A survey of the summe of church-discipline. Wherein the vvay of the churches of New-England is warranted out of the vvord, 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 unsetled in their practice. / By Tho. Hooker, late pastor of the church at Hartford upon Connecticott in N.E.

A SURVEY of the Summe of Church-Discipline.

CHAP. I. Ecclesiasticall Policy Defined. Ecclesiasticall Policy is a skill of ordering the affairs of Christs house, according to the pattern of his word.

SKill.] When we speak of spirituall things, we desire to speak in the words which the wise∣dome of the holy Ghost teacheth, and so we shall compare spirituall words and spirituall things together. And therefore it is, though the Government, whereof we are now to intreat, shareth, with other of the like rank, in the generall nature common to them and it, and thence may (as it is) truely be called, an Art or Policy, as civil governments are stiled: and there be a like pa∣rity 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 in∣treated

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 our selves 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 referre the whole work of the Gospel to these two heads, Doctrine and Discipline. So much of Religion, as concernes the nature and work of Faith inward∣ly in the soul towards God and man, that is contained in the first branch, Faith. Order, which is the second and op∣posite member, includes the exercise of Discipline and cen∣sures of the Church, so far, as by rule they are expressed, and concern the rectifying of the carriage of such, who are in confoe∣deration 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 marshalled by the rule of Method, according to their especiall precedencies and dependencies they have, each upon other. And here by a Metonimy of the Adjunct, The managing of all Church-Ordinances, according to all the formes thereof, as Ezekiel speaks, the outgoings thereof, and incomings thereof, with that piety and spirituall prudence,* 1.1 as is most sutable to all, that time, place, and persons, and practises, can require, as dis∣pensed 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 truely vi∣sibly 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 thy self 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,

• Mysticall, by Spirituall influence.
• Politicall, by his especiall guidance in the means, and dispensation of his Ordinances.

The Church also is a Body,

• Mysticall,
• Politicall.

The mysticall Body is the Church of true Beleevers, who being effectually called by his word and spirit, by faith yeelding to the call, are spiritually united unto Christ, from whom, as from a head, all spirituall life and motion is communicated on his part, and received on theirs. And this takes up the In∣visible 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 doe beleeve. The Politicall body or Church visible results out of that rela∣tion, which is betwixt the professours of the faith, when by voluntary consent they yeeld outward subjection to that govern∣ment of Christ, which in his word he hath prescribed, and as an externall head exerciseth by his word, spirit, and discipline, by his ordinances and officers over them, who have yeelded them∣selves subjects to his Headship and supream Authority. For Christ having humbled himself to the death, the cursed death upon the crosse, God the Father hath given him a name,* 1.2 above every thing that is named. 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 dis∣pensation of all to the Sonne: which power he exerciseth invi∣sibly 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 professe allegiance and homage to him. So the Apostle, Ephes. 4. When he ascended up on high, and led 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 Scepter for the guidance of his ser∣vants, so, as a Judge, he hath an iron rod to break his enemies in pieces like a potters vessell. 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 vertue of that commission received from the Father. All power in heaven and earth is given to me, therefore Preach and Baptise, Matth. 28.18, 19.

We now see the proper and adequate subject about which ec∣clesiasticall policy is exercised, to wit,

The affaires of his house,] The things that appertain to the visible Church, his visible Kingdome on earth. And to this place appertain the disputes, touching the difference be∣twixt Ecclesiasticall and civil Policy, what kinde of influ∣ence they have each into other, together with the tyranni∣call usurpation of that man of sinne, 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 allay his cruelty, with a far∣fetcht 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 Kingdomes 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 compre∣hend things in short, we shall wholly leave such tedious disputes, which would trouble our work, and weary the Reader.

Certain it is, Ecclesiasticall policy confines it self within the affairs of the Church, as within its proper compasse. My King∣dome, saith our Saviour, is not of this world; and so the wea∣pons of his Kingdome are spirituall 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 deli∣vered to the Jews. But his Kingdome is not of this world, there∣fore 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 righteousnesse, they may, and should use them.

But as members of a Church, their weapons are spirituall, and the work is spirituall, the censures of the Church are spirituall, 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 mold, all things in the Tabernacle: So we have ours left upon record in the holy Scriptures, unto which we must not adde, 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 Authenticke for the govern∣ment thereof.

And here we shall take leave to stay a little, and make this ground good before we passe, because we shall have speciall 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 compleating of Church-government are,

• Partly in the persons that dispense.
• Partly in the ordinances that are dis∣pensed.

In the persons that dispense, the kindes of officers that are ap∣pointed 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, untill 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.* 1.3 But as God did appoint all in the Old Testament, and those his institutions, did endure their Ever (as the Scripture speaks) i. untill 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 car∣rying on of these dispensations in civill decencies, suitable to the quality of the things, and conditions of the time, as peace and persecution: the generall rules of these are in the word delivered: but the particular application admits varieties, mu∣tabilities and alterations, according as necessities or conveni∣ences 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 pro∣ceeds from Gods will, and the appointment of it is his peculiar prerogative.* 1.4 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 laies against all superstitious and false devices of men; They never came into his minde or heart,* 1.5 and therefore never have his appro∣bation. 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 fulnesse of the division.

All things spirituall are either Christian duties, or else are left to Christian liberty.

The second part is thus proved.

If it be not in man to inable 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 ap∣pointment should be crosse to wisdome in attempting it, and so frustrate in regard of the end, in not attaining it.

But it is not in man to inable to the work, or to make the Ordinance attain its end: because the work is spirituall, and the end supernaturall: And herein lies especially the difference betwixt civill and Ecclesiasticall power, Dominium and royall Soveraignty may be seated in the one, i. e. in the Common∣wealth; because they can communicate power from them∣selves to others, and inable others to attain civill ends, and to accomplish civill work, and in that respect they are called, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. A humane Creation. But in the Church there is only ministerium received from Christ alone, and therefore they cannot delegate from themselves, and by their own in∣stitution 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 Ministery: he can appoint none because he can give power to none.

3.

That which is a fundamentall point of Religion, that hath divine Institution, and so becomes immutable, unlesse Christ him∣self repeal it. For principles of that nature must have divine authority to appoint and to remove.

But Church Discipline is a fundamentall point of Religion. Heb. 6. Laying on of hands, being by a Metonymy of the ad∣junct 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 unlawfull now for any man to arrogate it: because his soveraignty 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 minde of man to the remembrance of his duty towards God, by some speciall signification, whereby he might be edified.

1.

Because these under this Institution are media cultus, and are so more efficacious to carry the minde and heart to God, as the Papists require, and such as all Orthodoxe Divines con∣demn. Nay if it be by teaching and stirring towards these su∣pernaturall works, as Gods spirituall 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 kinde and homoge∣neall with the significative part of the actions of the Sacrament, and upon the ground may be said to have a reall 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 Baptisme consecrate the child to God? so doth the crosse. Doth Baptisme signify the Covenant betwixt Christ and the childe? so doth the Crosse. For its openly said by the Patrons thereof, to betoken the ingagement betwixt Christ and the child, that he shall be Christs servant, and souldier 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 pow∣er 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 Institutour 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, out∣ward Decency and Comelinesse in the managing of Gods Or∣dinances: these admit of varieties and mutabilities, according to emergent occasions, which alter with the conditions of the Church.

There is a comelines 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 Church∣es 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 minde of Christ, among many other, these Rules lend a common influ∣ence, and are of speciall 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 speciall varie∣ties of occurrences in this kinde; yet there be generall Rules, un∣der 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 rudenes 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 indiffer∣ently and equally to further the usefull administration of both, and therefore cannot be conceived to be any part of religious worship, nor can be ranked within the compasse thereof, by any shew of reason, only the ancient maxime here takes place, The later Art useth the work of the former, Ars posterior utitur prioris opere; both civil and sacred administrations use these Circumstan∣tials, 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 easie attendance.

There must be a right understanding of the meaning of the words, and so a Grammaticall 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 beleeving and obeying are religi∣ous

actions, and both suppose the use and work of Grammar, and so of Logick, about the promises and commands, and yet no man, that hath the exercise of reason about him, will say, that either Grammar or Logick Analysis are religious actions, much lesse reli∣gious 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 com∣manding or forbidding things indifferent. For if their wils were the rule, they could not erre in commanding or forbidding: for the rule cannot erre. 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 Inferiour were absolutely bound to yeeld obedience thereunto, and that without either question∣ing or examining the nature of it. Yea blinde obedience would by this means be not only allowed, but of necessity enjoyned. Nor could the Inferiour sin, in what ever he did in subjecting him∣self to the directions of the Superiour 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 pre∣ponderations or necessity to cast the balance either way, is beyond warrant; because it thwarts the nature of the things, and that meerly 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 prejudiciall, as that they occasion a stop in a Christian course upon any just ground: Such appointments are to be repealed as unlawfull. 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 for∣ward morall duties, their use is unlawfull. 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 prejudiciall in the sense before expressed, then they are not in subordi∣nation

to help forward the morall. Ergo. 4. That which crosseth the Place and Office of the Governour, that he must not doe or maintain: But to injoyn 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 waies, as Totum

• Essentiale, Or
• ...Integrale.

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 Major, nor other Officers, which happily she yearly chooseth.

We now come to enquire of the visible Church in her first constitution and gathering.

And in the handling of this, we shall take into consideration such speciall Questions, wherein there appears any difference be∣twixt us, and our Reverend and very learned Brethren, desirous to propound things, wherein difficulties yet appear unto us, ho∣ping 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 beleeve, 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
  • Materiall, and
  • ...Formall.

Of the Efficient.

Concerning the Principall cause and Institutour of a visible Church, there is a common concurrence of all sides, so far as I can reade, and therefore I shall ease the Reader of all large dis∣course 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 speciall appointment of God the Father, thorow 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 build∣ed the house, hath more honour then the house. Christ is set over the Church, which is, the house of God, as the Sonne, Moses as a ser∣vant. He the master-builder, Moses as an Inferiour 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 re∣ferred to the things that went before, to wit, the things of the house.

What ever belongs to the Church hath God in Christ the Au∣thour 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 consci∣entious to hold himself to that patern, not to swerve an hairs breadth there-from, or to adde any thing of his own devising. And hence our Saviour claims this as his prerogative royall, Mat. 16. Ʋpon this rock I will build my Church. It is his house, and he knows his own minde, and therefore he only will fashion it there∣unto.* 1.6 And from hence it is, that in the time wherein Ezekiel would limme out, and that unto the life, the Temple to be erected in the new Testament, he there laies out all the particulars by Gods spe∣ciall appointment; The Outgoings and Incomings, Forms, Fashions, Laws thereof, and the Ordinances thereof.

Touching the Inferiour helping cause, viz, The Civil Magistrate,

how farre he may be said to have a hand in the erecting of Chur∣ches, 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 passe it by, being not yet perswaded that the chief Magistrate should stand a Neuter, and tolerate all Reli∣gions.

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 addresse this our en∣quiry; sith it concerns all, who seek the good of Church-fellow∣ship, 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 mat∣ter fit for a visible Congregation.

Reason 1. No civil rule can properly convey over an Ecclesiasti∣call 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 Ecclesia∣stical Orders, Officers, and their severall operations. Kings shall be nursing Fathers, &c. But in their proper constitutions, they can∣not meet. Imperare and praedicare are not compatible, hath been a ruled case, admitting no contradiction in an ordinary way: one is compleat, 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 compell Ecclesiasticall persons to do, what they ought in their offices, but doth not confer their Offices upon them. The Kingdom of Christ is spirituall, and not of this world. That Proposition then is beyond controul. 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 Ecclesiasticall 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 be∣fore he had in his admission, is now disanulled by his Excommu∣nication. Let him be as an Heathen, Mat. 18.

But Excommunication doth not, nor can take away a mans ci∣vil right to the house and land, the civil priviledges he doth pos∣sesse, or remove him from the right of his habitation, civil office or authority, he is invested in.

Ergo, That is no Ecclesiasticall right.

Reas. 3. If Parish Precincts should have right to Church-fellow∣ship, then Atheists, Papists, Turks and profane ones, who are e∣nemies 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 grosse, that I suppose any, seriously judicious, will see the errour of it.

We shall come nearer home then, and our

2^d 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 controversie, 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 In∣fants of confoederate believers under their Parents Covenant, ac∣cording 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 Cha∣rity: Some according to truth. Saints according to charity are such, who in their practice and profession (if we look at them in their course, according to what we see by experience, or re∣ceive 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 farre as rationall charity directed by rule from the Word, a man cannot but conclude, That there

may be some seeds of some spirituall 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 rationall charity, which can go no further, then to hopefull fruits. We say and hope, and so are bound to conceive they are Saints: though such be the secret con∣veyances, and hidden passages of hypocrisie, that they may be gilt, 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 pro∣ceeds with such, not as God who knows the heart, but in a Church-way, as those who judge the tree by the fruit. De occul∣tis non judicat Ecclesia, That which the Church doth not see, it can∣not censure. Some mens sins go before, & some come after, 1 Tim. 5.24.

The STATE then of the QƲESTION is this. Persons, though they be hypocrites inwardly, yet if their conversations and expres∣sions be such, so blamelesse and inoffensive, that according to reason directed by the Word, we cannot conclude, but in charity there may be, and is some speciall spirituall good in them; These are fit mat∣ter 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 stiled, and truly judged by Scripture light to be the visible body of Christ, over whom he is a Head, by Politicall Go∣vernment and guidance, which he lends thereunto, 1 Cor. 12.12. And that it is a visible politick body, appears quite thorow the whole Chapter, but especially, v. 27, 28. Because in that Church God sets Orders and Officers, Some Apostles, Teachers, Helpers, Govern∣ments. The like to this, Ephes. 4.12, 13. Where these Officers are, it is supposed there be visible concurrences of many Saints con∣senting, 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 speciall good in them, are only members of Christs body.

For to have a member, which nor doth, nor ever did receive any power or vertual impression of any operation in the kinde 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 explicati∣on, can be said by the rules of reasonable charity, to have some vertuall influence of some spirituall 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 sub∣jects in Christs Kingdome.

The Church is the visible kingdome in which Christ reigns, by the scepter of his word and ordinances, and the execution of discipline.* 1.7 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 sub∣jects in this kingdome.

Christ is the King of Saints (not of drunkards and whore∣mongers, Athiests, &c.) they alone proclaim subjection in their practice: They onely attend to know and doe the will and com∣mand of God, or in case they swerve aside, and be carried un∣awares and unwittingly into conspiracie, yet are they willing to see, ready to yeeld, and come in again. But such, who cry, hail Master, kisse Christ and betray him: that in words pro∣fesse the truth, but in deeds deny it, and are to every good work reprobate, Sonnes of Belial, who can bear no yoke, but break all cords, and cast all commands behinde their backs, these are convicted rebells, but are not subjects of Christs kingdome.

As a Generall of the field, he will overpower these, and destroy them as his enemies, but not govern them as leige 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 rationall charity, are gracelesse 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 righteousnesse and of Christ: and those, who are under the kingdome of darknesse by the rule of reasonable charity, by the same rule, at the same time, they may be judged under the kingdome of light. Those may be counted fit to share in the covenant and the priviledges 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 hy∣pocrites 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 darknesse, and the servants of sin inwardly, may to the view of charity seem to be light, and servants of Christ outward∣ly, and yet in charity be led by light. But that he who in his outward practice should appear to be a slave to sin, and subject to the kingdome of darknesse, should yet be conceived to be a ser∣vant to God and subject to his kingdome: Surely charity must not onely pluck out her eies to see by anothers spectacles, but loose eies and spectacles and all, and cease to be charity; yea be turned into folly and madnes.

Reason. 4.

Those who by God are excluded from his covenant and med∣ling 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 especiall manner appertain.

Its Gods house, and there all Gods treasury lies: The keyes of

the kingdome are given to them: To them all the oracles, ordi∣nances and priviledges 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 cove∣nant into their mouth, Psal. 50.16, 17.

To this M^r 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 severall things.

1. The answer, in the 1. branch of it yeelds 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 waies, 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 materialls 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. There∣fore that while, they are not visible Saints; which is all the argument required, and is now yeelded.

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 doe, nay for ought we know, they should so doe, 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 in∣quire how neer 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 excommu∣nicate 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, Infidells, shall be members, for they may

be, and in many places are ordinary hearers.

3. Then in publique cities, where severall congregations meet, at severall 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 M^r R. answers, is,

That this argument nothing concludes against them, because such adulterers, and slan∣derers, which are forbid to take Gods law into their mouthes, are to be cast out: but the question is, if they be not cast out, whe∣ther the Church for that be no true Church.

To which I say, The first part yeelds 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 misse 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 errour 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 in∣ferences 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 practice that do not hinder men from being visible Saints, doe 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 errour, 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 pri∣vate Christian communion.

The two last inferences, are the Tenets of those of the Sepa∣ration, not onely extreamly rigid, but very unreasonable. For if they be fit matter for publique communion, they are much more fit for private: But men are or should be visible Christians be∣fore 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 heartily wished, that M^r Reut. would not have disputed against that which they freely and pro∣fessedly grant, to wit,

That hypocrites, because their falsenes 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 af∣terwards laid) which reason inlightned by rule cannot prove to be bad.

This is yeelded 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 profannesse, or remain per∣tinaciously obstinate in some wickednesse, though otherwise pro∣fessing and practising the things of the Gospel, have any allow∣ance 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 e∣victed by argument. There is no colour for such a consequence: If hypocrites be received into the Church, according to the rule of rationall 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 sighe,

and seem to require exactnes in the highest strain: yet were they but candidely interpreted 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, be∣cause I doe observe, and I cannot but professe I doe observe it with trouble and grief, that M^r R. a man of such learning and sharpnesse 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 easie interpretation, may ad∣mit a contrary meaning.

I shall constrain my self therefore upon so just an occasion, to indeavour to clear this coast, 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 expresse, how farre rationall charity, rectified by the word, will goe, in giving allowance to the visibility of Saints.

3. I hope I shall make it appear, that we require no more Saint∣ship to make men fit matter for a visible Church, then M^r R. his own grounds will give us leave.

I.

1. The minde and meaning of those our brethren of the Sepa∣ration is written in so great characters, that he who runs may reade it, if he will, nor can he readily mistake, unlesse he will. M^r Ainsworth against M^r 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 beleevers, nor truely converted, or truely sancti∣fied, 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 externall and outward cal∣ling 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 M^r R. be pleased to look into his first book, ch. 9. p. 100. he will finde that he there gives his reader to understand, that he and M^r Ainsworth are of

the same minde. For he laies 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 externall call∣ing are the true members of a visible Church.

These are his words, and M^r Ainsworths are the very same, onely he saies the true matter, M^r Ainsw. saies 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 in∣quired after, and if all other matter beside them is false, then they are the onely matter, in truth, of the Church.

Hear we M^r Robinson, A man pious and prudent, expresse 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 M^r Bernard.

Before I come to the point in contro∣versie, I will lay down two cautions (saith he) for the preven∣ting of errour in the simple, and of cavelling, in such as desire to contend. 1. It must be considered, that here the question is, about the visible or externall Church, which is by men discern∣able, and not of that Church, which is internall and invisible, which onely the Lord knoweth, we speak here of visible and ex∣ternall holines onely, whereof men may judge, and not of that which is within and hid 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 truely sanctified and faithfull, and of such, who have onely for a time, put on the outside and vi∣zard 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 faithfull and sincere hearted: Some counterfet and false hearted. Some really good, some really bad, onely those who appear so bad and vile should not be accepted. And doth not M^r R. say the same?

In the same place M^r Robins. addes.

I desire it may be re∣membred, that the question between M^r Bern. and me, is, a∣bout the true and naturall members, whereof the Church is orderly gathered and planted, and not about the decaied and degenerate estate of the Church and members. For we know that naturall children may become rebellious, the faithfull city a harlot, the silver drosse, and the wine corrupt with water,

the whole vine so planted, whose plants were all naturall, 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, unlesse 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 faithfulnesse to falsenesse, from a profession pure and sin∣cere in appearance and approbation of men, to a rotten, profane and unsavoury carriage: He must needs hold, that false, coun∣terfeit, and hollow hearted hypocrites may be members of a Congregation.

When therefore we meet with such phrases printed and re∣corded, Onely the Saints, faithfull, called, and sanctified are to be members of a Congregation, He must needs be exceeding weak, or exceeding wilfull, that will not easily and readily give such a construction as this, Namely, Persons visibly, ex∣ternally such to the judgement of Charity, not alwaies really and internally such by the powerfull 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 expresse our own apprehensions, and with as much opennesse and simplicity as our shallownesse 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 uprightnes of heart: Its not the strength and growth of grace, but the trueth 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 lesse 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 mis∣judged 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 Devill in Gods righteous sentence which he passed upon him. Joh. 6. & last. The Sum is, The heart of man is

deceitfull 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. Ier. 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 passe a sentence according to the reality of truth.

5. Charity is not censorius yet judicious (she wants neither eyes nor watchfullnesse) hopes all, and beleeves all things, that are hopefull or beleeveable, 1 Cor. 13 6. ever yeelds and inclines to the better part, unlesse evidence come to the contrary, when she hath not ground sufficient to prove an evill. She con∣ceives her self bound to cast the ballance 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 blinde∣nesse: So in the soul there must be either some measure of grace, or else habituall wickednesse, or that we call a gracelesse con∣dition.

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 perswasion comes to be poised.

6. The grounds of probabilities by which charity is poised according to rule, are either taken from the practice 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 evill, 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 accor∣cording to rule may and ought to conceive, there be some beginnings of spirituall 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, other∣wise sincerity may stand with a continued course in an unknown corruption, as the fathers did continue in poligamy. But he that commits some grosse evill, and expresseth no repentance for it,* 1.8 or after conviction persists in the practise of known wic∣kednesse: rationall charity accounts such workers of iniquity, evill doers, such as be of the world, and lie in wickednesse, and by this the children of the Devil, are known from the children of God, He that hates his Brother, and doth unrighteousnesse. In a word, such, if they were under the discipline of Christ, would be counted pertinacious and should be cast out of a Congrega∣tion, therefore should not be received into it.

2. There must be so much knowledge as may let in Christ into the soul, and lead the soul to him] for there is a breadth of ig∣norance in some, like a dungeon so dark and loathsome, that rea∣sonable charity will readily conclude there can be no grace: Isa. 27.11. It is a people that have no understanding: there∣fore he that made them will not save them: without understan∣ding the minde is not good.

And in this sense and according to this explication, we do directly deny that proposition of M^r. 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 perswaded 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 M^r. R. his own grounds will give us leave and allowance to do.

It is one principle maintained by M^r. R. that profession and baptisme doe 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 Baptisme, 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 deniall, because to be baptized

and to be admitted a member, infer each other:

The assumption is proved by the constant and received pra∣ctice of John the Baptist, Mat. 3.5.6.

When Jerusalem and Judae••, Scribes, people and Souldiers came to be baptised, they confessed their sinnes, 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 Repen∣tance, and the aim of Baptisme imports as much. For the remission of sinne 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 simple ones among the Papists, have not rejected the Gospel obstinately in respect it was never revealed to them, yet the sim∣ple ignorance of points principally fundamentall 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 simple ignorance of points fundamentall 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 fundamentall, then Christ to be the foun∣dation stone, laid by God, whereon our faith and we must be built.

A Third ground we take from M^r. 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 notifie and declare to the Church that the man hath right to the seals, bo∣cause he beleeves, and that the Church may lawfully give them to him.

Whence I Reason.

That profession which must notifie to the Church, that a person is a true beleever, that must notifie THAT HE HATH TRƲE GRACE.

But the profession that M^•. R. requires, must notifie to the Church that a person is a true beleever.

And if it notifie thus true faith, it must present such grounds of probability to charity rectified by the rules of reason and re∣ligion, that they will cast and carry the scales of a mans judge∣ment 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 notifie a party to be a beleever, but sway judicious cha∣rity 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 judiciall way, the cen∣sures 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 testifie 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 falsenesse in doctrine, and corruption in manners, had so far eaten into the very essence of the Church, Hos. 2.2.9. that the Lord threatned 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 deseases grow deadly, there is allowed, and a toleration of necessity must be so far granted, untill Juridice by a judiciall proceeding the evil be examined, the parties convinced, censures applied for Reforma∣tion] For the Ordinances of Christ and rules of the Gospel serve, not only for the constitution of a Church, but for the preserva∣tion 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 deseased, as well as to nourish the sound.

And hence our Saviour requires time of triall, if they may be healed, and untill 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 there∣by to repentance and reformation, there had needed no further proceeding.

But in case they prove incorrigeable and irrecoverable by the physick 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 constitu∣ted gives no allowance to bring in corrupt members to the con∣stitution of a Church, but the contrary, if a pertinacious mem∣ber should be removed by the rule of the Gospel, then such a one should not be admitted.

These Conclusions premised: the arguments of M^r. Rutt, a∣gainst the visibility of Saints to be right matter of a Church, will admit an easie answer.

1. Argument, is taken from the manner of receiving mem∣bers in the Apostles Church, where there was nothing but a pro∣fessed willingnesse to receive the Gospel, howbeit they received it not from the heart.

Answ. There is not only a professed willingnesse to receive the Gospel, but a practicall reformation, that in the judgement of charity gives ground of hope there is something reall, before the contrary appear. And therefore Peter who received Simon Magus, upon his approbation of the truth and outward confor∣mity thereunto in the course of his life, when his practise pro∣claimed the contrary, the Apostle rejected him, as one in the gall of bitternesse and bond of iniquity, who had no share in Christ, and therefore certainly would not suffer him to share in the priviledges of communion, so persisting without repen∣tance.

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 baser vessels of brasse and wood: Then in

a Church rightly constituted, there may be beleevers and hypocrites.

Answ. The argument is wholly yeelded, and the cause not touched, much lesse 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 truely constituted, and yet in them were many wicked, prophane, unclean; then visible Saints are not onely fit matter allowed by Christ to make up a visible Church.

But they were Churches truely 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 tolera∣ted for a time, untill the censures be tried upon them. But if then they prove incorrigible they are to be removed and excom∣municated. So that the edge of the argument may be turned most cruely 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 admit∣ted. 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 con∣clusions formerly propounded along with him in his considera∣tion, and refresh his memory with the caveat and caution that was put in by M^r 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 cour∣ses

and apostasies, that they may be scandalous, and that grossely: 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 M^r R. his own princi∣ples will proclaim it to be the broad way that leads crosse to the tenure of the Gospel. For I would make a collection, that shall carry a parity of reason with M^r 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 Ba∣laam and Jezebels doctrine,* 1.9 who were members of the Churches of Asia. 3. Such who were Schismaticks, Rai∣lers, 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 gain∣saies, 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 an∣swered before.

His fifth. is p. 253. Thus:

If we are to bear one anothers burthen, and so fulfill 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 bap∣tisme: 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 re∣pentance 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 in∣to open persecution, the other into toleration of grosse Idolatry, are here very impertinent, and prejudiciall 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 our selves, but to examine and judge carefully one another, and that every one must labour to be satisfied in con∣science 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 professe their faith in the Lord Jesus. 3. They must be such as by their profession must notifie they be true beleevers, 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 pur∣pose 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 in∣to the Church, that they may be truely converted.

But if he mean, that the Church doth of purpose receive them into the Church to be converted, then it is crosse to his own Te∣net, and a person may be received to the seals of the Covenant, who doth not notifie 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 neer the end he hath these words.

1. Assertion. of M.R.

1.

We say that there is nothing more required, as touching the essentiall property and nature of being members of a Church as visible, but that they professe 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 shew of godlines 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 inti∣mate familiarity with such, in point of conscience, by vertue of their calling. A godly and pious wife must doe 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 speci∣all 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 familiari∣ty with such, who have a shew of godlinesse and deny the power thereof: Then am I bound much more, not to enter into a speciall and spirituall 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 spirituall 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 some∣times so falls out, that I cannot remove a wicked person from my spirituall communion, because it is not in my power to cast him out, whom a congregation will keep in, yet I must by ver∣tue of the Apostles charge, ever oppose, and protest against the admission of such, and the other of the brethren should accor∣ding to God, keep him out of communion, as unfit wholly for spirituall 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 com∣mon and ordinary drunkard) i. e. Professe 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 M^r R. Which is,

That it is vain to say the preaching of the word is no essentiall mark of the true Church, is made good by distinguishing three things. 1. Single and occasionall preaching. 2. Setled preaching or the setling of the candlestick. 3. The preached word with the seals. Whence the answer in the summe issues thus. It is not the single, but the setled 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 setled 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 notifie the Church, in that it may notifie many things besides. But it must be a diffe∣rencing 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 setled preaching of the word, and constant opening and applying the Scripture to one people, in one place, is sepa∣rable from the Church.

As suppose a Minister should preach many years, to a com∣pany of Infidels in one place. Nay suppose a lecturer speak con∣stantly to a company of people, which resort from severall Churches, unto the same Auditory.

Here is setled preaching, and yet here is no Church; and there∣fore this is a seperable adjunct, and no note.

If it be replied, that you must consider setled preaching, as established and remaining in the Church.

To that the answer is; This plea is yet too narrow, to cover the nakednesse and weaknesse of this assertion. For upon this grant, the dispute must follow one of these two waies. The setled preaching of the word taken with the Church, is a mark of the Church: and this is irrationall, to make the Church a mark of it self. Or the meaning must be this; Setled preach∣ing, 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 setled 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 principall, prime, and onely proper subject, to whom all the Seals, and priviledges of speciall note doe belong?

MAster R. lib. 2. p. 242. distinct. 3. Is pleased to suggest a se∣rious advertisement unto us, which being well considered, many of our erroneous mistakes, (as he saies,) may seasonably be recovered, and we brought thereby to a right understanding of the things of Christ.

