SECOND LETTE T O Mr. ATT ON CONTAININ Remarks upon his R e v Objerves on the Original of the Cbriflian Church. By J O H N G V J e r e m. viii. p. Lo they have rejecled the Word of the L(< and what Uifdom is in them ? #» EDINBURGH: Printed by Mr. James 2)awdfov and Company $ and fold by him, and 2). Savdiwan at I erth % G. Lyo?t at ^Dundee, and J. talker at Mm- trofe. ijjr. J > oc 5 #i Second Letter to Mr. Aytone, dec. S I R, r mr---;^"i w * Vf> feen your Letter to me, |||l|§|j||P fmce it has been printed 5 and though I am not of the mind that it deferves an Anfwer, which it alfo feems to forbid 5 and though I have little Hope, that any thing coming from my Pen can have Influence upon your Understanding : Yet not knowing but fome good End may be reached, even upon you, by the Reply I am now making, I have therefore undertaken this Task j and in the perfor- mance of it, though I cannot promife upon myfelf, yet I wifh I may be preferved from every thins hat may unjuftly provoke you, and fo marr the End have in view. My Principles, touching ChrirVs Institution of a vi~ ;fible Church, and the Plan laid down to us in the New A z ^ Te- • [ 4 ] Teftament v jre ^^ty ^ated, and their Foundation in, the New 7^ft amen t, from which they were taken* was plain 1 / P° mte< ^ out in the Explication of theVro- •bofition ^ ne Scheme of Principles there laid down, thou? 1 - contain the main fubftance, and the beft r ./at, for which thefe called Independents con- fided of old, againft them that are called 'Presby- terians j yet is not liable to all the Objections that were framed by the 'Presbyterians againft the In- dependents - ? nor is it capable of all the Confequences that were drawn formerly from the Manner of main- taining the C ongregational Scheme, or from theCon- ceffions made by the Independent Writers. Yet the Author of the Tiefence of National Churches, and you after him, have taken that Independent Scheme £s it was the T'hefis formerly impugned by your Writers, as anfwering beft unto the common Argu- ments. But I not finding myfelf concerned to main- tain any other Scheme of Principles but my own, nor to anfwer for Confequences drawn from any other Pofitions or Concefiions but my own, gave my Thoughts as briefly and clearly as I could,upon thofc commonOb- iec~tions,only as they feemed to me to ly againft what had been by me advanced. And this I did in my Re- marks ®n the defence of National Churches, wherein, tho' I treated with Redicule fomeThings that are tru- ly rediculous in that ^Defence, and in the Paper en- titled, T'he ?zakedTruth -, yet I laid down fufficient Grounds for Anfwers unto all the Objections againft my Principles, that I have yet feen : So that I am convinced, if you had ferioufly considered what is there offered, a great Part of your Book might have been fpared. But your Book gave me Occafion to fpeak more particularly and fully, what I had faid with more Brevity before, and to fhow where the jProof fails in Arguings, that feemed to have ar Foundation in Scripture, and likewife how crofs the Arguings are to the Scriptures, and even to for i \ [ 5 3 Principles maintained by yourfelves. When I pub" liftied my Remarks on the fDefe7tce of National Churches, I, at the fame Time, put to the Prefs an Explication of our Lord's Tejlimony concerning Ins Kingdom before Pilate 5 wherein I endeavoured, as fhortly and plainly as I could, to give an Account of the fpiritual and heavenly Nature of the Kingdom of Chrift, diftincl: from the Kingdoms of this World, and from the ancient Kingdom of God in Ifracl, the earthly Figure of this heavenly Thing; and like wife of the Difference betwixt the New Testa- ment and the Old, and of the Reference of the one to the other, with Refpeft to the Kingdom of Chrift. It was the View I had of the Nature of Chrift: 's Kingdom, that fet me free from the Prejudices I la- boured under, with Refpec~t to his Inftitution of Go- fpel Churches, and difpofed me to attend to the Scripture Evidence for the Principles I now profefs and praclife, as only agreeable to the New Tefta- ment Revelation, infallibly explained in the Old, and to the Nature of the Kingdom of Jefus Chrift : I therefore publi/hed that Book, well knowing, that what I faid of a vifible Church could not be at- tended unto without Prejudice 5 or indeed well un- derftood without a decerning of the Nature of the Kingdom of Chrift, but a true decerning of that would make the other plain and eafy. None of you have yet attempted to give any Anfwer to that Book, though it cannot but appear to you ; and I gave you a Hint of it in the Clofe of the Obferves, that if I be in a Miftake, the Foundation of it is laid forth in that Book, as 1 clearly fee the Foun- dation of all your Oppofltion unto the Principles pro- feffed by me, touching the vifible State of Chrift's Kingdom in this World, is laid in Ignorance of, and Inadvertency to the Nature of his Kingdom, as mwifefted in that Book by the Scriptures of the Old and New Teftament : Till we be, there- fore, at one about this Matter, we can never com* toge- If] together upon the Queftions now in Debate betwixt you and me* and fo I once more recommend to your ferious Study the Scheme of Principles declar- ed in that Book, which if you overthrow, you will prepare me to receive Conviclion from what you alledge againft _ the Congregational Way, and in Behalf of National Churches. When I flood be- fore the CommilTion, ready to receive a Sentence of Depofition from the Miniftry of the Gofpel, for profening and praclifing Congregational Principles ', after I had profeflfed and praclifed the National Ones, I laid before my Judges a fliort State of my Difference from them in that Matter, and a Sum of the Reafons of that Difference, which if you, or any other, had but fairly impunged, the Controver- fy might have been brought to a clear and fhort Ifllie 5 but it feems you had not Occafion to per fe that Speech before your Book was gone to the Prefs, and now, when you have perufed it, you pafs a ge- neral Cenfure upon it, which is, no doubt, your Judgment 5 but you hare not brought forth the Grounds of your Judgment, that the Appearance of Reafon and Revelation, which you muft own had Weight with me, might feem as little in my Eye as in yours $ yet this had been a greater Service done to your Fellow- creature, though more labori- ous, than your Cenfure. You have indeed excerpted a few Things out of that Speech, and treated them as you fee good, as I fliall notice in the Clofe : But it has not been your Defign to attempt fo much as a Hior,t Anfwer to the Appearance of Revelation and Reafon, that is ft ill to be found there. Your Review is upon the Objerves, and follows the Order ef them, and fo direcls my Courfe in ob- serving upon it: I ftiall therefore follow upon them, takingNotice chiefly where your Eye fixes on any Part .jof the Scripture, which, I am ftill of the Mind, muft only decide this Controverfy, and it is reafo- jiable we ftiould hear its Decifion. I am obliged to [ 7 3 to fay in the Entry, that my Obferves, at which you fecm not a little offended, are very much ftrength- ned and confirmed to me by your Review 5 and whether they will be fo to the attentive Reader, if any fuch there be, the Event will declare. My ilrft Obferve touched the Manner of Writers for claffical 'Presbytery againft the In dependent j, and your Conformity to them, which I blamed, and I gave feveral Inftances. The firlT, viz. Flying to hu- man Authority in the Pinch where Scripture Evi- dence is defired, you have verified abundantly in your Review, where you tell of c Pi$catcr> ^Parens, Calvin, great Names I own, but very ill ufed, where they lerve only to fill up a Vacancy of Proof. Yeu make fome Apology for ufing the Authority of Doclor Owen, when you fay, " That in fo doing you 41 take an Argument from the Mouth of an Adver- " fary j" though yet you would have it believed, his Judgment wasftronger in Favours of 'Presbytery than Independency. As to which I ihall only fay, I know his Judgment belt by his Writings j and I wifh I had fuch (Presbyterians to do with as the Doflor was, and fuch Congregations as was his Church, to which you may fee his Letter in his Sicknefs, printed in the Folio Edition of his Ser- mons 1 721. But if I were to ftudy Conformity to you in this Bufinefs about Authors, and take what you call an Argument from tie Month of Adverfa- rieSy I might tell you of the Scots Confeifion of Faith, that owns no other Church but the myftical Body, and a fingle Congregation. I might direel: you to Calvin on Afts a. 46, and 5. 12, 13. and 15. 4, 22. and 21. 22. and 1 Cor. 5. 4. I might point out to you, as to the Defender of National Churches, Soyd on the Ephefians, chap. iv. yer. 11. fag, 502, 504- And Gillefpy's Engl. "Pop. Cerew. Tart 3. fDig. 1. and 4. And I might alio defire you to read and confider Altare fDamafcemtw, de Epifcopi p te* fttite extevfwa, pag, aotf, 2.07. kteft Edition, gf<- # And C 8 ] And thus I would not be behind with you, in taking the Advantage of the Conceflions of them you pre- tend to follow, as you do throughout your Review with the Conceffions of the Indcpeiidents. But it is a poor Shift to take Shelter under the Authority of Friend or Adverfary, where fcriptural Defence fails, or to rill up the Place of Scripture-proof by any human Authority. When I was reading the fhing Sin- gularities. The Divines of Weflminfler did their belt to anfwer unto what was advanced againft them. And it lies upon you to anfwer to the diftinguifh- ing and fingular Advances, which you fay have been made by me. Though I would put your hard to \t % if I required you to /hew me the Advance I have mad* c 9 i iaacle, wherein I have not fomc renowned Author, or Commentator with me 5 yet their Authority can avail me nothing without Scripture : And while 1 have theWord of God, and theFootfteps of the firft Flocks that followed Chrift fet before me there, I need not take ill with the old Reproach of Singularity. If you take that Company from me, I fhall own my- felf fingular, though I had a million of your Au- thors about me 5 but till you do this, which I am fatisfied you have not, pleafe forbear the old Jew* ijh and f0 i( ' You wil1 not % that the Scripture is w ,flng or treating the Perfons of Men with burlefque 4? ignominious Names, when it'gives that Name to a- ny Society to which you think it is applicable, and when it calls the Lord's People to come out of that Society : And would not the Men of that Society, who declare it the raoft decent and orderly, and a- greeable to the Will of God, and where the Lord's People have been for many Ages, $$c. pronounce you a foul mouth'd Heretick and Schifmatick, and a Railer, in applying that Name to that Society ? And whatever that Society be, you'll find the zealous Con- tenders for it profefs as great Certainty about their Conftitution as you do about yours, and can profefs no lefs Zeal in Oppofition to what they call Liberti- nifm and Uncertainty as you can do. But after all, you are certainly in the Right in feparating from them, and that Society is to you Bahyloti. Very well, follow your Judgment. Yet you rnuft own, you have as little Right to dictate to others the Senfe of the Word Babylon* as they have to dictate to you. Next you fay, I call particular Perfons malicious Perverters of the Scripture ; and this fesms to me to arife from thefe Words of mine, touching your Application of s. Tim. 3 ch» to them that feparate from your Pari/h Communion. "While you thus malicioufly pervert " the Holy Word of God, to fhew that Men ought to u . turn away from the Objects of your Hatred." From that Paflage in the Ofrjerves, the Perveriion of that Text will be manifeft to the Reader, when he con- siders it, and when he reads your Application of it in your Words by me quoted. If he can fay that it was made in the Obfervat/on of that Word of God, i IPet. ii. i, 2. yea if your own Confcience can fay it, then let it ftand for an Inftance of my Railing. But if it be otherwife, as Calvin s Name and Senfe of the Text will not clear you of Guilt, fo it was meet you fhould have treated the Admonition I gave you, and the Adnionifher, otherwife than to turn again and «*nci rcliu iiixu* j.iv/«.t, jvj»* *»J, * vaijt paiutuiai a t*- fons Detainers of the Truth in Unrighteoufnefs 5 and fo far as I can know, the Foundation of this Charge it in thefe Words of mine. "If you receive any Convicti- * on from what I have faid, do not ftifle your Convic- Infallibility, fo c< we hold a pofitive Certainty of our Principles, in " Oppofition to Libertinifm and Uncertainty." Thus I have gone thro' your firft General Libel, which has all ^he Characlerifticks of a Calumny. Page 14.. However you may be angry with a Church's determining Circumftances of Time and Place 5 Have you (et down the different Pages whereon this Inconfiftency is founded? No, that would have at once fpoiled all. Page 36. Nay, In what Page of my Book is this Fancy laid down * This was not confident with the Nature of your Ob- ferveSy to tells us Page 58. you have concealed the Page where they are to be found, for Ends beft known to yourfelf. Page fing imagina- ry Inconfiftencies, and I expecT: you'll fhew an equal Skill in reconciling a real one. J^age [ *9 ] Page 87. I am wearied with fuch trifling, and am refolved to be no more with it 5 fo you may write, and impofe on the Credulous as much as you have a Mind : But the Event of thefe Things is dan- gerous. Page 8p« Sir, I have finifhed my Anfwer, and I hope in an Agreeablenefs to my Promife in the En- try, and muft now tell you, that more notorious Mif- reprefentations, bafe Calumnies, and uncharitable Cenfures were never caft upon any Society of Men. I proceed now to the fecond Objerve^ wherein you find yourfelf charged with Inconfiftencies, in managing a Difpute againft the Epifcopalians