The due right of presbyteries, or, A peaceable plea for the government of the Church of Scotland ... by Samuel Rutherfurd ...

CHAP. 4. SECT. 4. QUEST. 5.

WHether there be no nationall or provinciall Church under the New Testament, but only a parishionall Congregation meet∣ing every Lords day, in one place for the worship of God?

The Author, in this first proposition denieth that there is any Nationall or provinciall Church, at all, under the New Testament, for clearing of the question observe these.

1. Dist. VVe deny that there is any diocescan, provinciall or Nationall Church under the care of one Diocesan or Nationall Prelate or Bi∣shop, but hence it followeth not, there is no visible instituted Church now, but only a particular Congregation.

2. Dist. VVe deny any Nationall typicall Church, where a whole Nation is tyed to one publick worship, in one place, as sacrificing in the Temple.

3. Dist. VVe deny not but the most usuall acception of a Church, or visible meeting is given, as the a 1.1 refutator of Tylenus sayth, to a convention of people meeting ordinarily to heare the word and ad∣minstrate the Sacraments b 1.2 Stephanus deriveth it from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And c 1.3 Cyrillus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. As d 1.4 Causabon observeth; so these who meete at one Sermon are called Ecclesia, a Church, and it is called Ecclesia & concio, sayth the Refutator of Tilen, e 1.5 but this hindreth not the Union of more particular Con∣gregations, in their principall members for Church-govern∣ment, to be the meeting or Church representative of these many united Congregations.

4. Dist. A Parish-Church materiall, is a Church within such locall bounds, the members whereof dwell contiguously toge∣gether, one bordering on the other, our Brethren, meane not of such a Church; for as f 1.6 Pa•••• Baynes sayth well this God insti∣tuted not, because a company of Papists and Protestants may thus dwell together, as in a Parish, and yet they axe of con∣trary Churches, a Parish-Church formally is a multitude who meete in manner or forme of a Parish, as if they dwelt neere to∣gether

in a place ordinarily, to worship God, as the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of those who came together to celebrate the Lords Supper, is called the Church, 1 Cor. 11. 18. For first of all when ye come together in the Church, I heare that there are divisions amongst you. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 what? have ye not houses to eat and drink in? or despise ye the Church of God?

1. Concl. If we shall evince a Church-visible in the Now Testament which is not a Parishionall Church, we evince this to be false which is maintained by our Brothren, that there is no visible instituted Church in the New Testament save onely a Parishionall Church, or a single independent Congregation. But this Church we conceive to have been no Parishionall Church. 1. Because these who met dayly and continued with one accord in the Temple, and breaking bread from house to house, that is, ad∣ministrating the Sacraments together as our Brethren say, were a visible Church. But these being first an hundred and twenty, as Acts 1. and then three thousand added to them, Acts 2. 41. could not make all one single independent Congregati∣on, whereof all the members had voyce in actuall government▪ Ergo, they were a visible instituted Church, and yet not a Pa∣rishionall Church. The proposition is cleare, The Church of Ierusalem was one visible Church, and did exercise together a vi∣sible act of government, in sending messengers to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Acts 15. 22. Then pleased it the Apostles and Elders and the whole Church (our Brethren say, the whole collective Church Men, Women, and Children at Ierusalem) to send men of their own company to Antioch 23. And wrote Letters, and some Decrees and Commandements to be observed. Now the many thousands of the Church of Ierusalem, by no possibility could meete a•• one Parish, in one materiall house to administrate the Lords Supper: farre lesse could they be, as is said; Acts 2. 42. all continuing stedfastly in the Apostles Doctrine and followship (our Bre∣thren say in P••rishionall or Congregationall fellowship) and in breaking of bread and prayer, nor could they dayly con∣tinue in the Temple and breake bread from house to house, being all one Church, or a fixed parishionall meeting in one materiall house. Now it is cleare, they were 〈◊〉〈◊〉 even after they ex∣ceeded many thousands in number, in one Parishionall and Con∣gregationall

government, as our Brethren would prove from Acts 15, 22, 23, 24, 25. And Acts 2. 42, 43. Else how could they have all their goods common, if there be not one visible govern∣ment amongst them? but this government could not be of one single Congregation; for all who sold their goods, and had all things common, could not meete to give voyces in Dis∣cipline, a judicatory of so many thousand Judges were impossible and ridiculous.

2. Paul writeth to the Galatians, where there were many Parish, Churches, Gal. 1. 2. as our Brethren teach, yet doth he write to them, as he doth to the Corinthians: where our Bre∣thren will have one Parish-Church, and writeth to them of uni∣formity of visible government, that they meete not together to keepe dayes, Sabbaths, and yeers Gal. 4. 10. as the Iewes did, that they keep not Iewish and ceremoniall meetings, and con∣ventions, Gal. 4. 9. these Churches are called one lumpe in danger to be leavened, as Corinth is a Parishionall lumpe in hazard to be leavened, as our Brethren teach. Now how could Paul will * 1.7 them that the whole lump of all the Churches and Congregati∣ons in Galatia, be not leavened, except he lay down a ground, that they were with united authority to joyne in one visible go∣vernment, against the false Teachers: suppose there were twen∣ty sundry Kings in Brittaine, and twenty Kingdoms, could our friends over Sea write to us as to one Nationall lump, to be∣ware of the Spanish faction, except they laid down this ground, that all the twenty little Kingdomes, had some visible uni∣on in Government, and might with joynt authority of all the twenty Kingdomes concurre to resist the common E∣nemie?

Here that godly and learned Divine Mr. Baynes sayth, Com∣munion in government is not enough to make them one Church, this (sayth he) a 1.8 maketh them rather one in tertio quodam se∣parabili (in a third thing which may be separated) then one Church; Government being a thing that commeth to a Church now constituted, and may be absent, the Church remaning a Church, I answer this is a good reason against the Prelates Diocese••n Church, which, as Baynes sayth well, is such a frame in which many Churches are united with one head-Church (under one

Lord prelate, common Pastor to all the Pastors and particular Congregations of the Diocese) as part aking of holy things, or at least in that power of government, which is in the chiefe, Church, for all the others within such a circuit. Now the prel••tes frame of a properly so called Church, under one Pastor being a Creature with a hundred heads, having Church and pa∣storall care of a hundred little Congregations and Churches, is a dreame, for we know no such Church fed by a Prelate, nor no such prelaticall Argos to oversee so many flocks; nor doe we contend that the many Congregations united in a presby∣teriall government, doe make a mysticall visible Church meet∣ing for all the Ordinances of God. But union of many Con∣gregations in a visible government is enough to make all these united Churches one visible, ministeriall and governing Church who may meete, not in one collective body, for the worship of God; yet in one representative body, for government: though worship may be in such a convened Church also, as we shall heare. The name of the Church I thinke is given to such a meet∣ing, Mat. 18. 17. Acts 15. 22. though more usually in Scrip∣ture the Church is a fixed Congregation, convened for Gods worship: now government is an accident separable, and may goe and come to a mysticall Church; but I thinke it is not so to a Ministeriall governing Church. So the Church of Ephesus is called a Church in the singular number, Rev. 2. 1. and all the Churches of Asia, Rev. 1. 20. but seven Churches; and Christ directeth seven Epistles to these seven, and writeth to Ephesus as to a Church having one government, v. 2. Thou hast tryed them which say they are Apostles and are not, and hast found them lyers. This was Ecclesiasticall tryall by Church-Discipline, yet Ephesus contained more particular Congregations then one. 1. Because Christ speaking to Ephesus only, sayth, v. 7. He that hath an Ear•• to heare let him heare what the spirit sayth unto the Churches, in the plurall number 2. Because there were a good number of preaching Elders in Ephesus, Acts 20. 28. 36. 37. and it is incongruous to Gods dispensation to send a multiude of pastors, to over see ordinarily one single and independent Congregation. 3. This I have proved from the huge multi∣tudes converted to the Faith in Ephesus, so huge and populous

a City where many Iewes and Greeks dw••l••, and where the Word of God grew so migh••••ly, Acts 19. 17, 18, 19, 20. and Christ writ∣eth to every one of the seven Churches as to one, and yet ex∣horteth seven times in every Epistle, that Churches in the plu∣rall number heare what the spirit sayth. Now as our Brethren prove that the Churches of Galatia, so called in the plurall number, were many particular Churches, so doe we borrow this argument, to prove that every one of the seven Churches, who are seven times called Churche in the plurall number, contained many Congregations under them, yet doth. Christ write to every one of the seven, as having one visible Go∣vernment.