Among other of my Brethren, I doe professe 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 di∣rection and advise, that our errours 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 compasse aright, is by him thus ex∣pressed.

THE INVISIBLE CHƲRCH CATHOLIKE is the principall, prime, and native subject of all the priviledges of Christians, &c. and the CHƲRCH VISIBLE, as she is such, is no waies such a subject: the non-consideration whereof we take to be the ground of many errors in our reve∣rend Brethren in this matter.

This is his seasonable warning, unto which I readily attend: and because I would not creare molestias, & serere lites 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 evi∣dence of better reason, then mine own.

• 1. Whether the invisible Church be the principall, prime, and onely subject of the Seals of the Covenant?
• 2. Whether the holding of this conclusion will necessarily make us forsake our doctrine touching that power we give to the people, and our assertions of Independency and congregatio∣nall Churches.

I choose to restrain the proposition to that particular mentioned, because there appears the greatest difficulty, to my dimme and shallow apprehension. As also because the through explication of this which is most familiar, will of n••cessity force and draw in with it a reall consideration of the rest.

That I may be plain and punctuall in our proceeding, I shall take leave, and I hope without offence, to set down the con∣trary.

The Invisible Catholike Church, is not the prime and onely subject of the Seals, and therefore not of all priviledges of Chri∣stians, by any argument that M^r R. hath here alledged for proof or confirmation hereof.

When I say, the prime and onely subject, I understand the meaning of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, according to M^r R. minde and exposition, quod convenit 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 convenit 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

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 shew what reason yet I have, to perswade me not to yeeld 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 M^r R. alleadgeth to prove that the visible Church, as such, hath not right to the seals, but the invi∣sible, is this,

* 1.10

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 waies.

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, ingage themselves to walk in the waies 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 M^r R. his apprehensions elswhere, 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 judici∣ous charity, otherwise the Apostles counsell had not been of war∣rant to carry them to the practice of Baptisme, if he had given them direction upon a misconceived ground: nor had they reason to have followed his direction. For the reply had been easie.

Invisible Christians have only right to Seals: But whether we be such, we for the present doe 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 doe make the Church Invisible, are to be beleeved, cannot be seen, nor come within any certainty of humane knowledge, And this is not only con∣fessed in the generall, 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 con∣verts.

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 Seales, else the frame of the Apostles reason and counsell 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 re∣gained.

We are compassed about by M^r. R. in this ch. l. 2. p. 247. with a croud of accusations, to hold one of the grossest of the Armi∣nian, Popish, Socinian Doctrines: and upon all occasions we hear Ad nauseam us{que}, of our sodering with the errours of Soci∣nus. Catch. Cracov. Nicholaides. &c. How justly, we have in part touched, and shall add something in the season thereof.

But I would be loath any of our tenets maintained professedly by us (not fathered upon us injuriously,) should lay such a cor∣ner-stone to build up the wretched doctrine of the Anabaptists, as this of his doth.

For let M^r 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 cals 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 Argu∣ments 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 cove∣nant, and in Gods intention and decree, called voluntas bene∣placiti, 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 salve 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 wisdome, 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 severall 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 confesse such is my feeblenesse, that I cannot see how this can be avoided. For ask the question, How come hypocriticall professours 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 there∣fore 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 waies 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 perswade my judgement to be satisfied in the proof.

Having then gained so much, that in a true sence 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 woud, to give to the Church visible titles of speciall note; and this also is an especiall priviledge, which is by M. R. denied to the visible Church.

1. Its called the flock, or Church, redeemed by the bloud of God.

2. Its stiled 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 led) 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. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to feed the Church of God, which he hath purchased with his blood.

The Church here is according to us, Congregationall: to M^r. R. its Presbyteriall. 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 unlesse they did see them and know them, how could they execute censures upon them?

But THESE are called the Church redeemed with the bloud of God, then which stile, none can be more glorious.

If any man say that the elect and invisible are only there inten∣ded by that name. I answer. That conceit is crosse to the very grain of the words, and the scope of the text, For they must attend 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 cur∣rant 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 M^r R. ar∣guments so far as they seem to crosse any opinion and practice 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 in∣fallible assistance, but may erre in Fundamentals: which may fall away, and not indure 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 stiled 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 Politicall 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 main∣tain: 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 mee wholly, from yeelding to the opinion. and that I may narrowly expresse my naked thoughts, The Conclusion I am to prove, I thus propound.

The Invisible Church Catholike is not the prime and princi∣pall subject of the Seals of the Covenant; they do not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, belong to it, which is according to M. R. his minde, they do not belong to all them and only to them, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

Argument. 1.

1. If those who were gracelesse, 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 deniall. For there can be no better right, then Gods command to injoyn, and his word to warrant us to challenge any priviledge.

But such who were gracelesse and without any interest in Christ, and so none of his Invisible members, have Gods command to injoyn, and his word to warrant them to re∣ceive the Seals: as Ismael, Esau, and all the males were injoyned to be circumcised. All the families of the Jews were commanded to eat the Passeover, many whereof without all question, were not Invisible and beleeving mem∣bers of Christ.

Argument. 2.

2. If many beleevers, 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 be∣long to all invisible members as the prime and principall subject thereof.

The nature of the terms evidence the truth of the propo∣sition. 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 expresly 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 immediatly to them, and to all others by their means, and this the rule of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, infers undeniably. Therefore in an orderly way, they must first be dispensed to them, and from them communi∣cated to others. As heat is first in fire, and from fire com∣municated to other things,

But this M. R. elsewhere overborn, as it seems with the beau∣ty of the truth, doth plainly deny. p. 18.2.

The orderly giving of the Seals belongeth to the visible Church, and by this de∣vice the visible Church must have them firstly, and the invisible from her.

Which is professedly crosse 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 fatnesse thereof, is all such priviledges as appertain thereunto. The way and means how the Gentiles come to par∣take thereof, is by their ingrafting into the Church visible.

And this is the received interpretation of the most judicious Be∣za, 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 fatnesse that issues from it, and appertains to it.

But the visible Church is the Olive: the Seals (as other pri∣viledges) are part of that fatnes, 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 re∣view, 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 compleat 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 Quaery, and given in our Reasons, why we cannot yeeld to M. Rutterf. his advertisement.

We shall add one word touching the other particular propoun∣ded to debate, which was this.

Whether the holding of this conclusion will necessarily 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 errour will neither help us out of an errour, if we be in it, nor yet help M^r R. to confute that opinion, or to bring us out of it. For the holding of one errour will not help a person to see, much lesse recover him out of another. But this appears to us, by that which I have answered, to be an errour. Therefore, this were enough for the while, to cause me to wave the inference.

But that which caries greatest weight with me, is,

That conclusion which overturns M^r 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 beleevers: That overthrows the pillar, principles of M^r R. concerning the government of the visible Church.

But this opinion, that makes the invisible Church, the prime, principall subject of all christian priviledges, 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 be∣leevers: and ••••at also is evident, Because it makes it agree to them, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

If M^r R. rid his hands of this argument with any reality of truth, he must shew some essentiall cause of offices and officers, of the right of seals and the dispensations thereof, besides the in∣visible Church; and that his conclusion and the interpretation which he hath setled, will not suffer.

I will onely suggest this to him, to occasion him to clear this coast to purpose.

Those terms or things, which contain all the essentiall causes of each other, beside them there can be no formall, or essen∣tiall cause added. For then all the essentialls should not be there.

But those which agree 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, these contain the essentialls each of other. For this is the nature of those things which are convertible or reciprocall, ac∣cording to all the rules of right reason, unlesse there be a new logick made, which yet never saw light. Homo est animal rationale. A man is a living crea∣ture indued with a reasonable soul: and every living creature indued 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 intire man. The one of these take up as much as the other: and all the essenti∣all causes of the one, are comprehended in the other: other∣wise they had not been of equall breadth or capacity, which a reciprocation requires.

Of this kinde are the Catholike invisible Church, and all Chri∣stian

priviledges, they agree thus reciprocally.

Whatever hath these, is the invisible Catholike Church: and the invisible Catholike Church hath all these. And therefore

All the essentialls of these priviledges are therein included. And therefore beside or without this, none can be added upon M^r R. grounds.

CHAP. IV. Of the Formall cause of a visible Church, the Church Covenant.

WE have done with the Materiall 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 Formall cause, that which makes the Church to be that which it is and gives the specificall nature (as we use to speak) thereunto.

For take all the faithfull whether they be seemingly or sincere∣ly 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 mysticall body of Christ, built upon him by a saving faith, and so injoy 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 mi∣litant 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 come∣ly meet together in one place, who as they have the right to all or∣dinances, so they may enjoy the use of them in Christ his order: and so they must be, and accordingly are stiled many. The Church∣es 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,

Mutuall covenanting and confoederating of the Saints in the fellowship of the faith according to the order of the Gos∣pel, 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 no∣thing else but that relation of these persons thus obliged one to another.

The Sum in short is this. By mutuall ingagement 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 waies, 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 yeeld this.

For consider these severals.

Consideration 1.

Its free for any man to offer to joyn 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 joyn, it is by their own free consent and mutuall ingagement on both sides; which being past, that mutuall relation of ingagement, is as it were the se∣ment, which soders the whole together: or like the mortising or brazing of the building, which gives fashion and firmnesse to the whole.

Whence it is evident, First, that it is not every relation, but such an ingagement, which issues from free consent, that makes the covenant.

Secondly, This ingagement gives each power over another, and maintains and holds up communion each with other, which cannot but be attended, according to the termes of the agree∣ment.

And lastly it being of persons, who were wholly free, each from the other. There can no necessary tye of mutuall accord and fellowship come, but by free ingagement, free (I say) in regard of any humane constraint.

Consideration. 2.

This covenant being taken up in a Church way and for spiri∣tuall 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 ingage themselves, and enter upon such a society, should be carefull and watchfull to search sedulously, and labour to be acquainted with each others fitnes and sufficiencie in judgement, and spirituall 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 goe 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 praier, when such a work is first entred upon, then is attended in taking in, or receiving of all the members that desire to joyn 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

• Explicitely, or
• ...Implicitely.

An Explicite Covenant is, when there is an open expression and profession of this ingag••ment in the face of the Assembly, which persons by mutuall consent undertake in the waies of Christ.

An Implicite Covenant is, when in their practice they do that, whereby they make themselves ingaged to walk in such a society, according to such ••ules of government, which are exercised amongst them, and so submit themselves thereunto: but doe not make any verball profession thereof.

Thus the people in the parishes in England, when there is a Min••ster put upon them by the Patrone or Bishop, they con∣ctantly 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 incouragement to the person in this work of his Ministery. By such actions, and a fix∣ed attendance upon all such services and duties, they declare that by their practices, which others do hold forth by publike profession.

This M^r R. cannot be ignorant of, as our opinion and professed apprehension: and I would intreat the Reader to observe once for all: that if he meet with such accusations, that we nullifie 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 inquired: How far the covenant is of ne∣cessity required?

Ans. According to foregoing expressions, the answer may be cast into these conclusions following.

• 1. An Implicite Covenant preserves the true nature of the true Church, because it caries the formalis ratio of a con∣foederation in it, by which a Church is constituted. For Implicite and Explicite are but adjuncts, and these separa∣ble from the essence. And therefore the essence and being of the covenant may consist with either.
• 2. In some cases an Implicite 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 accor∣ding to the rules of the Gospel, by the profession of their fathers covenant, though they should not make any per∣sonall and vocall expression of their ingagement, as the fa∣thers did.
• 3. Its most according to the compleatnesse of the rule, and for the better being of the Church, that there be an expli∣cite 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 tenure 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 tye, and are more quickned and provoked to doe that, which they have before God and the congregation, ingaged themselves to doe.

Hence also that question receives its explication and answer namely.

Q. How far this covenant requires cohabitation?

Ans. And here severall cases, which carry much variety with them, doe of necessity call for various considerations, discovered by following directions.

1.

Such cohabitation is required, which is necessary for the dispen∣sation 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 com∣pany of members, that they comely and conveniently m••et to∣gether to the exercise of all Gods Ordinances, Acts. 14.27. 1 Cor. 11.26. & 14.23.

2.

Cohabitation in the same strictnes is not required, nor can be attended by all in the same manner: but if the speciall calling in some, or the publike behalf of the Church in others, doe call for some exceptions, without the prejudice of the exercise of publike 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 imploiments are in far countries, and as the 107. Psal. Occupie their busines in the great Ocean: their businesse and imploiments lye 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 cohabite; because the place of their abode is there in the issue.

Hence upon the same ground the Church may send 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 be∣ginnings, 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 send some men to Sea for trafick; sometimes by way of just war, and yet no pre∣judice 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 politick.

Every spirituall or Ecclesiasticall corporation receives its being from a spirituall combination.

But the visible Churches of Christ, are Ecclesiasticall or spirituall corporations, Therefore.

The first part of the Argument, hath reason and common sense to put it beyond gainsaying. Each whole or intire body, is made up of his members, as, by mutuall reference and depen∣dence they are ioyned 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 ad∣vantages: so their mutuall ingagements each to other, to attend such terms, to walk in such orders, which shall be sutable 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 con∣dition, unlesse he will: and he that will enter, must also willingly binde and ingage himself to each member of that society to pro∣mote the good of the whole, or else a member actually he is not.

The polished and hewn stones prepared with great comelinesse and conveniency, gives yet no being to a house unlesse they be conioyned 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 spo∣ken of particular visible Churches. For where Pastors and Teach∣ers are set, and exercise their work; where members are knit and compact, and effectually edifie one another, there must be a particular Church, not the Catholike and to this purpose speaks M. R. l. 2. 302.

A Church in an Iland is a little city, a little kingdome of Iesus Christ,

Being then spirituall cities and corporations, the mem∣bers 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 mutuall power each over other, both to com∣mand and constrain in case; who were of themselves free each from other, in such a way by all rules appointed by God in pro∣vidence: They must by mutuall agreement and ingagement be made partakers of that power.

But the Church of beleevers have mutuall power each over other to command and constrain in case, who were before free from each other.

Therefore They must by mutuall agroement and ingagement be made partakers of that power.

The second part or Assumption is evident by the course of processe and proceeding which our Saviour prescribes. Mat. 18.15. If thy Brother offend &c. where we have a legall and or∣derly 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 tast, will give in undeni∣able evidence.

I may as a Christian, meeting with an offensive carriage in a∣nother, rebuke 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 send for him, he refuseth to come, because one Congregation hath no power over another, one Clas∣sis 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 intreaty, but in a legall 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 processe 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 hereticall doctrine, or some hainous villany, take M. R. his prin∣ciples, 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 undequa{que} maximus) hath disputed and con∣cluded, De concil. cont. 3. q. 5. c. 3. p. 600. Si Petrus ipse re∣mittitur ad Ecclesiam, tanquam ad superius quoddam tribunal, & jubetur ad eam aliorum delicta deferre, tunc sequitur, Ec∣clesiam Petro, vel quoquam alio, authoritate majorem.

Again he affirms Christum generaliter loqui si frater in te peccaverit &c. if therefore the pastour, 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 ge∣nerall councell, 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 propor∣tionable power to a particular Church: hear his words and let the impartiall reader then weigh them. Ergo fateamur opor∣tet, 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 quae{que} Ecclesia maiorem habeat authoritatem in iu∣dicijs, quam Petrus, vel quivis homo particularis, tunc mul∣tò magis universalis Ecclesia quae in concilio generali repraesen∣tatur.

I add once more, Take it of a generall councell, and this will yet lend no relief to the answer in the least measure.

Every member of the generall councell hath power in the cen∣suring of a delinquent (In M. R. judgement) that is, in passing a censure or sentence in the councell.

But brethren or lay-men (as they are termed) are members of a generall councell. Therefore,

Each Brother hath power to censure a brother in case of de∣linquency.

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 ioyned with them, then it was his voluntary subiection and ingagement that gave them all the power or interest they have. And let any man use his own experience, it will evince as much. Severall 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 read, Act. 5.13. the rest durst not ioyn. Luk. 7.30. when the Publicanes were baptized, the Scribes are said to re∣iect the counsell 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 Clas∣sicall or Presbyterian Church, as M. R. confesseth l. 2. p. 320.

A covenient number of Churches having ordinary conversing one with another shall voluntarily combine themselves in one society.

This last gives in the formality of Classicall membership. So his words are.

When God hath made him a combined member, now by Insti∣tution of one Presbyterian Church not of another: though by ordinary converse with other Churches, in case of scandall, his example may prove preiudiciall 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 classicall, then a voluntary combination will make a member of a Church congregationall. For there is the same rea∣son to the substance of the work: especially upon M. R. his prin∣ciples, 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 priviledges spirituall and Ecclesiastick, unto which none can be admitted without the approbation and allowance of the whole: That society must be in an especiall 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 spirituall priviledges, unto which none can be admitted with∣out the approbation of the whole.

They who have power to chuse their ministers and rulers, they have power to admit or reiect 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 Ecclesiastick society.

Meeting in one Assembly unites not persons together. For Infidels and Turks (1 Cor. 14.) may come into Church-assem∣blies 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 chalenge any priviledge there.

To this M.R. answ. lib. 2. p. 125.

The enumeration is sufficient, For the SEALE OF BAP∣TISME and A PROFESSION OF THE TRƲTH, 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 baptisme, and by this we are all the citizens and domesticks inchurched and received into the visible Church.

Of this we shall inquire at large.

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

Answer Negative.

Reason. 1.

IF there be a Church, and so members before Baptisme: then Baptisme cannot give the formality. Because forma is causall, and so is in nature before formatum.

But the Church now considered as totum essentiale, is before Baptisme.

For Ministers are before baptisme: else Baptisme may be ad∣ministred lawfully by such, who are not Rulers, Pastors or Teachers which is denied by all Orthodox Divines, and I questi∣on not, but by M.R. And there must be a Church of beleevers 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 ministeriall, which only can bap∣tize, is before the Officers for they should then be before them∣selves, which is absurd.

To which the reply is easy.

That we speak not now of the Church, as Ministeriall, 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 Baptisme cannot be before a Ministeriall Church, nor that before a Church congregationall, which must make choice of a ministery, then such a Church is much before Baptisme.

Beside let it be supposed that at the coming of some godly zea∣lous Christian and schollar into the country, and a company of Pa∣gans (many) are converted to the faith, I ask whether these may not joyn in a Church-fellowship, and choose that man Pa∣stor, and whether that choice was not lawfull according to God? Therefore here is a Church before a Minister, and so before Bap∣tisme.

2. Reason.

If Baptisme 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 Baptisme resting in the party, who hath no visible membership: as in an excommunicate, in him that re∣nounceth 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 Baptisme is valid.

M. R. Answer. p. 220.

This is against yourselves and doth as well prove that bap∣tisme is not a seal of the covenant of grace, For an excommu∣nicate person may remain externally without the visible Church, when baptisme remaineth a seal, and may be a seal of grace or priviledge, 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 co∣venant to the judgement of the visible Church, and yet Baptisme be a seal of it, because Baptisme is but a separable adjunct unto the Covenant whose efficacy may be hindered (and therefore the spirituall good) by the unworthinesse of the receiver, though in its own nature, its the end of baptisme to do that, and as much

as in it lieth, doth and would doe it, but the act of it is hindered by the wickednesse and unworthinesse of the receiver.

But the reason is far otherwise, when Baptisme is made the form of membership, and therefore the inference will be far other, namely,

Though a separable adjunct may be severed from his subiect; 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 inheri∣tance, 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 re∣motè, 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

But baptisme and Church-membership are not so perfect re∣lates, but baptisme doth remain, and Church-membership may be dissolved. The Burgesse 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-privi∣ledges, and is not now a free citizen: in which case his Bur∣gesse-ticket sealeth nothing to him.

The Reply is.

This answer which should maintain the cause doth fully yeeld it, For if Church and Church-membership be relata secundum esse, and yet baptisme comes not within that compasse, then cer∣tainly it gives not the formality to Church-membership; and that upon a double proof.

1. If Church and Church-membership be perfect relata, without baptisme, then are they mutuall causes one of the o∣ther, and receive no constitution, or essentiall causes elsewhere. For, Relata constant ex mutuâ affectione.

2. If Baptisme give the formale to membership, it then stands in the same kinde of relation, as Church-membership doth, as gi∣ving the specificall 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 yeelded that Baptisme and Church-member∣ship are not so perfect relatives, for that we question not, but that (which is granted) it is forma, and then forma & forma∣tum mutuò se ponunt & tollunt.

That of the Burgesse ticket, if it seal nothing of his city-privi∣ledges to him, it remains a writing, but no Authoritative means of freedome, and therefore not a formale of his freedome. 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 Baptisme sealeth other things, and is valid to that end, but sealeth not membership, This, I say, de∣stroys 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 Baptisme, 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 Seale and Sacraments, and his dispute is

to good purpose, and to edifie the Reader, in that point, unto which I willingly yeeld 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 o∣therwise.

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 Authours minde,

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 con∣firms 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 sup∣pose the first grace wrought, then the Sacrament sealing our in∣corporation 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 cir∣cumcision nor Baptisme.

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 rhe 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 appre∣hension, signifies the publike 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 maintainance of the same. And then it is commonly used in a way of distinction from PRACTICE. And thus we say many professe fair, but their practice 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 sinfull 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 mem∣bership, because he may have all these and be cut off from mem∣bership.

2. Profession is yet larger, and includes also a sutable carriage in the life, so far as the profession which is made, is void of scan∣dalous courses.

3. As Profession must not be too narrow, so we must be care∣full not to make it too broad, as to exact more then is compe∣tible 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 o∣ther both persons or Churches which professe the same.

As suppose a Christian maintain Justification by Christs pa∣ssive obedience only; Reprobation in massa corrupta; whether Children have habituall or actuall 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 professe the faith savingly, so as may make way for membership in a visible Church warrantably.

Profession conceived according to the compasse of the former explication, doth make (i. add a causall power with baptisme to) a member of the visible Church, and so a member of all the visible congregation on earth.

The expressions of M. R. which lead me thus to conceive his meaning are diverse in divers passages of his books, lib. 1. c. 9. p. 116.

This doth not hinder but yet they may hear, and so be mem∣bers of a Church, l. 2, p. 125. 3. last lines. when a person removes from one Congregation to another, he makes a tacite cove∣nant, 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 kinde of mysterious difficulty with them, we shall take liberty to look further into them in the fol∣lowing 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 Baptisme and sincere profession, and his professed stan∣ding in covenant with God, a member of all visible congregati∣ons on earth, and is baptized into all congregations on earth.

Hence then we have two things to discusse.

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 Baptisme, and so hinders the constitution or formality of membership: that doth not help it forwards.

Because this is made the most especiall ingredient in the con∣stitution of that relation.

But Profession lawfull and warrantable may do so.

For suppose a man professe 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 baptisme in the sense their specified: and therefore hinders, and helps not to the con∣stitution 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 vertue 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 baptisme were sufficient to do the deed, baptisme remaining the same, as before his excommuni∣cation, 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 actuall existence to a member, must give interest to a totum actually existing, and therefore to some par∣ticular Congregation.

For existentia est tantum Individuorum. Individuals only

exist, and since such a person is an Individuall member, he must have respect or reference to the whole that doth actually exist, and this the generall nature of the Catholike Church doth, in the par∣ticular Congregations only.

Beside if he be a particular member, he must be comprehen∣ded within the compasse of members, But all the members of the Church catholike (take it as an integrum) are comprehen∣ded within particular Congregations, therefore he must be a member of some of them, or else he comes not within the com∣passe or number of members.

Lastly, to be a member to the Catholike 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 confesse, it is beyond my shallownesse to con∣ceive. I do beleeve, beyond the breadth of any mans brain to expresse.

That which is said afterwards, That a member is cast out of the Catholike Church antecedenter, will prove an apparent pa∣ralogisme, and we shall try the truth and strength of it, when we come unto that place.

The Proposition then hath free passe.

But (I assume) this profession gives no interest to any particu∣lar 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 equall 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 generall profession that will serve the turn: but there must be a peculiar ingagement 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 Congre∣gation.

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 professe, 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 Congre∣gation, is, by his baptisme 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 in∣conveniences 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 par∣ticular Congregations and in maintaining of them.

Then he cannot be cast out of one Congregation, unlesse 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 ad∣monition or Church censure shall passe 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 Individuall members, there of nece∣ssity must be the same Individua•••• Integrum: and the ground is undeniable from the received rules of reason Integrum est totum, cui 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 Individuall members, of all the particular Congregations.

For if one professour be a member of every particular Congre∣gation, then by a parity of reason, All particular professours must be so: and so all of them members of one particular con∣gregation, and so of every one.

Hence, there being the same members of every particular con∣gregation, 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, be∣cause it is the same with Thyatira, and that yet stands. &c.

Again secondly, this cannot stand with those principles of M^r. R. that are granted, and maintained, as maxims, which admit no deniall, l. 1 c. 7. p. 72.

We deny that Christ hath given power of Iurisdiction 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 send messengers to the Synod of another province. For the members of the Congregations of that province, may send messengers to the Provinciall Synod, But the members of the Congregations in this Province, are members of the Con∣gregations

of that Province, because they are members of all the Congregations on earth, Therefore they may send 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 laies 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 doe not differ in their generall nature or essence, is a truth, and confessed on all hands, as that which is sutable to common sense. For things common or generall do not difference particulars, because in them they all agree.

But there is a specificating, or to speak more narrow, an Indi∣viduall formality, which makes a reall difference in the particu∣lar nature of this ••hurch, 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 pro∣per, If common they then bring in agreement and no difference. If proper, then they arise from some propriety, and peculiar for∣mality of the being of each Church. Nay,

5. How comes it that this Church hath power over this per∣son, which another hath not, but that he hath a peculiar inte∣rest in that, and they in him by speciall ingagement?

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 Individuall formalities of speciall ingagements, which passe 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 houshold covenant, or servants covenant, makes no difference; for ser∣vants 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 Pastour 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 ac∣cidents, 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 generall Husband to all women, or a woman a generall 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 minde of God touching that which formally constitutes a Church. I perceive M R. his spirit carried with a marvellous distast against this way: we shall as we are able, la∣bour to remove all mistakes and misconceiv••ngs, that the minde 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 levell the path in our proceeding, we shall lay these conside∣rations following, to fill the uneven ditches, that the devices of men have made in this high way of holinesse.

[Con∣clusion. 1] 1. Relation, As such, is not the foundation of a free covenant, (whereof we now speak) Because there be some relations foun∣ded 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 moneth one from another; those have the relation of brethren and sisters, and yet it is without the apprehension of ei∣ther: the relative tye, 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 cove∣nant, 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, pro∣ceeding therefrom, may be multiplied without any cove∣nant at all, much lesse needs there the multiplication of any covenant, according to the specialties which attend upon them.

[Con∣clusion. 2] 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 mutuall and free a∣greement

of the parties, it may be communicated to others with∣out their consent, as namely to their children, because they are as the Scriptures speak in their loins, under their power and dis∣pose, and therefore can make such an agreement and ingagement 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 Mi∣nister 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 vertue of their parents cove∣nant.

[Con∣clusion. 3] 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 mutuall ingagement, 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 corpo∣rations: from mutuall acts of consenting and ingaging each of other, there is an impression of an ingagement results, as a rela∣tive bond, betwixt the contractours and confederatours, wherein the formalis ratio, or specificall nature of the covenant lieth, in all the former instances especially that of corporations. So that however it is true, the rule bindes ••uch to the duties of their places and relations, yet it is certain, it requires that they should first freely ingage themselves in such covenants, and then be care∣full to fullfill 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.

[Con∣clusion. 4] 4 This Covenant once made, if any relations be inferred, and so were vertually 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 bindes him∣self to be a covenant-servant, he bindes 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.

[Con∣clusion. 5] 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 [Beleeve and live] Then it is not the Covenant of the Gospel. For that is in∣ward and invisible in its own nature, betwixt God and the soul only: But this is visible betwixt those who do professe 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 G••spel, 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 Baptisme and Eucharist, belongs to the Gospel, are ordinances thereof, but being instituted, they stand by vertue of the second Commandment, and must be observed by vertue thereof. A man may be within the covenant of the morall law, and yet not be bound to the duties of a husband, un∣lesse 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 generall and necessary duties of morality, which reach a man as a creature, with reference to God as a Creatour, 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 creatour, and duty to their fellow-creatures.: If a neigh∣bour preserve their honours, lives, goods, good names, yea be mercifull to their beasts, because such a creature, But there must intervene a new covenant betwixt parties and parties by mutuall and free consent, before they either should or can take up another sort of duties, People must by mutuall consent grow up into ingagement one with another into a corporation, before they should do the duties of a corporation. A servant must cove∣nant

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 ingage 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, Dea∣cons, 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 con∣sideration.

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 waies of God, and the truth of his worship: and God inga∣ged himself, that he would blesse those priviledges, 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 tye 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 law∣full, that a Father swear to perform the duties of a Father, a Master the duties of a Master is l••••full, But to tye an oath or Covenant so to his Ministery, 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 humane consideration, whether any man can charge another to be his servant, or he challenge another to be his master, unlesse there be a mutuall covenant and ingagement 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 faithfull 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 ingageth himself, by solemn promise, to walk with this society in the waies and worship of Christ. The Society receives him, and ingage them∣selves so to walk with him and towards him. As it is in the co∣venant of any corporation civill. The like may be said touch∣ing 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 shepheard and guide, and the ingaging of themselves to submit unto him in the dispensation of his office according to God: The acceptation of the call and ingagement of himself to take that office and charge according to Gods ap∣pointment and their choice, makes them his flock. And with∣out 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 tye by an Apostolike law and practice, the oath of God to such du∣ties, either are misprinted, or else they misse the conclusion whol∣ly, 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 witnesse 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 differen∣ced.