and Independents in one and the fame Book : For, under your Correcti- on, I offered fome Inftances that ferved to confirm me in my Opinion, that it is not meet to engage in fuch a Difpute. Of the firft Inftance you endeavour to clear your- felf by fignifying, "That a Court meeting in the £ Name of Chrift, and acting in his Authority, is * merely circumftantial, and a Matter left by Chrift c to be managed according to his general Rules of 1 Decency and Order 5 but an Officer acting in his Name, is a Thing efTential, and fo different from 1 what is purely circumftantial, as that of more or { fewer Courts in any Church is." But what is the Difference, and how comes the one to be eflential, and the other purely circumftantial ? And why may not the fame Apology be made for the Epif- copal Subordination of Officers, not exprefly in- ftituted, that you made in your Book for the ^Pref- byterian Subordination of ruling Courts, not expref- ly jnftituted? You tell me, "It is falfe; that there " is neither apoftolical Example nor Precept, for the " Subordination of Judicatories." And the Epzfco- falian can tell you with no lefs Scripture Evid nee, that it is falfe 5 there is neither apoftolical Example or Precept for the Subordination of officers ; and if you will take their Suppositions, whereby they ex- C 2 plain [ 2° 3 plain Scriptures, and draw Confequences from them, as you would have me to grant your Suppofitions, and admit your Confequences, they'll give you two Scriptures for one. But I was fpeaking of thefe three Courts, Kirkfejfions, ^Provincial Synods and National Synods \ for which you cannot pretend apo- flolical Example or Precept. Next, you tell me, " If the Proportion of my Pa- " ralel have any Thing in it, it is this, viz. Be- " caufe Solomon hath faid, In the multitude of Conn- " fellers there is Safety? therefore it is equally fafe whereby you correcl your former AfTertion, ferves to enlarge the churches of Jerufalem and JEpheJiis* but [ 3i ] but not to extricate you. After enquiring at me, where is the Inconfiftency ? you tell me en the one Hand, " I hold, that the church of Efbefiis imports " only the Chriftians in that city, or its Neigh- " bourhood ', and yet it muft be taken diftributive- " ly for feveral congregations therein." But you fhould alfo have told, that this was one great Rea- fon» why it fhould be fo taken, viz. that the Suc- cefs of the Gcfpel preached in Efhefus, extended throughout all Jfia. Then, on the other Hand, you tell me, " I hold againft Doctor Hammond* that " the church of Efhefus cannot be taken diftribu- " tively for all the churches of Jlfia. Now the " whole Secret is out :" And I alfo fay, now the whole Secret is out. The telling of a part has brought out the whole. On the 5th Inftance you make a very loud Cry a- gainft me ; but you as little clear yourfelf as on any of the foregoing. You had infer'd from what I faid upon ABs xv. in the Explication of the Vropofition^ how juftly I /hall not now ftay to declare, "He plain- " ly grants this Synod had a dogmatical Power, but " not that of Jurisdiction and Cenfure." Againft this you endeavour to prove that the one could not be without the other, becaufe and gi?e him Leave to tell you, that your Arguments from the State of the Church before Cbrifts Refurre&ion, will not prove the like under the New Teftament 5 for the New Teftament Church was not founded till Chrffi* Refurreclion. You pro- E z ceed [ \6 ] ceed, and fay farther, cannot there lignify in one place 1 ox in the fame place* You cite Acls iii. 1. But were not Peter and John together in one Place, when going up into the Temple, walking to- gether ? Next you have Atls iv. 26. of which we have been fpeaking. Then you bring 1 Cor. xiv. 22. where the Evidence of the Text obliged our Tranl flators, as good Grammarians, and as little Indepen- dent as yourfelf, to render it in o?ze place. And then you have Luke xvii. 35. which you may com- pare with Matth. xxiv. 41. and fee if you can fetch any Argument _ from thence to exclude one place from the Meaning of «** to ayro there. Tour Gram- mar upon it, and the various Tranflations of it by learned Men, while all muft own it fometimes fig- nifies in the fame place ', fignify nothing till one Text be produced in the New Teftamenr, where it can be proven, that it muft be tranflared otherwife. And let me tell you, after what I have faid, this has never yet been done. But I had almoft forgot the new State of your Queftion to me on Acts iv. 16. You put the Queftion again thus, " Whether Herod " and C 4? 3 " and fontius dilate, the Kings of the Earth, and " the Rulers were gathered together in one Place " againft the Lord and his Chrift ?" Though this State of it be as little agreeable to the Text as the former, and fo as little needing any Anfwer from me; yet becaufe you fay, that by my own Confeflj- on Herod and "Pontius 'Pilate did not gather toge- ther in one Place againft Chrift, I now think it pro- per to tell youi that Luke xxiii. 12. hinders me from confefling, that thefe whom you call the Kings of the Earth and the Rulers, even Herod and Pontius Tilate, did not meet together in one Place againft Chrift. And I do not underftand what you intend by faying, " That the People of Ifrael did not ga- " ther together into Pilate's Judgment-hall, John " xviii. 28." feing your Intention cannot be to fhew, that they were not gathered in one Place whhPilate i becaufe you faw the contrary in the 20. Verfe. 1 ani ftill of the Mind, that they who underftood *•** t <*uT0 here to fignify in this City 5 took the Meaning of it to be in one place 5 for it fhould be ufed to fignify on* fuch place as a city , as it would not in that Cafe point to one Houfe, fo it would not point to diftincl Places and diftinft AfTemblies 5 there behoved to be another Word for that, while the Meaning of g-rz to avro is ftill in one place ; and there is no one Place to which it can be applyed, wherein there* are not in fome Senfe many Places* And when we do not read of the Houfe in Jeru- falem, where Pilate and the Jews met together, Jolm xviii. 28, 29. yet we are fure they met fo as to fpeak together Face to Face in that Place j and fo likewife did Herod and they. As to AEts \u 44. you muft get another Argument to prove, that «ri ro avTo there fignifies different Spots or Houfes in Jervfalem, than any that can be drawn from their eating their Meat from Houfe to Houfe, or from their breaking Bread in that common eating, plain- ly diftincl from the fccred breaking of Bread, and F t eating [ 44 ] eating the Lord's Supper in the church, when they were all urt to a.vr%s compare i Cor. xi. ch. ipiQipaJlot has not the fame Import withe en 19 «tx/T*, but imports as where you find the two toge- ther, AtJs iu i. the perfonal concurrence of feverals in the fame Aclion, as they of lyre and Sidon, with whom Herod was difpleafed, came to him, that is, the Managers and A6tors in the chief Government of lyre and Sidon. You ufe too much Freedom with ABs viii, 6, 10. when you attribute what's faid in the 10. Verfe to Philip \ while it is fpeak- ing of the Heed- given to Simeon Magus 5 for you fay, ^Afts viii. 6. The Samaritans are faid with •* one Accord to give Heed to 'Philip \ even from 45 the leaft to the greateft, *ver. 10." 3. You drop you former Reafon why the whole Church, and they all, could not conftru£t, and you differ from the Tranflators, who, by the Parenthefis, plainly make for me. And I am {till furprifed with your Imagination, that you fpeak according to the Judgment of the Tranflators, when you would have the Apoftles within the Parenthefis, and the whole Church without, dealing with it as you did with Solomon's Porch 5 but now you grant that the whole Church was in Solowwis Porch, yet you will not let the Text fay fo. You give a frefh Proof ot your Ability for Criticifm upon this Head 5 for now you bring forth two Portions in Place of the former,tofhew, that they all cannot be conftru&ed with the whole Church. The firft feems to be this, that the whole Church is not the immediate Antecedent of they all, and fo cannot be conftru&ed with it. But by this Rule they all cannot be conftrucled with the A- poftles, but with the people, its immediate Antece- dent. And if you be to eftablifh this as an univer- fal Rule, that the Relative muft be conftrucled with its immediate Antecedent, you will make odd Work with the Scripture, if you make not fome Excepti- ons j as for Inftance, z W#tf* ii. 8, 9, $Text you tell me, [ 4? 1 me, " The Relative and the Antecedent muft be in " the fame Gender; and that where the Antece- " dent is a collective Noun." And you affirm, "That " the Relatives and the Antecedents are in the fame " Gender in theTextsthat I noted down to you," per- haps imagining, that no Reader that underftands lan- guage would trouble himfelf to cart: his Eyes on 2 Thefc i. 1, 2, 3. And I doubt not but you will adixm, that the Relative and antecedent coJle&ive NOua are in the fame Gender, Auis xxiv. 20, 21. 1 am clear from the ApofHes Argument and plain Sccrpe^ that they, Acts xv. it. conftrucls with Fathers 5 but the Difference of the Gender could not hinder they to conftruft- with the Nations, or cI^q there is wrong conftruclion in that chapter, which I will not eafily acknowledge 5 fee for Inftance Verfe 17. I muft tell you Criticifm requires more fedate and nice circumfpe&ion, than perhaps either you or I have Iieifure or Ability for 5 and we may fee that it is not fafe in all cafes to truft to Iearn'dCri ticks, even where they are pofitive: And therefore we may leave it to others of more Ability and Leifure, while we are employed to better Parpofe. You charge me here with fetting light of the Con- text, and you repeat this ieveral Times in your Letter. The Foundation of this Charge, fo far as I can underftand, is, That when you dealt fo with the Text and Context, as you deal with Atts viii, tf> 10, I told you what the Text faid, and did not dilTemble as to the Context. And my Anfwer to your Charge is plainly this, That I am for taking all the Help unto the Underftand ing of the Text that the Context will afford me j but I am not for making the Context to be the Text 5 and herein I differ from you, who charge me with making light of the Context, for no other Reafon that I know, but becaufe 1 wiU not fay, that the Context is the Text. 4. Xot C & 1 4. Tou fay, " I thought you was in my Mercy " to a Feaft in ^erufalem^ when Taul went \ " AEls xxi." and fo you complain of my marki the Page in that cafe. And thus, it feems, wl ther I mark your Pages or not, you will be fure mark my bafe Intentions. I own I could not und ftand the Ground of your mighty confidence, in 1 mtnding a Proof for my Infinuation, that there \ 2l Feaft in Jeritfalem when Haul went up 5 but n I perceive it was your Skill in Metaphyficks, 2 your Ability thereby to deny confequences, wh even an Independent would blufh to deny. Anc have learned, from the Swatch of your Metapl ficks on this and fome other Heads, that it is in v for me to impugn you, even though you fhould d< the plaineft Fact recorded in the Scriptures. As to your partial Way of quoting Affs ix. to prove the Multiplication of the church in °}e falem y you do not make any Defence of your I tiality in citing the Text, which was the Th complained of j and fo I have you convicted on t Point, but not filenced, as long as you can talk fide the Purpofe : For, as to that Text and J. xii. 24. you come off, faying, " Th&tjerufalem 1 " her Share," and you make the beft of that ; can , for that city was Iargeft, and therefore behc then to have the Iargeft Share. But you recc yourfelf fully on this Head, and come off in 1 umph, by Means of a Proof you have found h for a church in the lingular Number, containing der it many fingle churches. And this is the Ar ment in your own Words, " For it is faid, ABs : ,c 1. Herod ftrerched forth his Hand to vex cerl tc of the church. This, I hope, was not only ** church in Jernfalem^ nor the church as invifil f* Quo minime ere das gurgite pifcis erit." Y Hope here feems to be very firm,but what theGroi of this Hope is, I cannot tell, if it be not this, t •Herod fir etched forth his Hand to vex certain of C 47 ] the Churches * that could receive Additions by the Growth and Multiplication of the Word after he died j or that Herod could not perfecute the invifible Church no more than Saul could perfecute its invi- fible Head 5 and upon fuch like Grounds of Hope, you may expert, to find your Fi/h in any Pool, yea and find it, according to that, Crede quod hales & 'babes. You give two Reafons, to fhew that all the Myri- ads of believing Jews, A&s xxi. were Members of the Church in Jervfalem. The firft is, "Becaufe u they were not fuch as could bear any Witnefs a- M gainft 'Paul, but by Hearfay, they are informed of " thee." And, to ftrengthen what you fay on this Head, itfeems to me that the Text di ft ingui fries the Myriads of believing Jews that were zealous of the Law, from the Jews among the Gentiles whom 'Paul taught 5 and fo from the believing Jews his Difciples among the Gentiles, who are not declared to be zea- lous of the Law. Yet there were by this Time Mul- titudes of believing Jews, zealous of the Law, through^ out Jndea and Galilee, and in other Parts, befidc thefe among the Gentiles taught by Paul, who were not Members of the Church in Jervfalem, but, in their Zeal for the Law, werereforting from Time to Time to the Feafts in Jerufalem, and to the Feaffc that then was. Now none of the believing Jews, but thefe that heard him teaching the Jews among the Gentiles, could witnefs againft him, but byHear-fay: And is it probable to you, that all other believing Jews, even all of them that were zealous of the Law, were Members of the Church in Jervfalem ? Your fecond Reafon is, "It is plai/i, thefe only of Jervfa- V lem could