2. Concl. A nationall typicall Church•• was the Church of the Iewes, we deny. But a Church nationall or provinciall of Cities, Provinces, and Kingdomes, having one common govern∣ment, we thinke cannot be denyed: so Paul Baynes citeth for this, 1 Pet. 1. 1. 1 Pet. 5. 2. Though we take not the Word Church for a my sticall body, but for a ministeriall company. But Acts 1. Matthias was elected an Apostle by the Church, as our Brethren confesse, but not by a particular Congregati∣on who met every Lords-Day, and in ordinary to partake of all the holy things of God, the Word and Sacraments. 1. Here were the Apostles, whose Parish-Church was the whole World, Mat. 28. 19. Goe teach all Nations 2. In this Church were the brethren of Christ from Galilee, Acts 1. 14. and some from Jerusalem v. 15. 3. No particular Church had power Eccle∣siasticall, as this Church had power to choose an Apostle, who was to be a Pastor over the Churches of the whole World, as our brethren teach, so * 1.9 Mr. Paget sayth well; These Dis∣ciples who waited upon Christ, such as Barsabas and Matthias, were no members of the Church of Jerusalem, and so what pow••r had a particular Church to dispose of them, who were no members of their Church? 3. That which concerneth all, must be done by all, and that which concerneth the feeding and governing of the Church of the whole World, must be done by these who represent the Church of the whole World; but that Matthias should be chosen, and ordained an Apostle to teach to the whole World, concerned all the Churches, and not one par∣ticular

Church 〈◊〉〈◊〉, Therefore there was here either no Church (which no man dare say) for ••here is here a company of be∣lievers where there is preaching and Church▪government, v. 15. 16. 26. or then there was here a Congregation which is against sense and Scripture; or there is a Church Provinciall, Naturall, or Oecumenick; call it as you please, it is a visible Church instituted in the New Testament, after the ascension of Christ, and not a Parishionall Church. Some answer, this was extraordinary and meerely Apostolick, that an Apostle should be ordained, and is no warrant for a nationall Church now, when the Churches of Christ are constituted. But I answer, this distinction of ordinary and extraordinary is wearied and worne to death with two much employment. 2. Beza, Cal∣vin, Piscator, Tilenus, Whittaker, Chamier, Pareus, Bucanus, professors of Leyden, Walaeus, VVillet, P. Martyr, Ursinus, &c. and all our Divines, yea a 1.10 Lorinus the J••suite, b 1.11 Caje∣tan, alledge this place with good reason to prove, that the ordination and election of Pastors belongeth to the whole Church, and not to one man, Peter, or any Pope. Yea c 1.12 Robin∣son and all our Brethren, use this place, to prove, that the Church to the second comming of Christ hath power to or∣daine, and exanthorate and censure her officers. 2. We desire a ground for this, that the Ecclesiasticall power of the Church which is ordinary and perpetuall to Christs second comming, should joyne as a coll••terall cause in ordination and election of an Apostle▪ which ordination is extraordinary, tempora∣ry & apostolick; see for this d 1.13 Pet. Martyr e 1.14 VVhittaker f 1.15 Bilson g 1.16 Chamier, h 1.17 Pareus, i 1.18 Beza. k 1.19 Calvin, l 1.20 Harmonie of the confessions m 1.21 Iunius, n 1.22 Cartwright o 1.23 Fulk p 1.24 Ursinus q 1.25 Zwinglius r 1.26 Munsterus, and s 1.27 Theo∣doret▪ would have us to rest upon Apostolick demonstrations like this. And t 1.28 Irenaeus speaketh against rectifiers of the Apostles in this u 1.29 Cyprian sayth the like, 2 Acts 6. A Church of Hebrewes and Graecians, together with the twelve Apostles is not a particular Ordinary Congregation, and

a governing Church choosing Deacons, therefore they are a nationall Church; though the first ordination of Deacons be meerely Apostolick, and immediately from Iesus Christ, yet the ordination of these seven persons was a worke of the Churches power of the keys. Now let our Brethren speake, if this was a Congregationall Church, that meeteth ordinarily to the word and Sacraments, such as they say the Church of Corinth was, 1 Cor. ••1. 18. So say I of the Church, Acts 15. 22. called Apostles, Elders and Brethren and the whole Church, this could not be a particular Church; for no particular Congre∣gation hath Ecclesiasticall power to prescribe Decrees, and Canons to all the Churches of the Gentiles, and that this was done by an ordinary Ecclesiastick power that remaineth perpe∣tually in a Church, such as this was, is cleare, because our Brethren prove that the whole multitude spake in this Church from vers. 12. Then all the multitude kept silence, and there∣fore the multitude (say our Brethren) spake from v. 21. all the Church voyced in these Decrees and Canons, say they.

3. Sister Churchers keepe a visible Church-communion toge∣ther. 1. They heare the word, and partake of the Seales of the Covenant, occasionally one with another. 2. They eschew the same excommunicated heretick, as a common Church-enemy to all. 3. They exhort, rebuke comfort, and edifie one another, as members of one body visible. 4. If one sister Church fall away, they are to labour to gaine her, and if she will not be gained, as your Author sayth a 1.30 they tell it to many sister Churches, if shee refilse to heare them. they forsake Communion with her. 1. Here is a visible body of Christ, and his Spouse, having right to the keyes, word and seales of grace. 2. Here is a visible body exercising visible acts of Church-fellowship one toward another. Hence here a visible Provinciall, and Na∣tionall Church exercising the specifick acts of a Church. Ergo, Here is a Provinciall and Nationall Church. For to whom that agreeth which essentially constituteth a Church visible, that must be a visible Church. You will say, they are not a vi∣sible Church because they cannot, and doe not ordinarily all meete in one materiall house, to heare one and the same word

of God, and to partake of the same Seales of the Covenant joyntly: but I answer 1. This is a begging of the question. 2. They performe other specifick acts of a visible Church, then to meete ordinarily, to partake joyntly, and at once, of the same ordinan∣ces. 3. If this be a good reason that they cannot be a Natio∣nall Church, because they meete not all ordinarily to heare the some word, and to partake of the same Ordinances, then a lo∣call and visible and ordinary union joyntly in the same worship, is the specifick essence of a visible Church; but then there was no visible Nationall Churches in Iudea, for it was impossible that they could all meete in one materiall house, to partake of the same worship. 4. These who for sicknes and necessary avo∣cations of their calling, as Navigation, Traffiquing and the like, cannot ordinarly meet with the congregation to partake joyntly with them of these same Ordinances, loose all member∣ship of the visible Church, which is absurd; for they are cast out for no fault. 5. This is not essentiall to a nationall Church, that they should ordinarily all joyntly meet for the same wor∣ship, but that they be united in one ministeriall government, and meet in their chiefe members, and therefore our Brethren use an argument, à specie ad gen••s negativè; a provinciall or na∣tionall company of believers cannot performe the acts of a particular visible Church; Ergo, such a company is not a visible Church, just as if I would reason thus: A Horse cannot laugh; Ergo, he is not a living Creature, or it is an argument à negatione unius speciei, ad negationem alterius, such a company is not such a congregationall Church, Ergo, it is no visible Church at all; an Ape is not a reasonable Creature. Ergo, it is not an Ape.

