from them, in whole or in part.     

CHAP. XV. An Answer to Mr. Hudson, concerning the Church-Catholick visible, as Totum integral.  
WHile I was enquiring and writing touching this eclesia catholica visibilis, an especial providence brought a book to my view which did purposely entreat of this particular subject. The Author Master Hudson a learned man, and a faithful minister of the gospel.  
When I had considered his writing {αβγδ} I found his judgement sharp and scholastical, his spirit Christian and moderate, his expression succinct and pregantly plain to express his own apprehensions.  
So that my heart was much contented with the Acumen and Judicious diligence of the Author; though I could not consent to what he writ, yet I could not but unfeignedly prise the learning, perspicuity and painfulness expressed in his writing.  
Therefore I thought good to cast in some few considerations touching the things of greatest consequence therein, that so I might occasion him and others also, into whose hands that book may come, if not to judge otherwise, yet to consider again of some particulars whether they will abide the balance of the sanctuary or not.  
There is one principal point: I say, principals, because the whole frame of the dispute stays upon that, as upon the main pillar and foundation, which if it fail, the whole falls to the ground as Master H. confesseth. p. 11.  
I find ( saith he) the subject of my question exceedingly opposed, and that by our divines; and therefore I must crave leave to confirm that sufficiently or else, what ever I shall say of the predicate, will be as a house built upon the sand, or a castle in the air.  
The grearest weight lies here, and therefore my greatest inquiry shal be about the truth of this.  
And before I enter upon the examination of this principal point propounded, I shall collect several expressions, out of several places in the writing, which I shall set down as so many conclusions confessed by the Author that myself and reader may have recourse thereunto, as occasion shall require in the following discourse, when their specials shall come to a Jud●cious trial.  
And since Mr. Hudson acknowledgeth, that this question is exceedingly opposed, and that by our Divines; I may say, by all the pious and Judicious Orthodox, that I meet withall, who writ against the Papists, it will not seem strange to any, nor yet, I suppose, grievous to Mr. Hudson, if I join with them in this defence of the truth, as I yet conceive it to be.  
And in my retired meditations, I could not but observe a secret Kind of divine dispensation that the Presbyterian way must need the help of a point of Popery, not onely as a pillar, by which it must be under propped, but as a foundation or head corner ston, upon which the whole building must rest and be erected.  
These grants and postulata which I shall mention, are thus freely and fully laid down in several passages and places.  

1. CONCLUSION.  
When a Church is called universal: universal in this question is meant principally in regard of 

Persons. pag. 4.  
Places, and not in regard of Time.     

2.  
The universal Church visible, is the whole company of visible believers throughout the whole world. p. 4.   

3.  
All the visible religious Assemblies of a nation are parts of the Church catholic( he means members) p. 6.   

4.  
Particular Churches are made up of the members of the Church catholic. p. 11.   

5.  
The proper notion of the Church catholic, and particular, is, of Integrum et membra( p. 20.) and is( primum in suo genere,) before them. p. 10.   

6.  
For my part( says he) I conceive the Church catholic to be Totum Jntegrale, and the particular Churches to be Partes similares, and so members thereof and parcels thereof, as the Jewish Synagogues were of the Jewish Church. p. 21.   

7.  
Every particular Church partaketh of part of the matter, and part of the form of the whole. p. 21.   

8.  
Particular Churches are limited and distinguished from each other by civill and prudential limits, for convenience of meeting, and maintenance and transacting of business.   

9.  
This membership is either devolved on a man by Gods disposing Providence, by reason of his birth, or cohabitation there: or voluntarily assumed by his voluntary removal, into that place, allotted out by civill prudence for such a particular society, to enjoy the ordinances of God conveniently together.   

10.  
The catholic Church may by persecution. &c. be brought into a little room and haply to one congregation. p. 24.   

11.  
While the Church is but one congregation, That hath the Notion of the Church catholic more properly then of a particular Church, yea though it be but in one family, as it was in the ark in the dayes of Noah. p. 24.   

12.  
Speaking of the existence of the Church catholic, in the existence of particular Churches, he grants that the catholic Church existeth not but in particular Churches, as a heap of stones existeth onely in the existence of particular stones p. 24.  
I thus take leave to sever and sunder the specials one from another, because if I deceive not myself much, they will make way, not onely for the help of the Reader, that he may more easily carry them along with him in his consideration, but also may readily have resort thereunto, as the occasion of the dispute shall require.  
From these particulars thus premised, the STATE OF THE QUESTION is fully this, Whether there be a catholic visible Church, as Totum integral, consisting of all the particular Churches, as its members?  
And to this we must answer yet negatively.  
Because this question, thus propounded, looks so fully like a Popish tenant, at the first appearance, Mr. H. desires to put a Protestant dress upon it, that persons might not suspect it came from the Romish Synagogue, by reason of the Pontifician Shibboleth it presents before the judicious Reader. And therefore he would difference this question from theirs in three things.  
1. The Pontificians take visible for conspicuous and glorious.  
2. They hold the name of the Church catholic to belong to one Church.  
3. They hold that this visible catholic Church should be under one visible universal head.  
The Reply is,  
This salue onely skins over the sore, but neither heals the wound: nor removes the scar. For it is certain, there be many collateral errors, which go in the crowd and company with this Popish opinion; but with his favour, those which he hath mentioned with many others, they border about this cause, but enter not at all into the state and constitution of it, but are distinct errors, so mentioned, so maintained by the Pontificians, so opposed by ours. For Mr. H. very well knows, that Bellarmine, with the rest of the Popish champions, marshall these causes as distinct companies, when they come into the field.  
1. Ecclesia non potest deficere( i.e.) numerus eorum qui veram fidem profitentur, non est semper frequens& gloriosus. And that is the state of that question controverted betwixt us and them. Whitaker de eccles. quest. tart.  
2. Ecclesiae regimen est monarchicum: nempe opus est visibili monarcha& summo judice. Whitak. de Rom. pontiff. q. 1. c. 1.  
3. Its also a distinct question, That the Bishop of Rome succeeds Peter in that monarchical government of his. Whitak. de Rom. pontiff. q 4. c. 1.  
Hence its plain that all the differences Mr. H. propounds, are so many distinct questions among the Pontificians, and that this[ Ecclesia Catholica est visibilis] is a fourth distinct from all the three former. Therfore they enter not at all into the state nor constitution of this, as either controverted with the Papists, or now agitated and disputed with us.  
And if Mr. Huds. please to cast his eye upon the expressions and apprehensions of judicious Whitaker, when he debates the question, he will plainly and presently perceive, that visible here is opposed to invisible, by the confession of all our writers against the Papists: and when they prove that the catholic Church is not visible, they do not mean, that it is not conspicuous and glorious to the world, but that it never was, nor can be visible to any; but it is to be believed, not to be apprehended by sense.  Ecclesia Catholica non potest â quoquam impio, imò, ne a quoquam pio videri. Whitak de Eccles. q. 2. c. 2. p. 57. 
And therefore the forenamed Author makes these two distinct questions  
Ecclesia Catholica non est visibilis.  
Ecclesia visibilis potest deficere: i.e. ecclesia visibilis non est semper frequens et gloriosa. vid. ub. supra.  
The issue then is,  
If these three mentioned differences be three distinct questions from this, now controverted; then they enter not into the constitution of this: Take it in his peculiar and precise consideration and as controverted betwixt the Papists and us.  
And if he will have recourse to learned Sadeel. he will there find, that Turrian so expresseth, so understands his meaning, that Ecclesia Catholica visibilis est aggregata ex omnibus particularibus ecclesiis, per totum terrarum orbem fusis: which is the very hinge of this question now controverted with us.  
So that I must yet crave leave to concur with all our Divines against the Papists in this opinion, and to profess with them, that, Ecclesia Catholica est invisibilis: i.e. nec ab impio imò ne a quoquam pio, videri potest.  
And when we say that Ecclesia Catholica non est visibilis, neither they nor I mean, that it is not conspicuous to the eye of the world: but that there is no such Ecclesia aggregata ex omnibus ecclesiis visibilibus, that hath any being in rerum natura, or was instituted by our Saviour Christ.  
For the clearing of this conclusion, we shall first dispute from the nature of Totum integral. For herein Mr. H. deserves just commendation, that he deals openly, and like a judicious Divine, expressly intimates, what kind of Totum he meaneth, that so we may not be to seek, when we should speak to the point controverted and intended by him. Dolus latet in universalibus.  
To begin then our inquiry touching the nature of Totum integral, which being attended, according to the proper and right description of it, that will be as a torch in the entry, to give light, and led the Reader into the particular truths, as so many particular rooms in the house that so the whole frame may fully be conceived.  
Integrum says( the Logician,) est totum, cvi partes sunt, essentiales: it is such a whole, unto which the parts are essentials; i.e. give the essential causes, whence the integrity and entireness of the whole is made and constituted. And therefore to speak in their language, they are orta argumenta; the members arise out of the matter and form, and contain in them materialia& formalia principia, which they give, in their concurrence to make up the integrum. Thus the several troops and Companies make up the Army. The Free-men of so many Companies, the common-council of Aldermen, and mayor make up a Corporation. So many Cities, Shires, Counties, make up a kingdom.  
In all these the members are causal, each gives in a substantial share, to make up the integrity or entireness of the whole.  
Hence, the members are in nature before the whole( I say in nature, because I would not run into needless niceties touching any other priority, but thus they are certainly before the whole) because they contain the causes that make it up.  
That which Mr. H. suggests else where by way of objection, that they be relata, and therefore simul naturâ, is an old fallacy frequent in the schools, and proceeds merely out of a mistake of logical principles. True it is, that integrum and membra may be clothed with such a respect, which may be put upon them, for our expression and apprehension( as it were easy to open, onely it suits not this popular debate) but to speak properly, look at integrum and membra in their peculiar affection of arguing, and they can be no more Relata, then one opposite can be another..  
Hence, The integrum is another thing resulting and arising from the members imitating exactly the nature of the effect, existing from his causes, and therefore its called symbolum effecti. As a body is distinct and a third in reason and reality from all his members; The Army constituted of the several Companies; The kingdom from the several Counties, Hundreds, Cities.  
Hence lastly, This is made peculiar to this Totum( from that we call Totum genericum, or universale,) That what belongs to this, doth not belong to all the members. As that man is said to eat, drink walk, talk, look upward, when no part of the body, nor yet the soul, in reason, or according to truth, can be said to do any of these actions.  
Hence then it follows undeniably and necessary,  
If Ecclesia Catholica be Totum integral, its a third, and distinct from all the members, and so from all particular Congregations. And therefore there must be some Officer, Act, and Ordinance appertaining to that, which doth not appertain to any of the members.  
And this rule, reason, all experiences, all instances in all integrums, do evidence. There is a supreme governor in a kingdom. A general in a Camp, besides all other Officers in all the Regiments.  
But there could yet be never given any discovery of a catholic Church, as a third and distinct from its members, nor yet Act or Officer, besides those which are observed and exercised in particular Churches.  
And I would earnestly and seriously desire Mr. H. or any man living, but to lay forth the nature of particular Congregations, and attend all the Offices, actions, and ordinances there dispensed, and in precise consideration, offer to my understanding, the nature of this whole distinct in apprehension( I would not, I desire not a separation of this whole from the parts, or the pulling of them a sunder, for that were insanire cum ratione) but a presenting of some distinct, Officer, Act, or operation, seclusa ratione, or not habitâ ratione of particular Congregations, which do not appertain to them. And this must be done, or else this totum integral will prove a mere fiction, and a conceit minted out of a mans imagination.  
Its true, Totum genericum, or take the nature of a Church in general, there is nothing required, but that it should exist in its particulars, as in its species: and that the general nature of a Church, and all the privileges firstly appertaining thereunto should equally and indifferently be communicated to all the particulars as inferior species: as the like is easy to be seen and observed in all examples of this sort, as we have instanced in the foregoing part of the discourse.  
But the nature of an Integrum is wholly different, as it is a third arising from his members, so it ever hath something peculiar and not communicated unto them.  
And hence it was, that the Papists, who maintained this catholic visible Church, have created and fancied a visible Head to this visible Body, but that fond device labours now with the loathsomeness of itself.  
When Master H. is to make answer to this Argument he thus writes. p. 23.  
This is the main argument of the Pontificians, for the supremacy of the Pope, and that which made our Divines deny them a Church catholic visible: But to the argument I answer that the Church had a Head of the same nature, consisting of body and soul who sometimes lived in this kingdom of grace in the dayes of his flesh, and did visibly partake in external ordinances, though now indeed he be ascended into his kingdom of glory, yet ceaseth not to be a man, as we are, though glorified, and ceaseth not to rule and govern his Church, here below; for it is an everlasting kingdom Isa. 9.7. As when King James was translated from Scotland to England and lived here, he did not cease to be King in Scotland.  
My Reply is.  
1. The confession of Master. H. is very remarkable, which I desire the Reader to observe, and for ever to carry along with him in his consideration, that according to the concurring and joint judgement of all our divines, they saw it necessary to deny the Papist a catholic visible Church, unless they should be constrained to grant them an officer, as a supreme visible Head: for so his words are express.  
This made our Divines deny the Pontificians a Church catholic visible, namely, That so they might deny a visible Head suitable thereunto. As though he had said, unless they had denied the one, they could not have denied the other.  
This was the conclusive determination of all those worthy champions of the Lord, who opposed the supremacy of that man of sin in former ages: and I cannot but conceive their grounds impregnable: If the one be granted, the other cannot be avoided according to all the principles of well ordered policies, and the rules of reason propounded in the foregoing arguments.  
2. The salue, which Master H. here applies, is so far from healing the sore, that it makes it worse, the physic being almost as bad if not more dangerous, then the disease: for,  
When in his Answ. he would bear the Reader in hand that Christ as man consisting of body and soul, and living in the Church must in that regard, be the visible head of his Church, though now ascended into heaven: I would affectionately desire him in Gods holy fear to consider what he writes. For,  
1. It is not onely untrue, but very dangerous to hold, that Christ as mere man consisting of body and soul is a visible Head of his Church; and yet this he doth and must say, if he say any thing to the argument in hand: But upon this grant it will follow that Christ is such a head, that is not present with his Body, nor doth, nor can lend influence to his whole body, and the members thereof in all places: and therefore must not be sufficient to supply fully the necessities thereof; which how derogatory and prejudicial to our blessed Saviour, and the fatherly love of God the father to his Church, I am persuaded his love to Christ, will make him more sensible of such indignity, then I am able to express.  
2. Its certain our Saviour is Head of the Church, as mediator, God and man, who hath fullness of all grace and of all power committed to him, and so becomes fully fit to execute the place and office of such a head, to sand all officers, to furnish them to the work, and bless them in the work of the ministry, for the gathering and perfecting of all his saints, until they come unto the unity of the faith. So Beza in his confession: chap. 5. Artic. 5. Whitak. de pontiff. Rom. q 1. cap. 3. arg. 6. where disputing, that to he Head of the Church, was a burden too heavy for any man to bear, a work too hard for any man to discharge, he issues the reason thus quare relinquendum est, &c. therefore we must leave the work to Christ, who, as he is everywhere, so he can do all things; alias enim caput non esset, otherwise he should not be a Head.  
3. Hence that which matter H. takes for granted, that Christ was a visible Head, and Monarch in the Church, is not safe, nor true, as hath appeared by the foregoing arguments, and is confessed by all ours that I meet withall. Whitaker de pontiff. Rom. q. 1. c. 2. p. 14. ad. 5. Bellarm. arg. Christus igitur non degebat in terris ut visibilis monarcha, nec ideo venit in mundum ut monarchiae visibilis fundamenta jaceret, Christ did not reside in the world as a visible monarck, nor came he into the world to set it up. The like expressions Master H. may find often in Whitak. p. 533. 554. ut. supra. Christus missus non est ut Regnum visibile occuparet, aut se tanquam Dominum et Monarcham in Ecclesia gereret.  
4. When we dispute touching the distinction of an integrum from its members, we look that this distinction should be attended in the same kind; namely, the integrum must not onely have a distinct nature, but such a nature, as ariseth and results from the members; and so the Officer or officers, which are appropriate unto that, must have some suitable resemblance in regard of the kind of them with the other.  
As the national Church of the Jews being a distinct kind of Church, had peculiar and distinct Officers and ordinances, which were national, beside those of the Synagogue: So the catholic must have, if it be a Church made up of the particular Churches," as the national Church was made up of the Synagogues, as Mr. H. words are, p. 21.  
Hence again, from the former ground laid and proved, it follows, the catholic Church receives being from the particulars, and therefore its after and out from them.  
Hence they receive no being from it, because the integrum est totum cvi partes sunt essentiales, non totum essentiale partibus, for that is as far wide from this, as heaven from earth; for let our sense and experience speak in this case. This totum Catholicum is aggregate of the particulars, as a heap is aggregated and made up of many stones.( Master H. pag. 24.) an Army of many Regiments: but our senses will say, if asked: the stones must be before the heap; the Regiments in reason before the Army, that ariseth out of them.  
That onely which puts faire colours upon this false conceit, is, the misapprehending of some particular examples, namely, when they say, that any portion of water divided, every part of it is water, and hath the name and nature of it. The Answer is, That predication or affirmation is not by virtue of that division of a portion of water that is made, as integri in membra; for in very dead, it is professedly opposite thereunto: But it is because the nature is preserved in the least portion of it, and thence this predication this part of water, is water, is made good, because a genus and species are there preserved and attended, going along with the division of integri in membra. For when we say, haec aqua est aqua, the Arguments are genus and species: and the like may be said, and must be understood of the like examples. And that this is so, will easily appear by instances, if we narrowly sever the considerations and respects one from another.  
Take a quart of water and divide it into two pints, here is a division of integrum into its members: though each pint may be called water, yet a pint cannot be said to be a quart, because the division of that totum will not permit it.  From these particulars, as so many proved premises, inferred from the nature of an integrum, to the 2, 3, 5. conclusions of Mr. H. fall to the ground. 
Nor can I see how the 5 and the 7, can stand together.  
If the proper notion of the Church catholic and particular Churches be of integrum in membra, pag. 20. Then particular Churches are essentials, and give matter and form to the catholic.  
Therefore they cannot receive matter and form from the catholic, contrary to conclus. 7 pag. 21.  
If the Church catholic existeth out of the particular Churches, as a heap out of so many stones, pag. 24. then they are before the catholic, contrary to conclus. 5. pag. 10.  
My second ground is that which Master H. grants, and the nature of the Church seems to force. The catholic Church may by persecution, &c. be brought into a little room, and haply into one Congregation, pag. 24. yet all the essence and privileges of the Church catholic visible are contracted and preserved therein, and from them conveyed and derived to those whom they shall convert, ibidem.  
From this grant, I offer these collections to consideration.  
1. Hence this catholic Church being an individual, it must needs be species specialissima, and therefore can have no inferior to it, or subordinately under it, to which it can give nomen& naturam: for no man is so far forsaken of reason, as to affirm, This individual Church is that individual Church.  
2. again, wherein failes this kind of reasoning?  
1. Catholica Ecclesia extends itself to all persons and places, conclus. 1.  
But so cannot a particular Congregation.  
2. Ecclesia particularis may fail: so cannot Ecclesia Catholica.  
3. Ecclesia Catholica gives part matter, and part form to all particular Churches, conclus. 7.  
But a particular Congregation cannot do so.  
4. That which is aggregatum of all particular Congregations, and its nature consists in this, that it is such a Totum, the nature of such an integrum cannot be preserved in one.  
For integrum cannot be made of one member: As though a man should say, there may be the nature of a heap reserved in one ston: The nature of a flock in one sheep. A Corporation in one man.  
Its true I confess, I should easily yield, that which all writers, all rules confirm, Tota natura generis conservatur in una specie: as the nature of man was preserved in one man Adam. But that an integrum made of many members should be entire and have his whole nature preserved in one, It is to me unconceivable, unless Master H. will help us with another logic, that never yet saw light. Should one affirm the body to be an entire body and not lame, which lacks all the members, but only the head or hand, it would be counted a strange affirmation.  
Let us yet once again look a little more seriously into that particular branch of the 11th conclusion, if haply something may be suggested to our secret thoughts, for our further consideration. Its said," that Ecclesia Catholica was reserved in the family of Noah.  
Beside the inconveniences mentioned before, we may thus further inquire: Its granted that the Church was appointed by God to be in families. Suppose Noah his sons, issuing out into their own families, as they did: Noah, he had his family entire: when Noah was dead, and his family dissolved, I ask where Ecclesia Catholica was? It must needs be either in some of those families severally considered, or in a fourth family as an aggregatum of them all.  
It could not be in the families severally considered, as that any one of them should be, or could be truly called, Ecclesia Catholica. For which of them could claim that more then another?  
2. Ecclesia Catholica gives matter and form to the particulars, as in the 7 conclus. but one family did not so to another.  
3. Ecclesia Catholica consists of all the particulars as its members.  
But no one did consist of the other two.  
Nor can the second part be granted, to wit, that there should be a fourth family aggregated of all these: A mans sense gives sufficient confutation of this: for there was never any such recorded in the word, nor conceived by any in that age: nor can there be such a one as Mr. H. hath deciphered to us, that should give part matter, part form, to all the particulars, as in the seventh conclusion.  
For it privily implies a contradiction: to be an aggregatum of particulars, and to give being unto them.  
Lastly, take we Mr. H. his definition of the catholic Church as it respects all persons and places, as in the 1. conclus. And therefore, is the whole company of all believers in the whole world.  
How will, or in truth can, this agree to the visible Church, when it was confined within the pale and limits of the land of Judea? Its confessed by all that I know, that God had no Church visible, to whom all Church privileges and ordinances belonged, but onely that: And therefore all were bound to turn Jews, and become Proselytes, before they could be said to be within the Covenant of the Church, or had any right to the seals, or to share in any privileges thereof. Exod. 12.42. Ephes. 2.12.  
And therfore all believers, that were not joined to the people of the God of Abraham, that were not incorporated into the Church, by subjecting themselves to the way and worship of God amongst them, and receiving circumcision in the foreskin of their flesh, they were debarred all privileges. Conceive we now Rahab converted to the faith, and as she was, its certain many families in like sort might be.  
By Mr. H. his principles, these were all of the catholic Church, and had title to all privileges of the Church, which the words of the text professedly gainsays. Nay compare we Mr. H. his way of the conveyance of the right of Church privileges, with Gods way, punctually expressed in his word, and then we shall see what accord there is. Mr. H. thus writes, p. 11.  
Particular Churches are made up of the members of the Church catholic, and partake of the benefit and privileges of the Church primarily, not because they are believers of the particular Churches, but of the Church catholic.  
So that we have Mr. H. his mind and method thus laid open before us.  
1. When a man is converted to the profession of the gospel, and so becomes a visible believer, he is then a member of the visible Church catholic.  
2. He hath by this his profession and membership with the Church catholic, right unto all Church privileges.  
3. He then becomes a member of a particular Church: but hath not right to Church privileges, because of that, but because of his former membership with the catholic Church.  
This is his method.  
Gods method in his word is this.  
1. A person is converted and becomes a visible believer.  
2. He comes to be adjoined to the Jewish Church, and turns Proselyte.  
3. Because he is now converted and turned Jew, he may eat the Passeover, and enjoy all the other privileges, Exod. 12.42. Isa. 56.  
It is hereby apparent that Gods method, and that which Mr. H. expresseth, is directly contradictory. The Lord says: Its not because a believer, but because believing he joins to the Church; therefore he partakes of Church privileges. Mr. H. affirms: Its not because he joins to the Church, but because he is a believer, that he hath right to the privileges of the Church: which are open contradictions in ipsis terminis.  
From the ground formerly made good and granted, it follows in the second place, The Church visible was not of all people, nor in all places.  
If the Church was confined within the pale of Judea, then was it not in all places.  
If confined to such only as were Jews, or became such, then was it not of all people.  
And by all that I can observe in the text or out of Interpreters, its plain, that the sons of Keturah which were sent into the east, though they were circumcised, and in all appearance of probability, not only professed the faith( which were enough according to M. H. his principles, to make them members of the catholic Church) but were some of them true and sincere-hearted believers: yet its most certain God did not account of them as a visible Church, nor did he betrust them with church-privileges. The Psalmist therefore confines and impropriates them to the Jew. He hath not dealt so with any nation, neither have the Heathens knowledge of his ways, Rom. 3.2. what is the privilege of the Jew? &c. to them was committed the oracles of God, not to any other.  
And therefore it is, that Divines, and those most judicious, conclude, and that with consent, that the Church was then in populo Israelitico, but now in populo catholicon: That it was then in a Nation, according to that, I will make of thee a great Nation: But now in all Nations, according to that, Go preach and teach all Nations; and in Christ there is no difference either of Jew or graecian, Scythian, or Barbarian: and in this notion and consideration it is, that I conceive the visible Church may now be called catholic, and not in the time of the Jew, because the Gospel is preached to all people universally and indifferently, and gathered out of all without any restraint, but was then confined populo Israelitico.  

SECT. II.  
Wherein Mr. H. his Demonstration, by which he would prove a catholic Church visible, is examined and answered.  
These grounds being laid and proved, there is a ready way made to the right understanding of that which Mr. H. propounds in way of proof of his Assertion, the nature whereof we have now opened.  
His demonstration as he terms it, is this.  If particular Churches be visible, then there is a visible catholic Church. 
But particular Churches are visible. Therefore, Our Answer will be double.  
1. We shall inquire what our Writers and Protestant Divines do re urn to the Proposition.  
2. Then we shall apply ourselves to the second part, or Assumption, and by both, it will appear, that this Argument doth not probably conclude the cause, much less necessary demonstrate it.  
To begin with the Proposition.  
When Duraeus urged Doctor Whitaker with this Argument to maintain a catholic Church visible, which he and all ours do constantly deny, Master H. may be pleased to consider, what return the Doctor makes Whitak. contra Duraeum Lib. 3. de Eccles. pag. 110. when Duraeus had thus laid down his Argument, Dic quaeso, si singulae Ecclesiae ex quibus quoddle partibus, &c. If all particular Churches, whereof the Church catholic consists, as members, be visible, and fall under our sight, will it not follow, that the catholic Church will be visible also?  
After Doctor Whitaker had  told him, that the catholic Church is not to be confined to one age and time, but comprehends all the faithful of all ages, which went before us, and are now in heaven, and then he demands of Duraeus, whether all these be visible or no?  
Secondly, he comes yet nearer home, and drives him to a greater strait and narrow: Deinde ut Catholicam tuam ecclesiam in hoc seculum compingamus, tamen quousque particulares Ecclesiae aspectabiles sunt, Catholica aspectabilis non erit. In a word he paremptorily and readily denies the consequence, affirming That the members may be aspectabiles, but the whole not so. And gives the reason of his denial, which is this. Si enim Catholica( ut tu dicis) consistit ex partibus, &c. Loco supra citato. If the catholic be aggregated of many parts, then when these parts are gathered together, the whole may be seen, but the parts as severally cannot be seen. And adds, answerably when the parts are seen severally, then the Totum, as aggregated, cannot be seen.  
Nay if Master H. be pleased to review, how learned Sadeel deals with Turrian, propounding the very same Argument to him, in the very same terms, he will, and the Reader may perceive, what strength that judicious writer apprehended to be in this reason, and Doctor Whitaker allegeth and repeats this against Bellarmine and gives his approbation of it. The concurrence of those judgements of these two Worthies you may find, Whitak. de Eccles. controv. 2. q.c. 4. Arg. 11.  
Ecclesiam Catholicam adversarii dicunt esse omnes Ecclesias particulares, per totum terrarum orbem fusas, quae quia sunt visibiles, ecclesiam Catholicam exhis aggregatam visibilem esse affirmant.  
Our Adversaries( saith Sadeel) affirm the catholic Church to be all particular Churches spread through the whole world; and because the particulars are visible, therefore they concludes the catholic aggregated of all these to be visible also.( So that it is plain, the Papists pled the same Argument with Mr. H. for their cause, as he now doth for his.)  
But Sadeel and Whitaker both, make a round return to him. said hoc nihil absurdius dici potest. They fear not to profess that the consequence is very absurd and destitute of any show of reason, and therefore retort the argument, as marvelous strong against him. If the particular Churches severed be visible, then the whole aggregated cannot be visible: And if the aggregatum be visible, they cannot be visible. As they instance. If there be ten flocks of sheep several, they are and may be seen severed one from another: But then one catholic flock gathered together of all these cannot be seen.  
By this which hath been alleged, two things the Reader may attend:  
1. How feeble these judicious writers judged the force of the consequence of the Argument.  
2. Its evident by their whole debate, that they take it as a thing supposed, that to make up a Totum aggregatum, there must be in reason the aggregation of the members.  
For it is not enough to make up a Totum aggregatum, that the several members are under the same laws, and governed after the same manner. For that which may and doth belong to those that are not aggregated in any such a whole, that cannot be sufficient to give a proper nature or formality to such an aggregatum: for things common do not give any proper and differencing nature. But these forenamed, to wit, to be governed by the same laws, and ruled after the same manner, may, and doth befall those bodies, that are not under such an aggregation.  
Thus several Free cities and House-Towns, which are entire in themselves: several Countreys and kingdoms, who have nothing to do with each other in their precincts and Jurisdictions, yet may have the same laws, and the same manner of Government. Only that, wh ch makes them an entire and complete common-wealth in themselves, is the aggregation of them under the same governours as the chief, whether one single person as in a monarchical, or many, as in an aristocratical state.  
And this might suffice for a satisfactory answer for the present, but I shall go a nearer way to work, and as they have denied the consequence, I shall deny the second part or assumption, Namely, that particular congregations are not members,( but species) of a Church, which as a genus exists, and works, and is preserved in each particular, and as far as visibility may be given to a general, existing, and acting in the individuals, I shall not gainsay it: for it is that I have opened and defended in the foregoing part of the discourse. Such a Totum universale I grant, and do not know any either do or indeed can deny; but this serves not the Papists turn at all.  
For the general nature of a Church being determined to its particulars, and existing therein, all particular Churches do equally and indifferently from thence receive all the Church-power and privileges that are common, and there needs no visible monarch over all Churches, but fairhfull Pastors and Teachers, set over every particular congregation, for improvement of all ordinances, Sacraments, and censures for the good thereof.  
Nor will it svit Master H. Because we need not( if we will follow the level of this truth, as it leads us) go about by a catholic visible Church aggregated of all, before we come to a congregation, but we must be necessitated to attend upon a particular congregation; for there both the essence and privilege of the Church is first to be found, because the genus first exists there.  
Master H. conceiving such an answer might be made, he frames it as an objection against himself, and makes onely this return, that he takes the notion of Church in regard of its particulars to be Integri in membra but the proofs which should settle it, are no whit sufficient.  
1. He allegeth an expression out of Doctor Ames his medulla lib. 1. c. 32. part 4 particulares istae congregationes sunt partes similares ecclesiae Catholicae, which words, its certain, do properly and directly consider particular congregations as species of a Church, and were so intended by the Author, as it appears in the next word.  
True in the following words, he speaks of ecclesia Catholica, as integrum, but rather as putting such a notion upon it, or analysing the reason of such an apprehension, then concluding that there is any such reality existing. For in the first words of that chap. the thus writes, ecclesia, quae in terris agit, non est tota simul visibilis. Therefore this aggregation is not visible( for in that the nature of this Totum integral lies) so that this expression of Doctor Ames neither hurts ours, nor helps Master H. his cause,  
Master H. adds also one argument.  
" Ubi omnes partes existunt simul compactae, ibi totum existit.  
said omnes partes ecclesiae Catholicae visibilis existunt simul compactae.  
Therefore ecclesia Catholica visibilis existit.  
The minor he proves out of Eph. 4.16.  
Answ. The conclusion may be granted in a right sense, without any prejudice to our defence at all. 1. Where the particular members of a congregation are compacted in covenant of the Church, and with Church officers, there is a particular Church. 2. Where there are many particular Churches, amongst them, there is Totum genericum existens.  
In this sense,( which is the sense of the place) all may be granted: but in his sense, the minor is denied, namely, that all particular congregations do exist aggregated together as members of the catholic; that should have been proved, but is not touched, much less evidenced.  
And if Mr. H. had attempted to show how all particular Churches are aggregated or compacted in toto integrali, which ariseth out of them, and hath somewhat peculiar to it self, and not common to them, he had helped the cause with some proof, and us with some light.  
The particular taken from the Apostles and Evangelists, namely, it must therefore be a catholic Church, because they were given to it, we shall meet with it, in 1 Cor. 12.28. where it shall receive a full answer.   

SECT. III.  
Where the Scriptures Mr. H. allegeth, are examined and cleared.  
We have thus done with Mr. H. demonstration, and we suppose it doth appear, that it doth not necessary enforce the conclusion.  
We shall now weigh, with like liberty, the Scriptures which he propounds to this end and purpose.  
The first alleged by him, is, Act. 8.3. and to this also may that be referred; Gal. 1.13. because the aim of the Spirit is the same in both, and the second is but a relation of the first.  
Now that by Church, in Act. 8.3. cannot be meant catholica ecclesia visibilis, is thus plain.  
That Church is there meant, which Paul persecuted.  
But he could not, nor did he persecute the whole company of professing believers in the whole world, for he could not see them, nor know them.  
Beside, he did not persecute the Church of the Jews in Jerusalem, i.e. the Jewish Church, and yet its certain, there were there many that believed: but as the text saith, and he affirms of himself, he persecuted that way, and all that he knew of that way: which was indeed the Christian Church in Jerusalem, now erected by the Apostles, and there exceedingly increased by the blessing of the Lord, and therefore Church is put by a synecdoche, for that particular Church: and that also for the men and members of it, that Paul could take notice of it, Act. 9.2 so the words are, if he found any of that way, them he had commission to pursue, and so did.  
The probabilities intimated to the contrary by Mr. H. do not evince; as first when he saith, It was not a particular Church, because the persecution was in Jerusalem, Damascus, and even to strange cities.  
Answ. True, no wonder because he persecuted all that professed that way of the Christian Church, and those by reason of a great persecution were scattered abroad throughout all the regions of Judea and Samaria, they fled far and wide, and therefore he might persecute them where he found them, as he did, hunting after them with eagerness and madness of malice. Thus Dr. Whitaker expounds the place, controv. 2. de eccles. p. 456  
When Mr. H. adds, an indefinite is equivalent to a general, he will find that it is not always so upon second thoughts, as innumerable instances might be brought to evince the contrary.  
Nor yet lastly is there the same reason, that the word Church here should reach all other Churches. For the Apostle gives in a peculiar ground why he was thus carried, namely he persecuted their way, not simply because they were believers.( For such many in Jerusalem were that were of the Jewish Church Acts 5.13.14. But because they made this manner of profession touching Christ and salvation by him alone, rejecting the ceremonies of the Law.  To this also you may refer these two other Scriptures: Act. 2.47. God added to the Church such as should be saved. 
1. That is not to the whole company of believers in the whole world: for such a company they never saw nor knew, and therefore could not be added to them: But to the Christian Church now erected: and therefore it is said, they continued in the Doctrine of the Apostles, in their fellowship, Act. 2.42.  
2. There were many believers of the Jewish Church, Act. 5.14. and therefore they who met of that Church, could not be added to them, but to the apostolical and Christian Church. And therefore,  
3. When it is said, they were added to the Church, v. 47. in the 41. v. It s said, they were baptized, and the same day were added unto them about 3000 souls, i.e. to the Apostles and their company.  
Lastly, the Church is distinguished from all the rest, many whereof were certainly professing believers, Act. 5.14. fear came upon all the Church, and upon as many as heard these things.  
To this head, namely of the Christian Church of the Gentiles, you may add that 1 Cor. 10.32. Give no offence to the Jew, nor gentle, nor to the Church of God. Where the word Church( saith Mr. H. pag. 13) cannot be the Church of the elect, nor any particular Congregation, but indifinitely.  
Answ. But must it therefore be meant of the Cathol ke Church visible, and that as integrum? the consequent deserves a denial; and that it cannot be meant of the catholic Church, the words of the text give apparent testimony.  
That Church which is contra-distinct to the Jews, that cannot comprehend the whole company of believers, through the whole world, because some believers were of the Jews, 1 Pet. 1. Jam. 1.1.  
But this Church is so contra-distinct.  
again, that Church is here meant, whom a man may offend by his practise in the particulars mentioned.  But he cannot so offend the whole company of believers, through the whole world: because a scandal must be seen or known certainly: but so a persons practise cannot be to all believers in the whole world. 
Therefore the meaning is plain, we must not offend those that are without, nor yet the believing Jews, nor any of the believing Gentiles, who are brought home unto Christ, and the fellowship of the Church.  
To this head also belongs that of Eph. 3.10.  
That to principalities might be made known by the Church, the manifold wisdom of God if it be not meant of the Church invisible, It must needs be understood of the Church of the Gentiles then gathering, not of the whole company of all believers throughout the whole world, as the several circumstances carry it, beyond control. For in v. 9. the Apostle speaks of such mysteries that were kept secret since the beginning of the world. 2. Its such multifarious wisdom, which was now made known by the Churches; but before to the Church of the Jews: And therefore the Churches of the Gentiles are here to be considered and understood.  
unless, as I said, it be meant of the invisible Church, unto which Master Beza and Piscator seem to incline, because first the Apostle speaks of such things that appertain only to the faithful, as v. 9. he speaks of all things created by Christ Jesus, i.e. all the elect& called( say they, i.e. those former interpreters mentioned) 2. This discovery of wisdom is in v. 12. according to his eternal council in Christ Jesus intended towards his elect, and indeed in those dispensations this wisdom appears, which drives the very thoughts to a mazement: But however it be taken, it helps nothing to Mr. H. his Ecclesia Catholica.  
Master H. adds, 1 Cor. 12.28. God hath set some in the Church' as first Apostles, teachers, 1 Tim. 3.15. That thou mayst know how to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the Church.  
" Ephes. 4.11, 12. perfecting the body of Christ.  
These places must needs be meant of the catholic Church, says he.  
Answ. No: but they are to be understood of every particular, or( which is all one, and my meaning) of the Church as a Totum universale existing and determined in its actings by the particulars, or if you will, The Apostle points at one particular, but includes all particulars by a parity and proportion of reason. As God set in the Church of Corinth, and so in all Ghurches, Apostles and Teachers. The Church of Ephesus is Gods house, and are all Churches truly constituted.  
The Church of Ephesus is Christs body, and so are all the Churches instituted by Christ. They are all one in the general nature of them, and those privileges which belong in common to them all equally and indifferently.  Let us now see what is said for the confirmation of the sense, for which Mr. H. allegeth them. 
The greatest cost that he bestows upon that in 1 Cor. 12. as conceiving that to be most pregnant, and therefore prudently gathers in upon the dispute thus.  
It cannot be meant of the triumphant or invisible Church, but the visible, and that not essentialis, but organica, both which we willingly grant, and confess his reason good, as formerly we have done to Mr. Rutherford  
But how doth he prove that Churches collectively taken, or Catholica ecclesia tanquam integrum is here meant. That he endeavours by this reason.  
If there be officers of the Church catholic visible, then there is such a Church catholic visible.  
But the Apostle and prophets were officers of the Church catholic visible. therefore.  
The minor he thus proves, because they had no limits, and yet are said to be set, not in Churches, but in the Church. The frame stands thus.  
They who are so set in a Church, that yet they have no limits in their works that Church must be a catholic Church.  
But the Apostles, &c. are so set in a Church, as yet they have no limits in their office, therefore that Church must be a catholic Church.  
Answ. The mayor proposition or consequence is denied, as not suitable to the truth, which may thus appear.  
The reason of their unlimitednesse arose from their commission, because it was general, being immediately called and appointed by God to preach to all nations, and so had power to plant all Churches,& had virtually all Church power in them: but this did not issue nextly from the Church, in which they were firstly set.  
As the eleven Apostles were first set and over the Christian Church erected in Act. 1. where there was a company of an 120, can any man reason from hence thus?  
In what Church the Apostle were set, that is the catholic Church, and the whole company of all believers in the whole world. But they were set in that Church mentioned Act. 1. and chap. 2.47. therefore that 120 were the whole company of all believers in the whole world.  
2. That Church where Deacons are set, that Church is not an unlimited Church.  
But ordinary Deacons were set in the same Church, wherein the Apostles were set, as in the place. 1 Cor. 12. its affirmed jointly and indifferently of them both.  
Therefore that Church doth not argue an unlimited power.  
The minor proposition is express in the text.  
The mayor is sure, as being bottomed upon confessed principles; ordinary officers have not an illimited power, but are confined to their proper charges, because that is one main difference, betwixt them and extraordinary ones.  
That which is impossible for a Deacon to perform, that our Lord Christ never imposed, never exacted at his hands, nor doth it belong to his office.  
But for a Deacon, called Helps, in the 1 Cor. 12. to distribute to the whole company of all believers in the whole world, is, and was ever impossible.  
3. If Teachers be unlimited in their work, then an ordinary officer hath power over all the Churches, and is bound to feed and watch over all. and so there is a road way for Tot quots and pluralityes.  
4. If setting an ordinary officer in the Church be by election, then in that Church he is set by which he is elected.  
But a particular company combined in a particular congregation, they onely elect, not the whole company of all believers in the whole world.  
Therefore in that he is onely set.  
Touching that of 1 Tim. 3.15. he gives in a double Argument for proof.  
This Church must be a visible Church where he and others must exist and converse together, and carry themselves in mutual duties. Now these directions concerned not Ephesus alone, or in any special manner, but all the Churches where ever he should come, its that Church, which is the pillar of truth, and holds it forth more forensi, &c.  
Answ. All these particulars here affirmed, may be and are truly said touching a particular congregation; for in that Timothy may converse with others, in mutual duties: there may directions be given touching that, which by a parity of reason, will reach all others. As those Paul did give to the Elders of Ephesus, that they should feed and watch over their flock: This is common to all Pastors, in all their Churches: and Timothy was left in Ephesus to that end.  
A particular congregation, which is the true Church of Christ, it, as a pillar, doth hold out the profession of Faith and Gospel more forensi.  
And therefore there is no evidence nor strength of Argument, from all these to conclude a catholic Church.  
2. But if these only belong to particular congregations, and not to the Church catholic, as now controverted, then the place serves for a confutation, not a confirmation of it; survey we the severals in short.  
1. Its yielded by all that I know, who pled for a catholic visible Church, that this visibility is only in the parts of it, not in the integral state of it. Ames. medull. l. 1. c. 32. p. 1.  
2. That Church state which men cannot see, in that they cannot converse one with another, nor perform duties one to another, look at it in that precise consideration, of which now we speak.  
That which is not s●en by any, that as a pillar cannot hold out the truth more forensi.  
The first is yielded as true.  
Therefore the second cannot be denied.  
3. If there be such an Ecclesia Catholica, as a particular or individual integrum,( for so it must be attended) then it hath some special acts or operation peculiar to itself, not communicable to the members of it: As the nature and definition of an integrum doth require: and which we have formerly evidenced.  
But there be no such acts and operations that were ever yet found, or could be instanced in.  
Its true, there be common operations, ordinances, privileges, that belong to a congregational Church, as Totum genericum, firstly, and therefore are attributed and given to all particular congregations secondarily, and as they are acted and existing, so they may be, and there, are easily and evidently apprehended.  
But set aside the particular congregations, the several operations thereof, and privileges therein, If Mr. Hudson or any man shall demonstrate some particular either acts, privileges, officer or officers, that are peculiar to this Totum aggregatum, I will yield the cause.  
Lastly, That which is not, nay cannot be the pillar of truth, to publish or hold out the truth more forensi, that Church is not here meant.  
But Catholica ecclesia visibilis cannot do this, for we have proved, that there is no such ecclesia aggregata: and non entis non est notio.  
In the place of the Ephes. c. 4.12. that Church is called one in regard of the common nature of it, which as Totum genericum is communicated to all the particulars, with all the common privileges, that by a likeness and proportion of reason is given to them.  
That resemblance of the worldly empire, hath been formerly confuted, and the disproportion demonstrated; for there must be some peculiar act and officer, belonging to the Church as such an integrum, as it is in all worldly empires, wherein the integrity consists, and comes to be apprehended which is not to be found in the Church.  
The consideration of Church, as Totum genericum gives answer to all those places where the word kingdom is used to signify the visible Church, and therefore I might spare here any repetition, and leave the Reader to make the application himself: but the truth is, the word kingdom in many of the places here quoted, carries another sense, and doth not reach the cause in hand, much less conclude it; as will thus appear by the trial of the particulars.  
The kingdom of heaven beside other significations, as the kingdom of glory, &c. it doth by a Metonymy( so its frequently used in the Evangelists,) imply the word of the kingdom and the dispensation and administration of the gospel in the Churches, and the special things appertaining thereunto, The kingdom of heaven is like to a man sowing of seed, Matth. 13.24. like to Mustard seed. 31. to Leaven. 33. to treasure hide in the field. 44. The Church is not like to Leaven or seed, but the dispensation of the gospel is.  
And so it must be understood in that 1 Cor. 15.24. Then shall Christ deliver up the kingdom unto God the father. That kingdom cannot be the catholic Visible Church, because that consisting of sound hearted Christians and false hearted hypocrites, these are not delivered up into the hand of the father, that he may be all in all, to them.  
Beside Mr. H. his own words are witness enough against this sense, for so he writes in the place, p. 15. Its the kingdom exercised in the visible Church, in Ordinances of worship.  
It is to be exercised in that visible Church; it's therefore distinct from it in sense and signification.  
To this head also belongs that in Heb. 12.28.  
Wherefore receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, &c. This kingdom is not the catholic visible Church.  
1. For, that kingdom is here meant, which cannot be shaken. But this may be shaken by strong persecution, and the most of the members of it, the particular Churches destroyed and dissolved.  
2. Its a kingdom which is unlike that which was in the Old-Testament, and the unlikelynes lies in this, that this now in the time of the gospel cannot be moved, but that was: whereas the Church, for its existence, is subject to be as much shaken now, as that under the Law.  
But the fairest construction of the words, and most full to the scope of the place, is to show how far differing the dispensation of the ways of Gods worship, which is now appointed by him, is from that which was ordained under the Law: Those Ordinances and administrations are now come to an end, and others instituted in their place and room: but these we haue now under the gospel are last, and so the unalterable institutions of our Saviour: and thus Mr. H. expresseth himself; carried, as it should seem, with the constraining evidence of the words. This kingdom cannot be meant ( saith he) of the internal kingdom of grace, but it is meant of the external ordinances of worship and discipline: but I suppose those are not the Church, and therefore ther is nothing here to be found for the establishment of that conceit.  
Much less is there any colour of such a conceit in that of Matth. 3. Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand: i.e. the catholic Church is at hand; how harsh is such a sound to a mans ear, such a sense to a mans mind?  
The rest of the places, where kingdom follies the Church, as Luke 7.38. So likewise those similitudes of floor and field, they point out all particular Congregations under that condition, which is common to them all, to wit, that they are made up of a mixed multitude of good and bad, or which is all one, they look at the general nature of a Congregation existing in its particulars: but put not on the relation of members to an integrum at all. Nor doth the seeming reason of Mr. H. alleged to the contrary, carry any constraining force to persuade a man seriously judicious. For when he thus writes pag. 15,  
Now if these things( those to wit, which were spoken concerning field, floor, kingdom) were spoken of a particular Congregation onely: which particular Congregation in the world shall impropriate these to itself? but if true of every one in particular, and all in general, and these all be continually called one kingdom, then there is a Church catholic visible, to wit, totum integral.  
The answer will be easy and ready at hand: That our expressions and apprehensions look not at any thing impropriate to one, but that which is common to all, and true of all, because all these particulars are unum genere. And the general nature is one in them all: and it is but reason, that in that regard they should be called one. But thence to gather, that therefore there is a catholic visible Church, as totum integral, is to wrong the meaning of the text, and to wring out blood instead of milk: Nay in truth to make the conclusion to oppose the premises, and his own expressions.  
That which is common to all the particulars, that cannot be an integrum, but a genus: as the rules and definitions of genus of necessity require.  
Those are his premises.  
Take his expressions, If true of every particular, and all in general: whence the issue will come to this:  
That which is true of all the particulars, as a general, that must needs be a genus, and not an integrum to them.  
The first Mr. H affirms; therefore the second cannot be gainsaid.  
The place of Matth. 16.18. attonitos tenet interpretes, like the body of Asahell, puts every man to a stand, that passeth by.  
True it is, that doting delusion of the Papists, making Peters person the rock, is hissed out of all, that have attained any eye-pleasing of the Scripture, to clear their understanding in the truth thereof: yet there remain more difficulties and mysteries in some parts of the Text, which were never seen with any full convicting evidence to this day, though many have set themselves, and that sadly to the search thereof.  
We will only attend the particular here specified by Master H. what Church is here understood?  
Though I must confess( for I love to be plain) that I do incline to Mr. H. his judgement, that the visible church is here understood: yet I must profess also, that his proof is no way satisfactory either to evidence that it must be visible, much less a catholic visible Church:  
For when it was objected, that this was an invisible Church, here spoken of, because the visible may fail.  
He onely speaks to the second part, that the catholic Church cannot fail: but that this was not an invisible Church here intended, he doth not at all prove, nor in truth set about it.  
2. His reason whereby he would persuade that the visible Church nunquam deficit; hath not strength in it, nor truth in it, though the conclusion be true, which he would maintain; For he thus disputes.  
If all visible members should fail, then all the invisible must fail also: for none are invisible in this world, but must be visible also: except any be converted and fed onely by inspiration, which we have no ground for in the Scripture.  
The frame stands thus,  
If none be invisible members in this world, but they must be visible members also: when visible failes, then the invisible failes also.  
But the first is true; there be no visible, but they be invisible also. The assumption deserves a denial and that I suppose upon second thoughts, he will grant upon his own principles.  
1. For its most certain, that an invisible gracious Saint, may justly be cast out of the Church  
2. Its as certain to Master Hudson that he that is cast out and excommunicate from one congregation, is cast out of all congregations, and out of the catholic visible Church.  
Hence I would reason.  
He that is cast out of all visible Churches, and the Church catholic, he is no visible member for excommunication cuts off visible membership.  
But he that is and remaines an invisible member, may be justly cast out of all visible Churches, and so the Church catholic.  
Therefore a man may remain an invisible, and yet not be a visible member.  
That which is added for proof toucheth not the cause: for a man cast out, and so no member, may be fed by word, and prayer and fasting, promises, conferences, readings, without any inspiration, and this the scriptures abundantly declare, and each mans experience will make good.  
Besides, it hath been made good, that a man may out of the weakness of his judgement conceiving the Churches not rightly gathered, refuse to be baptized, and so be no member of the Church, and yet be a Saint truly gracious, according to their principles.  
again, suppose a person fall into some notorious evil, and for that cause, all the Churches may reject him, and deny him communion, he is then no member visible: and yet he is an invisible one.  
Its not a little dangerous to lay the foundation of the not failing of our grace, upon the not failing of Church membership, which this doth. This were enough to make it appear, that this place lends no relief to the conclusion: because it doth not prove a visible Church here intended.  
But let this be granted. I would yet add, that this cannot be a catholic Church of Master H. his cut. For I would reason from his own words and explication, which I think have weight in them.  
That Church which onely includes the Church of the Gentiles, and that to be built, that cannot comprehend the whole company of the faithful in the whole world, and so cannot be a catholic Church.  
But this Church, Matth. 16.18.( by Master H. his own words) includes only the Church evangelicall of the Gentiles.  
The Proposition hath sense to settle it, for there were many of the Church of the Jews true believers and professors.  
The minor is Master H. his own expression p. 17.  We are now near home. The last place, where any strength of dispute lies, is in 2. Epist. of John v. 10. where excommunication is called casting out of the Church. 
Answ.  
By Church, per synechdochen generis pro specie, which is most frequent and familiar in the Scripture, That particular Church where Diotrephes usurped pre-eminence, is understood.  
So its used Act. 20.28. Feed the flock, over whom ye are set, and that was the Church, which Christ hath redeemed, in the following words. And our ordinary speech is generally in this strain, such a man is cast out of the Church, meaning that particular congregation in which he was incorporate.  Let us hear how Master H. can force any catholic visible Church, with any concluding evidence, from hence. His words are as follows. 
If the Church here be a visible Church, I would know, whether a man truly excommunicated in one congregation, is not thereby excommunicated from brotherly fellowship in all congregations.  
I answer, yes, and what is gained from thence? therefore there is a Church catholic visible. The inference is weak of reason. For when a person is justly excommunicate from the congregation in which he was, it follows of necessity, all that fellowship he might enjoy, by virtue of communion of Churches must of necessity be denied unto him, and he justly deprived thereof: because in the virtue of his fellowship with one, he gained fellowship with others: and therefore when he is justly deprived of the one, by the censure of the Church, he must in all reason be deprived of the other; but by what strength of inference a catholic visible Church should be concluded from hence, I confess I see not.  
If Mr. H. conceive that the party was an actual member of every congregation, and that when one congregation cuts the party off from his particular membership he had with it, by the same act, it cuts him off from all the other. If this be his meaning, there be as many mistakes almost as words in such expressions; and therefore the inference must be wholly destitute of strength and truth.  
That which is added afterwards, is yet much further from the mark, as when he adds. I would know whether the delivering up to Satan, is only within the bounds of one congregation, so that if he remove out of such a circuit or circled of ground to another, he is out of Satans bounds again, and may communicate there safely.  
The frame stands thus.  
If a person excommunicate is not cut off from his membership with every particular congregation, and so from the integral visible Church, then when he removes from such a circuit of ground, he may communicate.  
But this last is untrue, namely when he is out of the circuit of ground, he may again communicate, therefore.  
This consequence is conjured into such a circled of a conceit that it s beyond the compass of common reason, unless Mr. H. should imagine, that excommunication only casts a man out of a circuit of ground or that the power of Satan were only confined to some circled, I wonder how such a consequence came into his thoughts.  
The truth is, The power of excommunication lies in the particular congregation, where a person enjoys his membership with the Saints of God, under the kingdom of Jesus Christ. And when a party is cast out of that, and delivered up unto Satan, and into the kingdom of darkness, let him be where he will, and go where he will, he is under the kingdom of Satan, and all the Churches should look at him as a traitor against Christ, and so deal with him, as one uncapable of Church-communion.  
Those two places, Ephes. 3. and last, Joh. 10.16. are either understood of the Church invisible, as the circumstances seem to intimate; or else they show that unity, and so community of the dispensation of Christ in all the Churches of the Gentiles, with which the general nature of a Church formerly opened and disputed fully suits, and therefore gives no appearance of a proof for Catholica ecclesia visibilis as Totum inegrale and i aggregatum.  
We have now done with the first Question.  The reasons and Scriptures brought for the proof thereof, have been answered and satisfied: so that by the concession and confession of Mr. H. we shall not need to add any thing of the second. 
For this was like the main pillar, upon which the whole frame was built, which failing utterly, the whole must necessary fall to the ground. This Question being plucked up by the roots, upon which the other and all the consectaries and collections grew, they will whither presently of their own accord. This bottom breaking, there needs no battery further to be erected against the rest of the discourse: it moulders away without any more ado, and therefore I shall ease myself and the Reader of any further pains to be improved that way.  
Onely for a close, I shall be bold to offer some few considerations to Mr. H. his more serious trial touching some propositions, two whereof are expressed in the tenth and eleventh conclusion; the third and last, may be found in the eleventh page.. All these I shall shortly set down and suddenly express my reasons, why as yet I cannot yield assent thereunto, and so leave the whole debate.  