1. An agreement of persons, one to, and with another to combine and consociate in the waies 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 ingage themselves each to other by way of contract. 2. Being contracted they do the duties. 3. They may swear and binde themselves to God, they will do them. I have sworn and will perform it, that I will keep thy righteous Judge∣ments.

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 A∣postolicall Church, by such a covenant but only they believed, professed belief, and were baptized. When the incestuous per∣son 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 re∣ceived the word gladly, beleeved, and was baptized. Simon Magus baptized. Act. 8. Cornelius and his houshold. 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 expresse vocall covenant.

Ans. The proofs here alledged 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 crosse to his excommunication, and therefore an esta∣ting of the person into that corporation and communion which formerly he did enjoy, his subjecting himself in so solemn a man∣ner to the rule of Christ in the Congregation and Church, and

craving acceptance at their hands, and entertainment into the like priviledges of communion, of which he was deprived by rea∣son of his sin, and their ready receiving and entertaining of him in∣to that relation and state, and confirming their love to him in that behalf, is a full ingagement 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 baptisme had made him a member, as long as his ba∣ptisme had remained, his membership had continued, for whiles the forma remains, the formatum must needs be also. This exam∣ample will appear most pregnant, if we do but parallel it with the like in a civil corporation. A person, a member of the corpora∣tion and in combination with them, through his ill carriage is dis∣franchised and put out of his place and priviledge; if he shall ex∣presse that sorrow and reformation, that sutes the quality of his sin, and give satisfaction to the Company, his subjecting himself to the Company, and power of the combination, and their re∣ceiving and entertaining of him upon such terms, is an expresse recovery and renewall of the Covenant again, and by that an esta∣ting 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 lie here.

2. If no Church-covenant be there expressed, then there was none. The feeblenesse 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 expres∣sed 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 ba∣ptisme, 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 baptised, 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 re∣solves to deliver it out of our hands: 1.

Because these did not first meet frequently for praier and speciall conference, untill 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 praier 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 severall members, nay the additi∣on of all the ordinary members to the body. Besides, these were members of the Jewish Church before. The stroke that fell up∣on their spirits by the Ministery of the Apostles (for I doe not thinke that Peter only preached) was so extraordinary, and car∣ried 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 finde acceptance with this Apostolike, 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 baptised 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 stedfastnesse in doctrine, and saving themselves from the froward generation, could not be but habituall holinesse, not perfected in six hours. Now the same day, vers. 41. in which they gladly heard the word, they were both baptised and added; and therefore their stedfast continuing in Church estate, can no waies 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 ingaged thereunto by that subjection

they did expresse 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 baptisme: for ALL Jerusalem then, and Iudaa, and the coast about Iordan had been members of the Church by the baptisme of Iohn.

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 sequi∣tur. 1. If the thing be there, we need not trouble our selves for the word. And if Calvins judgement may be taken, who expound∣ing [Libenter amplexos eorum sermonem,] he thus writes, Adjunctos Christi discipulis fuisse, vel in idem corpus insitos & per∣severasse in doctrina. And I shall offer to M. R. his consideration, That when there is a solemn baptising into a Church, that ever im∣plies that the person is made a disciple of Christ, Mat. 28.19. For upon that ground their commission warrants the administration of baptisme: and so to be a disciple of Christ, is to be ingraffed 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 spo∣ken of the visible Church: And therefore though many belie∣ved in Christ, Ioh. 12.40. Yet they would not confesse him, or be∣come 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, added to or incorporated, as in Act. 2.41. & 5.14.

Whereas all the people were then said to magnifie them, and there∣fore to approve of their doctrine, and so confesse the truth and goodnesse of it; yet there was more required to this Church-work, and to become a disciple. And therefore its added, The beleevers were added, i. e. they confessed their sins, and became disciples and followers of that doctrine, and so ingaged them∣selves, 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, unles they in∣gaged themselves in Church-covenant for their children also?

Follow this order of the Apostle, Let them be members of Con∣gregations. Let them expresse the work of repentance with that power upon their souls, as these did, and receive the word with glad∣nes, 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 alledged by M. R. to go away from us.

Argument 3.

If baptisme be the seal of our entry into the Church, 1 Cor. 12.13. as circumcision was the seal of the members of the Iews 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 baptised are members of the visible Church before they can swear this Covenant, even when they are infants.

Answ. The Proposition fails, nay fights against it self. For if it seal up our membership, and Covenant with the visible Church, then is it after-membership, and therefore not the formall 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 pre∣sumes 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 cal∣led a holy seed, before in his own person he could make a Cove∣nant, but was included in the Covenant of his parent.

And if M. R. be of another minde, we desire he would tell us, How children of believers are said to be holy, if not by a foederall holines? 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 mem∣bers before they are in this Covenant, because though they doe not covenant personally by themselves, yet they are in∣cluded virtually in the Covenant of their parents, Deuterono∣my 29.10, 11.

Argument 4.

The Church-covenant either is all one with the Covenant of Grace, or it is a Covenant diverse from the Covenant of Grace. But neither waies can it be the essentiall form of a visible Church: Ergo. The Covenant of Grace cannot be the forme of a visible Churcb, because then all baptised should be in Covenant with God, which our brethren deny. If it be a Covenant diverse from it, it must be of another nature, and lay another obligatory tie, then ei∣ther 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 accor∣ding 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 compasse of the Covenant in the second sense. And hence the consequence upon which the stresse of the cause (as it is ur∣ged 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 appear∣ed 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 doe the duties thereof.

M. R. when he is to answer to this difference, l. 2. p. 93. Ʋbi su∣prà, 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 beleever (saies he) in the Covenant of grace, may not doe 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 bro∣ther, Son and Father, Master and Servant, commanded by a divine law of perpetuall equity to make such to be in such re∣lation.

We confesse this is a weak consequence, and is of his own ma∣king, 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 o∣ther. 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 confesse Christ, to walk before God, to joyn my self to a visible Church. But none can conclude in right reason, that it is a divine law, that necessi∣tates me to swear another covenant, then the covenant of grace in relation to these duties.

Ans. Its true, no law bindes 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 re∣ference to God, but come not within the free and voluntary co∣venant 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 expe∣rience of all ages, the common sense of all men. As though a per∣son might adventure to take the place and do the duties of a hus∣band 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 professe this Gospel: There is no divine law to binde them to make another covenant of King and Sub∣ject, and therefore now they must pay, and he must exact tri∣bute at their hand. I suppose the poor people, out of their own sense will tell him, that there is indeed a covenant required be∣tween God and man to make men Christians. But there must be another covenant betwixt Prince and people, to make them Ru∣lers and Ruled: other wise he could expect no homage from them, nor they protection from him.

Hence the Authour 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 proue that the covenant of grace and the Gospel layeth a tye of many duties upon us, which obligeth us without the comming under the tie of an expresse, vocall, publike oath.

And I wonder who ever denied this: let the man be brought forth, and bear his blame and shame, that should be so void of sense, only let it be here also remembred, 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. immediatly preceeding. Such is the brightnesse of the truth that it cannot be overborn.

That which is next added, is partly a craving the question, and the proof is yet insufficient to make it good,

Because I professe the Faith, and am baptized. I am a member of the visible Church, without such an oath: Because the covenant of grace, doth tye me to joyn my self to some particular Congre∣gation. &c.

Reply is.

That of Baptisme is answered. 2. The ground of that which is

added is a mistake, to wit, If the Covenant of the Gospel tye me to joyn my self 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 re∣quire me to seek for the help of a godly Pastour, that may rule and teach me. If it require me to marry and not to burn. There∣fore there is no Covenant required to make me a husband to a woman, that I must marry; nor a sheep of that Shepheard 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 Indivi∣duum 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 Congre∣gation. 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 vi∣sible 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 compasse 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 in∣treat 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 Mi∣nistery of A. B. he cometh under a new relative estate by an im∣plicite and vertuall Covenant, which is crosse to what was affirm∣ed 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 re∣stored, 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 Co∣venant, and therefore needs no more. As a woman being in Co∣venant with her husband, all the duties to his kindred are re∣quired 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, unlesse I take up a particular Covenant.

I say, such a consequence hath no shadow of reason in it, nor the least appearance of any ap∣proach to the cause, because the honour we owe to each man, as a neighbour, in his place and condition, is founded in a naturall relation we have, as fellow-fervants to the great God and Crea∣tour of all man-kinde. And therefore we must love God, and all things of God, in our neighbour, which concerns us: and there∣fore we must preserve the honour, life, goods, good name, of all, whether Lawyers, or Philosophers, or Physitians. Let me in∣fer from hence.

That I should therefore doe 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 Con∣gregation, 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 Com∣mandment, of perpetuall equity maketh the new adjoyner a member.

Answ. We are now then at the last, almost come to our selves, for we are come to this, That there must be a new relation Cove∣nant-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 its not the rules of the Word touching man and wife, Magi∣strate 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 weakned, nay not touched, nay in truth confirmed by this grant.

Lastly, That is made the great hinge of our debate, that I thinke 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 car∣ries a shadow of any such conceit; when its well known to all, that know our principles and practice, we professe 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 forme of a visible Church, which differenceth between the visible and invisible; Then there have been no visible Churches since the Apostl••s 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 ex∣pressing

thereof, to wit, It is either implicite or explicite. The Co∣venant is preserved for the substance of it, whether of the waies 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 implicite Covenant, which is abundantly evidenced by the constant practice, which is performed, and is al∣so required at the hands of all that are members therein.

Argument 6. and last.

A multitude of unwarrantable waies, partly go before, partly convey this Church-covenant.

Answ. If the waies were unwarrantable that conveyed the Covenant, or went before it: if yet they doe not touch the nature of the Covenant, that may yet be lawfull, when they are unlawfull. As it is in the Covenant of marriage. A man may upon wrong grounds, upon wrong ends, undertake such a work, procee∣ding also in a disorderly manner, and yet if the substance of the Covenant be right and good, the marriage is lawfull in it self and substance of it. But let us hear the waies that are so un∣warrantable.

1.

It is a dream, that all are converted by the means of private Christians, without the ministery of sent Pastors. l. 2. p. 120.

Answ. I confesse it is a dream to say so, or think so. And if a∣ny 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, con∣verted the people? And if they converted all those first Church∣es, 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 Mi∣nisters in their severall 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 e∣nough to prove it; As shall appear in the handling of the ordina∣tion 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 professe, as that the soundnesse 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 alwaies judgeth the best, unlesse it can prove the contrary.

4. Unwarrantable way.

By what warrant of the word are pri∣vate 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 minde of M. R, (but from whence it comes, I know not) that I see it findes such welcome, that he is willing to repeat it twice, rather then to misse 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 un∣warrantable waies easily.

If by ordinary, he understand that which is frequent in a course of common providence, which is neither miraculum, nor yet mi∣randum, 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 con∣ceit 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 skils not from what coast 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 Pastorall 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 fel∣lowship.

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 quarrelled with the lamb for mudding the water, when she dranke many miles below his wa∣tering.

But let us see the hainous 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 Authours give in no evidence this way. For the words of Pareus in the margin, lib. 2. p. 161. shew the contrary. It is made Intimae conjunctionis symbolum, but not authoritatis. In∣timate love, friendship and familiarity doth not inferre 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 symbo∣lum authoritatis, is beyond my understanding. But if Interpre∣ters 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 Catholike 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 o∣ver another, one Classis over another, one Provinciall Synod o∣ver another: Yet I suppose he will not deny, but these may coun∣sel, reprove, approve, reject or convince one the other.

One Church, or many Congregations, may meet with the Hea∣then, may teach them occasionally, convince them, encourage them, and yet have no power over them. Many Churches be∣ing sent to the Parliament to declare their judgement, touching any thing in agitation, may approve of their counsel and determi∣nations, if holy, or disallow them, confute them, if other, and yet I doe beleeve, 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 regene∣ration.

Answ. If they shall hear positive testimony of experienced and approved witnesses of their constant and conscientious walking without all scandall: If they shall hear the expressions and pro∣fessions 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 beleeve, meeting together (and yet it is not a Con∣gregation) and it is an ordinary visible Church. For at the admit∣ting of all converts to the Church order, this meeting must be. Sure∣ly here our brethren acknowledge, 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 ap∣prove of the way and proceeding of a Church gathering by our judge∣ment, then we acknowledge 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 ad∣vice? and yet consociation is one thing, and the constitution of a new species or kinde 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 classi∣cal Church; Is this then a Provincial or National Church? Suppose two Congregations of two severall and distinct Classis should be sent by either of the Classis to concur with a Church in an Island, 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 practice of the Church of Scotland, or to his first Book. He shall finde, that there be such, who must have their gifts of teaching tried; and therefore may and doe 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 joyn 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 8^th is answered in the 3^d.

The 9^th

which tels us of an Incouragement to be good stewards of the manifold graces of God, we see it warrantable to provoke each man to traffique with his talent.

But that all, who enter, are sworne to attend publick prophe∣cy, it happily may be found in M. Rathbones curranto, which he pickt out of some mans letter, who writ he could not tell what: nor could he reade happily aright what he wrote. For I know no such custome 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 excommuni∣cated 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 enquire after the second, viz. such qualificati∣ons, which are of speciall weight, and do in an especiall manner belong to the Church under this consideration.

Qualification then is either in re∣gard of the

• Order or precedency of it before
  • Officers, or
  • Presbyteri∣al Church.
• Excellency of it in
  • ...Power.
  • ...Priviledges.

Touching this Congregationall 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 beleevers, thus visibly consociating themselves, are truly called, and are in truth, and indeed, a Church, in the phrase of Scripture, before they have Of∣ficers?

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: some∣times to be of a differing minde. One while he laies the weight

upon a ministeriall Church, as including officers therein. Ano∣ther while he seems not only to deny the Church, thus consider∣ed, 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 M^r R. more fully to explicate his minde.

When the Church is called Ministerial, that word may be at∣tended 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 hereticall and ob∣stinately 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 enquire.

2. Ministerial is taken more strictly, as it seems M^r R. would by his expressions make us conceive: then it implies an Office-pow∣er, or power of Officers, and so it cals 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 logick is naught.

Reply, A friendly warning is good: but the Logick 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 bo∣dy 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 Logick. 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 lan∣guage will admit such an expression, much lesse the rules of rea∣son 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 vertue of her choice, she is cau∣sall 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 ministeriall is the Candlestick, and the Ministers the candles: and by the can∣dles setting in the Church, the Church becomes a ministerial govern∣ing Church.

Reply, It's crosse to all mens apprehensions and expressions, that the Candlestick should be no longer a Candlestick, then the candle is in it; why doe work-men sell them for Candlesticks, o∣ther

men count them so, buy them for such, before they put any candles in them? Is not a subject truly affectum ad arguendum, affected to argue a separable adjunct, and so truly called a subject, though his adjunct be not there, and be actually disposed with him? What kinde of Logick this is, let the Reader, that hath any logi∣cal judgement in him, judge.

As if one should say, It is not a Corporation of Aldermen, or free∣men before the Maior be chosen. It is true, it is not a compleat corpo∣ration of Maior and Freemen, unlesse there be both: but that hin∣ders not, but they be a corporation of Free-men united amongst themselves, though there be no Maior. Nay, they must be a cor∣poration, before they can chuse 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 wo∣man, 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 dieth also. Nay, when the Church shall have just occasion (as such its possible may be) to reject her Officers for heresies, or grosse villanies, When they reject them, do they therefore d••stroy 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 priviledges, Doe they therefore destroy their own liberties, and nullifie their Corporation by that means, which is the especiall 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 ministeriall Church: and to remove the Candlestick is to remove the Ministery; as to take away eyes, and ears, and hands from the body, is to hurt the integrity of it.

2.

All communion ministeriall, 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 fitnesse, they are the same they were before they were chosen, and remain the same.

Its true, to remove the Candlestick is to remove the Ministery: because the Ministery and Ministers have their dependance upon the Church. Destroy the man, the whole, you destroy the parts. But it holds not contrariwise. It is true, in a Ministeriall, 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 hominis, in regard of his essen∣tiall 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 compasse 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 Presbyteriall Church.

THe Qualification of the Church, as totum essentiale, consi∣sted 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 there∣of 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 ap∣pearance touching it.

Section 1.

A Presbyterian Church results, and ariseth upon three main principles, which are as the pillars of its speciall consti∣tution.

1. There must be severall Congregations, made entire of such members, as Christ hath appointed, to make up an integrall body, of Officers which rule; and people, which are led and ru∣led by them.

2. These Congregations neighbouring together, so that their com∣munion may be accommodated with more ease, and incourage∣able conveniency, and the scandals that may prejudice and taint by their infectious example, may be more easily cured and remo∣ved:

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 send their Rulers, according to mutuall agreement, to manage the great censures of Christ, and de∣termine the emergent doubts and difficulties that may arise a∣mongst the combined Congregations: and to such dispensations and determinations all the severall Churches combined are to sub∣mit, as to acts of jurisdiction, proceeding from such, as are set o∣ver 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 enquire, and to lay down such grounds, as may clear the enquiry and discovery of such a consti∣tution: and these are as followeth.

Section 2.

Ground 1.

There is no power of jurisdictiona 1.11, but that which ariseth from the power of Order, which stands by the appointment and institution of Christ.

By power of Order, following the expressi∣ons of the School, Papists, and other Wri∣ters, 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 ve∣ry nature of the terms gives in testimo∣ny to this truth, Executio juris, or, Di∣ctio juris, the Authoritative proclaiming or executing of this kinde 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 reasona∣ble men, according to the rules of reason, they confesse as much, as this amounts to, and may necessarily be collected and maintain∣ed from their own principles.

For Scotus and Thomas, and with them their followers, 4. Sent. dist. 18, 19. define the power of the keyes by binding and loosing; and in the binding and loosing all jurisdictionb 1.12, (in their sense,) is con∣tained: and this presumes a key, a place and office, unto which the person must be called; a power wherewith he must be invested, be∣fore 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 devise a way to put out the right eye of their reason, and to crook the rule and crosse their own principles, that they may promote the primacy and plenitude of the power of the Pope.

They would, The Inferiour Priests to have the power of the keys, and this power of order to extend it self (quantum est de se) to absolve all; and therefore Christ saith indefinitely, quo∣rum remiseritis &c. whosoever sins &c. But the use of this pow∣er 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 qui∣libet sacerdos non possit 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••na∣tionem Christi, to maintain Ordinationem Ecclesiae, & tyranni∣dem Papae.

But whatever they conceit, the evidence of the truth is so un∣deniable, that it will constrain the understanding to yeeld to that which is here required. For this Jurisdiction (in the sense I take it) in the exercise thereof, either requires one called or autho∣rized by office: or else any without this authority may doe it. But none is a Steward unlesse set over the Family. Governments are not in the Church, unlesse they be appointed by Christ, 1 Cor. 12.27.28. yea the blinde Pharisees could grope at this in the darknes of their delusions, as appears by the question they put

unto our Saviour,* 1.13 BY WHAT AƲTHORITY dost thou these things, and who gave thee this Authority? So that the putting of this Jurisdiction and Rule i. e. Authoritative or Office juris∣diction (whereof we now speak) into the hands of any, who are not appointed to the Office of rule, is meerly the usurpation of that Man of sin, or a preparation to bring him in; or a re∣mainder of him, not fully cast out, not the native and naturall 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 compasse 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 acknow∣ledge, where the treasury of this power is stored up, and whe∣ther they must go to fetch it.

Hence First, He must be made a Deacon, and allowed to read, but not preach; to administer Baptisme, 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 license 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 fulnesse 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 in∣stitution.

Hence the second ground I lay down, is this.

There is no Office in the Church, but only such which are ap∣pointed by Christ; and therefore there is no Iurisdiction 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 tea∣chers, some Pastors, Its Christs prerogative royall to bestow such gifts.

2. They are proper means of his worship, and therefore it is on∣ly proper to him to injoyn them.

3. It is in his hand only to blesse and succeed them in their spi∣rituall dispensations, to the attainment of those supernaturall 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 spirituall, ecclesiastick, can be exerci∣sed, but by an Officer of Christ.

And therefore Surrogates, Chancellours, Arch-deacons, Deans, Officials, Vicars-general, Abbots, Monks, Friers, Cardinals, Jesuites, &c. which are hatched and spawned, by the pride and luxury, ambition and tyranny of that Man of sin, as vermine 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 a∣mongst his people.

Ground 3.

Hence, He that is now called, and appointed an Officer accord∣ing to God, and the rules of the Gospel, as he needs no oth••r pow∣er, 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 execu∣tion thereof.

For it is in Christ alone, as to appoint the calling and Office; so to lay out the bounds and limits, to specifie the severall actions and operations thereof, therein required; and to exact the per∣formance thereof. Therefore they must attend to teaching and ex∣hortation, Rom. 12.7, 8. They must rule with diligence, take heed to themselves, and to the flock, Act. 20.28. They must binde up the bro∣ken, recall the straying, tender the weak, Ezek. 34.4.

True, by violence and cruelty they may be oppressed, persecu∣ted,

imprisoned, and by strong hand hindered from doing their work, and then God cals for suffering, not doing; other∣wise, 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 equall Offices, they have the same and equall Office-rule or jurisdiction.

Hence, What ever is added, beside office, it adds no jurisdiction or rule ecclesiastick at all to any.

From these grounds thus laid, I shall take leave to di∣spute.

Argument 1.

If the Churches combined have no more power, then they had be∣fore they were combined; then they can exercise no more jurisdicti∣on 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 send 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 lesse in the com∣bination.

But this they have not.

If they have jurisdiction over all these, then are they Officers, Pa∣stors, 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 rode 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 Con∣gregations, 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 Classicall Church, is not founded upon an office different from the offices of Pastors and Elders, which they have and are cloathed with, in re∣lation 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 up∣on the s••me office that a Pastor hath to his particular Congrega∣tion; then the Elders bear that relation of watchmen to a Classi∣cal 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 Elder∣ship 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 enquire, how it sutes with the truth.

These authoritative acts, which are put forth, issue from him, ei∣ther as a Pastor, or as no Pastor, Ruler or no Ruler:

If as no Pastor, then acts of jurisdiction, and those authorita∣tive, and supream 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 Pastorall 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 Presbyteriall Church of Pergamus, but there is a generall 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 Classicall Church is founded, not upon a different office from the office of Pastors and Elders, which they have and are cloathed with, IN RELA∣tion

to their particular flock.

How these will sute, 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 Congregationall, as M. R. laies them down.

Difference 1.

The Presbytery are Elders to the Classicall Church 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 practice 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 doe 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 al∣lows not this.

Again,

Suppose the party be admonished by the particular Congrega∣tion for this his private fault, thus persisted in, and yet shall con∣tinue 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 expresse their care in these judiciall acts, and that

directly and immediately upon scandals and scandalous persons in a∣ny Congregation under the Presbytery, both censures of Admonition and Excommunication; as also in the direct decision, and so re∣moving, at least stopping any errour of any member arising, so that they fall upon the Church to be governed directly.

The third Difference.

The Elders of the Classicall 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 shew a differ∣ent 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 shew 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 Island, where, as a Pastor he cannot teach, ad∣monish, excommunicate, but in caetu Congregationali, not severed from his Church (as we say) or his Consistory, or Collegio Presby∣terali (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 Clas∣sical 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 externall Govern∣ment.

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 jurisdicti∣on issues from Church-relation, and indeed from Church-office, els it could never be exercised.

But that their practice evidenceth, for they admonish, censure, severall persons of severall Churches.

2. These Churches taken collectively, are nothing but a Clas∣sis, 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 M^r 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 publike acts of jurisdiction, but in the Court, nor act of pastorall 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 As∣semblies?

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 El∣ders have not, but in foro Ecclesiae.

Answer.

If they have the same office, whence all these acts of jurisdi∣ction 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 publike preaching and administring Sacrement, 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 adde this power.

That example of the great Sanhedrim toucheth not this cause, or else destroies it, if it be paralleled in all the particulars of it. I will sute it with a more sensible patern every way alike. A Ju∣stice of peace in the Countrey, or Burgesse in a Corporation, are chosen to be members in Parliament, the one a Burgesse, the o∣ther a Knight of the Shire: Here are now two speciall 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 Congre∣gation is appointed a member of a Classis, he hath a new office di∣stinct from the office he had in the Congregation, we shall then know where to finde this classical mystery, and discover the crosse∣nes 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 El∣ders in feeding by the Word of knowledge, and in Governing in all the particulars which concern the Government of each Congregati∣on: that I deny, saies he.

Answer.

1. Its obvious to each mans apprehensions, that every Elder and particular Governour in his Congregation, as he hath the na∣ture of an Elder in generall: so out of power he can, and doth put forth generall actions that are common to other Elders, and so also meet with those generall things which concern Government in generall. 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 humane nature to him∣self.

2. Its well known, That the Classis meddles with the particular offences of particular persons in all particular Congregations, even such which are as speciall, as any Elder in an Island 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 particu∣lar, 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 generall acts in preaching and watching, which are common to all Congregations, which the Classis nor doe, nor can dispense conscientiously, because they cannot attend them. Nor yet will it suffice to say, That he was Pastor to the Catholick Church before, for then before this com∣bination 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 there∣fore these Pastors and teachers are Officers by an especiall appropri∣ation, which others out of the circuit are not.

Argument 3.

That course which divides the things which God hath joyned to∣gether, and ought fo••••ver to go together, that is unlawfull.

But to sever jurisdiction and teaching, is to part the things that God hath joyned 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 keyes, and to them it appertains to use all these in binding and loosing, as the flock shall require: And these cannot be fully used in binding and loo∣sing, but by teaching and ruling, Act. 20.18. 1 Pet. 5.1, 2.

Again, Those actions of their office, which are of necessity re∣quired 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 perfe∣cting 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 quickning of

the soul in the waies of grace, and the preventing and purging out of all that leven of sin, which may be prejudicial or hurtfull to that work of the Lord.

To this M. R. answers many things, l. 2. p 329.

As Grand-fathers and Fathers do bear a relation to the same children divers waies: both are Fathers, but both are not begetting fathers: So also doe the Classical Elders, and Elders of a Congre∣gation bear divers relations to the flock.

Reply.

If they have such relations to their flocks as Grand-fathers and Fathers, then, as a Grand-father cannot be a father; or a Fa∣ther, a Grand-father, to the same childe, so an Elder can∣not be a proper Elder, and a Classical Elder to the same Con∣gregation.

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 cloathed with, in relation to their proper flock, l. 2. 333. yea his words are expresse.

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 doe not differ for∣mally or specifically, but only in more or lesse 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 Con∣gregation: then the same causes, then the same election and choice. Then what he doth by vertue 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 mat∣ter presented for Ordination or Excommunication in a Congre∣gation, they can put forth such operations: for they have

the same intrinsecall and intensive power, and in that are all the causes of these operations seen, when a fit object is pre∣sented.

Those expressions that in the Court Assembly at Jerusalem, Act. 15. they are Elders in relation to the whole Churches of Anti∣och, Syria and Cilicia, and the Gentiles, collectively taken, in those dogmatical points: And the same Elders were in special manner El∣ders to the congregations of Antioch, Syria and Cilicia, taken di∣stributively.

The Reply is, The Elders did the one as Counsellours, they governed the other as Rulers, as we hope will appear in its pro∣per place.

But that other, to wit, l. 2. 330.

By that same official power, that a Pastor teacheth his own flock, viva voce, by vocal preaching as a Doctor, he teacheth other Church∣es by writing.

This is an invention, I confesse 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 of∣ficial power that he teacheth his own flock vivâ voce, is questioned upon these grounds.

1. It crosseth the nature of the office.

For, first, That officiall 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 vertue there∣of he could challenge and require them to reade 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, Na∣tions, &c. Nay the case may be that he may have official power o∣ver 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 pro∣ceed from his office, then it is some where required, that each man should as well print, as preach. For to preach vivâ voce is requi∣red of every Pastor, out of his office: but if printing issue from the same office, the one should as necessarily be required as the other: and hence, what he preacheth he must print: for he is bound to teach his people vivâ voce, by vertue of his office, and if his office cals for this, he is bound to this also, as well as to that: but that we finde writ in no Gospel that I know of.

3. That which another may doe 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 El∣ders, or Teaching Elders to the classical Church?

M.R. answers p. 330.

They are both, and they are neither in di∣vers considerations. They are teaching Elders in all the Congrega∣tions distributively taken: They are ruling in all collectively taken. They are teachers 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in some reserved acts, not constant teach∣ers. Its true, he that is a ruling Pastor, is also a teaching Pastor, but not to that same flock alwaies.

The Reply is,

When we enquire, What kinde of Elder a Classical Elder is, we are told, that they are Elders teaching in all Congregations distri∣butively, 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 com∣bination, 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 con∣cluded, 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 alwaies. 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 shew 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 joyn many to concurre 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 beleeve you have no rule of Christ to join many, to rule many Churches, be∣side 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 up∣on power of order, Therefore teaching should be every way com∣mensurable 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 fulfill his Ministery, and attain his end in procuring the good of his flock commended to his care. Therefore the reason alledged 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.

Adde hereunto also, That all publike 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 laies a burthen upon teaching Elders, which God ne∣ver laid, nor are they ever able to discharge, that is not sutable 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 ma∣ny flocks, when as one is sufficient to improve all abilities of the most able Minister on earth: And therefore the Apostle appoint∣ed Elders in every Church, and charged them to attend the flock, not flocks.

Besides, I had thought the loathsomenesse of pluralities had been not only hissed out of the world, but abhorred of all consci∣entious 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 Con∣gregations (which we and all the world allow, as that which piety and Christianity, the law of Religion and Reason require) to be as dreadfull, for onerous, carefull, laborious watchfulnesse 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 cals 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 doe 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 brother∣ly

consociation tieth us to doe as much, as if we had no further warrant then this: for to say, that brotherly consociation tieth us to doe no more, in governing sister churches, then brotherly consociation can doe, 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 burthen betwixt brotherly consociation and office-imposition, as if that there were a parity be∣twixt them.