3. Conclu. There ought to be a fellowship of Church commu∣nion amongst all the visible Churches on Earth; Ergo de jure and by Christ his institution there is an universall or catholick visible Church. I prove the antecedent. 1. Because there ought to be mutuall fellowship of visible Church-duties, as where there is one internall fellowship, because Eph. 4. 4. we are one body, one spirit, even as we are called in one hope of our calling, v. 5. one Lord, on Father, one Baptisme, v. 6. one God, and Father of all. There also should there be externall fellowship, and Church-

fellowship, of exhorting, rebuking, comforting, and Church-praying, and Church-praising, in the behalfe of all the visible Churches on earth, even for those, whose faces we never saw, Coloss. 2. 1. and when one nationall Church falleth away, the visible Churches of the Christian world are obliged to re∣buke, and to labour to gaine such a Church, and if she will not be gained, to renounce all the foresaid communion with such an obstinate Nation. 2. As the Apostles had one publicke care of all the Churches, and accordingly kept visible fel∣lowship, as they had occasion to preach, write to them, pray, and praise God for them, so this care as Apostolick I grant is gone and dead with the Apostles; but the pastorall and Church-care, and consequently acts of externall fellowship are not dead with the Apostles, but are left in the Church of Christ, for what Church-communion of visible fellowship members of one par∣ticular congregation keepe one with another, that same by due proportion, ought nationall Churches to keepe amongst themselves. 3. This is cleare Act. 1. where particular Churches with the Apostles did meete, and take care to provide a Pastor and an Apostle, Matthias, for the whole Christian Church, and why ••ut particular Churches, are hereby taught to con∣fer all Church-authority that God hath given them, for the rest of the visible Churches; and the Churches conuened in their speciall members, Acts 15. 12. extended their Church-care, in a Church-communion of Ecclesiastick canons to all the visible Churches of the Jewes and Gentiles. Hence Oecumenick and generall councells should be jure divino, to the second com∣ming of Christ; Neither need we stand much on this that our Brethren say, that one Catholick visible Church is a night dreame, because no Church is visible save only a particular con∣gregation, the externall communion whereof in meeting in one ma∣teriall house ordinarily, and partaking of the same word and Sacra∣ments, doth incurre in our senses, whereas a Church communion and visible fellowship with the whole Christian Churches on Earth is impossible, and no wayes visible. But I answer, if such a part of the Sea, the Brittish Sea be visible, then are all the Seas on earth visible also, though they cannot all come in one mans senses at one and the same time; so if this Church particular

be visible, then all the Churches also in their kind are visible. 2. There be acts of Church-communion externall with all the visible Churches on earth, Ergo, the whole Catholick Church according to these acts is visible. I prove the antecedent, we pray in a Church-way publickly for all the visible Churches on earth, we praise Church-wayes publickly for them, we fast and are humbled Church-wayes before God when they are in trouble, and so ought they to doe with us; we by preaching, writing, and Synodicall constitutions proclaime the common enemie of all the Churches to be the Antichrist, his doctrine and the doctrine of that body whereof he is Head to be false and here∣ticall, by writings we call all the people of God to come out of Bab••l, and we renounce externall communion with Rome, in Doctrine, Discipline, Ceremonies: and Rites, all which are Church-acts of externall communion with the reformed ca∣tholick visible Churches, neither to make a Church visible to us, is it requisi••e that we should see the faces of all the members of the Catholick visible Church, and be in one materiall Church with them at once, partaking of the same visible worship: yea, so the Church of Iudea should not be one visible Church, which our Brethren must deny, for they had one Priest hood, on Temple, one Covenant of God visibly professed by all; yet could they not all meete in one materiall Temple to partake to∣gether at once of all Gods O dinance••. For I partake in ex∣ternall worship with these of New England, who are baptised according to Christs institution, without the signe of the crosse, though I never saw their faces. Hence all may see that Oecumenick councel's are de jure and Christs lawfull Ordinan∣ces, though de facto they be not, through the corruption of our nature; yet such a visible Church-fellowship in externall Church-communion is kept in the whole catholics Church visible, as may be had, considering the perversity of men, and the ma∣lice of Satan.

It is constantly denied by our brethren, that the Church of the Iewes was a congregationall Church, and of that frame and institution with the Christian Church: but that it was peculiar and meerely in laicall to be a nationall Church; yet let me have liberty to offer a necessary distinction here. 1. a nationall Church

is either when a whole Nation, and all the Congregations and Synogogues thereof are tied by Divine precept, to some pub∣lique acts of typicall worship, in one place, Which the Lord hath chosen; so all Israel were to sacrifice at Jerusalem onely, and the Priests were to officiate in that kind, there onely, and they to pray toward the Temple, or in the Temple, and they to prese••t the male children there, as holy to the Lord, Luke 2. 23 &c. this way indeed the Church of the Jewes, in a peculiar manner, was a Nationall Church; and thus farre our brethrens arguments doe well conclude, that the Jewish Church was Nationall in a pe∣culiar manner proper to that Church onely. But a Nationall Church is taken in another sense now, for a people to whom the Lord hath revealed his statutes and his testimonies, Whereas he hath not d alt so with every Nation, Psal. 147. 19, 20. which Church is also made up of many Congregations and Synagogues, having one worship and government that doth morally concerne them all. Thus the Iewish Church was once Nationall, and that for a time; God chose them of his free grace, to be a people to him∣selfe, Deut. 7. 7. and Deut. 32. 8. When the most high divided to the Nations their inheritance. Iacob was the lot of his inheritance, Amos 3. 2. You onely have I chosen of all the families of the earth. But the Jewish Church was in this sence but Nationall for a time; Now hath God (Act. 11. v. 18.) also granted to the Gentiles repen∣tance unto life, and called the Gentiles, and made them a Na∣tionall Church, Hos. 1. 11. 1 Pet. 2. 10, 11. Esay 54. 1, 2, 3. that is, he hath revealed his testimonies to England, to Scotland, and He hath not done so to every Nation. So if a false Teacher should goe through Israel and call himselfe the power of God, as Simon Magus did. All the Congreations and Synagogues in Israel might joyne together to condemne him; if there were such a thing as an Arke in Scotland, if it were taken captive as the Pre∣lates kept the Gospell in bonds, it were a morall dutie to all the Congregations, to convene in their principall Rulers and Pastors to bring againe the Arke of God, and by the power of Discipline to set it free; and if the whole Land were involved in a Natio∣nall apostacie, they are to meet in their principall members, and this is morall to Scotland, as to Israel by Ordinances of the Church to renew a Covenant with God, that his wrath may

be turned off the Land. In this sence, we see it never proved, that it was peculiar to Israel, onely to be a Nationall Church.