I. Proposition is laid down in these words  
Those parts ( that is a particular congregation) are limited and distinguished from others, by the civil and prudential limits, for conveniency of meeting and maintenance, and transacting of business.  
That which seems here difficult, I shall thus suggest.  
1. That several congregations are separated one from another in place; as it is a thing that a mans sense can determine, which admits no gainsaying, so I suppose its not the aim of Mr. H. nor the scope he intends, nor which he would have the Reader to attend in those words: but his purpose is to point out that wherein the distinguishing and differencing formality of one congregation from another consists, as the followings words and special instance used to that end, gives in abundant evidence.  
But this apprehension, I cannot yet see how it suits with the nature of a particular Church, or the nature of a form whence this act of distinguishing properly issues.  
1. That which formally and truly distinguisheth, is internal to the thing: but this is external and merely adventitious.  
2. That which is common, nor doth, nor can distinguish; but this is so.  
3. That which distinguisheth truly, it is the form of the thing properly and firstly, or else it proceeds as a peculiar property from it: its either essentiale constituens or consequens: but this is neither, for neither the form nor property are separable: but thus the place or limits are.  
4. If this distinguisheth one congregation from another, how comes it that to his and each mans experience, not only in the same Town, but in the same meeting-house there be several and distinct Churches? As the Dutch and English Churches in Colchester. If the distinction of congregations issued from the limits of the place, then they who were in the same place, they should not be distinguished. Then the Dutch Church in Colchester should be English: for they are both within the same precincts, and either do or may at several times meet and assemble within the same ston walls of the Church so called.  
5. If the divers limits of the place, did put a difference distinctive upon a congregation, then the place of the Merchants, moving from delft to Rotherdam, because they are in distinct places, therefore they are distinct Churches; and so by moving and settling in several places, one congregation should differ from itself; and as before many congregations were one, now one and the same should become many.  
Its true if the demand be, of what particular Church we speak, or to what Church we would writ, its usual and sufficient to describe the Church by the place, as the common subject where it hath its abode: but this is no proof that therefore a common subject should give a distinguishing difference of that from another.  
When the Christian Church of the 120. was erected in Jerusalem, beside the Church of the Jews formerly instituted, and yet not abrogated, was it ground sufficient thus to conclude, because they are in the same city, therefore they are the same Church? I suppose the inference will be judged unsound by all; and yet if the differencing distinction issued from the place, it would undeniably follow they were not at all dstinguished each from other.   

The second Proposition is in the same place, and its thus expressed.  
The membership of a particular Church is devolved on him, by Gods disposing providence, by reason of his birth, or cohabitation there, or voluntarily assumed, by his voluntary removal into the place allotted out by civill prudence, for such a particular society to enjoy such ordinances of God conveniently together.  
To this assertion I cannot give my assent, and shall presently give in my reasons when I have briefly laid open the meaning of the expressions.  
When Master H. seems to lay several grounds, by which membership comes to be attained, I suppose in the last resolution they issue all in one, namely, the constancy of abode and residence, within the limits of such a place.  
For imagine that a man hath an inheritance fallen to him by birth in such a town, if yet he will let it, or set it out to another and reside in another place, his birth doth not devolve his membership upon him in that place. For if he were born heir to lands in 20 places or parishes, should he have membership in all, when he doth abide but in one? I believe Master H. would deny such an inference.  
The like I may say of removal: If he did but as Travelour and messenger, take up his habitation, I suppose Master H. would not affirm he was a member in the place because he lodged two or three nights or so many weeks or months in a place.  
That I may then put the fairest construction upon his words that in love and prudence, and ingenuity I can, I conceive the meaning to be this, where a person takes up his hahitation, whether he haue right to it by birth, or it come by gift, purchase, or hiring, &c. his membership issues from hence immediately, that he takes up his constant abode within the limits of such a place or parish.  
But that this cannot give the formality of membership, I have formerly proved, and I confess I do a little strange that Master Hudson a man learned should fall in with such an opinion, which I cannot perceive gains so much from any Judicious at this time, that they are willing to speak a good word for it.  
1. For no civill rule can give an ecclesiastical right.  
Because those are two kinds of government opposite one against the other, and each of them entire and complete within itself.  2. This destroys the censure of excommunication and wholly furstrats the power thereof, that it can never attain its end. For the scope of the censure is to cut a person off from his membership and communion with the Church, as the name of excommunication and the nature of the ordinance requires. 
But if the privileges of membership be devolved upon me by a civill right and cohabitation, This, excommunication nor doth, nor indeed can take away. And therefore upon this ground it cannot take away my membership and communion with the Church.  
And therefore is by this means wholly made void and of none effect.  
3. If right of cohabitation gives membership, Then Turks and Jews may be members, and they and their children have right to all Church ordinances as well as any: Then men may make themselves members of a congregation though they be never so scandalous and unworthy to be received; nay though the congregation be never so desirous, in a just way according to the rules of Christ, to hinder their proceeding, and reject them from their communion: which Master Rutherford and all rules and reasonable men gain say: In a word, by this grant, all the power of Churches and censures and ordinances would be frustrated or profaned.  
The pretended inconvenience which persuades him to embrace this opinion, is, because, to be in a city, and not to be a member of the Church in the city, it seems to imply an unchurching of those places, &c.  
But I answer it doth but seem so, it doth in no wise do any such thing: only ●t shows, that Gods people are a free people, and that combination iusses from free consent, when no rule in nature, nor providence according to God puts any restraint in that kind.   

The third Proposition is p. 11.  
Particular Churches are made up of the members of the Church catholic, and partake of the benefits and privileges of the Church primarily, not because they are members of the particular Churches, but of the catholic.  
In these words, there is something implied, something expressed: To neither of which I can give assent unless some proof bee alleged, which may prevail with my judgement, and persuade thereunto which as yet I see none.  
That which is implied is this, That the catholic Church may have its being, when as yet there be no particular congregations existing; for this the words of the proposition do necessary presuppose.  
If particular Churches be made up of the members of the catholic: then the catholic Church and the members thereof must have a being, before either can give a being to the particular.  
But I see no rule of reason, nor testimony of holy writ as yet to settle such an assertion.  
For lay aside in our consideration the confederation, and combination of Christians, which make up particular Churches: let it be supposed there be hundreds of Christians, who are visible believers, scattered up and down in several coasts of the world, these now according to the method of Master H. his frame of Church policy will first make up a catholic visible Church, and out of that, particular Assemblies will afterwards arise.  
This is the frame of Master Hudsons Church-policy: but this seems contrary to the principles of all bodies politic: that ever were, are, or shall be. For there neither is, nor can be an external body politic( of that kind we now speak) made up and constituted of people that never were in external communion one with another( haply) never had the sight and knowledge one of another, as it is here supposed.  
True it is, if there were many thousands professing and believing in the name of Christ: so many as were sincere have union and communion with Christ invisibly, and so make up an invisible Church catholic. But that there should be an external visible particular body politic, either civill, or ecclesiastic( which this Catholica Ecclesia, as Totum integral, must be) and that constituted of men, which haply never had the sight or knowledge one of another, who never entred into agreement of government one with another, is beyond my compass to conceive, and I suspect any mans ability to explicate and evince.  
again, that persons thus scattered and severed, are wholly destitute according to reason and all rules of the Gospel, of all Church privileges,  
I would thus reason.  
They who are in such an estate as that they, nor have, nor can have Church Officers, They are destitute of Church worship, seals, censures, and so Church Government, and Church Ordinances.  
This is undeniable. Because according to Presbyterian principles, none of all these can be acted or administered without Officers.  
But persons thus scattered and severed one from another, can have no Officers. For those receive their call and right administration, by the joint voice and election of the people now in communion one with another. Act. 6. Act. 1.  
again, I conceive it will be granted( which cannot be denied) that these particular persons, thus severed, are membra integrantia of this catholic visible Church. And therefore they wholly give being to this Church, but receive no being from it.  
Hence I cannot see, how this part of the Proposition will stand, with that conclusion. That the catholic Church gives part matter, part form, to the particular Churches.  
If particular Churches receive their being from the members of the catholic Church,( as this proposition affirms;) Then they cannot receive part matter, and part form from the Totum.  
For if Ecclesia Catholica give any matter or form to the particular Church, it gives it by its members.  
But it cannot give matter or form by its members.  
Because it received all its being, and so all matter and form from them, but gave none to them.  
Therefore they can give none from it.  
These intricate difficulties and twistings of controversy which appear in Master Hudsons frame, keep me yet that I can give no assent thereunto.  
There is a third branch in the Proposition, namely,  
That particular Churches partake of the privileges of the Church primarily, not because they be members of particular Churches, but because they are members of the catholic.  
Against this we have formerly given in proof, whether we refer the reader: and so rest to make any further inquiry touching this subject of ECCLESIA CATHOLICA VISIBILIS.      

CHAP. XVI. We have now done with Church-power. Of Church Communion as it is a peculiar privilege to the member of a Church.  
THe privileges of the Church, present themselves next to our consideration; and the chief of all these which we shall especially attend in this place, is Church-Communion. Because we perceive the disquisition of that to be of greatest difficulty, and the right understanding of it to be of greatest use. And here we shall make the entrance of our inquiry about that question propounded and largely debated by Master Rutherford lib. 2. pag. 269. Whether ordinary hearing be a part of Church Communion. 1. The sense is to be opened. 2. The conclusion we hold to be proved. 3. The Arguments to be answered.  
To the first,  

CONCLUSION I.  
Communion, according to the nature of the word, implies ever something common to many, wherein they share by way of proportion, each person according to his condition and place.  
When this is applied to several subjects, though it requires a communication of something to all the subjects, yet it ever implies an appropriation of that so conveyed onely to that kind: whence it is, that as there is a community of the thing to all such wherein this communion lies, yet there is also a specification or determination of the subject, unto which that is conveyed, whereupon it comes, though all such have it, yet none but such are made partakers of it.  
Thus in cities there be several companies, that maintain several communions among themselves: Thus civill communion belongs onely to such a civill state: The like we may say of Church communion, whereof we now entreat. It doth not imply all or any of those things which a Church hath in common with other, while it is a Church, but as it is a Church; As instance:  
A Church while it is a Church in that relation, they have communion with the Town or people of the Plantation amongst whom they dwell, communion with other towns who live with them, under the same Jurisdiction and Government, but this is not Church communion, because it is not as a Church, they enjoy or share in this communion▪ but as Planters in the same Town, or people under the same Government.  
But that is Church communion, which belongs to a Church, as a Church, under that notion,( as we use to speak) respect or relation.   

CONCLUSION II.  
The communion of the Church lies, 

Either in the things, which they do enjoy as Sacraments, Censures.  
Or else the special manner appropriated to them in their dispensations,    
And though the things, sometimes be common to other beside the Church, yet the manner of dispensing, and so of enjoying these is always peculiar to the Church.  
Suppose the Churches be entreated by a company of Indians, whose hearts are stirred with some consideration of the truth, to desire some conferences with several of several Churches, and several of the Common-wealth, that their judgements may further be informed, and their consciences convinced, and the course of godliness cleared up unto them: upon the meeting granted, they have liberty, and they take it, to wit, they propound their demands, they hear answers, they make Objections, seriously and sadly debate the difficulties. There be conferences, disputes, debates, by these novices, now coming on to Religion, with Elders, Magistrates, in the audience of the several members of the Churches, and yet no man will say, these are Church actions, because they do not this as a Church, but as Christians, to draw on beginners to the faith.  
Suppose again, the Church of herself appoints a meeting, and appoints the Elders to handle the same questions, to propound and explicate the same Scriptures, in way of answering and clearing up difficulties, This is now a Church action: because though the duties be the same, yet the manner of the dispensation issues from another roote; namely, Officers, by virtue of their authority, require and call for the presence and subjection of the people: others in joy the benefit of the actions,( which as such, are not Church actions,) as hath appeared before, but the manner of dispensation is properly Church work, and in that they have no Communion with the Church.  
And this frequently and familiarly is to be observed in all Corporations, when they meet in public, many strangers, of several Counties, Countries, come in to see and hear the benefit of the administrations: But onely the members of the Corporation enjoy Corporation communion; i.e. they are onely under the power and authority of the Corporation, and by virtue of that relation are to be there, and to submit themselves to the authority, delivering orders to that end, and may be constrained thereunto, which strangers cannot be, and so it is here.   

CONCLUSION III.  
Its plain from Master Rutherford his own grant, that the ordinance itself, nor the public dispensation therof, nor the hearing of the dispensation doth make Church-communion: For he confesseth that Turkes and Infidels may come in occasionally, several times, as it were obiter, and yet this doth not make them partakers of Church-Communion, and yet in these their attendances, these three things are evidently and undeniably to be observed.  
The 

Ordinance,  
Dispensation on the Ministers part.  
Hearing on the Turks part.     

CONCLUSION IV.  
Therefore in the fourth place, we are to inquire what he meaneth by set and ordinary. lib. 2. pag. 269. and professed and resolved hearing. pag. 270.  
If by professed, he means such a profession as makes a man a member ut supra; this doth yield the cause, which he would maintain in appearance, namely, he that is a member of a Church doth communicate in Church Communion.  
Never any denied this.  
But if it be the resolution of the spirit of a man inwardly( for there resolution lies) and profession, outwardly to attend this action of hearing, we then know where to fasten, and we have two questions to discuss.  
1. Whether preaching publicly, and public hearing be a Church action in itself considered.  
And that this is no Church action, Mr. Rutherford yields, which indeed is the main scope and hinge of the question, as it is practised, and by dispute agitated betwixt us and them.  
For if Infidels coming in occasionally, once, twice, twenty several times, to hear, do not yet in so doing communicate in a Church-action: Then preaching and hearing do not make a Church-action, in themselves considered. At primum verum ex concessis.  
Quest. 2. A bare profession to attend the outward hearing of the word ordinarily, is not a Church action, nor doth infer Church Communion.  
Our Arguments are,  

Arg. 1.  
That profession, which may stand with the professed opposition and renouncing of the doctrine of the gospel, and the truth of the Church: That doth not make any Church communion. For opposition professed against the truth of the Doctrine, and truth of the Church-state, is cross to communion with it.  
But such a profession ordinary may stand with both these.  
For a Jesuit may be hired, as an intelligencer, to hear and report the Doctrine to others, who set him on work to that end: or else as a Caviller to undermine it in the hearts of others whom he would either draw to Popery, or confirm in Popery. He may be a constant hearer, and yet profess that he hates the Protestant Religion, and renounceth the standing of the Churches.   

Arg. 2.  
Where there is no Church union, there is no Church communion, because this issues from that.  
But many hear ordinarily, who have no Church union, or real membership with visible Churches.   

Arg. 3.  
Church communion is ordered by the power of the Church, and they can exercise their power therein: for what excommunication takes away, that communion of the Church can give.  
But the Church doth not, nor in reason can hinder ordinary hearing.  
Therefore it did not give it, by any power of Church work.  
We shall now take Master Rutherford his Arguments into consideration.  
Onely we shall crave the Reader to recall two things,( formerly evidenced) to mind, and to carry them along in his consideration; and those will help to expedite the Answer, to the reasons alleged to the contrary.  

1. That Infidels and Turks may come in occasionally, and yet that hearing is not Church communion, Lib. 2. p. 270.  
2. That an action in itself simply considered, may not be a Church action, i.e. proper to the Church, yet the manner of enjoining this, or enjoying of it, in virtue of Church-power, is a Church-worke and way) issuing from Church confederacy and combination.   
From these two premises now recalled, formerly proved, It follows,  
That the Preacher may in preaching edify the Church met for that end and convince an infidel coming in occasionally, 1 Cor. 14.24.25. And yet the infidel doth not join in Church communion, though in hearing the word preached by the Officer of the Church: which is an Answer to his first Argument.  
Hence the infidel may be converted, and so enjoy the benefit of the ordinance, and be built upon Christ, at that his occasional coming, and so join in worship with them, and yet not in Church worship, for his own occasional coming was no Church communion, by Master Rutherford his own grant, which is an Answer to his second Argument.  
Hence the infidel may be called by others, and being so called, he may come and hear, and partake in the worship, and yet not as Church hearing or worship, which is an Answer to the third Argument.  
Hence Church-hearing will be then Church communion, when by virtue of Church covenant they put forth Church power in dispensing, and persons in virtue of that relation stand bound to submit, in attending to such administrations, and thus all the members hear. But the infidel hears upon another ground and so shares in the act, but is not under the Church-power and manner of the dispensation of that act: and therefore his hearing is not Church-hearing. As it is in the meetings of civill Corporations: The members of the Corporation, they come in virtue of the combination, which they hold by Charter, and so have Corporation community: others come in by the by, as strangers, and they communicate in the hearing of the Acts that pass, but not in the Corporation community, in which they have no share: nor hath the Corporation any power over them, which Answers the fourth Argument.  
Hence this hearing doth not separate a visible member in genere notiorum visibilium; because it belongs to an infidel also: which answers the fifth Argument. Nor doth this hearing bring the hearer under any tie, which answers the sixth Argument.  

From this ground thus laid and made good, we may collect several things.  
1. The hearing of Infidels occasionally argues not communion of Pastor and people, betwixt him and the Officer, that preacheth to him: Communion betwixt Pastor and flock is Church-communion, as the terms, and the nature of the relation evidence.  
But in this hearing of an infidel, there is no Church communion, ex concessis, from Master Rutherford, lib. 2. 270.  
2. If this hearing would make a person of such a flock, and so the Minister his Pastor, then this kind of hearing of a wicked and unworthy Minister, would make a man partake with him in that sinful station of his: which hath ever been accounted irrational, in those who have been rigid in their separation, so that it is easy to distinguish betwixt the word that is dispensed, in which a hearer communicates, and betwixt the office and station of him that doth dispense it, with which they onely communicate, who stand in relation to such a one dispensing as their officer.  
3. Hence Church-power and church-privileges are differenced in the same act. privileges,( in my aim here,) imply that good and benefit which attends any Church dispensation. As take any Church act dispensed, there is. 1. The good and benefit which may rise and be received therefrom. 2. Church like power in the dispensation thereof. And these two, though they go together, yet are so differenced in reality of their natures, that the one may be enjoyed, I mean the good and privilege of the act, by such who communicate not in the power. As instance.  
A man preacheth authoritatively in his congregation. Indians and Turkes, come to hear occasionally, they partake in the good of the word and dispensation of it. But not in the authority of his ministry. For he is not a Pastor to them nor communicates with them as a Pastor; as it hath been formerly from Master Rutherford proved.  Hither belong those expressions. 1 Cor 5.& last, what have we to do to judge those that are without? Matth. 18. let him be to thee as a heathen. 
Therefore Haethens come not within the priviledge-respect of a brother in Church-communion, though they come to Church hearing.  
And hence it is, as people are more or less capable of the good of these dispensations( for so they may be) so they do, and may, partake more or less in these privileges, and yet not in Church power whereby they are dispensed. As it is in some Corporations, some persons of some families, by reason that their predecessors have been Benefactors to the Charter, they have privileges to come into the council of the company, to adventure with them, if they will, and yet have no stroke, by any special relation, to act in, or carry on the occasion or design taken up. Thus members of other Churches are capable of more privileges then those, who are not in that condition: and therefore partake of the benefit of some acts and ordinances, and yet communicate not in the authoritative dispensation of those acts; and this appears thus.  If a Pastor of another congregation hath no authority or power, by his office to require them of another Church, to receive a Sacrament, but they may refuse, if it seem good to them. Then are they not under his pastoral power to dispense it to them For by his office power he can require those of his own Church to receive it. 
And if he hath no power authoritative to enjoin them to receive it, they cannot challenge it by any special interest they have in that power. For the parity of reason is the same on both sides.  
That look, as it was before, when the Pastors did preach authoritatively in his congregation, he did not onely dispense the word unto his people, as one out of office may do, but he could by virtue of his office and relation, enjoin them to hear it. They in virtue of their relation to him as a Pastor could expect and require it from him. Yet Indians coming in Obiter, they partake of the good of the dispensation, but are not under the authoritative power of the dispenser: so that he, by his authority, could not require them to hear, nor they, by any relative interest to his power, could challenge him to speak to them.  
And here then remember two things.  
1. That the benefit of the ordinance dispensed and the power in the dispensing the Sacrament, are so different, that though the Pastors did dispense it to a member of another congregation, yet he had no power to constrain him to receive it.  
2. Remember, that though a member of another congregation is capable of the good of those ordinances( for it is not because a member of this or that, but because a member of a congregation that he becomes capable nextly of these seals) yet he hath no relative interest in the power of the dispenser to require it at his hand. And this example will hold proportion with the former, namely. That persons may partake in church-privileges, who do not partake in Church-power.  
Take this other example.  
A man provides for his wife, as an husband, such and such diet, and he can require her, out of his authority, to take his provision. A neighbour coming in may haply share in the like provision, but not upon the like ground. The neighbour as privilege of special neighbourhood. But the wife by the power of her relation, as a wife.  
So that I cannot see but the proportion is faire. A person may partake of the word authoritatively preached, and yet not communicate with the power and authority of the officer as his. A person may partake of a Sacrament authoritatively dispensed, and yet not communicate with the authority and power of the dispenser. 1. e. as in either, to have relation to him, or them, as their officers.  
The like may be seen in such acts, which issue from that relative interest which respect the specialty of the covenant of this or that Church. As namely, when members elect, admit, censure by vote; The formality of these acts is onely proper to them, yet the good and benefit of all these, they who are present, partake of.  
Instance thus.  
Suppose a Penitent is to be received into the Church, the members they express their readiness of love, pity, mercy, brotherlinesse to forgive: others also present join thus far in that act, as consenting to, and approving of what they do according to God: yea are much quickened, comforted, encouraged yea taught and instructed by that they hear and see, and so receive the good, and are much edified by the ordinance. And yet its that which all men will yield, they share not, communicate not, at all, in any interest of the po●●r by which such acts were dispensed       

PART II. Of the CHURCH considered as Corpus Organicum.  

CHAP. I. Of the number of Officers therein, and the nature thereof.  
WE have in the foregoing part of our Discourse inquired, touching the constitution of a Church, in regard of the material and formal causes of it, and the special qualifications that attend thereupon, in regard of the power and privileges that appertain unto it; and thus far we have looked at it, as Totum Essentiale; and yet there is much more required to make up the integrity and perfection thereof, that it may be completed in all the special Members and Officers, which the Lord Christ hath appointed and set in this visible body of his, for the improvement of the special operation of every part, and the edification of itself in love, Ephe 4.13, 16.  
And thus the Church becomes Corpus Orgenicum, A body organized of such prime and choice members, which may conduce to the beauty and building of the body in that entireness that it may grow up to an holy temple in the Lord.  
As we look at samson, when he was deprived of his eyes, as a man still, to whom the full definition of man did fully agree, est animal rationale, as a living creature endowed with a reasonable soul. But consider him in the integrity or intirenes of his constitution, as consisting of body and souls, and that body made up of such members, as eyes, head, hands, such as are integral to the whole: We say then, though he be a true man, yet he is not an entire man, but lame and mamed, destitute and deprived of some of those parts, that conduce to the perfection of his integrity.  
It is so here, A Church without Officers is a true Church, in regard of the essence of it: There is a company or society of visible Saints confoederate together in the profession of the faith of the gospel. But it is not complete, but lame and maimed in regard of the integrity of it.  
The Lord Christ therefore hath provided for the perfection of his Church in this behalf also; it is a coronation gift which he bestoweth upon his Spouse, Eph. 4. when he had conquered the enemies of our salvation by his death and obedience, triumphing over them in his resurrection, and now returned into his own country, ascending into the highest heavens, and sits crwoned with majesty and glory at the right hand of the Father, he gave gifts, gave some to be Apostles, some Evangelists, some Prophets; those extraordinary, because there was extraordinary use of them; for the first planting and watering of the churches: He gave also some to bee Pastors, some Teachers, for the gathering of the Saints the work of ministry, building the body of Christ.  
And though the chief aim and scope of our Saviour( under the glory of his name,) was to provide for the special good of his elect; yet because those his elect were mingled here with the wicked in the world, nay many an elect child proceeds of a reprobate parent, and because it is impossible for the eye of man to search into heart secrets, and inward sincerity which is covered there; but must judge of men, and dispense ordinances to men according to the laws and limits of rational charity; therefore it is that our Saviour hath bestowed these offices as a royal gift upon the visible Church over whom( as we have heard) he is a head political, by outward guidance and government, as well as a head mystical by his special and spiritual conveyance of his grace. The consideration of the Nature, Institution, and operations of Officers, hath a constraining power to conclude this truth beyond all control. For,  
1 The invisible Church, and all that is comprehendad within that notion, is to be believed, is not liable to our eye, nor comes to be discerned visibly.  
But for the Officers of the Church, which are now standing and ordinary, there is required a visible company of people, that must concur and consent to call them: The persons must be tried and approved,( and ergo visible) that must be called. God sets ordinary Officers in his Church, but it is by man, and therefore he must know them. 1 Cor. 12.28. Gal. 1.1.2.  
2 Look at their Ordination, when they are called.  
3 Look at their Dispensation and exercise of their places and power, in preaching the word, in administration of Sacraments and censures.  
4 Look at the parties which are offenders who must be censured, or penitent, who must be received again.  
All these operations proclaim a visibility on all parts and in all the particular circumstances.  
Which is the rather to be observed; because when we red or meet with such expressions in Scriptures which intimate either the call or institution of Ministers, or any of their ministrations, we may know, they do belong unto the visible Church, and are to be attended in that relation and respect.  
For common sense will constrain a man to confess, that there must be visible persons, who must exercise keys in governing: and there must be visible persons that must be governed.  
What the word of the gospel hath revealed concerning these Officers may be referred to those particular heads, and thus laid out unto our view.  
Officers of the Gospel may be considered with reference to their 

Number 

Ruling 

Ruling onely, as Elders.  
Ruling and Teaching both, as 

Pastors.  
Doctors      
Supporting the 

State of the body, as Deacons.  
Health, as widows.      
Institution, in 

Election.  
Ordination.      
We see the frame, we shall attend the particulars, as they are propounded in their order.  
Touchi g the Number of these Officers, generally two things are to be attended.  

I.  
Whether beside these five appointed by Christ, any more can lawfully be added, or should be tolerated?  
Ans. No, in no wise; the rule is here sure, from which we must not depart, no not a hairs breadth: thou shalt add nothing thereunto, take nothing there-from.  
That which our Saviour enquired, and the Scribes confessed, touching Johns ministry, it is true of all these orders and Ordinances, They are from heaven. The Lord Christ is the giver and alone Institutor of them, and none beside, and this is evidenced; 1. From the right of giving, whence these proceed. When our Saviour ascended, He lead captivity captive, &c.  
He that conquers the country, to him it appertains to set rulers over it, and over his subjects in it.  
2 They are especial means of Gods worship, and all of them in rise and end have an eye to spiritual things, and spiritual operations, though they be employed in ordinary outward things, as the Offices of the Deacons and widows are appointed by Christ to provide for the state and health of the members: that the love of Christ, as the Head of his Church, might thereby be observed, and the spirits of those who are refreshed thereby, may be more full and enlarged to serve him with a glad heart, in a Church way, and in the improvement of all Ordinances to that end: and all other civill provisions, though good in their kind, will never attain this end, without the Ordinances of Christ, Act. 6.1.2.3.  
3 It s affirmed by the Apostle, touching two sorts of them, the Pastor and the Teacher, whose employment is principally about labouring in the Word, that they are for the perfecting of the body, until we all meet in the unity of the faith, and the fullness of the stature in Christ: so that they are able to attain this end, and that in all ages until the full accomplishment and gathering in of all the Saints; and therefore there needs no more to be added, to the end of the world.  
It is therefore the usurpation of that man of sin, when he ascended upon high, to the Popes chair, and to be Head of the Church, that he gave some to be Surrogates, chancellors, deans, Arch deacons for the building up of the kingdom of darkness; because he easily perceived, that Christs Officers would never do his work kindly, nor further his kingdom, but he must have his own creatures, which must be at his beck, and stand, durant beneplacito; and therefore must be forced to do his drudgery, and durst do no other, unless they should be flung away, if the man of sin did but once frown upon them.  
That as God complains of Jeroboams practise, when he would maintain his faction, and preserve the people from returning to their King, He set up false worship; because he concluded, the truth of the word and worship attended unto would make them look unto their true King; and to keep them in false worship, he provides false teachers; made the lowest of the people priests, who because they had no call and appointment from God, never had care to preserve his word or worship, but to maintain that course of religion, whereby they were maintained in their places.  
And therefore as God said of them, he will say of these human Orders, They never came into his mind or heart.  
Not come from Heaven, but from the bottomless pit, and therefore ought not to be admitted, nor yet tolerated; but being plants which the Lord hath not planted, they should be plucked up.  
Whom God never calls, God never blesseth.  
And it is to be observed, that these Orders have been the props and pillars of that kingdom of darkness, and have been the brokers and maintainers of all that hideous wickedness, which hath been vented in the doctrines and opinions that have acted in the lives and conversations of that hellish crew that have had their dependence upon the man of sin.  
And it is marvellous dangerous to bring in, or continue the least alteration from the mind of Christ in any thing.  
The Church of Scotland complains bitterly, that a constant Moderator made way for a Bishop, and so for the bane of their Churches. Christ who is the King and Head of his Church and House, he in reason should appoint his under-Officers, and such as he best knows, suits the occasions of the Family, and will best provide for the good thereof, and his own content.   

II.  
The other thing in general to be observed, is,  
That they must be kept distinct; and that according to the mind and intendment of our Saviour one person must not adventure to engross all, nor several of these together.  
As to be Ruling Elder and pastor, or one and the same man to be Elder and Deacon.  
For it is apparent by the Apostle his discourse, Rom. 12.7. that they are put in way of opposition, as Membra dividentia, {αβγδ}. Therefore cannot be in subordination or subjection one to the other.  
2. The Apostles comparison carries this with it, as the main thing intended therein. Rom. 12.4. As there be many members in the body, but all the members have not one and the same office. {αβγδ}.  
It is therefore wide to say, as Mr. R. that this comparison holdeth not in all: because it must hold in the very thing that is intended, yea specified; for this is the hinge upon which the comparison turns, v. 4, 5. and the ground of the Apostle his inference, {αβγδ}. v. 6. vers. 6.  
3. Each of them is sufficient to take up the whole man: so that he is not able to attend both, but he shall neglect the special service of the one.  
4. If the Apostles professed, they could not attend tables, and attend Word and Prayer, and therefore laid aside the one, that they might discharge the other; who shall think he is sufficient for many of these?  
The reasons that Mr. R. allegeth, do not satisfy.  
1. The Apostles did exercise both, as they could, according as the Auditory was.  
Reply 1. The Apostles were extraordinary persons, and were fitted and assisted answerably, which none, whose calling is ordinary, must look for.  
Secondly, they had all offices virtually in themselves, and did put forth acts of all, as it appears before the choice of the Deacons: But if any now shall think himself able to undergo two of them, the profession of the Apostles and their practise also will be a real confutation of them; since they so assisted, saw reason to lay down one, that they might improve the other, none will dare to take up both, unless he will presume he hath greater both sufficiency and ability, then the Apostles.  
2. Mr. R. saith, That the formal Objects, to wit, the information of the Judgement, and exhorting, are not so different, as that they should be incompatible.  
Reply. These, in themselves and full breadth, are not so incompatible; But look at the specialty of the gift, that fits for the one, and that which furnisheth for the other. 2. To attend mainly and chiefly upon each, according to the gift, they will prove inconsistent.  
To have a special gift for the one, and to bestow himself upon that, and to have a special gift for the other, and to bestow himself upon that also, will ever be found, if not impossible to attain, yet ever disadvantageous to the dispensation of the gospel. And a mans own experience will evidence as much to him, if he will attend it.  
Nor is it sufficient that one is eminent in the gift, which fits the Ruling-Elder, or Deacon; yet that gives no allowance, he may be Doctor, Ruler, and Deacon.  
But look where a mans spirit is best fitted, if once called to that work, he must let all the stream and strength of his abilities run in that channel, lest being divided into many, he becomes fit for none, and failes in all.  
This may suffice for the number.  

Of the Ruling-Elder.  
We shall now take a survey of the several, in the order in which they were set before us.  
And we begin with the Ruling Elders place, for that carries a kind of simplicity with it: there be more ingredients required to make up the Office of Pastor and Doctor, and therefore we shall take leave to trade in the first.  
Quo simplicius, eo prius.  
1. That there is such an Office appointed by Christ.  
2. What it is, or wherein lies the limits and bounds thereof.  

I.  
That there is such an Office and Officer appointed by Christ, as the Scriptures are plain to him, whose spirit and apprehension is not prepossessed and forestalled with prejudice: So this cause hath been maintained by many of Christs Worthies of former, and now of latter times; and now at last, by those two famous and eminent Champions, Mr. Rutterfort, and Mr. Gilespy.  
So that we have no controversy here but with hierarchical Persons, the force and power of whose Arguments, lies especially in a Pursuvant and a Prison, armed with Authority of an High-Commission.  
And therefore wee shall content ourselves to settle the Scriptures shortly upon their basis and bottom, according to the sense of the Spirit of God, in the several places, and dispute briefly there-from, and so finish this Head of Discipline.  
The first Argument we have from Rom. 12.7. which gives in witness to this truth; where all these Officers are numbered and name expressly; if the meaning of the words bee once manifested, which will bee made clear in the particulars following:  
1. The gifts here mentioned and considered, are not such as have reference to a civill, but to an ecclesiastic condition; so the words of vers. 5. We are one body in Christ.  
2. The operations also which issue from the several functions evidence as much; prophesying and attendance thereunto, exhorting and the bestowing the heart and end●●vour thereupon.  
2. Gifts here are not such as be common, and belong to all Christians, as Faith, Hope, Love, Holinesse, &c.  
First, those gifts are here meant, by which the members of the Body of Christ are distinct one from another, and have several acts appropriated to them, as vers. 4. {αβγδ}, &c. But the common Graces are not so distinct, for in them they do agree.  
Secondly, {αβγδ}: The weight of the phrase, having the Article in that manner added, notes not every member, but some by way of eminency to whom these appertain.  
Thirdly, the reason and logic of the place carries a distinction with it, and the severals are set out, by way of opposition, contradistinct one to another, and therefore cannot be subordinate and meet in one subject, where they should be both formally acted, and hence they must be public functions; for had they been private gifts, one would have contained the other, as distributing might bee included in showing of mercy.  
3. These public Functions and Gifts are ranged and referred to two heads, in the general, under which the severals are comprehended, and unto which referred: as,  
Gifts are either 

{αβγδ} 

{αβγδ},  
{αβγδ}:    
{αβγδ} 

{αβγδ}.  
{αβγδ}.  
{αβγδ}.      
So that prophecy and ministry are here put as common heads, unto which the rest may be referred, and under which they are ranged, and that's the reason why the Apostle in this enumeration changeth his phrase: The 1. Distinction he expresseth in the plural: The 2. in the singular. Beza in locum.  
So that it is a mere conceit, that carries not the weight of a feather with it, of such, who say that Paul intended to see down the several functions in the Church: then there should be seven, not five, making prophecy and ministry two, when these are not distinct species, but two general heads, unto which the particulars were referred.  
Hence we reason.  
That function and office in the Church, which differs so from all the rest, as one member of the body distinct from another, in actions appropriate to itself, that is properly a distinct species or kind from them.  
But the function of a Ruler doth so differ from all other Offices in the Church, as the members of the body do in the actions appropriate to them.  
The Proposition needs no proof.  
The Assumption is the express words of the Text, v. 4, 5.   

II.  
The second Argument is taken from 1 Cor. 12.28. God hath set some in his Church; as first, Apostles; then Prophets; thirdly, Teachers; after that Powers, then gifts of healing, helps, Governments.  
The scope of the place, and Apostle his intendment is, to lay open the several Offices and Officers that the Lord hath set in his Church, and so many chief members out of which the Church is constituted as an entire body.  
And for the right discovery of the Apostles proceeding and purpose, we may observe:  
1. That the functions he here names, were partly extraordinary, and so temporary, serving the necessity of the Church in that estate, and in that time, when it was first planted, and was to be watered with more then ordinary help, as having more then ordinary need, as Apostles, workers of Miracles, &c. some were ordinary, and to continue, as Teachers, helps which were Deacons, Governments which were Elders.  
2. The gifts themselves are expressed in the abstract, {αβγδ}: yet the persons and officers which stood possessed of those, are to be understood, as appears, if we look to the words before or after; for when the Apostle says, {αβγδ}, though there be an apparent {αβγδ}, yet {αβγδ}, is to be understood, and that hath an eye and necessary reference to the persons: secondly, look to the words after vers. 29, 30. he interprets the gifts by the persons in the second repetition, {αβγδ}.  
3. Though some extraordinary persons had some of these gifts virtually, and put forth the operations thereof, as the Apostles, they wrought miracles, spake with tongues; yet that hinders not, but these gifts might formally be in some subjects, as appointed of purpose by Christ, for that kind of employment: As some only spake with tongues, some only had the gift of Healing.  
And it is most apparent in some of the particulars, though the Apostles did prophesy and teach, yet Prophets and Doctors were special functions appropriate to some men, so also were Deacons; and therefore also it hinders not, but Governments might be a special kind of Rulers, distinct from Teachers.  
From which premises, the dispute issues thus:  
As Apostles, Prophets, and Teachers are distinct, so are Helps and Governments distinct; for the Spirit puts them in the same rank, as having a parity of reason, which appertains to them all.  
But they were distinct Officers, and found in persons as distinct Officers, as vers. 30. Are all Apostles? Are all Teachers? Therefore the same is true of Governours.   

III.  
A third Argument is taken from that famous place, 1 Tim. 5.17. which is full to our purpose in hand, and intended by the holy Spirit of the Lord, to make evident the station and office of Ruling-Elders unto the end of the world; and it is admirable to observe, how the factors and followers of the Pope and the Prelates, who labour to prop up their place and pre-eminencie, have used all the wiliness of their wits, and unweariable wrestlings of their carnal reason, to darken the evidence of the truth, and to defeat the power of the proof in the place, as fearing, it should seem, lest by this means, their way to promote and maintain the pride of the Prelacy, would be utterly prejudiced and overthrown; whereas, do but suffer the Deacon to lay aside the care of the poor, make him but half a Priest, give him the allowance that he may baptize, and not give the Sacrament of the Supper; raise the Ruling-Elder one stair higher, that he may be a Teaching-Presbyter: By this time, the Bishop is beyond the bound of an ordinary Elder, and with a little help, he will be handed up into a Diocoesan Palace, and one lift more will make him a Primate; and if the Kings of the earth favour him, he will make himself a Pope presently; for they differ but in degrees, not in kind.  
So that you must not wonder to see the contention grow so hot touching a Ruling-Elder, because if he be confined within his compass, the wings of Pope and Prelate will bee exceedingly clipped, and their power impeached.  
Its not suitable to our purpose to contend with all cavils, nor shall wee need▪ for they have been confuted long before this day, and that by such who have been furnished with choice abilities to this purpose; I shall therefore satisfy myself to give the native and natural sense of the words, as suits onely to the rules of right and reason, and may bee easy to such( as the ways of wisdom are) who are willing to understand.  
The form of the context stands thus:  
When the Apostle, in the foregoing verses, had directed to the right choice of the Widow, whose labour should be improved in the Church, he intimates also his mind, how she should be respected by the Church, in whose service she is employed: Honour widows, &c. v. 3. i. e. so care for them, that they may be sufficiently supplied, according to their care and condition.  
And from thence he takes occasion to leave an apostolical Canon upon Record, how the Elders of the Churches should be provided for: To wit, the lowest degree of Rulers are worthy, not single and sufficient supply of widows, but double honour, the certain put for the uncertain, the finite for the infinite( by a synecdoche) i.e. all honourable respect, Officium& beneficium, not onely sufficient to relieve their necessities, but that which may honourably answer their places, employments, and prayers.  
But the Elders that are of the highest rank, and whose place requires laboriousnesse in Word and Doctrine, they may most especially challenge, and the Church ought especially to bestow this double honour upon them.  
The words carry a distribution with them {αβγδ}, or {αβγδ}; and this tractatur collatione imparium, à majoribus, {αβγδ}.  
The sum of the verse is expressed in a discrete axiom; The Arguments are comparata imparia; The things compared are the Persons 

A Ruling-Elder.  
A Teaching-Elder.    
And it is especially to be observed, their works are not the things compared, but the persons notified by the kind of their works: For the words are not, The Elders, because they rule well, and because they labour,  
But those 

Elders that are ruling.  
Elders that are labouring in Word.    
So that these are not the consequent part of the Proposition, but the antecedent, or subject onely; and therefore the persons and Officers being the things compared, it is certain they must be distinct persons, for that the nature of things compared doth require.  
And hence those conceits vanish: namely,  
Elders here are not attended for their private conversation in holinesse, as though to rule well, was to order themselves well in a Christian course.  
Secondly, nor will the conceit hold, which saith, There be not divers Elders, but divers works of one Elder attended; when {αβγδ}, are persons compared and described, not acts.  
2. The consequent part of the discreet axiom, is, 

The first Elder is worthy of double honour.  
The second Elder is worthy of double honour;   But with this difference, its chiefly his due:  
First, 

In the order to be attended  
in measure, more of it is due and debt to him.    
Now its well known, its required that both parts of the discrete axiom, be not only discrete, but true in themselves.  
Whence again, that conceit utterly vanisheth, which makes the comparison to ly betwixt the two acts of one man, namely, The well ruling of a Pastor is worthy of double honour, be it alone in itself considered, which is an assertion grossly cross to the rule of divinity, as the former was to the rule of logic. That interpretation which makes the performance of the least part of a Pastoral calling, though it be with the neglect of the greatest work, worthy double honour; that is grossly contrary to the mind of God, and the verdict of the Scriptures. For cursed be the man that doth the work of the Lord negligently, and wo to me, if I preach not the gospel. Rather a double wo is to be denounced against them, then double honour bestowed upon them.  
But this interpretation doth this. Or thus I may reason  
If the Apostle, in this text, doth not speak only of Elders preachers, then he speaks of Elders no preachers.  
But the first is true, he speaks in the place of some Elders no preachers, which is thus proved.  
f he speaks only of preachers, then were there some preachers who preached not at all. But there no be Preachers who preached not at all.  
The second part is past denial. The consequence is proved.  
If those Elders who are most worthy of double honour are said but to labour in the word: then they who are accounted but worthy of it, did not labour in the word.  
But those Elders or Preachers, that by the Apostle are counted most worthy, are said but to labour in the Word, i.e. to preach. ergo they who are but worthy, did not preach at all.  
Lastly the Bishops factors, who take up this defence, provide ill for the honour and pomp of their great Lords, the potent Prelates of the world.  
For by the Apostles peremptory determination, the meanest Minister that is conscientious and laborious in preaching, should have more honourable respect, then the Diocoesan, who sits in his Cathedrall, and under the name of ruling, tyranniseth over the poor people, but labours not to feed them with the word of life.  
To the evidence of the text, we may add the testimony of Ambrose, which carries an amazing kind of manifestation and discovery with it.  
Apud omnes ubique gentes honorabilis est senectus, unde& Synagoga,& poste● Ecclesia Seniores habuit, quorum sine consilio nihil agebatur in Ecclesiâ, quod quâ negligentiâ obsoleverit, nescio, nisi fort Doctorum desiciâ, aut magis superbiâ, dum soli volunt aliquid videri.  
The brightness and patnesse of the witness is such, as though it had been writ with the beam of the sun, and dazels almost the eyes of envy itself, and therefore its strange to see how the spirits of men turn every ston, wrench and wrest every way, if not not to pervert the meaning wholly, yet to darken it as much as may be, but all in vain.  
I shall leave a mark or two of remembrance upon the words that the wise hearted reader may be made cautelous, and so fenced against such forgeries of devices, which the carnal reasons of men of corrupt minds have coined and vented to take off the evidence of the testimony.  
1 Let him know then, that the Elders mentioned by Ambrose were such, that their places and Offices were almost worn out, and laid aside in most of the Churches in his time.  
But that the Office of preaching Elders was not. Ergo those Elders were not such.  
2 That the defacing of the power and rule of these Elders, it came as he conjectures, partly by the idleness, but especially by the pride of Teachers, because they alone might be lifted up. Ergo these Elders could not be Teachers: for those Teachers laboured to destroy the place and power of these Elders; but it is against all show of reason, nay against common sense to say or think, That these Elders should destroy their own places.  
Again, The Teachers that would darken& abolish the place of these Elders, it is said, their aim was to make themselves alone eminent.  
They who would make themselves alone eminent by the disannulling of the honour of others places, they could not be such who were of that rank, or did possess any of their places.  
And this is sufficient to wipe away all such exceptions, that the subtlety of the wit of man hath raised and pretended to weaken the authority and intendment of this now alleged testimony, which hath and doth torment all the prelatical party.   