For REPLY, we shall examine, 1. the truth of the Assertion, And 2. give answer to the reasons alledged for it.

1. Touching his Assertion it self, we shall oppose one that is pro∣fessedly contradictory thereunto.

Assertion.

There is not the like care, onerousnesse and labour required in duties of Christian watchfulnesse in a brotherly way, as to doe 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.* 1.14 Therefore they are enjoyned to attend to exhortation and teaching, the main bent of their daily studies must goe that way. They must search to know the state of their flock, Search the Scriptures,* 1.15 and study pleasant words, which may with most plainnesse, and profit, and power convey the truth to the under∣standing of the meanest under their charge. And therefore they must not be intangled in the affairs of this life.* 1.16 They must lay aside the attending of tables,* 1.17 and give themselves to the word and praier. The Apostles professed to take this course (though extraordina∣rily gifted and assisted) as occasion did require.

* 1.18If the Apostles laid aside the care of the poor in dispensing the treasury, because that would hinder the work of the Ministery; 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 there∣fore 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 publike 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 confesse to be crosse to Gods command. But blessed be God it is far otherwise. His waies are full of mercy, wisdome, pity and goodnes, and he exacts no more of his people, then in an evangelical way they are able to performe.

And therefore in our Christian watch, I am bound only to ad∣minister occasionally, rebukes, counsels, comforts and exhorta∣tions, 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 burthen is light∣er then the nail of the little finger, compared with the body of that care and burthen, which concerns a Teacher in office to∣wards 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 de∣linquent.

But thus I am not bound to bestow my time, and imploy my care with all Christians, with whom I shall meet, in the compasse of the same Classis, or the same Province: for it is impossible, I should so doe. If I hear of many scandals, that many have given in severall Congregations, Countreys, nay, as the occasion of travelling 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 businesse, and deal with all these? Or in case he return home, the pressures of his imploiments calling him thither, Must he needs go into France, Germany, Holland, to proceed a∣gainst 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 burthen upon any to practise in this manner; but hath provided in his infinite wisdome 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 a∣part from other entanglements to attend the improvement of all ordinances, for the good of those under their charge, that their evils may be seen, searched 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to the other removed: for this device, like a warm hand, strokes 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 watchfulnesse issues towards all. And therefore as it hath the same bond, so it requires the same service: And therefore all such conceits are meerly coined, to cousen mens consciences, and so to keep them quiet, but they will never goe at the great day of ac∣count.

For the question will be, Hadst thou the same pastoral relati∣on to the one as to the other, as thy sheep? If thou stoodest 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 onerous∣nesse, 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 Island, there is no other gifted of God to preach the Gospel, but he only: I would thinke, 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 preach∣ing, though he were not called to be their Pastor, as if he were called to be their Pastor.

The case is here evident, that M^r R. his intendment is to com∣pare 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 M^r R. his opinion. For it is granted, that this gifted person is not cal∣led to preach, nor will the people in the Island so acknowledge him: Therefore they are not bound to maintain him: Hence I should rather think thus,

He that useth his generall calling so, as that he destroies his particu∣lar, 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 generall calling (for he doth what is done out of Christian charity) so as that he destroies his particular: For he must of necessi∣ty 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 man∣ner, i. e. as Pastors use to do.

Besides, To doe as much in a generall way of charity, as that which amounts to the work of a particular calling, is to confound generall and particular callings, which God, and rule have distinguished.

When M.R. saith,

I desire to know what the naked relation of authority or jurisdicti∣on addeth to this care and onerousnesse in point of labour by preaching the Gospel.

Its easie to return, That Jurisdiction implies an office: an office doth not only add a speciall 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 one∣rousnesse as office-watch.

Answer.

The consequence is to be denied, as no way sutable 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 there∣fore 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 of∣fice to watch no more over the people left to my care and custo∣dy, 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 seldome lend any succour unto in all my life: Therefore I am bound to doe no more to those that are under my charge: If I occasionally meet with them, to doe good occasionally to them, but never to bestow my time and strength constantly to attend their comfort, to binde up the broken, to recall those that go a∣stray, 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 conso∣ciation to help, as the care and onerousnes, which is required in of∣fice-help, or that which is required in the jurisdiction, which comes from officers.

The first part is true: Therefore

Answer.

The Proposition deserves a deniall, as not having a semblance of truth in it. Because I love all such as are consociated with me un∣der one National Synod, whom I never had a sight of, never came to speech with all, with whom I could never meet to doe good to them, or receive any good from them in converse: That there∣fore I should stand bound to put forth the like onerous, labori∣ous care for their spirituall good, as a person that stands charged with them in way of office, one would certainly conclude and readily, either those officers doe too little, or else I am bound

to doe too much, more then I possibly can attain unto.

The officers must doe 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 ingaged to comfort, counsel, direct, reform, and proceed in censure against such for their evils, which officers must do by Christs appointment, being sent to ga∣ther and perfect the Saints, when I shall never converse with thousands in the nation, nor they with me, untill my dying day.

Our 5. Argument.

If they be Pastors over all the Congregations in the circuit, then they were new chosen by the severall Congregations, or not.

If they were not chosen, then a Pastor may be a Pastor by an e∣speciall appropriation to a people, of whom he was never chosen, which is crosse 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 pastorall acts to the one, as to the other. 2. Here is really non-residency brought in. Nor will it satisfie, they are Pa∣stors 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for if they stand in the same relation of a Pastors of∣fice 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 major, l. 1. p. 56. l. 2. 201, 102.

The Assumption or second part. Lib. 2. 329, 333, 338.

M^r R. tells us, l. 2. p 344. That they are called Elders at Ephe∣sus, 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 fol∣loweth 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 severall 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 lesse confute it, if they be rightly consi∣dered.

The Kings of the nations are so stiled by way of distinction, be∣cause of the speciall 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 com∣passe 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 Church∣es 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. addes,

If all the Kings of the nations did meet, in one Court, and in that Court did govern the nations with common royall authority and counsell 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, tacitely 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 mislead the rea∣der from the mark, but rightly discerned and searcht into, do nothing make for the cause; for, when it is said, they meet in Court, and govern the nations with common royall authority, this authority was a new superadded authority, which came not from the King of Edom, or from that royall office (let me so speak) of the regall power he had there, for then it should have belong∣ed to none but him. But this is a common royall 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 wholy 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. parallell this in the case in hand, and we shall soon come to an agreement, namely,

That the Elders who had speciall 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 ne∣ver had before; this is not now an office of a Pastor, but the power of a Commissioner, wholly distinct therefrom; and that is a hu∣mane creature of mans devising: the Churches dealing therein, as the civil states do, who have allowance, and they in this case take allowance to adde 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 al∣low, 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 Com∣missioners: And that his words intimate, which the nature of the thing forceth unto, that they promise tacitely obedience and subje∣ction 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 pro∣portion of reason, the people promising subjection to Elders, not as to Pastors, but as to Commissioners, which are humane creatures of mans devising.

Argument 6.

The Classicall 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 major part: for if the fewer or lesser number might cast the ballance in cases propounded, then the weaker should overbear the stronger (for they have all equall 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 irrationall. 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 passe 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 erre in their judge∣ment and practice?

The answer is, While the fewer do protest against their pro∣ceedings, 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 ap∣peal 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 El∣ders and people of the Congregation, and their proceedings in a righ∣teous 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 per∣ticular 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 Congre∣gation.

1. But this we have heard is crosse to all the orderly proceed∣ings of Christ, and rules of reason, that the weaker should over∣bear the stronger, the part, the whole.

2. This layes open a gap to endlesse dissention; 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 ar∣gument, and must therefore never appear in sight more.

Lastly, Who must judge, which party hath the better end of the staffe, whether the fewer or the greater number be in the right? either the greater party must judge, or else there must no judge∣ment passe at all, and so it will be in the power of a few to

disturb, yea disanull all publike proceeding, and bring present con∣fusion 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 wisdome 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 excom∣munication 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 pow∣er 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 pro∣ceed from some new order or office received from their combina∣tion. 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 Rea∣der, that he may releive 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 pow∣er he receives must not come from the office of a Pastor, for that he had before; and yet lib, 2. p. 133. its said,

This power issues from one and the same Office in the Congregation and in the Classis.

2.

A Pastour 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 Pastour in the Congre∣gation. 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 formaly nor essentially different, lib, 1. p. 332. Where powers differ not formaly, say I, their operations differ not formally: and yet the Pastour, he doth not, he needs not, he cannot, watch, over the Classicall 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 vertue of the essence of their office. Therefore they have acts formaly dif∣fering;

And therefore have powers formally differing.

4.

There is one and the same office which Elders act by, in a classicall and Congregationall 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 Classicall and Congregationall Church after one, and the same manner; If then the Congregationall Church be their proper flock, so is the Classicall 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 Classicall 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 Classicall Church must of necessity maintain that principle.

Either these are mazes and mysterious twistings, or I confesse I am much mistaken.

Lastly, I would intreat the serious Reader to observe, what depths there lie hid in this device,

1. A Pastor may be a Pastour in relation to a Church, and yet never be chosen. For a Classicall Elder is so: and why may not a bishop be so?

2. Would you see a person that hath the formall essence of a Pastour, and yet never did, nor is bound to preach? so a Classicall Elder is to his Classicall Church, and why may not a Bishop also have the like?

3. Would you see a person, that hath the Office of a Pastour to teach, but must have no power to rule in chief acts of jurisdicti∣on? 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 Iurisdiction, they must send 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 Classicall Pastor doth so, And therefore why may not a Bishop rule a Dio∣cesse, and preach only at his Cathedrall?

It is all that can be said, that many are joyned 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 Ju∣risdiction without them, not as a Moderatour 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 combi∣nation, to convince the Elders meeting of an errour 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 Pastour or tea∣cher that gives that power, for that they had compleatly 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 hu∣mane invention.

And why may they not give the like power to one man? and let him take Surrogates, Deans, Arch-deacons, and Chan∣cellours to himself: this is but a humane invention, as the o∣ther.

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 Pastour to a people, by whom he was never chosen.

2; And that he may be a Pastour (as the Office of a Pastour 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 professe I will willingly yeeld the cause. But they must either make good the three first, or else prove the latter, or else the pillars of the Presbyteriall Church will fall.

Section. 3.

We have now done with one sort of grounds, whereby the con∣stitution

of a Presbyteriall Church may be discerned.

We shall add another, and thence also dispute.

It is then confessed on all hands, and granted often by M. Ru∣terford,

That a Church in an Iland 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 kingdome of Jesus Christ, having within it self power of the word and Sacra∣ments.

2.

And also that it is a Church, and hath the essence of a Church, to which agree the essentiall notes of a visible Church. Now preaching of the word, and administration of the Sacra∣ments, are essentiall notes of a visible Church.

From this ground I would thus reason.

If a Church in an Iland 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 waies. 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 Congrega∣tion rightly constituted, there is the same power, and that ap∣pointed to the same ends.

This second part admits no deniall, because sense and experi∣ence give in testimony. There be all the Officers which Christ hath appointed in the one as in the other.

All are enjoyned to put forth all their operations, and to fullfill the work of their ministery, and the duties of their cal∣ling, one as the other, and the end is the same in both, the gathe∣ring, and perfecting of the Saints.

The Proposition is proved from that principle of reason, that operari sequitur esse, The operation answers the constitu∣tion.

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 attai∣ning that end.

And let any man shew any power, right or ability, that a Church in an Iland 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 intrin∣secall 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 ad∣junct, it can add nothing to the constitution, and so to the ope∣ration of the Church, for the nature of such adjuncts touch not the essence or constitution of the thing in any mea∣sure.

But neighbourhood is but a separable adjunct, as experience and common sense can testify; because either death, or dissention may take away some Churches, and nullifie them, and yet some particulars are preserved.

3. Suppose a Church gathered and erected on a continent in the wildernesse, 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 ano∣ther.

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 intrinsecall 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 Con∣gregation.

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 injoyned 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 Pastour 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 meer fallacy, and hath no validity in it, Namely,

The preventing or curing the taint and pollution that a scandall will bring by the neernesse of cohabi∣tation.

That this is no ground it will thus appear.

If the scandall in an ordinary course may, and will fall out a∣mong those that are nearer, then many in the combination: then this neernesse is not a sufficient cause of it.

At primum: As in case members trade among people of ano∣ther Classis, and give scandalous example there.

2. They who live at the outside of the combination, are nea∣rer the Congregation of another Classis then their own.

3 The Scandall 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 scandall, be it done never so far off, or never so neer.

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 congregationall and Presbyteriall 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 Integrall parts of a Church, then it is an intire and compleat 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. There∣fore what each have they receive from them, therefore they have no Officers but from them, therefore both Ordination and Juris∣diction come from them.

Section. 4.

How far a particular Congregation is bound to meet in one place

Our practice 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 send 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 setled 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 exam∣ples, which M. R. brings, for the evidencing of a Presbyterian Church.

1. That of the Apostles Church will in no wise suit his end, or serve his turn, or make good the question. For to make up a Presbyteriall 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 dis∣pense their censures, and set down their decisions.

But there were no Elders appropriated to their severall charges

and Churches, which had power only over them. And such El∣ders 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 Apostolicall 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 argu∣ment gathered therefrom, that (setting aside the Church of Ie∣rusalem) they should need meet in severall places.

3. Let it be considered, whether by Church, many Churches may not be intended, as Saul made havock of the Church, i. of all the faithfull members of all Congregations.

Having discovered the constitution of this Presby∣teriall Church, we are now to consider of CHAP. X. Such Arguments as M. R. alledgeth for the confir∣mation of a Presbyteriall 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 hea∣rers were well acquainted: Then a Presbyteriall 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 Presbyteriall 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 saies well, The manner of our Saviours proceeding is so plain and obvious to an ordinary apprehension, that it may ea∣sily and familiarly be perceived.

The alluding to the Jewish Synagogue would add little light to the processe now propounded: Should our Saviour mean a parti∣cular Syoagogue, they had not the power of excommunication in their hands: for the Church of the Jews was a nationall 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 excommu∣nication could be compleat. For they had their liberty thither to appeal in weightiest matters, and the delivering a man to the De∣vil was a matter of greatest consequence, that could befall him, and therefore he would in reason see the through tryall. And to say, that our Saviour alluded to the nationall Church of the Jews, is to confound the goverment of the Gospel, with that of the Law.

2. This were to send a man to a generall counsell, not to a Classis yea to send him thither, where he was not like to finde relief: for the plantiffe might be dead and buried, before the Councell could be gathered.

3. The direction of our Saviour points out apparently some stan∣ding Tribunall, 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 Iland, 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, ƲPON THIS GROƲND.

Lastly, It doth not follow the allusion had been to a Classis (for there were none but a national Church) but rather to a Con∣sistory suitable to the Synagogue.

The Proposition also admits a just deniall: for an allusion is only a similitude: and the similitude may lie in some particular, beside the quality of the Judge, as thus. As the offender that would not hear the supream Judge was cut off, so look you must at the par∣ticular Congregation, as the chief tribunall; 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 lie in the Iudge, this seems to evidence it; because the Judgement in the Sanhedrim, was mixt (as the phrase intimates, Deut. 17.12. 2 Chron. 19.) part∣ly of Ecclesiastick, 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 beleevers 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 judiciall censuring.

Answ.

The Church meeting together, though the scope be for praier

and prophecying 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 administred: nay, un∣lesse some peculiar casting circumstance require the contrary, they should so be.

Argument. 3.

The Church here spoken of, is such a superiour and judiciall seat, as ought to be obeyed in the Lord, under pain of excommu∣nication. But a multitude of beleevers are not such a judiciall seat.

Answ.

The Minor is the question in hand, and indeed part of the con∣clusion to be proved, namely, whether a particular Congregation, be the highest tribunall, or a Classicall Church. And M. R. takes one part of the conclusion to prove the other.

If the Congregationall Church be not highest, then the Classicall is.

The Minor should have been proved, and not propounded na∣kedly.

Argument. 4.

Whatever Church may excommunicate, every member there∣of convened with the Church may inflict all inferiour punish∣ments.

But all the members convened cannot inflict lesser punishments, as women and children cannot rebuke openly.

Answ.

The consequence is feeble, as shall appear from the nature of de∣legated publike 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 Major upon iust de∣sert,

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 ministeriall Church, having power to excommunicate, doth necessarily belong: these and these only, are understood under the name of the Church. But so it is, that the essence and definition of a Ministeriall Church having power to excommunicate, agreeth not neces∣sarily to a great Company of beleevers assembled Church∣waies.

Answ.

Both the propositions with a fair interpretation admits a deniall, as being clearly false.

1. The proposition. Because a Church neither as Totum essenti∣ale alone, or as it ariseth to be Totum integrale, is here only under∣stood. But the second sense and signification is here firstly atten∣ded; 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 lead: 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 Ministeriall Church is here understood, the word ministeriall admits severall significations; either Ministers without the body exclusivè, and that is false: or the Ministers with the body inclusivè, Now a Ministeriall 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 Ministeriall Church, i. e. a Church of Ministers without the body having power to excom∣municate doth necessarily 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 Ministeriall Church, to whom power of excommunication appertains, agrees not necessa∣rily to a company of beleevers.

Here be three things

• 1. There is a Ministeriall Church.
• 2. This hath power to excommunicate,
• 3. This agrees not to beleevers.

1. It is confessed, and hath been largely proved, that by belee∣vers of a visible Church, we mean such, who are so visible to the view of charity, though not such in truth. And therefore I won∣der that M. R. should again trouble himself to prove that which no man denies.

2. That these beleevers combined are a Church before they have guides, and have power also to excommunicate, that we hold. But they have not a ministeriall 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 A∣postle Paul to crave his directions and help in way of reformation, having authority in all Churches then complaints must be to El∣ders only, and excommunication acted only by them, and second∣ly, 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 chose rather to do it to the Apostle, because his Apostolicall power would be helpfull 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 excom∣munication, but with the tacite consent of the people, therefore to them the complaints of the evills must be made by the El∣ders.

4. I would know, in case many Brethren have just occasion gi∣ven by the elders in a Church of an Iland, whether may they com∣plain, 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 grosse and haereticall doctrine preached by Officers, for which the people may justly reject their Pastours, in case they will not recant, and be humbled, as all confesse: whe∣ther must the people reject their Pastours for such evills, and never speak to them? or if the evill must be required, and called for to triall, 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 com∣plaints 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 keyes were gi∣ven, Mat. 16. But they were given only to a Classicall 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 argu∣ment that is here remembred, 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 rendred happly then there were yet al∣ledged.

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 a∣lone, desolate, destitute of the least loving look of the allowance of any text, that might be a second in the field. The good man, ac∣cording to that sagacity and sharpnesse of dispute, wherein he ex∣celled, 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 it self 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 seldome used: and therefore no marvell there wants consent. But when the thing is so often, so ordinarily handled in all the Evangelists and Epistles: the very word com∣monly, 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 borne, that the sense is here fathered and forced upon the place, but is not the naturall 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, whe∣ther 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 quota∣tions tell us the contrary, therefore here is not a syllable or a shew of any thing to evince it.

When the whole Church is wrote unto, and the Epistle super∣scribed to the Angel, this intimates something touching the sig∣nification 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 Authours, 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 finde lit∣tle 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, be∣cause 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 arrivall, 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 losse to the one, or gain to the other.

Argument 11.

The Church that the plantiffe must tell, that Church is to admonish publikely the offender. But that is the Church of El∣ders, 1 Thes. 5.12.13. 1 Tim. 5.20. Luk. 10.16. for they only

are to receive publike complaints, and to rebuke publikely, 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 passe a Judiciall sentence, the Elders leading the action in an orderly manner, and taking their consent thereunto. Therefore the in∣cestuous Corinthian was said to be rebuked of many, and to be judged of them also, and that not only by the judgement of dis∣cretion, 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 binde him.

Lastly, What will M. R. say of his exspectants, who preach publikely, and therefore do instruct and reprove publikely, 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 nei∣ther women alone, nor children, will make a Church, nor have any publike power put into their hands for that pur∣pose.

Argument 13.

The Thirteenth Argument is propounded, as though there was no great weight laid upon it, and therefore I thought to passe it by wholly at the first: yet upon second consideration, I conceived it not amisse to intimate a word to remove a stone 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 excommuni∣cating Church meet for the actuall 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 excom∣munication, 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 incouragement in it, expresseth his consent, that his spirit concur∣red 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 incouraged 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 Ecclesiasticall power, where the Na∣ture of it is discovered, and the Arguments brought against it answered.

BEfore we can propound the state of the contro∣versy, in which the stresse lyes, and adde 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 Ecclesiasticall power in the generall, and lay out the severall parts and branches of it, wherein it is expressed, and may best be perceived by an understanding Rea∣der; because this will give light to that which followes, and will dayly 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 Keyes, the signe or adjunct being put for the thing signified, the ensigne of authority for authority it selfe.

This power is double,

• Supreme and Monarchicall,
• Delegate and Ministeriall.

1.* 1.19 The Supreme and Monarchicall 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 keyes of David, openeth, and no man shutteth; shuts, and no man opens: He must have all power both in Heaven, and Earth, that must possesse 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 priviledge, 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which according to God cer∣taine

persons possesse in their externall administration, issuing from such speciall relation, which attends them in their condi∣tion, unto which they are called, and appertaines to no other, unlesse 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 lawes, and sets limits how to bound it, and they may go no further then their commission will cary them out.

We adde, its given [to fit Persons,] because those are here in∣tended, 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 practice thereof; and hence Women, because of their sexe, and Children because of their weakness, and mad Men,* 1.20 because of their distempers, are disinabled, and so exclu∣ded this priviledge.

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 beleevers, 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 crosse to the letter of the text, and contrary to the opi∣nion 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 re∣ceived and exercised in that order which Christ himself hath or∣dained. The whole Church is an Army terrible with banners: The whole Army is in dayly 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 knowes his rank, and acts after his owne order and manner; The Officers in theirs, and the members in theirs; The whole acts some things imme∣diately, 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 po∣testas
  • ...Judicii
  • ...Donationis
• In one, when given to him; this is po∣testas 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 priviled∣ges to cut off from priviledges: The Apostle speaks, All, as an act of all. 1 Cor. 5.12. yea judge them that are within; cast out there∣fore 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 cary a causall power with them, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 cast out from a∣mong you, v. 13. and this is called judgement by the Holy Ghost, which is the ground why we keep that expres∣sion.

2 The power of gift or election is that which the people have, as the corporation hath power to choose a Major, 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 do∣ctrine 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 atten∣ded,

• 1. In the rise and reason of it.
• 2. In the manner how it is communicated.
• 3. In the first subject or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in whch it is received.

I. The rise of this power, and the reason, why it is necessa∣ry to be attended in a Church constituted, will specially appeare, if we eye the end, which alwayes steeres the action among such as be Agents by counsell.

In all combinations there is and will be some common end: That end must have meanes to attaine it, to these meanes 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 meanes at∣tended

with profit, or any powerfull successe in reason.

For if each man may do what is good in his owne eyes, pro∣ceed according to his own pleasure, so that none may crosse him or controll him by any power; there must of necessity follow the distraction and desolation of the whole, when each man hath liberty to follow his owne imagination and humorous devices, and seek his particular, but oppose one another, and all preju∣dice the publike 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 mutuall consent of subjection one to another, there is no expectation of any suc∣cessefull proceeding with the advantage to the publike. To this appertains that of the Apostle, Every one submit unto another.

Mutuall subjection is as it were the sinewes of society, by which it is sustained and supported.

Hence every man is above another, while he walkes accor∣ding 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 ser∣viceable 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 Spirituall to preserve the good of the whole; at this all must aime, and unto this all must be subordinate.

This potestas judicii appertains to all, as

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Math. 18.15.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 1. Cor. 5.12.

both which expresse acts of proceeding in a judiciall 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 cor∣poration; 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 sheepe should be Shepherd, not sheepe.

Answ. The consequence is feeble, as appears from the former ground; because the People judge not as Officers, but as Mem∣bers of the whole, to whom by vertue of the common Lawes of combination, they have subjected themselves in case of delin∣quency to be ordered for the Common good.

The feebleness of this Objection will more fully appeare, if we take it in the like. Take a Classis; suppose the severall Pastors or many of them offend, the rest admonish and proceed in cen∣sure against them: the Objection growes 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 appeares from a principle laid in nature. Its a staple rule, which claimes entertainment without any gainsaying.

No man by nature hath Ecclesiasticall power over another; by constraint it cannot be imposed regularly, as in part we have formerly heard. For coactive power expressed by out∣ward constraint and violence, is crosse wholly to the Govern∣ment of Christ in his Church, (Whose Kingdome is not of this world.)

And therefore from his owne 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 Armes of the Church are holy and spirituall ordinances, they look at spiri∣tuall ends, reach the spirituall man, the conscience, by spiri∣tuall (and therefore so far morall) censures.

As nature gives not this power, so a Civil Ruler should not im∣pose it. What ever is done here in the constitution of Churches, is done by an Ecclesiasticall rule, not by a rule of policy.

What ever is dispensed by an Ecclesiasticall Rule, a Civil pow∣er cannot dispense it: because that is his sphere in which he moves, and acts only within that compasse, his end being 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

If then nature gives not this: nor Civil authority imposeth this: it comes not by constraint; therefore it must come by mu∣tuall and free consent.

And the very nature of the practice speakes as much. Why doth this or that man combine with such in such a place, and not with others in another coast? its meerely out of mu∣tuall and free consent on both parts. For as I have no power to presse in upon them, further then they will admit me: no more have they any power Ecclesiastick over me, unlesse I freely sub∣mit and subject my selfe thereunto.

If a Christian convert should come from China into a Coun∣trey or City, where there be multitudes of Churches set up, ac∣cording to the rules of the Gospel: none of them have power to compel him to joyne with any one more then another, but he may freely choose that which is most suitable to his owne heart and affection, and may be most serviceable to promote his spirituall edification.

From all which premises, the inference is undeniable, So far, as by free consent their combination goes, so farre, and no fur∣ther, the power they have one over another reacheth: because this is the foundation, upon which it is built, and the root upon which it growes, 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 enquired, is, The manner how this is com∣municated. Those who are thus met together, having power dis∣persed among themselves, they voluntarily consent to unite this their power, and to devolve it upon one, to whom they will sub∣mit, walking by rules of Christ, and confining himself within the compasse thereof. So that this right of rule, thus united and devolved upon one, is Officium, or the right of Office properly so called.* 1.21 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, laies out the compasse 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 out∣ward calling by which they are warranted to act, and to put forth their abilities and Ministerial authority over such a people.

And hence againe, it is more then plaine That men may give a call and power to such and such to be Pastors, and yet them∣selves not Pastors.

The inference is undeniable, thus,

A divided right, which is in many, is not an united right yeild∣ed 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 com∣bined, 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 com∣passe, without the prejudice of the other.

No man conceives that the place and office of the Major 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 Priviledge of an Emperour is impeached, because the Princes and States can depose him, in case he falsify and break the fundamentall lawes of their consociation and agreement.

Hence, The censure of excommunication for the act is com∣mon to Elders, and Fraternity: only for the manner of ma∣naging of it, its peculiar to the Elders to be leaders in that acti∣on; and thence it is, They are called, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 for∣maliter, but virtualiter only, & therfore the power of Judgement over each other they keep still, and can by that proceed against a∣ny 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 injoin 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 King∣dome, according to his rule; and as it suits with his mind; he is thus above the whole Church: but in case he erre and trans∣gresse a rule, and becomes a Delinquent, he is then liable to cen∣sure, and they may proceed against him though not by any pow∣er of office, for they are not officers, but by power of judge∣ment which they do possesse.

SECT. II. The third thing to be inquired. 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 Keyes, is of all other of greatest worth and waight, and therefore both needs and deserves most serious search and triall, 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 appeare to cleare 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 Keyes is committed to the Church of confe∣derate Saints as the first and proper subject thereof.

To remove the distast, 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 counsell.

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 Keyes is seated in the Church as the proper subject, is no novell 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 anti∣quity and authority to honour it, as farre 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 lesse true, because of late discovered; but onely to stay the stomachs of such, whose expectations are not answered in any opinion, unlesse it be moldy with age. We will suffer yeares to speak a little in this behalfe.

The place of those that Peter sustained in Matth. 16. to them the Keyes were given.

But that Peter speaks in the name and sustained the place of the Church; the testimonies and authorities of severall of the an∣cient, and those of great esteeme, are plaine; as Origen, Hilary, Augustine, frequently, expressely, pregnantly, together with troopes of our Divines, who with one consent give approbation hereunto; as any may read 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 M^r. Ruth••rford yeilds thus much, Lib. 1. Cap. 2. Pag. 21 'We oppose Fathers to Fathers, saith he. So that the Fathers by his own confession write for this.

Againe, Master Rutherford speaking touching excommuni∣cation, thus writes, Lib. 1. pag. 49. Here grave Beza, our Di∣vines, Calvin, Bucer, Bullinger, Melanchton, Bucan, Paraeus, Rivetus, Sibrandus, Junius, Trelcatius: The Fathers, Cyprian, Jerome, Augustine, Nazianzene Chrysosthome, Ambrose, Theodoret

Theophilact, require all to be done, plebe consentiente.

And why should their consent be required, if it was meerly matter of complement, 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: unlesse we shall lay that imputation upon the wisedome of Christ, that he shall appoint a meanes of Reformation and purging the Church, that in an ordinary course cannot attaine its end, which is deeply prejudiciall to his faithfulnesse, wise∣dome, and power. And therefore Peter Martyr is peremtory and definitive in his expressions touching this point. Loc. Com. de excommunicat. Sect. 9. Ʋnde concluditur, non absque consensu ecclesiae quempiam excommunicari posse.