Nay, I affirme, that the Jewes had their Congregationall Chur∣ches, as we have. For that is a Congregationall Church which meeteth, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in that same place, for Doctrine and Disci∣pline. But the Jewes meet every Sabbath in their Synagogues, for teaching the people, Gods Law, and for Discipline. Ergo, the people of the Jewes had their Congregationall Churches, as we have. The major proposition is the doctrine of our brethren, except they say, (as its like they must) that except they meet to pa••take of all the Ordinances of God, they are not a Congrega∣tionall Church. Yet truely this is but a knot in a Rush, for 1 Cor. 14 meeting for prophecying onely, is a Church Conven∣tion; and the forbidding of women to teach in the Church, is an ordering of a Congregationall worship; and the meeting of the Church for baptising of Infants, is in the mind of our bre∣thren the formall meeting of a Congregationall Church, though they should not celebrate the Lords Supper. 2. What Ecclesi∣asticall meetings can the meeting of Gods people be, in the Sy∣nagogues of God, as they are called▪ Psal. 74. 8 for hearing the Word, and for exercise of Discipline, if not the Church mee∣ting in a Congregation? I prove the assumption by parts, and first I take it to be undeniable, that they did meet for doctrine, Act. 15. 21. For Moses of old time hath in every City them that preach him, being read in the Synag••g••e every Sabbath day. And Ps. 74. 8, 9. these two are joyntly complained of, as a great desolation in the Church, the burning of Gods Synagogues in the Land. And v. 8. that there are no Prophets which know how long. And Math. 9. 35. Christ went about all Cities and Villages teaching in their Synagogues. Luke 4 16. He went into the Synagogue on the Sab∣bath day, and stood up to read, Math. 6. 2. And when the Sabbath day was come, he began to teach in the Synagogue; and many hea∣ring him were astonished. Luke 6. 6. And it came to passe, another Sabbath day, he entered into the Synagogue and taught. John 18. 20. I ever taught in the Synagogues, and daily in the Temple whither the Jewes alwayes resort. Math. 13. 54. And when he was come into his own•• Countrey, he taught them in their Synagogue, in as much as they were astonished. And that there was ruling & govern∣ment

in the Synagogue, is cleare, 1, by their Rulers of the Synagogue, Act. 13. 15. Act. 18. 17. 8. Luke 13. 14. Marke 5. 22. 35. And if this Ruler had beene any save a Moderator, if he had beene an unlawfull Officer, Christ would not have acknowled∣ged him, nor would Paul, at the desire of the Rulers of the Sy∣nagogue have preached, as he doth, Acts 13. 15, 16. 2. Also, if there was teaching cisputing, concerning the Law in the Syna∣gogue, there behooved to be some ordering of these acts of wor∣ship; for onely approved Prophets were licensed to preach in their Synagogues, to say nothing that there was beating in the Synagogues, and therefore there behoved to be Church disci∣pline. Hence that word of delivering up to the Synagogue. Luke 21. 12. 3. There was the censure of excommunication, and casting out of the Synagogue, and a cutting off from the Congre∣gation. Hence that act of casting out of the Synagogue any who should confesse Jesus. John 12. 42. which they executed on the blind man, John 9. 34. It is true, our brethren deny that there was any excommunication in the Church of the Jewes, and they alledge, that the cutting off from the people of God, was a taking away of the life by the Magistrates Sword; or, (as some other say) Gods immediate hand of judgement upon them. But 1. to be cut off from the congregation, or from the people of God, is never called simply off-cutting, and expounded to be destroying, as it is Genes. 9. 11. but expressed by dying the death: for who will conceive that the Sword of the Magistrate was to cut off the male child that is not circumcised, who is said to be cut off from the people of God, Gen. 17. 14. or to cut off by death the parents? I grant the phrase signifieth bodily death. Exod. 31. 14. and for this God sought to kill Moses. But Divines say it was excommunication, and never Ruler in Israel executed this sen∣tence: not Moses, nor any Judge that ever we read tooke away the life of an infant for the omission of a ceremony. Nor are we to thinke, that for eating leavened bread in the time of the Pas∣sover, the Magistrate was to take away the life, as is said. Levit. 7. 20, 21. 2. ••his word, to cut off, is expounded, 1 Cor. 5. to put away; which was not by death, for he willeth them, 2 Cor. 2. to pardon him, and confirme their love to him. 2. Neither could Paul rebuke the Corinthians because Gods hand had not miracu∣lously

taken him away, or because the Magistrate had not taken away his life, which was not the Corinthians fault. 3. I am per∣swaded, to be cast out of the Synagogue, was not to be put to death, because Ioh. 9. the blind man after he is cast out of the Sy∣nagogue, Jesus meeteth with him in the Temple, and he believeth and confesseth Christ, and Christ Ioh. 16. distingusheth them cleerely, They shall kill you, and beside that, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. They shall excommunicate you. But though it were granted, t••••t the Jewish Church used not excommunication had they no Ecclesiasticall censures before for that? I thinke it doth not follow; for the excluding of the Leper, that these who touched the dead were legally uncleane, and might not eate the Passover, were censures, but they were not civill; Ergo, Ecclesiasticall they must be, as to be excluded from the Lords Supper is a meer. Ecclesiasticall censure in the Christian Church. Also if Pastors and Preachers be complained of, that not only at Ierusalem, but every where, through all the land, they strengthened not the •••• eased sheep; They did not bind up the broken, nor bring againe the loosed, but with force and cruclty they did governe, Ezek. 34. 4. and if every where, the Prophets did prophecy falsely, and the Priests bare rule by their meanes, and the people lov••d to have it so. Jer. 5. 31. Then in Synagogues there was Church-government, as at ••erusalem; for where the Lord rebuketh any sinne, he doth recommend the contrary duty. Now Prophets and Priests are rebuked, tor their ruling with force and rigour every where, and not at Ierusalem onely, for that they were not compassionate to carry the Lambs in their bosome, as Iesus Christ doth, Esai. 40. 11. their ill government every where must be condemned. 3. Luk. 4. 16. Christ, as his custome was, went into the Synagogue on the Sabbath day; Paul and Barnabas were requested, to ex∣hort in the Synagogue, as the order was, that Prophets at the direction of the Rulers of the Synagogue, if they had any word of exhortation, they should speake, and consequently their order was that every one should not speake; Ergo, they had cu∣stomes and orders of Church-Discipline to the which Christ and his Apostles did submit themselves, And to tie all Church∣government to the Temple of Ierusalem were to say, God had ordained his people elsewhere to worship him publickly, but

without any order, and that Christ and his Apostles subjected themselves to an unjust order.

I further argue thus. Those Churches be of the same nature, frame, and essentiall Constiutions, which agree in the same es∣sentials, and diff••r only in accidents; but such are the Church of the Iewes, and the Christian Churches; Ergo, what is the frame and essentiall consti••••tion of the one Church, must be the frame and essentiall constitution of the other. Ergo, &c. the major is of undeniable certainty. I prove the assumption. These which have the same Faith, and the same externall profession of Faith, these have the same frame and essentiall constitution, but they and we be such Churches; for we have the same cove∣nant of grace, Jer. 31. 31. Jer. 32. 39 40. Heb 8. 8, 9 10. There∣fore that same faith, differing only in accidents: their faith did looke to Christ to be incarnate, and our faith to that same ve∣ry God now manifested in the flesh. Heb. 13. 8. They were saved by faith, as we are, Heb. 11. Acts 10. 42, 43. Acts. 11. 16, 17, 18. and consequently, what visible profession of faith doth constitute the one visible Church, doth constitute the other. I know, Papists, Arminians, Socinians doe make the Doctrine, and Seales of the Iewish and Christian Church much different, but against the truth of Scripture.