That Christ hath appointed the Office and plalce of Ruling Elde●s hath been made evident.  
2 We are now to inquire, What be the duties of their places, and that with as much brevity as we may.  
The several duties which ly upon him by virtue of his office are of two sorts 

Some he hath in common with the Pastor and Teacher.  
Some be proper and peculiar to himself.    
Some are common with the other Officers, and therefore it is we find them all ranked under that common name of Elders in the place, 1 Tim. 5. formerly handled. But because in our common language, we appropriate this by a synecdoche, to signify this Office; thence it is, we so usually call him the Elder of the Church; but when the Scripture would design him to his proper place, and so distinguish him from other, it doth appropriate Ruling to him only, and stiles him {αβγδ}, Ruler or Guide, who is above other, and as a leader goes before them.  
The duties which are common to him with the rest of the Teaching Elders, are attended party 

Before the assembly meets, Or  
When the Assembly is met.    
Before the Assemlby, when there is any emergent occasion of weight or difficulty which concerns the congregation; the Ruling Elder is as one of the common council, the concurrence of whose judgement, his voice and verdict, is to be taken in with the others, in the consultation and consideration of the business, for they are all leaders, all Governours, all watchmen, in this common work, and ergo must have a common influence of counsel, as the concernment of the Church shall require. Heb. 13.17. 1 Cor. 12.28. Act. 20.28.  
When offences are public, or private cannot be cured, before they be brought to the congregation, It belongs to them all by way of preconsideration, and preparation, to ripen the occasions, that all the doubtful or perplexed circumstances that might trouble the body, or either cause any mistake in such as be weak, or misled any through misunderstanding, all such mists by through search must be removed, the particulars cleared, the cause punctually and plainly stated, that the understanding of the meanest in the congregation may be able to discern, when the business is propunded, where the pinch lies, and so to pass sentence answerably.  
The Church must be  told, but by an orderly way; and they are the leaders of the Church, and ergo in reason must so know and prepare the cause, that they may led them aright.  
3 When the Church is met, in the ordering of the proceeding of any public censure or act of discipine, the Elder with the rest of the Governors, hath liberty and authority to interpose his judgement, to express his opinion, according as opportunity is presented, without any leave asked, because the Ruling and leading of the work is common to them: order and decency only observed.  
The duties which peculiarly or in an especial manner are appropriate to his place, are such which concern the carriage and demeanour of the members in their more private way, 

when not assembled, or else  
when they are congregated.    
1. The members of the Church, when under the exercise of Gods hand they become to be exercised with any spiritual wants, as in time of sickness, because of the pressure of the disease, and the grief and weight thereof, or their own weakness, they are not able to pray for themselves, Jam. 5.14. they are then enjoined to sand for ehe Elders: not that it was unlawful for them to come, before they be sent for, if the sick be in a low and wearish condition and not able to pray for themselves, but because either the Elders happily do not know of their necessities, or yet not know the time and opportunity when it may be most seasonable to repair to them: ergo it s most meet th●y shoul●, i.e. they h●ve liberty for to sand: and the Elders by virtue of their places and calling are bound to go, and pray with them, and for them, when they cannot pray for themselves, the stress of the studies of the preaching Elders then requiring their employment, and the improvement of their time in searching the Scriptures, and preparing for public dispensations.  
And by the same parity and proportion of reason, if any want comfort, sinking under discouragement and sadness of spirit, or through ignorance are not able to understand the things delivered, they may call for the help of the Elder in private, that they may be informed and comforted by him.  
2 And hence it follows that he hath power to inquire of the condition, and take account of the special state of such of the members: for else how should he be able to administer seasonable and suitable support? The Physician must administer some questions and interrogatories to the Patient to know his particular disease, before he can administer physic to him.  
3 in case he hear of any uncomely, and uncomfortable differences arising betwixe members, he is to set himself by enquiry to know them, and to remove and still them.  
4 If any famed be bruited abroad, touching the offensive carriage of any of the congregation to those that are without, so that some blame may redound to the party, and so some blemish ly upon the congregation, it appertains to his place to make diligent examination to see the certainty and truth, that if false, it may be cleared, if just, the party may be censured, and the credit of the gospel so provided for.  
5 To him it is, that such as are willing to join with the congregation, should repair and express their desire. He is by virtue of his place, to take special consideration of their persons and conditions, and if he find no just impediment to ly in the way, he is to bring their names and desires to the congregation, as in his wisdom he sees fit, according to God, and to led the whole assembly in the work of their admission, by presenting them to trial, calling for their allowance and approbation by vote. And it seems to us, to follow from hence, that in case the censure of Excommunication is to be administered, it appertains to him to led the action, and pronounce the sentence: because there is parity of reason: he that ruled the action of admissions and receiving into the Church, to him it appertains to led and dispense the act of excommunication or casting out; and the argument that forceth and fastens all those services upon him, as his peculiar charge, is this,  
What ever doth not belong to labouring in word and doctrine, and is not a common act of rule, those actions belong to him that rules well. But all these acts now specified are such. And in truth, the nature of the things would easily persuade a mans reason to yield thereunto. For how inequall and unreasonable would it seem to a man acquainted with the weight and work of the ministry, that when the Pastor or Teacher should be attending upon reading, and searching the sense and mind of God in the word, and the mysteries of God therein,( who is sufficient for such things?) that they should be then taken off their studies,& be forced to attend upon mens special weaknesses or wants in private, when they should prepare for the public dispensations, so that the one must be of necessity neglected, or they distracted in both? whereas this appointment of our Saviour provides for both, without any prejudice or disadvantage to either.    

Of the Pastors Office.  
We have done with the Office of the Ruling Elder. That which presents itself next to our consideration is the Office of the Pastor, and then the Teacher.  
The limits of the Pastors work, may be thus laid out, according to the laws of Christs institution. The scope of his Office is to work upon the will and the affections, and by savoury, powerful, and affectionate application of the truth delivered, to chase it into the heart, to wooe and win the soul to the love and liking, the approbation and practise of the doctrine which is according to godliness, and hence he that exhorts is enjoined to attend upon exhortation. Rom. 12.7. Not that the Pastor may not interpret the text, and lay open the meaning so far as he may make way for the truth to work more kindly, and prevail more effectually with the affections: but that is not his {αβγδ}, his main work whereupon the strength of his studies and abilities should be bestowed is this: He attends and insists upon exhortation how he may speak a good word for Christ, make up the marriage, and betrothe the soul to our Saviour. This is called a word of wisdom, 1 Cor. 12.8. because it is a point of special prudence, and that in the greatest excellency of it, how to come within the bosom of a finner, and grapple so powerfully with his spirit, that he may take no nay at his hand.  
He that wins souls is wise Prov. 11.30. and therefore his labour is to lay open the loathsome nature of sin, and to let in the terror of the Lord upon the conscience, that the careless and rebellious sinner may come to a parley of peace, and be content to take up the profession of the truth. And because when he hath so done, either his hypocrisy may carry him aside from Christ, or discouragement may make him afraid to come to the Lord Jesus, ergo his wisdom and work must be to discover the cunning fetches of the hypocrite, and to hunt him out of his muses, 
1 Cor 1.20.  that he may not cousin himself and sit down with some reserved delusion, and go no further.  
2 To answer all those fears, and to scatter all the clouds of discouraging objections, that the soul may see the path plain and safe to come to the promise, and to receive power and comfort to walk with God therein. 
Acts 14.22.   
3 When the Soul is truly brought to Christ, because it may either out of sloth not stir up itself to do what it can, or out of weakness or unskilful unhandinesse not be able to do what it would, ergo the Pastor must endeavour by heat of exhortation to quicken it, strengthen and encourage the soul in every holy word and work 1 Thes. 2.11.12. &c.   

Of the Teachers Office.  
That this is distinct from the Pastors place and employment, we have formerly proved, and in truth the scope of the Apostle, Eph. 4. in the short enumeration of the Offices of those that labour in the word will not in a comely and reasonable conformity to such an intent, suffer either a needless repetition, nor yet allow this name to be put in by way of interpretation of the former, when the latter doth rather darken then discover the meaning of that which went before. 
Beza in locum.   
Beside in Rom. 12.7. when the Apostle doth on purpose set himself to record the several Officers appointed by our Saviour, he puts this by way of division, and opposition unto the other: only I find some difference in the apprehensions of interpreters, touching the nature and work of the Teachers amongst themselves. Many and those of exact judgement, seem to consine him to the School,( with whom under favour) I cannot so fully agree: I should rather conceive, doctor may be attended with some distinction.  
There is a Doctor in 

Scholâ  
Ecclesiâ   both have their special use, and employment: but the second is here meant, for he is given to the Church, and that with this intent and aim, for the gathering and perfecting of the body, and that is of the Church or Congregation; and ergo they are to choose him, to employ and improve him for their special and spiritual edification: which the School will not reach so immediately unto, as his place, our Saviours purpose, and the Churches necessity, and spiritual edification will require.  
In this second sense we understand the Officer we now inquire after, and that wherein he shares in common with the Pastor is, that they have both of them Authority and right delegated from Christ to consecrate and to administer the Sacraments.  
he who hath office-power to publish the Covenant of Grace, he by the same office may administer the seals of the Covenant.  
But they both may out of Office-power and Authority, preach the Covenant of Grace.  
When I say preach out of Authority of Office, I so speak, because as we have formerly disputed, Brethren, who are qualified, may, as occasion shall require, and they invited thereunto, preach, or publicly open the Scripture, to the edification of the hearer, and yet not do it out of office.  
Look what office-power authorizeth to the dispensation of the Covenant; the same, upon the same right, will authorize to the administration of the seals. But the peculiar things appropriate to his place, are;  
1. The aim and scope of the Doctor is, to inform the judgement, and to help forward the work of illumination, in the mind and understanding, and thereby to make way for the truth, that it may be settled and fastened upon the heart; and is therefore enjoined, Rom. 12.7. to attend unto Teaching: Not that it is not lawful for him to administer a word of exhortation, as it were by the way: But he dwells not upon that, that is not his main work, bestows neither his studies nor his strength upon it, as his chief business, and therefore a word of knowledge is said to be given to him. Hence all such dispensations, which do properly and immediately conduce to this end, do belong in an especial manner to him.  
As to dwell upon the interpretation of the Text, so far as the difficulty and intricacie thereof may require, and to clear it to the capacity of the meanest, because this is necessary to the information of the judgement.  
2. To him it appertains to lay down a platform of wholesome words, and to deliver the fundamental points of Christian Faith, the principles of Religion, as the main pillars of truth, which may under-prop our apprehensions, that they may not be carried aside with every wind of Doctrine, because this is necessary to the teaching.  
3. To him it belongs to handle such controversies as are on foot, and do arise betwixt the Church and Adversaries of the truth, to state them clearly, strongly, and solidly, to confute them out of the Word, and to convince such as bee the broachers and maintainers of them, because this is necessary for the information of the judgement.  
Other things might be added, but these are the principal.  
The controversy which hath exercised the world since that man of sin was advanced into the chair of Ambition, and falls in here, is;  
Quest. Whether Episcopus and Presbyter bee the same jure Divino, and according to the verdict of the Scriptures, and the appointment of our Saviour Christ?  
Answ. Though the nakedness of the assertion, that would difference Episcopus and Presbyter by divine right hath been of former, and much more of latter times laid open to the view of the world, so that there needs nothing to be added here; yet to leave it upon Record, that wee concur with those Worthies in the defence of the same Truth, wee shall in short set down our witness together with them.  
We shall speak something by way of explication, and state the question: add secondly, some Arguments for the confutation of that which is erroneous, and for the confirmation of the Truth.  
Episcopus is three-fold 

Divinus.  
Humanus.  
Satanicus.    
A Bishop by divine Institution is such an Officer, which Christ hath set in his Church, and whose Office is set forth and discovered in the Word, and such are Pastors and Doctors, Tit. 1.7. 1 Tim. 5.17.  
Humanus is a President or constant Moderator, chosen by consent of Ministers, meeting and consulting about the affairs of their Churches in their common consociations, to whom it appertained, to moderate the actions of the Assembly, to propound things to be agitated, to gather voices, to pronounce the sentence which passed by common approbation; and he had no more, but his equal suffrage with the rest, and when his action was ended, was but in equal honour with the rest; nay, may be, in less respect, in regard of yeares or gifts.  
In consociations, reason and order forceth such a kind of proceeding: For should all interpose in the fore-named acts, it would breed a disturbance and confusion in all.  
Onely to impose and leave it constantly upon one man, experience which is past gain-saying, hath made it appear to be perilous, and to be indeed an in-let to worse inconveniences, then at the first could have been suspected. Prevent then that irregularity of fixing such an employment constantly upon one, there is nothing of such a course, but may bee tolerated in consociations, where persons by mutual agreement concur for to help with common concurrence of counsel, as emergent occasions shall require.  
Satanicus is such an Episcopus, which the enemy Satan, acting the pride, and suiting the sovereignty of the spirits of men, hath by a mysterious way successively and secretly brought into the Church, that so he might Mid-wife Antichrist into the world, this being the next step to that man of sin: And he becomes princeps Episcopus, who by his insolency hath arrogated and assumed, and at last confirmed even a monarchical power unto himself.  
And however the Pope, who is the universal Bishop, is the man of sin, yet the Bishop, especially when he is ascended to his Arch-Bishops chair, is the same, but onely considered in his minority, as the child of sin, or the man of sin in his child-hood.  
For laying aside the rankness of those extravagancies of the Popes temporal power, or that power in temporalities; It will appear his power in spiritualibus is of the same kind: for he assumes a peerless power to himself; that look what the King is to his council, he takes them to himself in way of consultation, but the final determination and resolution lies in his own bosom: So the Bishop is to his inferior Clergy: He will hear them speak, when he pleaseth to give allowance, but it is in his own breast, to cast the balance, which way seems best to himself: So Downam, Bilson, Saravia; whence he appropriates to himself to bee Rector and Judex.  
1. He is sole Rector, and therefore Ministers cannot put forth any Act of their own order, without his leave; and therefore if the Lord Bishop be in place, the poor Priest must not preach, nor pray, nor administer, if his great Master will officiate the work, which( as hap is) they do not much trouble the world witball, if it be matter of work.  
he counts himself the sole Pastor, they are onely his Subsidiarii, who come onely in partem sollicitudinis, but share not in plenitudine potestatis.  
2. Hence he is sole Judex, by whom all are to be censured with punishments of suspensions, depositions, degradations, excommunications: But the Scripture owns no such Officer, but he is a mere human creature; nay, an invention hatched by Satan, warmed in the womb of pride, selfe-Soveraignty, covetousness, until the monstrous birth of Antichrist came abroad into the world.  
Our reasons against this usurped Order are these of many: 1. The express testimony of the Scripture, then which nothing can be more pregnant, Tit. 1.5, 7. The Apostle having enjoined his scholar to appoint Elders in every City, and how they must bee qualified, he adds the reason of his advice, For a Bishop must be blameless, &c. Where the dispute of the Apostle shows, not onely the community of the names, but the Identity of the thing signified thereby: Otherwise his Argument had not onely been a false reasoning, and failed in form, having four terms; but in truth had not reasoned at all, for it had been ready to reply, {αβγδ} or Bishop, is another thing from Presbyter.  
Acts 20. Paul sends for the Elders of Ephesus, and professeth in the 28. verse, that the Holy Ghost had made them Overseers, or B shops, where not onely the name is common, but the thing signified by {αβγδ}, is enjoined them, as their duty.  
What {αβγδ} implies or requires, that they were to do.  
If {αβγδ} require, to lay on hands, to exercise jurisdiction in foro externo, that they must do; and should they have been reproved for so doing, they might have shown this their Commission.  
And that which yet adds further evidence is, {αβγδ} is never red nor recorded in the New Testament( provided it be not applied to some extraordinary subject, as it is said, that another was to take Judas his place, and {αβγδ} Act. 1.20.) but the actions therein required belong to any Presbyter.  
2 If they be distinct, the Bishop is superior:( for they deny either equality or inferiority:) But they cannot be superior. Every superior order hath both superior acts and honour belonging thereunto above the superior; but Bishops have neither above those that are Presbyters; for if labou●ing in the word and doctrine be an act above Ruling, and is most worthy of double honour, then the act and honour of a Presbyter is above the act and honour of a Bishop. For they only assume the acts of rule, but give the Presbyters leave to labour in the word and doctrine.  
3 If they differ from Presbyters Jure Divino, then there be some ministers by Divine authority necessary for the gathering of the Church, and perfecting of the body of Christ, beside that of the Presbyters. For if the Church can be perfected without these, there is no need of these. But there is no ministry necessary for the gathering and perfecting of the Church, beside that of the Presbyters. For the Apostle setting down the several ministries, which Christ had purchased, and by his ascension bestowed upon his Church, when he gave gifts to men for that end, they are only comprehended in these two, Pastors and Teachers, Ephe. 4.12, 13. and they who are given for this end, can and shall undoubtedly attain it. Whence the issue is, If Pastors and Doctors be sufficient Teaching ministries to perfect the Church until we come to the unity of the faith, then there needs no more but these, nor are there any by Christ appointed but these, all others are superfluous. The first part is the words of the text: ergo, the second cannot be denied.  
4 Distinct Officers must have distinct operations, operari sequitur esse. But they have no distinct operations from Presbyters. If there be any distinct operations, those must be ordination and jurisdiction. But both these belong to Presbyters Jurisdiction, Joh. 20.23. binding and losing imply a power of censuring, as well as preaching, and both are given in the Apostles to their successors the Rulers, and Elders of the Churches, who succeed them in their commission. For Ordination, its given to the whole Presbytery, 1 Tim. 4.14.  
And if we look to ancient times, that prime place of jerome ad Euagrium shows the charter, whence all the authority was derived, unum ex se electum in altiori gradu collocarunt, quem Episcopum nominaverunt. Whence it follows, 

1 That Bishops were first Presbyters.  
2 That they had their first election and constitution from them: and ergo, Presbyters had their rise and ordination before Bishops.  
3 Ergo, If they can give Ordination to Bishops, they can give it to Presbyters also.    
5. They who have the same commission, they have the same power from Christ, because all power issues from their commission. But they all have the same commission, John 20.21. prout me misit Pater, ego mitto vos. It was said to all the Apostles equally, and to all their successors indifferently. We have now done with the nature and work of these Officers.  
In these two last may we attend the 

Manner of the doing,  
Reward for it.    
First, For the Manner, it may appear in three things.  

I.  
They must bestow their whole man, and their whole strength and study upon this so weighty and worthy work; and therefore the Apostle when he had considered that the Lord had put life and death into the hands of the dispensers of the word, 2 Cor. 2.16. he cries out, who is sufficient for these things? and if no man be sufficient, it is then needful every man should bestow his whole strength upon it.  
Hence it is unlawful for a Minister to be a Magistrate; not because these things are contrary; but the weight of the one is so great, that it is beyond any ordinary ability to undertake to dischage both, unless he would wrong both; and therefore the Apostles professed they would lay aside the attendance to tables, that they might give themselves to the word and Prayer. q. d. That channel was wide enough, wherein the full stream and strength of their endeavours might be laid out unto the utmost, Act. 6.2, 4.   

II.  
They must bestow their whole time, partly by way of preparation to furnish themselves for the work. A good steward lays in old& new, or else he could not bring it out, Mat. 13.52. 1 Tim. 4.13. 2 Tim. 4.13. partly in his dispensation, 2 Tim. 4.1, 2. Act. 20.34   

III.  
They must take up no other employment, nor bestow themselves upon any such business, but that which may fit them for this main work, and furnish them in the more fruitful discharge thereof, such as may be helps and no hindrances hereunto. 2 Tim. 2.4. He that goes to war, doth not entangle himself in the things of this life: but useth his family, calling, &c. as the traveller useth the boat; the Ferriman lives by his rowing, the traveller useth it for his passage.   

2. Touching the Reward.  
Quest. But how can it be conceived, that a Minister should provide for his family, and yet not bestow his care and strength about it?  
Answ. Very well: as he puts forth his effectual working, and the full employment of his time and strength for the good of the Church: the Body also should jointly put forth their effectual working for his temporal good; so that they should make provision for him and his family in the things of this life, as he lays out himself for the provision of all spiritual good things for them and their families in the things belonging to a better life, and this also is a Church, or ecclesiastical work, and spiritual service, as issuing from a spiritual ground, and aiming at a spiritual end.  
Quest. If the question be, what is the Rule according to which the Church ought to walk in making this provision?  
An. We may conceive the compass of the Rule in the conclusions following.   

1 Conclusion.  
Its not a matter of liberty or courtesy which may be done or left undone: but it is a duty and a work of justice, unto which the Church is called, and to the performance whereof they are bound in conscience. Provision in this kind is wages and not benevolence. So our Saviour concludes( Matth. 10.10.) touching his disciples, when he sent them to preach: he bids them not to be solicitous for relief, For the workman is worthy of his wages. And the Apostle determines it by the verdict of all laws. Look we at the Law of nature; We must not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn, 1 Cor. 9.9. Look at the Law of Nations; Doth any man go to war at his own charges, Ver. 7. Look we at the Law of God; he hath ordained that those who preach the gospel should live of the gospel. They must not live of their patrimony, but of the gospel. As instance, They who administered at the Altar, lived of the Altar. He that shall bestow his time and thoughts to provide bread on the week dayes for his family, how shall he be able to provide bread for the Church upon the Lords day?   

II.  
This provision should be so honourable and comfortable as that it may attain the end for the which it was appointed by God,& so collected by the people, and given to the Ministers. The end( as is above intimated) that the Officers might employ their time and strength, and study, for the work of the Lord, and that freely, and fully. Hence therefore this provision should be such as might take off all care and distraction in a rational proceeding, that they should have no need to be stow either thoughts or care, travel or expense of time, which was either fit or needful to be employed to make preparation for the public, or to bestow themselves upon the private necessities of the members of the Church, as their occasions or the Officers duties should require. Thus the Levites were in the Old Testament. Thus the Apostle chargeth also 1 Cor. 16.18. And if they must not entangle them elves in the businesses of this life: ergo, the Church must not be an occasion they should: and this is one thing aimed at, in that, 1 Tim. 5.17. The Elders are worthy of double honour, yea they must be given to hospitality: and therefore they must have such supply, as that they may not provide for their own comforts only for present, and lay in for this in a faithful way of Providence, but that they may be able to give comfortable entertainment to strangers, as opportunity shall be offered.   

III.  
Touching the order how this may be raised, that place of the Apostle, is of all other most pregnant, and carries most conclusive evidence to direct and determine in this case, Gal. 6. Let him that is taught in the word communicate to him that teacheth, in all good things.  
Two things are of special remark in the words. First, What the things be, whence this maintenance must be raised. Secondly, From whom.  
1. That from whence it must be raised, is said; {αβγδ}; i.e. All good things that are communicable, for some things are such as admit no communication; such as a man lawfully cannot, so he should not make them common.  
As a man hath one room to lodge in, one servant to attend him, one coat to cover his nakedness; onely so much provision as will supply his own necessities, these cannot be made common. But what ever good things he may make common, if he have for himself and to spare, he should communicate, according to his place, portion and proportion.  
Some good things are common to all or most of the body.  
Other good things appertain to some few.  
In all there must be a communication; as if they have Land, Lots, meadows, cattle, &c. so must the body provide for them; So provisions for clothing, diet, or any choice comfort that God casts in occasionally, which may be communicated, they should even of those specialls communicate.   

2. The persons that must do this.  
The Text gives an express answer; every one that is taught, whether Servant or Master, bond or free, rich or poor; yea, though in other cases he receive contribution, yet when, or wherein God betrusts him with any good thing, wherein he may communicate, and if he find the Word powerful, he will be provoked to do it; and against this I know no judicious and pious Divine, un less it be such who are taken up too much with a tang of a Popish and Jewish way of tithing. However they may, and do happily add somewhat more, yet the Text hath that native and natural evidence, that it will like a mighty current, carry any conscientious man away with it. Upon this ground laid, I shall take leave to add several things.  
1. This way of maintenance is most safe, and certainly in the times of the Gospel most suitable to the mind of God, having the express testimony of the truth for warrant thereof, and that recorded with such evidence as cannot be waved or questioned. This maintenance is sufficient, and abundantly satisfactory to answer the work that is done, and the end to which it is given. That which makes the portion and provisions of the Ministers, to carry some kind of proportion to the plenty and variety of all the good things of all those with whom they live; That way of raising maintenance makes it honourable and comfortable. But this doth so, because not onely many, but all, bring in something of all they have either in their constant possession, or what they can occasionally procure, or God in his providence casts in. And here there is a latitude given to divers apprehensions. Some conceive( the Lords Treasury, being committed to the Deacons, for supply of all Tables of Officers, and the Tables of the poor, both its own and others.) That this Treasury should be furnished every Lords day by the free-will offerings of the Assembly, every one casting into it, as God hath blessed him, 1 Cor. 16.1, 2, 3. They also conceive this rule of Gal. 6.6. may be attended in this way, every one bringing in of all their good things in a proportionable value, as may suite the occasions of the Church. Others again conceive, that the maintenance mentioned in the fore-going place cannot be fully raised by a treasury common to the poor and Ministers, nor can it be gathered upon the Sabbath day.  
The conclusion hath two parts: First, That this way of maintenance cannot be raised fully by a treasury common to the poor and Ministers, out of which supply unto them both should be fetched.  
1. To such a Treasury all should not pay: But to this all do, for all are instructed.  
2. Thus to provide is appropriate to the Minister, and to him alone. For of him alone it is said, let him that teacheth be made partaker of all our good things; let no man else; not the poor. That which is put into a common treasury, that is common to all, who must be so relieved. But the poor are not to be relieved by all our good things; nor doth either rule or reason led us, or allow us so to do.  
3. If all our good things cannot be put into the Treasury, which yet by the word wee cannot but bestow upon our Teachers, then this providing for Officers must not wholly and only be confined to the treasury. For experience tells, there be many of our good things thus to be given to our Teachers which cannot be put into a Treasury.  
4 This coupling of the poor and Ministers in one common Treasury confounds the works of Justice and Mercy. For the poor who are to be relieved out of mercy, they share in the contributions which are put in, out of a just recompense of wages to the Ministers.  
2 And upon the same ground they conceive that this way of maintenance cannot be fully raised upon the Sabbath, because there be several good things cast in by way of Providence, which we should bestow upon our Officers. And happily they cannot be kept until the Sabbath, nor will it be comely to give them in, in that place, and at that time. These be the different apprehensions of differing brethren; but all agree in this, that an honourable and comfortable maintenance is a due debt. It should be no breach of love, that each Church follow her own light herein.  
3 In case any member shall fail in this free contribution, he sins in a breach of the known rule of the gospel: it appertains to the Church, to see the Reformation of that evil, as of any other scandal; and therfore if there be any doubt or difficulty arising, how it may be regulated in any such particular, the Church is according to God to determine it, and the Deacons according to such a determination, are to seek the execution of it; and because it is better to prevent a scandal, that it may not come, and easier also, then to remove it when it is given, its most suitable to rule, that each man should know his proportion, according to rule, what he should do, before he do it, that so his judgement and heart may be satisfied in what he doth, and just offence prevented in what is done. Hence again I collect,  
That this way of raising maintenance, appointed in the gospel, is far differing from that way of tithing in the Law, nay to be tied precisely to follow the one, cannot stand with the other, for this is raised out of all good things, the person that is taught hath: but those Tithes in the Old Testament were out of the seed of the land, the fruit of the trees, or of the herd of the flock, Levi. 27.30.31.32. Deut. 14.22.23.  
2 This maintenance is to be paid by all that are taught: But the Levites were to receive the first tenth, and pay the tenth of the tenth unto the Priest, Neh. 10.38. So that if the patrons of tithing look at the command given to the Jew, as a moral law, they must confine themselves precisely to the prescript form thereof, ergo the Ministers must have the tenth of a tenth, and from them happily who were never taught by them. As the Levites who taught in the particular Synagogues paid to the Priest who administered in Jerusalem. And hence it follows, That the way of tithing in the Old Testament was not a natural nor moral law; For no law appointed in the gospel, is inconsistent with any natural or moral Law of God, which this is, as hath immediately been proved.    

Of Deacons.  
We have done with those Offices, and Officers, which look at the whole Church, and whose dispensations merely and immediately reach the special good of the soul: But the Lord Christ, as a King of infinite mercy as well as wisdom, he provides for the outward good and comfort of all his household and subjects, in regard of their estates, that they may be maintained, and their health also, and so their lives preserved in a prosperous condition, and to this end he hath appointed Officers, that should in a peculiar manner look to the Church, and so provide for the good of both.  
The Office that is to look to, and relieve the Estates of such as are commended to their care, is the Office of Deacons, of which we shall inquire: First, their Name: secondly, their Office, as it is distinct from the rest: thirdly, the bounds wherein their duties ought to be confined.  
The name Deacon in our English comes from the original Greek word, which in the general and largest acceptation of the word, signifies as much as to administer, and implies any kind of administration, whether 

Civill or  
ecclesiastical.   Mat. 22.13. Then said the King unto his servants; the word is {αβγδ}, and it is used also to express the administration of the civil Magistrate, Rom. 13.4. when their administrations are considered as under God, being his servants, he is the Minister of God to thee for good, {αβγδ}. And in this large circuit of signification, it compriseth all special Officers in the Church, as Apostles, Evangelists, &c. 1 Cor. 3.5. Who is Paul? Who is Apollo? {αβγδ}, &c. but Ministers, &c. Secondly, sometimes it is taken in a more special significa●ion and includes these two last remaining, to wit, 

Deacons,  
Widows.   As in that place, Phil. 1.1. a place very remarkable, when Paul in his salutations begins with the whole, and so proceeds to the several officers, he thus writes; To all th● Saints in Christ Jesus, which are at Philippi: There is the body of the Congregation, and then adds with the Bishops and Deacons. In these two expressions all the Rulers are to be understood; Pastors, and Doctors, and Elders are comprehended under the name of Bishops, Paul stiles them, Act. 20.28.  
Where observe, 1. There were many Bishops in one Church, not one over many.  
2. That amongst these there was no Metropolitan, or superior Arch-Bishop. For then Paul had been much to blame, in passing him by, or omitting his title and due remembrance.  
The second word is Deacons, such as administer to members weak in their estates, as the poor, or weak in their bodies, or such as be sick; and so both these are comprehended in 1. Cor. 12.28. by those whom the Apostle calls Helps.  
3. But lastly, when it is taken most strictly, and as it concerns our purpose in hand, it sets out such officers, who are designed by the Church to dispose the state& treasure thereof to those several pu●poses for which God hath appointed, the occasions& necessities of the body& any member therof may require.  
I. That this is a distinct office in the Church, several Scriptures give in undeniable evidence: Rom. 12.8. He that distributes. Here the Apostle reckons these, as a distinct kind, from those that went before.  
1. It being the Apostle his aim, by a similitude drawn from the body, ver. 4. to discover several parts by the actions, which were in a peculiar manner appropriate to them. As there be many members in the body, and all have not one office or action: so in the Church there be many members, but there be several offices appropriate to them.  
Whereas, was this a Christian duty common to all, the Apostle should overthrow his own purpose: For he should have shewed things agreeing to all alike, when he should have shown that some things are peculiar  
Obje. If it be said that this was done before, and now he comes to set forth such duties as appertains to all.  
Answ. The words of the text bear down that conceit. Because that which went before, and that which comes after are public officers, and how can these be private? add unto this, That the following words, ver. 9. begin a fair alteration at the first view.  
The acts are so general, that the Reader should not miss the aim of the Spirit, if he would but lend the least wary attention. Besides, the words hold forth a plain distinction continued in the several members of it. Now the members of a division are opposi●e one to another, and therefore must have something peculiar one from the other.  
2. The Apostle intending to lay out the several officers of the Church in a summary way( as we have formerly heard) he addresseth himself to a distinct description and discovery of this Officer, as select from the other of Elders, 1. Tim. 3.8, 10. Deacons must be grave, and being approved and tried, let them exercise the Deacons office.  
3 And lastly, Do we look into Acts 6.1, 2, 6. we may see the ground and occasion of the institution and scope of their calling, and at what it especially aims, when there fell a murmuring betwixt the grecians and the Hebrews, in that their poor were not so comely and comfortably attended, as they desired and expected: the Apostles perceiving the multitude increasing, and that it would take up their time and pains too much to give full attendance thereunto, as the necessities thereof did require, they therefore directed, that they should choose men amongst themselves fitly qualified for that purpose, and they would settle them in that employment. According to the Apostles counsel, the Church elected, the Apostles prayed, and laid on their hands and appointed them to the performance of that service. Whence it is apparent,  
1 That this was a public Office, because they were elected in a solemn manner thereunto, and received a solemn institution from the Apostles, and so from Christ, for the undertaking of that service.  
2 That this their service it was about the attendance of Tables, because the provision for the maintenance of the Widows and poor, by a daily supply as the condition and necessity of the Church did at that time require, gave occasion hereunto; ergo, that name is used, and implies the dispensation of the treasury, state, and provision of the Church, for those ends and purposes as should appear useful, and behoveful for the benefit of the Church, or any member thereof, as far as served for a spiritual end.  
3 The full and careful attendance unto this work could not stand with careful, constant, and conscientious attendance unto the ministry of the word, as the Office of a Minister so employed did require, as the words of the text witness; It is not fit for us to lay aside the ear of the word to attend tables, v. 3. ergo, provide men fit for this thing, and we will give ourselves to the word and prayer, v. 4. q. d, these cannot stand together, we must either lay aside the one or prejudice the work of bo●h. These conclusions being faire and infallible from former grounds it appears, What the episcopal Ordination of a Deacon is whereby they make him half a Priest, or a Priest in preparation, and invest him with power to serve the Priest in the distribution of the Supper, to look to the poor, to mary, to Bury, baptize and Preach, if he shall be counted worthy to have a licence granted thereunto. But to consecrate the Supper of the Lord, that is wholly forbidden him, until he be made a complete Priest, which at the next time of Ordination he may attain, if he can provide money to pay for the Parchments and Orders. Thus the mystery of iniquity hath eaten into the frame, and wholly defaced the institution of our Saviour, so that there is nothing of an Evangelicall ordinance, that can be discerned.  
The first error( which was indeed the first in let into the usurpation of the Bishop, and exaltation of the man of Sin) was, that they lifted him up above his own pl●ce, and crowded him into a corner of the Pastors Office, giving him right to baptize, which is directly cross to the order of Christ.  
1 That which is made by Christ, a distinct Office from Pastor and Teacher, that cannot be any part of either, or preparation to them; But so the Office of a Deacon is.  
2 That Office which is to attend tables, that hath nothing ●o do with Pastors or Doctors place, either of preaching or administering Sacraments. But this is ●o attend tables Act. 6.3. If any man shall say, they may attend both: The practise and profession of the Apostle will confute and confounded such a conceit, Act. 6. We will give ourselves to the word and prayer. They conceived and concluded, they could not do both, but they should wrong both.  
1 If the Apostles, who were extraordinary persons, could not, shall men of ordinary abilities be sufficient to undergo both?  
2 Shall the Apostles directed by Christ sever them, who will dare to conjoin them, unless he will go against the direction of the Lord Jesus?  
3 The gifts of Deacons, which are described by the Apostle,( 1. Tim. 3.8.) are such as will not furnish a man to be a Minister,( for of him it is not required) he should be apt to teach; to be a teacher and not apt to teach, is to be a Bell without a Clapper.  
1. Obje. 

1. That Stephen a Deacon preached, Act. 7.  
2. That Philip baptized. Act. 8, 38.  
3. That Deacons, by using well their office, purchase to themselves a good degree, i.e. a degree to the ministry.    
Answ. 1. Stephens speech was not a sermon, but an apology made by him, for the clearing of his person and cause from the accusations and aspersions that were cast upon him by his adversaries.  
2. That Philip was an Evangelist, and so appointed by God, as afterwards appears, and by virtue of that, and not of his Deaconship, did baptize.  
3. That {αβγδ}, mentioned in 1. Tim. 3.13. is not a degree of the ministry; but he that doth so, and is so, shall purchase a good standing in the Church, whereby he may boldly administer his office, and with more fruit. For as we have formerly said; If a man may be a fit Deacon, and yet by some impediment in his utterance can never be a Minister, then is he not by, his Deaconship in any necessary preparation thereunto.  
The limits of the office will appear, by showing 

1. What he must do.  
2. How he must do it.    

I. What he must do.  
This Deacon being the steward or Treasurer of the Church, the thing for which he is mainly to be employed, as for which he was ordained, it is, for the husbanding of the estate and temporals of the Church, as may be every way most behoveful for the benefit of the body, according to the rules of the Gospel. And this his service will show itself in three things.  
1. He must address himself with much observance to receive those provisions, which shall, or ought to be committed to his trust. I say, due observance in gathering in the state of the Church.  
1. It is for him to inform himself by advice and counsel from the body, what every mans free-wil-offering should be in making provisions for supplies& payments of the Congregation. For though the Church-contribution be a free-will offering, in regard it should willingly and wi h a ready heart be tendered unto God: yet neither in the old Testament, nor under the new, the thing itself, nor yet the measure was left to a mans own dispose or liberty. Compare Deut. 16.10. with Levit. 22.18, 19. If God hath blessed a man with so many Oxen, he must not offer so many Goats.  
Vpon this information and direction given by the Body,  
2. He must observe, whether each member perform this his due and duty: and in case he shall fail he is to admonish him, as swerving from a rule: and in case he reform not, he must follow the action against him, by the rule of our Saviour provided in that behalf, and bring him to the censure of the Church.  
3. What is not offered or given, but promised, he must give attendance with the first to require it, that thus being observant to gather in the stock and provision of the Church, he may not be to seek; nor succour may be wanting, when supply should be tendered.   

II.  
As thus he must give attendance, as Christs receiver, to gather in his rents and revenues of the Church: so he must be careful to keep it, when it is in his custody, so that no lack come thereto; neither misspend it himself, nor suffer it to spoil in the keeping, nor lend it with disadvantage, so that it should return less in worth, or be unready, when the Church hath occasion to have the improvement thereof.   

III.  
He must be prudent in the dispersing and disposing of it to such uses and to such persons as the body of the congregation shall, according to the rules of the Scripture, require at his hand herein, because the weight and work of his office is especially to be seen here; ergo, this is especially and particularly mentioned, Rom. 12. He that distributes: and this implies and includes all the rest.  
For he that must distribute, He must gather; He must keep it by him.  
Thus his office is said to attend tables. i e. To lay out the revenues and treasury of the Church, as may be behoveful: For to provide Elements for the Lords table, when that should be attended: For the table of the poor, i.e. for all their wants, that they may be supplied. For the tables of the Minister, i.e. what ever provision the Church shall put into their hands, as by them to be administered to them, according to that debt which the Church owes to them in the way of wages.  
And here his providence, faithfulness, and pains will fully be employed.      

Chap. II. Wherein the nature of Ordination is discussed, and the 17. Chap. of Mr. REUTERFORD is considered, and answered, as touching the power be giveth to a Pastor in and over other Congregations beside his own.  
THe Reasons which are in the 16. chap. alleged and answered by Mr. R. we are content they should stand or fall to their own masters, not intending to weary ourselves, with the maintaining of other mens works: what we conceive to be suitable to the truth, and we shall make use of, we shall endeavour to vindi●ate, and make good against all opposition in their proper places.  
Whereas it is said cha. 17. p. 264.  
That we make Ordination and election of Pastors all one, by a mistake: I suppose, it will appear, that we are herein wholly mistaken, if that which follows be impartially attended. We shall therfore for the clearing of this cost inquire after some particulars, which appertain to the full understanding of this head of Discipline; and so much the rather we shall be willing to b●stow our thoughts about this subject, because of the difficulty and obscuri●y of it: especially, because misconceivings here draw many inconveniencies with them, and disturb almost the whole f●ame. As in an unjoynted body, or misplaced building, when any special part, and main pillar is out of place, it brings a weakening, yea a declining of the whole, and spoils both the firmness and fashion of the frame. We shall take leave therefore to insist upon these particulars by way of inquiry: 

1. Whether ordination is in nature before election?  
2. Whether Ordination gives all the essentials to an Officer?  
3. What this Ordination is, and wherein lies the full breadth and bounds of the being thereof?  
4. In whom the right of dispensing lies,& by whom it may be dispensed?    
I. Whether Ordination is in nature before Election.  
To the first of these, that which occasions an inquiry here, is the words& expressions of worthy Mr. R. ch. 17. p. 265. Ordination is that, which formally makes the man a Pastor. The peoples election doth onely appropriate the mans Minist●ry to such and such a people. It is one thing to make a gold ring; it is another thing to propyne& gift the ring to such a person. 267. It is presupposed by order of nature, that A. B. is first called and ordained a Pastor by Christ, and the laying on of the hands of the Elders, 1. Tim. 4.14. before the people can elect him for their Pastor. For if A. B. be no P●stor, the people cannot choose him to be their Pastor: neither doth the peoples election give any such power to A. B. That power is given by the Presbyteries Ordination, which by order of nature is before the peoples formal Act of Election. As the husband who in a Lapidaries shop chooseth a gold ring for his wife, and putteth it on her finger, presupposeth it was a gold ring before the choosing thereof; neither doth his choosing make it a gold-ring, but onely make it his wives gold ring, by application to her. I● st so peoples Election appropriateth such a man who is already a Pastor, to such a charge: but doth not make the Pastor a Pastor, but chooseth him onely to be their Pastor, p. 269.  
I confess, I find some such expressions as these in Bellarmine. Disputabimus primò de ordinatione, tum de vocatione, postremo de electione: which implies, That election comes after the vocation of a Minister, but Dr. Ames seasonably tells him, 
Anti Bellar. Tom: 2. l. 3. c. de ordinat. p. 76.  he placeth the cart before the horse; Hoc non est distinct et ordine, said praeposterè et confusè disputare ordinationem praeponere vocationi et electioni, est equis praeponere curorum.  
I know also, that it is a Popish course, which our prelates use( the reason whereof we shall discover in the proper place thereof) that they ordain a Priest and when they have laid their hands upon his head, and put his parchments into his box sealed with the great seal of the Bishops office, he sends the man to take possession of his parish and tithes, and the poor multitude suffer themselves so far to be befooled and oppressed with the tyranny of the Prelate, that they are constrained to submit to him in their practise, whom often they cannot but justly loathe in their hearts; as being either very scandalous in his life, or insufficient in learning and abilities.  
But I cannot meet with any Judicious writer, who either knew or maintained the course of the reformed Churches, that placeth ordination before election. Nor did I ever conceive that to be the order of Christ. For I have taken it for granted what Cyprian says, Videmus de divinâ authoritate descendere, ut sacerdos, plehe present, sub ●mnium oculis delegatur, et dignus et idoneus publico judicio et testimonio comproqetur 
Cyp●ian li. 1. Epist. 4. .  
I ever conceived that true of Chemnitius 
Exam p 2. do Sacram. second. ,  
Ne citó manus alicui imponas, ne communices peccatis alienis, approbando scilicet electionem aut vocationem non rectè factam.  
I have judged with Musculus e Legitimè electi, ab episcopis et senioribus, qui electioni aderant, oratione et impositione manuum confirmabantur et ordinabantur, et haec forma electionis ad Cypriani tempora duravit 
Loc. come. 8. Ministr. ordin. .  
I was ever of the opinion with the Magdeburgenses 
Magdeburg. cent. 3. cap 8. de retib. circa second. n. , Delegebatur episcopus et plebe, cujus episcopus futurus erat, present, et accessit manuum impositio.  
I ever consented formerly to that of Honourable pless 
bless. de Euchorist. l. 2. c. 7 , Semper tamen priusquam ordinantur et collocantur in ministerio suo in universum concurrere populi ordinisque ecclesiastici consensum; idque deduci probationis causa per omnia saecula posse, si controversum foret. So that he concluded it a course beyond controversy, and the practise of perpetual antiquity.  
I took it in former times for confessed, what Calvin writes 
●ustit. lib 4. cap. 3. h 16.  and with whom Beza consents, Superest ritus ordinandi, cvi ul●imum locum in vocatione d●dimus. &c.  
To conclude, I have apprehended it as an everlasting truth, which judicious Ames delivers in his Medulla( libro nunquam satis laudato) 
Med ●heol. li. 2 c. 39. p. 34  electionis adjunctum consequens et consummans est ordinatio, quae nihil aliud est, quam solemnis quaedam introductio ministri jam electi in ipsius functionis liberam executionem. It is but adjunctum, and that consummans. To which agrees his expression in his Bellarm. Enervat. 
Tom 2. li. 3. ca. 2. de vocat. M●nist. p. 76. lib 3.  election gives jus ad rem, ordination jus in re. As the Election of the Prince authorizeth him in his regal power; Coronation onely invests him into his place. And some of the jesuits, most ingenuous, affirm as much.  
I issue all with Gerson Bucer: which argues not onely what his opinion was, but what was the constitution of all the Churches where he was. 
dissert. de Guber. p. 334.  Postquam Praesbyterio consensus Ecclesiae innotuit, succedit ad extremum Ordinatio. And in the following discourse, I hope it shall appear, That Ordination doth depend upon the peoples lawful Election, as an Effect upon the Cause, by virtue of which it is fully administered; So that in the very apostolical times, the liberty of the very Apostles was not so great in Ordaining as was the peoples in Choosing. For as in Acts. 6. its said of that Office of the Deacons; The people were first appointed to choose and to present the persons to the Apostle: and then they did readily receive the parties, not once questioning what they did; or, by withdrawing their Ordination, refuse to second and establish what they had done. And if the people had this liberty in an under-Officer, there was greater reason they should have the like in an Officer of higher degree, in whom they had greater interest, and by whose Administration they were to receive greater good: so that none were to be Ordained, but such whom they did choose; nor did they, or according to rule could they, refuse to Ordain them so Elected, unless some just exception was against them, and then also the people were to make a new choice, they were not in that case of error and aberration from the rule, to take the choice into their own hands. The proof of this will appear in the explication of the other particulars propounded, and therefore we shall proceed therein. The second thing then to be attended is;  
2. Whether Ordination gives all the Essentials to an Officer.  
Where there be two things come to be scanned.  
1. How far the Essentialls of the ministry or Minister may be given by man.  
2. If they may be given and conveyed over by man: BY WHAT MEANS men are said to do this, whether by Ordination, or by any other appointment of Christ.  
The first of these calls for some special disquisition. Because it will appear upon trial, that the contrivement of these truths is so secret and subtle, that it drives men into divers conceivings, as not being able to discern, how in the work of the institution of the ministry, the essentialls come to be woven together; the thread is so fine spun, that the dim eye of mans discerning, can hardly find it, or follow it, much less cut it.  
And because there is here no small difficulty, and it is the very hinge upon which many weighty consequences, and in truth, controversies turn; I shall be bold to offer some things to consideration, which at least may cause further inquiry by such, who are better able to fathom these depths. And here as Sea-men use to do, when the Bay or Haven is unknown, or being known, yet hard to hit; I shall as it were sound the cost by several conclusions, That I may find where the channel of the truth, in the full strength and stream of it runs.  