receive Satisfaction by Paul's Gonfor- " mity to the Law at that Time, and not others." But how is it plain that other believing Jews zealous of the Law, befide the Members of the Church in Jervfalem, were not in Jervfalem at th^t Time ? Have you made it plain, that there was no Feaft at -Jew] a* lem [ 48 ] lem at that Time, and that the believing Jews in o- ther Places zealous of the Law, were not there ? I thought that the outmoft Drift of all your Streach- cs on that Head, was to /hew, that it was pofii- ble Tatd did not get up to Jervfalem at the Time he propofed, tho J he made all the Hafte he could to be there, or that it did not involve a Contradi- ction to fay, that, though Paul made hafte on his Journey to be at Jervfalem on the Day of Pentecofl y and tho* the Jews of Jfia were there at that Time, yet there was no Feaft in Jernfalewi at that Time. And is it t us plain to you, that thefe only ofjeri.falem could receive Satisfaction by cPanW Conformity to the Law at that Time ? Or would you fuffer an Independent to fee Thing* plain at this Rate ? But, though it be moft plain from the facred Hiftory, that there was a Feaft in Jerufalem at that Time, yet though there had been none, what readier Way was there to fatisfy all the believing Jews that were zealous of the Law every where, than to fatisfy thefe of Jerzifalem by conforming publickly to the Law at that Time? 5. You do not meddle with what I faid touching your Criticifms on *«* t« *7*9g* » and befide fome Reflecti- ons and a Complaint about Pages, and References to Pages of your Eook, to oblige the Reader, perhaps weary cf your Book before, to read it over again, I find nothing but what is by no Means to the Purpofe $ namely, that the churches in the firft three centu- ries, according to King y were not independent of councils. For the Queftion was, if the cr*v to ■jrAutof of each of thefe churches came together in one Place to obferve the Ordinances of Worfhip ? And if each of them had but one Altar or many? And if the *-** to t*»8-< under the Care of a primitive Pres- bytery or Bifhop came together in cne Place to eat the Lord's Supper? And all your Anfwer is, they Were not independent. I own, as J faid before* they Were fomeWay dependent on councils after the Rife of the [ 49 ] the one Bifhop, and as a confequent of that* but the one Bifhop is with you an Innovation, and fo is that confequent of it. ples in any City of Crete could have El- ders when Titus was with them. 7. As to the next Inftance touching the Word Brethren, your Bufinefs was to prove that it denoted always Perfons in Office, and even when diftingui/h- ed from Officers, as Atis xv. or you faid nothing to your Purpofe. But have you now manifefted that the Word 'Brethren is any where by itfelf ufed to diftinguifh Perfons in Office from thefe that are not in Office? Nothing like it that I fee^ and I told you before I did not fee how it could be done. You fay now, " The Brethren, in the xv. of the Affs, have 41 fuch Work afcribed to them, and are joined with 44 others in jurifdic"t.ional Acts, which in very clear 44 Terms difcover they were Brethren in Office , and 44 on this Foundation I have called them fo." But this is only an AfTertion of the grand Point to be proved, and you muft look about for another Mean of Proof, than the Import of the Word Brethren, from whence you was bringing a Proof for it before. You tell me, you have a ftrong Imagination, that the Name Brethren is taken in the Senfe you have been pleading for, Acts xv. 7. on which Text you propofe a Queftion to me thus. " Sir, Was the Choice 44 made among us private Perfona ?" You alfo anfwer your Queition and fay, " Peter himfelf was a Per- 44 fon in Office, and this Choice was made out of the " Multitude, to which he addrefTed himfelf: But if ,4 the Choice was made out of this Multitude, theB 44 thefe, out of which the Choice was made, mi: ft " be fuppofed to be in Office, or in fnfjfri tj\"iftirr v 44 qualified with him for that Office " to the Gentiles" Here you *Peter, Afts xv. 7. is addreffing h' tiude, out of which God mad C *\* B^chJ^ + vledge that ^ C 52 ] preach the Gofpel firft to the Gentiles, L e. to Cor- nelius and them with him, Acts x. Chap, before there was any Church of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria or Cilicia. From this I have a ftrong Imagi- nation, that 'Peter is not addrefiing himfelf to a Synod, whereof the Officers of the Churches in Antioch, and Syria and Cilicia were conftitutive Members 5 but to a Society that had a Being before any Church of the Gentiles was, and before there can be any Pre- tence of a Synod : For you do not fo much as pre- tend a Synod till the xv. of the A5is, and I reckon you imagine that you have there the firft Synod. And the Us among whom the Choice was made are, as is plain from the whole of 'Peter's Difccurfe, and from this Text, Jews diftinguifhed from the Gentiles 5 fo that he is neither addrefiing himfelf to the Gentiles perfonally prefent, nor represented there ; but he is ad- areifing himfelf to the Company that fent the Epiftle containing the Decrees to Antioch, Syria and Cilicia. Again, by us I can imagine no other Society to be intended, but that fame which at the Eeginning re- ceived the Gift of the Holy Ghoft, even the firft Church of the Jews, the Church in Jerufalem, which, notwithftanding of all that had pafled oyer it, was ftjll in Being when Peter was here fpeaking^ and this my Imagination has fome Foundation in the Situation of us in the Hth and 9th Yerfes. When 'Peter has done difcourfrng to this Society, and there- upon they all gave Ear to the Information of Paul and Barnabas, James addrefles them again thus, ver. 13. Men and Brethren hearken unto we, ver. 14. Simeon hath declared how God at the firft did vijit the Gentiles, ver. 19. Wherefore my Sentence is, that we trouble not them which from among the Gentiles are turned to God. But that we write un- to them, ckc. And when his Speech to them is con- cluded, it is faid, per, a. Then pleafed it the Apoftles and Elders, with the whole Church, to fend chofen Men of their own Company to Antioch* with [ « ] with

and the Appearance of that,as in Baptifm, which belongs to every yifible Member of the true myftical catho- lick Body of Chrifl % and to none elfej a communi- on in the Body and Blood of Chrift, and a commu- nion in that Bread and Cup which it fhews forth j a communion in the one Faith, or in that Word whereby we are united to Chrift, as it is believed in the Heart, and a communion in it as it is confef- fed with the Mouth $ a communion in the Spirit of Chrift^ as he is the Worker of Faith in the Heart, and a communion in that Spirit as he is the Author and Worker of Gifts, and enables us to make the fcriptural confeflion of that Faith . I fay, if this be your Meaning, you fay well 5 but thefe two Com- munions have a very near Relation to one another. And while any Perfon has a Right, according to Chrift's Law, to that which you call a Communion merely in external Privileges, neither you nor I have any Ground to think otherwise of that Perfon, but that he has communion in thofe Privileges which you call faving; for when their Profeffion in the Event proves falfe to us, then as to us they have no Right to the external (Communion. You fay, " That thefe that "have a Right to the external Communion, are If fome W*y laid to be ingrafted into Cforifl* tho* ' " ' £ they [ <5i ] *• they do not abide in him, nor bring forth Fruit, " Jthn xv. 2, 6" But if they be fome Way faid to be in Chrifl himfelf, according to that Scripture, and Rom x. 7, %.,Jobn iv. 15, &c. may they not in that fame Way be faid to e in that catholick myftical Church, which is his Body? And as thefo who are thus in Chrifl are faid to be taken away, fo we are told, that Chrift at his coming will gather out of his Kingdom all 'things that offend* and them which do Iniquity : Thefe, therefore, were in that his Kingdom, which ftill ftands after they are gathered out of it, that is, the holy heavenly King- dom of Jefus Chrift $ and they are tak~n out of it as the fruitlefs Branches in Chrifl are taken away from him, and as the Man, among the Guefts at the Wedding, wanting the wedding Garment, is ta- ken away from among the Guefts, and from the Wedding. Thus, this one Text brought by your- felf, ferves at once to eftabli/h my Thefis, and to overthrow your Arguings for a catholick vjfible Church, drawn from thefe Scriptures that fpeak of Perfons being in the Church and Kingdom of Chrifl, who yet are not Elecl, and believe not with that true and lively Faith that worketh by unfeigned Love. Laflly % You lay down this Pofition, " That from " all thefe Confiderations, there arifeth alfo a two- *' fold Face, or Form of the Church of Chrifl here " on Earth, the one vifible, which confifts in an open " Profeflion of the Chriftian Faith, and Practice of " the Duties of Worfhip $ the other fpiritual, invi- u fible and myftical, which owes its Original to E- " lection, and is confumate in a lively Faith, which " worketh by Love." What you mean by the fpi- ritual, inviflble, and myftical Face or Form of the Church of Chrifl here on Earth, I confefs I do not underftand : But not to infift on the Words wherein you exprefs the Diftinftion, 1 fhafl tell you how far I own a Diftinftion on this Subject, according to what I have [ 62 ] I have' before laid down. There is one holy Ca* tholick Church made up of all them in Heaven and on the Earth that are born of the Spirit ; and this Church i^not, it felf, to be feen till' Chrift appear 5 yet of this Church, every one in the Earth, that is according to the Law of Chrift, an Object of the Chriftian brotherly Lov , is a vifible Member, and is, to us, in that Church by the Law of Chrift, and, as fuch, has a Right to Baptifm, wherein we are all baptifed into that one Body 5 But many that are fuch, prove in the Iflue to have been no real Members of that Body, tho' they were vifible Membersof.it. There is alfo a Church, confifting of vifible Mem- bers of the heavenly Church, vifibly joined together in the Prefeflion of the Chriftian Faith, Hope and Charity, and aflembling together in one Place to par- take of the Lord's Supper, and to obferve all Chnft's Institutions continuing ftedfaftly together in them 5 and; in every fuch vifible Church, the myftical Church is fhewed forth and reprefented to us 5 but befides this, I do not know of any vifible Face or Form of a Church upon the Earth. You tell me that your Di- ftinelion is pointed out to us by the Apoftle ^ohn ii. 19- T'hey went out from us, but were not of us, *They went 01 'it from us y that is, fay you, from the vi- fible Aflembiy of thofe who profefled Chriftianity. But they were of the Profeflbrs of Christianity 5 and the Apoftle fays, they went out from us of whom they were not, but appeared to be j and their going out manifefted them not to be of us of whom, if they had been really as they once appeared, they would no doubt have continued with us. So that the Us> from whom they went, are the very fame with the Us of whom they were not, that is, by your own Acknowledgment, the Society of the Elect that are effectually called. And they went out from them, by going from that whereby they appeared to be of them, i. e. the Right Gofpel Profeflion, and whep they were gone, the Apoftle recJ&on'd all them, that held faft t 63 ] faft the Gofpel Profeflion to be of that Society, of which whofoevcr really is they will continue. Where- fore this Scripture, if you'll confider it a little more narrowly, it is indeed a great Support to my T'lefil and Anfiiers to the 'Pofitions as I have laid them down, but not to yours, nor to your Catholick vifible Church. In the Conclufion of your Portions you own what you feem'd before to impugn, 'viz. " That it is £- " greeable to the Nature of this fecret State of Man, " which is only certainly known to God, to difcover '• it felffo far as to give a credible Ground of Cha- " rity." But you add, " Yet not fo as if it could be " discovered in all by pofitive Determination to be u really different from its Counterfeits*" And upon this I would ask you, when you come to have that credible Ground of Charity, are you not bound to cxercife that Charity that thinketh no Evil* And who gave you Power to go about to judge in a Matter wherein God alone can judge, f. e. to difcover it in any to be really different from its Counterfeits ? And feeing this neither can nor ought to be done by you, are not you charitably to judge it to be real and not counterfeit, while you have the credible Ground of Charity ? Are not you therefore bound to look upon ev.ery one in whcm this credible Ground of Charity is found, as a Member of the Ge- neral Affembly and Church of theFirft-born, and a£fc toward him accordingly as did the Apoftles ? But after all, how flows this Inference of youri from your Pofitions ? " Thus when Chrift gave Offi- " cers to his Church, it was not to her as invisible " but as vifible." Your next Miffive, if you conde- fcend to continue the correfpOndence, muft fatisfy us as to that. Having laid down thefe Things, you come next to the Vindication of the Texts ttack'd by me, as not importing a vifible but an inv fible Church. But all that I fay is, that they do not import a catholick vi- fible [ 64 ] fible church diftincl from the holy catholick myftical church, and from the vifible churches of the Saints, in every one p£ which that invifible catholick Body is fhewed forth : And til] you prove that thefe Texts can neither be underftood of the one nor the other of thefe, nor both, you cannot find your catholick vi- fible church in them. You begin with the firft, which is, i Cor. i. i. connected with i Cor- xii. 28. and Palling, for your own Eafe, what I fay on that Connexion, under the Notion of angry V ords and Invectives, you contend, that