The onely answer that can be made to this, must be, that though the Church of the Jewes wanted not congregations, as our Christian Churches have, yet were they a nationall Church of an∣other essentiall, visible frame, then are the Christian Churches, because they had positive, typicall, and ceremoniall and carnall com∣mandements that they should have one high Priest for the whole nationall Church, the Christian Churches have not for that, one visible Monarch and Pope; they had an Altar, Sacrifices, and divers pollutions ceremoniall, which made persons uncapable of the Passover; but we have no such legall uncleannesse, which can make us un∣capable of the Seales of the New Testament: and therefore it was not lawfull to separate from the Jewish Church, in which did sit a typicall High Priest, where were Sacrifices, that did adumbrate the Sacrifice of our great High Priest, & c. not withstanding of scandalous persons in that Church; because there was but one vi∣sible Church, out of which was to come the Redeemer Christ, ac∣cording

to the flesh, but the Christian Churches under the New Testament, be of another frame, Christ not being tyed to one Na∣tion, or place, or Congregation: therefore if any one Congregation want the Ordinances of Christ, we may separate therefrom, to another Mount Sion, seeing there bee so many Mount Sions no••.

Answ. 1. If the Church of the Iewes was a visible Church in its essentiall constitution different from our visible Churches, because they were under the Religions tie of so me carnall, ce∣remoniall, and typicall mandats and Ordinances, that we are not under, then doe I inferre, that the Tribe of Levy was not one visible Church, in the essentiall frame, with the rest of the Tribes, which is absurd, for that Tribe conteyning the Priests and Levites, was under the obligatory tie of many typicall Commandements proper and peculiar to them only, as to offer Sacrifices, to wash themselves, when they were to officiate, to weare linnen Ephods, to beare the Arke of the Covenant, now it was sinne for any that were not of the Sonnes of Aaron, or of an∣other Tribe to performe these duties; yet, I hope, they made but one nationall Church with the rest of the Tribes. Secondly, I infer, that the Christian Church that now is, cannot be of that same essentiall frame with the Apostolick Churches, because the Apostolick Church, so long as the Jewish ceremonies were indifferent, (in statu 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) and mortall, but not mortiferae, deadly, was to practice these ceremonies, in the case of scandall, 1 Cor. 10. 31, 32, 33. and yet the Christian Church that now is, can in no sort practice these ceremonies: yea, I inferre that the Eldership of a Congregation doth not make one Church of one and the same essentiall frame and constitution with the people, because the Elders be under an obligatory tie to some positive Divine Commandements, such as are to administer the Seales, Baptisme and the Lords Supper, and yet the multitude of Be∣lieveres, in that same congregation, are under no such tie; and certainly if to be under ceremoniall and typicall ordinances doth institute the whole Jewish Church in another essentiall frame different from the Christian Churches, reason would say that then, if the members of one Church be under Divine po∣sitive commandements, which doth in no sort tie other mem∣bers

of the same Church, that then there be divers memberships of different essentiall frames in one and the same Church, which to me is monstrous; for then, because a command is given to A∣braham to offer his sonne Isaak to God, and no such command is given to Sarah, in that case Abraham and Sarah shall not bee members of one and the same visible Church. But the truth is, different positive commandments of ceremoniall and typicall ordinances put ••o new essentiall frame of a visible Church upon the Jewish Church, which is not on the Christian Churches. These were onely accidentall characters and temporary cogni∣zances to distinguish the Jewish and Christian Churches, while as both agree in one and the same morall constitution of visible Churches: for first, both had the same faith, one Lord, one co∣venant, one Iesus Christ, the same seales of the covenant in sub∣stance, both were visibly to professe the same Religion; the dif∣ferences of externals made not them and us different visible Churches, nor can our brethren say, they made different bodies of Christ, different Spouses, different royall Generations, as concerning Church-frame. Yet are wee not tied to their high Priest, to their Altars, Sacrifices, Holy dayes, Sabbaths, new Moones, &c. no more then any one private Christian in such a congregation, or a beleeving woman is tied to preach and bap∣tize; and yet her pastor Archippus, in that congregation, is tied both to preach and baptize. Secondly, the Jews were to sepa∣rate from B thaven, and so are we. Thirdly, they were not to joyne with Idolaters in Idol-worship, neither are we.

2 Whereas it is said that it was not lawfull to separate from the Jewish Church, because in it did sit the typicall high Priest, and the Messiah was to be borne in it, and because they were the onely Church on earth; but now there be many particular Churches. All this is a deception, a non causi•• pro causâ, for separation from that Church was not forbidden for any typicall or ceremoniall reason, not a shadow of reason can be given from the Word of God for this: Because there can be no ceremoniall argument why there should be communion betwixt light and darknesse, or any concord betwixt Christ and Belial, or any comparting bètwixt the beleever and the infidell, or any agreement of the temple of God with idols, nor any reason typicall why Gods people should goe to Gilgal,

and to Bethaven, or to be joyned with idols, or why a David should sit with vaine persons, or goe in to dissemblers, or why he should offer the drinke offerings of these who hasten after a strange god, or take up their names in his mouth. This is then an unwritten tradition; yea, if Dagon had beene brought into the Temple, as the Assy∣••ian altar of Damascus was set up in the holy place, the people ••ught to have separated from Temple and Sacrifices both, so lo••g as that abomination should stand in the holy place: Nor can it be proved, that communicating with the Church of Is∣rael as a member thereof; was typicall and necessary to make up visible membership, as ceremoniall holinesse is; for to ad∣here to the Church in a sound worship, though the fellow-wor∣shippers be scandalous, is a morall duty commanded in the se∣cond Commandment; as to forsake Church-assemblies is a mo∣rall breach of that Commandment, and forbidden to Christians, Hebr. 10. 25. who are under no Law of Ceremonies. And it is an untruth, that those who were legally cleane, and not ceremo∣nially polluted, were members of the Jewish visible Church, though otherwise they were most flagitious: For to God they were no more his visible Israel then Sodome and Gomorrah, Isaiah 1. 10. or the children of Ethiopia, Amos 9. 7. and are condem∣ned of God, as sinning against the profession of their visible in∣corporation in the Israel of God, Jerem. 7. 4, 5, 6, 7. But shall we name and repute them brethren, whom in conscience we know to be as ignorant and void of grace, as any Pagan? I answer, That if they professe the truth, though they walke inordinately, yea, and were excommunicated, Paul willeth us to admonish th••m as brethren, 2 Thes. 3. 15. and calleth all the visible Church of Corinth (for he writeth to good and bad) amongst whom were many parta∣kers of the table of devils, pleaders with their brethren before heathen, deniers of the resurrection, yea those to whom the Gospell was hidden, 2 Cor. 4. brethren and Saints by calling.

But (say our brethren) to be cast out of the Iewish Church, was to be cast out of the Common-wealth; as to be a member of the Church, and to be a member of the state is all one, because the state of the Jewes and the Church of the Jews was all one; and none is said to be cut off from the people, but he was put to death.