1 Conclusion.  
There is a causal virtue put forth in a subordinate way by some under Christ, to bring in the formality or specifical being of an ecclesiastical office to a person, or party that is called thereunto, or stands possessed thereof.  
1. I say, [ this is done by some] because it is confessed of all hands that an external call is of necessity required: onely some lay the weight of it in one thing, some in another: but all agree in this, whose conceits have but the colour of common sense in them,( the frenzy of some Familists and Anabaptists onely excepted, who cashier all Governments and Governours or Rulers out of Churches and Common wealths; but this madness and folly labours almost with the loathsomeness of itself) All, I say, that are willing to be lead with the light of any reason, do readily grant there should be an outward call. In the lowest order and office of a Deacon, this was observed by direction apostolical, they must not, they could not administer, before they were called and appointed thereunto. Acts 6.5. And it's a staple and standing rule, which teacheth all by proportion. No man takes this honour to himself, but he that is called as Aaron. Heb. 5.4.  
Secondly, that there is a causal virtue put forth in the communication of this power,] I shall show, and they will easily confess, yea when they will express themselves freely, their own words evidence as much: unless they be forced by the fear of the approach of some Argument which might hazard some conceit, which they are loathe to leave and lay aside, then happily they may mince their language, that nothing may be gathered from thence against themselves. I find that expression in the Apostle, Gal. 1.1. Paul an Apostle not of man nor by man, {αβγδ}. Men did not institute the office of an Apostle, as the Authors of it: nor was it by man as the instrumental cause, conveyed over unto Paul: but it was every way immediately from God. There is therefore in reason( as all Judicious collect out of the place) these Two ways of dispensation to be attended.  
First, when God immediately institutes and appoints out of his good pleasure any place of authority, and immediately also from himself appoints the person thereunto. Thus the Calling and Persons called, viz. of the Apostles: were from God immediately.  
2. Way of dispensation is mediate: when the Institution of the office issues onely from the good pleasure of the Lord, yet he may and doth use other instruments for the communication of this authority, and the investing of a person with a right to exercise, and yet still the office be truly said to be his alone. And herein the Popish usurpation in appointing orders& the orders appointed by them appear to be totally Antichristian as the rabble of that wretched crew of Monks, friars, Cardinals, chancellors, &c. Because they are of man and by man, mere human creatures which the pride and ambition of the heart of the man of sin, the froth and vanity of his mind, hath brought forth into the world, all which profane beasts he hath provided, as so many rotten pillars, to prop up the the throne of his Antichristian power and Praelacy.  
But those which the Church, according to the Institution and allowance of Christ takes up, those are wholly from him, as the Author and Institutor of them, yet are they by the Church, to whom he hath first delegated power and in a subordinate manner by such instruments, as he sees fit, convayes a right to some persons, that they may possess such places, and exercise such offices, according to him without the least impeachment of the royalty and sovereignty of his rule, which yet resides in himself alone.  
To come a little nearer home, that we may lend a little help unto the weakest Reader, that he may lay his finger upon the several things, and see how they lie distinct in the frame of the Institution.  
First, its a truth, there be no orders nor officers, which have been received or are to be retained in the Churches of Christ, but it is the prerogative royal of the Lord Jesus as King of the Church to appoint them. They are parts of his worship, and there, what he doth not appoint, he doth not approve: the instituting and using of any other is merely will-worship. And therefore all such persons and performances, as they issue from the folly and froth of mans brains, and never came into his mind: 
2. Chro. 13 9. 1 King. 12.31.32.  so are they abhorred and loathed by God from his heart.  
Beside, all these places and offices they are appointed for spiritual and supernatural ends, and so to effect supernatural works, even the conversion, sanctification and salvation of such as God hath purposed to bring unto himself. He then alone must appoint the office, who can give a blessing to the office and the officer to attain their end: and this none can do but the Lord Christ alone by the virtue and power of his regal authority; who now being ascended, and sitting at the right hand of the Father, he gave and doth bless by the presence and operation of his own Spirit. Ephes. 4.8, 11. When Christ ascended up on high, he gave gifts. Some to be Apostles, some Prophets, some Evangelists, some Pastors, some Teachers: These offices are coronation-mercies, of the greatest worth and excellency. And the Psalmist gives the reason from the end. Psal. 68.19, 20. He gives these gifts, that God might dwell amongst the rebellious. And by them the Churches are gathered and perfected. Ephes. 4.12, 13. And hence it is by way of Emulation, because Antichrist saw there was no means to underprop his kingdom, and promote his tyranny, unless he had slaves of his own making and creation, that would serve his turn, by taking up blind obedience, in doing his will, though they saw no rule nor reason for it: when therefore the Pope ascended on high to the chair of Antichrist, he also sends his emissaries and instruments as the swarms of Locusts out of the bottomless pit, 
Rev. 9.4. 2. Thess. 2.4.  for the destruction of the Church, and perdition of millions of poor miserable souls; He being himself the man of sin, and the son of perdition.  
Secondly, its also certain, That men are furnished and fitted with graces and abilities inwardly for so great an employment; with willing and ready mindes also 
Rom. 1.15.  to give up themselves to so holy services: this also is wholly from God in Christ. He makes us able Ministers of the Gospel. 
2. Cor 36.  He calls, he sanctifies. 
Jer. 1.2.  He is the Lord of the harvest, he thrusts forth labourrers. 
Matth. 9.38 and 28.20.  This is termed the inward call: this onely comes from him. Graces and abilities are in his hand, are his gift.  
Thirdly, He sets the laws and limits of the place and callings, sets down all the rules, according to which they must act, both order and be ordered, according as the quality of their places do require: do they must no other things, nor after any other manner then he prescribes. There was a pattern prescribed of all the things in the Tabernacle from the least unto the greatest, 
Ezek. 4●. 11.  which must be observed in all the several thereof. So in that of Ezekiels vision. 
ch 44.5.  ordinances, laws, figures, fashions. All must be attended, according to the mind of the Lord, without adding thereunto, or detracting therefrom 
Deut. 12. and last. . Its but reason that a Master should set down the laws and orders of his family 
1. Tim. 3.19. .  
Fourthly, but all this while, there is no officer nor office put upon any man, nay though there were never so many, and those fitted and gifted every way, they are no officers, i.e. they have not received, nor are invested with a a right or jus, according to the rule of Christ, and order of the Gospel, by such means, which our Lord Jesus the King of his Church hath ordained, to leave the impression of authority upon them to that purpose, Which, how its done, we shall anon inquire: but that this must of necessity be done, we see it plain.  
First, because without this Call, none can warrantably do any act which belongs to an officer, and therefore without this, he hath not the specifical form of an officer.  
Secondly, without this, what ever is done in that behalf, and for that end, is voided and of none effect.  
Thirdly and lastly, the strength, validity, and efficacy of an outward call herein appears beyond gain-saying, if it proceed from such, who may give it by rule: Because who ever in a regular way hath received this outward call, he is then a complete and true officer, and may act any part of his office, though not inwardly graced and fitted worthily to such a place or work by God. The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses chair. je. had this outward call to that office. Therefore they must be heard by Gods own charge; 
Math. 22.23.2.3. v. 16. v 27.  though they were most unworthy men, had neither sufficiency of parts to do the work of the place, nor yet sincerity of heart and life to endeavour, much less discharge the weight of the services which shoul● be done by them; Being blind Guides. Painted sepulchers, grossly hyprcritical and scandalously vile in their general course, corrupting the law by their false and unlearned glosses, and perverting the simplo people by their lewd carriages, polluting all Gods ordinances by their corrupt handling and administration thereof.  
And therefore there is more then Mediatio subjecti considered in the giving of this outward call, if we look at the rigour of the phrase: though( if the Authors will give leave) I would take their meaning to include as much, as what I mention; because I love not to trouble myself and the world with words, or to make any needless contention about that, which may admit a fair and rational construction in any thing. This mediatas subjecti then is to be attended, not so much in regard of the parties that are taken to office, but in regard of those, who, in a subordinate way, are instruments under Christ, and so as instruments put forth a causal virtue to leave the impression of an office-right upon another. For otherwise, we shall not be able to find and maintain any mediate calling.  
Suppose as mathias& Joseph were set before the Lord, there should be two persons set apart for the ministry, were there no causal virtue coming from those, who were to call, and outwardly to auhorise one to the place, rather then the other; there could be no mediate institution conceived in regard of the parties: they both equally and immediately are presented as objects to the call; and equally and immediately( in regard of themselves) lie open to the call. Joseph stands not in the way to the call of mathias; nor doth mathias come between Joseph and the call.  
But herein lies the mediatenesse of the call( that however in regard of themselves, they are equally objected to what call comes) yet Christ hath given a virtual right to such as he pleaseth to appoint, and that he will not dispense immediately a call from himself to either party: but they as a mean between him and them, shall leave an impression of a right of power upon one of the parties to exercise such a place.  
This is also that which they call [ Designatio personae,] the designation of a person to a place. If by that they mean, that they put forth a casual virtue, to imprint the formality of the power of office upon such a man; that is the sense I would give, of what they say, and so do willingly grant what they speak. But if by Designation to a place they would darken the truth with words, as Elihu speaks, and make that the meaning of the expression: to wit, That all the essentials, namely, the material and formal constituting causes of external office-power was in the party before, and so he had a complete specifical being of a call; but they onely point him the place, and tell him it's fit he should exercise his power here; so that this designatio personae, is onely an adjunct to the office he had before without them, but puts forth no causal virtue( as subordinate instruments under Christ) to bring in the being of an outward call. Then, I say, by designatio personae, in this sense, neither the truth is discovered, nor is the thing done that was intended by it.  
For upon this explication, what difference can be found betwixt an immediate and mediate call, which we heard out of the Galathians to be founded in Scripture, and confessed by the Apostle? For if all the essentials of both inward and outward calling are equally onely from God, then both the callings are equally immediate, since that call is immediate which is conferred without any means.  
Secondly, I can see no cause to hinder, but that an Officer, which is ordinary, may execute his place without any call in the Church; for I would thus dispute, He that hath all the causes of his call inward and outward without the Church, he hath power and right to exercise his call, and none hath power and right to hinder him.  
But ex concessis, they have all the causes, if this conceit be true, that designatio personae doth add no essentials to the constitution of an outward call( for I suppose there is nothing else outwardly to be added to make the call:) Suppose there were two persons fully, yea, equally gifted and furnished with all graces, abilities and willingness for the work of the ministry, which now is wanting to some Congregation, and they both desired that work of Christ: if there was required no more to be done, to bring in all the causes, and so the being of the power of office, then both these had equal right to officiate; and though they should officiate any acts without designation, they were true acts of an office; whether consecrating or administering Sacraments, they were valid: And if they have right to administer, who hath right or authority to hinder?  
Nor can the words admit any other logical respect to be put upon them, but cause and effect. In Acts 14.23. When they had made or appointed them Elders by way of choice. The scope of the place is to show, what provision the Apostle made for the Churches, in supplying them with Officers, and furnishing them with Rulers, which before they had not, but now, by Gods appointment, they, under him, gave a being of an outward call to such persons, to sustain that place unto which formerly they had no power to execute.   

Conclusion II.  
Hence it follows from the former ground, that It is an act of power as an Instrument or means, under Christ, to give an Officer the being of an outward call in the Church.  
I desire the Reader here to recall to mind what formerly hath been expressed and proved, that the minds of the simplo may not be troubled, or taken aside from the truth by the ambiguity and mistake of words.  
When we speak of power, the word is of general sense and signification, and hath an influence into every act of judgement, Yea, judge those that are within, 1 Cor. 5.12. So that there is no Admonition, either when one tells another alone, or takes one or two, and convinceth a brother; but there is a process, in a way of judicial proceeding according to the Laws and Government of Christ; which is the difference betwixt a Church-admonition and a Christian-admonition. Between such as are not under such bonds, there is an admonition of Christian-duty: Here is an admonition issuing from Christian-power, which they have by reason of the places in which they are set. Sometime the word Authority is taken thus largely, 
1. Thess. 5.12 Hebr. 13 17. {αβγδ} 1 Tim. 5 17. {αβγδ}.  though most frequently used otherwise and in a narrower signification: And so, there is also a Power which is proper to Officers; and when we would speak properly, or understand distinctly each thing in his proper nature and place, we then mean, The power of Office, leading power, ruling power, or Superioriry of power.  
This being conceived and kept in mind, the demonstration of the conclusion is open: To give power is an act of power; he or they who give the external call, or leave the impression of the power of office upon another, they have the power of judging that other; they cause that virtually which another hath formally, not they themselv●●.  
And thus we have done with the first Branch of the second Head, which we propounded to be debated.  
2. The next thing that comes to consideration is, By what means the Essentials of this Power may be conveyed?  
And here also because we meet with many shoals and sands of several opinions which cross us, that we cannot make a strait course, we shall be constrained to tack about a little, not proceed in a perfect method, but show negatively what doth not give this Power, and then affirmatively what doth.  
The NEGATIVE we shall lay forth in two Conclusions.   

Conclusion I. Ordination( as it is Popishly dispensed under the opinion of a Sacrament, and as leaving the impression of an indelible Character) doth not communicate the essence of this outward call.  
What is the Popish sense here, the Prelates being their proper Successors, who tread in their steps, and keep their path for the most part in Church-discipline, cordially and privily maintain, though they be not so willing openly to profess; and therefore, though they will not have all the world know that they hold seven Sacraments( and so that of Order to be one) by full expression, 
Lord Brooks Book. English Catechism in the Book of Common-prayer.  yet they i●timate some such thing by the ambiguity of their language, which those who are their familiars can easily sent out: as namely, there are but two Sacraments absolutely necessary to salvation: q. d. there are more, and those necessary, though not absolutely necessary to salvation.  
But for the indelible Character that should come from hence to make up the formality of a Priest, that to mine own knowledge I have heard stoutly defended and determined in the Schools of the University.  
It were worth the while, if we could prie a little narrowly into this conceit, that we might discern what is the fashion of this Character, when it is expressed to the full; that we might find some footstep for a mans fancy to stay upon.  
The refined secrecy and subtlety of this speculation is so high, that it forced the Schoolmen to snuff the candle so near, that they put out the light.  
For first, they will have it to be a quality divers from grace, onely a preparation thereunto.  
Second●y, it must be common to all that receive the Sacrament, truly or feignedly such.  
Thirdly, it must be fixed and engraven in the soul in that indelible manner, so that it cannot be blotted out, nor burnt out in the flames of Hell: And in truth, we cannot easily see the slight and cunning in carving out this Character; for the aim of this device was threefold.  
First, That the dignity of the Episcopacy might be advanced: and thence it was, whatever action carries an eminency in any kind, or might cause and cast a reflection of respect upon it, that must be given to It, that so men might have an eye thereunto, and a special reference and dependence thereupon.  
Secondly, That the honour of Priesthood( as Papists and prelates speak) might be maintained, some special excellency must be left upon it: And because the baseness of the carriage of that Popish crew might bring their persons and places out of esteem, therefore they must have some Character that could not be defaced: because their lewdness and wickedness was such, that it would deform the very impressions of morality, therefore they devised such a Character that should be engraven so deep, that the most abominable profaneness of Hell itself should not eat it out to eternity.  
3. Because the right of the one, in what he gave, and the worth of the other, in what he received had no reality; therefore they must join something, as a far fetched conceit, that the secrecy might hold men in admiration of, that which passed their apprehension, and thence came the minting of this mysterious nothing.  
This indelebilis character comes out of the forge of Popery, and is so besooted with the smoke of the bottomless pit, and carried along in the fogs of the mysteries of iniquity, that by a secret slight it hath eaten insensibly into the orders of Christ before the world was ware.  
And hence it is, the school, who commonly when they attend their own liberty of dispute, will speak out: they are so dazzled in their own sayings, that they do in issue, as much as profess, they know not what they say.  
Some, that it cannot be gathered from the sacred Scriptures, nor the testimony of the Fathers, nor from natural reason 
Scotus 4. sentent. distinct. 6. quaest. 9. .  
Others, that authority onely gave it life, and that non multum antiquam 
Cajetan. .  
Some, that reason doth not demonstrate it, nor evident Authority prove it 
Gabriel 4. sent. dist. 6. .  
Nay, lastly, that the determination of the Church( in whose bowels it was bread, and had its being, if any where) is not express in the point 
Ibidem. .  
And hence they cannot tell what to make of it; one while its ens relatum, as Durand and Scotus. Another while it must be ens absolutum, as Thomas. Whether to refer it, they cannot conclude.  
Some will have it in the first species of a quality 
Vasquer 3. qu. 63. disp. 154. . Some in the second 
Thom. 3 qu. 63. Art. 4. . Others choofe the third 
Altiodorens. l. 4. Art. 3. c. 2. . Others the fourth 
Marsilin. 4. qu. 4. Art. 1. . And all these are like the Midianites, at daggers drawing among themselves, seek by might and main how to confirm their own imagination, how to confute other.  
Thus, when they would have it, they cannot tell where to find it, where to set it.  
Some will have the understanding to be the subject of it, as Thomas. Some the will, as Scotus.  
That it is no saving grace, they will all confess; because the worst of men may have it.  
That it is no common grace, because it doth appertain onely to some persons in order.  
But it must be a supernatural quality which perfects the soul, and makes a man like to Christ, and continues ●ith him in hell. A pretty tale.  
A man must have a supernatural grace, and have it for no end, when he hath it, and that to conform a man to Christ in hell. This must perfect the soul, when the soul hath all evils in the full source and perfections of them.  
It's a common quality in regard of mans nature. It's not omni nor soli. And it hath no special inseparable principle in the soul, which should make it inseparable.  
So the sum which returns, after so much ado, is this: We have found a mysterious nothing, which cannot enter into the imagination of a rational man; onely, if any will admire and adore the device, that he is not able to discern, he m●y, and truly make his ignorance the mother of that devotion.  
Thus we have taken leave to sport ourselves, as it were, in this weary travel, with this speculation of the Popish vassals and the Prelacy; which is not altogether unuseful, if it was for nothing else but this, to show how wily the vain mind of man is, to coin devices, to darken the truth of God, and to delude itself.  
We come nearer home, and our second Conclusion is,   

2. Conclusion. Ordination administered according to the method and mind of Master R. namely, as preceding the election of the People, it doth not give essentials to the outward call of a Minister.  

Argum. 1.  
For its cross to the Apostles institution, given in express charge, Acts 6.3. look out from among you seven men of honest report. Contrary to their present practise, ver. 5. And the saying pleased the people, and they choose, and they set them before the Apostles.  
If none but those, who were first elected by the people, should be ordained; and all such who were so chosen could not be refused. Then to ordain before choice, is neither to make application of the rule, nor communion of the right, in an orderly manner: and so in issue defaceth and makes ineffectual the frame of the institution; and it is too hastily to invest a man in a place, who hath no reality of right to it.  
But the first is plain from the place alleged. Nor need that stumble any in this base, because the instance is given of Deacons, which are Officers of a lower rank; since the reason is the like in bo●h, or rather forceth a fortiori, as we speak. For they have as great interest in the one as the other; nay, have a greater dependence upon their Rulers; and are engaged to a greater ●ubjection to them; and to provide for their honour in a more especial manner, both reverence and maintenance; therefore Quod ad omnes spectat, ab omnibus debet approbari: Whence it is, that the Apostle ever hath an especial eye to the people in this, as their peculiar privilege.  
Object. If that be here objected,( which is often and ordinary in the mouth of the Prelates, and their followers) Tit. 1.5 That the Apostle delegated this authority to Titus, and p●t the dispensation of it into his hand: For this cause I left thee ●n Creet, that thou shouldst ordain Elders in every City, as I have appointed.  
Answ. True, the Apostle did appoint him to do this work, but to do it according to his mind; and in the order which Christ had instituted, and of which he had given him a precedent by his own practise; namely, when the Elders were elected and presented by the Church, he then laid on hands upon such, and such onely, according to the order of Christ in that behalf.  
That manner of sovereignty in proceeding, which the Apostle would not take, nor use in the Churches, in reason he would not allow his scholar to arrogate to himself.  
But shall we take Pauls practise for a precedent in this behalf? his course is plain, Acts 14.23. When they had created them Elders in ev ry Church( or as the Geneva reads it, when they had ordained Elders by election in every Church) and prayed and fasted, &c. they commended them, &c. to God, &c.  
Certain it is, that the Officers were complete in their institution, and had a full call, and a ●ull right for the execution of their places; and therefore laying on of hands, either was not of necessity required, or else it was included, and is to be understood in that they fasted and prayed; so that the people had the chief hand in the calling of office rs, they first choosing, before any ordination could be orderly dispensed.  
And that this was the mind of the Apostle, and the meaning of his charge to Titus; the words of the text show, for its added, that he should redress things amiss; and must not this be done by the Officers, and the Church also, according to the rule of Christ?   

Argument 2. Its not the scope of Ordination, by God appointed, to give the essentials of an Officers call; therefore, from thence it is not to be expected in an orderly way.  
The force of the consequence is so full and undeniable, that it gains consent without any gainsaying.  
The Antecedent onely needs proof, and to that we shall apply ourselves; That the scope of ordination is not by the intendment of the Spirit, to give the essentials of an outward call. I suppose it will appear from that famous place, 1 Tim. 4.14. which in this Treatise of Mr. R. hath so often been alleged, and conceived also to carry another sense.  
Let us therefore in Gods fear address ourselves to a serious consideration of the severals in the Texts, that when through search and examination is made, we may then see what certain conclusion can be inferred therefrom, and so ease ourselves for future times of any further trouble from this Text, when ever it shall be alleged against us.  
Three things then require special explication in the Text.  

1. What the gift is, here said to be in Timothy.  
2. How it was given by prophesy.  
3. What the laying on of the hands of the Elders adds, and why used.   

1. What this gift is.  
The word {αβγδ}, translated here Gift, hath according to the divers acceptions of it, occasioned Interpreters diversely to express their apprehensions: we shall leave each man to his own apprehension, and crave liberty to weigh each particular, according to the balance of the Sanctuary and where the truth casts the scales, our judgements may willingly be carried that way.  
The word then in the first place signifies, such graces and gracious dispositions of heart, which are freely given us of God: and thus it is most common, and frequently used; whether they be common graces which are bestowed upon such as have no interest in Christ, as 1 Cor. 12.9, 28. 1 Cor. 7.7. Or such, which in saving manner belong to those that are effectually called; as sometime the H. Apostle, 
Hebr. 6.9.  we hope better things, and such as accompany salvation: Better graces and gifts then ordinary, and better then those, the common and ordinary men of the world, attain unto; because they are such as have salvation attending upon them; thus Rom. 6.23.& 11.28.  
Sometime it is put for the offices and places, unto which men are through grace fitted, and out of God's good pleasure called, so Rom. 12.6.  
It lastly implies the gift of grace, which through the obedience of Christ is given us for our Justification, Rom. 5.15. {αβγδ}. And Chamierus conceives, 
De. Sacram. in genere, lib. 2. c. 14. p. 102. p. 24.  its never taken in this sense but onely in this place.  
This last sense beyond all question suits not with the place, as all the circumstances in the Text give in evidence, and therefore Interpreters fall upon the former.  
Some understand Docendi facultatem, Chrysost. Theodoret, Oecumenius.  
Some, Docendi officium; and this is the common current, and carries the consent of the most with it: Anselmus, Lombard, Thomas, Cajetane; and Gersome Bucerus, a man of an accurate judgement, conceives and concludes this to be most suitable to the scope of the place, dissert. de Gubernat. eccles. p. 340.  
In this variety, I suppose there is liberty for any to lean to that opinion which he likes best; and I must confess freely, when I have weighed all things, I rather incline to the former of the two: for all the leading, yea, casting circumstances of the places seem to carry it that way, to wit, that by gift must necessary be meant, those spiritual and gracious abilities, which Timothy received by the Spirit in way of prophesy( of which presently) and by which he was fitted and furnished to that extraordinary work of an Evangelist, being the office appointed him of God; so that though the Office is not here firstly and primarily intended, yet these extraordinary gifts and endowments bestowed upon Timothy, are attended with an eye, and certain reference thereunto; and therefore that is not altogether excluded, but taken into consideration in the second place: or more narrowly, These gifts are looked at as they look that way, are bordering and butting thereupon: for it is not onely a frame of speech which we hardly find used; we are not wont to speak thus, forget not the office that is IN YOU, when a man is not only more properly, but more truly said to be IN HIS OFFICE; nay, the very nature and reality of the thing requires this also: An office is a relation adjoined to a man, not inherent in him; Relatio est adjunctum adhaerens, non inhaerens qualitas.  
Besides, that place which is parallel to this, and speaks expressly to the same purpose, 2 Tim. 1.6. Stir up the gift, {αβγδ}, which was given thee by the laying on of my hands: the sense therefore must be the same in both. A man is not said to stir up his office that is in him, but to stir up the grace that is in him, being put into office. We have done with the first.  
The second thing that comes to be inquired is,   

2. How this was given by prophesy.  
For the understanding of this, because sundry inconveniences attend upon the mistaking of this passage, we must know, Though the office of an Evangelist, both for gifts belonging to it, the nature and the continuance thereof,( they being raised up as waterers of that Doctrine, whereof the Apostles were first and extraordinary planters;) though, I say, the cal●ing was extraordinary, yet it is not necessary it should be immediately always, since the Scriptures seem evidently to allow a large breadth; namely, sometimes it is imm●diate by the operation and peculiar inspiration of the spirit: sometimes mediate, the ministry of man interceding.  
Of the first of these we have an instance in Phillip the Evangelist, who before the dispersion and scattering of the Church, was called to the place of a Deacon; but after the dispersion, without the privity and knowledge of the Apostles, he w●nt into Samaria, and there preached the Gospel, and is styled an Evangel●st by the spirit of God, Acts 8.12, 26. compared, and 21.6.  
Of the second sort, we have an instance in the present Text concerning Timothy, whose choice to his office was not left to the judgement of men, but was determined by the immediate dictate and direction of the spirit: quod affirmat Calvinus: non humano suff●agio, said divinâ revelatione inquit Theodoretus: spiritus mandato, interpretatur Oecum●nius.  
This way of divine revelation, styled prophesy in the place, was acted in a double manner: Sometime the Spirit, by some prophet present and raised to that purpose, did point out, as it were, by the finger and voice of God, such a one to such a place, or to such a special design in the place unto which they were called; so Acts 13.2, 3. When they were fasting and serving the Lord, in that solemn manner, The holy Ghost said,[ i. e.] by some Prophet stirred up he gave that intimation, ver. 1, 2.  
Sometime the Spirit did by special revelation dictate to the Apostles, and prophetically discover who those were, that they should call to such a service, and whom he would enrich and furnish with graces, to so great a work as that was.  
And this Bish. Bilson observed in his Book of the government of the Church: 
Cap 7 120.& cap. 9.167.  for if the spirit of God did immediately direct the Apostles in their travels and journeyings, and point out their places expressly whither they should go, in reason we cannot but conceive and conclude, the holy Ghost would not be wanting to discover to them what companions were most fit to further their comfort, and the work especially commended to their care, because there was greater need of direction, and greater good and benefit could not but redound, by the right choice of the one, then the other.  
And this last sense I conceive most suitable to the present place,( leaving each man to his own choice) namely, he enjoins him to stir up the grace, which by the imposition of his hands ( being directed by the spirit of prophesy) he did according to God his special appointment communicate unto him; As that was the usual ceremony taken up for that end and purpose, Acts 19.6. by the Apostle in conveying the graces of the Spirit.  
And thus all things svit comely: the words are {αβγδ}, not {αβγδ}; and {αβγδ}, and {αβγδ}, aim at one, and are the explication each of other.   

3. The third thing to be inquired is, What the laying on of the hands of the Eldership adds.  
This being in short opened, we shall issue the proof of the ARGUMENT with evidence of dispute from the place.  
The Eldership here, notes not the Office but the Officers; for as Mr. R. elsewhere well observes, the Office hath no hands; nor is the word ever found so used in all the new Testament: and were this the sense here to be attended, let the words be expressed and set down in that signification, not onely reason would reject, but the very care would not relish such an unsuitable sense; Forget not the gift which is in thee, which was given thee by prophesy, with the laying on of the hands of the OFFICE. How harsh and unpleasant is such an expression?  
By Eldership then is meant the Officers: but whether they were the Pastor and Teacher, and the ruling Elders of one Congregation, called a Consistory; or whether they were the concurrence of the Officers of many Congregations together, termed a Classis; I could never yet hear any arguments that did evince either, by dint of undeniable evidence, Didoclav. 160.  
Either apprehension will serve our turn, and therefore we will not disquiet the Reader with any needless debates. We say then, This imposition of hands added not to the constitution of Timothy, his office, gave not essentials thereun●o, but onely a solemn approbation thereof, and this we force by double REASON from the Text.  
1. That which was beyond the power and place of the Presbytery, that they could not communicate. Nothing acts beyond the bounds of its own being.  
But to give the essentials of Timothy his office, was beyond the power and place of the Presbytery, either Congregational or Classical; For the Office was extraordinary, their places and power ordinary: that was to cease, and is now ceased; which should not be, were it in the power of ordinary Officers( who yet remain in the Church, and shall do( to the end of the world) to give being thereunto.  
2. Beside, it hath formerly appeared and been proved, that the gift here name, was not the Office, but the Graces which were in Timothy, which should be stirred up by him, and therefore discovers those gracious abilities and qualifications, whereby he was apted and enabled to that extraordinary work: whence the inference,  
The outward gifting and fitting an Officer to his place, especially extraordinary, is beyond the power and place of a Presbytery.  
But the first is here.  
Ergo, in short, the natural and native sense of the place is only this; Despise not those gracious qualifications which God by his spirit in the extraordinary way of prophesy hath furnished and betrusted thee withall: The laying on of the hands of the Eldership by way of consent and approbation concurring therewith to thy further encouragement and confirmation in thy work.  
And thus the woof of the words lies fair and even, and the whole frame goes on pleasantly: And hence it is that studious and judicious Didoclavius observes seasonably and truly, the difference betwixt those two expressions; when the {αβγδ}, given to Timothy is spoken of with reference to Paul, as having a hand therein, then the phrase is, 2 Tim. 1.6. {αβγδ} but when it's spoken with respect to the Eldership, the phrase then is {αβγδ}: it's BY the hands of Paul, there is a causal virtue, under Christ, of constitutions; but it's WITH the hand of Eldership, as concurring by way of approbation onely.  
This ground being gained, many things follow for our further direction.  
Hence it is plain, that Ordination therefore presupposeth an Officer constituted, doth not constitute; therefore it's not an act of Power, but Order; therefore those who have not the power of Office, may put it forth; therefore though it be most comely, 
[ Quaere.]  that those of the same Congregation should exercise it, yet the Elders also of other Congregations may be invited hereunto, and interested in the exercise of it in another Church, where they have no power, and upon a person who hath more power in the place then themselves: Thus it was here, Timothy was an Evangelist, and therefore by virtue of his Office was to move from place to place, to water where the Apostles had planted, as either the need of the people did require, or the Apostles did call, and in those places, where the Elders who laid on their hands had certainly nothing to do: they might reasonably approve of that power which they could not give nor exercise.    

Argument. 3. That action which is common to persons and performances or employments, and applied to them, when there is no Office at all given, that action cannot properly be said to be a specificating act to make an Officer, or give him a Call.  
For if it was such an act, that would certainly bring in the form of an Office; where that was, an Officer would be.  
But the action of imposition of hands, is applied to persons and to performances, as special occasion is offered, when there is no Office given, nor indeed intended.  
Therefore it is not an act which gives in the essentials to an Officer.  
The minor is evident by instance, Acts 13.2, 3, 4. As they were ministering, some Prophets and Teachers, the Spirit said, Separate unto me Barnabas and Paul, unto the work which I have called them: and when they had fasted and prayed, and laid on their hands, they let them go.  
Where for our purpose in hand, these particulars are presented to our view.  
First, the Spirit had formerly called Paul and Barnabas to the work, and therefore, the words are in the Preterperfect tense, {αβγδ}. Nay, secondly, we red of Paul his Call and Commission given him express, Acts 9.16, 17. And lastly, the Office being extraordinary and immediate from God, it could not be, that the Officers or Elders of the Church could be the cause of the call, for that implies a contradiction, to be mediately and immediately called.  
Secondly, that the Church by her Officers were therefore appointed to separate them to that service, unto which they had been before called of the Lord.  
Thirdly, this separation is signified& performed by prayer, and laying on of the hands of the Officers; which was not to put a new Office upon them, but confirm their sending unto the Gentiles, Chamierus lib. 4. de Sacram. N. T. cap. 24. p. 25. Non putamus hanc impositionem manuum, ullam fuisse ordinationem ad novum munus Ecclesiasticum, said confirmationem missionis, &c. whence it's plain, That imposition is an act which is common to persons, and applied upon other occasions; therefore is not a specificating act to bring in this call of an Officer.  
And upon this ground it seems it is, that the Church of Scotland is so far from conceiving laying on of hands necessary in Ordinations, that they do not onely not use it, but judge it unlawful to be used, unless some special considerations be attended; as it may appear in that accurate work called, &c.   

Argument 4. If Ordination give the essentials to an Officer before Election, then there may be a Pastor without People, an Officer, sine titulo, as they use to speak, and a person should be made a Pastor at large, as to follow Master R. his similitude: the Ring that is made and completed in the Goldsmiths shop, it's ready for any man that comes next, who will buy, being made to his hand.  
But this Individuum vagum, or a Pastor at large is irregular and cross to the order of the Gospel: For,  
First, in this( as Master Best saith) an Apostle differeth from a Pastor, that the Apostle is a Pastor through the whole Christian world; but the Pastor is tied to a certain Congregation out of which he is not to exercise pastoral acts.  
To this Master R. answers, We allow of no Pastors ordained without a certain flock.  
I reply, Quid verba audiam, cum videam facta? what they allow in word is one thing; if their opinion of necessity infer what they seem not to allow, is another: their grant hath a constraining power to conclude what Master Best allegeth. For if a Pastor may have all his essentials without a certain flock, then he may be a Pastor without it, there being no more required to the essence of his Office. And I strange how Master R. remembered not what he wrote two pages before 263. That A. B. is made indefinitely a Pastor for a Church.  
Suppose a people should reject a Pastor, and that upon just grounds, ( he confesseth not many lines before) that they cannot make him no Pastor, yet they can make him be without a certain flock.  
That which is added doth not loosen the knot, but ties it faster; for where it's said, An Apostle was Pastor to all the world, yet might he exercise pastoral acts of Preaching and Praying towards those people, who would not receive his ministry.  
Reply. The same may be said of this Individuum vagum, upon the former ground and grant, he may exercise his Pastoral act even to Heathens, who reject him and his preaching.  
That which is lastly answered yields the cause wholly, for these are the words, p. 266. And a Pastor is ONELY the Pastor of that flock over the which the holy Ghost, by the Churches authority, hath set him as their Pastor; but yet so as when he preacheth in another Congregation, he ceaseth not to be a Pastor, howbeit not the Pastor of that flock.  
WE ARE THEN AGREED, and the conclusion is granted.  
If a Pastor be[ ONELY] onely the Pastor to that flock, then is he not a Pastor to any beside, then can he do no pastoral acts to them: To whom he is not Pastor, to them he can do no pastoral acts; but in that place and to that people he is not a Pastor, therefore to them he can do pastoral acts, Quod fuit demonstrandum?  
True, while he preacheth to another Congregation, he ceaseth not to be a Pastor: it's that, we all say and grant, but yet he doth not preach as a Pastor: He expounds in his own family, and prays as a Master of his family, but not as a Pastor, and yet he ceaseth not to be a Pastor whilst he doth that work: He is such while he doth it, but doth it not as such.  
It's obvious to each mans apprehension; a thing may have many relations, and may act by virtue of one onely; though it have the other, yet nor doth, nor can act by those other in that place.  
A Constable in a Town, a mayor in a City, they are Officers while they are in other places, but can do no acts of their Offices but onely while they are in their own places.  
Hither belongs that QUESTION which MASTER R. propounds, p. 261. and MAINTAINS.  We hold that a Pastor may officiate as a Pastor without his own Congregation. 
His ARGUMENTS are four which come in order to be scanned.  

1. Argument of Master R.  
That which the communion of Sister-Churches require to be done, that Pastors may lawfully do. But that a Pastor as a Pastor may officiate, this the communion of Sister-Churches require: as in necessary absence of the Pastor, to keep the flock when gainsayers trouble, to convince that they may not pervert the flock.  
REPLY. The assumption is to be denied, and is left wholly destitute of proof: for supply may be lent in those propounded cases of necessity, by Christian council, and by mutual consociation of advice, though there be no expression of ecclesiastical jurisdiction in that behalf: Nor can we be said to take communion away from Churches, where, God never granted any right of communion.  
No man is said to take the communion of Cities away, when he denies the mayor of one to exercise authority in the jurisdiction or corporation of the other; for that was to take away their privileges and proprieties, not communities, as it will appear presently from Master R. his own principles.   

2. Argument of Master R.  
If Ministers may labour to convert unbelieving strangers, and to add them to their flock, that they may enlarge Christs Kingdom, then may they exercise pastoral acts, over and above others, then those of their own charge. But the former is true, ergo, the Assumption is clear, Prov. 9.3. 1 Cor. 14.24.  
The Reply is, the proof is added where there is no need, that which is feeble and false, that is not at all confirmed, nor any attempt made to that purpose; and that is the consequence of the proposition, which hath not a shadow of truth in it.  
When the Apostle stayed in Jerusalem, and the Church was persecuted and scattered, those that were scattered were no Officers, and yet preac●ed, Acts 8.4.  
Apollos a christian Jew, eloquent and mighty in the Scriptures, co●futed publicly the Jews, Acts 18.28. edified much those that believed, ver. 27. and yet no Officer.  
And that it is the duty of all Christians to labour to convert unbelieving Strangers, Scriptures give in abundant testimony; and that many have been converted& more comforted by the labours of Christians, experience makes it more then evident.   

The 3. Argument labours of the like Disease, namely;  
Because divers Congregations are to keep visible communion in exhorting, rebuking, &c.  
This I say labours of the like disease with the former, since all these may be done where no pastoral act is, or can be done regularly, as out of Master R. his own principles it shall thus appear.  
Those whom a Pastor cannot judge, over them he can exercise no pastoral act; for that is one special act of a Pastor.  
But Pagans and Infidels a Pastor cannot judge, p. 226. to them notwithstanding he may preach. Ergo, barely to preach to a people is no pastoral act.  
Again, a Pastor of one Congregation may preach unto another; a Pastor of one Classis or Province may preach in the assembly of another Classis, and in another Province; yet in none of these he can do any pastoral act, as I shall prove from Master R. his grant.  
Over whom a Pastor hath no power, over such he can do no pastoral act, for that is an act of principal power.  
But over these a Pastor hath no power; so Master Ruterford: " We hold, that one Congregation hath no power over another, nor one Classis over another, nor one Province over another.  
Thirdly, let this be considered, If acts of pastoral preaching, administration of Sacraments, and Church-censures, as convincing, rebuking, &c. be required by Church communion, then there be no acts which a Congregation hath proper to itself; and this was not onely to maintain communion, but indeed to breed confusion in all the Churches.  
Fourthly, where a man hath right to administer pastoral acts, there he hath pastoral power; where he hath right of pastoral power, there he may by right challenge the execution of this pastoral power: therefore the Pastors of several Congregations without the Classis, may notwithstanding, crave liberty to press into the Classis assembled, to join their vote and censure, and sentence with the Classis, either to hasten or hinder any act; which were to whorry all things on heaps, and disturb the order of all Assemblies.  
And hence it was that the ancient councils and Canons have ever added so much caution to kerb and confine the power of Bishops, that they should not stretch the arms of their authority beyond the compass of their own diocese.  
That they made then a Diocaesan, it was a human device; but yet they found it necessary to restrain the extravagancy of such; which did it belong to them as Pastors indefinitely to oversee all, they should not onely have wronged them, but the rule, who so much enlarged their rule and jurisdiction.  
And that which learned Junius speaks of the largeness and lawfulesse of the extent of the Bishops rule by human grant, that to go beyond his bounds is to be {αβγδ}, or {αβγδ}. I may truly apply to a Presbyter, who is staked down {αβγδ}, to the flock over whom he is made overseer, to play the Bishop in another man's diocese, or in every man's diocese, is a last too big for his foot.  
That which is alleged touching the partaking of the Sacrament by some of one Congregation in another, hath of all the greatest difficulty, because the administration of the Sacrament is a ministerial act, and can be done but by a Pastor or Teacher; and what authority hath he to do it, or they to receive it from him, to whom he is non Pastor?  
To which I shall Reply thus; first, that it hath been a course which ever I have questioned; and against it many yeeres since I have alleged many arguments, and therefore I could readily ease myself of the Argument, by professing the course unwarrantable. And that the course of the Churches in England in their corrupt way, hath given in some such like intimation; forbidding any to receive at another place, but onely where they properly have their abode, and constant dependence upon the ministry of the place.  
But supposing it to be lawful, we will see how far the Objection will go, at the least how far it toucheth the cause in hand.  
First then, these particulars are plain and beyond exception: 

1. The Minister hath power to consecrate the elements in his own place and charge.  
2. In that he there consecrates and administers, HE doth not go beyond HIS pastoral power.  
3. Nor can he reject, whom the Assembly lawfully admits.    
Secondly, therefore now the question grows; What title any of another Congregation have to come to the Sacrament, and by what right the Church can admit them?  
For the clearing of which proceeding, I shall offer these things to consideration, having an open ear to hear and learn.  
First, a person hath his first right to a Sacrament, because he hath an interest in the covenant of the gospel, of which it is a seal; but must come at it in a right order of Christ, i.e. the party must be member of a visible Congregation; because the seals can there onely be rightly and orderly administered. I say its sufficient the party be a member of a visible Congregation, not this or that particular.  
Secondly, Hence, who ever is thus qualified, may lawfully be admitted to that ordinance by the Assembly; therefore cannot lawfully be rejected by the Pastor: quod erat demonstrandum.  
So that such an administration doth not evidence that the Ruler doth any thing beyond his place, or hath any power out of HI● place or particular charge, or yet that the receiver shares in any thing more then His right.  
The fourth and last Argument of M. Ruterf.  
That opinion must be reasonless and without ground, the special reason and ground whereof is false: but the special ground and reason of this opinion is false; therefore.  
The assumption is proved, because we are said to maintain, That election and ordination of Pastors is all one; and that Pastors have essentially their calling from the election of the people.  
The Reply is.  
The assumption and the proof of it, I never saw it writ, nor ever knew it practised by any amongst ourselves. The utmost that ever I knew was ever acknowledged or avowed, is that of Doctor Ames, namely, that Ordination it is adjunctum consummans; the completing of the essence of a Pastor, by an especial perfecting adjunct; but enters not into the essential constitution: but that it and election should be all one, I never yet knew it maintained.  
We see therefore the proof, that should be the main pillar to bear up the stress of the argument, breaks all in pieces, and is a mere mistake; so that the force of the argument melts away like snow before the Sun.  
That which remaines as part of the proof of the assumption, That we say, Pastors have essentially their calling from election, wee shall in the following discourse make good, Christ helping.  
OUR FIFTH AND LAST Argument is:  
If Ordination gives the essentials of a Pastor before election, then by THAT ALONE he hath pastoral power: Against which I thus reason:  
He that hath complete power of an Office, and stands an Officer without exception, he cannot justly be hindered from doing all acts of that Office. For to be an Officer complete, without an Office; or being complete in his Office, yet according to rule, to be hindered from doing any thing belonging to his Office, implies a contradiction: for its all one as to say, a man is bound to a rule, and yet by a rule he should not do it.  
But this is the condition of a Pastor, ordained, without the election of the people: He may according to rule be justly hindered from executing any act of a Pastor. Suppose all Congregations f●ll; they may justly deny him any leave or liberty to Preach or administer, either seal or censure amongst them. And so he shall be an Officer complete and without exception, and yet shall be justly and according to rule hindered from doing any act of his Office; which is cross to reason, and the rule of an Office-bearing.  
By this time we have passed all the shoals and sands, which crossed us in our course, and have finished the NEGATIVE part of our Discourse, viz. what it is that doth not give the essentials of the call of a Pastor.  
We are now come within the sight of the point, if through mercy we shall be able to weather it safely, we shall satisfy ourselves.  
For the AFFIRMATIVE PART, our Conclusion then is this: Election of the People rightly ordered by the rule of Christ, gives the essentials to an Officer, or leaves the impression of a true outward call, and so an Office-power upon a Pastor.    

Argument 1.  
Its taken from that relation, which God according to the rule of reason hath placed betwixt the Pastor and the People, whence the dispute grows.  
One Relate gives being and the essential constituting causes to the other.  
But Pastor and People, shepherd and flock, are Relates, Ergo. Mr. R. seems much to be moved with this reason, p. 262. but gives no proof at all of what he says; but onely takes that for granted, which is the question in hand, or else he knows will be denied, and that deservedly.  
For his grounds are these:  
Election doth not make a Pastor, because Ordination doth; which he barely affirms, and he knows is constantly denied, and hath in our foregoing dispute been disproved. He adds, Election doth not make a Minister, but onely appropriate him, being formerly made to the Church. Again, A.B. is indefinitely a Pastor to a Church.  
These are bare assertions, which may be with as much right and ease denied as affirmed, and have been proved in our foregoing conclusions to be disagreeing to the truth. Laying aside then all prejudice, let us look over the several propositions of the Argument, and see where the doubt can arise.  
The Proposition is supported by the fundamental principles of reason, so that he must rase out the received rules of logic that must reject it: Relata sunt, quorum unum constat e mutuâ alterius affectione: and hence all men that will not stifle and stop the passage of rational discourse, forthwith infer, that therefore they are simul naturâ, are together in nature one with another: a father, as a relate or father, is not before his son, buying before selling, selling before buing.  
Assumption. That Pastor and People, Shepherd and Flock are relates, no man that hath sipped on logic, hath a forehead to gainsay.  
The premises being so sure and plain, the conclusion must be certain and undeniable.  
And hence also it will follow, that they are simul naturâ, and the one cannot be before the other; there cannot be a Pastor before there be a People, which choose him. Episcopalis ordinatio sine titulo, est aequé ridicula( says Ames, med. Th. l. 1. c. 39. p. 35.) ac siquis maritus fingeretur esse absque uxore. And indeed it is a ridiculous thing to conceit the contrary.  
And hence again it follows, that Ordination, which comes after, is not for the constitution of the Officer, but the approbation of him so constituted in his Office. For, Relata are unum uni, says the rule, and completely give mutual causes each to the other.   

Argument 2. I●'s lawful for a People to reject a Pastor upon just cause ( if he prove pertinaciously scandalous in his life, or heretical in his Doctrine) and put him out of his Office, ergo, it is in their power also to call him outwardly, and to put him into his Office.  
The consequence is plain from the staple rule, Ejusdem est instituere, destituere.  
The antecedent is as certain by warrant from the Word; Beware of wolves, Matth. 7.15. Beware of false Prophets, Phil. 3.2.  
Master R. answers, p. 265. Its true, the People have power to reject him from being their Minister or Pastor, but their power reacheth not so far as to reject him from being no Pastor.  
Reply. If this be true, then a species may be destroyed, and the general nature in it preserved; the particular and individual nature of Thomas or John may perish and be dissolved, and yet that general nature of Thomas or John shall still be safe and maintained, which is, I confess, beyond my understanding.  
2. However, this I am sure of, unless the fundamental rule of reason fail, Sublato uno relatorum, tollitur alterum, and they are but unum uni; and therefore if that relation betwixt them two fail, it fails altogether.  
Lastly, this rejection cuts him off from being a member in that Congregation where he was, and so from every visible Congregation, therefore cuts him off from having any visible Church-communion with Christ, as a political head of the visible Church, therefore from being any ministerial member, and so an Eye, or Hand, or Officer in that Body.   