it is your political catholick Body that's meant 1 Cor. xii. and not the invifible or myftical Body. And you fay feveral Things in the Proof of this. It is evident, fay you, in that there were Apoftles, Prophets and Teachers fet in this Church, that it is not meant of the invifible or myftical Body. This was faid before and anfwered, and the mere Repeti- tion of it cannot take off the Anfwers. But you think you add, when you alledge, that the myftical Body is not political, i. e. as I take it, it has not the Gifts of Apoftles, Prophets, Teachers, fet in it, and is not this a mighty Addition ? That it is your Ca- tholick Body political that's meant, you feem to prove thus : For, fay you, Chrift is the Head by his ipecial Guidance and Means, and the Difpenfation of his Ordinances no lefs than myftical by his fpiri- tual Influences. By which it feems you reckon Chrift is not the Head of the myftical Church, or the Church of the Firft born by his fpecial Guidance and Means, and the Difpenfation of Ordinances, and that he is not the Head of any vifible Church, bur only of the myftical, by his fpirirual Influences. Or if this be not what you are faying, let any Man declare to me what you are faying to the Purpofe. When you have repeated your AfiTcrtion, contrary to plain Scrip- tures brought to you in the Obferyes, that Apoftles, Prophets and Teachers are not fet in the myftical Bo- dy of thrift 5 you tell me, for the fame Reafou it is not r <5 ? ] not the fingle Church of Corinth that's meant. For what Reafon was not that Church apolitical Churchi as you fpeak ? And were not thefe Offices fet in it afr they were alfo before in the firft vifible Gofpel Church in Jerufalem ? Yea has not every fuch Church* to the End of the World, the Apoftles and Prophets, that has theNewTeftanient,as the hurch of the Jewi in the Time of our Lord had Mofes and the Prophets, and has not every fuch church, by the Law of Chrift, Teachers in it explaining upon the Word of the A- poftles and Prophets ? You fay the Apoftles which, were fet in this church were catholick Officers, and had not their Relation reftricled to any particular church, having the whole World for their charge. This was all faid and anfwered before ; and ftill it feems your catholick church and the whole World are one and the fame 5 but when thefe Officers, to whom it feems you reckon it was peculiar not to have a reftricled Relation to any particular church, are gone $ where is there charge ? Or who fucceeds them in that wherein they were diftinguifhed from the Paftors or Elders or Bifhops of particular churches ? But you have another Argument on this Text, which. is, " They themfelves were vifible Meflengers, and " fome of them no more but only vifible," and " that " which is invifible cannot under that Notion have a " vifible Miniftry fet into it." To this I anfwer, Is it mainly the Men or the Offices, the Men or tho Gifts that are fpoke of in that text or context, and faid to be fet in the church ? And had not thefe Of- fices and Gifts a real Aclion upon the invifible Body, and invifible as well as vifible Effects ? As the Gifts of Apoftles, Prophets and Evange- lifts had invifible Eflfecls in the firft joining toge- ther of the invifible or myftical Body of Chrift, fo has the Gift of Paftors and Teachers upon this Body in the edifying of it till all its Members come, in th$ Unity of the Faith and of the Knowledge of the Son of God, unto a Perfeft Man, unto the Meafure I . of [ 66 ] of the Stature of tie Tulnefs of Chrifl. For this Purpofe thefe Gifts had and ftill have an Influence on the unbelieving World, which is not the church, to gather Men out of it and bring them to the Faith and the confeflion of it, and fo add them both invi- fibly and vifibly to the catholick myftical church ; and thus thefe Offices and Gifts have both vifible and invifible Effects. They ferve to gather Men out of the World into the myftical church, and into the vifible churches of the Saints where they have an Influence upon them, to confirm and ftabli/h them, to make them grow in the Unity of the Faith till they come to a ferfetl Man, And before thefe Of- fices and Gifts, which were given unto the catholick xnyftical church, and for it, had Influence upon the World, they were firft fet in a particular vifible church of the Saints, and from fuch churches their Influence went out into the World, as I /hewed you in the Objerves. You next bring me the 'Teflimony of Hooker i as to which, 1 have told you fomething before, which I need not now repeat. And then you conclude what you have to fay in Vindication of your Senfe of this Text, by telling me again what you think only makes a Man a Member of the Body my- ftical, and that my Judgment of charity can neither add nor pare in that Point. Truly, Sir, I am fcarce able to difcern what Account you make of a Perfon, in your Judgment of charity about him $ but I may know this, that, if my Judgment of charity, or yours either, be according to the Law and Rule of that Judgment laid down by Jefus Chrift in his Word, we account every Perfon a Member of Chrift and his myftical Body of whom we make that Judgment $ and fo he is to us a Member of that Body by the Law of Chrift 5 fo that, in doing the deeds of bro- therly Love to that Perfon, we do them to Chrift the Head, and to the whole Body, and in perfect- ing any one whom we, that cannot fearch Mens Hearts, are bound by Chfift's Law to look upon as a Member I 67 ] Member of Chrift, we are Perfecutors. of that whole Body. Men are not vifible Members of Chrift and of his myftical Body, according to your Fancy or mine cither, and our Judgment can neither add nor pare as to his Law in that Point. It is his Law that determines this Matter to us, and requires of us ac- cordingly, as we fhall be anfwerable to him in that Day, when what you here alledge will not ftand fur an Excufe to us, in not looking upon his vifible Members, the leaft of them, as fucb, and in neglect- ing the Duties of Love to them* as to himfelf. It will be then but a mean Shift to fay, When fasm we thee % &c. ^ Oo Eph, iii. 10. you give me the fame Things over again, only you fay, the Body, Ver. 7. and Col, i. 24. is your vifible catholick Body, becaufe Paul was a Minifter of it, as I fay he was a Mini- fter of the invifible Head of the myftical Body, and becaufe he furTered for it, as I fay he endured all "Things for the Eletfs fakes ^ 2 Tim. ii. 10. but perhaps you'll alledge, they were invifible Sufferings that he endured for the Elects fakes, becaufe they are invifible. But the Body, Eph, iii. 7. is the fame of which the Apoftle had been fpeaking, Eph. i. 10, 22, 23. and ii. 15, 16. and the Body, Chap, iv. 11, 12. is no other. So likewife the Body whereof 'Paul calls himfelf a Minifter, and for which he futVered, Col, i. 24, 25. is that fame of which he had been fpeaking, Ver, 18, 19, 20. And if you thus regard the context, you will fee that Taul was a Minifter of the myftical Body 5 and fo you may add thefe Texts to the Text I gave you before, Eph. ii. 20. Rev. xxi. 14. When you come to 1 Cor, x. 32. you turn the Proof upon me, to whom you was proving your catholick vifible Church from thfs Text $ and fay, becaufe it is not proven to be the myftical Church that's meant, therefore you take it for the Body catholic^ Yiflble» But you cannot make your catho- I * tick [ 6% ] lick Body vifible to me in this Text, till you prove £hat it can neither be meant of the Body myftical, nor ot a particular Church, nor of both $ and this is what you have not yet done. You fay the Precepts hers are negative and indefinite j and from this your in- fer, that they bind femper & ad femper, and muft at the fame Time refpeel all Places and Perfons. WelJ, What then? You fay further, "In thefe c< travelling Times, fome might give Offence in one Place, and fome in another, and one in many " Places." And what's the Gonfequence of that ? You fay, " The whole Body was liable to Offence, " tho' it was not by one Man 5, " and fo the Object is fet down indefinitely thereby to comprehend the whole. Thus you think you have manifefted that it is not the myftical Body that's meant. But this whole myftical Body is liable to Offence, either by one Man, or many Men ; For as when one apparent Mem- ber of it is offended, the Body is offended, fo like- wife when many $ and the whole may be offended, even as the invifible Head $ and whether one Man give it Offence thus, or as many Men in as many Places of the Earth as the vifible Members of it are to be found, (till the whole is offended, as I told you : For what I faid of one is applicable to as many vifible Members of that true Church, as are any where offended, and as many as in all Places and all Times offend them. When a Man, or as many Men as you pleafe offend a vifible Church, wherein that myftical Body is fhewed forth, they remark- ably offend the myftical Body, even as Love to that fiody is moft remarkably manifefted in the Deeds of Love towards the Reprefentation of it in fuch a Church. Thus the Corinthians x in offending the Church of God in Corinth^ whereof they were Mem- bers, were capable of offending the whole myftical Church 5 and what is faid of it, is applicable to any other Church of the fame Kind where Chriftians happen to be, as I told you. And I am ftill per" fuaded, C 6 9 1 fuaded, that what is faid to the Church in Corinth, is applicable to every fuch Church to the End of World. The ApoftJe fpeaks of their judging, and of his judging them that were within, in Oppolition to thefe without ; And as the Church in Corinth judged only its own Members 5 fo the Apoftle Is fpeaking of his judging a Member of that Church, as if he had been prefent 5 and it does not appear that the Apoftles exercifed Church-difcipline, but upon Church-members, nor that they exercifed it any where elfe, but in a Church where they hap- pened to be, and a&ed as Elders, 5 John 10. And if they had to do with many Churches, it was be- caufe they were unto them in place of the New Teftament, that every Church has now compleat $ And if in this Senfe you fav the Churches are one, becaufe they have one ]New Te lament, as the vifible Rule of their Government, I never reclaimed againft this. But (till I am to feek as to the vifible catholick Body intended in this Text. You fay it is only the vifible Church that's capable of Offence, and to receive Satisfaction. But was not the vifible Church in Corirah, and is net any other fuch Church capable of Offence, and of receiving Satisfaction ? And is not the cachoiick Body myftical, every Way as capable of Offence and Satisfaction, in its vifible Members, thro' whom it is injured in Offence and Perfecution, as you can imagine your vifible Body to be ? You'll perhaps tell me, they all receive Satif* faction in their Reprefentatives, a general or catho- lick Council. Yes, when that aflembles aad agrees about being offended and fatisfied. But the Head of the Body myiiical, and that Body is fatisfied, when a Sinner repents and obferves the Law of Chrift the Rule of Repentance. Yea there is Joy in that Part of the Church that is leaft vifible to us over one Sinner that refentethy or over a returning Ba:kflider,and that is now by far the greateft and molt confiderable Part of this Church. And you'll find the Lurd, in fpeak- L 70 ] jngof Offences among the vifible Member* of this Church or Kingdom of Heaven, fome Way referring to this and to the concern that the innumerable Com- pany of Angels, that belongs to this heavenly So- ciety, have in this Matter, Matth. xviii. 10. He fpeaks of the Kingdom of Heaven, into which none can can enter, except they he concerted, and become as. little Children. H^ fpeaks of our receiving or pending any one oftlefe little Ones, (who you fay cannot be feen, and fo not received or emended, and defpifed by us) and therein receiving pr $ Aing Kim and their Father, and the inn w --~'>r„,. i . Com- pany of Angels. He calls others, beiiues thefe whom he would have us to account converted $ and the C hildren of this Kingdom , and of his Fat,r< r, the World. When he fpeaks of a vifi'ble Church, he fpeaks of it as confifting of thefe, and thefe 01. ly whom he would have us to account fuch Children 5 and therefore our Brethren 5 and when they dif* cover themfelves not to be fuch, in trefpalSng and not hearing the viiible Church, whereof they are Mem- bers, he bids us look upon them as the Jews did on Heathen Men and Publicans, ?nd fo not Children cf the Kingdom of Heaven; and he declares that what they lind on Earth, Jhall be bound in Heaven, and what they looje on Earth, (hall be loofed in Heaven. And after all this, will you yet fay that it is only the vifible Church that's capable of Offence, and to receive Satisfaction ? And this for the fake of an Imagination about a catholick vifible Church, which I dare fay has ferved as much to the offending of the Kingdom of Heaven, and the injuring of it* little Ones, and to theRuin of the vifible Churches of them as any thought that ever came in the Mind of Man ? On Heb: ii. 12. you complain of Want of Cloflhefs in my arguing, and fo put the Proof again upon m?. But why fliould I be complained of for Want of Pr and that the Elders are conjunctly called to feed or rule that one Flock 5 you tell me I ought to have replied to your Queftion, whether this Flock was one, becaufe they aflembled in one Place forpublick Wor- fhip ? Or an Account of their being united under one ecclefiaftick Government, or their having a Right and inherent Power fo to do; But it was Time enough for me to anfwer this Queftion, when I own'd that all the chriftians in thefe Parts are called one Flock by themfelves as the chriftians in the city of Epbcfiis un- der the Overfight of the Elders there, are called the Flock. So I deny'd the Foundation of your Queftion, and gave good Reafons