Answ. Surely Esay 66. vers. 5. these who are cast out by their

brethren, and excommunicated, are not put to death, but men, who after they be cast out, live till God comfort them and shame their enemies; but he shall appeare for your joy. Secondly, that the state of Gods Israel and the Church be all one, because the Jewish policie was ruled by the judiciall Law, and the judi∣ciall Law was no lesse divine then the Ceremoniall Law, is to me a wonder: For I conceive that they doe differ formally, though those same men, who were members of the state, were members also of the Church; but, as I conceive, not in one and the same formall reason; first, because I conceive that the State, by order of nature, is before the Church, for when the Church was in a fa∣mily state, God called Abrahams family, and by calling made it a Church. Secondly, the Kingdome of Israel and the house of Israel in covenant with God, as Zion and Jerusalem are thus dif∣ferenced, That to be a State was common to the Nation of the Jewes with other Nations, and is but a favour of providence; but to be a Church is a favour of grace, and implieth the Lords calling and chusing that Nation to be his owne people of his free grace, Deut. 7. 7. and the Lords gracious revealing of his Testimonies to Jacob and Israel, whereas he did not so to every Na∣tion and State, Psal. 147. 19 20. but say they, The very state of the Iewes was divine, and ruled by a divine and supernaturall policie, as the judiciall Law demonstrateth to us. But I answer, Now you speake not of the state of the Jewes, common with them to all States and Nations; but you speake of such a state and policie which I grant was Divine, but yet different from the Church; because the Church, as the Church is ruled by the morall Law and the Commandments of both Tables, and also by the Ce∣remoniall Law; but the Jewish State or Common wealth, as such was ruled by the judiciall Law onely, which respecteth onely the second Table, and matters of mercy and justice, and not piety and matters of Religion which concerne the first Table; and this is a vast difference betwixt the state of the Jews and the Church. Thirdly, when Israel rejected Samuel, and would have a King, conforme to other Nations, they sought that the state and forme of governmnent of the Common-wealth should be changed, and affected conformity with the Nations in their state, by introducing a Monarchy, whereas they were ruled by

Judges before; but in so doing they changed not the frame of the Church, nor the worship of God, for they kept the Priest∣hood, the whole Morall, Ceremoniall, and Judiciall Law en∣tire, and their profession therein; Ergo, they did nothing which can formally destroy the being of a visible Church, but they did much change the face of the state and civill policie, in that they refused God to reigne over them, and so his care in raising up Judges and Saviours out of any Tribe, and brought the go∣vernment to a Monarchy, where the Crowne by divine right was annexed to the tribe of Judah. Fourthly, it was possible that the State should remaine entire, if they had a lawfull King sitting upon Davids throne, and were ruled according to the Ju∣diciall Law: but if they should remaine without a Priest and a Law, and follow after Baal, and change and alter Gods wor∣ship, as the ten Tribes did, and the Kingdome of Iudah in the end did, they should so marre and hurt the being and integrity of a visible Church, as the Lord should say, She is not my wife, * 1.31 neither am I her husband; and yet they might remaine in that case a free Monarchie, and have a State and policy in some bet∣ter frame; though I grant, de facto, these two Twins, State and Church, civill Policy and Religion, did die and live, were sicke and diseased, vigorous and healthy together; yet doth this More, that State and Church are different. And further, if that Nation had made welcome, and with humble obedience belee∣ved in, and received the Messiah, and reformed all, according as Christ taught them, they should have beene a glorious Church, and the beloved Spouse of Christ; but their receiving and im∣bracing the Messiah should not presently have cured their in∣thralled state, seeing now the Scepter was departed from Iudah, and a stranger and heathen was their King; nor was it necessa∣ry that that Saviour, whose Kingdome is not of this world, John 18. 36. and came to bestow a spirituall redemption, and not to reestablish a flourishing earthly Monarchy, and came to loose the works of the Devill, Heb. 2: 14. and not to spoile Cesar of an earthly Crowne, should also make the Jews a flourishing State, and a free and vigorous Monarchy againe: Ergo, it is most cleare that State and Church are two divers things, if the one may bee restored, and not the other. Fifthly, the King, as the King

was the head of the Common-wealth, and might not meddle with the Priests office, or performe any Ecclesiasticall acts, and therefore was Uzzah smitten of the Lord with leprosie, because he would burne incense, which belonged to the Priests onely. And the Priest in offering sacrifices for his owne sinnes, and the sinnes of the people did represent the Church, not the State. And the things of the Lord; to wit, Church-matters, and the matters of the King, which were civill matters of State, are clearly di∣stinguished, 2 Chron. 19. 11. which evidenceth to us, that the Church and State in Israel were two incorporations formally distinguished. And I see not, but those who doe confound them, may also say, That the Christian State and the Christian Church be all one State, and that the government of the one must be the government of the other; which were a confusion of the two Kingdoms. It is true, God hath not prescribed judi∣cials to the Christian State, as he did to the Jewish State, because shadows are now gone, when the body Christ is come; but Gods determination of what is morally lawfull in civill Laws, is as par∣ticular to us as to them; and the Jewish judicials did no more make the Jewish State the Jewish Church, then it made Aaron to be Moses. and the Priest to be the King and civill Judge: yea, and by as good reason Moses as a Judge should be a prophet, and Aaron as a Prophet should be a Judge; and Aaron as a Priest might put a malefactor to death, and Moses as a Judge should proph••sie, and as a Prophet should put to death a malefactor; all which wanteth all reason and sense: and by that same rea∣son the State and Common-wealth of the Jews, as a Common-wealth, should offer sacrifices and prophesie; and the Church of the Jews, as a Church, should denounce warre and punish malefactors, which are things I cannot conceive.

Our brethren, in their answer to the eleventh question, teach, That those who are sui juris, as masters of families, are to se∣parate * 1.32 from these Parish-assemblies, where they must live without any lawfull Ordinance of Christ; and to remaine there they hold it unlawfull for these reasons: First, we are commanded to observe all whatsoever Christ hath commanded, Matth. 28. 10. Secondly, the Spouse seeketh Christ, and rests not till she finde him in the fullest manner, Cant. 1. 7, 8. and 3. 1, 2, 3. David lamented when hee

wanted the full fruition of Gods Ordinances, Psal. 63. and 42. and 84. although he injoyed Abiathar the high Priest, and the Ephod with him, and Gad the Prophet, 1 Sam. 23. 6, 9. 10. 1 Sam. 22. 8. So did Ezra 8. 15, 16. yea and Christ, though he had no need of Sa∣craments, yet for example, would be baptized, keepe the Passeo∣ver, &c. Thirdly, no ordinances of Christ may be spared, all are profitable. Fourthly, he is a proud man, and knoweth not his owne heart in any measure, who thinketh he may be well without any Or∣dinance of Christ. Fifthly say they, it is not enough the people may be without sinne, if they want any ordinances through the fault of the superiours, for that is not their fault who want them, but the su∣periours sinfull neglect, as appeareeth by the practice of the Apostles, Acts 4. 19. and 5. 29. For if they had neglected Church-ordinan∣ces * 1.33 till the Magistrates, who were enemies to the Gospell, had com∣manded them, it had beene their grievous sinne. For if superiours neglect to provide bodily food, we doe not thinke that any mans con∣science would be so scrupulous, but he would thinke it lawfull by all good meanes to provide in such a case for himselfe, rather then to sit still, and to say, If I perish for hunger, it is the sinne of those who have authority over me, and they must answer for it. Now any or∣dinance of Christ is as necessary for the good of the soule, as food is necessary for temporall life.

Ans. 1. I see not how all these Arguments, taken from morall commandments, doe not oblige sonne as well as father, servant as master, all are Christs free men, sonne or servant, so as they are to obey what over Christ commandeth, Matth. 18. 10. and with the Spouse to seeke Christ in the fullest measure, and in all his ordinan∣ces, and sonne and servant are to know their owne heart, so as they have need of all Christs ordinances; and are no more to remaine in a congregation where their soules are samished, because fathers and masters neglect to remove to other congregations, where their souls may be fed in the fullest measure; then the Apostles Acts 4. 29. and 5. 29 were to preach no more in the Name of Iesus, because the Rulers commanded them to preach no more in his Name. And therefore, with reve••ence of our godly bre∣thren, I thinke this distinction of persons free, and sui juris, and of sonnes and servants, not to be allowed in this point.