PROPOSIT. II.

The Keyes of the Kingdome by way of Metaphor signify all that Min••steriall power by Christ dispensed, and from Christ received, whereby all the affaires of his house may be acted, and ordered, according to his mind, for the attaining of his ends purposed and appointed by himselfe. All that power; and therefore all such meanes as are sufficient to open the Kingdome of Heaven to such as stoop thereunto, or to shut the Kingdome of Heaven against such, who will not come under the authority thereof, is called Keyes.

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 beleevers, when out of Christian love they lend some help unto such, with whom they meet, to further them in the wayes of life, but have no power in a Judiciall 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 speciall Corporation, and come under the exter∣nall government of the Scepter of Christ in the Gospell: 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 lawes of that Kingdome of his.

PROPOSIT. III.

Where these Keyes of subordinate power are seated, as in the first subject: these are communicated by meanes of that, to all other, that partake thereof.

Firstly in the Church, and by vertue of the Church, they are communicated to any that in any measure or manner share therein. Heate 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 first∣ly to the sensitive soule, and they are never found in any sub∣ject nor act by it, but onely where the sensitive soule 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 meane of her. Whence its cleere, 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 gainsayes, To thee I will give, not To them: To thee, as repre∣senting one state or condition of men: To thee bearing the place of Elders or sustaining the person of beleevers. And therfore to answer the scope of the question, we must lay forth what is meant by Keyes in the generall, and then shew to whom that power belongs, and by their meanes 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 meanes of that: for this is in∣deed to speak daggers and contradictions. As if all power could be said to be in one firstly, and yet to be assoone in another, as in that.

PROPOSIT. IV.

The power of the Keyes take it in the compleat nature thereof, its in the Church of beleevers, as in the first subject, but e∣very 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 un∣der Christ; and it may there be acted by her immediately, as potestas judicii in admission of members in the absence of Mini∣sters, in censuring by admonition, for each man is a judge of his brother; and there is a judiciall way of admonition, when the parties are in such an estate, that in foro externo they can make

processe Juridicé against each other. So also there is potestas doni, as in all elections, they are acted by the joynt approbation of the people.

Or else its from her communicated unto some particular and spe∣ciall members, and exercised by them, having received it from Christ by her meanes, as all the Officers of the Church have their call and receive externall 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 soule doth not see but by an eye, makes an eye and sees by it. So the Church makes a Minister and dispenseth word and Sacra∣ments by him.

And because the name Minister hath been in common use, e∣specially applyed to Rulers, therefore a Ministeriall power is put for power of Office, and so Ministeriall power is only in Rulers. But as it comprehends all power delegated from Christ and sub∣ordinate to him, then its as large as the power of the Keyes in the generall.

Whence it is evident, according to the double acceptation of the word, there may be a power Ministeriall in the Church of be∣leevers generally taken, and yet a power Ministeriall onely in Ru∣lers taken in a narrower sense, namely, the power of Office is on∣ly in the Rulers formaliter, in the Church radicaliter, & causa∣tivé.

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 con∣fessed and yeilded on all hands. Ejusdem est instituere & destitu∣ere. Whence I should thus reason.

They who have power to censure and depose their Officers, in case of Heresie or other iniquity persisted in, they have power of judgement formally seated in them over such. This Propo∣sition admits no denyall. 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 Heresie or iniquity persisted in: for they gave power to their Rulers by election; therefore in case of De∣linquency,

they may and can take it from them upon the princi∣ple 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 equall extent and issue from the same ground.

But it is in the power of the Fraternity to admit members, as it appeares in the admission of Officers, before any can be recei∣ved into the Church.

Arg. 3. Either the people have power to put forth a causal ver∣tue in passing the judgement and censure upon the delinquent, or else it belongs to their place, and is their duty onely to con∣sent.

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 in∣convenience unto the cause upon their grounds. For if they may and should dissent from the unjust sentence passed, then accor∣ding to rule and reason they may hinder the execution of the sentence of Excommunication; for if they will joyntly keep communion with the person, whom they will cast out, the El∣ders cannot attaine their end in the sentence. Therefore they are not appointed by Christ to execute the sentence alone; unlesse we shall say, that Christ appoints meanes, which cannot attaine their end, and that in an ordinary course (for this may ordinari∣ly fall out) which is to blemish the wisedome and faithfulnesse of our Saviour in managing the affaires of the house of God.

Arg. 4. That Church which is meant in Matth. 18. That Church hath chiefe 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 ap∣pointed 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 processe appointed by our Saviour, that crosseth his appointed proceeding in the censure.

But this doth so, as shall appeare by a double instance. Sup∣pose three Elders in the Church, and they all under offence have been convinced in private: one or two witnesses have been ta∣ken: and yet they will not heare; what can now be done? The Brethren, who are offended must tell the Church, i. e. the El∣ders, 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.

Againe, suppose two of the three be offenders, and these two will not heare the first or second admonition, then the aggrie∣ved party must complaine to the Church, i. e. to the third Elder, and so one should be the Church: or else this last degree of pro∣cesse should wholly be disannulled: both which are contrary to reason and the wisdome of Christ.

Arg. 5. If the power of judgment 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 o∣thers, As to have one cheife (as namely Peter) and to have all other to repaire to him, and to derive the power from him, is apparant Popery.

And it cannot be delegated to all equally by the same com∣mission: because those, who are equall in commission, are equall in power, for those two keep pace one with another, and are of equall extent.

But its confessed, that all the Rulers, who dispense the Keyes, have not equall power. The Teaching Elders are in degree and office both differing from the Ruling Elders, and superior to them,

Arg. 6. Let me adde this as a sixth reason.

The Church mentioned Matth. 18. hath power to proceed in Excommunication, against what brother or brethren will not heare it. If he will not heare the Church, let him be as an Hea∣then.

But the Rulers alone have not this power. As instance,

Suppose that one of the Rulers should complaine of the bo∣dy of the fraternity, touching error in doctrine and wickednes in life. In case they will not heare the Rulers, the Rulers may, nay should Excommunicate them, (i. e.) Three or foure 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 de∣stroyed.

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 Ru∣therford propounds for the confirmation of his Tenet: That the Officers, those not of one Congregation, but of many, have the pow∣er of the Keyes conferred upon them, as the first subject.

'That it is not to be holden, which is not written.

But its not written, either expresly 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 witnes∣ses judicially against Elders, as Timothy and Peter have authori∣ty 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 gran∣ted, without any prejudice to the cause; for the summe of all the three Arguments amounts to thus much, That Office-power is for∣maliter in some select person, who hath ministeriall spirit and gifts: and this we all grant. Nor can Master Rutherford shew 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.* 1.22

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 multi∣tude, but in the chiefe; an•• then he addes, It never came into their hearts to deny this: o••ly (as he saith) it is one thing to go∣vern

the Church, another thing to be the Church.

Its confessed then by all, that Office-power is in the hands of some select per∣sons: but it doth not thence follow, The power of the Keyes is firstly in them.

This generall 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 Keyes: like the nibble of the Key: and therefore that may well be in Officers, and yet the power of the Keyes 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 Keyes, as being of that ministerial power, by which that Kingdom of Heaven is opened, and the Gospel dispensed: and both Offi∣ces 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 confesse, I cannot conceive, (if any man will give but way to what reason will readily lead unto,) but that he must be constrained to acknowledge, that they cannot be attended under the respect and relation of Officers, to whom the Keyes be promised; for these are Mr. Rutherford his words.

These Offices, that essentially include both the power and the ex∣ercise of the Keyes, 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 Keyes 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 roome of the Church of beleevers: 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 compleat power of binding and loosing be given to the Officers firstly: then either as Teaching, or as Ruling, in the speciall work, or else as Officers sharing in the generall nature of rule, which is affirmed of them both.

If this power belong to Teaching, qua tales, then to inferre from Master Rutherford his own ground: Quod convenit 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, convenit 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. to them as such: then onely to the Teachers, or onely to Rulers: But that is a confessed false∣hood.

If it belong to them as Rulers, in regard of that common or generall nature of Ruling: Then is there the equall and same power in both, Teachers and Rulers: For the generall na∣ture is the same and equall in both. But that also is untrue.

These things premised, let us take a taste of the particulars.

If all the faithfull 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 Keyes.

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 doe: and yet they have the power of the Keyes.

Object. 2.

To whomsoever Christ giveth the power of the Keyes, to them he gives a Ministeriall Spirit, by way of Preach∣ing, and speciall embassage to entertaine sin.

Answ. This is also unsound upon received principles. For the ruling Elders to whom the power of the keyes is given, yet have not this Ministeriall gift, by way of speciall embassage 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 for∣mally 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 effectuall hath no causal hand in it: for the explication evi∣denceth as much, in that it is said,

There is a Judiciall and autho∣ritative

application of it in the externall Court of Christ.

For this application of the word thus dispensed, implyes, that the preaching is issued and ended.

3 There is a judiciall 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 compleat in its Government, suppose there be no power of the Keyes in the community of beleevers. And there∣fore its superfluous to place them there. pag. 10.

Answ.

This was the Assumption to be proved; but the proofe is wholly mistaken, and the contrary to that is expressed: to wit, In case beleevers have power to Excommunicate, &c. Then the Eldership is void and a fixt finger, and there is no necessity of exercise of Keyes as Elders.

But to answer to his words when they come not home to the proofe of the proposition denyed. Though the people have po∣testatem judicij, yet there is necessary, that the Elders should have potestatem Officij.

Arg. 5.

The multitude of beleevers must have this power ei∣ther 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 Savi∣our 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 Keyes 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 Councell can proceed against the Major, being a Delinquent, and yet none of them are in the place and office of a Major.

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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 Keyes: and these two thwart not one the other, which is the Answer to the eighth.

Arg. 6. & 11. These two turne 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 Keyes be given to be∣leevers, as such, under this reduplication: then all beleeving wo∣men 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 keyes be given to beleevers as beleevers, then all and only beleevers have the power of the keyes. Quod con∣venit 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 convenit 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. But this is false, because many beleevers may be excommunicated and that justly, in which case they remaine beleevers, and yet have no share in the Keyes.

Also many have the power of the Keyes, yea be Pastours, and yet have no faith. Joh. 6.70. Matth. 7.21.

Answ. It is something strange to me, that M^r. Rutherford confessing that those against whom he writes, do constantly ac∣knowledge, that there is no more, but an unblameable profession of Faith required, to interest a man by way of Charity, to be accep∣ted 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 proofe, and so expedite an easie 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 Ec∣clesiasticall power. So that it is not beleevers, as beleevers, that have this power, but as beleevers Covenanting and fitly ca∣pable according to Christs appointment, that are the first subject of this power. For beleevers that are as scattered stones, and are not seated in a visible Church or Corporation, as setled in the wall, these have not any Ecclesicastiall power, according to which they

can be proceeded withall, or can proceed with other in like con∣dition with themselves. Beside, these beleevers are such in Charity who come into visible combinatiō, 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 belee∣vers, who are counted fit by Christ and capable, which women and Children, deafe, and dumbe, and distracted are not. And therefore the consequence of the sixt Argument failes in the first branch. The power of the Keyes doth not make a Pastor, and therefore its false in the second branch.

Againe, though the rule of Master Rutherford Quod convenit 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, convenit 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 failes much, according to the Fundamentall Lawes of Logick, which he will easily find up∣on second thoughts, and so the bottom of the Argument breakes wholly under him: I shall notwithstanding let that passe, and speake to the matter, wherein there is a worse mistake, because the question is wholly missed.

Visible Saints and beleevers 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 vertue of that secret seed of Grace, they may be Saints inwardly, yet before their recovery, they are not Saints visible, to the ratio∣nall eye of Charity.

Againe, close hypocrites, as Judas, may be unbeleevers really, and yet seemingly appeare 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 performe.

Arg 9.

If Christ give his Keyes, he gives answerable gifts to use the Keyes. But such gifts he doth not give to all beleevers.

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 annointing 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 discerne false Doctrine and false Teachers: such are able to choose themselves Pastors, as being able to relish the favour of spiritual administrations, and to feele what Key will best open their lock: can see and discerne what courses be sinfull and scandalous, persons obstinate and per∣tinacious

therein. If such have power to reject false and errone∣ous teachers, as well as choose them, they have in reason pow∣er and skill to discern scandalous offenders and to reject them. This is not an Office-calling, but calling to be a member of a spi∣ritual 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 ordina∣ry manner to discharge this judgement. And their carelesnesse 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 cals 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 Keyes.

Answ. The places are expresse, the directions plaine, 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 severall passa∣ges touching their proceeding, even from the first to the last. And as in one peculiar duty of admonition, wherein the great∣est both danger and difficulty lay, the Lord is pleased to point out the way, and to put it almost past question: the like propor∣tion 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. Ob∣serve those that cause dissentions among you, &c.

The last dispute of Master Rutherford issues from that so ordinary and often mistake, in not differing the power of judge∣ment from the power of Office, and confining the power of the Keyes unto too narrow a compasse, as though the authority of Office was there onely to be attended, when it hath appeared, that it is of farre larger extent: whence the consequence is very feeble.

If God require such abilities and qualifications in Officers, which he doth not in all beleevers, then the power of the Keyes is not in the Church.

I say, this consequence hath no colour in it. because the power of the Keyes 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 o∣ther doth, which is of greatest eminency.

The 10. Arg. Which would blemish this opinion, because it

makes the Government of Gods house Democraticall, 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 Democraticall: in regard of the Elders Aristocraticall; in regard of Christ, truely Monarchicall. And its such a compound of all these three, as that a paralell example to the like perfecti∣on, 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 ad∣dresse 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 Keyes are given to Peter, as representing the Church-Guides especially, though not excluding beleevers, giving to them popular consent: and not to believers as united in a company of per∣sons 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 Ecclesiasticall power, it will appear to any that will lay aside prejudice, That we so give the power Ecclesiastick to the Church of belie∣vers 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 out∣ward call unto them.

2. Let it here also be remembred, which is yielded on all hands, that by keyes 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 loosing, opening and shutting heaven.

These things praemised, the Arguments as they lie in order propounded by Mr. Rutherford, l. 2. p. 9. are these.

To that Church are the keyes given which is buil••ed on a ro••k,

as an house, the house of wisedome. 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 beleevers 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 beleevers combining in Church-Covenant, but wanting their Pastors and Teachers, is not wisedomes house, nor builded by Pastors, and Doctors given to edify and gather the bo∣dy: but they are only the materials of the house, yea wanting the Pastors, they want ministeriall power for pastorall preaching and administring the seales.

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 af∣firmations of many particulars; which either are so many un∣truths, 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 wisedomes house, since we have for∣merly proved that such a Church, taken as Totum essentiale, is before officers, and may be without them, and what can be more plaine, when the Scripture affirms, Act. 14.23. That the Church by lifting up of hands did make and choose them El∣ders? 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 implyes, there is a flock distinct from their overseers; when the Church rejects her officers as haereti∣call doth she then destroy her selfe, 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 Presbyteriall Church, why not also a congregationall 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 pow∣er of edifying the body of Christ, which is required in a visible Church. For the answer is, when they want Pastors, they want

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

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 it selfe: but it hath power to chuse officers, and so to provide for pastorall preaching and administration of the seales by their meanes.

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 keyes 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 Beleevers in Church Covenant, and destitute of officers, are not stewards by office, therefore to such a company the keyes are not given. The Proposition is proved by the allegation of severall testimonies of scripture and consent of interpreters; the clavis, a key, signifies of∣fice-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 de∣scribed 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 loosing, opening or shutting: for all those places do properly intimate the Teachers and Pastors office.

2. The proofs, brought here for confirmation of the propo∣sition, do not touch the thing at all, for which they are brought; or else they reach not the Conclusion in the right and full mea∣ning, 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 monarchicall 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 expresse termes, 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 setled: only proves that which no man ever (I think) denied, that key in phrase of Scripture, sometime signifies a pow∣er 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 gi∣ven to an office, and yet by keyes here are not meant that power

only, much lesse a power firstly delegated to them. And if the Reader be pleased to recall some things formerly propounded, this will readily appear. By keyes 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 in∣to 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 keyes here promised first, to whom firstly and originaliter, though not formaliter all power belongs; but to the spouse of Christ, the Church of Covenanting Beleevers, 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 origi∣naliter 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 write,

I think while of late, never any Interpreter dreamed, that in the text, Matth. 16.

The keyes of the Kingdome were given to all beleevers, under∣standing beleevers 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 re∣call what he knowes; 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 keyes, to whom he giveth warrant and officiall authority for the actuall exercise, to wit, of opening and shutting. But this warrant and officiall authority of binding and loosing Christ giveth to Peter onls as representing Teachers and Elders, therefore he only gives to Peter this officiall power, I will give to thee the keyes, &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 contro∣verted betwixt us, namely, That only to Peter, as representing the place of Teachers, is the officiall authority of the keyes gi∣ven, (as will appear in the things premised in the entrance.) Offi∣cers may have this officiall power formally, and yet the power of the keyes may be originally in the Church, and this office-pow∣er vertually proceed from them.

2. The Proposition is apparantly false, to wit, To them the power is given firstly, to whom warrant and officiall authority for the actuall exercise of the keyes is given: I say this is false; because 1. the power of the keyes is far larger then office-pow∣er: as to admit, reject, &c. 2. There is power before office-power, which vertually communicates and conveyes it to the offi∣cers, who are made pertakers thereof.

When it is added.

Now if the keyes be not given to Peter, as to a Pastor, then Peter and Pastors by this place as Pastors, neither have the keyes, nor officiall 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 Prea∣ching.

Answ. Though the keyes be not firstly given to them there, yet here they may have good warrant for their office-power, be∣cause the Church, who hath received power to admit, reject, judge, choose and refuse, doth by Christs allowance and war∣rant 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 addes p. 12.

To binde and loose are acts of officiall power: and of Pastors, Rulers, Feeders: I prove the Antecedent, because To binde and loose by all Interpreters, Augustine, Cyrill, &c. and the evidence of Scripture, is, by pub∣like and pastorall Preaching to remit and retaine sin. But pasto∣ral preaching doth not belong to beleevers.

Answ. Binding and loosing, look at them as in the place, and in their largest sense, they comprehend the exercise of all the acts of the keyes, or Church power, which may attain this end: and those acts are not only by publike preaching (for then the

Ruling-Elder should have no key to bind or loose) but also by admonitions, excommunications, admissions, which as we have for∣merly proved, issue from a power of judgeing, common to the people with the Pastor, and not appropriate to the Pastors only.

Lastly we so give the keyes to the Church, that yet she doth not exercise any act of Office-rule without Officers, whom she cals to that end.

Object. 4.

If Christ neither in Matth. 16. nor in Matth. 18. doth say, that the Keyes, for the act of the keyes, (to wit, binding and loosing) are given to the Church of beleevers without their Offi∣cers, then neither place proves it. But Christ doth say it, there∣fore the text doth not beare it.

That Christ doth not say it, he proves; because speaking of the Church in the first part of the verse, he changeth his proofe, 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 beleevers. To this Mr. Rutherford replyes.

If the keyes be given to beleevers, so Covenanting; I aske, whe∣ther they be given to them, a true or a false profession interve∣ning, as the neerest 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 appea∣ring outwardly unblameable, we grant it.

To this Master Rutherford replyes.

Then the keyes are not given to beleevers, because they are beleevers, and united unto Christ as his Spouse. 2. then this Author saith amisse, that the Church instituted by Christ is a company of godly men, whereof Peter was one. 3. Our brethren prove the keyes 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 re∣member how to rectify his judgement in the right understand∣ing thereof, the answer will be easie and familiar, namely: vi∣sible Saints, which are members of the Church, they are exter∣nally united to Christ; and not internally alwayes: they are faith∣full and godly to the judgement of Charity, but not in reality and truth: they are redeemed visibly, not inwardly and effica∣ciously.

Its added lastly by Master Rutherford,

That Christ speaketh

to Peter, as one representing the Apostles, and not as to one repre∣senting all beleevers, is cleere, first, because by the confession of our brethren, binding and loosing are denyed 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 affirme the same, and that he knowes, and in many places expresseth; and therefore it was sufficient to lay aside the consideration of all his proofes: yet that we may not leave the place void, we shall speake shortly to the par∣ticulars.

Let it then be remembred, that Peter speakes in the name of a community of Disciples beleeving 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 o∣thers 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 unbelee∣vers onely, but man beleevers also, and yet in a differencing way our Saviour adds, whom say ye my Disciples, who ha••e wal∣ked in the profession of the Faith? Peter in the name of these thus having confessed the Faith, and upon that joynt confession now instituted a Church by Christ, in the next words, in the name of these, (I say) Peter a••swers; and th••refore not in the name of Women and Children, which is Master Rutherfords first Argument.

Object. ••. He adds.

If beleevers as giving Peters confession and builded upon the Rock Christ, by this place are made a Mi∣nisteriall Church by Christ, and gifted with the power of the keyes: then the officiall power of preaching and binding and loosing should be made as stable and firme from defection, as the Church of elect beleevers.

Answ. The Assumption is denyed: for as it hath been often said, The Church here, to whom the keyes are firstly given, though they have a vertuall power to call men in a right order according to Christ, unto Office, yet they have not formally Officiall power: nor is the one, I meane the Officiall power, of like stability with the Church. For the Church may be without

them, and in case they faile, as in gre t Apostacyes and univer∣sall declinings of the Churches, they may, and yet the visible Church never did, nor can, so totally faile, as all our Orthodox writers, and Master Rutherford confesseth.

Object 3.

Those to whom Christ gives the keyes, do represent the person of Christ, and who despiseth them despiseth Christ, and he that honoureth them, honoureth Christ, which is evidently spo∣ken to the Ministers of Christ, Matth. 10.40, &c. Now Scrip∣tures never make all beleevers Embassadors in Christs roome, &c.

Answ. The representation of Christ as his Stewards and Ambassadours, belongs onely to such who have Office-p wer, and are Rulers in his house, and this power is but part of the power of the Keyes here mentioned: and therefore the Church may be the subject of the Keyes firstly and originally, and vertually com∣municate Office-power unto her Ministers, whom she cals, though formally she hath not that power, nor so dispenseth it, and therefore the Proposition is to be denyed as apparantly false: namely, those to whom Christ giveth the keyes here in Matth. 16. those represent his person, as Ambassadours, because the Spouse had a power in the family before the Steward was enter∣tained in to the family by her.

Object. 2.

Those to whom the keyes are given, do authorita∣tively forgive and retaine sins, and their acts are valid in Hea∣ven. But the Church or company of beleevers, wanting their Officers, by no Scripture can authoritatively forgive.

When it was answered, that beleevers out of Office may forgive. 2 Cor. 2.10.

He replies that the place in the Corinths is controverted, and we doubt not (sayes 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 stresse of the Objection will readily be taken off.

The word Authority in the ordinary speech is sometime ta∣ken for power, and lies in equall latitude with it: but in its pro∣per signification, as in this place, its put for Ruling and Office-power.

Retaining this sence, which must needs be intended, and the expressions of Master Rutherford in this place intimate no lesse: The proposition admits a ready answer by a rationall denyall. 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 againe, and those in a Church onely must, and indeed can do this.

The like and same answer suits the 5 Objection, meerely issu∣ing from the same mistake, as namely, when he sayes.

To those only are the keyes given, who having Pauls spirit, which is a spirit Officiall to preach and excommunicate, may convene and deliver to Satan.

Ans. The distinction of judiciall and Officiall powerfully discovers the falsenesse of the proposition, and pre∣serves the power in his first and proper subject, according to for∣mer 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; unlesse it be those which fall in with a fresh disquisition of the Catholike visibe Church, where we shall attend them. Only before I passe 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 priviledge to themselves. The Pope will needs have all power belong to him as Peters successor: The Prelates they claim the next place for preeminence as peculiar to them; The Elders and Officers of Churches conceive it best suits their ministeriall 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 mean∣ing 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 ensigne of power: by keyes in the plurall all dele∣gated power for the ordering of the affaires of the Church, is here understood, as the use of the keyes expressed in the words doth fully evidence. For all power that the Lord Christ hath

betrusted his Church withall, aimes at this end, to open and shut, binde and loose.

PROPOSIT. II.

These keyes 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 speciall 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 equall power, because the power they do possesse and par∣take 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 gi∣ven. But all power is not given to the Rulers firstly. For there is a power before the power of Rulers, to wit power of electi∣on, and so admission into their places, And that both these acts imply a power, is thus made plain. An office is a key, and con∣sequently comes under the power of the keyes: 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 a∣way.

Againe, should the condition of an officer or an elder be rela∣ted unto, It must be either the Teaching-elder alone, and then the Ruling-elder, and his power is excluded: or if the Ruling-El∣der 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 keyes? Nor can the generall nature of a Ruler, as belonging to both teaching and ruling be attended. For then both teaching and ruling should have the same equall power, ha∣ving one and the same commission, but that the word and all wise hearers deny.

PROPOSIT. V.

Hence this power of the keyes, cennot be given to one single society of men formally in all the kinds of it, because it requires se∣verall kinds of subjects formally different: As some Ruling, some

Teaching, some electing. Hence it followes undeniably, These keyes, 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 loosing, ac∣cording 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 beleevers: 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 stresse lies in this iniquiy, is, Whether the Church mentioned in that text, be the visible or invi∣sible 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 Catholick and in∣visible Church in the faith of Christ yet as it is promised to the Church, to the which Christ promiseth the keyes of the king∣dome of heaven, it can be no other beside externall and ministeriall building by a publike Ministery.

Which expressions occasioned me to recover many of those debates, which before had been stirring in my bosome, whether the Church there, might not in a safe sense be conceived to be the visible Church: and all things waighed, my apprehensions came to be inclined and byassed that way, and that for this reason, untill 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 my selfe a rock; and therefore art called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and upon my self, 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 prevaile. But against the visible Church the gates of hell hath prevailed. Therefore.

Answ. The visible Church is attended in a double re∣spect.

Either as this or that particular congregation.

Or else as a Church universall 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 be∣have thy selfe in the House of God. This house is the visible Church. For 1. Timothy is instructed how to demeane and carry himselfe in it; therefore he must be acquainted with the house, and the occasions thereof; and to demeane himselfe 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 patterne 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, untill all the faithfull be ga∣thered into the unity of the Faith, and acknowledgment of the son of God. Dr. Ames. Medull. l. 1. c. 31.37.

CHAP. XII. Touching the Catholick and visible Church. To the ministery and guides of the Catholick visible Church hath the Lord commit∣ted the keyes, as to the first subject.

BEfore we come to the scanning of this great contro∣versy, which hath exercised the hearts and pennes of the most learned in this age, we must of necessity cleare the termes 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 losse, when we come to apply our selves to speciall 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 de∣legated from Christ, to dispense and administer the holy things of his house, according to his own will, prescribing an order to that end: the keyes being an ensigne of this power, and put by a meto∣nymy for the subject, the power it self.

2. What is meant by the Catholick and visible Church.

When I had read over Mr. Rutherford once and again, I was at a stand in mine own thoughts, to determine certainly what was his proper intendment. I professe 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 Catholick visible Church, upon the generall 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 principall 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 gi∣veth by order of nature to his Church in generall.

Sometime againe his expressions seem to intimate an Oecu∣menicall councell, which is the Catholike Church representative, l. 2. p. 304. It doth not follow: because the Catholick, repre∣sentative, visible Church, is the first subject of the keeyes, &c.

Lastly sometimes his expressions seem to point out a Catho∣lick visible Church, in the integrall nature thereof, as an integrum arising out of all the particular congregations as the members thereof. This kinde of difference his words intimate. l. 2. p. 311.

Generall councels are neither necessary to the being, nor to the well-being, but only to the best-being of the Catholike Church; here he apparantly distinguisheth a generall councell from the Catholick Church in this debate.

The like phrase is found. l. 2. p. 304. Which of these doth most suit with his meaning, I cannot (to speak ingenuously) peremptorily define. The law was old, Cum bonis bonè agier o∣portet.

I confesse my thoughts have enclined me most unto the se∣cond, as that he intended an Oecomenicall Councell, because when he comes to apply himselfe to some of the objections which are made, his usuall 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 neer to an accord.

That I may deal sincerely in regard of the truth, and inoffen∣sively, in regard of so worthy and learned a man as Mr. Ru∣therford, 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 Catholick Church in the first sense, as eyeing the na∣ture of the Church in generall,

Its that which suits in a great part with our opinion and appre∣hensions: we shall therefore gather in upon the right explicati∣on of this truth, by the conclusions following.

[Conclus. 1] When we say a congregation of visible Saints covenanting to walk in the ordinances of the Gospel, is the prime and originall sub∣ject of the power of the keyes; I suppose it is obvious to common sense, that as we do not, so we cannot understand it of this or that individuall 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 it self. For what meaneth those cla∣mors of Independency, which are cast upon our persons and opi∣nions, 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 equall power with another, and compleat power, taken with all his officers, to the exercise of all ordinances, we do by such an Assertion professe that this power is common to them all, and therefore cannot be proper to any, but only in the individuall and speciall determination there∣of.

The issue is this then, That the power of the keyes belongs first∣ly to a congregation of covenanting beleevers, not as this congrega∣tion, but because a congregation of such, and thus I do conceive (salvo meliori judicio) that of our Saviour is to be interpreted, I will build my Church, taking a visible congregation of visible co∣venanting beleevers, as that which is a patterne and a samplar, (as I may so speak,) which leaves an impression upon all the parti∣culars,

as common unto all, and is preserved in all: and it will ne∣ver 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 speciall 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 plentifull experience and proof out of the word, in those famous congregations of Corinth, Galatia, &c.