from the Text and Context for my fo doing, to which you have angered nothing, but C 78 ] but by repeating Aflertions of that which Is to be prov- en, and which is plainly crofs to the very Text. For, tW it be manifeft that the Exhortation, 1 *Pet. v. 12, 3. applies to as many companies of Elders or Presby- teries as were in thefe Parts, and as many Flocks as had thefe Elders among them, and to all the Presby- teries and the Flocks whereof they are Overfeers to the End .,of Time: Yet tho' the Exhortation be thus far inde^fcteas youjpeak, it is mod manifeft that the Exhortstpni is dtre&dd to a company of Elders as ftanding^fe^ed to the Flock which \ s among them, and wheretftrto they are Enfamples, which Flock they are exhorted to feed in the full Senfe of that Word. And there is no Flock any Way fpoke of there, but a Flock which is among them, nor are they called to overfee any Flock there, but the Flock which they are to overfee, not as Lords, but as Enfamples 5 nor are they exhorted to feed any Flock there, but the Flock which they could feed in the full Senfe of feeding, and where they difpenfed the Ordinance of the Supper, as well as exercifed Difcipline and Government $ nor is there the leaft Insinuation of any Flock fed with Dif- cipline and Government diftinfl from the Flock which was fed with the Word ; and Sacrament. How then do youpropofe to make it appear, that all the churches in thefe Parts were one church, and all the Presbyte- ries were one Council of Elders ruling that one com- pounded Church in Matters of general concern ? Tho* you repeat this never fo oft, till you find fome Foun- dation for it in this or fome othet Text, it fignifies nothing. And till you prove that all thefe Flocks or Churches are called one Flock, tho' they all had one King, Jefus Chrift, and one Law that's now written in the New Teliament, you fay nothing to your Pur- pofe. As to what you fay of my begging the Quefti- on about the church in Epbefus $ after you have de- ftroyed the Argument taken from the large converfi- on there, which extended to all the little Afia, by faying the Flock or Church in Efihefus confided only of [ 79 ] of thefe in the city, you can do nothing but" beg vfon the Queftion. Every Presbytery in thefe Provinces, yea and every where elk, is as exprcfly called to feed the Hock which is among them and overfee it as En- famples, as the Presbytery of the church in Ef he/us is called to feed that Flock $ but it is not yet proven that any fuch Flock coniiils of many Flocks. I alfo denied that the twelve Tribes are all deiigned Churchy James v. 14. and gave my Reafons, to which you anfwer nothing but criticife upon my Manner of denying, and come cff with a bare Repetition of your poor AfTertion,and a Refteclicn en me, as tiling mean Shifts, i. e. Arguments and Exceptions, as 1 take it, which you will not venture to remove. Then you lay down a Scheme about the Gofpel Miniftry, and aflert, 1. The Relation of Teftament Minifters or Elders to Chrift as his Stewards and Ambaffadors but you fpeak of no Relation to the myftical Body whereof he is the Head. 2 You afTert another Relation under this, to ChriiVs univerfal vifible Eody, 1 Cor. xii. and Eph. iv. But we have feenthe Weakneis of your Arguments on thefe Texts to prove any fuch Body of Chrift, or a- ny Gift of a ^Miniftry unto it. And Baptifm nei- ther refpecls a (ingle congregation, nor your vifible catholick Body. Excommunication is out of a particular church, and if it be warrantable done, is ratified in Heaven 5 but there is no vi- fible catholick church yet proven, out of which any Perfon can be excommunicated- 3. You afTert that under this there arifeth another fubfervient to this, and more particular Relation, and that is their Re- lation to particular Congregations, by which you fay, they are denominated the Elders of fuch and fuch Churches ', and not of others. And then you apply this chimerical Scheme to the Cafe in Hand, by re- peating your unproved AlTertion, that many Churches are call'd Churchy Flock, AfTembly, and one Lump. And becaufe the Members and Elders of one Church may be occafionally received by another, and there aft [ 8o ] aft as Mfembers or Elders, you infer I have not an- fwered but trifled about the Churches of Galatia. I am ftill ready to acknowledge, that it is the Duty df'the Churches of the Saints to hold all that Com- munion together, and to do every Thing toward one another that is required of them, or that they have any Example for in the New Teftament, which is all agreeable to their having the fame King and Lord; and the fame Law and Rule of Worfhip and Government, and the fame Ordinances appointed for each of them unto the Edification of the myftical Body of Chrift, whereof every Member of them is a vifible Member, and every Minifter a Minifter $ But be- yond the Communion of Churches pointed out to me in the New Teftament, I dare not follow you, nor aflfent to any fuch Communion and Onenefs ^Churches as has already ferv'd to deftroy their Being, and to bring forth and nurfe up that Man of Sin 5 and that is the Thing you are contending for, without any Shadow of Ground for it in the New Teftament. As to your faying that I have trifled, infteadof anfwering what you fay on the Churches of Galatia* 1 tell you again, that it is eafier to fpeak thus, after your cu- ftom, than to be at pains to take my Exceptions out of the Way. And I am of the Mind that I have faid more on the Churches of Galatia than you durft un- dertake to anfwer. Then you proceed to your next Import of the Word Churchy which is the Paftors and Rulers of the vi- fible Body of Chrift 5 and you fatisfy your felf with faying, that I have not anfwered what you faid on Matth. xviii. and Afts xv. 22. and Atls xviii. 22. and referring the Reader to what you have faid, giving him Liberty to judge for himfelf. So that I have no more to do here, but refer him alfo to what Ihave anfwered, if the bare reading over of thefe Texts be not fufficient to let him fee, that the Word Church* in them, cannot fignify the Elders, as di- ft'nguiihed from the Flock. But you put me in Mind C 81 ] Mind of another Scripture that you brought in the Proof of this in another Part of your Book, and that is, Acts xiv. 27. where you fay, by the Church we muft only under/land the Presbytery of Antioch^ bccaufe it was only that Presbytery that fent them forth, and not the Church , and it is not eafy to con- ceive that they fhould report the Succefs of their Embafly to any but thefe by whom they were fent. To this I anfwer, That as 'Paul and Barnabas made the fame Report to many others befides thefe that fent them, that they made to the Church in Antiochy A6ts xv. 3, 12. fo by the Churchy which they gathered together, and to which they rehearfed all that Go?, had done with them, I can underftand nothing elfe, but that Church wherein that Presby- tery was that laid Hands on them, Afts xiii. 1. But, by the fame Rule, by which you make the Church diftingui/hed from the Elders, Atls xv. 22. yet to fignify the Elders, you may make the Church hero to fignify the Presbytery that was in it 5 and who would be at Pains to confute fuch AfTertions ? And now, Sir, I have mentioned all the Scriptures that you have call'd in to the Support of one of the grand Foundations of Popery, namely, a Church Repre- fentative j but let me fay that there needs no more, but the mentioning of thefe Texts, to fhew that the Notion of a Church Reprefentative never took its Rife from the Ufe of the Word Churchy in the New Tefrarrer.t. But, before you leave this Head, you tell me, you have two Things more to propofe on 3/^Z?. xviii. For I reckon you imagine your main Strength lies tbere. And you begin with declining to fhew a Warrant in the New Teftament for Elders their binding and loofing any otherwife but in the Pre- fence, and with the Confent of the Flock. And, as is your Cuftcm when it comes to the Pinch, you corn- lain of me for giving you a Negative to prove, ut after the Evidence I have brought from the L Scrip- I [ S2 3 Scripture Account of the Nature of the Rule and Government of Chriitian Elders, or Freiidents, Headers, Feeders of the Fleck of God, which is a- mong then!, net is Lord ever God's Heritage, but as Eniamples to the Flock, and after what I have point- eel cut of the Practice of the Apoftles and Elders of the apofiolick Cbvrcbes t and particularly the Practice, ~~'e\Y xv. 2: to which agrees the Practice of the Frim \tk\ e { " is far down as the Third C ttt v, mafl be allowed to fay, that the Elders ofa Church are warranted to bind and loole in the Pretence, and With the Content o( the Fleck which they overiee, thai there is no Warrant in the New Teftament for their doing i: otherwife. Yea, I may put fuch confidence in you as to reckon, that if you had but had Jw c'a warrant to produce, you wi old have produced it, before you had betaken your- felf to the Shift of making it a Negi nd io re- futing to prove it, by a Rule of the Art of fchola- flick Difputing. The two Things :har you propofe, and leave to my cooler Thoughts are, i% 1. Tell the u Cbwrcby is meant ol a Cbt rcb of Ruler-, and con- '• .Vc :en:l\ it was them the Texl of, as hav- '• ing the Power or" binding and loafing, without - '• lead Hint of the Necetfity of the content of private ma\ s'd Churc \ ' • e ; of no more but tu r t nree ; for ths <; Pre:r - -"."'■ :c is untv t.iat N "which - -'i there may be a C'-r xh of a nc n iimher." But how d les 1 fuppofe / ft( Are the two er three caQed - . 1 c. : e -. O: ci, Ver. i tore hut the : two or three ; - . . I .r. 19, and 1 Th# C Sj ] The Churchy Ver. 17. is a Society, whereof the trefpafllng Brother and the offended Brother, to whom the Lord's Difcourfe is, directed, and the one or two more are Members : And therefore the Churchy Ver. 17. cannot be merely the two or three* fpoke of, Ver. 19. and 10. The Promife, Ver. 18. is made unto the Churchy whereof the offended Brother is a Member. Again there is a Promife particularly made to two or three of them to whom the Promife was made, Ver. 18. and thefe are the Elders, or thefe that prefide in the Churchy or their Leaders and Enfamples in this Matter. Thefe are not called the Churchy but t 612 But now you tell, where there are a Multitude c Rulers, the Agreement of the Plurality muft de termine the Caufe, unlefs we fhould put it in th Power of any one to have a Negative over a whol Aflembly, which is abfurd, and contrary to com mon Senfe. It is true, you (till acknowledge, wha cannot be denied, that where there are only twe as is fuppofed in the Text, there cannot be a De cifion, but by their Agreement or joint Act 5 an< you further acknowledge, there cannot be a Decifio: by two againft one, if there be three, as is fuppofe< in the following Verfe. But is it any way more ab furd and contrary to common Senfe, that ten ihouli have a Negative upon twenty, than one fhoul< have a Negative over two ? Further, If the Multi tude of Rulers meet in Chrift's Name, then it is no contrary to your Senfe, that is common Senfe, tha they fhould proceed by Concord and Agreement For that is according to your Senfe to meet and a6 in Chrift's Name. 1 am fure this Text warrants an< obliges two or three Elders in a Church to a£t ii Binding and Loofing in the Way of Concord am Agreement ; and till you find a Warrant for their doini ctherwife when they are moe in Number, you wil not be able to fay, that they are regulating thei Actions agreeably to his Word, which you own i imported in meeting in his Name. But you havi not afferted that it is contrary to Scripture, that thi greateft Number of Elders fhould always act ii Binding and Loofing by Concord, unlefs you intern to fay that whatever is contrary to your Senfe, o differs from the common Way of proceeding in De cifions in numerous civil Courts of the Rulers of th< Nations of the World, is contrary to the Rule of th( Scrip C 87 ] Scripture, touching the Procedure of Elders in the Church where they prefide. It will not be fo eafy for you to fhew me the Abfurdity of putting that fame Thing, and no more, in the Power of any one Elder over a whole great Company of Elders, that is put in the Power ■ of every other in that Company over him and the reft, as I think it will be to fhew the Abfurdity of putting it in the Power of any one in an Aflfembly of thirty Elders, to bind or loofe over the Belly of fourteen of them. The fecond Thing that you propofe and leave to my cooler Thoughts, would need fome Explication, before it can come fo low as I may have a clear Thought about the Senfe of it. As I can take it, you point fome Way to that old Controverfy about the Donation of the Keys; and fo you fay that my Senfe of Matth. xviii. ftill goes on the Suppolition, that this Text was an Inftitution and Donation of the Keys to a Church of Jefus Chrift and its Pref- bytery. In Oppofition to this, you tell me it is owned by moft, if not all, that the Text fuppofeth only that the Keys were given to particular Churches. Excufe me, Sir, if my Capacity do not reach your Senfe or Scope here. If the following Words explain your Meaning, it is not me 5 for 1 am uncapable to comprehend them. They are as follows. " They were given to the ApoftJes together, and they be- ing general Officers, ftanding in fixed and ftated Relation to no particular Churches 5 the Keys came to the Miniftry in particular Churches^ as Parts of the whol^ organifed Body j and yet at the fame Time immediately, and not as if by Com- miffion' from the catholick Church." Without breaking my Head about this myfterious Difcourfe of yours, 1 fhall take the Trouble to tell you my Judg- ment anent the Grant of the Power of Binding and Lcofing in Difcipline : For of that it is that the xviii. of Matthew ipeaks, and that is what I reckon \ou mean by the Keys, as far as this Text has a Rela- K 8S ] Relation