2. It is one thing to remove from one congregation to an∣other,

and another thing to separate from it, as from a false constitute Church, and to renounce all communion therewith, as if it were the Synagogue of Satan and Antichrist, as the Sepa∣ratists doe, who refuse to heare any Minister ordained by a Prelate: now except these arguments conclude separation in this latter sense, as I thinke they can never come up halfeway to such a conclusion, I see not what they prove, nor doe they answer the question, &c. concerning standing in Parish-assemblies in Old England, and if it be lawfull to continue in them. Which questi∣on must be expounded by the foregoing, Quest. 10. If you hold that any of our Parishionall assemblies are true visible Churches, &c. Hence the 11. Question goeth thus in its genuine sense; are we not then to separate from them, as from false Churches? Now neither the Spouse, Cant. 1. 7. c. 3. 1. 2, 3. nor David, Psal. 63. Psal. 42. Psal. 84 nor Ezra. 8. 15, 16. nor Christ, in these cases when they sought Christ in all his Ordinances in the fullest mea∣sure, were members of false Churches: nor did they seeke to Separate from the Church of Israel, nor is it Christs command, Mat. 28. 10. to separate from these Churches, and to renounce all communion with them, because these who sate in Moses Chaire, did neglect many Ordinances of Christ, for when they gave the false meaning of the Law, they stole away the Law, and so a principall ordinance of God, and yet Christ (I believe) forbad separation, when he commanded that they should heare them, Mat. 23.

3. Nor doe I judge that because there was but one visible Church, in Israel, and therefore it was not lawfull to separate therefrom, and because under the New Testament there be many visible Churches, and many Mount Sions, therefore this abun∣dance doth make separation from a true Church, lawfull to us, which was unlawfull to the people of the Jewes. For separati∣on lawfull, is, to not partake of other mens sins, not to converse bre∣therly with knowen flagitious Men, not to touch any uncleane thing, not to have communion with Infidels, Idols, Belial, &c. Now this is a morall duty obliging Iewes and Gentiles, and of perpetuall equity; and to adhere to, and worship God aright, in a true Church is also a morall branch of the second commande, and a seeking of Christ, and his presence and face in his owne Or∣dinances,

and what was simply morall, and perpetually lawfull, the contrary thereof cannot be made lawfull, by reason of the multitude of Congregations.

4. The most that these arguments of our Brethren doe prove, is but that it is lawfull to goe, and dwell in a Congregation where Christ is worshiped in all his Ordinances, rather then to remaine in that Congregation, where he is not worshipped in all his Ordinances; and where the Church censures are neglect∣ed, which to us is no separation from the visible Church, but a removall from one part of the visible Church to another, as he separateth not out of the house, who removeth from the Gallery, to remaine and lie and eate in the Chamber of the same House, because the Gallery is cold and smoaky, and the Chamber not so, for he hath not made a vow never to set his foote in the Gallery. But to our Brethren to separate or re∣move from a Congregation, is to be dismembred from the only visible Church on Earth, for to them there is not any visible Church on Earth, except a congregation. And our Brethrens mind in al these arguments, is to prove, that not only it is unlaw∣full to stand in the Parish assemblies of Old England, because of Popish ceremonies (and we teach separation from these ce∣remonies to be lawfull, but not from the Churches) but also that it is necessary, to adjoyne to independent Congregations, as to the onely true visible Churches on Earth, and to none others, except we would sinne against the second Commande∣ment, which I conceive is proved by not one of these arguments. And to them all I answer, by a deniall of the connex propo∣sition. As this, These who must doe all which Christ command∣eth, and seek Christ in all his necessary Ordinances, though supe∣riors will not doe their duties, these must separate from true visible Churches, where all Christs Ordinances are not, and joyne to in∣dependent Congregations, as to the only true visible Churches on Earth. This proposition I deny. 5. If our Brethrens argument hold sure that we are to separate from a Church, in which we want some Ordinances of Christ, through the Officers negli∣gence, because (say they a 1.34) The Spouse of Christ will not rest, seeking Her beloved untill she finde him, in the fullest manner, Cant. 1. v. 7. & 3. 1, 2. then the Spouse Cant. 1. 7. & 3. 1, 2. is separat∣ing

from one Church to another, which the Text will not beare. 2. I would have our reverend Brethren to see and consider, if this argument doth not prove (if it be nervose and concludent) that one is to separate from a Congregation, where are all the Ordinances of Christ, as in New England now they are, so being, hee goe from a lesse powerfull and lesse spirituall Mini∣stery, to another Congregation, where incomparably there is a more powerfull and more spirituall Ministery, for in so doing the separater should onely not rest as the Spouse doth, Cant. 1. & 3. seeking his beloved untill he find Him, in the fullest manner. For he is to be found in a fuller manner, under a more power∣full Ministery, and in a lesse full manner under a lesse power∣full Ministery. But this separation I thinke our Brethren would not allow, being contrary to our Brethrens Church-Oath which tieth the professor to that congregation, whereof he is a sworne member to remaine there. 6. The designe and scope of our reverent Brethrens argument, is that professors ought to separat from Churches where presbyteriall government is, because in these Churches, Professors, as they conceive, doe not injoy all the Ordinances of God. Because they injoy not the so∣ciety of a Church consisting of onely visible Saints, and they injoy not the free use of the censure of excommunication in such a manner as in their owne Churches, and because in them the Seales are often administred by those Pastors who are Pa∣stors of another Congregation then their owne, and for other causes also, which we thinke is not sound doctrine.

But we thinke it no small prejudice (say our Brethren) to the liberty given to a congregation, in these words, Mat. 18. Tell the Church, if he heare not the Church, &c. That the power of excommunication should be taken from them, and given to a Presbyterian, or nationall Church, and so your Churches wante some ordinances of Christ.

Answ. Farre be it from us, to take from the Churches of Christ any power which Christ hath given to them, for we teach that Christ hath given to a single congregation, Mat. 18. a power of excommunication, but how? 1. He hath given to a congregation thats alone in an Iland separated from all other visible Churches a power which they may exercise there

alone, and. 2. He hath given that power to a congregation * 1.35 consociated with other sister congregations, which they may use but not independently, to the prejudice of the power that Christ hath given to other Churches, for seeing all sister Churches are in danger to be infected with the leaven of a con∣tu••acious member, no lesse then that single congreation, wher∣of the contumacious resideth as a member, Christs wisdome, who careth for the whole, no lesse then for the part, cannot have denied a power conjunct with that congregation to save them∣selves from contag••ons, to all the consociated Churches, for if they be under the same danger of contagion with the one single congregation, they must be armed and furnished, by Christ Iesus, with the same power against the same ill: so the power of excommunication is given to the congregation, but not to the congregation alone, but to all the congregations ad∣jacent, so when I say, the God of Nature hath given to the hands a power to defend the body, I say true, and if evill doe invade the body, nature doth tell it, and warne the hands to defend the body, but it followeth not from this, &c. if the power of defending the body be given by the God of Nature, to the hands therefore that same power of defence is not given to the feete also, to the eye to foresee the ill, to reason, to the will to command that locomotive power, that is in all the members, to defend the body, and if nature give to the Feete a power to defend the body, by fleeing, it is not consequence to infer, O then hath nature denied that power to the hands by fighting, so when Christ giveth to the congregation (which in consociated Churches to us is but a part, a member, a fellow∣sister of many consociated congregations) he giveth also that same power of excommunicating one common enemy, to all the consociated Churches, without any prejudice to the power given to that congregation whereof he is a member, who is to be excommunicated, because a power is commmon to many members, it is not taken away from any one member. When a Nationall Church doth excommunicate a man who hath killed his Father, and is, in an eminent manner, a publick stumbling ••lock to all the congregations of a whole Nation, it is presum∣••d that the single congregation, whereof this parricide is a