[Conclus. 2] A Congregation of Covenanting visible Saints, being a GENVS to all the particular congregations, which are partes homogeneae or species thereof: hence it followes.

1. That a congregation doth firstly communicate its whole na∣ture to every particular Church, and with that all the power and priviledges that did appertain unto it, it doth equally and indif∣ferently bestow upon them. As it is a received rule in reason. Genus est totum partibus essentiale. And therefore doth commu∣nicate 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 conveyes to all of them indifferently.

2. And from this ground it is, That each congregation hath all Ecclesiastical power that is seated in the generall nature of the Church, each particular assembly hath as equally and compleat∣ly 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 compleatly communicated to them, and can put forth the operations of that nature fully of them∣selves, and without the help of any other.

3. Hence Catholick 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 severall Assemblyes, 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 Catholike, or generall, 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 speciall or individuall na∣ture 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 rode. This Corporation is a speciall kind of a Corporation: This man and woman are husband and wife, or their contract is a mariage con∣tract. Here Corporation taken in the generall nature for the body of a people combined in a civill way for civill ends; this generall nature, and whatever priviledges are so proper and peculiar, as that they cannot be separated there from, both the generall na∣ture and all such priviledges are truly attributed to & affirmed of this and that particular corporation as the generall of the speciall, and this generall comes to be determined and specificated, by the individuall and formall combining of this speciall company of per∣sons: and that makes it this corporation. And that generall na∣ture 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 generall nature which is common to all corporations, yet have they not power nor priviledge, but in their own place.

So that marriage contract, which is generall to all of that sort and condition, it comes to be determined by the particular contracting of these, added to the generall: whence it is evident, that beside a marriage covenant in the generall, 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 generall 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 weaknesse and fallacy of that conceit will easily be discovered, That profession in the generall, should make a man a member of all particular Churches on earth.

Hence fifthly, From the first ground it followes,

5. That each particular congregation is compleat and independent, for the exercise of all acts and dispensations belonging to a congrega∣tion or Church, without any reference to any other congregati∣on, because they are distinct species, which firstly and equally par∣ticipate of the nature of the genus, and so of all those priviledges that equally, and indifferently appertain thereunto.

6. Hence again, the generall nature of a Church, as it i•• pre∣served, so the full good, in the full Latitude thereof, is promoted

and advanced, by the particular Congregations, which are the spe∣cies thereof; for this is a collection which naturally and necessa∣rily followes and flowes from hence.

7. Hence a Classis (which ariseth from particular congrega∣tions, 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 usefull 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 generall, and of the species in particular are compleat, without any such a Classis; and therefore all Church-power, and the exer∣cise thereof is full and compleat in point of Jurisdiction without it. And therefore Jurisdiction cannot be firstly there, because if the nature of a Church be compleat without it, then the power and Jurisdiction of Church-government is compleat without that, and not first in that.

Upon these grounds thus laid and debated, we shall addresse an Answer to all Master Rutherford his Arguments, un∣lesse they fall under this conclusion in the sense former∣ly explicated.

I.

First, he would have the Apostles to receive the Keyes in the name of the whole Catholick Ministeriall guides. Because they must stand in the place and roome 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 extraordina∣ry persons, and were sent into all the world, to lay the founda∣tion of the Gospell, by an Apostolicall power, and in this sense they have no successors; nor did they stand in the roome of any.

2. When they did supply the roome of a single society, I de∣mand, 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 prejudi∣ciall to his cause. For if they were in the roome of Teaching Elders, then Ruling Elders have by this Commission no right to the Keyes. If they supplyed the roome of Ruling onely, then the teaching Elders must claime nothing from hence.

Againe, I would willingly know, when they supplyed the

roome of either of these, whether they supplyed the roome of all of them, or of some of them? If of all of them, whether seve∣rally executing their Offices in their places, or combined together in a Classis or Synod?

If it be affi••med, (which cannot be denyed with any reason) that they supply the roome of these as they be severally execu∣ting their Offices, (For their Authoritative preaching is one part of binding and loosing) then each particular ruler may bind or loose, excommunicate and absolve in each particular Con∣gregation, as well as in a Classis.

Nay because they are first Elders in the particular congregati∣ons before they be in a Classis or Synod, and there succeed the A∣postles as Rulers: then they may be, nay must be there, the first subject of the Keyes, because there they first succeed the Apostles in binding and loosing by officiall Preaching.

If it shall be said, the Apostles represent Elders, as they are con∣joyned in an Oecumenicall councell. This belongs to some only: for all Elders never met in an Oecumenicall councell. Beside this is not proper to Elders, for brethren there meet also: whereas this relation the Apostle here supplyes must be common to all that single society, and onely to that single society, whose roome they sustaine.

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 supplyed their place, so they supplyed the place of Deacons, Act. 6.1, 2. and had vertually, and so could exercise, the power of all Officers. And therefore lastly when they supply the place of Elders, this shewes what an Elder should do in his order, and according to his place, but whether he be the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of Church power, this evinceth not; but in no manner or measure evidenceth any thing touching the com∣bination of Elders, or their power.

Before we addresse a particular answer to the Arguments next ensuing, we must recollect some former considera∣tions that the Reader may carry them along as his Com∣passe to steere by.

1. The common nature of Church and Officers onely exists and works, and is preserved in the particulars.

2. The compleate being and power of Churches or Elders

in the full compasse and Latitude of both, thus existing, includes not onely the common, but the peculiar nature of the individuals together with the generall: 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 generall, before the full and compleat 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 e∣ver the Lord looks at the particular in the generall & the generall 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 in∣dividuall Officer; therefore the individuall there first exists, and the generall in the individuall.

Hence lastly upon the same ground, and for the same reason, as the generall is divided into his particulars, so the generals are preserved in them. All visible members exist in particular Congre∣gations, 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 Mini∣stery, 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 Catholike, and the comming of all to the unity of the Faith. A Congregation cannot be all Saints. This power is cleerely given that body, which the Lord is to make a perfect man, according to the measure of the fulnesse 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 Or∣dinances and Ministery 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

Ministery, the whole Catholike visible Church: and secondly this or that Congregation.

Answ. 1. M^r. Rutherford shall answer M^r. 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 priviledges, 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 fulnesse 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 priviledges 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 fulnesse of Christ, only of the invisible, elected, and redeemed Chuhch, not of the visible, professing Church, nor doth the Lord send Pastors or Doctors, upon a purpose of gathering the Visible Church.

Thus Master Rutherford is of several apprehensions, and one un∣dermines another; and upon the former grant this cannot stand, much lesse conclude.

Come we a little neerer to the marke, and try the particulars.

First examine the Proposition.

Those whom Christ doth purpose to bring to the unity of the Faith, and the fulnes of the stature of Christ, &c. Eph. 4.11, 12. those are certainly such who shalbe saved. And therfore must of necessi∣ty be true beleevers. For they alone attaine the perfection for∣merly mentioned.

And it is as undeniably evident, that ordinances and Mini∣sters are not given firstly to such, I meane to true beleevers, as M^r. Rutherford is expresse in severall passages of his book. The in∣tendment of salvation from God, and the g••ving of Ordinances and Ministery keep not equall pace each with other; nay Master Rutherford will tell us, that such an opinion sides apparantly with the Arminians, L. 2. P. 248. The proposition then is utterly untrue.

Let the Assumption come to its tryall.

But God doth principally intend to bring the whole Catholike visible Church to the unity of the Faith, the acknowledgement of the Son of God, and the fulnesse 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 M^r. Ruther∣ford and by all judicious men.

And doth God intend to bring reprobates to the unity of the Faith and the fulnesse of the stature in Christ? I know that M^r. 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 M^r. Rutherford and us, is this; That to the Ministery and guides of the Catholike visible Church, the Lord hath committed the Keyes, as to the first subject: But let the for∣mer conclusion, and the whole frame of the reason be granted, to wit, that Ordinances and Ministery are given to the Catholike visi∣ble Church of beleevers (for these must here be understood, as being distinct from Ministers and guides) yet this proves not the Keyes 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 proofe 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 Keyes, as to the first subject.

But the gathering of the Ministery of the Catholike 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 princi∣pally intend.

Therefore unto them are not the Keyes given as to the first subject.

Thus we have done with the second and fourth Arguments.

Arg. 3.

If all power Ministeriall be given to a Congregation (by our brethrens confession) under the name of a flock of redee∣med ones, as the body of Christ, Act. 20.28. Col. 1.18. Then it be∣longs to the Catholicke Church. For of them these titles are ve∣rified, and agree first to the Catholike visible Church, as is cleere 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 neer, if indeed it be so: why do we not then shake hands? for that is it which we seri∣ously and earnestly desire, If it was that will and good pleasure of God. Let us then enquire whether Mr. Rutherford his mind and our meaning agree, and then we shall most willingly fall in with him.

This Catholike Church, as before admits of a threefold ap∣prehension: either as it implyes a covenanting congregation of beleevers: or 2. Totum representativum? 3. or Totum inte∣grale. 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 Catholick Church hath the power of the Keyes given firstly to it, then the Ministers and Guides thereof, are not the first subject of them.

But the Catholick Church i. e. according to us, A congrega∣tion of Saints covenanting (as before we have explicated the question) hath the power of the Keyes, therefore the Ministers or Guides are not the first subject:

The Proposition admits no gain-saying, because the Catho∣lick Church and the Guides are different and distinct in com∣mon apprehension,

The second part Mr. Rutherford grants to wit, That the mi∣nisteriall power of the Keyes, is given to a congregation, under the name of the flock, &c.

And hence his cause must needs suffer shiprack, sailing by these sholes, for I suppose as Mr. Rutherford, must as he doth, diffe∣rence betwixt the Church-catholick as the spouse and body of Christ, and the Ministery thereof.

But here he grants, that this power is given to the spouse and body. Therefore not firstly to the ministery. Beside, the places which he alledgeth, 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 ministeriall be given, it cannot be given to the overseers firstly.

Hence the flock is not the Catholick Church, take it as an in∣tegrum 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 Oecumenicall Church, upon the same grounds; yea by his own confession else-where, it is not so to be taken. Taking Catholick in this sense, according to former ex∣plication, i. e. the generall nature of a Church, as existing and acting in the particulars, we have what we desire, and our cause is con∣firmed by this meanes, nor confuted.

That which is added, p. 291. 292. addes no force to this Ar∣gument, nor hurt to our cause; namely its said, The whole Ca∣tholick Church visible, is made one visible ministeriall body, and said to have organicall 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 generall nature of officers, is answe∣rable to the generall nature of the Church, I mean it is of the like latitude. And conceive all particular congregations so constitu∣ted, 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 attri∣buted 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 Keyes in the Church, take them compleated in their full being, they include the particular in the general, and determine the ge∣neral in the particular: and so the nature of the Church and pow∣er of the keyes, 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 na∣ture of the Church, nor the power of the Keyes acting or exsist∣ing 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 sixt is little or no whit differing from the third, yet we shall propound it, and make a returne unto it.

Arg. 6.

Because Christ hath not given the power of the Mi∣nistry, 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 adaequate number of ransomed persons, of sheep, of lost ones, to the which Christ doth carry that adaequate and compleat relation of a Saviour, King, Governour; therefore that visible Church, for whose salvation Christ hath given the mini∣steriall 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 Keyes to be an individuall or single congregati∣no: as though that individuall had it firstly and all from it: when the clamour of independency doth proclaime the contrary. How can we maintaine every individuall congregation to be in∣dependent, if one did depend upon another? whereas its well known, that we maintain each congregation hath equall power with another; therefore we say that the power of the Keyes be∣longs to a congregation, as existing in its particulars, and there∣fore equally belongs to all particulars, in all which the generall with the particulars are preserved and perfected.

The compleat being of a Church attended, as in Scripture phrase we find it, and as it suits with the rules of reason, it com∣prehends the particular in the generall, and the generall comes to be determined in the particular; and therefore the Tenet Mr. Rutherford propounds, is not that which we maintaine, but that which he is pleased to make to himselfe.

CHAP. XIII. Of the Catholick Church as it is totum representativum in the as∣sembling of Pastors, &c. in a generall councell.

WE have thus dispatched the first member of the Controversie, touching the first subject of Church-power, or the power of the Keyes, namely, it doth not appertaine to the Gides of the visible Church, Take it as Totum genericum, or uni∣versale.

Let us now consider it, as Totum representativum, i. e. as the Catholick visible Church is, represented in the Convention

and assembling of the Pastors of all severall congregations, in a generall or oecumenicall councell.

And according to this acception of a Catholick visible Church, the whole course and current of Master Rutherfords dispute in the severall answers and explications that are returned to Argu∣ments propounded, is to be understood. The words are faire and full lib. 2. p. 305. The power of the keyes, by order of nature is onely in the Catholick 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 lyes. For the path to these generall councels hath beene so long disused, that its almost growne out of sight, and as he sometimes speaks in a like case, The high wayes 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 councell consists especially. The materiall ground of Com∣missioners at Assemblies, is their gifts and fitnes. The formall ground is, the Church-calling, and sending them. Parker de Polit. l. 3. c. 18. Materiale ex donis internis pendet, formale ex deli∣gatione ecclesiae, and this Assertion is approved by Mr. Ruther∣ford, and confessed by all ours, that I met withall, l. 1. p. 213.

2. The Churches may send, and if they will follow the pat∣terne in the word, they must send learned and holy men unto Synods, besides Pastors, Teachers, Elders; so Luke hath it Act. 15.25,* 1.23 26. and therefore its an Argument which learned Whitta∣ker alledgeth, from the nature of a Synod: That since a generall councell doth represent, universam ecclesiam, there should be some of all sorts and orders of men sent there∣unto: 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 Councell, have a de∣cisive and definitive sentence in the acts that shall be made, de∣crees and determinations that shall passe. This is made the hinge and the very casting difference of the controversie betwixt us and the Papists, whereby our men vindicate the liberty and power of the brethren met in councell, against the usurpation of the Pope and his Proctors, whereby they would arrogate and mono∣polize all authority of deciding and determining controversies

unto the Prelates,* 1.24 And therefore Bellarmine would carve out all the authority to that crew and company, and says, Apostolos judi∣casse, Presbyteros consultasse, plebem audivisse tantum. But Whit∣taker states the question, as the common received judgement of all the orthodox, and so maintains that which is openly contra∣dictory to the Popish conceit. Nostra vero haec sententia est, non solos praelatos habere jus definiendi in conciliis, sed homines quos∣vis idoneos eligi posse, qui ad concilium mittantur, eosque liberé pronuntiare debere.

Hence this Representative body is but a part, as it stands in re∣ference to the Catholick 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 resem∣blance to the body which it represents: that what they in ver∣tue 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 assem∣bled, they are an entire body resulting out of the concurrence of all the severall members so concurring.

We see now what the nature of this representative body is: we shall now draw neerer to the marke, and make application of this to the particular in hand. Master Rutherford expresseth the que∣stion in these termes Lib. 2.289.

To this Church universall vi∣sible hath the Lord given a Ministery, and all his Ordinances of Word and Sacraments principally and primarily. And to the Ministery and guides of this Catholike visible Church hath the Lord commit∣ted the Keyes, as to the first subject.

But we shall look off from this place, and take those words which are most plaine, as the bottome of our debate, Lib. 2. Pag. 305. The power of the Keyes, by order of nature is only in the Ca∣tholike "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.

Againe, by power of the Keyes, we understand all the power of Ordination, excommunication, &c. Which in the current and com∣mon apprehension is comprehended therein.

And the reasons which yet carry and cast the ballance to the negative part, and our apprehensions for the present that way, are these.

1. We shall attend Master Rutherford his owne explication, as that which he must take for granted and good, as admitting no just exception, namely,

Quicquid convenit 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 convenit 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

It must agree to all and only to that kind. Whence the Argument growes on, thus,

That which firstly and onely belongs to the Catholike representa∣tive Church, that neither was, nor can be before it. The very na∣ture of the termes gives in testimony undenyable 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 Keyes was before the representative Church, yea before it had any being. For the Churches had the Keyes and the exercise of them by the space of 300 yeares, after our Saviour, when as yet there was not the name of an Oecumeni∣call councell heard of in the world.

Beside, from the former grounds agreed on, touching the con∣stitution of a generall councell, its plaine: That the Churches dele∣gate all, both persons and power from themselves to the making up of such a generall 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 distresse, to wit, that in order of nature they are onely firstly in the represen∣tative, but in order of time they are before in other subjects; nay the medicine makes the cause worse, though it was sicke be∣fore. 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 owne nature, wherein his being lies, is beyond the re∣liefe of all the rules of reason. Beside, that severall things being compared together, one might be before another in nature, when it was simul and together with another in time, hath beene usually said, (and yet by some usually questioned, in that time ever attends nature) but that the same things should be in time, be∣fore its nature had any being (as this distinction would bear us in hand) I suppose is unheard of.

2. If the power of the keyes should be given to an Oecumenicall councell as to the first subject: Then those should have and formal∣ly exercise the power of the keyes, 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 determi∣nations of the councell and their actings, in their decisions and definings are no proper works of a Pastor, & nor doe they pro∣ceed from these offices or officers as such. Thus Judicious Ames. Bell. enerv. Tom. 2. c. 2. de concil. p 10. Definire in conciliis generalibus non potest esse pars muneris Pastorum, quia tum Pa∣stor nullus ecclesiae Primitivae, et pauci tantùm sequentium saeculo∣rum munus pastorale 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 doe 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 Sy∣nod, and by power and warrant of this proceeding issued from thence.

Beside we heard before, that the councell consists of bre∣thren, as well as Elders, and the power of determining and bind∣ing issues joyntly from all, and to maintaine the contrary is judged an open point of Popery by Doctor whitaker. Vti supra.

3. Arg.

3. If the power of the keyes belong firstly to the Oecumenicall councell. Then it belongs to all other, by vertue of that, for this the rule, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth require. If none have this power, but onely this subject, then this power can goe no further then this. For this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 require: where ever Risibi∣lity is, there the nature of man must be, because it agrees to it firstly to Richard John. Jeremy, not as this or that individuall, but as they have the nature of man in them.

And hence there can no power of the keyes (as ordination ex∣communication. &c.) be put forth but by the vertue of an Oecu∣menicall councell 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 necessarily follow from the na∣ture the thing according to the practise of all Arts, proceeding from the unfallible evidence of like precepts.

If all the power of the keyes be firstly and onely in the Ca∣tholike representative body.

Hence in all other by vertue of this

Hence this is as necessary to the well-being of the Church as the power of the keyes, because the Churches have not this power but from hence. Hence, this representative Church is necessary to the bene esse of a Church, not onely ad melius et optimum esse. For it is as necessary as the power of the keyes: but that is necessary ad bene esse, by Master Rutherford his confession. Hence this power of the keyes is here most perfectly; because here firstly. Hence most constantly and ordinarily? If firstly, onely, and alwayes here, and in others by vertue of this, then it is here most con∣stantly and most ordinarily.

All these follow undeniably from the rule 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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, al∣wayes. Therefore, constantly, perfectly. Therefore its de∣rived from hence to all others, that shall be made parta∣kers of it. Therefore take away the nature of man, and destroy it, you destroy this faculty.

From hence its cleere, that the contrary expressions to these, dropped here and there by Master Rutherford without which he could not decline the dint of the Arguments alledged against him, are so many Assersions contrary to the truth and the nature of the rule, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

4. Arg.

If the power of the Keyes be here firstly and onely; then it can exercise them without all doubt lawfully: and in the right exercise thereof can attaine its end.

But the first part is denyed by Master Rutherford Lib. 2. Pag. 418.

I much doubt if a Catholike councell can formally excom∣municate a Nationall Church.

And indeed he may well doubt it.

For suppose that many persons in the particular Churches of the Nation shall complaine 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 no∣cent, for the communion would reach the one as well as the other, and so the censure should proceed upon them as well who de∣served it not, as those who did deserve it.

But secondly its certaine, if the Churches refuse the sentence,

the power of the councell can never prevaile to attaine its end.

5. Arg.

Let me adde a last Argument taken from Master Rutherford his owne expressions, which are these. Lib. 2. Pag. 289.

To this universall Church visible hath the Lord given a Ministery, and all his ordinances of word Sacrament, principally, and primarily: and to the Ministery and guides of this Catholike Church visible hath the Lord committed the Keyes as unto the first subject.

Whence I should thus reason.

To the Ministery and guides of that Catholike visible Church hath Christ committed the Keyes, as to the first subject, unto which he hath given his word, ordinances, Sacraments, Ministery primarily. This proposition is in terminis expressed and affirmed by Master Ru∣therford, nay determined as a conclusion beyond all gaine∣saying.

But (I assume) to an Oecumenicall councell, as the Totum re∣presentativum of all Churches, God hath not primarily, given to his Ministery, word, Sacraments, ordinances.

Therefore an Oecumenicall representative Church hath not the keyes given to it, as to the first subject.

The Assumption (which onely needs proofe) sense and expe∣rience, the nature of the thing, Master Rutherford his confession in cases paralell and of like nature doth abundantly confirme. For its well known to every man, that after the Ascension of our Saviour, by the space of 300 yeeres, there was no generall councell in the world, were there neither Ministers sent, word not Sacra∣ments dispenced, 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 knowes, that the councell 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 evi∣dence, that the preaching of the Word, administration of the Sa∣craments, &c. nor primarily nor secondarily is here attended? but the scanning of controversies, deciding and determining of doubtfull questions.

And lastly when Master Rutherford denyeth Ministers to have a Pastorall charge and watch over a Presbyteriall Church: be∣cause that watch onely is appropriate to the particular Congre∣gations, the care of whose soules 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 generall councell: not only, be∣cause its more then he can discharge, beside his care of his parti∣cular flock, but also, because it would seeme irrationall, 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 keyes given to the Catholike visible church: and ther∣fore 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 Catholike Church, therefore he was before his electi∣on, a member of the whole Catholike 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 handfull 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 enquired touching that which gave formallity to a member of a Church or congregation, we then at large deba∣ted the question, namly, That visible profession did not make a man a member of a congregation, much lesse 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 mem∣ber of all Churches, he cannot be said to be cut off from all because he never was ingrafted into them: no more then a member of one individuall 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 plainely; because a member of one Corporation is dis-franchised and condemned to perpetuall imprisonment, as Traytor, therefore all other Cor∣porations should dis-franchise him also, because these two are species of a Corporation in generall.

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, unlesse any thing ap∣peare to the contrary, and they should so expresse 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 Kingdome do account him a Traytor, and carry themselves to∣wards him, as such a one, who is convinced and proceeded against, as such, in one City or Corporation.

This is the ayme of that answer which Master Rutherford al∣ledgeth, from some, who say, That the party is excom∣municated onely out of that Congregation, whereof he is a mem∣ber antecedenter; because Christ hath given the power of excom∣munication only to the Church: But he is excommunicated to all other Churches onely consequenter, by consequent.

To this Master Rutherford sayes;

I answer the plain contrary. He is antecedenter and formally delivered to Satan by the power of the Catholike visible Church, which is put forth in exercises and acts, before that Church, whereof he is the neerest member.

E∣ven 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 meere instrument, and the losse of the finger, is a losse to the whole body: and the finger is cut off the right hand not antece∣denter onely, by the power of the left hand, but by the intrinsecall 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 Congre∣gation delivers to Satan, it is not done by that power, that is intrin∣secall in the congregation onely, but by the power intrinsecall, that is in the whole universall Church. lib. 2. pag. 296.

We shall here pause a little, and as travellers use to do, view the coast how it lyes, because the path seemes dark, and the pas∣sage somewhat hazardfull.

I Answer then, If the Catholike Church put forth a power in∣trinsecall in the excommunicating of the offender and delivering him to Satan, (as it is here said:) It must be either an Oecume∣nicall

councell, or a representative body of all, that must do this; or else all the Churches must have a hand in it.

1. An Oecumenik councell cannot excommunicate. For that which is not, hath no being, cannot put forth any operation. Non entis non est operatio.

But a generall councell was not after our Saviour by the space of 300 yeeres. There hath been none of late, by the space of ma∣ny hundreds, and when there will be any, no man knowes.

And therefore it can put forth no intrinsecall power in this cen∣sure of excommunication, neither antecedenter, nor consequen∣ter.

2. Nor can all the Churches be said, by any evidence of rea∣son to have a hand, or put forth a power to this worke. For Master Rutherford his own principles are, one congregation hath no power over another, one Classis over another, one Provinciall or Nationall councell, hath no power over another. Whence the inference is plaine.

They who have no power, much lesse 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 lesse antecedenter to this work.

3. Againe, they who put forth a power intrinsecall to excom∣munication, they must do it according to Christ his rule, and su∣table to order prescribed by him.

But in cases of excommunication, especially those of obstinacy, the rule of Christ, and the direction of the Gospell require, they should examine, convince, admonish, before excommunication.

And therefore they must be throughly informed and fully ac∣quainted 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, antece∣denter, to the dispensation of the censure. They are not bound to receive all the complaints of every particular Church, to heare and examine all witnesses, not bound to convene the offending party, nor hath any Church but that, wherof 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 en∣deavour labour to repeale and oppose it; They cannot be said in reason to put forth an intrinsecall power, and that anteceden∣ter in the execution of it.

And I suppose the Churches, who are of such a judgement would wonder to heare a congregation thus speake to them: Here is an offending Brother cast out of our society, for such obstinacy in evill: we have cast him out consequenter, but you have put forth an intrinsecall power antecedenter to our act, els it could never have beene done.

I suppose, if a Provinciall, nationall, Oecumenicall councell (that would condemn them for their sentence,) should heare 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 Catholick Church put forth a power ante∣cedenter in casting out every particular offender out of the Church: they also must needs put forth their power anteceden∣ter in receiving him in: which reason and the experience of all ages gainsayes. 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 againe into communion, neither staying nor expecting, untill a generall councell 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 pow∣er of the left hand onely, but by the intrinsecall 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 it selfe, and that peculiarly and proper∣ly appointed by God and nature to preserve it selfe, and pre∣vent infection in any member, and rather to cut of the infecti∣ous part, then that the contagion should spread to the ruine oi the whole.

And it is so exactly in particular congregation; the chief offi∣cers, as the mind and will and the rest of the Brethren, as the whole, have intrinsecall 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 gene∣rall 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 pro∣pound only, Mr. Rutherford his own principles for proof in this case.

Its confessed by Mr. Rutherford that a Church in an Island hath power of excommunication in her selfe: and therefore she may put it forth alone. And yet I suppose Mr. Rutherford will confesse, that a party so excommunicate is to be accounted a Heathen to all Churches as well, and as much, as any excom∣municated out of a Church that hath neighbouring Churches near it: notwithstanding no other Churches have, and there∣fore can put forth no power, in the executing of that act of ex∣communication done by a Church in an Island.

The same also may be said of Classes and provinciall 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 constraine a mans judgement here∣unto.

The Major 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 Kingdome, 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 pre∣cincts. The like may be said of a particular congregation.

These grounds thus made good by reason, will give in evidence against severall expressions of Mr. Rutherford as distant from the truth.

That sister Churches receive members of other Churches to communion by an intrinsecall authoritative Church power.

If he mean such an authoritative Church-power, as a congrega∣tion 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 enjoine our own members to come to the seale, or else censure them, but we can∣not so deale with others, if it shall seem good to them to refuse to come.

He addes,

Christ hath given an intrinsecall power to many consociated Churches to cast out a contagious lump, otherwise the consociated Churches are to exercise the punishment, of the avoid∣ing the excommunicated person, as an Heathen, which followeth from a power which is no wayes 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 establi∣shed, 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 witnesse thereunto. And no man, nay no court in the world, can but yield to this evidence, before something appear to the contrary, unlesse against conscience they shall lay aside the ex∣presse Law of God.

We shall propound a narrower case then this, and yet its so plaine 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 joyne 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 cousenage: when he shall desire entrance and acceptance, the letter is shewed, and witnesses discovered, and he justly denyed 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 our selves 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 just∣ly excommunicated and demeane our selves towards him in a manner suitable to such a condition under the testimony of a Church of Christ, untill something shall appeare to the con∣trary.

But suppose the Church erre, and cast out the person Clave er∣rante? shall a man in a brutish manner practise according to their proceeding, and not discern whether the censure be justly or unjust∣ly inflicted?

Answ. This is not to practise after a bruitish manner, but to proceed according to such rules, better then which nor reason nor righteousnesse 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 condemne the man, as such a malefactor; and in case he should make an escape, all that heare 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, untill the testimony given in be controlled and disannul∣led; so it is here.

Lastly I shall present unto the Reader and to Master Ruther∣ford what himselfe 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 Classicall presbyteries, yet since God, the God of order hath made him a combined member now by institution of one presbyteriall Church, not of another, he is to be excommunicated by the one, not by the other.

A man would think at the first blush, If one classicall Church doe not excommunicate antecedenter: by the same proportion of rea∣son many must not, nay none but his own classis doe excommu∣nicate him, and therefore how can the Catholike Church be said to doe this antecedenter? but Master Rutherford best knowes his owne meaning, and this will occasion him to explicate it.

CHAP. XIV. Of the Church Ʋniversall, as it is Totum Integrale.

ANd to deale candidly in this as in the former course of our dispute, we professe our ayme in this inquiry is, onely to give in what evi∣dence 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 ful∣ly expresseth.

For our more cleere and direct proceeding, I shall take leave to inquire. 1. What is meant by a Catholike visible Church ta∣ken in this sense, as Totum integrale.

2. Whether such a Church is to be found in the New Testa∣ment.

3. Whether the Lord Christ hath set Officers here, as in their first subject; and to them so set, the power of the keyes doth firstly ap∣pertaine.

To the first.