to them. It is my Judgment, that the Power of Binding and Looting in Difcipline, is not given nor fuppofed in this Text to be given to the Apoftles as fuch, and as diftingui/hed from the Eiders or Bifhops, and the Brethren of the Churches 5 and the Reafon of my Judgment is, That if it were fo, there could be no binding or looting after the Apoftles are ceafed. It is alfo my Judgment, that the Power of Binding and Looting is not given here, nor fuppofed to be given to the whole organifed Body, the catholick vifible Church, whereof all par* ticular vitible Churches are Parts 5 and this I fay, becaufe, as it is evident this is not the Church fpoke of Matth. xviii. So, after what I have before faid t I may be allowed to affirm, there Is no fuch Church, fo much as fuppofed in the New Teftament. Fur- ther, from what is before faid, you may fee it is my Judgment, that this Text does not fo much as fuppofe. that any Company of Elders has Power to bind and loofe, but as pretiding in the Church, to which the offended Brother tells his Brother's Trefpafs, after he has neglected to hear the one or two more 5 neither does the Text fuppofe, that they have any Power to bind and loofe in Dependence on any fuperior Court of Elders, but only as depending immediately on Jefus ChrHt, who rarities in Heaven what is done by a Church of his Brethren and its Presbytery on the Earth in his Name. You profefs Dullnefs where an Anfwer was ex- pected to my critical Argument againft a catholick vitible Church, and a Ch;;rch-Reprefentative. And you leave me as much in the Dark as before, as to the Inference you make from the Conftitution of the Jewifh Church, to that of the ChrifHan. Only you fay Synagogues were of old Time, which is no News ro me 5 For I know they took place foon after the Return from the %ahylo?iifi> Captivity : But this Is no Contradiclion to what I faid, far lcfs a Proof of the contrary. I have faid enough before cf the Synagogues and E 8 9 3 Jmd the Subordination that was in the ^enXiljh J >Church, and of the Equality and Inequality of Rulers, and 1 need not here repeat. Yoa own there wus not an Equality of Rulers of old j and therefore* this cannot remain when the reft is abolifhed. You fay your Argument is not taken from the Identity of the Thing, but by Way of Analogy. But what is the Analogy between Equality and Inequality? You ftill affirm that the Government of the Jewifo Church was moral as to its Eflence 5 and therefore it is your Mind that the Jewijh Church as to its Eflerice was moral 5 but you refufe to prove it, after yourLuftom, by making it a Negative 2 For to fay it is moral, is to fay it is not typical, and this is a Ne- gative. Now what this moral Effence of the Go- vernment of the Je-zv/fo Church is, according to you, I know not, if it be not the Prebyterian Model, which yet yOu muft own appeared not in the In- ftitution of that Jhurch. B^t it feems when every Thing elfe in the Conftitution of that Church is aboli/hed, the Presbyterian Model, which was hid before, as the EfTence, is now apparent as the EC- fence of the Jewiflj Church ftript of all its Coverings. And if this be moral, then be pleafed only to fatisfy me, how any other Model might as well have been instituted by Chrift, as you your felf acknowledge in Words that I have before cited ? 1 have attended upon you with fbme Pains in the foregoing Part of your Review, and particularly urcri my third Obferve, where you labour much in the Maintenance of your Credit as a Critick* and do your beft in the Support of your catholick vifble Churchy and Church Reprefentative, and of the Ar- guments you had ufed for thefe 3 And after all I muft fay my Obferbes and this Obferie is very much confirmed to me by ycur Review, ai.d the Weaknefs of your Caufe is ftill more manifeft, as to ihe Intereft it pretends in the Scripture, as 1 hope it will ftill be further manifeft as you write further JVI upon E 90 1 upon it. The following Part of your Review de- pends upon what you have been faying in this fore- going Part 5 and as you are fhorter therefore on the following Ohferves, fo 1 think may I be. On the 4th Obferve, you labour more in the Via* clication of your own unguarded Expreffions than in the Proof, the Point in Queftion, or in the taking off of my Exceptions, aud anfwering my Arguments. Tou fay you have given a good Reafon towards the End of that Section that begins,/. 108. wherefore you could not take the Thefis that I laid down in the Explication of the tProfofition. But was not that the Book you was pretending all along to ■ impugn ? And now, when I had in the Obferves referred yon to that Explication, the Thefts laid down there, and the Arguments that fupport it, why could you not take that for the Thefis to be impugn'd by you now? And what Concern have I with your Arguments any further, than they touch that ? But as far as I could underftand, from the whole of that Section in your Book, that your Notion of the Profeflion of Chri- stianity, that fits a Man for being a Member of %, vifible Church, differs from mine, I have impugn'd it, and brought Scriptural Arguments againft it, to- wn ich I fee no Anfwer, but Reproach of my No- tions of Brotherly-love, and Complaints of flaming Speeches, and Flights, and ludicrous Banters, and Methods unbecoming the Sobriety of a Chriftian, $$c. But as 1 ipoke the Words of T'ruth and Sobernefs t fo I fee they have. affected you one of thefe two Ways, that the Truth ufes to affect the Sons of Men. And as you have not ventured upon any other Kind of Anfwer to my Arguments, fo I hope you will ex- eufe, if I can make no further Return to thefe Words of yours. You propofe one Queftion to me, upon the Thing in Queftion,. and to that I /hall give you a plain Anfwer ; and your Queftion is, " Wasth* * l Church of Corinth particularly, or any other Church €t mentioned in the New Teftaroent, where there I 9" 3 €t Were fo many abominable Principles and Practice* tf abounding, all Saints and faithful Ones, or Menu •* bers of the myitical Body in the Judgment of *' Charity? " My Anfwer is, befide what I have laid on this Subject in the Explication of the Pro- pofition, to which I refer you, That all the Mem- bers of the Church in Corinth, or any other fuch Church, having come to be fo, upon the Appear- ance of their Faith, Love and Hope in Chrift Jefus, behoved to be reckoned Saints, and faithful in Chrift* and Members of his Body myftical, till fuch Time as the Law of Chrift, touching ofrenfive Principles and Practices, warranted and obliged the Church to reckon them as Heathen Men and Publicans, and the Church in Corinth could not lawfully keep them in her Communion after that 5 nor was it then law- ful for any Chriftian to hold Communion with them in any vifible Church : For that Law, if he negleft to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as an Heathen Man and a Publican, is obliging upon *very fingle Member, as well as upon the whole Church. As to what you had formerly afferted about the Members of the vifible Church as fuch not having any Right from God to partake of the Seals of the new Covenant j after your complaint of my Words, which yet were your own, and feveral Fetches to clear your ielf, you now advance, " That all the Churches 41 in the Ntw Teitament have an exprefs Law re- " quiring them to partake of the holy Sacrament of ** the Lord's Supper, and binding them at the fame #t time to do it in Faith." Thus you have now ac- knowledged that the Members of every vifible Church have a Right from God to partake of that Seal of the new Covenant. But you fpeak of a faving Title and inward Seal of the Spirit which can only be had by Faith ; whereas before, you faid the Members of the vifible Church, as fuch, had not any Title, and you feem'd to fpeak of the Sacraments. As to M i what [ 92 ] Yvhat you fay of the Covenant, within the Bond of Which all that came out of Egypt were, you will be in a better Cafe to fpeak with me about it, after you hiv? confidercd, and attempted to anfwer my Book pn rhe Kingdom of Jhrift : For I will not be always repeating what ftands there unanfwered to ching the Difference betwixt the Covenant at Sinai and the pew ovenant- As ,'o a Mini iter's preaching as a Mmifter to none but the Church whereof he is PaQor, you cue the In Ac . " dents, an d hi n I (ay that the Paltor of a Church bea ; • r.i-ift'o mx$\fl&Q$ to preach the Gofpel to e- y^i j .atu . ou repeat your ordinary • ant about a cat ' lick Cbfirfh virible, and the Identity of that with ah Great res under Heaven, and propofe a deal of Qu^fJons to rye upon the S. ppofition of your own Sc h e : n e a bo u t a c : t h oli c k v i h b i e Churchy as in Or - der of Nature before particular Churches, which yet fometjm.es you make the Parts of which that whole is made up. Eur as I have fhewed that no fuch cat ho- lick Church appears in the New Teftament, fo now I give'you thefe Things for an Anfwer to all youc Queitions. i. Every Man that has the Commiflion recorded, Marth. xxvui. is the JMinifter of Chrift, the Head of the myitical Body, and of that catho- lick Body which U nis Church, and not of any ca. tholick Church vifible. And there is no other ca- thclick Church but this, fo much as fuppofed to be conftitutcd in the mfnilterial CommiUion. 2. For the edifying of this catholick Body, already formed by the Jv.linilhy of the Apostles, Chrift's Minifters, the Ministers of his myitical Body, are fet in Churches as Paftors, Elders or Bifhops of thefe Churches ; and that by his Laws fo appointing. And as Paftors of thefe Churches, which are Subfervient every one of them to the myftical Body, they are to preach the Gofpel to them that are without, or the World, to gather Men out of it into the myitical, and then labour to confirm them in it, by gathering them, into a vifible Church [ 95 ] Church after they are baptifed, **«$$,$£ there to obferve all Things whtt&dw he ^ co ™ „,„j f J , As the miniftenal unimilW *» ^ntcd 'in the firfl congregational »**** J^ Id in the 0*/«W, and P roc ^ ed /T h !VKecution Execution fo the moft proper Way for the Execution ofT by he PaOors if L* Churches, and every o, R le oFthe Word. ^//« afted regularly, when, upon his being qualified to execute that ^mmiuioa "n a Place where there was no Church yet wefted he "ent forthwith to the Church at tfertg ftftSS and did not ftay to exercife h;s Mmiftry, or fulfil his Commiffion among his Difciples, according to '$obn Saptrffs Miniftry that were there, ^" xV J£- cW- towards the clofe, and xix. <**/. from the Be- ginning. 4 . I do not perfectly understand what you intend by what you fay about Inveftiture, if you be not fonie way feeking to eftablifh the uninterrupted Succeflion, as to which, I refer you to the Author ot the Original Conft. of the Chriftian Cbnrcb, p. 6if. *nd 6il. And I am ready to maintain, that it is in the Power of the Difciples of Chrift, at any Time, or in any Place of the World where they are, to al- femble together, and choice their Paftors woo, it they be qualified by Jefus Chrift with Ability to teach and exhort and anfwer the Characters laid down in his Law, bear his Commiffion as truly as any Paftors in the firft Chriftian Churches 5 yea I will acknowledge that every Man, that's qualified by* Chrift, and accepted by his Difciples hearing his Voice, tho' they be not yet gathered together in a Church, bears his Commimon > and without this, all the Inveftiture in the World will not inveft any Man with that Commiilion. And if you mean by Inveftiture the Impofition of Hands, there is no other Presbytery that can do that but the Presbytery of a congregational Church, and they have this Power as well as the Power of binding and looting, as they are in- C 94 3 independent of aiiy fuperior Church Power, and de- pend immediately on Jefus Chrift, the Head of the catholick Body myftical, who hasall Power in Heaven and Earth. Further it belongs properly-to acongrega- tion or Church of the Saints, as the Society wherein the true catholick Church is reprefented, and as in- ftituted by Chrift for holding up and fpreading the Light of his Gofpel in the World as a golden Candle- £ick, in a Subferviency to the myftical Bcdy, to fet apart Paftors and Teachers for the edifying of that Body, and when they are placed in fuch a Church t they are a light fet on a r '.andleftick that it may ihine to all about. Bur as they are indeed to be pi- tied, who pretend to be IVliniiters, and have no o- ther Evidence for it to their own Confciences or the Confciences of others, but that Hands were laid on tbem'by a Diocefan Bifhop, or by a claffical Presbytery, and thereupon, by the cuftom of the Country, they are called Minivers, and enjoyed Benefices accord- ingly j fo your Queftions about Inveftiture, and the Commiiiion to preach put me in mind of an ancient Queftion, Who gave thee this Authority ? That has been put by the Roman Church to them of the Re- formation, efpecially the firft of them 5 and when you anfwer me diftin&ly, who made the Invefiiture of Chrift's Commiiiion to them, I think you wilt furnifh Anfwers to your own Queftions to me« Where- as I had told you, that, by your own Argument a- gainft the Independents, you can preach, onjy as pri- vate Perfons, to the Reft of the World, that are not Members of the catholick Church vifible, feeing you do not pretend to be faftors to more than that Church. You 1. Repeat your Affertion, that Mi- nifters are Officers of the catholick vifible Church, for which, as I have /hewed, you have no Counte- nance from 1 Cor. xii. 28. nor from any other Scrip- ture. But what is this to the Purpofe? You tell me. 2. The fame Commiiiion, by which the catho- lick Church Yiftble is conftitute, gives Minifters an autho- \ [ 9? 