member, doth also joyne with the nationall Church and put in exercise its owne power of excommunication, with the na∣tionall Church, and therefore that congregation is not spoyled of its power, by the nationall Church, which joyneth with the nationall Church in the use of that power. And this I thinke may be thus demonstrated, The power of excomunication is gi∣ven by Christ, to a congregation not upon a positive ground, because it is a visible instituted Church, or as it is a congrega∣tion, but this power is given to it upon this formall ground and reason, because a congregation is a number of sinfull men, who may be scandalized and infected with the company of a scandalous person; this is so cleare that if a congregation were a company of Angels, which cannot be infected, no such power should be given to them, even as there was no neede that Christ as a member of the Church either of Iewes, or Christians should have a morall power of avoyding the company of Publicans and sinners, because he might possibly convert them, but they could no wayes pervert, or infect him, with their scandalous and wicked conversation, therefore is this power given to a congre∣gation, as they are men, who though frailty of nature, may be * 1.36 leavened with the bad conversation of the scandalous, who are to be excommunicated, as is cleare, 1 Cor. 5. 6. Your glorying is not good, know yee not that a little leaven leavneth the whole lumpe? therefore are we to withdraw our selves from Drunkards, Fornicators, Extortioners, Idolaters, and are not to eate and drinke with them, v. 10. And from these who walke inordi∣nately, and are disobedient, 1 Thess. 3. 12, 13, 14. And from Hereticks after they be admonished, lest we be infected with their company, just as nature hath given hands to a man, to de∣send himselfe from injuries and violence, and hornes to oxen to hold off violence, so hath Christ given the power of ex∣communication to his Church, as spirituall armour to ward off, and defend the contagion of wicked fellowship. Now this re∣duplication of fraile men which may be leavened, agreeth to all men of many consociated congregations, who are in danger to be infected with the scandalous behavior of one member of a single congregation, and agreeth not to a congregation as such, therefore this power of excommunication must be given to

many confociated congregations, for the Lord Iesus his salve, must be as large, as the wound, and his mean must be proportio∣ned to his end. 2. The power of Church ••jection and Church separation of scandalous persons must be given to those to whom the power of Church communion, and Church confirming of Christian love to a penitent excommunicate is given, for con∣traries are in the same subject, as hot and cold, seeing and blind∣nesse, but the power of Church-communio at the same Lords table, and of mutuall rebuking and exhorting, and receiving to grace after repentance, agreeth to members of many consociated Churches, as is cleare, Col. 3. 16. Heb. 10. 23. 2 Cor. 2 6, 7, and not to one congregation only; Ergo, &c. the assumption is cleare, for except we deny communion of Churches, in all Gods Ordi∣nances, we must grant the truth of it.

2. We say that of our Saviours (tell the Church) is not to be drawen to such a narrow circle, as to a Parishionall Church on∣ly, the Apostle practice is against this, for when Paul and Ban∣nabas had no small dissention with the Iewes of a particular Church, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certaine others of them, should goe and tell the Apostles, Elders and whole Church Nationall or Oecumemek, Acts 15. 2. v. 22. and complaine of those who taught that, they behoved to be circumcised, Acts 15. 1. and that greater Church v. 22. 23. commanded by their ecclesiastick authority the contrary, and those who may lay on burdens of commandements as this greather Church doth expresly, v. 28. Acts 16. v. 4. ch. 2. v. 25. they may censure and excommunicate the disobeyers. And Acts 6. 1. the Greek Church complained, Acts 6. of the Hebrewes, to a greater and superior Church of Apostles, and a multitude made up of both these v. 2. and 5. and they redresed the wrongs done to the Grecian Wid∣dowes by appointing Deacons; also though there was no com∣plaint, Acts 1. Yet was there a defect in the Church, by the death of Judas, and a catholike visible Church did meete, and helpe the defect, by chosing Mathias: it is true the ordination of Matthias the Apostle, was extraordinary, as is cleare by Gods immediate directing of the lots, yet this was ordinary and per∣petuall, that the election of Mathias was by the common suff••ages of the whole Church, Acts 1. 26. and if we suppose

that the Church had been ignorant of that defect, any one mem∣ber knowing the defect, was to tell that catholick Church, whom it concerned to choose a catholick Officer; we thinke An∣tioch had power great enough intensively to determine the controversie, Acts 15. but it followeth not that the catholick Church v. 22. (let me terme it so) had not more power extensively to determine that same controversie, in behalfe of both Antioch, and of all the particular Churches: subordinate powers are not contrary powers.

Notes

• a 1.1

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 cont. Tylen. pare∣nes. l. 1. c. 25. sect. 4. & 5.
• b 1.2

  Steph. in Thesau.
• c 1.3

  Cyrill. Hye∣rosolamita.
• d 1.4

  Causab. cont. Baron. 6. 42.
• e 1.5

  Loc. cit.
• f 1.6

  Baynes dio∣cesan tryall. q. 1. p. 12.
• * 1.7

  1 Cor. 5.
• a 1.8

  Paul Baynes dioces. tryal. q. 1. p. 13. ib. p. 11.
• * 1.9

  Paget defence of Church go∣vernment Chap. 6.
• a 1.10

  Lorin. com∣ment in act.
• b 1.11

  Cajetan com. ••b.
• c 1.12

  Robin justi. p. 168, 169.
• d 1.13

  Pet. Martyr com in 1 Cor. 15.
• e 1.14

  Whittaker com. 4 q. 1. p. 381
• f 1.15

  Bilson per∣pet. govern. p 338.
• g 1.16

  Chamier pan. l. 6. ••om 2.
• h 1.17

  Pareus 1 Cor. 1. 5. com. Mat. 18.
• i 1.18

  Beza, annot. in act. 1. v. 23. & 26.
• k 1.19

  Calvin. com∣ment in act. 1. 26.
• l 1.20

  Harmon. confess. art. 29, 30.
• m 1.21

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 de Eccl. li 1. c. 4
• n 1.22

  Cartwright refut R••em 1 Gor. 5 3 4
• o 1.23

  Fulk against the Rhe∣mistes act 1. 26
• p 1.24

  Ursin explic. Par 2. p. 534.
• q 1.25

  Zwinglius expl act. 1. 23. 26
• r 1.26

  Munsterus in Mat. 18.
• s 1.27

  Theodoret. dialog. 1.
• t 1.28

  Irenaeus cont Herm••g lib. 3.
• u 1.29

  Cyprian l. 2. Epist. 4.
• a 1.30

  Way of the Church of Ch∣in N. E. c. 6. sect. 1.
• * 1.31

  Hosea 2. 2.
• * 1.32

  To the ele∣venth questi∣on, pag. 32, 33. Church-government discussed.
• * 1.33

  lb. pag. 35, 36.
• a 1.34

  Church go∣vernment dis∣cussed, answer to quest. 11. pag. 33.
• * 1.35

  When Christ layeth 〈◊〉〈◊〉 a warrant for the power of bind∣ing and loose∣ing given to all Churches, his wisdome hath fitted the rule, so that it agree to al churches, to a congre∣gation thats alone in a re∣mote Iland, to a Church pres∣byteriall, or na∣tionall, as Par∣ker doth apply it to prove the power of Sy∣nods.
• * 1.36

  If a little body of a congrega∣tion, in a re∣mote Isle, have power from Christ, to cut off a rotten member, l••st it infect the whole body; shall we doubt but our wise lawgiver hath given that same power to a greater body of many visible congregations, which is under the danger of the same con∣••agious infecti∣on?