That the Catholike Church hath some time such a respect, as Totum integrale, I now and then find amongst Authors. Ames Medull. lib. 1. c. 32. par. 5.

Ecclesia particularis respectu Ecclesiae Catholicae, quae habet rati∣onem integri, est membrum.

His meaning is, if we look at particular members and particu∣lar

Churches as aggregated together, that which results and ari∣seth from the confluence and concurrence of them all, we put the respect of Totum integrale upon it, and so it is called ecclesia Ca∣tholica.

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 discerne the nature of it from the generall na∣ture of a Church, between which there is an exceeding vast diffe∣rence.

1. Then, the particular persons and Congregations, the members of this Church Catholike taken in this notion and considerati∣on, containe in them the essentiall causes of it, out of which it a∣riseth, and is constituted: Whereas Totum universale contrari∣wise containes and communicates causes to particular Churches.

2. Hence, these particular persons and Churches are, and must be in nature before this Totum integrale i. e. This Catholike Church thus aggregated: and this followes 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 soule, but an integrum, a third rising out of them both.

The Reader must carry these along with him, because hap∣ly we shall have recourse to them, as occasion shall re∣quire.

The second things to be inquired, 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 Scrip∣ture, that there is such a thing in the New Testament as a Catho∣like visible Church.

He answers in these words, Lib. 2.418.

I conceive the subject of 1 Cor. 12. is a Catholike visible Church; we do not understand a politicall visible body, with ordinary visi∣ble government from one man, who maketh himselfe the Vicar of Christ, the Pope, whose members are Cardinals, Bishops, and such

like, but the Catholike body mysticall of Christ, and that as visible.

We see here Master Rutherf. his expressions presented before us; but what his meaning is, I confesse, I cannot cleerely per∣ceive, as,

• 1. What is the meaning of that phrase, mysticall 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 mysticall of Christ as invisible. For the mysticall body of Christ, in common and current sense is con∣stantly taken for the invisible body of our Saviour. Now to consider an invisible body as visible doth implicate plainely; and is, as if a man should say, I will consider whitenesse as it is black, and therefore this seemes not to be his mind: but it may be he takes mysticall in another figurative meaning: or haply the ex∣pression 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 mysticall: That being Totum integrale 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 Catholike Church, whereas had he taken Catho∣like for universall, then the Pastors of one must be the Pastors of the other. For genus is only existing in its species, and there on∣ly can be seene, and so consequently attended.

These are probabilities which sway my judgement that way. But I find also that sometimes he puts in the word universall to expresse his meaning of the place. And this casts the ballance the other way. So that I cannot say, he meaneth by Catholike Church visible, a totum integrale. 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 perswade 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 Catholike 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 e∣lection 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 mutuall 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 first∣ly and primarily Pastorlike power in preaching, ruling, and dis∣pensing 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 pastorall and officiall power over the Catholick 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 pastorall 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 read in any Gospell, that the Lord Christ hangs the performance of a Teachers office upon o∣thers desires, but upon his own duty, with which he stands char∣ged with by vertue of his place.

For I might lastly here adde (though many other reasons are at hand, yet I will not multiply, because I know not Mr. Ruther∣ford his minde in this behalfe, and I would not trouble the Reader

without cause) I say, I may here adde; 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 diverse. This last none will own; therefore he must be the same to both; and he that hath the same pastorall 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 ex∣traordinary and ordinary officers, according to the extraor∣dinary and ordinary occasions thereof; and this sense suits with that, which we explicated in the first part of this dispute, touch∣ing a Catholick 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 (sayes Mr. Rutherford) must by good logick have the vertue either of one universall, 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 affirme, 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 owne: 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 there∣by.

Thus the common nature of a Corporation exists in all particu∣lar congregations, and so its common to all to have Major and Common-councell, (I speak ex supposito) which government and Governours existing in and determined by the particulars,

have only power in their own place: The Major and councell can exercise no authority in another corporation. To reason there∣fore thus, if the nature of a corporation be common to all, and the King hath set Major and common-councell in all and every one of them, therefore the Major of one, may rule in another corporation; I say such an inference, will in no wise fol∣low.

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 Countyes. If any shall reason thus, If this be common to all Towns to have Constables, Sheriffs in all Countyes; therefore a Constable may exercise his office in another Towne, or a Sheriffe 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 inforce it, but inferre the contrary, if seri∣ously considered.

The sense of the Text thus opened, the Arguments gathered out of the severall 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 ex∣traordinary gifts and miracles being now ceased) there be the or∣dinary 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 Spi∣rit.

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 generall 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 schisme 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 individuall congregation by the which he was called, and over whom he is appointed.

We have now done with our inquiry touching the Catholick visible Church: we shall remind the Reader of two things, which may be of speciall use, and so we shall put an end to this dispute.

I.

1. From the foregoing discourse he may discerne, wherein e∣specially the opinion of Mr. Rutherford appears, touching this Catholick visible Church, with any certainty.

As namely, Its cer∣tain that Mr. Rutherford holds the power af the keyes belongs firstly to the Catholick Representative Church; for to this pur∣pose his words are most expresse. l. 2. p. 305. The power of the keyes by order of nature, is onely in the Catholick representative Church, as in the first subject.

2. Its not to me certain, what he holds touching the Catho∣like visible Church, considered either as Totum universale, or Integrale: what probabilities his expressions carry either way, we have formerly intimated out of severall places: and there∣fore I think it most faire, to fasten nothing upon him, unlesse his words were fully and conclusively clear.

Lastly its certain, that if the power of the keyes be in the Ca∣tholike representative Church, as the first subject, they cannot be∣long firstly to the Catholick Church, either as Totum universale or integrale: The distance and difference betwixt these three ac∣cording to former explication is so great and vast.

II.

Againe 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 of∣ficers 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, com∣municated 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 pertake of the nature of a Genus.

3. Hence it is not lawfull for the Churches to give away this their power unto others, nor lawfull for others to take it away from them. And therefore they should not, by combining them∣selves 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 vi∣sible, as Totum integrale.

WHile I was inquiring and writing touching this ecle∣sia catholica visibilis, an especiall providence brought a book to my view which did purposely intreate of this particular subject. The Author Master Hudson a learned man, and a faithfull mi∣nister of the Gospell.

When I had considered his writing 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I found his judgement sharp and scholasticall, his spirit Christian and moderate, his expression succinct and pregantly plaine to ex∣presse his owne 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 unfainedly prise the learning, perspicuity and painfulnesse 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 againe of some particulars whether they will abide the balance of the san∣ctuary or not.

There is one principal point: I say, principals, because the whole frame of the dispute stayes upon that, as upon the maine pillar and foundation, which if it faile, the whole falls to the ground as

Master H. confesseth. p. 11.

I finde (saith he) the subject of my question exceedingly opposed, and that by our divines; and therefore I must crave leav to con∣firme that sufficiently or els, what ever I shall say of the praedicate, will be as a house built upon the sand, or a castle in the aire.

The grearest weight lies here, and therefore my greatest in∣quiry shalbe about the truth of this.

And before I enter upon the examination of this principall point propounded, I shall collect severall expressions, out of seve∣rall places in the writing, which I shall set downe as so many con∣clusions confessed by the Author that my selfe and reader may have recourse thereunto, as occasion shall require in the follow∣ing discourse, when their specials shall come to a Jud••cious triall.

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 write against the Papists, it will not seem strange to any, nor yet, I suppose, grievous to Mr. Hudson, if I joine 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 helpe of a point of Popery, not onely as a pillar, by which it must be under propped, but as a foundation or head corner stone, upon which the whole building must rest and be erected.

These grants and postulata which I shall mention, are thus freely and fully laid downe in severall passages and places.

1. CONCLUSION.

When a Church is called universall: universall in this question is meant principally in regard of

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

2.

The universall 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 Catholike (he meanes members) p. 6.

4.

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

5.

The proper notion of the Church Catholike, and particular, is, of Integrum et membra (p. 20.) and is (primum in suo genere,) be∣fore them. p. 10.

6.

For my part (sayes he) I conceive the Church Catholike to be Totum Jntegrale, and the particular Churches to be Partes similares, and so members thereof and parcells 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 forme of the whole. p. 21.

8.

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

9.

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

10.

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

11.

While the Church is but one congregation, That hath the Notion of the Church Catholicke more properly then of a particu∣lar Church, yea though it be but in one family, as it was in the Arke in the dayes of Noah. p. 24.

12.

Speaking of the existence of the Church Catholike, in the existence of particular Churches, he grants that the Catholike Church existeth not but in particular Churches, as a heape of stones existeth onely in the existence of particular stones p. 24.

I thus take leave to sever and sunder the specials one from an∣other, because if I deceive not my selfe 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 Catholike visible Church, as Totum integrale, consisting of all the particular Churches, as its members?

And to this we must answer yet negatively.

Because this question, thus propounded, lookes so fully like a Popish Tenent, at the first appearance, Mr. H. desires to put a Pro∣testant dresse 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 Catholike to belong to one Church.

3. They hold that this visible Catholike Church should be un∣der one visible universall head.

The Reply is,

This salve onely skinnes over the sore, but neither heales the wound: nor removes the skarre. For it is certaine, there be ma∣ny collaterall 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 di∣stinct errors, so mentioned, so maintained by the Pontificians, so opposed by ours. For Mr. H. very well knowes, that Bellar∣mine, 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. tert.

2. Ecclesiae regimen est monarchicum: nempe opus est visibili monarcha & summo judice. Whitak. de Rom. Pontif. q. 1. c. 1.

3. Its also a distinct question, That the Bishop of Rome succeeds

Peter in that Monarchicall government of his. Whitak. de Rom. Pontif. q 4. c. 1.

Hence its plaine 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 con∣stitution 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 plainely 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 Catholike Church is not visible, they do not meane, that it is not con∣spicuous and glorious to the world, but that it never was, nor can be visible to any; but it is to be beleeved, not to be apprehended by sense.

Ecclesia Catholica non potest â quoquam impio, imò, ne a quo∣quam pio videri. Whitak de Eccles. q. 2. c. 2. p. 57.

And therefore the forenamed Author makes these two di∣stinct questions

Ecclesia Catholica non est visibilis.

Ecclesia visibilis potest deficere: i. e. ecclesia visibilis non est sem∣per 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 constituti∣on 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 concurre with all our Di∣vines against the Papists in this opinion, and to professe 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, nei∣ther they nor I meane, 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 integrale. For herein M^r. H. deserves just commendation, that he deales openly, and like a judicious Divine, expresly intimates, what kind of Totum he meaneth, that so we may not be to seeke, when we should speak to the point contro∣verted and intended by him. Dolus latet in universalibus.

To begin then our inquiry touching the nature of Totum inte∣grale, 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 lead the Reader into the particular truths, as so many par∣ticular roomes in the house that so the whole frame may fully be conceived.

Integrum says (the Logician,) est totum, cui partes sunt, essentiales: it is such a whole, unto which the parts are essentials; i. e. give the essentiall causes, whence the integrity and entirenesse 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 forme, and containe in them materialia & formalia principia, which they give, in their concurrence to make up the integrum. Thus the severall Troopes and Companies make up the Army. The Free-men of so many Companies, the Com∣mon-Councell of Aldermen, and Major make up a Corporation. So many Cities, Shires, Counties, make up a Kingdome.

In all these the members are causall, each gives in a substantiall share, to make up the integrity or intirenesse of the whole.

Hence, the members are in nature before the whole (I say in na∣ture, because I would not run into needlesse niceties touching any other priority, but thus they are certainly before the whole) because they containe the causes that make it up.

That which M^r. H. suggests else where by way of objection, that they be relata, and therefore simul naturâ, is an old fallacy fre∣quent in the Schooles, and proceeds meerely out of a mis∣take of Logicall principles. True it is, that integrum and mem∣bra may be cloathed with such a respect, which may be put upon them, for our expression and apprehension (as it were easie to o∣pen, onely it sutes 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 ano∣ther..

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 severall Companies; The Kingdome from the severall 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 walke, talke, look upward, when no part of the body, nor yet the soule, in reason, or according to truth, can be said to doe any of these actions.

Hence then it followes undenyably and necessarily,

If Ecclesia Catholica be Totum integrale, 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 ap∣pertaining to that, which doth not appertain to any of the members.

And this rule, reason, all experiences, all instances in all inte∣grums, do evidence. There is a supreme governour in a kingdom. A Generall in a Camp, besides all other Officers in all the Regi∣ments.

But there could yet be never given any discovery of a Catho∣like 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 dispen∣sed, 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 present∣ing of some distinct, Officer, Act, or operation, seclusa ratione, or not habitâ ratione of particular Congregations, which do not apper∣taine to them. And this must be done, or else this totum inte∣grale will prove a meere fiction, and a conceit minted out of a mans imagination.

Its true, Totum genericum, or take the nature of a Church in generall, there is nothing required, but that it should exist in its particulars, as in its species: and that the generall nature of a Church, and all the priviledges firstly appertaining thereunto should equally and indifferently be communicated to all the par∣ticulars as inferior species: as the like is easie to be seen and ob∣served 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 somthing peculiar and not communicated unto them.

And hence it was, that the Papists, who maintained this Ca∣tholike visible Church, have created and fancied a visible Head to this visible Body, but that fond device labours now with the loathsomnesse of it selfe.

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 Catholike visible: But to the argument I answer that the Church had a Head of the same nature, consisting of body and soule who sometimes lived in this kingdom of grace in the dayes of his flesh, and did visibly partake in externall ordinances, though now indeed he be ascended into his kingdome of glory, yet ceaseth not to be a man, as we are, though glorified, and ceaseth not to rule and governe his Church, here below; for it is an everlasting King∣dome 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 Catholike visible Church, unlesse they should be con∣strained to grant them an officer, as a supreme visible Head: for so his words are expresse.

This made our Divines deny the Pontificians a Church Catho∣like visible, namely, That so they might deny a visible Head su∣table thereunto.

As though he had said, unlesse 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 policyes, and the rules of reason propounded in the foregoing arguments.

2. The salve, which Master H. here applies, is so far from healing the sore, that it makes it worse, the physicke being al∣most as bad if not more dangerous, then the desease: for,

When in his Answ. he would beare the Reader in hand that Christ as man consisting of body and soule, and living in the Church must in that regard, be the visible head of his Church, though now ascended into heaven: I would affectionately de∣sire him in Gods holy feare to consider what he writes. For,

1. It is not onely untrue, but very dangerous to hold, that Christ as meere man consisting of body and soule 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 mem∣bers thereof in all places: and therefore must not be sufficient to supply fully the necessities thereof; which how derogatory and prejudiciall to our blessed Saviour, and the fatherly love of God the father to his Church, I am perswaded his love to Christ, will make him more sensible of such indignity, then I am able to expresse.

2. Its certaine our Saviour is Head of the Church, as media∣tor, God and man, who hath fulnesse 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 send all officers, to furnish them to the worke, and blesse them in the worke of the mini∣stery, for the gathering and perfecting of all his saints, untill they come unto the unity of the faith. So Beza in his confession: chap. 5. Artic. 5. Whitak. de Pontif. 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 beare, a worke too hard for any man to discharg, he issues the reason thus quare relinquendum est, &c. therefore we must leave the worke to Christ, who, as he is everywhere, so he can doe 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 con∣fessed by all ours that I meet withall. Whitaker de Pontif. Rom. q. 1. c. 2. p. 14. ad. 5. Bellarm. arg. Christus igitur non dege∣bat 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 atten∣ded 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 un∣to that, must have some sutable resemblance in regard of the kind of them with the other.

As the Nationall Church of the Jewes being a distinct kind of Church, had peculiar and distinct Officers and ordinances, which were nationall, beside those of the Synagogue: So the Catholike must have, if it be a Church made up of the particular Churches, "as the Nationall Church was made up of the Synagogues, as Mr. H. words are, p. 21.

Hence againe, from the former ground laid and proved, it fol∣lowes, the Catholike 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 cui 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 heape is aggregated and made up of many stones. (Master H. pag. 24.) an Army of many Regi∣ments: but our senses will say, if asked: the stones must be before the Heape; the Regiments in reason before the Army, that ari∣seth 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 vertue of that division of a portion of water that is made, as integri in membra; for in very deed, 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 a∣qua 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 appeare by instances, if we narrowly se∣ver the considerations and respects one from another.

Take a quart of water and divide it into two pints, here is a di∣vision of integrum into its members: though each pint may be cal∣led water, yet a pint cannot be said to be a quart, because the divi∣sion 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 M^r. 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 Catholike and particular Chur∣ches be of integrum in membra, pag. 20. Then particular Chur∣ches are essentials, and give matter and forme to the Catholike.

Therefore they cannot receive matter and forme from the Ca∣tholike, contrary to conclus. 7 pag. 21.

If the Church Catholike existeth out of the particular Churches, as a heape out of so many stones, pag. 24. then they are before the Catholike, contrary to conclus. 5. pag. 10.

My second ground is that which Master H. grants, and the na∣ture of the Church seemes to force.

The Catholike Church may by persecution, &c. be brought into a little roome, and haply into one Congregation, pag. 24. yet all the essence and priviledges of the Church Catholike visible are contracted and preserved therein, and from them conveyed and derived to those whom they shall con∣vert, ibidem.

From this grant, I offer these collections to consideration.

1. Hence this Catholike Church being an individuall, it must needs be species specialissima, and therefore can have no inferior to it, or subordinately under it, to which it can give nomen & natu∣ram: for no man is so far forsaken of reason, as to affirme, This

individuall Church is that individuall Church.

2. Againe, wherein failes this kind of reasoning?

1. Catholica Ecclesia extends it selfe to all persons and places, conclus. 1.

But so cannot a particular Congregation.

2. Ecclesia particularis may faile: so cannot Ecclesia Catho∣lica.

3. Ecclesia Catholica gives part matter, and part forme to all particular Churches, conclus. 7.

But a particular Congregation cannot do so.

4. That which is aggregatum of all particular Congre∣gations, 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 heape reserved in one stone: The nature of a flock in one sheepe. A Corporation in one man.

Its true I confesse, I should easily yeild, that which all writers, all rules confirme, 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 intire and have his whole nature preserved in one, It is to me unconceiveable, unlesse Master H. will help us with another Logick, that never yet saw light. Should one affirme the body to be an intire 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 againe look a little more seriously into that particular branch of the 11^th 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 fur∣ther inquire: Its granted that the Church was appointed by God to be in families. Suppose Noah his sonnes, issuing out into their own families, as they did: Noah, he had his family intire: when Noah was dead, and his family dissolved, I aske 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 a∣ny

one of them should be, or could be truly called, Ecclesia Ca∣tholica. For which of them could claime that more then another?

2. Ecclesia Catholica gives matter and forme to the particu∣lars, 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 re∣corded 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 forme, to all the particulars, as in the seventh conclusion.

For it privily implyes a contradiction: to be an aggregatum of particulars, and to give being unto them.

Lastly, take we Mr. H. his definition of the Catholike Church as it respects all persons and places, as in the 1. conclus. And therefore, is the whole company of all beleevers 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 priviledges and ordinances belonged, but onely that: And therefore all were bound to turne Jewes, and become Proselytes, before they could be said to be within the Covenant of the Church, or had any right to the seales, or to share in any priviledges thereof. Exod. 12.42. Ephes. 2.12.

And therfore all beleevers, that were not joyned 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 Priviledges. Conceive we now Rahab converted to the faith, and as she was, its certaine many families in like sort might be.

By Mr. H. his principles, these were all of the Catholick Church, and had title to all Priviledges of the Church, which the words of the text professedly gainsayes. Nay compare we Mr. H. his way of the conveyance of the right of Church Priviledges, 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 Catholick, and pertake of the benefit and priviledges of the Church primarily, not because they are beleevers of the parti∣cular Churches, but of the Church Catholick.

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 Gos∣pell, and so becomes a visible believer, he is then a member of the visible Church Catholike.

2. He hath by this his profession and membership with the Church Catholike, right unto all Church priviledges.

3. He then becomes a member of a particular Church: but hath not right to Church priviledges, because of that, but because of his former membership with the Catholike Church.

This is his method.

Gods method in his word is this.

1. A person is converted and becomes a visible beleever.

2. He comes to be adjoyned to the Jewish Church, and turnes Proselyte.

3. Because he is now converted and turned Jew, he may eat the Passeover, and enjoy all the other Priviledges, Exod. 12.42. Isa. 56.

It is hereby apparant that Gods method, and that which Mr. H. expresseth, is directly contradictory. The Lord sayes: Its not because a beleever, but because beleeving he joynes to the Church; therefore he partakes of Church Priviledges. Mr. H. affirmes: Its not because he joines to the Church, but because he is a beleever, that he hath right to the Priviledges 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 plaine, that the sonnes of Keturah which were sent into the east, though they were circumcised, and in all appearance of proba∣bility,

not only professed the faith (which were enough according to M. H. his principles, to make them members of the Catholike Church) but were some of them true and sincere-hearted belee∣vers: yet its most certain God did not account of them as a visible Church, nor did he betrust them with Church-Priviledges. 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 wayes, Rom. 3.2. what is the Priviledge 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 Catholico: That it was then in a Nation, according to that, I will make of thee a great Na∣tion: 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 Grecian, Scythian, or Barbarian: and in this notion and consi∣deration it is, that I conceive the visible Church may now be called Catholike, and not in the time of the Jew, because the Gospel is preached to all people universally and indifferently, and gathe∣red out of all without any restraint, but was then confined popu∣lo Israelitico.

SECT. II.

Wherein Mr. H. his Demonstration, by which he would prove a Catholick 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. pro∣pounds in way of proof of his Assertion, the nature whereof we have now opened.

His demonstration as he termes it, is this.

If particular Churches be visible, then there is a visible Catho∣lick Church.

But particular Churches are visible. Therefore,

Our Answer will be double.

1. We shall enquire what our Writers and Protestant Di∣vines do re urn to the Proposition.

2. Then we shall apply our selves to the second part, or As∣sumption, and by both, it will appear, that this Argument doth

not probably conclude the cause, much lesse necessarily demon∣strate it.

To begin with the Proposition.

When Duraeus urged Doctor Whitaker with this Argument to maintaine a Catholike Church visible, which he and all ours do constantly deny, Master H. may be pleased to consider, what re∣turne 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 veluti partibus, &c. If all par∣ticular Churches, whereof the Church Catholike consists, as mem∣bers, be visible, and fall under our sight, will it not follow, that the Catholike Church will be visible also?

After Doctor Whitaker had told him, that the Catholike Church is not to be confined to one age and time, but compre∣hends all the faithfull 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 neerer home, and drives him to a grea∣ter straight and narrow: Deinde ut Catholicam tuam ecclesiam in hoc seculum compingamus, tamen quousque particulares Ecclesiae a∣spectabiles sunt, Catholica aspectabilis non erit. In a word he pa∣remptorily and readily denyes the consequence, affirming That the members may be aspectabiles, but the whole not so. And gives the reason of his denyall, which is this. Si enim Catholica (ut tu dicis) consistit ex partibus, &c. Loco supra citato. If the Catho∣like be aggregated of many parts, then when these parts are gather∣ed together, the whole may be seen, but the parts as severally cannot be seene. And addes, answerably when the parts are seene several∣ly, then the Totum, as aggregated, cannot be seene.

Nay if Master H. be pleased to review, how learned Sadeel deales with Turrian, propounding the very same Argument to him, in the very same termes, he will, and the Reader may perceive, what strength that judicious writer apprehended to be in this rea∣son, and Doctor Whitaker alledgeth and repeats this against Bel∣larmine 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 par∣ticulares, per totum terrarum orbem fusas, quae quia sunt visibiles, ec∣clesiam Catholicam exhis aggregatam visibilem esse affirmant.

Our Adversaries (saith Sadeel) affirme the Catholike Church to be all particular Churches spread through the whole world; and be∣cause the particulars are visible, therefore they concludes the Ca∣tholick aggregated of all these to be visible also. (So that it is plain, the Papists plead the same Argument with Mr. H. for their cause, as he now doth for his.)

But Sadeel and Whitaker both, make a round returne to him. Sed hoc nihil absurdius dici potest. They feare not to professe that the consequence is very absurd and destitute of any shew of rea∣son, and therefore retort the argument, as marvellous strong a∣gainst 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 severall, they are and may be seen severed one from another: But then one Catholick flock gathered toge∣ther of all these cannot be seen.

By this which hath been alledged, 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 severall members are under the same lawes, 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 suffi∣cient to give a proper nature or formality to such an aggregatum: for things common do not give any proper and differencing na∣ture. But these forenamed, to wit, to be govern'd by the same laws, and ruled after the same manner, may, and doth befall those bo∣dies, that are not under such an aggregation.

Thus severall Free cities and House-Towns, which are entire in themselves: Severall Countreys and Kingdomes, who have nothing to do with each other in their precincts and Jurisdictions, yet may have the same lawes, and the same manner of Govern∣ment. Only that, wh ch makes them an entire and compleat common-wealth in themselves, is the aggregation of them un∣der the same governours as the chiefe, whether one single person as in a monarchicall, or many, as in an Aristocraticall state.

And this might suffice for a satisfactory answer for the present, but I shall go a nearer way to worke, 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 generall, 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 turne at all.

For the generall nature of a Church being determined to its particulars, and existing therein, all particular Churches do e∣qually and indifferently from thence receive all the Church-power and priviledges that are common, and there needs no vi∣sible monarch over all Churches, but fairhfull Pastors and Teach∣ers, set over every particular congregation, for improvement of all ordinances, Sacraments, and censures for the good thereof.

Nor will it suit Master H. Because we need not (if we will follow the levell of this truth, as it leads us) goe about by a Ca∣tholike visible Church aggregated of all, before we come to a congregation, but we must be necessitated to attend upon a par∣ticular congregation; for there both the essence and priviledge of the Church is first to be found, because the genus first exists there.

Master H. conceiving such an answere might be made, he frames it as an objection against himselfe, and makes onely this re∣turn, that he takes the notion of Church in regard of its particu∣lars to be Integri in membra but the proofs which should settle it, are no whit sufficient.

1. He alledgeth an expression out of Doctor Ames his me∣dulla lib. 1. c. 32. part 4 particulares istae congregationes sunt partes similares ecclesiae Catholicae, which words, its certaine, doe properly and directly consider particular congregations as spe∣cies of a Church, and were so intended by the Author, as it ap∣peares 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 analy∣sing 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 integrale lyes) so that this expres∣sion of Doctor Ames neither hurts ours, nor helps Master H. his cause,

Master H. addes also one argument.

"Ʋbi omnes partes existunt simul compactae, ibi totum existit.

Sed 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, with∣out 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 denyed, namely, that all particular congregations do exist aggregated together as mem∣bers of the Catholick; that should have been proved, but is not touched, much lesse evidenced.

And if Mr. H. had attempted to shew how all particular Churches are aggregated or compacted in toto integrali, which ariseth out of them, and hath somewhat peculiar to it selfe, 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 Catholike 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. alledgeth, are examined and cleared.

We have thus done with Mr. H. demonstration, and we sup∣pose it doth appear, that it doth not necessarily inforce the con∣clusion.

We shall now weigh, with like liberty, the Scriptures which he propounds to this end and purpose.

The first alledged by him, is, Act. 8.3. and to this also may that be referred; Gal. 1.13. because the aime 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 catho∣lica 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 beleevers in the whole world, for he could not see them, nor know them.

Beside, he did not persecute the Church of the Jewes in Jeru∣salem, i. e. the Jewish Church, and yet its certain, there were there many that believed: but as the text saith, and he affirms of himselfe, 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 sy∣necdoche, 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 com∣mission 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 profes∣sed that way of the Christian Church, and those by reason of a great persecution were scattered abroad throughout all the re∣gions of Judea and Samaria, they fled far and wide, and there∣fore he might persecute them where he found them, as he did, hunting after them with eagernesse and madnesse of malice. Thus Dr. Whitaker expounds the place, controv. 2. de eccles. p. 456

When Mr. H. addes, an indefinite is equivalent to a gene∣rall, he will find that it is not alwayes so upon second thoughts, as innumerable instances might be brought to evince the con∣trary.

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 persecu∣ted their way, not simply because they were beleevers. (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 cere∣monies of the Law.

To this also you may referre 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 beleevers in the whole world: for such a company they never saw nor knew, and there∣fore could not be added to them: But to the Christian Church now erected: and therefore it is said, they continued in the Do∣ctrine of the Apostles, in their fellowship, Act. 2.42.

2. There were many beleevers of the Jewish Church, Act. 5.14. and therefore they who met of that Church, could not be added to them, but to the Apostolicall and Christian Church. And therefore,

3. When it is said, they were added to the Church, v. 47. in the 41. v. Its said, they were baptized, and the same day were added un∣to them about 3000 soules, i. e. to the Apostles and their com∣pany.

Lastly, the Church is distinguished from all the rest, many whereof were certainly professing beleevers, Act. 5.14. feare 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 adde that 1 Cor. 10.32. Give no offence to the Jew, nor Gen∣tile, nor to the Church of God. Where the word Church (saith Mr. H. pag. 13) cannot be the Church of the elect, nor any par∣ticular Congregation, but indifinitely.

Answ. But must it therefore be meant of the Cathol ke Church visible, and that as integrum? the consequent deserves a denyall; and that it cannot be meant of the Catholike Church, the words of the text give apparant testimony.

That Church which is contra-distinct to the Jewes, that cannot comprehend the whole company of beleevers, through the whole world, because some beleevers were of the Jewes, 1 Pet. 1. Jam. 1.1.

But this Church is so contra-distinct.

Againe, 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 beleevers, through the whole world: because a scandall must be seene or known certainly: but so a persons practise cannot be to all beleevers in the whole world.