3 authoritative Power to preach, to Heathens in ordet to bring them in to the Church, that they may re- ceive the ftated and orderly Pifpenfation of Ordi- nances, as well as it makes them the Minifters of that Church whea gathered. But where h that Com- mifiion by which the catholick Church vifible is con- stitute » This will be as hard for you to ftiew, at where that Church is united in the Unity of one ec- clefiaftkk Government. And does that Commiffion make you a Paftor to Heathens before thty be brought in to that Church by preaching? If not, do ou preach to them as a Paftor or a private Perfcn ? reckon this is the Pith of your doughty Argument againft the Independents. You fay you have an au- thoritative Power to preach to them. And fo has e- very Paftor of a Church of the Saints an authorita< tive Power, as the Ambafiador of Chrift, the Head of his Body the true Church, and the Head over all Things to it, to preach the Gofpel to every Creature 5 and this Power he has from him that con- stituted the General ArTembly and Church of the Firft-bom, and inftituted every Church of the Saints to fhew it forth, and to ferve to the Edificati- on of it till it be perfected} but never inftituted a ca- tholick vifible organis'd Church, nor appointed, any Officers for it. Your proving that Eph. iv. ir, 12. is meant of the invifible Church, is ftill inconfiftent, as I faid, with your bringing that Text as a Proof for the Miniftry's being given to the catholick vifible Church t For you cannot prove that the Catholick vifible it meant there, till you manifeft that it cannot be un- derstood of the invifible, as you do on other Texts you bring to this Furpofe. Neither do you reconcile what you fay of them that are baptized, having * feal'd Right to all the external Privileges belonging to the Covenant whereof Baptifni is the Seal, and of this continuing till it be forfeited by fome Deed or Aclioa [ 9* ] Action of the Perfon, either with what you faid, P; •in. of vour Book, which you have now unfaid, or with what you fay C P. 118. where you require in the baptized, as needful to the End of their being ad- mitted Members of the vifible Church, that they make a ferious irofeifion of Subjection to the Ordi- nances of Chrifl. You forbear to prove a Suppofition, which was the Foundation upon which an Argument of yours lean'd, and excufe yo- rfelf from proving it b> denying it was your Words 5 but take away that Suppofition, and then let your own Judgment direct you where the Strength o\ your Arg» ment lies. And I took very good care to touch upon the Qjettion, how the preaching of the aftors of hvrch.s of the Saints for the conviction and converiion even of Hypocrites hings with their Judgment o; Charity cf every Church' Member, when I denied the Suppofition, and point- ed you to your own Piftinction C P. 147. and to ^Paul's calling them to be reconciled to God, whom he yet declares to be Saints. And now I further tell you, that the I aftor of fuch a Church may preach the fame V\ 7 ay to his Church Members as you may do that Part of the catholick Church which you admit to the Lord's Supper, fuppofing them to be converted al- ready. I muft fay you have a ftrange Medley of Principles about Church Membership and Communion. For you affirm, " That all the Churches in the New 1 *' Teftament have an exprefs Lav/ requiring them to *' partake of the Lord's 6upper," as was before noticed. Again you affirm, " I could be very clear to admit ** a Heathen to be a Member of the vifible Church, *' on his moral and feemingly ferious Frofeflion of the *' Gofpcl 5 tho' at the fame Time 1 could not deter- " mine my felf he was to be efieemed a Member of !" the myfticalBody." Then you affirm, " Thus, as " the Lord's Supper is not a formal Mean of con- " verfion, but of farther Growth and 2Souriihment to " thofe C 97 1 ** thofe that are already converted, fo thefewho givo ' ' no Difcoveries of their Belief in Chrift, are not to Jj be admitted to partake of that Ordinance, left they u prophane the. holy Things of God, and the Mini- %t fter be acceflory thereto : But in the Admiflion o( u Members to the vifible Church, this cannot bo ,c fafd, this being the necefTary and ordinarily pof- ** fible Mean of cdnverfion." , I required Scripture Proof for the Sentence of Su- ^penfion from the Lord's Supper. In Anfwer to th \Sj I. You defirO me to (hew you exprefs Scripture for my averting this Fropofition, viz,. The Apoftles ani Elders of the Church in Jerusalem. Inftead of Scripture Froof, you tell me exprefs Scripture, and for a Proportion aflerted by me, you produce fome Part of a Fropofi* lion, which is no Aflertion. But to fatisfy you in the Way you fatisfy me fometimes^ the Author of the Qricinal Conftitutton of the Qhriflian Church has theie Words, < P. 291. " From the presbyteriat Church " of yerztfalem, the Apoftles and P resbyters." And to warrand him in this Way of f peaking, he brings Atfs xv. for* tf. and I add to him for a Warrant *f what you call my Aflertion, which is not in all Refpecls the fame with his, Afts xv. 2, 4, 22* AcJs xvi. 2, 3, 4. Give fuch Scripture Proof for Su- fpenfion from the Lord's Supper, and I'll embrace *ilS *. You bring me the Judgment of Independents irt New England, and you fignify I cannot reFufe their Authority, unlefs I reject them as Brethren, as Well as the Presbyterian Divines 5 whereby it feems to me your think. 1 fhould reject every Man as my Bro* ther, from whofe Judgment I differ in any Thing. And when you fet up human Authority in this t)refs, it looks very awful 5 yet it does not fright me, even in this Shape, when it ftands in the place of Scrip- ture Proof. You tell me of Scriptures they cite $ but it is not the Scriptures, but their Ai'thority in their Judgment upon them, that you would have to weigh with me* A« to Mattb* xviii. it fpeaks not of K Sufpen- t 9& 3 Sufpenfion, but Excommunication, and it informs mf Judgment againft Sufpenfion, Tit. iii. 10. agrees with Matth. xviii. and fpeaks of no Cenfure but Ad- monition and Excommunication, Jl f atth. v. 23. 24. Luke xvii. 3, 4. fpeak not of any Church Cen- fure, but of private Grudges and Offences to be pri-' vately removed $ or if they cannot be that Way re-' moved, then the xviii. of Matthew takes place; And fo I remain unfatisfied about this Sufpenfion, by Means of which it is, that you hold Flagitious and lewd Hearers, and thefe who are cpenly flagitious, and evidence themfelves Unbelievers, to be Mem- bers of the vifible Church. You note down fome Texts to fupport the Diftinclfon between thefe fufpended Members, or the Members whom you ad- mit not to the Lord's Supper, and thefe Members ■whom you admit to that Ordinance $ but for Bre- vity's Sake you have not told me how they fupport it. The firft is Matth. vii. 6. Give not that which is holy unto the Dogs, neither caft ye your ^Pearls trefore Swine, left they trample them under their Feet, and turn again and rent yon. By this it feems to me that you hold them Members of the vifible Church whom you will not admit to the Supper, be- caufe you can call them 'Dogs and Swine, that Would trad -pie holy 'Things tinder their Feet, and turn again and rent you $ And hereby it appears tome that you wo Id exclude the Ordinance of Excom- munication, which is very clear in the Scriptures, and fet it afide altogether by this Sufpenfion : For if you keep in them whom you can call 2)dgs and Swine, 1 fee not whom you are to caft out. But is not Church-memberftiip a holy Thing, and do not you call the Members of the vifible Church fede- rally holy ? How then comes this holy Thing, this Privilege, to be given to thefe Dogs and Swine ? And how much more do I injure them, that call them the World, in Diftinclion from the Church, and preach the Gofpel to them to bring them in to the- i 99 3 the Chnub, than you, 'that call them SDogs and Swine,, and yet Members of the Churchy that they may hear the Gofpel?rYour next Text is, 2 ^fbe/f. iii. 6. i4, 15. of which- 1 have given an Account in my Remarks on the Memorial of the Synod of Angus, where 1 .fhew'd that it can neither be* un* defilood; of Sufpen/Ion nor 'Excommunication, and tothjat I refer you... lour Jaft is 1 Cor. xi. 27. to the End. gut that Text fpeaks of the Evil and Danger ■pf .unworthy Communicating in Church members, that ufuajty came together to eat the Lord's Supper £ ■and .-the ^Remedies, agajnft.this are propofed to them, &et a Man examine; ibJmfelf and.fo- let him eat. ■And my Brethren^ when ye come together to eat, tarry one for aiwther 5 and if : wy Man hunger, let him ear at home, that ye.. come,\ri iadBiihop, &c" Eur how does that Ex- f&ktf£j&) VI -.-I -ity appear in tlvs ? Jt appears , by vour ;^Un-rk in.thcfe #ords, •' That vifih)e ; BiAiop, " you iniin-j^e; -has all along been a.gainft general '/.Councils, 4s Iccuid evince in f vpral, Inftances " were it needful, and all .we plead for is.none of 4t his favourite rrmci r les." J< yi treat your Reader gretty oddly ^herpVv^hen you found this your Re- mark, on the.cuuina off of a cqnfiderable-. Part of that Sentence, b'/'an, -^j., on which you iv.ake this B,e- j^ark : For whf^eyou have. , the, ^. my Words are, .** Or unanimous Collepe of Bi^ops over. #11 .the c< Tailors and Congregations in the Worlds and one g vilible Place of Yvorihip for* the whole Body, to g refort -untp." .Kpw, Sir, if I had r^ade. fuch a Concealment, and built upon it as you do here, „wb$t. would not have been fa id upon it r y you, 1 that •jIHake fuch a 2vqife and a Clamour, merely upon my .not, noting c\ you .; Jake off ii. y- Exceptions, and anfwer all my.;Argu- ings on. Matfb.: tfviiu. by. Inch Anfwers as this. 5 Thus [ io? 1 " Thus my Reasoning is owned to he good, even " by the Independent, as to the Subordination of " Courts ; and 1 find nothing you have advanced a- " gainft it, fave in Aflerrons without any fuitable " Proof. As + cr your impertinent Qi«eftions and H Wrangliugs iniiead of Anfwers, from />. 78, to " 83. as they do net touch the Strength of my Ar- " g'-ment, fo they are Signs of a defperate Caufe : *' And the very Foundation of your Cavils and " Quibbles on r atrh. xviii. hath been more than " once fpolun to in this Miffive." And this fhort Way of anfuenng, as it admits of no Reply, fo it is very agreeable to what you fay of your Hope, never to engage with fuch an one as you reprefent me to be, if you were once at the End of this Miflive, which it ieems you are in Hafte to be at the End of. ITou touch a little at what 1 faid about Women their cxpreffing their Confent or Diflent in Deeds ofDif- cipiine. I had left you to choice in this Matter, according to your Senfe of 1 Cor. xiv. chap. And now I find, becaufe they cannot aft thefe Parts in the Difcipiine that are a Decree of Teaching, you are of the Mind that the Teachers may proceed without their Confent any way fignified to bind and loofe, and that they ought not to exprefs their Con- fent or Diflent. Then, inftead of anfwering what I faid to you, cutting off a great Part of it by an, &c. you anfwer fome Woman's Tale, as it is reported by your worthy Friend Edward? ; and then you tell me you are wearied with fuch Trifling and Stories inftead of Anfwers. But thefe are only Reflexions on my Arguments and Manner of Writing. My impertinent Questions, $$c. trouble you fo on this Part of the Oujer-ve y 'that it could not pafs without another Reflection on my felf. 1 was before a Man with many very filly and very ill Things about me 5 but now is it a" Queition if I 'be a rational Creature capable of Religion : And I am meramorphofed into fomething very like a Brute ; For 1 am, " one that « has [ 104 3 «« has caft off Reafon as a Mean of judging of Things " facred." And with that one you are never to en- gage after you have got to the End of your Miflive* B t for this good Reafon you might have faved your felf the Trouble of this Miflive $ while yet* on the other Hand, it muft be owned, that when I have cait off my own Reafon, I am ftill the fitter to be ferved with yours in the Place of it, And if you be to write againft none, but fuch Adverfaries as will not reject your Reafonings and Inferences from Scrip ture, that to you are good found Reafon, but admit? them all peaceably j then I think it will be fu- perfluous for you to write more, tho' it fhould be never fo eafy. On A&S xv. chap I expecled, at leaft, you would niake fome Exceptions to my plain Scripture Ar- guments, ferving to overthrow the two great SuppoM fitions, on which all your Inferences were buildedf and toeftabli/h the congregational Order, as clearly founded in that Chapter. Inftead of this you tell me, " You find a long Difcourfe made up of Ifs and * Sut's $ and then after you have told Thing* in 4t that comical Drefs, you defire me to draw my ** Conclusion from what you have faid." And then you complain of this as a Way unfui table to a Dif- putant. But you fay I have not attempted to give any Anfwer to your Arguments, more than by Anti- fcriptural Aflertions. And you offer to make this appear from an Aflertion of mine, that you affirm is not clearly founded in Scripture ; and the Aflertioa is this, as you repeat it, " That it is very clear «' that fend chofen * •' Men of their own Company to Antioch, with 'Paul u and Barnabas, Judas, fimamed Barfabas, and " Silas, chief Men among the Brethren, and wrote " Letters by them." After you have fet down this Aflertion, and the Ground of it in your own Way, you addrefs me thus. " But where does this Clear- " nefs appear ? Is it becaufe Paul and Barnabas " are mentioned as the Perfons with whom Judas ** and Silas were to go down to Antioch ? This is " all I can find." But would you indeed have me to believe that this is all you can find, or that this is indeed the Thing you find, Obf. p. 8tf, 87, 88. to make the Aflertion clear? As I am clear this, that you fay, was not to be found, but another Thing : So, if you had fet down my Aflertion in my own Words, with the Words of the Text, from which I