Argument 3.  
It is taken from the manner of the communication and convayance of this power, which we do conceive doth of necessity require, it must be derived by way of election.  
Here we must crave leave to prepare for our dispute, by some previous explication, that so the force of the argument may appear with fuller evidence; and it may be also, the whole cause and carriage of this part of Discipline may receive some discovery, that will not be altogether unwelcome to the Reader.  
Know then we must, that conveyance of power is done two ways: either by 

Authoritative Commission; or delegation from Office, or Office-power.  
Or voluntary subjection.    
Authoritative Commission is, when a particular person, or body and corporation, delegates power to another of themselves, and from themselves alone leave an impression of authority upon another: and then its certain, the person or the body must have the power seated in themselves; because all the causes of that power issue out of themselves alone, in that there is none other to join with them, or concur by any causal virtue with them to that work.  
Hence, the superior may delegate to the inferior.  
Hence, he may give some part of his power to another, and keep to himself the chiefest. As he that is Lord of divers Manners and towns, may give away both Land and Lordship, over the places and persons to others, and reserve some royalty( as they call it) to himself. So a King or State, or some supreme power, in whom such authority is seated, may make under-officers, as Sheriffes, bailiffs, Constables, &c. Nay, may leave his power wholly, and give it up and his place also unto another, as in ordinary course is usually seen and observed. But to give his power wholly to another, and yet to keep his place and authority he cannot; and therefore to make another fully equal with him, in the full power he had, and now communicates, that he cannot do. A Prince may divide his Possession and rule into two portions, and make others share with him therein, and that equally( namely, equal to what now he hath, not what he had.) And hence it comes to pass, when ordination was conceived to be authoritative delegation( I speak onely of a ministerial manner of dispensation) and put into the hand of the Bishop; He presently begins to challenge place of superiority over those to whom he delegates. That the whole care and cure of the diocese belongs to him, and he commits several portions to several men, that they might share in partem solicitudinis, when HE had plenitudinem potestatis, as they use to speak.  
And therefore hence came that woeful generation of Curates and Vicars. And that device of ordination sine titulo, when the Bishop left some impression of his power( as it were in deposito) until there came a fit time to dispense it.  
Hence came the mangling of Offices into broken parts. There must be one ordination to make him Deacon, another to make him Priest: and when all is done, the poor Devotiatory must have yet a further licence to Preach. By all which, not onely the Fees of the Court and the Bishops Officers came to be replenished;( but which is, and was the main) that it might hence appear, that the power was seated in him, and he carves out such pieces and portions therof to his underlings, as suits best with his pleasure.  
Some of these pangs of Popery and Prelacy, like the moths of the Mystery of iniquity, have eaten into the Presbytery in some measure. They have taken power to themselves to ordain before election, and to make indefinite Pastors; which argues they must have power seated in themselves; all the causes of this Office-power arising from themselves: they clip the wings, nay in truth cut off the hands of the Congregation in the work of censure: For they have taken this liberty from them. For that Church that may speak to the offender, that Church in case he hear not, may excommunicate the offender. But they say, the Classis onely can do that.  
From the former ground it also follows:  
1. That he who is of the lowest administration, or whose ministerial power is the lowest in his kind, he cannot delegate to another: for then, to a lower.  
2. That he who is bound to officiate or execute his own place in his own person, he cannot delegate it, or any part thereof to another.  
3. Where a person never had power to rule, he cannot there give power to rule.  
From which grounds I would reason:  
If a Person, and so a Presbyter, have ministerial power, and that in the lowest kind of it, and are bound to execute their own places, in their own persons alone; Then can they not delegate their power or any part thereof to another.  
But the first is true; therefore,  
I would here demand, what that power is, which is conceived they do delegate from themselves alone? I say [ alone]( ut supra) because all the causes of the power issue out of themselves alone.  
It cannot be a supernatural saving quality, because it is given to such who have no saving grace.  
It cannot be a common grace, because then there would certainly be found some real change, by the conveyance of such habits, and that upon such a sudden, as the laying on of hands, which we see there is none; and then the loss or defacing of such common qualities would take away the essentials of the call, and nullify the essence of an Officer; which we see it nor doth, nor can, as it appears in the Pharisees.  
What then is communicated?( we here see what use we have of the consideration of Character, indelibilis before;) to speak home at a push, if any be communicated, it must be a relation; so Durand confesseth, speaking of the character, which is left( as they dream) by the Sacrament of Order, 
Sentent. 40. qu  when he could find no footstep of any reality, where to set it, and what to make of it, he ingeniously professeth it is a Relation, because that answers all the ends of this intention. And herein he says true, but withall overthrows what they intend by what he says; for if it be a relation: where are the termini or foundation betwixt whom this relation stands? here we are utterly at a loss, and that the rest of the Popish crew easily perceived, and therefore would not give way to this, because they clearly perceived, that the Pastor was in relation to his people; and then the essence of this indelibilis character, and so this power also must arise from his people, which would quiter spoil the fashion of the Sacrament, and the sovereignty of the Bishops ordination.  
Secondly, there is a communicating of power by VOLUNTARY SUBJECTION when, though there be no Office-power, formaliter in the people, yet they willingly yielding themselves to be ruled by another, desiring and calling of him to take that rule; he accepting of what they yield, possessing that right which they put upon him by free consent; hence ariseth this Relation and authority of Office-rule.  
The reason; Those in whose choice it is whether any shall rule over them or no; from their voluntary subjection it is, that the party chosen hath right, and stands possessed of rule and authority over them.  
Hence many things.  
First, there is an act of power put forth in election.  
That which causally gives essence and Office-power, that puts forth an act of power, Ergo. And therefore the similitudes( which would darken the declaration of this truth used by Master R. p. 265.) do not hold. Now Ordination ( says he) is an act of jurisdiction, such as to sand an ambassador: but that an ambassador consent to go( such as is election) is no act of jurisdiction. For a Father to give his Daughter im marriage to one, is an authoritative act of a Father; but for the Daughter to consent to the choice is no act of authority.  
The Reply is easy.  
Election in the concrete( as we call it) implies two things; 

1. The choice on the peoples part:  
2. The acceptation of the call on his part.    
True, consenting argues no power; but their giving of him authority over them, their calling and by willing subjection, delivering up themselves to be ruled by him in Christ, is an act of Power.  
Vocationis essentia est in electione ecclesiae,& acceptatione electi, Ames medul. lib. 1. c. 39. sect. 32.  
2. Hence the power that the Pastor hath, extends no larger nor further then his own people; he hath no more then what they give, no more but this: for their subjection is onely from themselves.  
3. Hence such may, by a virtual power, bring in the impression of a ruling power, who neither have the power formally nor can exercise the act of that power and place lawfully.  
The Church or people can make a Pastor( as we say) by election, who cannot do a pastoral act, as administer a Sacrament, &c. which is in this place especially to be observed, because the collection is full and fair from the conclusion proved, and the weakness, feebleness and falseness of the contrary collection, which Master Ball, and Master R. in several places take up, is here evidently discovered and answered, when they thus collect, If the people could virtually give being to Pastor and Teacher, then they might execute the Office of Pastors and Teachers: the contrary whereunto hath been evicted by the former Argument, and daily and ordinary experience yields the like.  
The Aldermen choose the mayor, 
Whitaker controv. 4. c. 15. s. 2.  Souldiers choose their general, and none of these have the rule of such Officers in them, nor can execute their places lawfully.  
4. Hence persons may virtually communicate power to another, who are inferior to, and ought to be ruled by that power so communicated, because they gave both place and power to the Officers by voluntary subjection, investing them with rule and right to govern, and promised reverence, submission and obedience to the rule and authority in their hands: so that when they walk according to the laws of that place and authority they have, they are to submit to them in the Lord: but when they go beyond their place and power, they may by the rules of the Gospel reform them.  
5. Hence lastly, we see the feebleness of that conceit, which is moldy with the tang of the mystery of iniquity, by which it was conceived first, and hath been maintained; to wit, that episcopus generat patres, and this made a piece of the royalty and peculiar privilege belonging to his place.   

We shall add a fourth Argument.  
If the essentials of a Pastor be communicated from the Eldership or Bishop merely; then there will be Pastor of Pastors, and that in propriety of speech.  
For the Pastor that is made by them hath reference to them, and dependence upon them as Pastors properly; for it is that which is contended for here in the question in hand, that it should be appropriated to their places onely to make Officers.  
But this Master R. condemns, and reason gainsays: for it would breed and bring a confusion amongst all Offices and Officers, and it is charged upon us and our cause, as an absurdity, often by Master R. we desire they would take the charge home to themselves, to whom it justly belongs, as being firstly guilty of it: and so at length we have done with the second thing.  
We are now come to the third thing to be considered.  

3. What Ordination is.  
The premises formerly considered and drunk in, we shall onely nakedly propound the description, not trouble the Reader with any tedious dispute about it; because the most and chief of the difficulties, which concern the nature of it, have been discussed fully before.  ORDINATION is an approbation of the Officer, and solemn settling and confirmation of him in his Office, by Prayer and laying on of hands. 
The severals of the description have been cleared, in the foregoing conclusions; onely that which is added, touching the ceremony of laying on of hands: though there be no convicting arguments in the Scripture, which will infallibly conclude it; yet, because it is most commonly received, and seems most probable out of that charge to Timothy; Lay on hands rashly on no man, neither communicate with other mens sins. I am willing to follow the road, when I have no constraining reason to go aside.  
Onely I shall add in this place. That from the description now propounded, the explication and confirmation which hath been given before, it seems to be a faire inference, that Ordination is not an act of supreme Jurisdiction, but of order rather. It gives not being or constitution to an Officer, but is rather the admission and confirmation of him in his Office.  
And though each ordinance of God hath his weight and worth; yet we should not lay greater stress, or put more necessity upon it, then the Lord himself doth: when we see, it hath appeared by former dispute, that election hath a greater hand in giving being and essentials of Office-power to any, then this: let it have his place. But to put so transcendent greatness upon it, will not pass currant, when it comes to the scanning.  
And therefore Gersom Bucerus, a man completely furnished with all manner of learning and language, 
Bucer dissert de gubern. eccl. 337.  makes a professed dispute against the comparative excellency of it; Manus imposi●io, quid est aliud, juxta Canonem, nisi oratio supper hominem?  
Augustine his determination; Ordinare, quid est aliud nisi orare?  
Chrysostome,( 1 Tim. 3.) calls it ferme nihil.  
The issue is, The main weight of the work lies in the solemnity of Prayer; which argues no act of jurisdiction at all.  
Thus much then may suffice for the third thing propounded.  
The fourth and last, which offers itself to our inquiry, with which we will end this dispute, is:   

4. To whom the right of dispensing this Ordinance doth appertain.  
Here we will first state the Question aright, that our opinion may not be mistaken, and so mis-judged by prejudice. Secondly, we will add an argument or two to settle the conclusion, which we shall own, and so leave this head of Discipline to the Readers judgement. The plain state of the Question may be presented in these particulars very shortly.  
1. When the Churches are rightly constituted, and completed with all the Orders and Officers of Christ, the 
Reader, whether it be Right or Rite, or right use, we could not discern by the copy, it being not fairly written in that word.  RIGHT of Ordination belongs to the Teaching Elders; the Act appertains to the Presbyters constituted of Ruling and Teaching, when an Officer is invested in his place: for of these it is expressly spoken, even in the letter of the Text, 1 Tim. 4.14.  
So that to appropriate this to a Bishop of peerless power, who is a mere human creature, invented merely to lift that man of sin into his chair, where there is not a syllable in the Text that sounds that way, as he shall go against the Text that shall endeavour it; so it will be a course void of reason to trouble the Reader to confute it, which hath been done to our hands, by many judicious pens of bains, Bucer, &c. whose arguments never yet had, nor will have answer; when its more then evident to him, that will not shut his eyes, or hath not blinded his eyes with the lustre and pomp of a worldly Prelacy, that Pauls Episcopus and Presbyter are all one.  
2. Though the act of Ordination belong to the Presbytery, yet the jus & potestas ordinandi, is conferred firstly upon the Church by Christ, and resides in her. Its in them Instrumentaliter, in her Or●gin litter.  
They dispense it immediately, she by them mediately. So Junius controv. 5. l. 1. c. 7. not. 9.45. Zanch, 
Bucer in Mat. 16.  Bucerus, Haec potestas( loquiter de potestate constituendi publicos Ecclesiae Ministros) penes omnem eccesiam est, authoritas Ministerii pen●s Presbyteros& Episcopos: ita ut Romae olim potestas Popili fuit, authoritas Senatus. But most pregnant, and indeed impregnable is the testimony of Melanchton; Quum Episcopi( inquit) ordinarii fiunt hostes Ecclesiae, aut nolunt impertire Ordinationem, Ecclesiae retinent jus suum. Nam ubicunque est Ecclesia, ibi est jus administrandi Evangelii. Quare necesse est Ecclesiam retinere jus vocandi, eligendi,& ordinandi Ministros:& hoc jus est donum datum Ecclesiae, quod nulla humana authoritas Ecclesiae eripere potest, sicut Paulus testatur ad Ephes: cum ait, Ascendit, dedit dona hominibus,& enumerat inter dona propria, Ecclesiae Pastores& doctors,& addit, dari tales ad ministerium, ad aedificationem corporis Christi; ubi igitur est vera Ecclesia, ubi esse necesse est jus eligendi,& ordinandi Ministros. De potestate Episcoporum argumento secundo. What can be more plain, unless it was writ with the beam of the Sun? and as his judgement is full and clear, so his Argument is strong.  
All these Officers are coronation-mercies given to the Church; the extraordinary are given immediately; the ordinary, mediately; namely, that she should have power not only to preserve them when she hath them, but to provide them when she wants them: and unless she could do the one, she should never do the other. For were it so, that ordinary Pastors should be made, and then given to her, how were they not as immediate as the other? Most express to the same purpose is Whitaker, contr. 4. q. 2. c. 15. p. 2. Ecclesiae potestas data est suos episcopos& pastores nominandi& curandi:& quanquam tota non potest fungi hoc munere, potest tamen eligere& ordinare, qui eo fungantur.  
Thirdly, in case then that the face and form of all the Churches are generally corrupted, or else the condition of the Church is such, that she is wholly destitute of Presbyters, she may then out of her own power, given her by Christ, provide for her own comfort, by ordaining her own Ministers; and this according to the regular appointment of our Saviour, and the order of the Gospel.  
Christ hath firstly the whole power of Ordination in himself, the Church as his Spouse hath it communicated to her; and this power she exerciseth after a double manner; either she provides, elects and ordains a Presbytery, by which she may ordain in future times; or having constituted and ordained such, she preserves and maintains them, that she may use them as instruments to ordain: the first of these ways she useth in raising and renewing Churches after great apostasies and universal departures from the sincerity of the truth: The second, in time of peace when all the Ordinances of Christ are in their pure and constant use, and Officers continued by an uninterrupted succession, in the profession and maintenance of the truth.  
And touching this third all the difficulty lies and the difference is betwixt us; we shall shortly therefore settle this conclusion by some few arguments which follow from the former dispute, and confirm this with undeniable evidence.  
First, If the power of ordaining rest firstly in the Church, then she may, and in this case having most need, should provide for her own supply: but the power of Ordination is given first unto the Church, as hath been forced by Melanchton from ungainsayable grounds, ergo.  
Secondly, If the Church can do the greater, then she may do the less; the acts, appertaining to the same thing, and being of the same kind.  
But the Church can do the greater, namely, give the essentials to the Pastor, ut supra, ergo.  
Thirdly, That which is not an act of Power but Order, the Church may do in an orderly way.  
For the reason why it's conceived and concluded, that it's beyond the power of the people, it is because it is an act of supreme jurisdiction.  
But this is an act of Order and not of Power.  
Lastly, Most certain it is, that this cannot belong primarily to a Classis.  
If a Classis must be ecclesia orta, and made of the Ministers sent from divers Congregations, then did Congregations provide Mini●ters firstly; for a Classis did not receive them from a Classis.  
But the first is true, even from the constitution of a Classis, Ergo. And it is as certain, that it cannot firstly belong to a Bishop, which by human invention and consent is preferred before a Presbyter in dignity onely, if they will hold themselves either to the precedent or patent, whence they raise their pedigree: And it is from that of Hierom ad evagrium, unum e● se electum in altiori gra●●u collocarunt.  
If Presbyters elected and gave first being to a Bishop, then were they before him, and could not receive Ordination from him. At primum ex concessis, ergo.      

CHAP. III. Of an INDEPENDENT Church. Wherein the state of the Question is opened, the distasteful term of INDEPENDENCY cleared, and the right meaning put upon it; Master R. his Arguments in the thirteenth Chapter debated.  
IT is the subtlety of Satan, when he cannot wholly destroy the truth, which he especially desires, he labours to deface it what he may, and to present it in such unseemly appearances unto men, that either they reject it wholly; or if not that, yet they are long before they receive it; or if they do, it being under jealousies and suspicions, they receive it but in part, and not with that full approbation as they might, and it deserves.  
And hence through the envy and distaste of some, the headiness and rashness of others, men put such unsuitable expressions upon it, like an ill-shaped garment upon a wel-composed body, that it shows somewhat deformed at the first sight.  
This hath befallen the cause now in hand, by the term of Independency put upon it▪ which because in common use it carries a rankness of Supremacy, which easily disrelisheth with the spirits of men, being used here somewhat improperly, at the first appearance it easily provokes a nauseous distaste in the spirit of the hearer, that is not acquainted so fully with the compass of the cause now under hand.  
We shall take leave therefore to lay open the state of the question nakedly as it is, and narrow the expressions a little, where because of their unfitness and wideness, they leave a kind of ill favoured appearance upon the truth.  The state of the Question then may thus be conceived: 
When we speak of the Church, as in this place, we look at it not as totum essentiale onely, as they use to speak, as it is made up and constituted of visible Christians, gathered in the fellowship of the faith; but as totum integral, or Organicum( as Ames expresseth it, lib. 1. medul. cap. 33. part 18.) as it is furnished and completed with all such Officers, which Christ hath given to his Church for the perfecting thereof: for then and not before, the Church is said to be able in a right order to act and exercise all the ordinances of God.  
2. When this Church is said to be Independent, we must know That INDEPENDENCY implies two things; 

1. Either an absolute Supremacy, and then it is opposed to subordination.  
2. Or else a sufficency in its kind, for the attaimment of its end, and so its opposed to imperfection.    
Take that word in the first sense, so a particular Church or Congregation is not absolutely supreme: For its subject unto, and under the supreme power politic in the place where it is; so that the Magistrate hath a coactive power to compel the Church to execute the ordinances of Christ, according to the order and rules of Christ, given to her in that behalf in his holy Word; and in case she swerves from her rule, by a strong hand to constrain her to keep it. he is a nursing Father thus to the Church, to make her attend that wholesome diet which is provided and set out, as her share and portion in the Scripture. Nay, should the supreme Magistrate unjustly oppress or persecute, she must be subject, and meekly according to justice, bear that which is unjustly inflicted.  
again, she is so far subject to the consociation of Churches, that she is bound, in case of doubt and difficulty, to crave their counsel, and if it be according to God, to follow it: and if she shall err from the rule, and continue obstinate therein, they have authority to renounce the right hand of fellowship with her.  
In the second sense, the Church may be said to be Independent, namely, sufficient to attain her end; and therefore hath complete power, being rightly constituted, to exercise all the ordinances of God.  
As all Arts are thus complete in their kind, and have a complete fufficiency in themselves to attain their own end; and yet are truly said to be subordinate each to the other in their works.  
The Word, then, in its faire and inoffensive sense, imports thus much, Every particular Congregation, rightly constituted and completed, hath sufficiency in itself, to exercise all the ordinances of Christ.  
And thus there is no harshness in the Word that offends the Hearer; nor is the se●se hard or difficult, which may load the cause with any loathsome distaste at all, was the mind not prepossessed with prejudice.  
For its granted of all, that it hath this sufficiency in the exercise of some ordinances; as to Preach, dispense Sacraments, without either craving or needing the consent of the Classis; nor was she to yield to the judgement of the Classis, if they should forbid her to execute her work.  
And if she have a completeness of power in the highest Ordinances, why she should be denied the like in those that are of less excellency, I know not: or why the one should be conceived so strange, and the other so ordinary and equal, I see not; the Apostle knew no dispensation of so choice an excellency as Preaching, which he prefers before any other; I was sent to preach the Gospel, not to baptize: q. d. that was the chiefest part of his errand. If Ordination or Excommunication had been of so great eminency above all other, certainly he would have mentioned some of them.  
It was the old kind of reasoning, which went currant, without any gainsaying: praedicare potest, corpus Domini conficere potest, ergo, potest etiam consecrare: Plesseus apud Gers. Bucer, dissert. de gubern. eccles.  
It's granted also by Master R. that in Islands which are separated from the main land, and therfore cannot enjoy the societies of neighbouring Churches, with that comfort and conveniency, as their occasions may require, that among them ordination, and so excommunication may be performed by the Congregation.  
This being an ordinary and common case, which fals out in the usual and constant course of providence, and many such, which carry a proportion hereunto; I say, hence it appears, that the power natively and naturally lies in the Congregation.  
For to think that these occasions should put God to such extraordinary dispensations, as to cross his ordinary rule; or that the exercise of the act of Ordination should again return into his own hand, to be immediately dispensed by himself, is too weak. As the Jesuits in the like manner are put to their shifts, when they cannot tell what is become of the power supreme that was in the Pope, when he dyes; because there must not be two Popes on earth; they are therefore forced to say, that it is re-assumed into the hands of Christ; the feebleness of which conceit is confuted and condemned by all our Writers, Whitak. Junius, Ames. The like may be here said: and to put the Lord Christ to immediate and extraordinary ways, when according to the course of ordinary traffic and commerce, as the States civill, in such places have intercourse with other States, so might the Churches have with other Churches: It hath no show of Scripture or reason; especially if we add, That the first Synod, which is made a pattern to all the rest, was a concurrence of such Churches, which were two hundred miles off one from another.  
Lastly, it shall anon appear, that he maintains such a sufficiency of acting all Gods Ordinances amongst those, who are yet not independent in this opinion, and therefore the one may stand with the other.  
Come we now to the consideration of such Arguments which Master R. allegeth against this Independency now propounded.  

Argument I.  
If there be not a pattern of such an Independent Congregation by precept or practise, when one particular Congregation with one Pastor and their Eldership did or may exercise all the power of the keys in all points; then such an Independent Congregation may not be holden.  
But the former is true, There is no precept or practise of any such Church, ergo.  
He instanceth in Ordination, and desires either precept or practise to be given of that.  

Answer.  
Let it here be remembered, first, that the difference betwixt Master R. and us, is not in cases, either of separation of Churches one from another; or special restitution after great defections and apostasies.  
Secondly, But the difference betwixt him and us is here; When the Churches are completed with all their Orders and Officers, then it is not in the power of a particular Church to dispense Ordination: but Ordination is to be acted by a Classis, or college of Pastors, and that before Election.  
Taking this consideration along with us, as the conclusion to be proved, to wit, Ordination must be dispensed by a Classis of Pastors, and that before election.  
I shall readily reply many things; and the rather, because this dish hath been so often set before us, and is brought in as one, in all services almost unto nauseousnesse: referring therefore to that, which we have formerly writ, we add here,  
First, there is not the least show, in all the Scriptures, of Ordination before Election, so dispensed; all the places alleged have not the least appearance of proof of this conclusion.  
Secondly, when Churches were completed with all their Officers that then Ordination was acted by a college of Pastors, there is not a silable in the text that saith any such thing.  
Examine we particulars by a sudden survey, and both these will be evident at the first sight.  
In the first of the Acts, there is but one Church, and no Ordination at all, " For that is an act of supreme jurisdiction, as Master R. But that the Apostles had supreme power to call an Apostle, whose calling was immediate, implies a contradiction.  
In Acts 6. the Church there was not complete with Officers, and the Apostles as extraordinary persons did act there, as they might in all other Churches that should be erected; therefore this reacheth not our conclusion.  
In Acts 13.1, 2, 3. There is no Ordination to Office at all, for the Apostles had their Office before: secondly, the Officers of one Church( for so the words go in the Church of Antioch) did what was done in an ordinary way; therefore no precedent for the Pastors of many Churches, what they either may, or should do.  
But that out of Acts 14.23. how it can be haled in to the purpose in hand, it is beyond my apprehension.  
First, for there is no mention made of the laying on of hands, but lifting up the hands.  
Secondly, here are not Officers of many Congregations completed, but Officers to be made in each particular Congregation.  
Thirdly, here is no act of Ordination mentioned but of Election.  
Fourthly, and therefore that which is here alleged, was the proper and peculiar act of the people, as all our Divines evince against Papists and Formalists; and the native signification of the word doth evidence, which must needs be here attended.  
All which considered, thus to reason; If the people of one Congregation, Paul and Barnabas ordering the action, did choose their Elders; then ordination of Elders before election must be the act of the Pastors of many Congregations: this I say is wide the mark.  
That of Acts 20.17, 28. is as far wide, if not further: for,  
First, it cannot be proved that there were the Elders of many, but of one Church, as all the casting circumstances carry it.  
Secondly, but certain it is, here is no act of Ordination performed or intended, and therefore nothing concerning that can be concluded.  
The same is true of Phil. 1. 1 Thes. If there be any probability of dispute, it must be taken from that 1 Tim. 4.14. But it hath been proved before, that here was not an Ordination of an Officer, because it is beyond the power of ordinary Officers to give being to extraordinary Officers, such as Timothy; and therefore his laying on of hands was like that Acts. 13. 2, 3.  
2. Master Ruterford adds, If ordination of Pastors in the Word be never given to People or believers, or to Ruling Elders, but still to Pastors, as is clear, 1 Tim. 5.22. Tit. 1.5. Acts 6.6. Acts 13.3. 2 Tim. 1.6. 1 Tim. 4.14. And if Ordination be never in the power of one single Pastor( except we bring in a Prelate into the Church,) Then one Pastor with one single Congregation cannot exercise this point of discipline, and so not all points of discipline.  
Reply. This argument is the same with the former, as touching the substance, onely some few places,( which might have been annexed to those that were mentioned before) are here added, which we may consider in the order as they are propounded.  
To that 1 Tim. 5.22. where Paul chargeth his scholar, To lay on hands rashly on no man: To that also Tit. 1.5. which carries the same sense with it; and therfore they both receive the same Answer: we say,  
First, here is nothing in the Text, that gives the least intimation of a Classis; and therefore the authority thereof can by no inference from hence, either be concluded, or confirmed, which is the thing to be proved: but the charge is directed expressly to Timothy and Titus in particular.  
Secondly, the manner how Ordination is to be acted by the one, or Elders to be constituted by the other( for the word is larger in Tit. 1.5. {αβγδ}) it is not expressly discovered, but we are called by the words to look elsewhere, for the pattern, by which this practise& proceeding must be ordered in both cases. 
{αβγδ}.  As I have appointed thee: what this appointment of the Apostle was, this Text doth not discover; and therfore of this no man can determine it.  
Thirdly, all the circumstances give in evidence, that the Churches, touching whose ordering the Apostle here speaks, were not yet completed in their Officers, but being newly founded and planted, were to be furnished and perfected with Rulers, by the help and direction of Timothy in the one, and Titus in the other place; and therefore in none of these the question is touched, according to the true nature thereof, as stated before; which is of Churches furnished with Officers.  
Fourthly, it cannot be thought in reason, the Apostle would approve, much less appoint another way of ordaining Elders, then he himself practised.( I speak to that of Titus.)  
But he ordained Elders by the suffrages of the people, and established them by the help of their fasting and prayer, Acts 14.23. That is all which is left there upon record; therefore this appointment Titus and Timothy must follow.  
Fifthly, in all those charges, which are directed to Timothy and Titus in these Epistles, it never was intended, they should act them alone, but ever supposed, they should attend the order of Christ in his Churches, and have the concurrence of Officers, and members, in their ranks and places, as the quality and nature of the actions did require.  
When its enjoined Timothy, That they who sin, he should rebuk openly, 1 Tim. 5.20.21. do nothing partially: Teach he must things appertaining to wholesome doctrine, Tit. 2. &c. Will any man say, that these duties must not be attended by all the Elders of those Churches; and that they should see and provide they might be attended, and stood charged so to do, as well as Timothy and Titus.  
Nay, let us go no further then the place, Tit. 1.5. rectify the things that are wanting. Imagine there had been Deacons wanting, must Titus onely attend that, and none else? and he do it alone without all other? Or, that he should, as a Guide, go before, and see that others acted according to their places? the people were to find out such as were fit to choose, and present them, and had there been Elders in the Church that they should lay on their hands, for the settling and investing of them in their places.  
Lastly, Timothy and Titus are considered here, either as they be Evangelists, and so extraordinary persons; and then their actions are not to be made ordinary precedents; or else they are to be considered as expressing common actions of government, which are to continue in the Churches, with those who succeed them in such power: and then it will follow, if we force this example, that,  
As Timothy and. Titus being particular persons, did put forth such acts of government: the like acts particular Officers may express in their particular Congregations. And hence the inference will be faire against Master Ruterford his assertion.  
As touching that passage concerning Ruling Elders, that the ordination of the Pastor is denied unto him, as having no right or power therein; the falseness thereof hath been evinced sufficiently elsewhere, whether I refer the Reader.  
And from hence also the third allegation receives a satisfactory Reply; because indeed, that, which is therein contained doth in no wise conclude the thing to be proved.  
If Preaching Elders be charged to watch against grievous Wolves, Acts 20.29. be rebuked, because they suffer them to teach false doctrine, Revel. 2.14. and commended because they try false Teachers, and cast them out, ver. 2. If commanded to ordain faithful men, and taught whom they should ordain: Then one Pastor and single Congregation have not the power of this Discipline.  
To which for Reply: I must needs profess, I can see no ground of reason in the Inference: For, first, those in Acts 20. were Elders of one Congregation, as the circumstances of the Text evidence: secondly, or suppose they were not; Doth Paul enjoin them, that when they are assembled in the Classis, they should watch against ravening Wolves? or that it doth properly appertain to them in their special charges, wherein they are set as {αβγδ} and Watchmen in an especial and particular manner. And thirdly, doth not this watch in its due proportion, concern the Ruling Elder, as well as the Teaching; if it be not more especially appertaining to his place, to be as eyes in the wings, to pass up and down in the Assembly, and make inquiry after the first and least stirring of any false opinion, when it is in the very hatching and brooding secretly, before it dare show itself, and to give timely intimation to the Teaching Elders to fortify against the approach of such evils?  
And is it not more then plain, that the Teaching and Ruling Elders of any particular Congregation, are so far bound to watch over the flock, that they should by private rebukes stay& stop the venting of erroneous conceits; and if that will not prevail, they should then take two or three. If yet they hear not, nor will reform, they should tell it to the Congregation, and Preach publicly against it, and not suffer them to vent, or others to listen unto, their delusions?  
Nay lastly, doth not Master Ruterford grant, that the People have power to reject an unworthy Minister; and therefore may they not try him, hinder him from Teaching, watch against him, and by the mouth of the Ruling Elder both publicly rebuk him, and remove him? so that nothing can be inferred from hence, that these acts are peculiar, or appropriate to a Teaching Elder, much less to such onely, when they are Assembled in a Classis. We have done with the first Argument.    

Argument II.  
That government is not of God, nor from the wisdom of the Lawgiver, that deviseth means of Discipline to edify the People; but omiteth means of edifying the Elders of every Congregation by the keys. But the Doctrine of Independent Congregation is such: ergo, The Assumption is evidenced by instance.  
Suppose Elders grow scandalous and corrupt, either in life or doctrine. There is no way to gain them upon this ground. For either they must censure themselves, and that is against nature and reason; or else they must be censured by a Classis, and that the Independencies of Churches will not allow.  
Or else they must be censured by the multitude of believers. But this cannot be granted; because the Lord hath not given this rod of censure to the flock.  
Secondly, because this is popular government and worse; The flock made OVERSEERS of the shepherd, the Son authorised to correct the Father.  
" Thirdly, We desire a pattern of this from the Word.  

Reply.  
There is nothing here, but hath been alleged and answered before.  
The first part of the Answer makes the question; the proof of the question. For the conclusion to be proved, being this; That a particular Congregation cannot exercise, in a right order, all Gods ordinances, and so excommunication, as not having received the power from the Lord Christ; The proof is this, They have not received this power; ergo, they have not received it. This is to crave and not to prove.  
To the second we have spoken at large. Thus much here shall suffice.  
1. If by Overseer be ment an Officer, it is a mere mistake; for that is, and hath been ever denied. If a Judge and brotherly helper of his reformation, it is such a government which the Word doth not onely allow: Tell Archippus, Beware of false Teachers; but its that which all combinations, both civill and ecclesiastic societies doth of necessity require.  
2. Is not a Pastor a member in the body, a Brother as well as a Father? and doth not, should not, one member take care, and a memberly oversight each of other? are we not therfore called Members each of other? Rom. 12.6. 1 Cor. 12.  
And is it strange to Master R. that a Son being in a combination or corporation with the Father, should be authorised to reject his aberations and offences according to the rule of Religion and reason. Is it not easy to conceive, and ordinary to find in experience, that Father and Son may be fellow Aldermen in a Corporation? and in case the Father be a Delinquent, and prove justly obnoxious to censure of the Court of Aldermen, may not, nay, should not a Son pass his vote in a just sentence against his own Father? though he do not this as a Son, yet being a Son, and being in the same Corporation, by virtue of that combination; he may, and according to the righteousness of the cause, he should proceed to censure the evil of his Father. A pattern of this government we have given in before, and therefore the third thing is answered.  
The third Argument which is taken from many absurdities, which follow from this cause, is made up of nothing but mistakes; some whereof are the very question in hand; some have been immediately handled in the foregoing reason, as the second and the fifth, which are one and the same with the former; and therefore they partly have before, and afterward shall receive an answer, together with the things of this nature    

Argument 4.  
That Doctrine is not to be holden which tendeth to the removing of a public ministry.  
" But this Doctrine of Independent Churches is such.  
The Assumption is proved, from the definition of a visible Church, which is this; It is an Assembly of true believers, joining together according to the order of the Gospel, in the true worship.  
" Whence this follows: That every twelve in a private family is this way joined.  

Reply is;  
Family-relation is one thing, and Church-relation is another; they stand by virtue of divers rules, civill Oëconomicks, and ecclesiastic politics; and therefore though there were never so many families, and that of those that exercise Christian duties together; yet this would not make them a Church.  
His second proof is, Because such a Church hath within itself the power of the keys, and is not subject to any superior ecclesiastical jurisdiction.  
The force of the proof will appear in the frame of it. " If an Independent Church hath the power of the keys, and is not subject to any other, then it tends to the removal of a public ministry.   

Reply.  
This proof is, in the reality of it, the same with the proposition to be proved: for to be an Independent Church, and to have full power of the exercise of all Ordinances, are all one.  
Secondly, the consequence hath no truth nor strength in it, for the quiter contrary follows.  Such an Independent Church can call and ordain Officers, and is bound so to do, before she can enjoy some Ordinances. 
For none can consecrate and give the Sacrament, but onely Pastors and Teachers, and therefore those she must provide, before she can partake: and this is the most easy and certain means to provide and so to continue a faithful ministry, according to Christs appointment, to the end of the world. For both Brightman and Ames and the Truth also will make it appear, That Christ never will want a Church of believers professing his faith unto the end of the world. Whereas Classes and Synods have totally failed, and come onely to be restored and recovered by the help of particular Congregations.  
His fifth Argument taken from Mat. 18.17. hath been answered before, whether I shall refer the Reader.      

The third Part.  

CHAP. I. Of the Government of the Church.  
THere were two things attended in Church-policy, v●z.  

First, the Constitution of the Church.  
Secondly, the Gubernation of it.   
We have done with the first, we are now to take the second into consideration.  
This Government is, when 

Severed, 

What the watch is which appertains to all.  
What the behaviour of all under it.    
assembled in 

Admission. 

What is to be done before they come.  
What when they are me● in Assembly, in receiving of such who are 

No Members, or  
Com-Members from other Congregations        
Dispensation of 

Sacraments,  
Censures.      
We have thus set forth the frame of the severals to be considered; we shall suddenly treat of the particulars, as they are presented in their order, attending them so far, as serves our intended purpose.  
The work which is of common concernment unto all the Members, when the Assembly is dissolved, is that WATCH which they stand engaged to express each to the other, for the good of the body so confederate, above or before all others.  
First, for though all Christians are bound by the rule of Christianity to love and provide for the good of all Christians. Their Honours, Lives, Chastities, Goods, good Names and prosperities, should be precious to us, and we careful to preserve them in a way of love: we know it was Cain's voice, and argued a Cains's heart, Am I my brother's keeper?  
Yet those have a nearer and deeper engagement, and beside the bond of Christianity, have the bond of Church-confederacy, which in a peculiar manner engageth the one to the other more then any other Christians in the world; so Peter presfeth, 1 Pet. 2.17. Paul concludes, Ephes. 4.16. By the effectual working of every part, &c. and it seems to be the care unto which the Israelites were enjoined, Josh. 6.18. And you in any wise keep yourselves: each man himself, and each man his brother; and this watch, neglected, involved all under the same guilt, Josh. 7.1. the children of Israel had committed a trespass: though Achan did it without their privity, yet they were guilty of the sin, in that they had not care to prevent it, by way of watchfulness each in other, and so in Achan, as they should.  
Secondly, as they have a deeper engagement then other, as Free-men of the same Corporation have a nearer tie then all the people of the same County: So they have special power one over another, and that by virtue of the Covenant; for by free and mutual consent, they who were free to join in any other Society, they willingly yielded themselves unto this, to walk one with another in all the Ordinances of Christ, and to be subject one unto another, to be proceeded judicially against, in case they should wrong that society: and hence the process that each hath against another according to the order of Christ, Matth. 18. If thy Brother offend, tell him, is indeed appropriate and peculiarly intended to Church-corporation. For that Church that can judicially censure and cast out an offender by excommunication, that hath power judicially to proceed against him in all the other degrees which may make my thereunto, as To tell him privately; and then Take one or two; we may admonish others Christianly; but we can lay an action and pursue, such as be in combination, judicially onely.  
Hence, if I tell another Christian of his fault, if he refuse to hear, I am not necessary bound to follow this law against him; and if I do take one or two to fasten his conviction, if he should refuse, I must leave him. But against Brethren we have express law, by which I am bound to pursue their conviction, and they are bound, and will be necessitated to attend, and either come unto a reformation, or else suffer a just censure for their obstinacy.  
Hence lastly, by virtue of that engagement by which I am tied, and the power I have received, I stand charged in a most peculiar manner, to prevent alt taint of sin in any Member of the Society, that either it may never be committed; or if committed, it may speedily be removed, and the spiritual good of the whole preserved: 1 Cor. 5. Purge out the leaven, that ye may be a pure lump; not that each particular person onely may keep himself pure, but that the whole may be so preserved: and this kind of watch reacheth any, and this kind of process is good against any of the Members: Every Brother; and therefore Archippus and any Elder, if he be a Brother, he is liable hereunto. This is the watch which we must express towards such as be within.  
For the perfecting and increase of the body, we must attend such as are to be brought in; for this being a spiritual Corporation: as none can be constrained to join to it, unless they willingly subject; so neither can they join, unless the body do as freely and willingly entertain them.  
It is not dwelling in the same City, Parish or Place, not the being a subject in the same Kingdom, that doth interest any in this privilege: and as the Church can compel none against their wils to join, so the civill Magistrate should not use any compulsive power, or by violent constraint, force the Church to receive, or any to join to the Church against their wils.  
The civill power may compel them to come under the call of God, and attend the Ordinances, and force them to use means of information and conviction; that so the Lord Christ may make them glad to seek him in the ways of his appointment, and more glad to find him therein: But the civill Magistrate is to leave the Church to follow the rule of Christ in her Admissions; for it is a Church-work to be acted by the rule of Church-policy, and therefore should be left to the power of the Church, not constrained by civill power: Christ's people are a willing people; faith is not forced.  
In the ADMISSIONS, two things are to be attended; First, what is to be done before they come; Secondly, what there, when they are come into the Assembly.  
First, Before the Assembly, that the proceeding may be carried on comely and orderly, the person that desires to join himself Member with the Church, he is to make his desire known to the Ruling Elder or Elders; for it's peculiar to his Office to led the action of Admission, it being a work that fals not within the compass of labouring in the Word and Doctrine.  
1. The desire of the party made known, he is then to inquire diligently, and carefully to inform himself, touching the uprightness of the persons carriage and conversation from the testimony of others, who know him intimately, and will in reason deal nakedly and sincerely therein.  
2. He must take notice by way of conference, what his knowledge and acquaintance is with the things of Christ and his Kingdom: the reason why he should thus inform himself, is this, Because hereby the party may discover, and he may discern, whether he be a visible Saint to the judgement of reasonable charity, which we have formerly proved to be attended necessary according to the rules of Christ, and the right constitution of his Churches.  
And Master R. his own grounds and grants will infer as much, by force of dispute; for if they who are to be admitted must be voided of scandal in their course, and freed also from gross ignorance, which in some cases, by Master R. his own confession will unchurch them: there must then be serious enquiry made, whether the persons who tender themselves to enter into this condition, be so qualified.  
The profession which Master R. requires, is of that quality, That it notifies to the Church, that there is saving faith in the hearts of such, and that they be invisible Saints, who desire to join themselves to a visible Congregation, l. 2. p. 196.  
Therefore the Church is bound in an orderly way to inform her self touching such fitness, least she break the rules of Christ, and bring pollution and so ruin upon the whole.  
After the Elder hath informed himself in the particulars formerly mentioned, he then sees way and warrant to propound the desires of such to the Church, that they also may use their best information by their own experience, and take in the consideration of others, to be fully informed and satisfi●d, touching the unblamablenesse of their conversation.  
And as for that, that the members should at several times, by several companies; repair in private to them, to examine the work& manner of their conversion, I am afraid it is a presumed kind of liberty, which wants precept and example, for any thing that ever appeared to me in the Scripture. Beside, that liberty is as much as the office and duty of the Elder bind●s him unto, and therefore seems to entrench too near upon the propriety of his place. Beside, all such pains misseth the end and fruit of it; for the stress of the trial lies not there, nor can the last resolution of judicious and reasonable charity issue there, whether the person be a visible Saint or no: for there be many truly and savingly called, who never knew the time and manner of their conversion, and therefore cannot relate it unto others, and yet express the power of grace in their lives, and consequently had it effectually wrought in their hearts, though they did not at the first know how the spirit breathed in their birth.  
Time of enquiry being thus granted, if upon serious observation& consideration, the Brethren find any just exception, as touching any scandal in their carriage, and after dealing with them, they can receive no reality of satisfaction, they repair to the Elder, leave their complaint with him, and that is sufficient to stay the proceeding for the present.  
But if upon sufficient time of information, there appears nothing scandalous, the person doth shortly give some reason of his hope in the face of the Congregation,& is admitted, engaging himself to walk with them in the Covenant of the Church, according to all the rules of the Gospel, that either are or shall be made known to them.  
If it be here inquired, What is the rule according to which satisfaction is to be regulated, the Reader may be pleased to look back unto that which was largely debated, touching the visibility of the Saints, what it was which evidenced them to rational charity. In a word, if a person live not in the commissions of any known sin, nor in the neglect of any known duty, and can give a reason of his hope towards God, this casts the cause, with judicious charity, to hope and believe there is something of God and grace in the soul, and therefore fit for Church-society.  
And that thus much is required, hath been demonstrated from Master R. his own principles; and that thus much is required is undeniable by the rules of right reason: for he that lives in known omissions of duty, or commission of sin, he professeth himself by that practise, not willing to submit to the rules of Christ, and therefore not fit to be his subject, or to enjoy the privilege of his kingdom, which reveals the authority of his sceptre: Nay, by such a practise he professeth to persist, and to be pertinacious in sin, and therefore in case he was in the Church, he was fit to be cast out and censured, not worthy, then, to be received.  
This rule being received and agreed upon, it would mervailously facilitate the work of Admission, without any trouble, and prevent such curious inquisitions and niceties, which the pride and wantonness of mens spirits hath brought into the Church, to disturb the peace thereof, and to prejudice the progress of God's Ordinances.  
Hence also those sottish pangs would presently be calmed, when persons complain they cannot join with such and such, and yet cannot show a just exception: he that joins with the rule in his practise, he who hath but a teachable and meek self-denying heart, he will easily join with him. This is the manner of receiving men.  
Quest. What difference is there in receiving▪ Women,( you will say) whether any, or none at all?  
Answ. It's true, women are forbidden to speak in the Church,( i.e.) by way of Teaching; but they may so speak, when their speeches argue subjection, and so svit with their sexes; as to give in testimony of repentance, in case they were consured, and came to be restored again, so to answer a question propounded to them; yet because we find it by experience, the feebleness of some, their shamefac't modesty and melanchollick fearfulness is such, that they are not able to express themselves in the face of a Congregation, and yet have the precious work of saving grace in their hearts, we are forced to take the expressions of such in private, and make report of them to the Congregation: and since this was necessary for some, and warrantable for all, it's most without exception to receive all after the same manner, that so the infirmities of the weakest may be relieved, and the seeming exceptions of others also may be prevented.  
The last Question belonging to the head of Admission, is this:  
Whether those that are dismissed from other Congregations, must necessary make their confession afresh? or whether recommendations be sufficient?  
I answer by the DIRECTIONS following:  
First, the testimony of any Church of Christ, ought to be valued according to the worth of it, and received with all the due respect that is due to the Spouse of Christ; and therefore if by the testimony of two or three Witnesses, every word comes to be established, much more when any report or relation comes from so many in such a relation, we should sit down satisfied with the truth thereof, as with out the least suspicion, as that the thing is sufficiently certified; and therefore Paul makes it the highest evidence of testimony that can be given, 2 Cor. 8.18. The Brother whose praise is through all the Churches.  
Secondly, yet because the Churches may decline in regard of their practise, and walk at a greater breadth of liberty, either in respect of their actions, or of their opinions, then others can, and they indeed should; and because when they have used all the care and watchfulness they can, to search into the walks and ways of their Members, yet others that meet with them in their daily and occasional converse, may happily see more and discern more then they can. Each Church hath her liberty to follow the light of the Word, and the rule thereof, which will not err, nor can deceive; rather then to sit down merely with the allowance of men, but use their own search and care: and if upon enquiry and observation, either they shall appear scandalous in their lives, or erroneous in their judgments and opinions, and those dangerous and infectious; it is then left in the power of the Church, to require humiliation answerable to the offences, and to exact a profession and confession of the truth, and an open renunciation of such errors before they be received, because the care both for the reformation of the party, and the preservation of the Church in purity of life& doctrine is hereby attained: So Paul advised against those ravening wolves Acts 20.30. and the Disciples were mervailously cautious to meddle with Paul after his conversion, before they were fully satisfied by some testimony, whereby their fears might be quieted, Act. 9.26. and not only in these cases, but in any other, the Churches have liberty to seek satisfaction that may svit their hearts according to rule, as requiring some report of the work of God in them, and the frame of their spirits towards him.   

CHAP. II. Of the dispensation of the Sacraments.  
WE have done with Admission; we are now with the same brevity to inquire touching the DISPENSATION OF THE SACRAMENTS, which are the Brand of God's sheep, the Livery of his houshold-servant: for amongst many other ends of the Sacraments, this is one, that it's a brand-mark, and a separating note of the sheep of God's fold and such as are without.  
It's constantly to be observed in the Scriptures, how God's people have been judged to be privileged by these seals, and how they rejoiced in them, as peculiarly appropriated to them: He hath not dealt so with any Nation, so Rom. 3.1, 2. What is the privilege of the Jew? much every way. And these are of the chiefest of them. Nay, the Lord expressly forbade any stranger to meddle with the Passeover, Exod. 12.48. And how frequently is the Jew known by Circumcision? as though the privilege came to be their proper name, Ephes. 2.11, 12. and therefore the Gentiles are called uncircumcision by them who were called circumcision. O●r purpose is not to handle either the number or nature of these Sacraments, because that belongs to the head of Doctrine; but we look at them, as they come within the compass of Church policy, and how they come to be dispensed according to the order of Christ: And not to go beyond these bounds, we shall inquire of TWO things in the dispensation of the Sacraments, viz.  
The 

Parties who are interested in that work: both those who have right to 

Give,  
Receive.    
Manner 

Common to both, 

public in Assembly,  
With the Word.    
Peculiar to each 

baptism, 

One Element,  
Once administered.    
Supper administered. 

Frequently,  
By distinct blessings, as there be distinct Elements.          
First, for them who have right to administer the Sacraments; and these are called thereunto by God's command, the allowance and designation of the Church, viz. Pastors and Teachers onely; none else, as formerly we have proved: Commission is given to them authoritatively to preach the Covenant, and therefore by the same authority to dispense the seals of the Covenant.  
It is a frenzy of the Anabaptists, which begins to labour with the loathsomeness of itself, That any Christian gifted, who can teach or administer a word of instruction to win a disciple after him, that he in a corner may baptize him also whom he hath won to his opinion: But as Paul said of Jannes and Jambres, Their, madness is made to appear to all, who are not willing to shut their eyes against the Sun, when it shines in its beauty.  
For if the Lord Christ in his infinite wisdom& kingly care, conceived it necessary for the honour of the place,& the execution of the work of a Deacon, 
Acts 6.  to appoint choice men and solemn Ordination to authorize them to the work, that they being called and fitted to the work, might be accepted therein of the people, and blessed by him, who did appoint them to that employment. In reason, what greater need is there, that persons who are peculiarly gifted and furnished with grace and ability, should be called to this work of preaching, and dispensing these holy Mysteries; a service above all other of greatest weight and worth.  
Secondly, add hereunto, that the Apostle as by a flaming sword, doth stop the way to all pretenders, and therefore lays in this prohibition, No man taketh this honour to himself, but he that is called of God, as Aaron. He must have a special call from God, who must dare to meddle with a service which is of such peculiar eminence in the house of God; yea, the Lord himself doth appropriate this, and that unto some persons whom he puts into place: He gave some to be Pastors and Teachers, Eph. 4.11. Are all Apostles? are all Governours? are all Teachers? &c. 1 Cor. 12.29. This would bring confusion, and so destruction to the whole.  
These are the persons who have received right from Christ to administer; we are now to inquire,  
Quest. 2. Who be the parties who have right by rule and allowance from Christ to receive?  
And here it's agreed of all hands; Such who are come to ripeness of yeers, and are rightly received, and so stand members in the true visible Church of Christ; such, I say, have title to all the seals of the Covenant: being to the judgement of charity, not only really within the Covenant of Grace; but truly also within the compass of the Covenant of the Church: We will not therefore trouble ourselves to prove that which hath approbation of all.  
But rather trade in that which is attended with the greatest difficulty, and finds strong opposition, according to the strength of mens affections and apprehensions, who are engaged either way: There is then a two-fold-question, which exerciseth the hearts, thoughts and pens of the most judicious at this day.  
First, betwixt us and the Anabaptists, who willingly admit all Members of the true Church to both the seals, but the Infants of all those Members, they wholly exclude from partaking of baptism, until they come to yeers of discretion, when they make actual profession of their faith, then they may actually share in the Sacrament.  
Secondly, betwixt us and Master Ruterford; for we conceiving, that confederating makes persons members of visible Churches; those who are not confederate we conceive no members of a visible Church: and therefore in that condition, they have no right, nor in a right order can challenge the benefits or privileges of Members, nor can any officer in a right order dispense them unto such: Should an Officer by any power of his Office, attempt to exercise any authority, and therefore to enjoin such a person, Non-member, to come, to hear, to receive, he may justly refuse the command, and he cannot proceed against him, if he should refuse: Nay, did he persist obstinately to reject his authority, he could not convent him before the Assembly and cast him out of the body, who was never in the body: And if an Officer have no authority to require him to receive the seal, no more hath he power to require the Officer to give the seal.  
The Questions then which offer themselves to our consideration in this place, are these two principally.  
First, Whether Infants of such who are Members of the Congregation may be baptized? and this we affirm against the Anabaptists, and refer the Reader to the Treatises penned by judicious Writers to this purpose.  
Secondly, Which is of greatest difficulty, and therefore requires most serious search and consideration is,  
Whether the Infants of Non-confederates, who refuse to be Members of the Church, should be partakers of baptism, which is one of the special privileges of the Church?  
First, we shall set down the state of the Question, least we should miss the right understanding of the cause by some mistakes. Secondly, we will lay down some Conclusions, which may led the Reader by the hand, to look unto the grounds which yet keep us in this apprehension. Lastly, we shall answer the arguments which are made to the contrary.  
To find the right basis to bottom the Question, we must know, that we now dispute not about the wickedness of men, while they remain Members of the Congregations, as though that could prejudice their privilege, while they remain in that state and relation.  
True, this wickedness justly deserves they should be proceeded against, either to be reformed or removed: but if the Church either through connivance, negligence or indulgence, shall tolerate sinfully such evils and evil persons in that estate of Membership, they cannot then deny them the privilege of Members; So that while the Prophets prophesied lies, and the Priests ruled by their means, and the people would have it so, and grew corrupt while they were members( though corrupt members) they did share in the Passeover, and their children were made partakers of Circumcision: So those of Sardis, of whom the spirit speaks expressly, they were dead, though they had a name to live; as long as the Church, through her carelessness, kept them in her bosom, it's certain their children might and did partake of Baptism, as one of the Church privileges.  
It's not then the Question, Whether wicked Members, while they are tolerated sinfully in the Church, they and their children may partake of the privileges? for this is beyond question; nor do I know, nor yet ever heard it denied by any of ours; and therefore all the Arguments alleged by Master R. lib. 1. cap. 12. are all granted without any loss to our, either opinion or practise.  
The pinch then of the Questlon lies here, Whether persons non confederate, and so( in our sense not Members of the Church) do entitle their children to the seal of baptism, being one of the privileges of the Church, their Parents( though godly) being yet unwilling to come into Church-fellowship.  
Lubricus hic locus& difficilis; and that I may shrive my heart to the Reader and Master R. I shall nakedly profess, that if I should have given way to my affection, or followed that which suits my secret desire and inclination, I could have willingly wished, that the scale might have been cast upon the affirmative part, and that such persons( many whereof we hope are godly) might enjoy all such privileges, which might be useful and helpful to them and theirs.  
But after all the stones I have turned, and the thoughts that I have spent in this kind, there be some reasons which yet arrest my understanding, and causeth me yet to make a defence for this cause, and the main pillar principle which fortifies the judgement against all approaching assaults, is the nature and truth of Church-Covenant, in which I must profess freely I am yet more confirmed, as I have been constrained to take it into more serious consideration; and the best of all those Arguments that men( of such eminency, and worth, and learning, that my heart doth highly reverence, according to their righteous desert) have raised to make a breach upon that part of the Discipline, which like bra●●s in the building, binds all the parts together, have rather strengthened then stirred my judgement.  
Let me here again crave leave to propound such thoughts as I have without offence, that I may( cotis vicem supplere, and) occasion such whom God hath furnished with greater light, to clear this cause and cost more fully then ever yet I had happiness to see, to the satisfaction of my judgement: and we do here in the estating of these privileges, as Lawyers use to do in the settling of Inheritances, inquire where the first right lies, and how it comes lineally and lawfully to be derived and established upon such and such parties; and this we shall do by inquiring the pedigree in the conveyance of this privilege in the following conclusions.  