Therefore the meaning is plaine, we must not offend those that are without, nor yet the beleeving Jewes, nor any of the belee∣ving Gentiles, who are brought home unto Christ, and the fellow∣ship 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 wisedome of God if it be not meant of the Church invi∣sible, It must needs be understood of the Church of the Gentiles then gathering, not of the whole company of all beleevers throughout the whole world, as the severall circumstances carry it, beyond controle. For in v. 9. the Apostle speaks of such myste∣ries that were kept secret since the beginning of the world. 2. Its such multifarious wisedome, which was now made known by the Churches; but before to the Church of the Jewes: And there∣fore the Churches of the Gentiles are here to be considered and un∣derstood.

Unlesse, as I said, it be meant of the invisible Church, unto which Master Beza and Piscator seeme to incline, because first the Apostle speaks of such things that appertain only to the faith∣ful, 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 wisdome is in v. 12. according to his eter∣nall councell in Christ Jesus intended towards his elect, and in∣deed in those dispensations this wisedome appeares, which drives the very thoughts to a mazement: But however it be taken, it helps nothing to Mr. H. his Ecclesia Catholica.

Master H. addes, 1 Cor. 12.28.

God hath set some in the Church' as first Apostles, teachers, 1 Tim. 3.15. That thou maist know how to behave thy selfe 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 Catholike Church, sayes 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 To∣tum

universale existing and determined in its actings by the parti∣culars, 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 generall nature of them, and those priviledges 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. alledgeth them.

The greatest cost that he bestowes 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 willing∣ly grant, and confesse his reason good, as formerly we have done to M^r. Rutherford

But how doth he prove that Churches collectively taken, or Ca∣tholica ecclesia tanquam integrum is here meant. That he indea∣vors by this reason.

If there be officers of the Church Catholike visible, then there is such a Church Catholike visible.

But the Apostle and prophets were officers of the Church Catho∣like 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 workes that Church must be a Catholike 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 Catholike Church.

Answ. The major proposition or consequence is denied, as not sutable to the truth, which may thus appeare.

The reason of their unlimitednesse arose from their commission, because it was generall, being immediately called and appointed by

God to preach to all nations, and so had power to plant all Churches, & had vertually 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 Catholike 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 belivers 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 joyntly and indifferently of them both.

Therefore that Church doth not argue an unlimited power.

The minor proposition is expresse in the text.

The major is sure, as being bottomed upon confessed princi∣ples; ordinary officers have not an illimited power, but are con∣fined to their proper charges, because that is one maine diffe∣rence, betwixt them and extraordinary ones.

That which is impossible for a Deacon to performe, 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 rode waye 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 congrega∣tion, 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 Argu∣ment for proof.

This Church must be a visible Church where he and others must exist and converse together, and carry themselves in mutuall dutyes. Now these directions concerned not Ephesus alone, or in any speciall 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 Timo∣thy may converse with others, in mutuall dutyes: there may di∣rections be given touching that, which by a parity of reason, will reach all others. As those Paul did give to the Elders of E∣phesus, 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 Gos∣pel more forensi.

And therefore there is no evidence nor strength of Argument, from all these to conclude a Catholick Church.

2. But if these only belong to particular congregations, and not to the Church Catholick, as now controverted, then the place serves for a confutation, not a confirmation of it; survey we the severals in short.

1. Its yeilded by all that I know, who plead for a Catholick visible Church, that this visibility is only in the parts of it, not in the integrall state of it. Ames. medull. l. 1. c. 32. p. 1.

2. That Church state which men cannot see, in that they can∣not converse one with another, nor performe duties one to ano∣ther, 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 denyed.

3. If there be such an Ecclesia Catholica, as a particular or in∣dividuall integrum, (for so it must be attended) then it hath some speciall acts or operation peculiar to it selfe, not communi∣cable to the members of it: As the nature and definition of an integrum doth require: and which we have formerly eviden∣ced.

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, priviledges, that belong to a congregationall 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 severall opera∣tions thereof, and priviledges therein, If Mr. Hudson or any man shall demonstrate some particular either acts, priviledges, 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 pro∣ved, 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 generi∣cum is communicated to all the particulars, with all the common priviledges, that by a likenesse and proportion of reason is gi∣ven 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 in∣tegrity consists, and comes to be apprehended which is not to be found in the Church.

The consideration of Church, as Totum genericum gives an∣swer to all those places where the word Kingdome is used to signifie the visible Church, and therefore I might spare here any repetition, and leave the Reader to make the application him∣selfe: but the truth is, the word Kingdome in many of the places here quoted, carries another sense, and doth not reach the cause in hand, much lesse conclude it; as will thus appear by the tryall of the particulars.

The Kingdome of heaven beside other significations, as the Kingdome of glory, &c. it doth by a Metonymy (so its frequent∣ly used in the Evangelists,) imply the word of the Kingdome and

the dispensation and administration of the Gospell in the Chur∣ches, and the speciall things appertaining thereunto, The King∣dome of heaven is like to a man sowing of seed, Matth. 13.24. like to Mustard seed. 31. to Leaven. 33. to treasure hid in the field. 44. The Church is not like to Leaven or seed, but the dispensation of the Gospell is.

And so it must be understood in that 1 Cor. 15.24. Then shall Christ deliver up the kingdome unto God the father. That King∣dome cannot be the Catholike Visible Church, because that con∣sisting 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 owne words are witnesse enough against this sense, for so he writes in the place, p. 15.

Its the Kingdome ex∣ercised 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 kingdome that cannot be shaken, &c. This kingdome is not the Catholike visible Church.

1. For, that kingdome 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 kingdome which is unlike that which was in the Old-Testament, and the unlikelynes lies in this, that this now in the time of the Gospell 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 shew how farre differing the dispensati∣on of the wayes of Gods worship, which is now appointed by him, is from that which was ordained under the Law: Those Or∣dinances and administrations are now come to an end, and others instituted in their place and roome: but these we haue now un∣der the Gospell are last, and so the unalterable institutions of our Saviour: and thus Mr. H. expresseth himselfe; carryed, as it should seeme, with the constraining evidence of the words.

This kingdome cannot be meant (saith he) of the internall kingdome of grace, but it is meant of the externall ordinances of worship and dis∣cipline: but I suppose those are not the Church, and therefore ther

is nothing here to be found for the establishment of that con∣ceit.

Much lesse is there any colour of such a conceit in that of Matth. 3. Repent, for the kingdome of heaven is at hand: i. e. the Catholike Church is at hand; how harsh is such a sound to a mans eare, such a sense to a mans mind?

The rest of the places, where kingdome signifyes the Church, as Luke 7.38. So likewise those similitudes of floore 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 looke at the generall 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. alledged to the contrary, carry any constraining force to perswade a man seriously judicious. For when he thus writes pag. 15,

Now if these things (those to wit, which were spoken concerning field, floore, Kingdome) were spoken of a particular Congregation onely: which particular Congregation in the world shall impropri∣ate these to it selfe? but if true of every one in particular, and all in generall, and these all be continually called one kingdome, then there is a Church Catholike visible, to wit, totum integrale.

The answer will be easie and ready at hand: That our expres∣sions and apprehensions looke 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 generall 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 Ca∣tholike visible Church, as totum integrale, is to wrong the mean∣ing of the text, and to wring out blood instead of milke: 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 gene∣rall: whence the issue will come to this:

That which is true of all the particulars, as a generall, that must

needs be a genus, and not an integrum to them.

The first Mr. H affirmes; therefore the second cannot be gain∣sayed.

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 per∣son the rock, is hissed out of all, that have attained any eye-salve of the Scripture, to cleere their understanding in the truth there∣of: yet there remaine more difficulties and mysteries in some parts of the Text, which were never seene with any full convict∣ing 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 confesse (for I love to be plaine) that I do in∣cline to Mr. H. his judgement, that the visible church is here un∣derstood: yet I must professe also, that his proofe is no way sa∣tisfactory either to evidence that it must be visible, much lesse a Catholike visible Church:

For when it was objected, that this was an invisible Church, here spoken of, because the visible may faile.

He onely speaks to the second part, that the Catholike Church cannot faile: but that this was not an invisible Church here inten∣ded, he doth not at all prove, nor in truth set about it.

2. His reason whereby he would perswade that the visible Church nunquam deficit; hath not strength in it, nor truth in it, though the conclusion be true, which he would maintaine; For he thus disputes.

If all visible members should faile, then all the invisible must faile also: for none are invisible in this world, but must be visible al∣so: 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 deniall and that I suppose upon second thoughts, he will grant upon his owne principles.

1. For its most certain, that an invisible gracious Saint, may justly be cast out of the Church

2. Its as certaine to Master Hudson that he that is cast out and excommunicate from one congregation, is cast out of all congregations, and out of the Catholike visible Church.

Hence I would reason.

He that is cast out of all visible Churches, and the Church Catholike, 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 Catho∣like.

Therefore a man may remaine an invisible, and yet not be a visible member.

That which is added for proofe 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 weaknesse of his judgement conceiving the Churches not right∣ly gathered, refuse to be baptised, and so be no member of the Church, and yet be a Saint truely gracious, according to their principles.

Againe, suppose a person fall into some notorious evill, 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 in∣visible one.

Its not a little dangerous to lay the foundation of the not fail∣ing of our grace, upon the not failing of Church membership, which this doth. This were enough to make it appeare, that this place lends no reliefe to the conclusion: because it doth not prove a visible Church here intended.

But let this be granted. I would yet adde, that this cannot be a Catholike Church of Master H. his cut. For I would rea∣son from his owne words and explication, which I think have waight in them.

That Church which onely includes the Church of the Gentiles, and that to be built, that cannot comprehend the whole compa∣ny of the faithfull in the whole world, and so cannot be a Ca∣tholike Church.

But this Church, Matth. 16.18. (by Master H. his owne words) includes only the Church evangelicall of the Gentiles.

The Proposition hath sense to settle it, for there were ma∣ny of the Church of the Jewes true believers and profes∣sors.

The minor is Master H. his own expression p. 17.

We are now neere home. The last place, where any strength of dispute lies, is in 2. Epist. of John v. 10. where excommu∣nication is called casting out of the Church.

Answ.

By Church, per synechdochen generis pro specie, which is most fre∣quent and familiar in the Scripture, That particular Church where Diotrephes usurped preeminence, 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 fol∣lowing words. And our ordinary speech is generally in this straine, such a man is cast out of the Church, meaning that parti∣cular congregation in which he was incorporate.

Let us heare how Master H. can force any Catholike visible Church, with any concluding evidence, from hence. His words are as followes.

If the Church here be a visible Church, I would know, whe∣ther a man truely excommunicated in one congregation, is not thereby excommunicated from brotherly fellowship in all congrega∣tions.

I answer, yes, and what is gained from thence? therefore there is a Church Catholick visible. The inference is weak of reason. For when a person is justly excommunicate from the congregation in which he was, it followes of necessity, all that fellowship he might enjoy, by vertue of communion of Churches must of necessity be denied unto him, and he justly deprived thereof: be∣cause in the vertue of his fellowship with one, he gained fellow∣ship 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 Ca∣tholick visible Church should be concluded from hence, I con∣fesse I see not.

If Mr. H. conceive that the party was an actuall 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 mean∣ing, there be as many mistakes almost as words in such expres∣sions; 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 addes. I would know whether the delive∣ring up to Satan, is only within the bounds of one congregation, so that if he remove out of such a circuit or circle of ground to ano∣ther, 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 member∣ship with every particular congregation, and so from the inte∣grall 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 againe communicate, therefore.

This consequence is conjured into such a circle of a conceit that its beyond the compasse of common reason, unlesse Mr. H. should imagine, that excommunication only casts a man out of a circuit of ground or that the power of Satan were only con∣fined to some circle, I wonder how such a consequence came into his thoughts.

The truth is, The power of excommunication lies in the par∣ticular congregation, where a person injoyes his membership with the Saints of God, under the kingdome of Jesus Christ. And when a party is cast out of that, and delivered up unto Sa∣tan, and into the Kingdome of darknesse, let him be where he will, and go where he will, he is under the Kingdome of Sa∣tan, and all the Churches should look at him as a Traytor a∣gainst 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 shew that unity, and so community of the dispensation of Christ in all the Churches of the Gentiles, with which the generall 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 con∣cession and confession of Mr. H. we shall not need to adde any thing of the second.

For this was like the maine pillar, upon which the whole frame was built, which failing utterly, the whole must necessa∣rily fall to the ground. This Question being plucked up by the roots, upon which the other and all the consectaries and colle∣ctions grew, they will wither presently of their own accord. This bottome 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 my selfe and the Reader of any further pains to be improved that way.

Onely for a close, I shall be bold to offer some few considera∣tions to Mr. H. his more serious tryall 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 suddainly expresse my reasons, why as yet I cannot yeeld 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 prudentiall limits, for conveniency of meeting and maintainance, and transacting of businesse.

That which seems here difficult, I shall thus suggest.

1. That severall congregations are separated one from ano∣ther in place; as it is a thing that a mans sense can determine, which admits no gainsaying, so I suppose its not the aime 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 speciall 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 forme whence this act of distinguishing properly issues.

1. That which formally and truly distinguisheth, is internall to the thing: but this is externall and meerly adventitious.

2. That which is common, nor doth, nor can distinguish; but this is so.

3. That which distinguisheth truly, it is the forme of the thing properly and firstly, or else it proceeds as a peculiar pro∣perty from it: its either essentiale constituens or consequens: but this is neither, for neither the forme nor property are sepa∣rable: 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 severall and distinct Churches? As the Dutch and English Churches in Colchester. If the distinction of congregations issued from the li∣mits of the place, then they who were in the same place, they should not be distinguished. Then the Dutch Church in Colche∣ster should be English: for they are both within the same pre∣cincts, and either do or may at severall times meet and assemble within the same stone wals of the Church so called.

5. If the diverse limits of the place, did put a difference distin∣ctive upon a congregation, then the place of the Merchants, mo∣ving from Delph to Rotherdam, because they are in distinct places, therefore they are distinct Churches; and so by moving and set∣ling in severall places, one congregation should differ from it selfe; 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 write, its usuall and suffi∣cient to describe the Church by the place, as the common sub∣ject 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 Jerusa∣lem, beside the Church of the Jewes 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 cohabitati∣on there, or voluntarily assumed, by his voluntary removall into the place allotted out by civill prudence, for such a particular so∣ciety to enjoy such ordinances of God conveniently toge∣ther.

To this assertion I cannot give my assent, and shall presently give in my reasons when I have breifly laid open the meaning of the expressions.

When Master H. seemes to lay severall grounds, by which membership comes to be attained, I suppose in the last resolu∣tion they issue all in one, namely, the constancy of abode and resi∣dence, within the limits of such a place.

For imagine that a man hath an inheritance fallen to him by birth in such a towne, 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 borne heire 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 removeall: If he did but as Travelour and messenger, take up his habitation, I suppose Master H. would not affirme 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, pur∣chase, or hiring, &c. his membership issues from hence imediate∣ly, 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 confesse I doe a little strange that Ma∣ster 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 speake a good word for it.

1. For no civill rule can give an ecclesiasticall right.

Because those are two kinds of goverment opposite one a∣gainst the other, and each of them intire and compleat within it selfe.

2. This destroyes the censure of excommunication and wholly furstrats the power thereof, that it can never attaine 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 Priviledges of membership be devolved upon me by a civill right and cohabitation, This, excommunication nor doth, nor indeed can take awaye. And therefore upon this ground it cannot take away my membership and communion with the Church.

And therefore is by this meanes wholly made voide and of none effect.

3. If right of cohabitation gives membership, Then Turks and Jewes 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 gaine say: In a word, by this grant, all the power of Churches and censures and ordinances would be fru∣strated or prophaned.

The pretended inconvenience which perswades him to imbrace this opinion, is, because, to be in a city, and not to be a member of the Church in the city, it seemes to imply an unchurching of those places, &c.

But I answer it doth but seem so, it doth in no wise doe 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 kinde.

The third Proposition is p. 11.

Particular Churches are made up of the members of the Church Catholike, and partake of the benefits and priviledges of the Church primarily, not because they are members of the parti∣cular Churches, but of the Catholike.

In these words, there is something implied, something expres∣sed: To neither of which I can give assent unlesse some proof bee alledged, which may prevaile with my judgement, and per∣swade thereunto which as yet I see none.

That which is implied is this, That the Catholike Church may have its being, when as yet there be no particular congregations existing; for this the words of the proposition doe necessarily presuppose.

If particular Churches be made up of the members of the Catholike: then the Catholike 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 visi∣ble believers, scattered up and downe in severall coasts of the world, these now according to the methode of Master H. his frame of Church policy will first make up a Catholike visible Church, and out of that, particular Assemblies will afterwards arise.

This is the frame of Master Hudsons Church-policy: but this seemes contrary to the principles of all bodies politick: that ever were, are, or shall be. For there neither is, nor can be an externall body politick (of that kind we now speake) made up and constitu∣ted of people that never were in externall communion one with ano∣ther (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 beleev∣ing in the name of Christ: so many as were sincere have union and communion with Christ invisibly, and so make up an invisible

Church Catholike. But that there should be an externall visi∣ble particular body politick, either civill, or Ecclesiastick (which this Catholica Ecclesia, as Totum integrale, must be) and that con∣stituted of men, which haply never had the sight or knowledge one of another, who never entred into agreement of govern∣ment one with another, is beyond my compasse to conceive, and I suspect any mans ability to explicate and evince.

Againe, that persons thus scattered and severed, are wholly de∣stitute according to reason and all rules of the Gospel, of all Church priviledges,

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, seales, cen∣sures, and so Church Government, and Church Ordinances.

This is undeniable. Because according to Presbyterian prin∣ciples, none of all these can be acted or administred without Offi∣cers.

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.

Againe, I conceive it wil be granted (which cannot be denyed) that these particular persons, thus severed, are membra integrantia of this Catholike 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 Catholike Church gives part matter, part forme, to the particular Churches.

If particular Churches receive their being from the members of the Catholike Church, (as this proposition affirmes;) Then they cannot receive part matter, and part forme from the Totum.

For if Ecclesia Catholica give any matter or forme to the par∣ticular Church, it gives it by its members.

But it cannot give matter or forme by its members.

Because it received all its being, and so all matter and forme from them, but gave none to them.

Therefore they can give none from it.

These intricate difficulties and twistings of controversie which appeare in Master Hudsons frame, keepe me yet that I can give no assent thereunto.

There is a third branch in the Proposition, namely,

That particular Churches partake of the priviledges of the Church primarily, not because they be members of particular Chur∣ches, but because they are members of the Catholike.

Against this we have formerly given in proofe, whether we re∣ferre the reader: and so rest to make any further inquiry touch∣ing this subject of ECCLESIA CATHOLICA VISIBILIS.

CHAP. XVI. We have now done with Church-power. Of Church Communion as it is a peculiar priviledge to the member of a Church.

THe Priviledges of the Church, present them∣selves next to our consideration; and the chiefe of all these which we shall especially attend in this place, is Church-Communi∣on. 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 que∣stion propounded and largely debated by Master Rutherford lib. 2. pag. 269. Whether ordinary hearing be a part of Church Com∣munion. 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 applyed to severall subjects, though it requires a communication of something to all the subjects, yet it ever implyes 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 lyes, yet there is also a specification or determina∣tion of the subject, unto which that is conveyed, whereupon it comes, though all such have it, yet none but such are made parta∣kers of it.

Thus in cities there be severall companies, that maintaine severall communions among themselves: Thus civill communion belongs onely to such a civill state: The like we may say of Church commu∣nion, whereof we now intreate. 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 com∣munion with the Town or people of the Plantation amongst whom they dwell, communion with other Townes who live with them, under the same Jurisdiction and Government, but this is not Church communion, because it is not as a Church, they injoy 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 rela∣tion.

CONCLUSION II.

The communion of the Church lyes,

• Either in the things, which they do injoy as Sacraments, Censures.
• Or else the speciall 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 alwayes peculiar to the Church.

Suppose the Churches be intreated by a company of Indians, whose hearts are stirred with some consideration of the truth, to desire some conferences with severall of severall Churches, and severall of the Common-wealth, that their judgements may fur∣ther be informed, and their consciences convinced, and the course of Godlinesse cleered up unto them: upon the meeting granted, they have liberty, and they take it, to wit, they propound their demands, they heare 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 severall 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 againe, the Church of her selfe appoints a meeting, and appoints the Elders to handle the same questions, to propound and explicate the same Scriptures, in way of answering and clear∣ing 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 vertue of their authority, require and call for the presence and subjection of the people: o∣thers in joy the benefit of the actions, (which as such, are not Church actions,) as hath appeared before, but the manner of dis∣pensation is properly Church worke, and in that they have no Com∣munion with the Church.

And this frequently and familiarly is to be observed in all Cor∣porations, when they meet in publike, many strangers, of severall Counties, Countries, come in to see and heare the benefit of the administrations: But onely the members of the Corporation injoy Corporation communion; i. e. they are onely under the power and authority of the Corporation, and by vertue of that relation are to be there, and to submit themselves to the authority, deli∣vering orders to that end, and may be constrained thereunto, which strangers cannot be, and so it is here.

CONCLUSION III.

Its plaine from Master Rutherford his own grant, that the ordi∣nance it self, nor the publique dispensation therof, nor the hearing of the dispensation doth make Church-communion: For he con∣fesseth 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 undenyably 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 re∣solved hearing. pag. 270.

If by professed, he meanes such a profession as makes a man a member ut supra; this doth yeild the cause, which he would maintaine in appearance, namely, he that is a member of a Church doth communicate in Church Communion.

Never any denyed this.

But if it be the resolution of the spirit of a man inwardly (for there resolution lyes) and profession, outwardly to attend this action of hearing, we then know where to fasten, and we have two questions to discusse.

1. Whether preaching publikely, and publike hearing be a Church action in it selfe considered.

And that this is no Church action, Mr. Rutherford yeilds, which indeed is the main scope and hinge of the question, as it is practi∣sed, and by dispute agitated betwixt us and them.

For if Infidels coming in occasionally, once, twice, twenty severall times, to heare, 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 Com∣munion.

Our Arguments are,

Arg. 1.

That profession, which may stand with the professed opposition and renouncing of the doctrine of the Gospell, and the truth of the Church: That doth not make any Church communion. For opposition pro∣fessed against the truth of the Doctrine, and truth of the Church-state, is crosse to communion with it.

But such a profession ordinary may stand with both these.

For a Jesuit may be hyred, as an intelligencer, to heare and re∣port the Doctrine to others, who set him on worke to that end: or else as a Caviller to undermine it in the hearts of others whom

he would either draw to Popery, or confirme in Popery. He may be a constant hearer, and yet professe that he hates the Pro∣testant 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 heare ordinarily, who have no Church union, or reall 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 worke.

We shall now take Master Rutherford his Arguments into consideration.

Onely we shall crave the Reader to recall two things, (for∣merly evidenced) to mind, and to carry them along in his consi∣deration; and those will help to expedite the Answer, to the reasons alledged 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 it selfe simply considered, may not be a Church action, i. e. proper to the Church, yet the manner of injoyning this, or injoying of it, in vertue of Church-pow∣er, is a Church-worke and way) issuing from Church confe∣deracy and combination.

From these two premises now recalled, formerly proved, It followes,

That the Preacher may in preaching edify the Church met for that end and convince an Infidell coming in occasionally, 1 Cor. 14.24.25. And yet the Infidell doth not joyne in Church com∣munion, though in hearing the word preached by the Officer of the Church: which is an Answer to his first Argument.

Hence the Infidell may be converted, and so injoy the benefit of the ordinance, and be built upon Christ, at that his occasionall coming, and so joyne in worship with them, and yet not in

Church worship, for his own occasionall coming was no Church communion, by Master Rutherford his own grant, which is an Answer to his second Argument.

Hence the Infidell may be called by others, and being so called, he may come and heare, and partake in the worship, and yet not as Church hearing or worship, which is an Answer to the third Argu∣ment.

Hence Church-hearing will be then Church communion, when by vertue of Church covenant they put forth Church power in dis∣pensing, and persons in vertue of that relation stand bound to sub∣mit, in attending to such administrations, and thus all the members heare. But the Infidell heares 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 vertue of the combi∣nation, which they hold by Charter, and so have Corporation com∣munity: others come in by the by, as strangers, and they commu∣nicate in the hearing of the Acts that passe, but not in the Corpo∣ration community, in which they have no share: nor hath the Cor∣poration any power over them, which Answers the fourth Argu∣ment.

Hence this hearing doth not seperate a visible member in gene∣re notiorum visibilium; because it belongs to an Infidell also: which answers the fifth Argument. Nor doth this hearing bring the hearer under any tye, which answers the sixt Argu∣ment.

From this ground thus laid and made good, we may collect severall 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 termes, and the nature of the relation euidence.

But in this hearing of an Infidell, there is no Church communi∣on, 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

sinfull station of his: which hath ever been accounted irratio∣nall, 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 stati∣on of him that doth dispense it, with which they onely com∣municate, who stand in relation to such a one dispensing as their officer.

3. Hence Church-power and Church-priviledges are diffe∣renced in the same act. Priviledges, (in my aime here,) imply that good and benefit which attends any Church dispensation. As take any Church act dispensed, there is. 1. The good and benifit which may rise and be received therefrom. 2. Church like power in the dispensation thereof. And these two, though they goe together, yet are so differenced in reality of their na∣tures, that the one may be injoyed, I meane the good and pri∣viledge of the act, by such who communicate not in the pow∣er. As instance.

A man preacheth authoritatively in his congregation. Indians and Turkes, come to heare occasionally, they partake in the good of the word and dispensation of it. But not in the authority of his ministery. For he is not a Pastor to them nor communi∣cates with them as a Pastor; as it hath beene formerly from Master Rutherford proved.

Hither belong those expressions. 1 Cor 5. & last, what have we to doe to judge those that are without? Matth. 18. let him be to thee as a heathen.

Therefore Haethens come not within the priviledge-re∣spect of a brother in Church-communion, though they come to Church hearing.

And hence it is, as people are more or lesse capable of the good of these dispensations (for so they may be) so they do, and may, partake more or lesse in these priviledges, 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 beene Benefactors to the Charter, they have priviledges to come into the councell of the company, to adventure with them, if they will, and yet have no stroke, by any speciall relation, to act in, or carry on the occasion or de∣signe taken up. Thus members of other Churches are capable of more priviledges 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 appeares 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 seeme good to them. Then are they not under his pastorall 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 injoyne them to re∣ceive it, they cannot challenge it by any speciall interest they have in that power. For the parity of reason is the same on both sides.

That looke, 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 doe, but he could by vertue of his office and relation, injoyne them to heare it. They in vertue of their relation to him as a Pastor could ex∣pect 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 au∣thority, could not require them to heare, nor they, by any rela∣tive interest to his power, could challenge him to speake 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 constraine him to receive it.

2. Remember, that though a member of another congre∣gation 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 con∣gregation that he becomes capable nextly of these seales) 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-priviledges, who doe 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 priviledge of speciall 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 seene in such acts, which issue from that rela∣tive interest which respect the specialty of the covenant of this or that Church. As namely, when members elect, admit, cen∣sure by vote; The formality of these acts is onely proper to them, yet the good and benefit of all these, they who are pre∣sent, partake of.

Instance thus.

Suppose a Penitent is to be received into the Church, the members they expresse their readinesse of love, pity, mercy, brotherlinesse to forgive: others also present joyne thus far in that act, as consenting to, and approving of what they doe ac∣cording to God: yea are much quickned, comforted, incour∣aged yea taught and instructed by that they heare and see, and so receive the good, and are much edified by the ordinance. And yet its that which all men will yeild, they share not, communi∣cate not, at all, in any interest of the po••••r by which such acts were dispensed

Notes

• * 1.1

  Ch. 43.11.
• * 1.2

  Phil. 1.9. Joh. 13.3. Mat. 28.18 Joh. 5.22.
• * 1.3

  Gen. 17.13 Iun. in lo∣cum.
• * 1.4

  1 Kin. 12.3••, 33.
• * 1.5

  Jer. 7.31.
• * 1.6

  As M.R. acknow∣ledgeth. l. 2. p. 10. Ezek. 43.11.
• * 1.7

  Isa. 33.23.
• * 1.8

  1 Joh. 3.8. & 5.19. & 3.10. 2 Tim. 3.5.
• * 1.9

  Rev ••. & 3.1.
• * 1.10

  Lib. 2. p. ••48.
• a 1.11

  Jurisdiction when it is taken in the largest sense, it hath a respect sometime to the fraternall power of the community, which they may and doe put forth according to their place, and the priviledge Christ hath li∣censed them with. And therefore they are said to judge, 1 Cor. 5. (whereof we shall intreat fully, when we come to the proper place thereof, but I intend it not in this place,) and therefore when I speak of the pow∣er of the community, I call it judgement, following the phrase of Scripture.

  2. There is jurisdiction officiall, 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.
• b 1.12

  I take here what serves my purpose in hand, to wit, juris∣diction in a narrow sense, but mean not to take all that they give, as in∣tending to include the exercise of all power thereby.
• * 1.13

  Mat. 21.23
• * 1.14

  1 Tim 4.13, 16.
• * 1.15

  Eccles. 12.10.
• * 1.16

  2 Tim. 2.4.
• * 1.17

  Acts 6.4.
• * 1.18

  Acts 6.2, 3, 4.
• * 1.19

  Rev. 1.18. and 3.7. Isa. 9.6. Phil. 2.
• * 1.20

  1 Cor. 14.34.
• * 1.21

  Eph. 4.11.12. 1 Cor. 12.28.
• * 1.22

  Justif. Separ. p. 134.
• * 1.23

  De concil. con∣trov. 3. q c. sec. nestr.
• * 1.24

  Vbi supra contr. 2. q, 3. c. 1.