Conclusion I.  
Children as Children have not right unto baptism, for then all children of all Nations, sects and sorts of men should be made partakers of it: the rule is received, and admits no gainsaying, a quatenus ad omne. That which belongs to this, because it's this belongs to all of this kind.  
But that all Children of all Nations, Turks, Pagans, &c. should be admitted unto the privilege, is absurd: Quosvis Infantes ad Baptismum admitti in toto vetere ecclesiâ in auditum esse, &c. Beza in cap. 7. primae ad Corinth. v. 14. and this Master R. grants.   

Conclusion II.  
It belongs not to any Predecessors, either nearer or further off removed from the next Parents, {αβγδ} and firstly, to give right of this privilege to their Children; when I say Predecessors nearer or further off, I include and comprehend all, beside the next parent, Grand-father, great Grand father and so ascend never so far into so many Generations going before; and of all these I affirm, it doth not belong to any of them, {αβγδ} or firstly; this last word expounds the former: That which belongs firstly to a thing, it belongs to all other because of that; to have a faculty of speech, belongs to the nature of man firstly, therefore it belongs to this or that man, Thomas, John, Abraham, so far as they have the nature of man in them: nor can any have this faculty, unless they have this nature. I need not study this plainness, but onely that now I am to speak of a common point; and that of common, and yet great concernment to the meanest, and therefore it's needful to speak to the common capacity of such.  
The conclusion thus expressed, is thus proved.  
First, That which belongs firstly to any Predecessors nearer or further off, {αβγδ} that belongs to all other by right received from them, because it lay first there: the evidence of the terms and former explication gives in full evidence of this: but the next Parents can give the privilege and title to baptism without any help of the Predecessors: As suppose they were all dead, or all without any knowledge or remembrance, were apostates from the Gospel, or opposers of it; yet the next Parents fearing God, and confederating in the Covenant of the Gospel, they do and can give right to their Children to share in this privilege, without any help from Predecessors. Therefore the right is not firstly in them, nor is firstly conveyed by them.  
Secondly, That which belongs {αβγδ} and firstly to the Predecessors, that they can do without the next Parents: otherwise they should not as soon have their hand in the conveyance of this right, as those to whom it did firstly appertain, and so it should not belong to them firstly.  
But the Predecessors cannot convey this right without the next Parents: for it's that paterna potestas which belongs to them, to dispose of their own. If they will depart and go from under all Church-power, and depart into places where there be no Churches: Or lastly, if both the next Parents were apostates, it's not in the power of all former Predecessors to bring the child to the enjoyment of this privilege: so that if the next Parents be causa adaequata of entituling their Children to such spiritual advantages, then it belongs to them alone firstly.  
But so they are: It's in their power, though all other Predecessors should oppose, to give right; it's in their power, though all other Predecessors should endeavour it, yet to hinder and deprive their Children of the right; for their apostasy takes off the federal holinesse of the Children, 1 Cor. 7.14.  
Hence it is( I cannot conceive but it is) a misapprehension and misapplication of that place, Exod. 20. because God hath promised, that he will show mercy to a thousand generations of them that love him, and keep his Commandements; that therefore the Predecessors, though far removed, can entitle Children unto baptism, though their next Parents be such, who never love God, nor keep his Commandements; nay, be happily apostates and excommunicates.  
We will weigh a little the sense of the words, and the strength of the inference that is made therefrom, so far as it concerns our cause in hand.  
The current of Orthodox Interpreters carry the meaning of the Text this way; The Lord in the threatening and promise discovers the jealousy of his heart towards such as be professed worshippers of him: namely.  
He is so tender of his honour in this case, which so nearly concerns him, as the conjugal affection of Matrimonial faithfulness doth the husband from the behaviour of his wife and Spouse, that out of jealousy he is ready and resolved to punish all falseness, and to reward faithfulness in that behalf.  
Secondly, in the expression of his jealousy, he is more sparing and unwilling to execute his anger against such, who offend in the breach of his worship: but more enlarged in the discovery of his love and goodness to such, who shall maintain conjugal fidelity towards him therein; and therefore the certain numbers of the third and fourth, and thousands of Generations are here put for the large and uncertain extent of his displeasure to the one, and his kindness to the other; and therefore,  
Thirdly, The Lord doth not tie himself strictly to a partilar law or allowance in this case, but walks in a breadth, as it best beseems his wisdom and good pleasure; and hence he doth exempt some in the third or fourth Generation from his threatening and punishment, 
Gen. 25.23.  and doth also with-hold the expressions of his love from others in the thousand mentioned.  
Fourthly, the threatening, and so inflicting of the punishment, 
Ezek. 18.9, 13  it is ever in his order and manner; namely, those who imitate the sin of their idolatrous Parents, those may expect, and shall certainly suffer their plagues: they who imitate the love and obedience of their faithful Parents, 
1 Sam. 3.27, 30.  they may be assured they shall receive the mercies promised to their Parents in the footsteps of whose faith they persist.  
Lastly, the mercy here promised is not so to be conceived as though all the particular blessings or privileges that the Parents were possessed of, shall in the severals be communicated to their Children; for we know it contrary by experience: The Israelites wanted Circumcision by the space of forty yeers in the wilderness; and in the time of the Judges, 
Judges 5.8.  and the seventy yeers Captivity, the Israelites were destitute of several privileges, which they were made partakers of when they enjoyed peace and prosperity in the dayes of David and Solomon. Mercy here is that saving mercy, which God never fails to bestow on his Elect, grace here, and glory hereafter, reserving a variety of dispensations, in regard of divers privileges or benefits, as seems best to the counsel of his own will.  
This being the received meaning of the words, by the common consent of judicious Interpreters, Calvin, Zanchy, Junius, Perkins, in secundum praeceptum. What inference can hence be made for the conveyance of the right of baptism from remote Parents to Children, I must confess I cannot conceive: For the Generations the Lord promiseth to show mercy unto must be such who imitate their godly Parents, by loving and obeying his Commandements, and especially that of the truth of his worship: and how doth this agree to Infants, who are not yet capable, being not come to yeers to put forth such acts?  
2. Upon this grant, and the making of this ground good, ubi standum, where there will be a stop or stay made, I cannot see: for if a thousand Generations more or less have interest in baptism by virtue of their fore-fathers, who were faithful within that compass then the children of Turks or Jews cannot be excluded this privilege and ordinance: some of their Predecessors are comprehended, without all question, within the bounds of a thousand Generations there mentioned, and yet all those Infants are excluded by their own confession, and by the peremptory and plain affirmation of the Apostle, Rom. 11.17. through unbelief the natural boughs were cut off from Church and Church privileges.  
3. Take a new convert soundly brought home to Christ, yet through his weakness, not able to discern the Lord's Body aright; would this be a good dispute?  
If God show mercy to a thousand Generations, then this man, who had some godly Predecessors, he may be admitted to partake of the Lords Supper: and if this be a weak collection, as each man will yield at the first sight, then the inference of baptism upon the like ground, must have the like feebleness in it: Nay, why an excommunicate may not upon this ground pled the partaking of the Sacrament, professing the true faith, but onely censured for such a practise; especially, conceive him to be within God's election, I cannot see. God shows mercy, and so the privilege of a Sacrament, to such who had godly Predecessors within the compass of a thousand generations: but I had godly Predecessors within that compass, therefore I have title to that mercy, and so to the privilege of the Sacrament: this conclusion all men reject, and therefore they must also refuse the former collection.   

Conclusion III.  
The next Parent being causa adaequata of conveying or withholding the right of baptism to their Children; hence it follows inevitably, That Children may either be deprived or possessed of privileges, by means of the sinfulness or holinesse of their Parents, and that in a way of God's most righteous proceeding; I say most righteous, because the parity and proportion is most exact on both hands.  
The faithful covenant of the Parents doth as fully entitle them, and so advantage them in the privileges thereof; 
Deut. 29.11.  as the careless rejecting of the Covenant doth disadvantage and debar them from the enjoying of the fruit and benefit of such special means. 
Gen. 17.10.   
And since it is confessed of all hands, and is most apparent in that Text, that temporal benefits are dispensed and continued unto undeserving children, for the faith and piety of their godly Parents; as unto ishmael for Abraham's, Esau for Jacob's sake, Gen. 16.11.& 21.13. and so frequently we have it recorded and repeated, Yet for my servant David's sake I will do so and so.  
It need not seem strange, nor can it to any seriously considerate, that temporal punishments are laid upon their Children to correct the sin of their wicked Parents: A man's Children are his Goods, Job 1. and it is not ordinary, that a person should be punished in his estate, by reason of his transgression, without the least appearance of any prejudice to justice?   

Conclusion IIII.  
Hence Parents must first have right themselves, before they can convey it unto theirs; and they can deprive them of no more then they can give them.  
There be two branches of the Conclusion.  
First, a Parent must have a right before he can give it: A man must stand possessed of an interest in a title to a privilege before he can make over that unto another; otherwise he should give that he hath not, and the claim of the other is void, and his expectation will wholly fail him, because his challenge of his interest is from one that had none, and therefore he can receive none from him: a non habente potestatem, acts are frustrate, says the Lawyer.  
And this is the order of God's proceeding with his people, 
Deut. 29 9, 10  and that according to the rules of infinite wisdom and justice: 
1 Cor. 7.14. Rom. 11.17.  the Parent enters into Covenant for himself and his seed, so that Children are within the Covenant, because they came from Parents within the Covenant; in which they were included, and so received also by God.  
And upon this ground its certain, That an excommunicate Parent cannot entitle any of his children to a Sacrament.  
That right he hath not, he cannot give, ex concessis.  
But he hath no right or title to any Sacrament; for by the consent of all, he is cast out from any such communion: and therefore it's certain he cannot convey that right to his children.  
Being thus a little helped, by these conclusions premised and proved, to see where the right firstly lies, and whereby children come to be entitled to the privileges; and how it comes, according to the rules and laws of Christ, to be conveyed.  
Let us now inquire what force those Arguments have, which are alleged to the contrary. All the Reasons brought by Master R. in his first book, do not at all reach the Question in hand, as it hath appeared in the stating of it; and therefore they are all granted without any gain to him, or loss to us.  
Others which are alleged to this end, I find in two places, lib. 2. p. 186.& p. 262.  
In the former place we have these allegations.  
We hold, that those who are not members of a particular Congregation, may lawfully be admitted to the Seals of the Covenant; first, because those to whom the promises are made, and profess the Covenant, these should be baptized: but men of approved piety are such, though they be not members of a particular Parish. The Proposition is Peters argument, Acts 2.38.  
Answ. The Proposition is denied, because there is more to fit for the receiving of the Seals, then to profess the Covenant, and to have the promise of grace made to men.  
We find Master R. confessing, That an excommunicate for some notorious facts, or for pertinacy in some practical evil, may yet profess all the truth of the Gospel; nay, may be truly gracious, and therefore hath all the promises in that kind appertaining to him, and yet have no title to a Sacrament, by his own confession, l. 2. p. 232.  
The place of the Acts gives no confirmation, because, first, these were Jews and proselytes, who were in visible Church-state: And secondly, it's to be observed, that though that Church-state gave ground of their Baptizing, yet by the Apostle his dispute, they must come at this Ordinance, according to Christ his method and manner: So that unless they had taken this way, they had not followed the direction of the Apostle, nor would he in reason have admitted them to the partaking of that Ordinance; and therefore John the Bap●ist did constantly exact this, at the hands of such as came to him; and upon no other terms received they it from him, Repent and be Baptized.  
Secondly,  
Those who are not members of a particular Church, may be visible Professors, and so members of the visible Church; therefore the seals of the Covenant belongeth unto them.  
The frame at full stands thus:  
Those who are members of the visible Church in general, to them the seals of the covenant belongs.  
But all visible Professors, though not members of a particular Congregation, are members of the visible Church in general.  
Answer.  
Both parts of the Reason fail, for there are no such members of the visible Church in general: Secondly, those whom Master R. conceives such, to many of them the seals of the covenant do not belong, by his confession, as to excommunicates: and I may add also; according to his opinion, scandalous persons, who by his grant, are not to be entertained as members with any particular Congregation, and therefore not into communion with them, l. 2. p. 25.  
The Assump●ion also is to be denied: for it would bring in a new devised kind of membership, which neither the rule of reason, nor the constitution of a visible Church will admit; to wit, to be a member of the visible Church in general, a●d yet be no member of any particular Congregation: for,  
First, take all particular Congregations in their full enumeration and induction, they are all the members whereof the visible catholic Church is made up, as an Integrum of all his parts.  
Those who are not members of any particular Congregations, come not within the rank, nor can be referred to any kind of members of a visible Church: But all the members that constitute the visible, are therein contained. And it is all one, as if a man should say, there be two parts or members that make up an entire man, and yet there may be a member of a man which is neither comprehended, nor can be referred to either of these, which is in truth to speak daggers.  
Again, it is a fundamental rule of reason, that the general nature of any thing hath its existing, and so its working in the particulars; the whole nature of manhood or humanity, it exists and works in the particulars and individuals of John, Thomas, Richard, Jeremy, that are now in being upon the face of the earth; and therefore to affirm, there should be any part of manhood or humanity yet not existing in the particulars, is to forge a thing in a man's fancy without any reality at all: To be a member of the visible Church in the general, and yet to have no particular existence of membership in any particular Congregation, is a mere conceit, which comes out of the same mint, cross to the principles of reason.  
Lastly, it is a conclusion unto which Master R. hath given his full consent, That known scandals are ground sufficient to exclude a person otherwise professing the Covenant, from being a visible member of a Church( lib. 2.243, 251.) and so by parity of reason exclude him from being a member of any the visible Churches on earth.  
He that is justly excluded the membership, and so the fellowship of all the particular Congregations on earth, he is justly excluded from partaking of any privileges by their means.  
But a person may be a visible Professor, and yet be excluded from Membership, and so fellowship with all the visible Churches on earth, ex concessis, and therefore he may have such a profession, and be excluded justly from all privileges which may come by their means.  
3." The contrary opinion hath no warrant in God's word.  
Answ. This is nakedly and rawly affirmed, and is as readily denied, and shall be made good afterward.  
4. The Apostles required no more of those whom they baptized, but profession of belief, as Acts 10.47. Can any man forbid water, that those should be baptized, who have received the holy Ghost as well as we? Acts 8.37. If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest be baptized: No more is sought for of the Jaylor, Acts 16.31, 34.  
Answ. The consequence deserves a denial; that because there is no more expressed then profession in these places, therefore no more is required in other places: for Peter doth plainly require more, Acts 2.38. Repent and be baptized: The Baptist did constantly call for more, from all, to whom he administered that Ordinance; and the general commission in the open terms of it calls for more: Make Disciples, and then baptize; and this making Disciples being understood in the full breadth, which is not to believe onely, as they did( John 12.42.) as thereby approving of the Doctrine of our Saviour, but did not confess him, or show themselves his Disciples; and therefore those are put by way of explication, John 9.28. Be thou his Disciple, but we are Moses his Disciples: Yea, those that magnified the Doctrine and profession of the Apostles, yet durst not join themselves to them. If then this joining, this being made a Disciple, so as the Jews were to Moses, be added to an open profession, it then will imply, both their subjection to the Doctrine and fellowship of the Apostles, and their acceptation of them, and then it amounts to as much as we require, or Church-confederation calls for.  
O●her Arguments I find in lib. 2.262:  
If the Infants of the Christian Church have right onely to Baptism through the faith of the nearest Parents onely, then is this to be conceived, either to be true and saving faith in the nearest Parents, or onely faith in profession.  
Answ. We grant the first member, it is not the saving faith of the next Parents. Let us hear how Master R. makes good the second, p. 262.  
If the faith of nearest Parents, onely true in profession and show before men, give right to their Infants to be sealed with the seal● of the Covenant, then( first) apparent and hypocritical faith conferreth true right to the Seals unto Infants, and there is not required, as the Author saith, chap. 3. That the Members b● the called of God, the sons and daughters of the Lord God Almighty, not onely in external profession, but also in some sincerity and truth.  
Answ. The Qualification of such who come unto the Sacrament, is to be attended in a double respect: first, as they stand in relation to God, and the worthy partaking of the Ordinance, and then God requires, and also the Ordinance calls for inward truth. Secondly, as they stand in reference and relation to the Church, and their outward dispensation of them, and then that profession which intimates sincerity, so far as the judgement of rational charity shall require, is sufficient, because the Church can judge the three( onely) by the fruits.  
Obj. 2. God, upon this grant, hath warranted his Church to put his seal upon a falsehood, and to confer the seals upon Infants, for the external profession of faith, where there is no faith at all: This the Writers think inconvenient and absurd.  
Answ. The consequence is denied, as not having a colour of truth: for the Church doth warrantably give the Seals to such, who do unworthily receive them; the Church judging things according to rules of Charity: She knows not who are hypocrites, but is bound to judge otherwise, if they appear otherwise; and therefore the Church in dispensing the Ordinances, and the alme and work of the Ordinances( according to their nature) is to seal up the truth of the Covenant. If unworthy Receivers deal falsely with God and his Ordinances, abuse them, and pervert their work, and partake unworthily of the seal of baptism;( as many eat and drink their own damnation in abusing Christ's Body and Blood) their fin and guilt lies upon their own head; God and the Church are free from both: And this none of ours, nor Mr. R. his Writers once gainsay; only Papists and Familists cast in such cavils: and yet those, I mean of the Familists, who have not forsaken the reason of men, nor laid aside the forehead of modesty, are forced to yield as much in their own way; for no man thinks, unless he desires wilfully to blind and delude himself, that when all Jerusalem, Judea, and all the coasts about Jordan, came to be baptized of John, that all these had the reality of faith in their hearts. This is clear according to our principles.  
But how Master R. will quit his hands of this Objection, according to the rules of his proceeding, I confess I cannot tell: for when he affirmeth, lib. 2. p. 260. That we are not to cast any out for non-regeneration, even known. If not cast out non-regenerates, then give them the seals; and then the Church gives such the seals whom she knows, out of reason and charity, have no title; and she is guilty of sealing a falsehood.  
Obj. 3. Upon this ground it follows, that Excommunicates children are in no better case by this Doctrine, then the children of Turks and Infidels.  
Sol. If in some particulars, Excommunicates are equal with Turks& Infidels, let him he as a heathen, it's no wonder; nor yet cross to any reason, that in such particulars their children also should share with them; those inconveniences coming by the breach of Covenant, when the keeping of it would have procured the contrary comforts& privileges. Look at the particular enjoyment of the privileges, they are so far alike, have like title thereunto: though the advantages of the one be far greater thē the other in many regards. As should a man reason thus; If he that is a member of a Church, and yet not able to examine himself, hath no right to partake of the seals of the Supper,( as the express word of Text testifies) then such in this particular are no better then Turks. The Answer would be easy, in point of Non-right they are alike, that is equally affirmed of both: but in other privileges and advantages which look that way, they are far differing one from the other.  
These are all the reasons I find, here and there, in Master R. which fully reach the cause.  
We shall now, beside the grounds formerly given for explication, and which served mainly for the cleared and settling of this truth, offer some Reasons to the consideration of the Reader, and so leave this so difficult a head of Discipline.  
First, its confessed on all hands, that baptism is a previledge of the Church either catholic or particular, and therefore" not to be found nor enjoyed but in the Church, as Master R. lib. 1. p. 175. and therefore as Circumcision of old was counted the livery of God's household-servants, and brand of the sheep of his flock, to difference and distinguish them who were Aliens from the common-wealth of Israel, Eph. 2.12. so is baptism now in the time of the Gospel.  
Secondly, it hath been proved in the conclusions foregoing, that onely the next Parent can convey this privilege: upon which premises partly agreed, partly proved, the Argument issues thus:  

Argument I.  
They who have no right to baptism, they ought not to receive it: But children of Non-confederates have no right; which is thus evidenced: All the right which such have, is from the next Parents, as in the third conclusion; but the next Parents non-confederate can give no right; for that right which they have not, they cannot give: but non-confederates are non-members of the Church, and the seals are a Church privilege: and hence they having no right to Church privileges, therefore cannot give them. Or more briefly thus;  
Non-members of the Church have no right to the privileges of the Church, and so can give none.  
But non-confederats Parents, are non-members.  
The second part of the reason, where all the difficulty lies, hath been formerely evinced, when we disputed of the form of a Church, and that which gave formality to the members thereof, whether we refer the Reader, to what hath been maintained as the truth of God, That confederation gives formality to a Church.  
And if Mr. R. can prove that visible Profession doth make a member of the Church visible, when a man is no member of a particular Church, or that profession doth make a man member of all the particular Congregations on earth, I will freely yield up this cause to him.   

Argument II.  
If those children who were externally in Covenant, were only to be circumcised, Then those who are externally in Covenant in the Christian Church are to be baptized.  
But these children who were externally in Covenant and born of confederate Parents were only to be Circumcised, Gen. 17.10. Master R. lib. 1. p. 165.  
Master R. answereth to the Proposition, That the Covenant there mentioned was the Covenant of grace, but ours is the Covenant of the Church, lib. 2.202.  
Answer. It is true, the Covenant of grace is ever included and presupposed in the Covenant of the Church, and so in this place: but that which is here attended in the ultimate consideration is the Covenant of the Church, wherewith the Covenant of grace was clothed, and that appears by this reason.  
That Covenant is here nderstood that gives full right unto Circumcision ( as by comparing Gen 17.7, 10. will fully appear) and so unto all other privileges in their order.  
But the Covenant of grace doth not give full right unto Circumcision. For Job and all his friends were in the Covenant of Grace, and yet neither Circumcision nor Passeover did appertain to them, nor yet to any other people upon earth, Exod. 12.48. therefore it is a mistake of Mr. R. when he affirms the contrary.  
Nor doth that help much which he alleged, that job and his friends did sacrifice which was peculiar to the jews.  
Answ. It is a mistake: sacrificing was before the flood, and immediately after in Noah his time, and therefore could not be appropriated to the Jews, but as it was peculiarly circumstantiated, according to God's appointment.  
Nor do those expressions carry any weight, when Master R. affirms, That the Covenant in general was made with Infants of eight dayes old: and our Covenant is not made with Infants.  
Answ. The affirmation is a great mistake; for we maintain according to truth, that the believing Parent Covenants and confesses for himself and his posterity. And this Covenanting then and now is the same for the kind of it, and lays the foundation of the conveyance of all the right that children have to this holy Ordinance of Christ.   

Argument III.  
Is taken from Romans 11.17. there the holy Apostle discovers the mind of God touching the communication of church-privileges to the Gentiles, and he sets it down under this fimilitude; If thou, being a wild Olive, wert grafted in amongst them, and with them partakest of the fatness of the Olive three. The Olive is the Church of Christ, visible in her profession: the engrafting is entering into visible fellowship with her: the fatness of this Olive, is the privileges and spiritual Ordinances whereby spiritual good things are communicated to those that are so engrafted and received into communion. This is the conceived sense, by Beza, Paraeus, Piscator, &c. and the frame of the Text forceth as much; for this fatness cannot be the efficacy of saving grace, or spiritual dispositions issuing from the Covenant of grace; for this fatness is communicated from the Olive, but so saving grace is not conveyed from the Church to her Members: This fatness may be lost, for the branches may be broken off, and so severed from the Olive, and so from all the juice and moisture that comes therefrom; but none can lose this saving grace, he shall at any time be made partaker of: once engrafted into Christ, never severed from him. The words opened, the Argument proceeds thus:  
They who are not engrafted into the Olive, the true Church, they cannot share in the fatness of the Olive, the privileges of the Church.  
But children of Parents non-confederate, are not engrafted into the Olive, the Church: for their engrafting comes not from themselves, but from their next Parents, who are not entred into Church-covenant.  
Nor will that conceit come in place of answer, that the profession of the Parent is enough for the engrafting of themselves and their Posterity: For  
That engrafting or admission into the Church, is here meant, which excommunication out of the Church can take away; for that which the Church gives, that the Church can take away.  
But profession of the truth excommunication cannot take away, as sense and experience evidenceth. Therefore that is not the engrafting here meant.   

Argument IIII.  
If a Pastor of any Congregation have no power by any rule to require a non-confederate to be baptized, or to bring his children to baptism: then a non confederate hath no power by any rule to require baptism of a Pastor of any Congregation, and consequently hath no right thereto: for if he had any rule and authority to require that privilege, he then had right to it. The truth of the consequence depends upon the parity and proportion of reason, which is equal on both hands.  
But take a Pastor or Teacher of any Congregation, and let him deal with a non-confederate that hath not joined himself to any particular society, and press him by all the authority he hath to come to the Ordinance; in case he refuse, let him proceed against him as an offender; and in case of abstinacy, execute the censure of excommunication; he will find himself at a loss, and that he hath gone beyond his line: His answer will be, I will not join with your Assembly, I am not bound to do it, nor can you censure me for it.  
Beside, why may not any other Congregation censure upon the same ground, and for the same cause, as not partaking with them, for they may make the like claim by the like reason.   

Argument V.  
Is taken from 1 Cor. 12.13. We are baptized by one spirit into one body: This body is not the mystical and invisible, but the political and visible body of Christ; and this visible body is not here attended, as the catholic visible Church, but as a particular Church, as suppose at Corinth and Philippi; and therefore baptism seals up the external communion with a particular Church; it supposeth our union to it, and communion with it, and that is done onely by confederation, as before.  
It is here answered, That the body and visible Church here intended is the catholic visible Church, not a particular Church or Congregation.  
Against which I shall thus reason, out of the particular circumstances in the Text; that Body is here meant, in which Teachers are set up by Christ, ver. 28.  
But Teachers are not set up over the catholic Church, but over the particular Congregation: It is such a flock whereof they are overseers, Acts 20.28. such a flock which is amongst them, and must be ruled by them, as their charge, 1 Pet. 5.2.  
If Pastors be set over the catholic Church visible, then either as it is taken in consideration as distinct from the particulars, or as it comprehends all the particulars in it.  
But neither can be affirmed: not the first; for Pastors and Teachers are never set over a flock, they did never see, nor can tell where to find; and such is the catholic Church. Not the second; if by the same commission they are set over all particular Congregations, then are they bound to bestow the same care and watch over all particulars, which no man will grant.  
Secondly, ordinary Teachers are set in the Church by ordinary means, and therefore by election, Gal. 1.1. Of God, and by Man put into their places.  
But election doth not set them over the catholic Church; as sense will suggest on this manner: let three or f●ur men be propounded for election, to so many Churches now needing and craving supply, each of the Churches chooseth one, refuseth the other, as not so suitable to their spirits: If the election of the one gives power, therefore the rejection or non-election stops the extent and efficacy of that power; so that he can have no pastoral Office-power there over them.  
We have now done with THE PERSONS who have RIGHT to receive these seals.  
We are now to inquire the MANNER OF THE DISPENSATION,  
And that is either 

Common to both, or  
Peculiar to each.    
That which is common to both, appears in two things: 

First, they must be dispensed publicly.  
Secondly, they should have the preaching of the Word accompany their solemn administration.    
First, That they must be dispensed publicly, in the presence, and with the concurrence of the Church solemnly assembled: for since the seals of the Covenant, and the preaching of the Covenant go together: the publication of the one must accompany the dispensation of the other; it is not in the power of the Church to confine preaching into corners, for wisdom crieth openly in the streets, Prov. 8.2, 3. and of old the Church of the Jews erected synagogues in every City( beside the Temple set up in jerusalem) for the hearing and preaching of the Word: our Saviour enjoined his Disciples, what they heard in the ear secretly, to preach openly upon the house top, Matth. 10.27. John 18.20, 21, 22. And he compares the Supper of the Lord to their ordinary supper; so he opposeth manifestly the Church or Congregation to the private house, and declareth, that the Lords Supper should be celebrated in the Congregation, as the Banquet should be kept in their private houses, 1 Cor. 11.20, 21, 22.  
Yea, the scope and nature of the Ordinance calls for such an Administration; for since the Sacraments are badges to show our separation from all other profane societies, and to signify our communion one with another visibly in the profession and confession of the faith, as our spiritual union and communion with Christ our head mystically; therefore the administration of them should be such as should svit the nature of the Ordinance, and serve the end of it: and therefore it is, that in times of persecution, when the Church dare not, nor is it meet she should show her self to the enemy; yet not then, is the Word of God nor Sacraments privately preached or administered, neither yet ought to be; for though they be done in the house of a private man, yet because they are and ought to be administered in the presence of the Congregation, there is neither private preaching, nor private celebrating the Sacraments.  
Secondly, that both these Ordinances should go hand in hand, after the word opened the seals should be administered.  
The practise of the Baptist, our Saviour and his Disciples, are precedentiall to us in this behalf, Matth. 3.2, 3. compared with ver. 5. for this last verse refers unto the former( the description of John his person and behaviour being put in occasionally) when John came preaching in the wilderness, Repent for the kingdom, &c. THEN come to him the people from all coasts and were baptized. And hence he is said Mark 1.4. to baptize in the wilderness and to preach the baptism of repentance, because there was a concurrence; the one made way for the more clear understanding, and the effectual working, and fruitful entertaining of the other.  
And that collection seems to be faire, which is observed by some Interpreters( who commonly search more norrowly unto the text) Acts 19.4. Paul meaning to confer the gifts of the holy Ghost, which the twelve Disciples at Ephesus were to receive by the putting on of hands, unto the performance of the truth, by the performance of the promise figured by baptism, and so to join the sign with the thing signified. In the fourth verse he sheweth how John preached and administered that ordinance; first he preached that his Disciples should believe in Jesus Christ, which came after him: after in the fourth, that those Disciples of John( and not as is commonly supposed, those twelve Disciples of Ephesus) having heard Iohns preaching( and not as is supposed Pauls) were baptized into the name of the Lord Iesus: this interpretation hath plain proof from the Grammar of the words, the two Conjunctions( which have relation one to the other, and cannot without force be severed) led the Reader to this way, and lay forth the order of the administration, that after they had heard John Baptist preach, they were baptized. THIS MANNER OF ADMINISTRATION OF SACRAMENTS IS COMMON to both of them.  
There is something that is PECULIAR TO EACH, to which we shall add one word.  
First, baptism is the Sacrament of our Initiation and engrafting into Christ; and that is the usual phrase of the Gospel, {αβγδ}, Rom. 6.3. our insition and incorporation into Christ, is fignified and sealed up by baptism: and hence baptism is once administered, and never again to be repeated, because of the stability of the covenant of Grace: It is an everlasting Covenant, and they are the sure mercies that are there sealed up; the constancy of God's truth and faithfulness towards his, notwithstanding all their failing and infirmities, which overbear them in their daily course; whom Christ loves once, he loves to the end: his gifts and calling are without repentance; and therefore whom he calls effectually, he preserves for ever through faith unto salvation; that no man shall, and therefore they cannot, take, themselves out of his hand, unless they be more then men: no falling away then totally or finally from the Covenant, and therefore no repeating of baptism, which seals up our entrance into the Covenant.  
That which occasions some kind of further consideration here, is that which hath been a little stirring of late, viz.  
Whether baptism is to be administered by pouring of water, and so washing the body therewith, or by dipping the body into the water? for herein lies the very hit and turn of the question, as it is now controverted: for  
First, it is confessed of every side, that the word {αβγδ} properly signifies to Dip: we say to Dip, for so it is sometime used by the seventy: Ruth 2.14. Ruth dippeth her Bread into the vinegar: 1 Sam 14.27. jonathan dipped the end of his rod into the honey-comb: Thus it signifies to Dip, but seldom or never to Dive, as learned Beza interprets and explicates the propriety of the word, when he intends to lay forth the limits of it in its own bounds, Mat. 3.13.  
Secondly, in ordinary course it is commonly used among Authors, and in Scripture, for to Wash, Luke 11.38. the Pharisees wondered at our Saviour, that he did not Wash before dinner, {αβγδ}, so Mar. 7.4, 8.  
Thirdly, washing is the main thing intended by our Saviour in the institution, and to be attended in the signification of the use of the water in the Sacrament of baptism: and this is evidenced by these testimonies, which speak expressly to this purpose.  
The Apostle, 1 Pet. 3.21. points at this, by special description, to be the intended singnification of the outward sign, unto which baptism, now answering, saves us. But the question might happily arise, what of baptism is here meant? for there be two things in the Sacrament; the outward sign, and the spiritual part, the thing signified. The Apostle therfore by way of prevention, and by a special description, distinctly interprets himself; I mean not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, i.e. the washing of water, which is the signification to be attended in the use of the outward sign, and is the outward part of the Sacrament; but I mean the inward and spiritual part. To this agrees that Eph. 5.26. Tit. 3.5, 6. God is said to save us by the washing of the new birth, and the renewing of the holy Ghost, which is said to be poured out upon us; following the resemblance of water poured, in the washing of baptism.  
Nor can that phrase rationally admit another construction, Acts 1.5. when our Saviour promiseth his Disciples they should be baptized with the holy Ghost not many dayes after, as John baptized with water.  
As they were baptized by the spirit, so they were baptized with water, for so the proportion requires; and therefore it is an utter mistake to think that {αβγδ} implies the dipping into the water, when the proposition[ {αβγδ}] as most frequently with the Hebrewes, and generally amongst all grammarians, notes onely the cause or instrument, and so it carries causa and effectum with it; to baptize in water as a means used to signify and seal up the Covenant; and therefore the like is used, {αβγδ}; not that we are dipped into the holy Ghost, but that the holy Ghost is poured upon us, and therefore Luke expounds it by the shedding and pouring out of the holy Ghost, Acts 2.33. and therefore I could wish that these particulars might be considered.  
First, As we are baptized by the Spirit, so by proportion we are said to be baptized with water, so the Text, Acts 1.5.  
But we are baptized by the Spirit, when that is applied to us first; as the practise expounds the promise, Acts 1.5. with chap. 2.33.  
Secondly, the nature of baptism, and the administration thereof, answers the work of application; because it is to seal and confirm the Covenant to us: As it is agreed, so communicated and sealed.  
But the applying the water to the body firstly, answers the work of application: for Chris●●y his Spirit doth apply himself to us first, Phil. 3.12. we apprehended as we are comprehend: the promise comes to us before we can come to it.  
Nay, the Argument grows yet stronger.  
That which crosseth the nature of the Covenant, that administration of the Seal suits it not; but Immersion intimateth, that we apply ourselves first to Christ, and so to the Covenant, and this crosseth the nature of the covenant; and therefore this administration suits it not.  
Thirdly, That which best resembleth our implanting into the similitude of the death and resurrection of Christ: That administration fits the nature of baptism.  
But the applying and casting the water upon the body best resembles the nature of burial, as sense will suggest: the dipping of the body into the dust, doth no way so lively remsemble Burial, as the casting dust and mould upon it.  
THE MANNER OF ADMINISTRATION PECULIAR TO THE SUPPER, is in two things.  
First, it is a Sacrament of our nourishment, and our growing up in the Lord Jesus, and therefore it is appointed by him to be frequently used, as being one of the standing dishes which the Lord Christ hath provided for the daily diet and the household provision of his faithful ones, who are his family, 1 Cor. 11.26, 34. as often as ye eat this bread, &c.  
And to this purpose, our Saviour is here presented to us, as the spiritual food; nay, as the choice and complete feast of the soul, such as may answer all our wants, and our desires also: Bread sustains the hungry, Wine refreshes the thirsty, both satisfy to the full: Christ saves perfectly all that come unto him, Heb. 7.25.  
And hence secondly, in the admistration, as there be distinct parts of the Ordinance, so there is a distinct blessing, which was expressed by our Saviour in the first institution, and is to be imitated by all his Officers: For the words are open; He took Bread and blessed it; after the same manner be took the Cup, and blessed it also: For one action is expressed, and the rest are implied, the very frame of the words, and order in which they are set forth, imply as much.  
For blessing of the Bread cometh immediately after the setting of it apart: Hence that blessing came before the taking of the Wine, and setting that apart for that spiritual end, and therefore before the blessing of that Element; and therefore there must be a distinct benediction used from the former: and that best suits with the distinct nature of the several Elements which are appointed by our Saviour, and are to be used and received by the Communicants in that distinct consideration: for though whole Christ spiritally be in each part of the Supper, it is not a piece of Christ, as Bread and Food represented to the Receiver; yet there is not all Christ Sacramentally, but in both.     

CHAP. III. Of Censures.  
THe Lord Christ being a tender hearted father to his Church, as his family and household, he hath not onely provided wholesome and choice diet, his holy and spiritual Ordinances for the food and refreshing of the souls of his faithful, that so they may grow up into him in all things, and increase with the encreasings of God.  
But he hath laid in Purgatives as well as Restoratives; and out of his infinite wisdoms, who knows, to how many corrupt distempers, as so many hurtful and noisesome diseases the Saints are subject unto: he hath appointed Church-censures as good physic, to purge out what is evil, as well as Word and Sacraments, which, like good diet, are sufficient to nourish the soul to eternal life.  
And his earning compassion hath made him here so careful, that he hath appointed each particular Brother, as a skilful Apothecary, to help forward the spiritual health of all in confederacy with him.  
Hence al the members are made( as we have heard) watchmen over the welfare of their Brethren, and by virtue of their consociation and combination, have power over each other, and a judicial way of process against each other, in case of any sinful aberration, to proceed legally and judicially against them, according to rules and orders of Christ provided for that end: and herein members of the same Congregation proceed not onely christianly, but judicially against offences; as in civill bodies, special corporations have special advantages this way.  
The proceeding in the dispensation of censures is double, according to the double quality of offenders and offences,  
Which are either 

Private,  
public.    
Private offences appear only to few, one or more; and therefore they onely are to proceed against them, in covering and biding them from the apprehensions of others, as much as may be; provided, they can thereby attain an healing of them.  
The rules here to rectify their proceeding, that they may not neglect their duty, in not endeavouring reformation, or else through unskilfulness increase sin and trouble, when they would remove the one and prevent the other.  
The RULES I say, to regulate their proceedings by, are these:  
First, such human infirmities, which unavoidably attend the best Saints breathing upon earth, while they carry a body of death about them, are not to be taken as matter of offence intended by our Saviour, nor have we any just cause to stumble at such straws, or be taken with distaste against the carriage of a Brother in that case; and therefore they come not under the nature of an offence in this advice of our Saviour, Matth. 18.15.  
Secondly, If the sin be such, which is like a ston of stumbling in our Christian course, and therefore needs to be reformed in him that commits, and to be removed out of the way of him that sees it, we must here attend our duty, and the direction of our Saviour. Mat. 18.15. Levit. 19.17.  
Thirdly, but if yet it be not so clear, but doubtful to us onely, though our thoughts and apprehensions led that way; it is not yet ripe for any Church process. But if fears and suspicions pursue us, as fearing we do not what we should, for the good of our Brother, nor for the settling of our affections to him: we may inquire by way of doubt, to be satisfied, and to have our hearts quieted, but not adventure to censure it: for it is a safe rule, Where we have not found ground of conviction, we have no reason to administer an Admonition.  
Fourthly, if the offence be such, which deserves a censure, and that we have evidence enough of Argument and rule to convince to our apprehension, it is yet the fairest way to enter into a serious debate and consideration of the evil, and to hear fully and freely what can be said by the offending party, for his defence: The grounds which are good to bear an admonition, will then be more clear, all shifts by discourse being fully discovered, we may better see how more fully and undeniably to fasten a convicting reproof upon a Brother, which is that our Saviour counsels, Mat. 18.15. {αβγδ}. If this fear and wariness were well attended, those ordinary mistakes, clashings, sayings and gainsayings, and the many offences committed amongst Brethren, while they come to reform one offence given, would easily be prevented through the help and assistance of Christ, if the party that comes to rebuk, would be sure, 

First, that the sin was committed.  
Secondly, that he hath evidence, either by the confession of the party, or witness of others, that such a Brother committed it.  
Thirdly, that such a rule is fair and full to convince of such a sin.    
The majesty of Christs Ordinance would appear with much evidence, and with much ease and comfort on all hands, in all the degrees of it; whether it be between thee and him, or whether in case of not hearing, you take one or two; or if need require, in bringing it to the Church. Thus of private Offences.  
But if the offence be FAMOUS AND NOTORIOUS AT THE FIRST practise OF IT, as open drunkenness, swearing, stealing, lying; or that a Brother, according to the rule of Christ, by reason of anothers obstinacy, be constrained to tell it to the Church, and make it public.  
In this public process two things are to be attended: 

1. The preparation to the sentence.  
2. The execution of it.    
First, By way of Preparation, the offence must,  
First, be brought to the Elders, and by them debated and delivered to the Church; for they are guides and leaders of the Church, Heb. 13.17. the watchmen and overseers of it, and therefore they must know the causes and controversies to the full in all circumstances, difficulties, windings and turnings thereof, that they may be able to led the Congregation in the ways of peace and truth; which they cannot do, unless they know the way the way themselves.  
Secondly, to them it appertains to judge whether the things be of weight and worth, and so need and require the presence and assistance of the body to express their judgement against them, and the party guilty of them or no: for if they be petty businesses, and altogether unfit and unworthy to trouble the Congregation withall: it is in their power to prevent such causeless and needless disturbance, and therefore to suppress any further proceeding therein.  
Obj. It will be said haply, By this means, and under this pretence, if the Elders be corrupt in their judgement, or partial in their affections, they may silence the weightiest cause that can be, and so prejudice the innocency of those, they are not friendly affencted unto, and hinder the reformation of those, whom in a corrupt and partial way they sinfully favour.  
Answ. Therefore as it is in their power to suppress such petty occasions which are not worthy the time, pains and disturbance that must be spent upon them; so yet to prevent in justice and partiality in such cases, the party who takes himself wronged, may complain of the Elders in that behalf: And if the Congregation see apparently, they have dealt unjustly and partially, it is in their power to rectify it: but if the complaint prove unjust and unreasonable, be it at the peril of him that complains, for he is to be censured sharply and severely, as out of pride and perverseness, refusing to listen to the seasonable advice and counsel of those who were set over him by the Lord: as also, because he hath needlessly disturbed the peace of the Congregation as much as in him lieth.  
Thirdly, this preparation is to be made by the Elders, because the body of the people, if numerous, they will be unable with any comely conveniency, to consider and weigh all the circumstances, with all the emerging difficulties, which will certainly and necessary occur in such agitations: nor can in reason bestow their time and pains upon them, as the intricacy and perplexity of the work will sometimes require.  
But when all things are cleared, the native and naked state of the controversy laid forth and presented in the severals of it, even the meanest in the Congregation will generally be able to see cause to join their judgments with the truth.  
This preparation of the action lies in two things: the 

Cause must be examined presently.  
Examination recorded exactly.    
In the examination of controversies( because the eagerness of some spirits is inordinate in the pursuit of an offence too rigidly; and the pride of all mens hearts generally is such, that though they can do shamefully, yet they are loth to bear the shane of it; and therefore out of their waywardness wiliness of heart, are ready to wimble and wind out devices, that they may put by the dint of a discovering and convicting Argument.) HE THAT COMPLAINS MUST KNOW TWO RULES.  
First, that he must not dare to complain to the Elder of a Church, unless he can plainly and peremptorily lay in his accusation of another, touching such speeches and carriages, of which upon through search, he is well assured: I say, peremptorily accuse of things whereof he is groundedly assured, because I would prevent such weak and windy kind of expressions, as too often we meet withall, out of mens too sudden pangs and heedless mistakes. I take it so; I conceived it so; it was so reported; I met with it on that manner, &c. when upon the search, all these vanish as mistakes: The word is, we must rebuk convictingly, Mat. 18.15.  
Secondly, as his accusation must be plain, so his proofs must be direct and pregnant, that such words, for the substance and reality of them were spoken, and such things done; there must be two witnesses to establish every word, except the things be otherways evidenced sufficiently, as by confession of the party, &c.  
On the ELDERS PARTS TWO RULES, if attended, make a great riddance, of occasions, and prevent distemp●rs.  
First, let the accusation be presently and exactly recorded, together with the answer thereunto in like manner: for experience teacheth, that in multiplicity of debates, parties are apt to forget, or else not willing to remember, and sometimes ready to mistake, add, alter, vary in expressions, as they see there may any advantage come to their own, or disadvantage to the contrary cause: All again by this means is easily prevented, and the truth made open to the apprehension of the slander by.  
Secondly, let the Elders confine all parties to the point in hand, and not suffer them by extravagancies to darken the truth, disturb the proceedings, and bring confusion to the whole debate. They are also, by their authority put into their hands, to forbid and restrain all personal and passionate expressions, and constrain both sides to speak to the cause, and onely to the cause in hand.  
Thus the preparation is done, the cause rightly stated and cleared, doubts answered, mistakes removed, and by proofs fair and sufficient, the truth confirmed; now the cause is ready and ripe for judgement, and may easily be determined in half an hour, which cost many weeks in the search and examination thereof.  
The EXECUTION of the sentence issues in four things.  
First, the cause exactly recorded, is as fully and nakedly to be presented to the consideration of the Congregation.  
Secondly, the Elders are to go before the Congregation in laying open the rule, so far as reacheth any particular now to be considered, and to express their judgement and determination thereof, so far as appertains to themselves.  
Thirdly, unless the people be able to convince them of error and mistakes in their sentence, they are bound to join their judgement with theirs, to the completing of the sentence.  
Fourthly, the sentence, thus completely issued, is to be solemnly passed and pronounced upon the Delinquent by the ruling Elder, whether it be the censure of admonition or excommunication.  Touching this last, Of EXCOMMUNICATION. 
There be several cases which offer themselves to further search and consideration, of which we may briefly, and in order inquire, having an eye and reference to what hath been said touching the first subject of the keys, where all these disputes had their first rise, and shall receive their last resolution.  
The first Question is, What is the order of the Gospel in the process of this great and dreadful Ordinance of Excommunication?  
Answ. First, the execution of this sentence against th● Malefactor, against whom it is passed, concerns all the body, because they are all bound to reject all Church-communion with him, and that because he hath renounced the rule of Christ, and is therefore justly delivered up to Satan, to be his slave in the kingdom of darkness, who would not be a subject to Christ in the kingdom of light: they are to renounce all voluntary and unnecessary familiarity with him, even in civill converse, that they may, as much as in them lies, without any breach of any bond or relation that lies upon them, discountenance him in his course, and cause him to be ashamed; and therefore in some particulars he is below the degree of a Heathen: 1 Cor. 5.11. with such a one eat not; and yet 1 Cor. 10.27. if an Infidel invite to a feast, we may go by allowance from the Apostle; and by parity of reason, we may invite such occasionally: but the like carriage we may not express to an Excommunicate.  
Now because the execution of the sentence concerns all, therefore it were to be wished, there should be an unanimous consent of all unto it.  
Secondly, hence excommunication being an Ordinance of so great terror, and of so common and great concernment unto all,( if we look at the manner) it must be proceeded in with much moderation, pitty, patience and long-sufferance: if there can be a healing of a corrupt member, we must not be hasty to cut it off: If we look at the matter, it must not be for petty and small aberrations, but for such evils as the mind and conscience of a man, enlightened by the truth of God, would condemn in himself or any, upon the first serious consideration, was his understanding left to the liberty of reason, to act thereby, and not crack-brained and perverted with prejudice and skilfulness.  
Thirdly, such evils which are either heinous and abominable, as fornication, murder, adultery, incest, treason, &c. or if not so gross, yet carry the face of evil in their forehead, upon the first serious and well-grounded consideration of reason; and have been pertinaciously and obstinately persisted in, after the improvement of all means upon them for conviction and reformation: these onely deserve excommunication by the rules of Christ, 1 Cor. 5. Mat. 18.17.  
Fourthly, when such evils are presented to the Church, and there is a mutual and joint concurrence of all; every particular Congregation hath received power from Christ to proceed to excommunication without any more ado.  
This every one grants, may be done by a Church in an iceland; and every particular Congregation hath as much power and right in that censure( as formerly hath been touched, and shall more fully be proved afterward:) the like also may be done if some few should dissent, in case their reasons be heard and answered, and they silenced by the power of Argument.  
Fiftly, but in case things prove doubtful( which rarely they will, or can in truth, if rules formerly mentioned be attended) and the difference grow wide and great, it is then seasonable to crave the counsel and help of neighbouring Churches; not to receive any power from them to execute the censure: but that they may see the truth cleared, the erring parties may be convinced, the way also warranted; which being done, either all will agree, or else the mayor part of the Church hath power and right to proceed and pass the censure according unto Christ; and the rest of the Church dissenting, are bound to sit down satisfied therewith.  
But in case the counsel of the consociated Churches shall advice to with-hold; the case will then appear doubtful, and want ground of conviction of the Churches part; and therefore they will want ground of execution, as hath been said; and therefore they must stay their proceeding.  
The second question is, Where lies the HIGHEST tribunal where this sentence issues?  
Answ. Before we can lay forth the rule of proceeding in this censure, and the order and rank that each person must keep, according to his power and place: we shall speak something, first, by way of explication of the nature of the censure; secondly, lay forth the bounds according unto which the people should confine themselves in putting forth their power: lastly, give in the reasons shortly of the question so stated.  
First, this censure of excommunication, and the admonition that makes way for it, is to be attended in a double regard, either as it is 

Legally prepared.  
Dogmatically propounded by the Elders, as leaders to the Congregation: or  
Judicially passed and executed.    
For the understanding of the first, you must recall and remember, that it appertained to the place and office of the Rulers, by through search and examination, to ripen the cause, and to clear all mistakes, and settle the truth by sufficient and undeniable witness; and therefore in case things were doubtful, and admit no serious or through proof, the Congregation should not be troubled with such things: where no conviction can be gained, there no censure of public admonition or excommunication should be administered. But when things are fully testified, then they are dogmatically to discover the mind of God, and the rule of Christ, according to which a Congregation should proceed.  
Secondly, their judgements thus expressed, the compass according to which the people should confine themselves in putting forth their power and judgement, may be conceived in THIS RULE.  
The fraternity have no more power to oppose the sentence of the censure, thus prepared and propounded by the Elders, then they have to oppose their dict●ine which they shall publish. But they have as much power to oppose the one as the other. We will touch both the parts of the Rule.  
First, they have no more power to oppose the sentence of the censure thus prepared and propounded by the Elders, then they have to oppose their doctrine which they shall publish;( let it be here attended, that I speak of the censure as dogmatically propounded, not of the judicial passing of it, when it comes to be executed, and then) the proof is plain.  
First, because they have the same authority in dogmaticall propounding of the one, as in promulgation of the other: They are acts, which alike issue out of their office, in which they are placed, and unto which they are called of God, and bound to be leaders to the people, as in preparing the cause, that it may be ripe and ready for the censure, so in laying open the rule, as it reacheth the several particulars, and to express their judgement and determination thereof.  
Secondly, that their power is equal in both, appears palpably thus: when the cause is cleared and proved by evidence of undeniable witnesses, the Elder may refer it to the Word, and out of the word preach it as a Doctrine: so that the sentence the Elder will pass, shall be a point he will preach; and therefore none shall oppose the one, but he shall oppose the other.  
And hence it follows, which was formerly intimated, that if the people cannot convince the Elder of his error or mistake in the sentence, they are bound to join their judgement with his in the completing of the sentence, without impertinent questions, needless scruples, wilful and disorderly gainsayings; for if they cannot confute his Doctrine, they are bound to entertain and establish it.  
Therefore they must do so with their censures, as the inference forceth.  
And this kind of proceeding in judicature discovers so much wisdom, care and faithfulness of the Lord Christ, in providing for the comfort, honour and safety of his Church, as the like is not to be found in all the governments upon earth, wherein the greatest excellency ever appeared to the appehension of the sons of men.  
For behold the Lord Christ is so tender and compassionate over his Church, that the meanest member thereof shall not be touched in the least measure in his liberty, but he hath fitted, called and appointed his Officers, wise and holy watchmen, that shall secretly and seriously examine all things with all exactness, shall receive nothing but upon such proof, as that whereby every word shall be established; and yet when all this is evidenced, they shall not proceed against them in private, but they shall present all these evidencs to the view and consideration of them all; lay open the rule of truth before them, and nothing shall be done that they shall oppose, but must approve and set their hand and seal unto, as suitable to the rules of truth, and righteousness, and love. And this proceeding is held in all things to all his members: the like is not to be found on earth.  
The second part of the Conclusion is, That they have as much power and right to oppose their censures, so propounded, as their Doctrine. For their power is alike in dispensing the one, as the other, as hath been proved: and therefore if they can oppose the one, they may so far oppose the other.  
Since then it is yielded on all hands, that the fraternity may renounce and condemn the false, erroneous and heretical Doctrines of an Elder, and hinder them that they may never be entertained nor established in the place, yea reject his opinions, and take away his Office from him: they may do as much by parity of reason against his false and unjust censures propounded and concluded, and so interpose and oppose proceeding, as that they shall never take place and be established in the Congregation, onely the method and order prescribed before in case of difference, must be attended.  
The conclusion then is, The fraternity put for tha causal power in the censure of excommunication, whence it receives its complete being, and here lies the supreme Tribunal in point of judgement, and public proceeding in censure against an offender: the reasons of this we have given formerly, when we entreated of the first subject of the keys, whether we refer the Reader; onely we may recall two or three for the present, that we may not leave this place wholly voided.  
First, that Church that can publicly admonish the Elder or Elders, in case he do not hear one or two, that Church can excommunicate, being not heard, Mat. 18.17.  
But the Church of the fraternity, in case the Elders offending will not hear one or two, may also admonish: For if one or two may admonish privately, according to degrees of process prescribed by our Saviour, why all may not admonish publicly, I see not, by the same parity and equality of reason.  
If a Brother, i.e. any Brother.  
Nay, the case may be such, that they onely will be left to admonish: for suppose three Elders in the Congregation two of them are under offence, in which they do persist, not yielding to the first or second admonition, to what Church must now the complaint be made; one Elder is not a Church, therefore the complaint must be made to the fraternity with him; therefore they must admonish, and therfore may also cast out, if their admonition be not heard.  
Secondly, That placing of the supreme power, which crosseth the proceeding prescribed by our Saviour, that is not orderly and regular.  
But the placing of the supreme power in the Elders doth so.  
The Assumption is thus evidenced:  
That which makes the guilty party the Judge in his own Cause, that crosseth the proceeding prescribed by our Saviour.  
But this doth so: For in case the Elders offend, and are complained of, to whom must the complaint be carried? the text saith, To the Church: the Church( says this opinion) is the Elders, and therefore they must be complained unto as their own Judges.  
Thirdly, that power which is appointed by Christ in his Church to reform evil( that being managed according to his appointment, and that in time of peace) that power can and will attain its end, otherwise there should be an imputation laid upon our Saviour, that either he wanted wisdom or power in his institutions, in that such were appointed which were not able to attain the end, for which they were provided and appointed. But if the power of the Censures be placed in the Presbytery, for the removal and purging out of the leaven of a pertinacious sinner, it cannot attain his end: For suppose the body of the people will keep him in, converse with him, and maintain full communion, their excommunication will not do the dead, which shows the arm is too short to manage this power to the full extent of it, as it was intended by our Saviour.  
And hence Master Ruterford grants, lib. 1. p. 44. That it is the constant received and maintained opinion of Divines, ancient and modern, that excommuncation be done, consentiente plebe.  
Nay, Zepperus, Zanchy, Beza, Bucanus, Paraeus, think the Eldership should not excommunicate, sine consensu. Nay, Peter Martyr goes further, Unde concluditur non absque consensu ecclesiae quempiam excommunicari posse, loc. come. de excom. sent. 9. Jus hic ad ecclesiam pertinet, nec ab illa eripi debet, sent. 10. Cartwright in 1 Cor. 5. against the Rhemists: Magdeburg, Cent. 1. lib. 2. c. 4. Claves toti ecclesiae sunt traditae.  
The ground I conceive of this joint judgement, thus constantly requiring the consent of the people, doth in truth imply, that their consent was not matter of compliment, but carried a causal virtue with it, for the completing and accomplishing of this censure.  
And let it be supposed that where there be three Elders, two of them should turn heretics and continue so; how could the Church proceed against them, unless there was a causal power in the fraternity to accomplish this censure?  
For( if by Church was meant the Eldership) how can one be the Church? and if the people should consent, and yet their consent carry no causal virtue to this work, the inconvenience, which is cross to right reason, remains yet unremoved, to wit, that excommunication should proceed and be completed by one man, which is contrary to the grain of the words, and the process of our Saviour set down in the place, which is to rise by increase from one to two or three, and thence to a multitude.  
This ground thus proved, being received, many collections flow naturally from hence, which will be instead of so many Answers to several Questions.  
First, the power of judgement and power of office are apparently distinct and different one from another: The Elders in point of rule and exercising the act of their Office, are supreme, and above the Congregation; none have that Office-authority, nor can put forth the acts thereof but themselves: But in point of power of judgement or censure, the fraternity they are supreme, and above any member or Officer, in case of offence and delinquency: nor need any man strange at this distinction, when the like is daily obvious in parallel examples presented before our eyes.  
The Lord mayor is above the Court, as touching the ways and works of his Office, none hath right, nor can put forth such acts, which are peculiar to his place, and yet the Court is above in point of censure, and can answerably proceed to punish in a just way, according to the just desert of his sin. Thus the Parliament is above the King, the Souldiers and Captains above their general.  
Hence again, excommunication is not an act of power of Office, but of judgement, from grounds and grants formerly cleared, and therefore cannot be appropriated to Rulers, nor upon right consideration accounted an act of highest rule, but an act of supreme judgement, which is seated in the fraternity, and may be put forth by them in a right order and manner, as it hath been before proved; still that is a staple rule, which stands fast. The whole hath power over any member and members, and can preserve her self and safety against any of their power that would annoy or destroy it.  
And this must be yielded by all those who give power of excommunication to Synods and councils, in that Brethren as well as Elders are members of the Synods, and the Acts of those assemblies issue from both Elders and Brethren, as all the Orthodox prove against the Popish Impropriators.  
Hence lastly, as long as the Church continues, and hath the being of a Church, she hath right and power of managing these censures, because it belongs to her {αβγδ}, and appertains to her as such a body, and therefore cannot be taken away, unless her being be taken away: As an Officer, while he remains in his Place and Office, he hath right and power to Preach and administer the Seals, though the exercise of those acts may sometime be hindered by violence and constraint: so while the members continue confederate in combination, and so communion with one another by free consent, they have also power one over another, and in case the part prejudice the whole, it's subject to the power of the whole, to be removed from the communion thereof.    

PART. IV. Concerning Synods.  

CHAP. I. Wherein Mr. Rutherfords sixth Argument is debated, taken out of Acts 15. and the nature of that Synod discussed, and how far that or any other Synod can be said to bind by any warrant from the Word.  
THE sixth Argument of Master Rutherford is taken from that sampler of a Synod propounded in the fifteenth of the Acts.  
Before we can come to give a direct and clear Answer thereunto, we shall be forced to speak some things to prepare way to that purpose, that it may appear how far the power of a Synod is confessed or denied, and wherein the stress of the Controversy doth especially consist: and that will be dispatched in the conclusions following.  

1. Conclus.  
The consociation of Churches is not onely lawful, but very useful also, serving not alone to search out the truth, but to settle the hearts of all sincerely minded in the right apprehension and profession of the same.  
When many, and those select and eminent, lay the best of their abilities together, improve their parts and prayers, disquisitions, consultations, determinations, to promote the knowledge and practise of the things of Christ, the establishment of the Churches, in the unity of the faith, and their eternal peace.  
The light of nature and right reason forcing men out of their own necessities and experience to confess, That, In the multitude of Councellors there is safety. Plus vident oculi, quàm oculus, &c. The issue of that counsel evidenceth as much, Acts 16.4, 5. They delivered their Decrees, &c. and the Churches were establ  shed in the faith, &c.   

2. Conclus.  
This Consociation is of several sorts and degrees, some lesser some greater, as Classes, Synods; and these provincial, national, ecumenical.   

3. Conclus.  
The power which any or all have, is not boundless, or unlimited. They are all but men, and may err: their judgements are not the rule, but must be regulated. Their power is under Christ, onely from him, and for him, wholly to be acted and ordered by his authority in his Word.  
Thus far we agree. But   

4.  
This authority is by several men severally considered; namely, it is either authority of 

Church counsel.  
Church jurisdicton.   Mr. Ruther. 271. near the end.  
1. When the case is curtal, many doubts and difficulties arise, which cannot easily and readily be discerned or decided, The grieved parties crave the advice and seek the counsel of many Churches, and willingly submit to the truth of God appearing by their means.  
2. Authority of Church jurisdiction, is, when the Churches meeting have not onely authority to counsel, but power to censure Ecclesi●s●ic●lly in case the Parties whose cause comes to be scanned and considered, shall be found guilty and worthy such a censure.   

5.  
Hence the Churches thus meeting, may be said to impose their determination and such decrees; which result and arise out of their disquisitions and disputes either by authority of the Word only, from whence their determinations are fetched and confirmed apparently.  
And then they are said to bind materialiter, in regard of the thing which is determined, being no more, nor other then that which is evidently expressed, or infallibly collected out of the Word, and so their counsels are no other then Gods Commands, contain a Divine Authority which is now by them discovered, and in his Name applied to the particulars under hand, as the counsel Act. 15 20. enjoins them to abstain from fornication, which are the express Words of Scripture, from the Law in the gospel.  
But besides this they are said to bind formaliter, when it is supposed and taken for granted, that the Decrees are not onely required in the W●rd, but enjoined by such, who have Church-jurisdiction, and in virtue of that Authority can impose, and in case of Refnsall have Power to censure Ecclesiastically.  
We conceive the former, id est, the Authority of Brotherly counsel, is attended by Christ; Mr Rutherford expresseth much learning and labour to maintain and prove the latter, and to that purpose allegeth this pattern of Act. 15. Which whether it be fit and full to this purpose, we shall make some serious inquiry according to our measure, after we have debated the nature and quality of this Assembly and the proceedings therein; which we shall do in these Conclusions.  

OF ACTS 15.  

1. Conclus.  
THis synod was not extraordinary, either in regard of the infallible assistance of the persons in it, or the immediate revelation of the truths therein discussed and decreed  
Its true, the Apostles were extraordinary men in regard of their Places and Office, but that was not here attended, nor in virtue of that they did act; There is jus singular, and jus commune says Junius. The second is here attended. They were Pastors which had ordinary abilities, as well as Apostles, which had extraordinary assistances, and they acted in the former relation.  
For in extraordinary revelations and infallible assistances, men do not join Ordinary Churches in their consultations and inquiries; but so the whole Work was carried here: The men disputed, enquired; each man had allowed liberty to propound his thoughts, had recourse to the Scriptures, and reasoned out of them, Act. 15.7, 8, to 18.  
And ergo the Lord here leaves a Copy and sampler to all succeeding Generations, how to seek the truth by way of trial in the use of such means which he hath appointed.   

2. Conclus.  
Hence their sentence was not therefore Scripture or canonical because they decreed it, as when they were infallibly assisted and acted by the H. Ghost. 2 Pet. 1.  
But the thing or matter which was decreed, it was either expressed pregnantly, or infallibly collected out of the Word, and so being Scripture, it was therefore decreed by them, as the instances of the Decrees give in evidence.  
To abstain from Fornication, which is one of the Decrees; it is the very letter of the Text; The other Particulars issue out of one ground, and thence have the strength of divine prohibition; for in things of indifferent use,( as those which were strangled and blood,) the rule of the Apostle admits no gainsaying 1 Cor. 1, and last Rom. 14.  
They were not therefore canonical Scripture because decreed, but è contra, because they were Scripture, ergo they were decreed.  
And it is one thing to make Mandatum, quà tale, Divine Scripture; another thing, when the matter is by force of undeniable consequence, gathered out of Scripture to give it out as a Mandate;  
And thus I suppose that Phrase is to be understood.  
IT SEEMS GOOD UNTO THE HOLY GHOST AND UNTO US. Vers 28.  
By the Holy Ghost there must either be understood, the immediate revelation of the Spirit, parallel to that of Peter, {αβγδ} 2 Pet. 1.21. and this sense the Text admits not; for there was no extraordinary Revelation, that can in reason be attributed, or conceived to belong to the ordinary Multitude; beside, the Argument formerly alleged, hath confuted this sense.  
Or else it must be the H. Ghost as speaking in the word, which is open and easy to conceive; and we have the like Phrase in Scripture carrying the like sense, in that the severals of the sentence follow by infallible inference from Scripture grounds, as the Will of the Lord, unto which the Spirit by dispute, collation and comparison of places, did led them.   

3. Conclus.  
Hence the synod may be said to charge the truth of God upon the Churches, and to load their Consciences with the Decrees they published by way of authoritative council, because they have the Divine Authority of the Scripture commanding all that they decreed, long before their Decrees came out, the evidence whereof they now discovered, and the power whereof they by way of Application pressed upon their consciences in the particulars mentioned.  
Taking this sense and interpretation along with us, that Mr Rutherford here and there opposeth as in the Answer to the 11. and 15. Object. pag. 210, 212. will easily be removed; for when he thus reasons.  
OBJ. If this Assemblies Decrees did lay a tie and bond upon the Churches of Syria and Cilicia, Then it did either tie them as a council, or as a part of Scripture, or thirdly, as a Decree of an ecclesiastical synod, pag. 212.  
If the first be said, this Canon doth not lay a Command upon them; the contrary thereof we find vers. 28. It layeth a burden upon them, Chap. 16. 4. Decrees they must keep.  
2. It cannot tie as a part of Scripture; for that which is proper to the Church, to Christ his second coming again, doth not oblige as canonic Scripture; For canonic Scripture shall not be still written till Christ come again, because the Canon is already closed with a Curse upon all adders; but what is decreed according to God by Church-guides is proper to the Church &c. pag. 210.  
" Ergo, They must tie as a Decree of an ecclesiastic synod.  
ANSW. The ambiguity and doubtfulness of the Phrase darkens all the dispute; the Explication of that will expedite an answer to all that hath been said with great evidence: To bind as a part of Scripture, admits a double sense.  
1. Either that which is dec●eed is clearly contained in, and so infallibly collected out of Scripture, and so is Scripture, and hath ●he binding Power of Scripture with it.  
2. Or that this act of Decreeing issuing from the immediate Revelation and assistance of the Spiri●, doth make that which is decreed to be Scripture.  
We take it in the former sense, and affirm according to what we have formerly proved, that the Decrees are express Scripture, or necessary to be inferred from the Scripture, and ergo tie as a part of Scripture, which is there alleged; though the Allegation it self, in itself barely considered, hath no such Power, nor can lay any such bond at all.  
As when the Nicene council decreed that the son was {αβγδ} with the Father, as the Words of text evidence, Philip. 2.6. he counted it no robbery to be equal with the Father: This Decree contains Scripture, and ergo hath a Divine Power going with it to bind, not because decreed, but because it is Scripture which they have decreed.  
And in this sense they did, and any council may lay a Burden upon any mans Conscience; so any Christian that shall publish and preach that of 1 Cor. 6.18. Flee Fornication; and every man that commits that sin, He sins against his own Body; He may press this Prohibition as binding the Conscience, and lay it as a burden of the Lord upon every soul, not from the Authority of him that speaks, but because it is Scripture that is spoken; and may lawfully lay an absolute necessity upon all his hearers, that they must keep that Charge, since its Gods Charge now published and appli d by his Means.  
And in this sense it is true, That which is proper to the Church until the coming of Christ again, that may oblige as canonical Scripture; not because the formal publishing doth make it Scripture, but because the thing is assuredly Scripture which is published.  
Nay in the 209. p. immediately going before, Mr Rutherford affirms that which amounts to thus much, In his first Answer to the ninth Objection where he conjoins these two together; That the excommunication of the Incestuous Corinthian, The App●inting Elders at Lystra was scripture; and yet the Deeree of Excommunication and appointing Elders did bind with an ecclesiastical tie only.  
By the same proportion; the things that are counseled may be Scripture, and bind by a Divine Power, and yet the publication of these may tie by way of council only in regulating of those that do publish them.  
Before we pass from hence it will not be amiss to take into consideration, how Mr Rutherford clears the ground, how it comes about that a Presbytery can bind a Congregation by an ecclesiastical tie of Obedience, how a synod can tie a Presbytery. &c.  
He answers they have warrant by 

A Positive Law by God,  
The Law of Nature.    
Concerning which I shall take leave to offer some few things to consideration, because I cannot so well reach his meaning, that so I may give him occasion more fully to explicate himself at his return.  
Jus Naturale, and Positivum, when their special and specifical Nature comes to be attended, I have looked at them, as carrying a kind of Opposition, as Membra dividentia use to do; and as its ordinary to observe amongst all Interpreters in the Exposition of the Commands.  
Jus Naturale is, That which issues out of the reference and dependence, which the Nature of men hath unto God as a Creator, so that if God be God, and man a Creature, made for him and his Glory, he must bestow himself and heart upon him in the first Command, This is a natural Law.  
But that he should worship him by such means by the Word, such Sacraments and Censures so dispensed, this is a positive Law of Gods appointment, which had he not expressed, or should be after, that which was positive Law before is no Law now; As in the Sacraments of the Jews, which are now out of date, may be easily discerned; those which were means of Worship then appointed, are no means now, because abrogated.  
And how the Authority of Synods should bind by a Positive Law, and yet also bind hy Nature, deserves some further Explication.  
Nor doth the Explication and Distinction added, pag. 208.  
" A thing is natural two ways, 

simply and  
by consequent,   take away all the scruple, or clear all the doubt.  
For if that may be counted a Law of Nature, which upon some supposition or condition stands by a rule of reason, I cannot see how natural and positive laws will be distinguished.  
Take we Mr R. Examples propounded into consideration.  
That Thomas and John should dwell in such a Congregation, God in his providence might have otherwise disposed; and that is ergo Jus Positivum that they come there to be Members.  
But being Members, then its connatural, they should be subjected to the Eldership of this Congregation; and the ground of the bound is, the part must be in subjection to those who command the whole: John and Thomas are parts of this Congregagation; such an Eldership commands the whole, ergo they must be subject to such an Eldership. pag. 201.  
I do not see how this distinction can clear the cause in hand; for by the same ground I see not why any man may not say that all positive laws are natural, nay cannot be but natural laws; look we at the consequent and condition which may, nay certainly will attend all of them in their very constitution.  
Take some instance for evidence; when any of the Heathen came to embrace the Jews Religion and ceremonial Law, they did that by a positive Law, because they might have remained as Job, and never become Proselytes.  
But when they are once turned Proselytes and become Members of the Jewish Congregation, then it is connatural that they should submit to all their Ceremonies; every Member of the Corporation must be under the laws of the whole; so that by this ground they must be said to obey the Ceremonies by Natures Law; but how harsh doth that sound?  
Besides, when a man is a Member of such a Congregation, where its ordinary and usual for such a man to depart at his 〈…〉 and become an Inhabitant in another Province, as it suits with his own will, or emergent occasions; and yet being there, he as a Member must submit to the rule of the whole; and upon that ground is bound to obey by Natures Law; when there be no laws that can be more merely positive, then these be; and their obedience comes from free choice, because it is in their choice to depart if they will.  
To end this case, let this reason be attended.  
That ground which is common to Natures Laws and Positive laws, that cannot make a distinction betwixt either of them. Communia non distinguunt.  
But this rule of reason that the part should be ordered by the whole, is common to all the laws, natural and positive. Ergo, by this the one cannot be distinguished from the other.  
That which follows, needs a grain of salt to be added, otherwise it exceeds my apprehension to make work of it. pag. 202.  
The division of a Nation into Provinces, and of Provinces into so many Territories called Presbyterias, and the division of so many Presbyteries into so many Congregations, cannot be called a device of mans, because it is not in the Word of God; for by the same reason that John and Thomas, and so many three and foures of believers should be Members of Independent Congregations, seeing it is not in the Word, it shall be a device of men.  
Against which Assertion I should reason.  
The division of a Nation into Provinces &c. is either a device of men, or a Divine Institution, for non datur tertium.  
But a Divine Institution it cannot be.  
1. That which stands by the rule of arbitrary Policy, that is a device of man, and not a divine Institution.  
But this stands by a rule of arbitrary Policy, as practise and experience evidence.  
2. That is a device of man, which proceeds from the free choice of rectified reason suiting his civill ends, according to the several occasions and means he shall device to that purpose.  
But the division of a Nation into Presbyteries, &c. is of this nature; It issues from the free choice of rectified reason, suiting civill ends, according to the several means and occasions devised to that purpose.  
3. That device which is acted by one man, and may lawfully be altered by another, keeping the end of {αβγδ}, that is the device of man.  
But this is so.  
One King and Governor orders the combination of people and places one way, into so many hundreds, so many shires; some so large, other so much less: The successor alters all another way, and both of them without just blame.  
4. Lastly I shall reason from his own grant; That which is not in the Word, is a device of man: For all lawful devices must either be from the wisdom of the Word, discovering, directing and approving such, when ever they shall be observed and followed.  
Or else they must issue from the wisdom of man, following that light of reason, the relics whereof are yet left in lost nature, or renewed by education, and the use of such means as may be helpful thereunto.  
And that which I desire may be especially observed in this place● is, That from this grant, I cannot see how( I do not say the authority of a Classis or synod can be proved, but how) either of them can be maintained to be an Ordinance.  
If Classes and Synods be Ordinances of Christ, and so parts of his Worship, then they are if not expressed, yet necessary may they, nay they be collected out of the Scripture: For that only is a part of Gods Worship, which God himself appoints.  
But its here granted, that all these divisions of Nations into Provinces, of Provinces into Territories and Classes, are not to be found in the Word.  
Therefore, They are no Ordinances of Christ, nor parts of his Worship.  
When it is added, that John and Thomas should be Members of a Congregation, is not found in the Word.  
I answer, It is found, though not particularly expressed, as many other things are not, yet so, as may necessary be collected therefrom.  
All who are believers in Christ, should by duty attend upon Christ in all his Ordinances, and therefore in Church-fellowship, as the Apostle disputes and concludes; Eph. 4.14, 16.  
But John and Thomas are such. Ergo.  
That which follows pag. 202. That all our singular actions are mixed; there is something moral in them, and that must be squared and ruled by the Word; and something is in them not moral but positive, and this not to be squared by the Word, but by natures light.  
In these expressions there be many doubtful things, which deserve to be discussed and cleared, but that they fall not in so pat with the purpose in hand.  
1. It would be proved, that all our singular actions are mixed, and have something to be squared by the Word, something not; Ex. gr. Preaching, praying, receiving Sacraments, professing Faith at this time and season, and upon this express Command of God, how are these singular actions mixed, what in these is to be squared by the Word, and what is not?  
2. How that which is positive in an act( I suppose the meaning is, that it s done by a positive Law) is not yet moral, when these are for the most part subordinate, and not contradistinct.  
3. How some actions must be squared by Natures light, and not by the Word, when the Apostles injunction goes so far; Whether we eat or drink, or whatever we do, let all be done to the glory of God; and the received tenet of the school maintains, tha● Omnis actio in individuo est moraliter bona vel mala; and if such, its certain, they then come within the verge of the Word.  
I propound these quaeres to occasion Mr Rutherford his further explications: But I conceived it necessary to take notice of that division of a Nation into Provinces, and those into several Territories; because we have herein the foundation laid, and a way made for Synods, which must have their garb and garment cut after this compass; but it shall anon appear this apostolical pattern will quit us of any such constraining inference.  
We have now done with the explication and preface to the dispute: We now come to Mr Rutherford his argument, which he thus propounds out of the place.  
If the Churches of Antioch being troubled with a question which they could not determine, they had recourse to an Assembly of Churches, who gave a Decree, which the Churches were bound to keep; then, upon like occasion we must have recourse to like remedy.  
But the first part is plain; being in this trouble &c. they did resort to an Assembly, which gave out a Decree, which they were bound to keep.  
Therefore we also upon the like occasion, must seek for the like remedy, and stoop to the Authority thereof.   

ANSWER.  
The whole conclusion may be granted as true in a true sense, according as we have formerly opened it in the foregoing conclusions; for its granted, we lawfully may, nay its necessary we should repair in cases of difficulty and doubt to a Classis or synod: Its certain they should show their council and set down their sentence out of the Word, and lay it by virtue of the Word as a burden upon mens Consciences; and being so published, so confirmed out of the Scriptures, we ought to receive it as the Word, so much as is gathered out of the Word, and attend to it, as an authoritative advice, as Mr Rutherford speaks, and we have formerly declared in the foregoing Conclusions.  
This is all the place enforceth, and all this we grant.  
But that they did tie Ecclesiastically, by virtue of any Church-jurisdiction, which they had over other Churches, nondum constat, as yet appeareth not.  
Act. 15.28. We lay no greater burden. Act. 16.4. And as they went through the Cities, they delivered them the Decrees to keep. Act. 21.25. We have written and concluded, that they observe no such things, but that they keep themselves, &c.  
All this I say, may well agree to a way of council.  
For suppose a Christian man out of office( an exspectant as Mr Rutherford speaks) preach and publish the Commands of God, he may be said to press them as a burden upon mens Consciences and charge them as necessary duties, which they are bound upon the hazard of their souls carefully and conscientiously to discharge, and not dare to neglect in the least measure.  
The whole frame of the proceeding, and all the casting circumstances of the context show that Assembly acted by way of council.  
1. These Decrees are said to bind those to whom they are sent.  
But they were sent to all the Churches of the Gentiles. Act. 21.25.  
As touching the gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded &c. who had no Commissioners nor Messengers delegated to the Synods; and therefore could not bind them by way of any authoritative jurisdiction; For it is a ruled case in all such proceedings synodical. Those who have warning and liberty to sand to the synod, those are subject to the Authority of the synod; what Mr Parker expresseth as effectual to the constitution of a synod, that is approved by all, and by Mr Rutherferd; That which materially furnisheth Commissioners at on Assembly in their gifts and holinesse, that which formally fits them to that work is their calling and sending. Park. l. 3. cap. 18. Rut. pag. 213. Where there is no delegation of Messengers by mutual consent, there is no right of jurisdiction.  
2. All these fundamental grounds which are laid for the orderly acting of any of their occasions, take this as confessed; for were it enough for several Churches to assemble and to set out Decrees which might bind all indifferently, whether they had Commissioners or no Commissioners in their meeting; then the Decrees of one Province or Nation might impose upon another Province or Nation, which is by all conceived and concluded to be unequal; nay it may fall out, that they may impose contrary things, and so of necessity breed and bring confusion and vexation in stead of reformation.  
The Decrees of a synod bind onely such by an ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, who delegate Messengers to the synod.  
But the Decrees of this synod bind more then those who delegated Messengers to it; to wit, all the Churches of the Gentiles.  
Therefore, They did not intend to bind by Ecclesiastcall Jurisdiction, but by way of Christian council: Or more plainly thus,  
They who sand the Decrees of the Synodo to such Churches, who never sent their Messengers or Commissioners thither, they sand onely by way of council.  
But this synod at Jerusalem sent their Decrees to all the Churches of the Gentiles, who never sent their Commissioners thither, ergò.  
Ergò, They sent onely by way of council.  
3. That Pattern which sends a Church 200. miles for a synod and consociation, that doth not tie a Church either to a provincial or national synod.  
But this doth so.  
If it be replied; If I may go so far, therefore I may gather one nearer.  
I answer; True, you may do so; but its as true by this pattern any delinquent may refuse to do so; but when his cause comes to be scanned, and he to be convented before provincial or national synod, he may pled that liberty, which the practise of the Apostels propounded here as presidentiall will allow unto them: And so by this sampler, national and provincial Synods are wholly made frustrate, and may as well be rejected as received, notwithstanding any force of argument from the place or practise that might constrain to the contrary.  
4. Its said Act. 15.2. When they appointed Paul and Barnabas to go to Jerusalem to inquire touching the opinion of the necessity of Circumcision, that created them no small business, that the Church of Antioch sent other Messengers with them, {αβγδ} with the same commission, and they concurred with the Apostles in the sentence determined: For the Church of Antioch which was a party, and contested with those of the Pharisees against their false conceit and opinion, to be judge in their own cause, is against rule; but that they may crave council and concurrence with others, and so be a means to settle themselves and others in the Faith of the gospel, and to walk with a straight foot in the profession thereof, this suits well with rule and reason.      

CHAP. II. Where Mr Rutherford his Arguments touching the Superiority of Classes and Synods above particular Congregations, are considered and answered; And they are in number 6. more, set down in the 15. ch. of his book.  
THe 7. and 9. Arguments propounded in this 15. ch. seem to be of greatest weight, and therefore require more serious and studious search, and to that purpose we shall make way for ourselves by some previous Explications in the Conclusions which follow.  

1. Conclus.  
There is some first and most supreme tribunal in the exercise of Church-power, unto which appeals juridicè are last made; and from which no appeal can be granted or expected.  
Otherwise the wisdom of Christ would be blemished, if there should be an endless maze and circled in seeking reformation, which could never be found nor attained.  
Beside, the peace of the wronged and complaining party would be exceedingly prejudiced, if he should never come to a period in the pursuit of his case, and so never to a remedy of his wrong; and the seeking for a cure would prove far worse then the suffering of the trouble of the disease.  
Standum in aliquo primo; God, and Reason, and Nature determine this: And this I suppose must be an ecumenical council in the apprehension and approbation of our most learned and reverend Brethren.   

CONCLUSION. II  
Hence this first and supreme tribunal, which exerciseth power over all other, there can be none to exercise power over it. This follows ex terminis, and out of the Nature of the thing; That which is above all, can have none above it.  
Higher there cannot be then the highest. I speak now only of a way of ministerial proceeding. And this not only equity but necessity forceth upon all courses of judicature, whether civill in the Common-wealth, or ecclesiastic in the Churches.   

3. Conclus.  
Hence, the highest and supreme Tribunal cannot be censured by any power of the same kind: nor yet is there any prejudice to the care and wisdom of our Saviour, that the punishment of such is reserved onely to the throne of his divine justice.  
1. That such cannot be censured, common sense will teach one.  
Over whom there is no power, upon them can be exercised no censure. But the highest ministerial power hath no power in that kind above it.( I mean ecclesiastical power) only the supreme Magistrate in the Common-wealth, hath a civill co-active power to constrain the Churches in case of their exhorbitations and Apostasies from the order of the Gospel to attend the rules of Christ, and to recover themselves by a just Reformation.  
But if we look at the highest tribunal of Church-power, in case they be faulty, whether can an appeal be made in an ecclesiastical proceeding? To go higher we cannot, because we are at the highest: and to appeal to the inferior from whom the appeal hath been made, not onely the rules of prudence, but common sense will condemn a man of folly, in such a practise.  
2. Nor yet doth this( in the second place) derogate any thing from the depth of Christs wisdom and faithfulness in the government of his Church: for it is no other, then that which infinite providence doth yield approbation unto. When all flesh hath corrupted his way, and erred in judgement, its but rational, that then the execution of judgement should come into his hand, who is the righteous judge of all flesh.  
These things being premised, which cannot be denied, unless we will bid battle to common sense, we shall now address ourselves to the examination of the seventh and ninth Arguments, because they arise out of one roote, and one bottom serves to bear them both.  

7 Argument of Master Rutherford.  
If when an obstinate Brother offends, we must tell the Church, then the same course is to be taken, when an obstinate Church offends, Pag. 217 For Christs remedy for removing of offences is hence argued to be imperfect, if excommunication doth not remove all offences, pag. 221. and prevent the Leavening of many lumps.  
He that careth for the part, must much more care for the whole Church, and ordain excommunication for the edifying of it.  
And he that takes care of a national Church, who can doubt, but he hath care of edifying and saving in the day of Christ, Churches of Nations and Provinces, pag. 221.  
This is the main and onely bottom that bears up both the Arguments, and if this prove brickle, the whole frame will imis sedibus ruere; and that this weakness may appear, I desire no better armoury to fetch weapons from, to wound this cause withall. For from the ground of this Argument I would reason thus, not that I take the ground good, but its good against him and his cause, because it is his own.  
If when an obstinate Brother offends I must tell the Church, then when an obstinate Church offends, I must take the same course: then when an ecumenical Synod or council offends, I must take the same course: but that is exceeding irrational.  
Christs remedy of excommunication must remove all offences, else its imperfect. But excommunication cannot remove the offences of an ecumenical council; therefore Christs remedy is imperfect.  
And that it cannot remove the offence of a general council, reason and common sense doth evidence at the first sight, besides the conclusions formerly proved; for to whom can the appeal be made, or who can excommunicate?  
When Master Rutherford hath answered these Arguments, he will answer himself.  

1 Reason against it.  
That course of proceeding which hinders the removing and healing of offences, that is not Christs course.  
But this appeal from particular congregations to Classes and thence to Synods, hinders the cure of offences.  
For suppose I am a Delinquent, the Classis will proceed against me; I appeal to a Synod. If the Synod favour me not, I will appeal from it to a National, and from that to an ecumenical council; and since there hath not been a general Synod near upon this two hundred yeeres, nor when there will be any, who can tell, before that be gathered, censure cannot be executed upon these grounds.   

2. Reason.  
That which frustrates the power of Congregations, yea directly crosseth the rule which our Saviour hath given for the exercise of discipline, in each particular Church, that is not Christs way.  
But this course of subordinating congregations to the jurisdiction of Classes, and then to Synods doth so.  
The Assumption will appear by practical instance.  
1. It frustrates the power of a Congregation; for if the Delinquent be complained of to the Congregation, and shall perceive an admonition ready to be dispensed, and the vote passed against him, he presently makes his appeal, and prevents the proceeding of the Church. For that is a received rule, pendente appellatione reus debet pro non judicato haberi.  
2. Nay I cannot see, but that the rule of our Saviour is directly crossed. For when the admonition is given, and the judgement of the offender approves not of the Churches proceeding, he may then go further, and crave the judgement of the Classis and Synod, and so keep off the blow of excommunication: which is professedly to thwart the rule of our Saviour, and the words of the Text. Whoever hears not the voice of the Church, is to be cast out and accounted as an Heathen. But he who appeals from the judgement of the Church after admonition, he hears not the judgement of the Church.  
Therefore he deserves to be cut off.  
And yet by this Law of appeal, the Law of Christ for the cutting off of a pertinacious sinner is wholly crossed: or else the Church may proceed against him for taking a course which according to this opinion is lawful and regular.   

3.  
Let it yet be further considered, whether this provision made by a synodical proceeding, keeping the pattern here propounded, will heal the wound and reform the sinner, though there be not an appeal made to an ecumenical council. And that this provision according to the proposed grounds, may in a legal way be defeated, I thus show,  
The party that is to be censured in a Classis, he appeals to a synod for his relief, as he hath an allowance by the judgement of our Brethren.  
But the synod of which he will make choice shall be so far remote, that either it will not be easily gathered, or the Messengers of the Churches cannot readily be fitted to repair thereunto, as instance thus.  
The party that broacheth false Doctrine in Scotland, is not convinced, cannot be reclaimed from his error by the Classis, but makes an appeal from them to an higher Court of jurisdiction, which may right his wrong; but that shall not be a provincial nor national synod in Scotland, but one in Germany or Holland, and from this pattern he pleads his lawful liberty in such a proceeding.  
If they went to have their cause scanned 200. miles from Antioch to Jerusalem, why may not I upon the like occasion challenge the like liberty? and who can oppose, unless he will oppose the precedentiall practise of the Gospel.  
Now when this error will be suppressed, or this heretic reformed by this way, let the Reader judge; For the error it may be is such, that it is not worth the labour, and travel, and trouble that must thus be undertaken; or the cure is like to prove so difficult, that its unlikely ever to be attained, or at leastwise never in season: and thus human devices prejudice Gods Ordinances, and their own comforts.  
The truth is, A particular Congregation is the highest tribunal, unto which the grieved party may appeal in the third place; if private council, or the witness of two have seemed to proceed too much sharply and with too much rigour against him, before the Tribunal of the Church, the cause may easily be scanned and sentence executed according to Christ.  
If difficulties arise in the proceeding, the counsel of other Churches should be sought to clear the truth; but the Power of Censure rests still in the Congregation where Christ plcaed it.  
Let us now hear what Mr Rutherford answers in this behalf pag. 218. when it was said an offended Brother cannot have a synod of Elders or a national Assembly to complain unto. 2. That Christ is setting down away, how an obstinate Brother may be cast out of the Church, where he was an offender.   

Mr Rutherfords 1. Answer.  
Excommunication must reach as far as offences; but offences are betwixt Church and Church &c.   

Reply.  
The contrary to this hath been proved, and I suppose upon could blood and second thoughts it will be confessed, that a general council cannot be excommunicated, though it do offend.  
If the council of Nice had determined against Paphnutius in the marriage of Ministers, he must have sate down in silence, and swallowed his offence, but could not have gained satisfaction: Neither is Christs remedy upon this ground insufficient; for excommunication is sufficient to attain its end, which is to cut off particular persons, one, or many, but not whole Churches, as anon shall appear, Christ willing.  
2. He would seem to retort the Argument, and turn the edge of it against itself, thus;  
Those who are consociated and neighboured together in the acts of visible Church-communion, by rebuking one the other, Levit. 19 17. comforting one another. 1 Thess. 5.11. pleading one with another, Hos. 2.2. and so occasionally communicating one with another: these make up one Visible politic Church, that is under a common Government.  
But so it is, that sundry particular Sister Churches are consociated in the foresaid acts. pag. 219.  
Coloss. 4.16. Macedonia, Galatia, in the same acts of charity. 1 Cor. 16.2, 3, 4. 2 Cor. 8.1.  
Also if any person be excommunicate in one Congregation, he is also in the neighbouring Congregations; and hence these visible acts of Church-communion require a common Law and Discipline.  
But one common Law and Discipline they cannot have, unless they may by authority convene in one synod in their principal Members.   

ANSWER.  
These acts are of a double Nature, as issuing from a double ground; to with,  
They are either 

Christian or  
ecclesiastical and Authoritative.    
several Churches communicate in the first, but not in the second; and I confess, it seems somewhat strange to me, that a respect so obvious and ordinary should not be observed and acknowledged; but that which is most strange of all, that such actions, which reach not onely to christians, but to Excommunicates, yea to Infidels, should be put as proofs of Church-communion.  
A man may rebuk an Excommunicate, and in case, by way of parity, he may counsel and exhort him, as Mr Rutherford grants; doth it therefore follow that a man exerciseth acts of visible Church-communion?  
One may, nay should distribute to the necessities of other, when extremities pinch and press. He that sees a Brother want, and shuts up his bowels, how dwells the Love of God in him? Do good to all, but especially to the household of Faith. If thine Enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink; let him be an infidel, let him be Excommunicate of other Churches Will any man, can any man therefore rationally conclude, that these are visible acts of Church-communion, and so require a common Law of Discipline?  
When Paul rebuked Elymas the sorcerer Act. 13. Checked the superstition of the Athenians Act 17. When he shooke his garment with indignation against such as opposed and blasphemed, threatened, and condemned them for their sin, Act. 18.6, 7. and professed to renounce communion with them. And so Paul and Barnabas with the pertinatious Jews, Act. 13.46. when they had sharply rebuked them for their base opposition against the evidence of the doctrine of the Gospel, and therefore openly professed they would turn to the Gentiles:  
Are these acts of Church-communion and require a common Law of discipline?  
To this head belongs that which he adds in the 221 pag. as arising from the like mistake.  
For when it was said, that God hath provided other means for whole Churches, then to excommunicate them: we must pled with them, and rebuk them, but it wants precept, promise and practise to excommunicate a whole Church.  
He Answers, It is a begging of the question; for we desire ( saith he) a warrant from Gods word why Sister Churches may use some power of the keys against Sister Churches, such as to rebuk them, and pled with them, and yet we may not use all the power of the keys, even excommunication, pag. 222.   

Reply.  
To which I reply, 1. From that which hath been said it is apparent, that all rebuking is not an act of the power of the keys: and therefore that may be used, when excommunication cannot.  
Beside, it hath not onely been affirmed but proved, there can be no act of excommunication pass upon some Churches, as I suppose will be granted by them: and it shall Christ helping be made evident, that it can pass upon none in propriety of speech, or according to the order of the Gospel.  
Lastly, that rebuking out of Christian charity is divers from an act of authority and excommunication: I suppose there need no better proof then his own principles will yield.  
1. One Classis may admonish another.  
2. One provincial Synod may counsel, may rebuk another, upon just occasion offered.  
3. One or all of these may pled with a general council: And yet he grants: One Church cannot excommunicate another: one provincial Synod hath no power over another, none of all these can excommunicate a general council, nor have they any authority over it.  
2. He adds, The Jews did justly excommunicate the Church of the Samaritans, and Christ alloweth thereof, Joh. 4.22. Ye worship, ye know not what, but salvation is of the Jews, in which words ( saith he) Christ pronounce h the Jews to be the true Church, and the Samaritans not to be true.   

Reply.  
1. I reply. From these words how to fetch or force an excommunication of a Church, I am yet to learn. For by his own confession, excommunication is to deny all Church communion with those who were of one Church and communion; but so the Samaritans were never of the Jews  
2. Besides, there is not any act of power expressed by the Church of the Jews upon the Samaritans: nay not a word, syllable or sentence sounding that way, discovering any judicial proceeding of the Jews in that behalf.  
3. Its true, our Saviour doth plainly and peremptorily pronounce that their estate was Idolatrous, and corrupt and perfectly heathenish. But thence to infer the power of the Church to excommunicate another, would be a far fetched and in truth a feeble inference. Should a man reason thus, If our Saviour condemn the Samaritans worship for heathenish and Idolatrous, in that they worship they know not what: then one Sister Church may excommunicate another: I suppose the repeating of such consequence were reply enough: as he, Recitare est confutare.  
Lastly, when he desires know what excommunication is, if it be not to deny all Church communion with such who were once in one Church.  
I reply: Something is here craved, which hath been proved to be far from truth, to wit, that the consociating of Churches is to make a presbyterial or synodical Church: and to make the particular congregations members of the Church, as an integrum which is not so, but a mere concurrence and combining of their councils together, without any authoritative and Church jurisdiction over the particulars.  
And this he perceived to follow by undeniable Argument, that the renouncing the right hand of fellowship, which other Churches may do, and should do as occasion requires, is another thing from excommunication.  
1. Because one congregation may do this to another.  
One provincial Synod to another, which yet have no power given them by Christ over each other. The like may be said of the rejection of a particular Church by a Synod; and that is all that can be said.  
2. That which every Christian man or woman may do to one, or many, that is not excommunication.  
But any Christian man or woman may, upon just grounds, reject the right hand of fellowship with others, whom they cannot excommunicate.  
In a word, there may be a total separation, where there is no excommunication, Because excommunication is a sentence judicial, presuppo●●ng ever a solemn and superior power over the party sentenced; but no such thing in separation, or rejection. Separation is, and may be, from those that are without the Church: but excommunication is onely of them, who are within.  
A man never so mean, may separate from the Assemblies of Turkes, Pagans, and Papists: yet for the same person to excommunicate such an assembly, would be a sinful profanation of Gods Ordinance.    

8 Argument of Mr. Rutherford.  
His eighth Argument is taken from the common concurrence of the Apostles in their counsels and carriages of businesses  
If all weighty affairs, that concern equally many particular congregations, were managed, not by one single congregation, but by the joint voices and suffrages of Apostles, Pastors, and selected brethren of many congregations in the apostolic Church: Then were Synods the practise of the Apostles, and not Independent congregations.  
" But the first is true.  
" The Assumption is proved by induction.  
The select Pastors of the Christian world, and select brethren choose mathias, Act. 1. The treasury of the Churches was committed to the Apostles, because that concerned all, Act. 4.33.34. The common Synod of the 12 Apostles ordained Deacons, Act. 6.3, 4, 5  
There is a Synod of Pastors at Ephesus, Act. 23.28. whom Paul warned to take heed to the flock.  
Peter giveth an account of his going to the Gentiles, before a Synod of Apostles and brethren, Act 11.2.  
An Assembly of Elders appoint Paul to purity himself, Act, 21.18.  
A Synod of Elders ordained Timothy, 1 Tim. 4.14.  

Reply.  
I Reply. These several places have commonly and frequently been propounded and alleged many times, in many passages of the book, they have met us, as it were, at every turn, and stopped us in our way: In all which we have referred the full debate and disquisition about them, unto this, as the proper place.  
And therefore we shall take leave a little more seriously, to examine the particulars once for all: that so it may appear, what vigour and validity is in all these instances to conclude the cause in hand, and whether there is a sufficient cause to place so great confidence in the several practices here expressed.  
Onely before we can apply ourselves to the particulars, that must here be remembered and taken along with us, which will easily be yielded and confessed on all hands.  
1. The office of the Apostles, being extraordinary, as having the care of all the Churches under their care and watch, they did, as extraordinary persons, interpose their power in all the particular Churches, where ever they came: as also express their judgements by vote and counsel, as occasion did require.  
And therefore what they did in this case, it must not, it should not be drawn into example: extraordinary practices, are no suitable ingredients to make up ordinary precedents, as certain and standing copies to succeeding generations. But we must take onely that which is ordinary, when we would make ordinary patterns to regulate our proceedings by.  
This being once mentioned and remembered, it will ease us of needless repetitions in the succeeding discourse.  
I reply then, First generally. Secondly we shall examine shortly the particulars.  
1. Generally. That there can be no warrant or proof of a Synod in these several instances, It will appear by apparent evidences from Master Rutherford his own principles; who pag. 204. lays this down as a confessed truth, which admits no dispute.  
1. That the members of a Synod, must be Elders and brethren, sent as Commissioners from several Churches, which are not here to be found in any of these places.  
2. The ground of thus gathering members from many Churches, it must be matter of weight, and that which is attended with much difficulty and danger also.  
3. The manner of their proceeding, is by way of disquisition and agitation of all or many of the members, who are willing to speak.  
4. The decisions and determinations are by common consent, and joint approbation of all, in whose name such sentences are decreed and published.  
And none of all these are to be found in any of these instances: so that to my shallow conceiving, there is not the least semblance of a Synod.  But secondly, let us come some what nearer, and take the particulars into special consideration. 
In Act. 1. There be these three things to be attended, which take up the substance of the whole proceeding.  
1. Peter leads the action, lays forth the ground of their meeting, and the mind of God, how the action should be managed, ver. 15. to 23.  
2. The whole Assembly, by mutual consent, present two to choice.  
3. And commend the determination of the business to God by prayer, and so cast lots.  
What is here done, that carries the face or appearance of a Synod?  
True: the eleven Apostles were here together, because they were enjoined by our Saviour, to abide in Jerualem, until they were endued with the spirit from above. But there is nothing here done, but any one might have done it; nor was there need to crave the concurrence of other Churches which they had not. The whole Church concurred, by mutual consent to appoint two to lot: and accepted him, upon whom the lot fell. Here was no joint voices and suffrages of Pastors and select Brethren of many Congregations, which was the thing to be proved. Nor can I imagine where the force of the dispute lies, or whence it will be fetched.  
If Peter directed the particular Assembly, how far they should go, and after what manner they should proceed in making way for the choice of mathias; then Synods have ecclesiastic Authority over particular Congregations.  
How crasy is such a consequence.  
And yet the second instance carries a further distance from the cause in hand, and is marvelous wide from the mark: For all that is expressed, or can be gathered from Act. 4.35. That the Apostles had the disposing of the common treasury and provision, which men raised by the selling of their goods, and laid it at their feet, to dispense as seemed fittest to their wisdom: All which its certain they did as extraordinary persons, and that in an extraordinary manner; the Officers which were to take care of such occasions, not being yet appointed in the Church.  
Where are the joint voices and suffrages of Apostles, Pastors, and select Brethren of many Congregations, which were to be demonstrated by promise to be in this Example? Beside, how Deacons are to order the treasury of the Church, needs no Synod at all, if we would consider the matter without the extraordinary managing of it, to reason then from this place,  
If the Apostles by the extraordinary power of their places did manage the treasury of the Church, because the Office of Deacons was not yet instituted; Then a Synod hath Authoritative ecclesiastic Power over a Congregation.  
Such an inference hath little cement of reason.  
Neither doth the third instance comes near the Conclusion to be proved, Act. 6.3, 4, 5. touching the ordination of Deacons; For where are the joint voices and suffrages of Apostles, Elders, and select Brethren of many Congregations, which was the proposition to be confirmed? Its true the people are directed to make choice of able men, and that any Congregation in particular may do, nay it hath right to do, without a Synod. The Apostles as extraordinary men, they laid on their hands for the establishment of them in their places, being extraordinary persons, and having a plenitude of power in them: But to infer hence,  
If the Apostles laid on their hands upon the Deacons elected by the people, therefore a Synod hath authoritative power over a Congregation; such an inference will appear feeble at the first sight.  
The 11. of the Acts and 3. vers. comes next to consideration, and that hath as little, if not less evidence of proof, then any of the former.  
For there be no joint voices and suffrages of Pastors and select Brethren of many Congregations, which was the thing to be proved, but it is not so much as remembered, but laid aside wholly.  
2. There is no evidence given in, of many Churches here present, nay no certainty of any; but its most certain they met not( if they met at all) in way of a Synod, or for that end, nor acted, nor intended any thing that way: Onely some of the Jews, who were not so thoroughly informed and convinced of the liberty and lawfulness to converse with the Gentiles in holy communion as Peter had done with Cornelius, they questioned his course, and demanded a reason and warrant of his practise: To whom he gave an account, that he might remove all doubts out of their minds and stumbling stones out of the way of the profession, as any Christian man would, and any Apostle ought to remove any appearance of offence that any might take in their way.  
But hence to reason, If Peter gave an account and warrant of his communion with Cornelius to those Jews that questioned it, and was not sufficiently informed therein, be it done before them, or never so many beside them:  
Then a Synod hath an authoritative Power over a Congregation; there is no conclusive force, nay in truth, nor a colour, in such a consequence.  
That of Act. 21. carries some small appearance at the first view: but when we shall come to nearer search, it will be found to have little pith in it.  
Its true Paul went to visit James with whom all the Elders were as it might seem by some intimation and appointment of Pauls coming, that they might entertain him; but the joint suffrages of many Elders and select Brethren, of many Congregations, to determine any businesses, as being called thereunto; there is nor vola, ne vestigium quidem.  
Onely the text says, Paul saluted them, as it may seem, meeting on purpose to that end, and he reported to them the passages of Gods providence towards him,& the good hand of Gods blessing upon his labour: They also acquainted him, how occasions stood with them, what rumors were spread abroad of him, and what a jealous eye the Jews had touching his disregard of Moses Law, and suggested such advice as might seem most advantageous to promote the work of the Lord.  
There is nothing here done or recorded, but what the Elders of a Congregation might do to some faithful Minister that was arrived at their cost.  
There is nothing like calling or carrying on of a synodical work; and without all question, Synod there was none, because it must be either provincial or national; and touching either of these, there is not so much as any syllable that sounds this way, in the text: And to reason hence,  
If James and the Elders met to entertain Paul at his coming, and he saluted them, and they suggested to him, how he might so carry himself in wisdom and wariness, that he might crush the false rumours that were spread of him; Then a Synod hath ecclesiastical Authority over a Congregation: There is no constraining force in such a kind of reasoning.  
That of Acts 20.28. hath least of all, that looks this way: For the scope of the place, and purpose of the Spirit, is only this; Paul now resolved for Rome, and by the Spirit of prophesy knowing that he should never see those coasts, nor their faces, amongst whom he had preached the gospel; knowing also, that false Teachers as ravening wolves would endeavour to make a prey of them: He therefore desires to take his leave, and solemn farewell of them, and to leave a savoury caution and heart-breaking exhortation, as his last farewell with them, and to that purpose sends for the Elders of Ephesus, and pours out his passionate and affectionate expressions into their bosom.  
Where is there any the least show of the joint voices and suffrages of Apostles, Elders, and select Brethren, of many Congregations?  
Here were none but the Elders of Ephesus, and all things in the text argue they were Rulers of one Congregation: They are onely Elders of the Church, not Churches, vers. 17. He chargeth them to attend to the flock. {αβγδ}. v. 28.  
But had they been the Elders of never so many Churches, sent for by the Holy Apostle, to take his farewell of them, and to leave some spiritual council with them: Alack a day, what is this to a Synod, or to the ecclesiastic Authority of a Synod over particular Congregations? Here there is neither joint voices, nor disputing, nor decreeing, but onely hearing and attending the last words of a dying and departing Apostle.  
To reason thus; If the Elders of Ephesus met at Miletum, were sent for by Paul, to come to visit him, as he passed by in his travel, and to take their farewell of him, and to receive some holy council from him;  
Then Synods have an ecclesiastical Power over Congregations.  
How unreasonable would such a reason seem?  
The last place alleged of 1 Tim. 4.14. ( The laying on of the hand of the Eldership upon Timothy) is I confess accompanied with much difficulty and obscurity, and deserves through examination; but this place hath been opened and handled in the head of Ordination, whether we refer for the while: we shall only now attend so much as concerned the present Argument.  
Whatever then is the meaning of the text, its certain, it fals short of that, for which it is alleged here by Master Rutherford, nor doth it prove the Proposition for which it is brought; nay if his allegation may be attended, it wholly crosseth a main Conclusion, for the maintenance whereof he contends.  
1. That it proves not that for which it s brought is evident by the letter of the text; for the Proposition under hand to be made good, is this;  
That the weighty affairs were managed by the voices and suffrages of Apostles, Pastors, and select Brethren of many Congregations.  
But in the place of Timothy we have onely the hand of the Eldership; but not a word of any select Brethren, that were interested in this work.  
2. Nay it will appear upon search, if this Argument be good to prove this cause, for which it is brought, its certain it will confute another cause strongly maintained by Master Rutherford; for I reason thus:  
If the laying on the hands upon Timothy was, by the concurrence of the Elders and select Brethren of many Congregations; then Ordination is not an act proper to the Eldership, but issues from the power of the select Brethren also, and so the Church of believers have a hand in it.  
But the first is true by Master Rutherfords assertion; The laying the hand in Timothy his Ordination, was by concurrence of Elders and select Brethren of many Congregations.  
Let Master Rutherford now take his choice; If he deny the Assumption, then he doth confess by that denial, that the place was wholly misalledged by him, and that he missed his purpose and the proof of that it was brought for.  
The consequence of the Proposition upon his own grounds cannot be gainesayed; if the select Brethren have a joint hand and suffrage in the work of Ordination with the Eldership, then is not the work proper to the Elders, for which he hath so frequently, so constantly contended through his whole book. We have stayed the longer, because we desired to clear this cost, that when these places come in our way, we may look over them without any trouble, or once making a stand or stumble at them.    

10 Argument of Master Rutherford.  
That government is not from Christ, that is deficient in the means of the propagation of the gospel, to Nations and Congregations that want the gospel.  
" But the government by Independent Congregations is such.  
The Assumption he approves by the doctrine of Independency.  
Pastors and Doctors may not preach the gospel without the bounds of their own Congregation, nor can they exercise any pastoral acts elsewhere.  
And so Pastors and Doctors now, since the Apostles times, have no authority pastoral to preach the gospel to those who sit in darkness.  
And if they do preach, they do it as private men, not as Pastors, they have no pastoral authority from Jesus Christ and his Church pag. 224.  

Reply.  
For Reply, I shall by way of prevention, desire to settle that which is our tenet: That Doctors and Pastors may preach, to all sorts, upon all occasions, when opportunity and liberty is offered, nay they ought so to do. But this they do not as Pastors, but as gifted and enabled Christians, who use their talents given them by God and Christ, to the best advantage of Gods glory and the good of others, as any opportunity is presented and put into their hands.  
But they neither do, nor in truth have right to exercise any authority and jurisdiction over them, and this I shall prove in several cases from his own grant. For pag. 226. speaking against the opinion and expressions of Mr. Davenport& M. Beast, That will have Pastors so far strangers to all Congregations, save onely their own, that they say, other Churches are without, and that they have nothing to do to judge them, and allege for this, 1 Cor. 5.12. but by those who are without, Paul meaneth not those who were not of the congregation of Corinth but he meaneth Infidels and heathens, as in other Scriptures: for Paul judged and excommunicated Hymeneus and Alexander, 1 Tim. 1.20. Who were without the Church of Corinth.  
It is granted then by Master Rutherford, that Pagans and Infidels are without, in the Apostles judgement, and that the Pastor of Corinth could not judge them.  
Those whom Pastors of Churches cannot Ecclesiastically judge, over them they have no pastor-like power, nor can be said in propriety of speech to be Pastors to such.  
But Pagans and Infidels, Pastors of Churches cannot judge, therefore over them they have no pastorlike power, nor can in truth be called their Pastors.  
The Assumption is Master Rutherford his own grant and confession.  
The proposition cannot be gainsaied: for the power of order and jurisdiction, ever go together. The being of a Pastor to a people, doth, in the very nature and constitution of the Call and Office give power of judgement, over that people to whom he stands in that relation, as being one special act of feeding.  
And in truth, how comes any man to take a pastoral power over any Pagans? By nature no man hath any: For it is not conveyed by way of Propagation. By institution he cannot challenge it; for an extraordinary Commission of that Latitude Christ never gave to any, but the Apostles, go preach and teach all Nations. If then any man receives it, it must be by their voluntary election and choice, which because they nor have, nor can show, they have no right of ecclesiastic and Office-rule over them; here that question is seasonable, and will not receive an answer, Who gave you this authority?  
Nay its certain, a Pastor of one Congregation( elected and settled according to Christ) cannot receive a pastoral power over Pagans, but he must relinquish the place and power in which he is: unless we shall bring in an allowance of pluralities and tot quots, a conceit so loathsome, that the most ingenious amongst the Papists have abhorred the Patronage of.  
Lastly, let any man put his power to proof in the exercise of it, and his experience will make it more then plain, its a thing merely imagined and arrogated without rule, there is no reality in such presumed rights. For the Pagan offends, he rebukes him, he will not hear; he then takes one or two, he rejects them also: he reports it to the Church, he casts away the advice of any Church. What will the Pastor or his Church do? Excommunicate him, how will they? how can they? To cast a man out of Church communion, that never was in Church-communion, how irrational? how impossible? The issue therefore evidenceth, it was a presumption, no power in truth; for when it comes to proof its powerless.  
Before we leave this place, let me leave two things upon record with the Reader, which may led him to a right conceiving of what he hath met withall, or shall meet with touching the power of a Church-Ruler. For from the premises its plain.  
1. That bare preaching to a people, though it was ordinary and often, is not an act of pastoral power and so jurisdiction, but his Commission is mainly to be attended, which gives vigour and validity in that work. And therefore,  
2. A man may preach by pastoral power, in some place, to some people, and the same person may preach without pastoral jurisdiction to others, but onely as an able gifted Christian.  2. again out of Master Rutherford his grant in another place, I shall dispute against his opinion expressed in this. Its a conclusion which he sets down, pag. 72. 
We deny that Christ hath given power, of jurisdiction to one particular congregation over another particular congregations, pag. 199. We grant that one Presbytery hath no jurisdiction over another Presbytery.  
Suppose now that one, or many, or all, of one Presbytery, should be destitute of Elders: The Pastors of another Presbytery cannot exercise any pastorlike acts there: nor yet in another Province and Nation: by the same proportion over whom they have no jurisdiction, over them they can exercise no pastorlike power; but the first is granted, and therefore the second is yielded.  
Let us now listen to the reasons which Master Rutherford allegeth, whereby he endeavours to prove; because the government by Independent Congregations doth not authorize persons to be Pastors and Teachers to Pagans, and by pastoral authority, to make them the Churches of Christ, therefore that government is deficient in the means of the propagation of the gospel.    

Master Rutherfords first Reason.  
1. Because it is unbeseeming the care of Christ, that pastoral authority should be so confined at home, and imprisoned within the lists of every particular Congregation, that the care spoken of 2 Cor. 11.28. should be now in no Pastors upon the earth, but be dead with the Apostles.  

Reply.  
Reply. That each Congregation should have their own Pastors and teachers, and that out of their calling and commission, as they have pastoral power, so they should have care of them, over whom they have taken charge, is granted.  
That as Christians in love to Christ, his Gospel and the souls of fellow Christians, as far as liberty, opportunity, and ability will reach, they should occasionally put forth their care and pains to promote their spiritual good, is confessed.  
But that one, or many, or all of them, should have pastoral authority, and out of that ground exercise pastoral care over all Churches, as the place alleged would, 2 Cor. 11.28. or indeed over many: its cross to the institution of our Saviour, and therefore it should not, nay in truth it cannot be exercised by any ordinary man.  
The Apostles indeed, because their calling was extraordinary their gifts extraordinary, and assistance extraordinary, they had a larger task, even the whole world, as Christ field to Till: All Nations. Every creature reasonable.  
But Pastors and Teachers, who have but ordinary gifts, they have but, as it were, an Acre of ground, a particular Congregation to till and teach: and he that knows his duty, and doth his duty, will find enough of that, {αβγδ} Act. 20.28.  
So that we should be very careful to cast any disparagement upon the wisdom and care of our Saviour, because he hath now put an end to the extraordinary callings of Apostles and Evangelists, when the end of them is attained: or weakly and sinfully make ourselves more merciful and mindful of the good of the Church, then he, who is the God of mercy, is.  
When he therefore cares most for his Church, because he doth confine the pastoral power and pains of one man to one Congregation, as sense itself will teach. He that keeps the stream in one channel, he best provides for the strength of it.    

2. Reason,  
He adds; As if these places, 1 Cor. 10.32. 1 Cor. 9.19, 20, 21. Rom. 1.14, 15. Rom. 9.2, 3. did not press upon all Ministers of Christ, the extending of their pastoral vigilancy to the feeding and governing of all the Churches in their bounds, that make up one visible body, pag. 225.  

Reply.  
Reply is. If all this were granted, yet that is not proved, which was propounded, and should be concluded: that because they had not pastorlike authority to make Pagans Churches, therefore they are deficient; all that is here said, falls short of that.  
But the reason is not onely wide of the mark, but wide of the truth. For besides that of Rom 1.14. Which is peculiar to the calling of an Apostle, and therefore presseth no particuliar minister at this day, unless any man would vainly conceit he hath a commission to preach to all Nations and all conditions of men, the calling and the date of the Apostles commission being now, out this concerns n particular Officer.  
The rest o the places respect onely a double Christian duty, unto which all men are bound; namely, That we should walk inoffensive towards all. 1 Cor. 10.33. and secondly, we should use our liberty to comply with all mens occasions, that as much as in us lies, we may edify all, which each must do that is not a Pastor, and each Pastor should do as a Christian amongst them, over whom he can exercise no pastoral Authority, as to those of another Presbytery, and of a general council.  
Thirdly, He would infer some seeming absurdities, which would follow from this kind of Government. As first, Hence( he says) It must follow, that when the graecian Church shall be wronged by the Hebrew, that the Pastors may not Synodically meet, and by joint authority remove offences. pag. 225. Act. 6.  
I reply, There is no colour for such an inference, nor doth it once touch the thing to be proved; For let it be granted, that the Pastors may meet Synodically, and by authority also remove offences; yet they shall not have power to give pastoral Authority to men to make Churches of Pagans: Nay from his own grant, though they do thus meet, yet he denies they can give Power over the Churches under other Presbyteries.  
The second inference is of the same stamp; comes not near the mark.  
If followeth that all the meetings of the Apostles and Pastors to take care authoritatively for the Churches, as Act. 1. Act. 4.35. Act. 6.2, 3, 4. Act. 11.1. Act. 21.18. Act. 20.28. Act. 8.14. Act. 14.1, 2, 3. Act. 15.6. were all meetings extraordinary and temporary.  
I reply; Let all be granted for the present, that he would desire; let these meetings be ordinary, and let them care authoritatively for the Churches in what they did; yet this gives in no evidence, that they can give pastoral Power and Jurisdiction to men out of the Churches; for we have heard, that the Apostle affirmed it, and he granted it in this sense; that no ordinary Pastors can judge those who are without, and those are Infidels by his grant.  
So that though they have Power to meet, and these meetings be ordinary, yet neither of these grounds will evince that they do, or can give pastoral Jurisdiction to judge such as be without: therefore none of these inferences come near the thing to be proved; For if therefore Government by Independent Congregations be insufficient, because it authorizeth not persons to be Pastors over Pagans, and by pastoral Authority to make them the Churches of Christ; then this Government by synodical meeting, will be insufficient; for we see it labours of the same fault.  
The third Inference failes in the same manner as the former.  
Thus are these Inferences altogether impertinent; but the places themselves are misunderstood, as hath at large been disputed in the Reply to the former Answer.  
Since it hath appeared in all the places formerly handled( for these witnesses have been brought to speak, but their evidence proves nothing in issue) there is no synodical meeting, nor any ecclesiastical Power authoritatively to impose upon particular Churches; onely in Act. 15. there is a true Synod truly gathered, and they did that, which the Churches of Christ should do; consociate with one another, and by mutual concurrence, lay all their cares and counsels together, to promote the good of Christs kingdom.  Whether the Apostle had any thing or nothing extraordinary in their meeting, upon which Mr Rutherford lays so much weight and conceives so much mistake, let it be considered? 
1. Whether the acting of the Deacons work,( Act. 4.35.) be ordinary for any?  
2. That they had their votes, and ruled the action in every Assembly, whether that was ordinary?  
3. Whether the care of all, and their Commission reaching all, be ordinary and perpetual?  
Master Rutherfords 11th Argument is taken from the light of sanctified reason.  
For sanctified reason teacheth, that the stronger Authority of the greater politic Body of Christ should help the parts of the Body, that are weaker, as 1 Cor. 12.23, 26. The whole Body helpeth the weaker and less honourable Member.  
Therefore the greater Body and national Church is to communicate its Authority, for the good of a particular Church, which is a part thereof.   

ANSWER.  
The Proposition is true; but the Assumption takes that for granted, which is the very question to be proved, and hath been so often denied: For there be no national Churches, which are the integrum to particular Congregations as the parts thereof: Nor doth the pattern Act. 15. give any evidence of ecclesiastic Jurisdiction, as hath been declared before; and if it did, surely there would come very slow help, if we should sand 200. miles to Synods always, as that place sets a precedent before us.  
As their Members are the greater, they may and should consociate, and lay their Counsels together, and in the multitude of counsellors there is safety.  
OBj. But suppose the greater part of the Church of Corinth err?  
ANSW. Suppose the greater part of the national and ecumenical council err; the same difficulty urgeth upon the same supposition, and we profit not at all, when we seek authoritative relief beyond a particular Church.  
OBj." But the Lord says, Take us the little Foxes.  
ANSW. True, therefore much more the greater Foxes.  
OBj. But that is an act of Authority and disciplinary taking, enjoined to the Church.  
ANSW. Be it therefore those that have the Authority in their hands, they should do it; and if they be followers of Christ, they will do it.  
OBj. What if the Congregation be corrupt and will not?  
I reply; What if the Synod national, ecumenical, be corrupt and heretical, and refuse to do it? There is no more help in the one, then in the other upon supposals.  
When its lastly added, That the Argument is drawn from the greater Authority in the politic Body, to the lesser, but Brotherly council is no Authority.  
Its true, the Argument is taken from that Authority in the resemblan●e and similitude; but that similitude is not made good in the case in hand, and in the reddition, which was the thing to be proved: For it is the thing questioned, and by us denied; That a Classis hath any Power, according to Christ, over particular Congregations.  
Master Rutherfords 12●h and last Argument taken from the practise of the Jews.  
If Christ left the Churches of a whole Nation in no worse case then the national Church of the Jews was in, &c. for the turning away of wrath. Then hath Christ ordained to Churches in the New Testament, national Assemblies, which authoritatively, &c. But Christ hath left the Churches of a whole Nation in no worse case then the national Church of the Jews was in, for the reaching of the foresaid ends.   

Reply.  
For reply. The proposition is denied, because there is a marvellous difference betwixt the national Church of the Jews, and all other Churches, that ever were or shall be since that unto the end of the world. For that was a national Church truly and properly so called and so appointed by God, had national Ordinances, and Offices peculiar to itself, and so also authoritative power, which was appropriate to them in a special manner, none of which ever did, nor can belong to any other Nation in the world beside.  
Nor yet doth it follow from hence, that the Churches of the Gentiles in times of the New Testament, be without these, that therefore they are left in a worse case, because they had the Types, we the truth; they the shadow, we the body. Every Congregation visible, rightly gathered, hath right unto, and use of all Ordinances, all the Officers, both the seals of the Covenant: so that we need not go to Jerusalem, either to Passeover, or Sacrifice.  
If any man reason thus. If Christ hath left the Church of a Nation in the New Testament in no worse case then the Church of the Jews, then he hath left them an High Priest, then he hath appointed them to meet three times in the year, to the exercise and performance of solemn services and sacrifices. The feebleness of the dispute would discover itself at the first view. The same fault is in this reason.  
But the Jews had these solemn Assemblies for ends before mentioned.  
Obj. 1. But these were moral and concern us. 2. Without them these public ends cannot be attained.  
We shall way the severals shortly in the balance of the Sanctuary.  
Its granted then. 1. That the whole Nation of the Jews was an elected and adopted Nation by God, and the whole Land taken into Covenant with him.  
And hence its granted also, that in cases of Apostasies and departures from God and his worship, the godly Kings might and did recall this backsliding people to recover and renew the Covenant formerly made by God with them: and therefore, Deut. 29.10, 11. Their Elders, Officers, all the men of Israel, their little ones, wives, and the stranger within their gates, they all stand before the Lord.( Here is more then Elders and select Brethren, sent as Commissioners to a national Synod) Here's Captaines, Hewers of wood, all the men of Israel, women, children, which evidenceth it was a national covenant, into which God entred with them. And therefore the godly Kings, they might recall them back to this, when just occasion did require.  
But no King nor Emperour did the like to this, in calling their Synods: nor indeed have they, either moral Law, or ceremonial Law, nor in truth any Law to deal with a Nation on this manner, to call them to renew a national Church covenant, after the manner of the Jews.  
Gods people, who enter into Church covenant and fellowship of the faith, are and should be free in so doing. Church fellowship is to be ordered and acted by ecclesiastical policy, not civil. If a Prince on earth should by covenant and Oath; make his whole kingdom a national Church, he should do more then he hath any word of Christ to warrant his work.  
So that it is one thing for Emperours or Kings to call councils of Elders and select Brethren: Another thing for the King of Israel to call all Israel together, men, women, and children to renew Church covenant which God had made with them, and with no other people on earth.  
But let us attend Mr. Rutherfords proof of this, that these Assemblies were moral.  
1. An Oath to keep Gods Commandements, is a part of the third Commandement, Psal. 119.106. We are enjoined to contend for the Faith, judas 3. and to profess God before men, and that which binds one man morally, binds a Nation.  
I reply. The reason is weak, and the ground of it is worse.  
1. That it is weak put it but into form, and it will discover it's own feebleness at the first appearance.  
If David swore that he would keep Gods righteous Statutes, then its lawful to swear to a national Church, as that of the Jews was.  
Ans. The consequence is unsound, because Davids taking an Oath was upon lawful grounds, to do a lawful thing: but to do the second, is now unlawful, because all such national Churches, and such a manner of covenanting, as they did, is now abrogated and antiquated.  
Beside were the thing lawful, yet the taking of the Oath might be unwarrantable in the one, and not in the other, because in Oaths and promises, that is one special ingredient to make them warrantable, that they svit with our strength: and hence that which is useful and helpful to one, because strong and able to go through the performance of his Oath, to another it is hurtful because not sufficient to accomplish what he swears. The same answer will satisfy that of judas, and the 10 of Math.  
2. As the reason is weak, so the ground is worse; For its said, what binds one man morally, binds a Nation; which rule applied to the former practise of Davids Oath, failes many ways.  
For 1. Though when a man hath sworn, he is bound by a moral Command to keep his Oath, and so his promise; yet this manner of swearing, seeming to be private, its but a free-will offering, as the Nature of vowing or promising is, and therefore if I vow, I may; and if I will not, I may choose: And I do believe a man may live all his life, and never take a private Oath; I say private betwixt God and himself, to keep his laws, and yet not be guilty of sin in so doing: so that a man is not morally and necessary tied to swear or vow, though having vowed, he is necessary bound to perform it: If thou dost not vow, thou dost not sin.  
But 2. Be it granted, that it is moral, yet the rule seems exceeding uneven. That which binds one man morally binds a whole Nation, take it generally, as here propounded in the Argument, when as there be some special duties, that in a peculiar manner belong to his particular, which a Nation need not do, nay should not, nay cannot do.  
A man finds by constant proof that drinking of wine is exceeding prejudicial to his health, and hurtful also to his soul, being given, as the Wise-man says, to his appetite, and so apt to sin: He finds it possible for him to abstain; He therefore swears he will drink no wine in such Company for such a space.  
Another hath found himself somewhat too abstemious, and hath prejudiced his health out of neglect of the lawful use of the Creature; He swears he will use such means provided for his health: These men are morally bound, both to take the Oath and keep their Oath: Do these oaths bind the whole Nation?  
The scholar swears he will study constionably: The ploughman that he will plow so painfully; These are moral bonds to those men, but is a whole Nation bound thus to swear?  
The truth is, the contrary rule for the most part is most true; that which morally binds one man in things special appertaining to his moral course, doth not bind a whole Nation.  
Lastly, The ends of general Reformation may be attained by Power of the Civill Magistrate, who may authoritatively require all the Churches in all their several Assemblies, to attend the mind of Christ, and solemnly humble themselves by fasting and prayer, and see Reformation wrought according to God, in their several places; and if they see Churches be holy, they will willingly listen thereunto; and if corrupt, they may be compelled by the Civill Power to attend the rules of Christ, which through the corruption that is now crept in amongst them, they would be content to cast off.      

AN APPENDIX To the former Treatise concerning SYNODS. An Epistle of them that sent the book over to be Printed.  
COurteous Reader you may be pleased to take notice, that the Treatise concerning Synods is not so complete, as was intended by this Reverend Author; but the Lord having taken him from us, before the Book was transcribed for the press, we cannot find amongst his writings any other Copy, but this: onely these few questions here annexed came to our hands, being found in his study, which because they may be somewhat useful to the further cleared of the same subject, we have thought good to communicate them together with the other: Onely this we should add, that whereas there is a seeming denial of a Synod, to have at all any footing in the Scriptures, and yet an allowance of it from Act. 15. This is known to be the Authors mind, which the whole discourse doth manifest, that he denies a Synod that hath juridical power, which he takes for a Synod properly, as used in the present controversy, and he grants a Synod that hath power of counsel, which is a Synod more largely taken, and for such a Synod the 15 of the Acts is alleged as a pattern by way of proportion.  
farewell.   

CHAP. III.  

Qu. 1. What is a Synod?  
A Synod is an ecclesiastical meeting, consisting of fit persons, called by the Churches, and sent as their messages, to discover, and determine of doubtful cases, either in Doctrine or practise, according to the truth.  
Three things are main.  
1. Its a meeting ecclesiastical.  
Meeting] When it is taken in a large sense, includes all that ecclesiastical intercourse, that is betwixt Church and Church, and this may be referred to two heads.  
Its done by 

Communication, or  
Combination.    
1. Communication, when, by letter or messengers, one Church seeks and craves for some common help by counsel and advice, what may be most suitable to the truth, and acting and ordering of their present difficulties, which concern the peaceable managing of occasions presented.  
Thus we find one Church sends to another; or to many, as the weight of the business may require, so in Coloss. Philippi, &c.  
This sense is somewhat too large for our present consideration, as it appears by stating of the question by all, who on purpose have set themselves to search into the nature of Synods.  
2. There is a meeting by way of combination, when Churches, cousociating together by mutual consent, enter upon a common engagement to administer help each to other, as any apparent occasion shall appear to call for consultation for a common good.  
And in this sense it is here taken.  
ecclesiastical,] its so termed, not only because of the persons who are there assembled, nor yet because of the occasion, there to be agitated, which may be merely and only ecclesiastical, at least Ecclesiastically handled, but especially( for now we speak according to the opinions and apprehensions of those, with whom the question is controverted) because such meetings are peculiar to Churches, and the actings are appropriated thereunto, as any other Church administrations, and if we may conclude their opinion by their practise, it cannot be otherwise.  
For they, who allow Synods to censure by way of excommunication( which is a judicature only appertaining to the Church) they must needs make the constitution properly ecclesiastical. For the Operation discovers, and certainly determines what the Constitution must be.  
2. The parties who constitute this meeting must be, 

1. Fitting men, able for the work, and that gives the materiale to the messenger.  
2. Chosen and sent by the Church, and that is the formalis ratio of a member of the Assembly.  
This Parker expresseth, Polit. Eccles. lib. 3.    
And all the Presbyterians, I meet withall, do constantly receive and approve.  
Hence upon these grounds and the true stating of the question according to their intent;  
1. A Magistrate qua talis, is no member, nor can act in this meeting, as such.  
2. Here is no act of an Office or Officer, because the formalis ratio to make one a member, is the choosing and sending; and therefore, they who are no Officers, if so elected and appointed, they have jus suffragii. They who are Officers, if yet not called, nor sent, they have no jus suffragii.  
3. Hence, all have equal power, because equally sent and chosen, which are the substantial ingredients to make up synodical members.  
4. Any member, though not an Officer, if he be elected as moderator of the Synod, may as legally and regularly and as sufficiently supply that place, as any who is an Officer.  
As suppose some learned Reader in a university chosen to the Synod, though he be no Pastor, he may be elected to that place, and act in it regularly.  
5. Hence, none have this power, unless they be sent, because that gives the formale to this action.  
6. Hence, these cannot censure by way of excommuunication, according to Presbyterian principles; because none by their rules can censure so, but Officers; But here none act as Officers, id est, though they be Officers in their own Congregations, yet they act not so here, but as called.  
7. Hence this Power is not intrinsical to their Office, but wholly superadded; and if Authors, who call it Potestatem accumulativam, non privativam, intend this sense, they say true, namely, it is a special Power, beside an official Power.  
But if that be their meaning, That it is an Office-power only with additament, its a total mistake; For many Officers have not this Power, and many not Officers, being called, have it.  The third thing in the Description, is the end, which is to discover and determine of doubtful questions, touching Opinion and practise. 
They are to debate and set down their judgements clearly and definitively, not to leave the Churches, whence they are sent, in doubts and demurs; For that was to miss the end of their sending and meeting: But they dogmatise their sentences, and set down their determinations, as sure truths to their judgements and apprehensions, and so return them to the particular Churches whence they came; and their determinations take place, not because they concluded so, but because the Churches approved of what they have determined.  
For the Churches sent them, and therefore are above them: And therefore may sand other if they see fit, who may vary in their judgements, and alter their sentences if they see fit.  How far this judgement goes, it comes after to be considered. 
The Power of Synods ariseth from a double root, according to which the proofs will proceed.  
Potestas est 

Authoritativa,  
Consultativa.    
1. Potestas Authoritativa or Juridica, whereby they execute censures, and impose their sentences to be received and subjected unto under that penalty.  
And this Power is not so seated in any Church, as that it can challenge it of itself: For by all Presbyterian principles it is confessed, That one Congregation hath no Power over another, one Classis over another, &c.  
Hence this Power issues from their Combination of one with another, and subjection of one to another.  
But whether they should give this Power unto any, or thus be subject unto any, &c. when the Authority of Synods comes to be scanned, we shall speak to it.  
2. Again, The Power of Synods is by others conceived to be onely consultative, when Churches by way of Combination, for their mutual support in truth and peace, do with mutual consent appoint times of meeting for their mutual help, that they may lend common relief by their Common counsel, and have the benefit of each others gifts& abilities; or though they be not in any set consociation, if there be any emergent occasions of more danger or difficulty, they sand for help of counsel, to such as are most able to lend and administer it, though furthest removed from their society and fellowship: As the practise of the Church of Antioch is most pregnant to this purpose.   

2. QUEST. How are Synods proved? or what Scriptures or reasons to prove the necessity of Synods?  
ANSW. That there should be Synods, which have Potestatem juridicam, is no where proved in Scripture, because it is not a truth: such a Power will appear after to be unlawful, and therefore never appointed by God, nor approved by his Word.  
The Examples given out of Act. 15. and Gal. 2. carry no full and satisfying evidence with them.  
That of Act. 15. is deficient many ways.  
1. If they had Power juridical, it must arise by way of Combination; But that they were not in, being 200 miles distant at the least one from another.  
2. If that was a Synod, it must be referred to some of the species of a Synod.  
But it can be referred to none of the species; Its neither Classis, provincial, nor national Synod, as the distance from Jerusalem gives in evidence.  
And an ecumenical council it was not, because that is gathered out of all Nations; here were but two Churches.  
OBj. If it be here said, because the Apostles were here present, who had Power over all Churches; therefore it may in that regard be called a general or ecumenical council.  
ANSW. It is easy to reply, That there can be no just warrant taken from thence for such an Assertion: For if the Apostles did act here as particular persons, not by any apostolical Power, then their presence, look at them as private persons, cannot make a general council.  
But their acting in this Synod was not as Apostles by way of revelation or peculiar assistance; Ergo.  
That cannot make a general council.  
They disputed as others, consented, concluded, subscribed, and sent as others.  
3. One Church hath no power over another:  
But here is but one Church advising with another, Antioch with Jerusalem.  
The minor is in the text; the Proposition is a confessed principle, and reason gives force of confirmation; For it carries some appearance with it, that one should yie●d to many; but that one should submit to the Power of another, and haply the stronger, and more able and judicious to that which is more weak and ignorant, &c.  
4. All juridical Power issues from Combination.  
Therefore those onely are bound, that are so combined and sent.  
But this Synod sent their dogmata and sentences to the Churches of Syria and Cilicia, who never sent any Messengers thither, and ergo.  
All that they intended and acted was by a way of council.  
5. The controversy arising from the Church of Antioch, they repairing for judgement, cannot be judges in their own cause, now controverted by an opposite party.  
Hence there was but one Church that gave in the sentence, and that cannot make a Synod.  
6. Each practise or Example is so far warrantable and binding, as it hath either some particular precept to enjoin it, or some general rule that may confirm it by way of collection.  
But here is no particular precept to enjoin it; let them show any general rule appropriate to Church discipline or Church government to bottom it.  
Dr Whitaker confesseth, there is no precept for Synods.  
The reason alleged for proof, hath no convicting evidence in it.  
For when it is said,  
An ordinary Assembly of Church-members, Elders and Brethren of many Churches meeting by occasion of controversy, to dispute and clear truth from Scripture, is founded on Act. 15.  
But this is a Synod.  
ANSW. To the mayor, Such an Assembly met of many Messengers of many Churches, is not found, nor can be proved out of the Act.  
2. They met not to dispute and determine juridicè.  
The same fault is in that proof of Gal. 2.  
If Paul went up to the Apostles to gain mutual consent and approbation, not to submit his office or doctrine juridicè to them at all, for this he professedly gainsays, that he had not his office from man, or by man; and that his doctrine was from God by revelation, as well as theirs.  
If he come to advantage his proceeding by mutual consent and approbation, then other Churches may meet together by way of jurisdiction; there is no soundness in such a consequence.  
The reasons also reach not this Power.  
For errors may be prevented, truth cleared, union of Churches in judgement preserved, and they kept from running in vain, and all neighbouring Churches may be consulted with in more weighty transactions, without this meeting in this juridiciall manner.  
But if Synods and such meetings be attended onely in way of consultation, as having no other power, nor meeting for any other end:  
Then as they are lawful, so the root of them lies in common principle which God in providence hath appointed for human proceeding, and that is,  
He that hearkens to counsel shall be safe.  
In the multitude of counsellors there is safety.  
Hence all conditions and callings, as they need, so they use a Combination of counsel, for the carrying on of their occasions under their hand.  
Hence arise the Companies of Merchants, and all men of all Crafts.  
Hence Common councils in all kingdoms and States.  
And therefore in the Course of Christianity also the Churches of Christ should use the means which God hath appointed for their more comfortable and successful proceeding in a Church-way.  
And hence one Church may sand to another, or to many, and that severally or jointly meeting.  
Hence sand to the most able: As Antioch sent to Jerusalem, because though it was far remote, yet in reason they might expect more relief, because of the joint being of the Apostles together.  
Beside, they were concerned in some manner therein, as it appears, some came as from them, and pretended the judgement of the Apostles touching the necessity of Circumcision, to whom say the Apostles, we gave no such allowance.  
OBj. If it be said, this course of council is common to all sorts, and therefore they may as well consult with any, as with Churches.  
ANSW. True, they may, and in some cases should consult with the Chief learned men and Readers of Divinity in several Universities, or such who have the chiefest skill in the occasions which are in doubt.  
But because the occasion of one Church may deeply concern others. 2. Because Churches are in reason most fit and best able, and will be most affencted with the conditions of other Churches, Therefore its most suitable to right reason, and the rules of consultation to advice with such.   

3. QUEST. What is the Power of a Synod?  
ANSW. Power, {αβγδ} is either 

Juridica, 

Praetoria, to bind consciences to Christ  
Aequatoria    
Consultativa.    
Juridica Aequatoria 

Either in inflicting censures,  
Or 

Imposing their conclusions and determinations upon others under pain of censure,& this is that they call legislative Power, Potestas conficiendi Canones.      
Again this Power looks two ways, 

Either in respect of other Churches,  
Or of the Magistrate.    
Hence the answer will issu● in three heads.  
I. They have not Power infligendi censuras, utpote excommunicationis: The reason is taken from Presbyterian principles,  
All censures are administered by men in office.  
But here the actions issue not from such.  
Those acts which proceed in common from men without, as well as in office, those cannot be acts of men in office.  
But all acts of the Synod are performed by all the Members of the Synod.  
It seems good to the Spirit and unto us, that was, all the Brethren, as well, as the Church.  
2. They grant, that all the Power the Synod hath, is accumulative, not privative; it takes nothing from the Power of the Churches.  
But thus to censure, would take Power from the Churches.  
That which crosseth the Power given by Christ, that diminisheth their lawful and rightful Power.  
But this doth so; For Christ saith, He that will not hear the Church, let him be as a heathen: But this Power gives them leave to refuse the admonition of the Church, and to appeal, and so nullifies the proceeding of the Church.  
3. That which gives power over a Church without the attending the judgement of the Rulers, nay happily, against their judgement, that diminisheth the power of the Church.  
But this doth so: As in case all the Elders of a particular Congregation shall gainsay the censure, and the rest of the Synod pass a censure against the Elders.  
4. Excommunication is proper to the Congregation.  
Therefore they take that which is their propriety.  
That it is proper, it thus appears.  
Its either proper to the Congregation, or else common to both.  
Therefore it fals firstly and properly somewhere else, namely, it belongs to the Church in general first, and then to both the species.  
But this cannot be.  
That which is firstly in the genus, doth belong indifferently to both species from thence.  
But all the power the Classis hath, they have it from the Congregation.  
Therefore it was firstly there, not in a Church in the general, as belonging to Synods and to Congregations.  
5. All jurisdiction belongs to, and issues from the power of order.  
But this jurisdiction issues from no power of order; for here is new jurisdiction, but no new order or officer.  
6. Where there is a superior power, thither belongs supreme honour.  
But the greatest honour belongs to them, who preach, not who rule.  

2. They have no power to impose their Canons or Conclusions upon them.  
1. Because the Churches power is above them, in that they sent them.  
2. Because the Churches have power to call another Synod, and sand other Messengers, and pass sentence against them.  
3. Because in many cases it may enjoin a man to believe contradictions.  
As suppose a man under one Province, which hath determined a case one way, and therefore he must believe that:  
He removes himself the next month or week into another Province, and they have determined a contrary Conclusion, and he must believe that.  
4. In all Synods, but an ecumenical, its lawful to make an appeal; and therefore to refuse.   

3. In point of council,  
They have dogmaticum decisivum judicium, i.e. they may dogmatise and set down their judgements definitively, and by way of determination.  
Therefore Junius calls them 

{αβγδ}  
Non praecepta said Ordinationes.      

4. QUEST.  
To whom the power of calling Synods doth appertain.  
1. The state of the question must be first enquired  
2. The reasons brought for the truth, that it may be settled.  
This controversy comes to be agitated betwixt us and the Papists: and also betwixt many of the Protestants, in some particular branches, or some peculiar explications of it.  
We shall endeavour to lay out the full breadth, and then to point out the severals wherein the very neck and hinge of the question stands. Therefore inquire, 

1. What Synod is here meant.  
2. What it is to call.  
3. To whom the power appertains.    
1. A Synod, in this question, is usually restrained to a general council, or an Oecumenick Synod, as it may appear in Doctor Whitaker. For as touching provincial or national councils, he grants they were commonly convocated by the Bishops, Metropolitan, or patriarch, who had an inspection into such places, by human appointment  
Though I confess, in a safe and faire sense, I would extend it further.  
2. Convocare. The greatest weight lies in the explication of this word, what it is to call, and if we may look at it, in the full bounds and limits, as its often considered by such as inquire into all the ingredients of this action,  
Then it implies two things.  
1. By way of appointment and injunction to require the solemn and public concurrence and assembly of some persons of several Churches, for such ends, as hath above been specified.  
I say a public and solemn Assembly and concurrence of Churches.  
For, if it be but private and clandestine by some privy intimation one from another, to meet in a secret manner, as under the colour, and by the rule of Christian society, We look not at such meeting as synodical.  
2. This public concurrence, it must be appointed and enjoined, not attained by way of entreaty;  
As persons dissenting, and being in difference one with another, are said, in one usual phrase, to call in Arbitrators, or by entreaty to desire the help of such persons, to consider and end their controversy.  
Such a kind of calling which is by occasional entreaty, reacheth not the stress and state of this question.  
3. I find some also, who make this as one branch, which grows to the body of this question.  Whether they who call, may name and specify the particular persons who must be sent, or may refuse such as be sent, in case they seem to their judgement, upon reasons which appear just to them, that they are unfit. 
And here mens apprehensions vary.  
Some will allow the Magistrate to enjoin and require the Churches to sand: But the Churches must make choice of those whom they will ●end.  
Others conceive it is in the Magistrates hand to appoint both.  
again,  
This power of appointing they look at it in a double consideration.  
Either as a Commission, which they give, whereby they are enabled unto this action.  
Or onely a permission, that the Churches having power of themselves, the Magistrate suffers them, or will not hinder them from putting it forth.  
And the issue then returns to this,  
It belongs to the supreme Magistrate, and the power of his place, to enjoin the solemn and public concurrence of the several persons of the Churches, and to appoint and nominate whom of those he will have to consider of such weighty and doubtful cases, which concern the public profession and practising of the worship of God, within his Dominions.  
When I say, It belongs to his power and place, I mean to him it is peculiar, and doth not belong to the Church.  
2. I say, The public and solemn concurrence is appointed by him.  
They may, as Christians, maintain private communion, one with another, seek, and by entreaty call for the council and help one of another, and as they be Churches, use that Christian privilege of auxilium& consilium, to further their own good, and promote the work under their hand: And that act requires no allowance of Magistrate at all.  
For what I do, quà Ethicus, quà Oeconomicus, and so quà Christianus in private, it appertains not to him to inquire, provided It entrench not upon his {αβγδ}.  
But when any proceed to public and solemn Assemblings, this comes properly under the Cognizance of the Magistrate, as falling professedly in his way, and requires his allowance.  
I say allowance; for in such acts, which issue from the common abilities or dexterities of men Commissio& justa permissio are all one, at least make no great difference.  
The Magistrate allows a scholar, a fencer, to set up Schools of their Art, there needs no more Commission, but such a permission to such actions in a state.  Before I descend to the Arguments, there be two postulata I shall premise. 
1. That a right opinion and worship of God should be openly professed within the territories and jurisdiction of a State, appertains to them, as that which comes within the verg and object of the state and policy to attend.  
For how could they provide for their subjects, to live in godliness and honesty without this?  
How should they be nursing Fathers and Mothers to the Church and Religion, if they should suffer open Blasphemy and Idolatry to be maintained and professed?  
Nay in that such crimes were punished with death in Israel, its plain, the Kings did it, not as Types of Christ, but by a civil power.  
For no spiritual power useth the weapons of this world.  
2. Hence the supreme Magistrate hath liberty and power both to inquire and judge of professions and Religions, which is true, and ought to be maintained, which is false, and ought to be rejected.  
For were he bound to follow the judgement of the Churches, or Ministers, if they should judge a Toleration of all Religions lawful, or judge the false to be true, he then were bound to nurse the false Religion, and false Churches.  Now we shall proceed to the Reasons for the settling of the truth, which was the second thing to be attended. 

Argument 1.  
If it be in the Magistrates power lawfully to forbid and hinder, then it is not in the power of the Churches lawfully to do.  
For then the same thing should, in the same regard be lawful and unlawful: an the rules of providence should be opposite one to another.  
But the supreme Magistrate may lawfully hinder any people of another kingdom to come into his: or his own subjects to go out of his territories without his leave.  
Otherwise, he should want lawful power to oppose such, as would come in to undermine or lay wast the State, and to defend himself.  
And should also not have authority to require homage of his own people.  
Now without the coming in of many, from all Nations, or the going out of his own subjects to other Nations, there will be no general concurrence, nor council.  
And the same power he hath to confine his own people from such general Assemblings, within his own precincts. For there may be the like just reasons.   

Argument 2.  
That which is an act merely civil, that belongs properly to the civil Magistrate.  
But this is an act merely civill to appoint such solemn and public Assemblings.  
The first Proposition is evident from the diversity of the Rules, by which actions are put forth.  
A civill act belongs not to an ecclesiastic power, because that which they do, is only done by the ecclesiastical policy.  

Minor.  
The {αβγδ} of a rule of policy is an act merely civill.  
But this is such, for it is contained under that rule of rectus de Deo sensus, de Deo cultus.    

Argument. 3.  
Its lawful for a Prince to require the help of faculties and abilities of his subjects, to consider, to advice for the good of the public.  
This his royal place, and their homage evidenceth.  
But to call what persons of the Churches, he conceives most fit to meet and concur for council, is to improve the faculties and abilities of his subjects for the common good, ergo.  
And if it was lawful for them to refuse, there must needs follow, not onely rebellion on their part, but certain ruin to the whole.   

Argument. 4.  
If the Magistrate is bound to maintain the peace of his subjects in godliness, and to know and judge of the ways of godliness, then he must have power to use such means, that he may both know and maintain it.  
For providence doth not require the end, but always allows ways withall, for the attaimment of it, which are requisite and lawful.  
But unless he may require the concurrence of the councils and considerations, and so the determinations of Churches touching what they hold and maintain in their profession, to be according to the rule of godliness, there is not a means left, to know what profession they be of, and how far they either agree or disagree.   

Argument. 5.  
If the Churches need and desire the protection of the Magistrate in their way of worship; then they must be ready to give him an account of their way, when he requires it, and therefore to concur and assemble upon his appointment, that so he may know, and lend his patronage and protection.  
This Conclusion in all the particulars of it, is made good by all the Examples in the Old and New Testament.  
As that of Asa, Hezekiah, Josiah.  
Herod Math. 2. calls all the Scribes, Pharisees, and the Elders of the people.     
FINIS.