faid I was clear to deny, that Paul and Barnabas were of that Company that ordained the Decrees, you Reader would ea/ily have perceived what was the Ground of my Clearnefs. But you did not it feems think this fo fit. And when you are /hewing the Infufficiency of the Ground you would have me to go upon, and coming over the Text, why do you fhun fo much as mention thefe Words of the Text, Of their own Company with ? Well, Sir, this was indeed the eafieft Way to put another Argument in place of mine, and other words in place of the Words of the Holy Ghoft, or conceal his Words and my Argument, and then feek the Credit of an An- fwerer from fuch a Reader as would be impofed on, by anfwering to another Thing that needed na Anfwerj but the eafieft Way is not always the fafeft and fureft, nor will it always be found the Way to true Honour. To eafe your felf of the Di- ftrefs that this, which you call my Aflertion, puts you in, you fay, " You are perfuaded I am among u the firft that ever held this Affertion." It feems, O then [ io6 ] then this is one of my diftinguifhing Singularities, which you are bound to confute, as not being con- futed in the Book to which you refer in your Poft- fcript. But it feems, by what you fay, that I am not altogether the flrft; and if I have Lttke before me, it is enough. Then you tell your Reader very confidently, hoping, no doubt, he'll be fo good as to believe you, let the xv. chafi. of the ABs infinuate or fay what it will to the contrary 5 " But we have " nothing but your Word for it, which you force us c< to believe is not canonical." Far be it that my Word fhould be canonical $ but 1 am clear we have the Word of the Author of the Book of the Acis for it, and I believe his Word is canonical. And it looks like cis if you would have your Word to be canonical with all them from whom you would hide his Word, and to whom you give your own in the place of it. Next, You think you have found me in a Contra- diction to my felf, a real one 5 whereas your Inccn- iiftencies are only imaginary. And no doubt you reckon that many imaginary Inconfiflencies will be abundantly ccunterballanced by a real one. I did not apprehend that the Quefh'on betwixt you and me was, Which of us is infallible ? Or which of our Words be canonical ? For I thought we were both liable to real Inconfiflencies. But if this be the very Queflion, 1 fhali freely yield my Side of it, and fo you may cboofe you fome other Rival, than one that has no Pretenlions to what you are con- tending about. But if 1 had no Evidence againft your Infallibility, and your Words being canonical, lave what you fay about this Inconfiftency, I hehoved to be certain that you are fallible, and that your "Word is not canonical. You fay, " Now, I defire " you may difcover to your Admirers, which of thefe " Affertions are trueft, . the Decrees were or- " dained by the Apoftles, ^. before the Queftion " andDifpute was raifed txAntioch 5 Or whether the " News of that Difpute behoved to be notified to the < [ io7 ] 1 the Apoftles and Elders, &c. by Vaul and Bar- 1 nabas, and the Commilfioners from Ant ioch \ before * any Decrees about it could be ena&ed ? Sir, you *' have a Dexterity in railing imaginary Inconfift- V encies, and I expect you will fhew an equal Skill *' in reconciling a real one." But may I not en- quire at my Hater, if he be indeed perfuaded that the flrft of thefe Affertions is mine? Or if this be what I am averting in the Words you your felf had cited immediately before your Queftion ? " In your " Speech before the Commiilion, /. 9. you fay* " Thefe Decrees were ordained by the Apoftles " and thefe Elders, with the Brethren that were " in Jerufalem, before the Queftion and Difpute " was raifed at Antioch 5 even that Company that " fays, '■jer. 23, 24. Whatever be amiffing in the , pointing, yet it is mod evident, that, in thefe Words, ! I am aiTerting the quite contrary of what you call ' my Affertion, and giving the Reafon of it. And 1 my Affertion is the very fame with this. The Apoftles and thefe Elders, with the Brethren, by whom the Decrees were ordained, were in Jerufalem before the Queftion and Difpute was raifed at Antioch. This was my Affertion ; and the Ground «f it is pointed out in the Words immediately following the Affertion, " Even that Company that fays, ver. 23, 24." For af much as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with Words > — to whom we gave no fitch Commandment, ! This is what they fay, and it fupports my Aflertion- But you, by concealing what they fay, and taking away the main Thing in my Propofition by an, $yc* would have me to be afferting that the Queftion and Difpute iffued in the Decrees, before it was railed. And this was eailer than to anfwer that Argument in my Speech, proving that the Decrees were not ordained by Eiders, gathered into a Synod for that Purpofe, out of Antlsch, Syria and Cilicia, or any other Elders, but by the Apoftles refiding in 'jcru- O 2 falenr, E 108 ] faletn, ^nd the Elders of the Church there, with the Brethren of that Church. And fo I think I may give you back Auguflineh Saying, Re- flore me my Words, and your dreaming Imagina- tionSy not only of an Inconfiftency in my Aflertions, but alfo of a Synod in the xv. of the ABs, mil *vani]h. You come next to my Speech before the Com> miffion to conflder it. And you firft oppofe your felf to that Aflertion, That the Decrees about the keeping of Mofes's Law, were ordained by the Apoftles and Elders of the Church in Jerttfalem. I faid feveral Things, and adduced feveral Scriptures to vouch this Aflertion, and that was one of them of which I have been prefently fpeaking 5 but as it would not anfwer your Purpofe to touch it, and give it an Anfwer in its proper Place j fo indeed you have not anfwered, nor touched any Thing I fay, or any Scripture I bring to prove it in the Speech, but ABs xvi. 4. which I had connected with ABs xv. 22. and you fay that Text is no Proof of it, but declares the contrary in exprefs Words. " For, fay " you, inftead of faying the Apoftles and Elders of " the Church in Jcrufalemy it fays, The Apoftles " and Elders which were at Jerufalem." Here is our famous Criticifm upon At and Of y upon which you form a Syllogifm, whereby you difprove my Aflertion 5 and this, with a Reference to the Inde- pendents and their Authority, is all the Anfwer I have to that Part of my Speech. Only you fay, " I defire you may let me fee any Scripture in the *' New Teftament that will vouch this Aflertion, V either exprefly or by lawful Confequence." Be- caufe I know by this Time, you'll reckon no Con- fequence lawful that tends toward the congregational Way, I fhall only lay before you the Texts themfelves, from which I think I have this Aflertion 5 and let h not offend you, that I leave them with your Con- fcience to draw what Concluiion from them you can beft [ 109 3 beft Anfwer for, but not to Men. ABs xv. 2. 7*hey deter- mined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of themjhouldgo up to Jerufalem to the Apo fl Hes and 'Elders about this ^tiefiion. ver. 4. And when they were come to jferufalem, they were received of the Church, arid of the Apofiles and Elders, ver. 6. And the Aptftles and Elders came together for to contder of this Mat. ter. ver. 22. "Then pie afed it the Apofiles and Elder s % with the whole Church, to fend chofen Men of their own Company to Antioch, with Paul and Barnabas 5 namely Judas fumamed Bar Cabas, and Silas, chief Men among the Brethren, ver. 23. And wrote Let- ters by them after this Manner^ The Apofiles, and Elders, and Brethren fend greeting unto the Bre- thren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch, and Syria, and Cilicia. ver. 24. For af much as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with Words? — to whom we gave no fuch Commandment. A£ts xvi. 1, 2, 5, 4. 'Then came he to ZDerbe, and Lyflra, and behold, a cer- tain %)ifciple was there named Tmotheus: — Winch was well reported of by the Brethren that were at Lyflra and Iconium. — Him would 'Paul have to go forth with him. — And as they went through the Cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the Apofiles and Elders that were at ferufalem. Acts xxi. 18, 20, 25. And the 2) ay following Paul went in with us unto James 5 and all the Elders were prefent. — And— they—; {aid unto him. — As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded, &c. Confide r this impartially, and in the Fear of the Author, together with what I have told you touching your Criticifm on the Word Brethren, and fee if there be Ground for the confidence you exprefs in your Demand. But a- gainft all this, and ail I fay in the Justification of this AiTertion in my Speech, your criticifm upon at and of, abundantly expofed already, furni/hes you with this Syllogifm., which, no doubt, is, according to you, a De- [ no ] a Demonftration. " 72v ^Decrees were ordained by *' the company of the Apoftles and Elders 'which " were at Jerufalem, Acls xvi. 4. But which lie is Author, and which are «ot of any pri. ^*vate Interpretation, but behoved to be explained by Men infpired by him, and feemed good to the Apoftles, by whom the New Teftamenr Revelation was made, and this Part of it under his infallible Con- dud, and feemed good to the Church in Jervfalcm, from whence this Part of the NewTeftament Revelation, efpecially, behoved to go forth to the Gentiles. And while it goes forth from this Church, we have in it a Copy caft to all the Churches for their Me- thod of Procedure in their Affairs, and Manner of Judging in any Matter wherein they are called to judge -, but- no Pattern for the Subjection of one Church to another, as is manifeft from what is above faid. You tell me, 2. " Will the Apoftles their " being in this Church make any Man infer, That * the Church of Antiocb, in which there were " Apoftles alfo, was fubjecl unto the Church of " Jemfalem ? " As to n with the Aportles : lor they are faid to t* fenhem forth conjunctly, without the ieaft Hint e' ofie Part's acting authoritatively, and another *' mjy by Confent." But the Text will not prove eh&tp whole Body a Seel the fame Part in this Miifion [ 126 ] Miflion with the Apoftles who were Part of it : For, when fuch a Body as a Church isfaid to do any Thing, I mull of Neceflity conceive that each Part acts in the Way proper to it. Asvhen I am told the Parliament of Britain made aLaw, I am not to imagine that there was no DifFere;e betwixt the King, the Lords and the Commons, s acting in that Matter. You fay further, " In a Witle is enjoining them to do this Thing them- feives without the Concurrence of the Peoj? For if you be not faying this, you are faying thing. A'l I have in the Proof of an Aflertion fo \z bold, 1 j brtifa to the Text, is a Criticifm upon a rd in 2 Cor. ii. C. which our Tranilators have dercd fiiaitfc and you think it fhould have been tflated chief Ones : For you would have it believ< that, becaufc ift If Mat tin vl 25, and xii. 4'> 4<%>i- t 127 ] £es more or greater, where it is placed in a Com* parifon as an Adverb 5 therefore ww+m z Cor. ii. 6. denotes the Rulers of the Church in Corinth. And it feems you are of Opinion that the forgiving and comforting of that Perfon, or looting him, was only the Deed of thefe chief Ones that bound him, and thefe only were to confirm their Love towards him, and to give Proof of their Obedience to Chrift, fpeaking in the Apoftle, touching that Matter, But 1 hope you will reconcile this Opinion of jours with the Text and Context, z Cor. ii. 5. — 10. Then you fignify that Cyprian's Sentiment is of no Weight with you, till you understood, that the whole Church, Jlcls xv. 22. is the worfhiping AfTembly 3 but I think I have faid enough to let you fee that ; and fo Cyprians Saying muft have fome Weight with you. You fay he fpeaks only of his private Resolution for his Practice, and this Purpofe and Practice will not be an Argument that the People had a Negative on the Presbytery, or that each in the Church was to be perfonally prefent, and give their AtTent before any jurifdictional Act could bs paflfed. You know bed what you mean by this Ne- gative, and you make a beautiful Diverfion from the Queftion when you fpeak of each in the Church being perfonally prefent 5 but certain it is, that Cy- prian did nothing of that Kind, of which he fpeaks, without the Gounfel of the Presbytery and the Con- fent of his People. And 1 think, a more laborious Anfwer, to what I have told you from the facred Oracles, together with an Anfwer to what King brings from Antiquity, Enquiry into the Conftituti- en> &c. of the primitive Church, chap. vii. and your own Jamifon y Cypr. IJbt. chap. vi. Seel. 5. and 16. toward the Clofe, would have been very be- coming, before this very bold AtTertion of yours. " As this was never the Practice of the Chriitian <{ Church, fo it i< void of all Foundation in the " facred Oracles/' Further, what you mean by Con- " 4 5 t »8 ] currence in Jurifdiclional Management I know note only I know that Jefus Chrift is the only Lawgiver in^ the Church, and his Word the only Law ; but if you mean the Concurrence of the People with their Elders or Eifhops in binding and loofing according to his Law, then I am of Opinion that every one, that con- fiders the Things wherein Elders rule, and the Na- ture of binding and loofing, will fee a flagrant Con- tradiction in this Sentence of yours. " I am very *' far from approving Minifters their lording it over " God's Heritage 5 but at the fame time, I know no " Right the People have to a joint Concurrence in " jurifdiclional Management" I refer'd you in the Conclufion of my Letter to what I have written on "John xviii. 36, 37, of which you have not been pleafed to take any Notice. But I find you, in excepting againtl what I alledged in my Speech touching the Difference betwixt your Parifhes and the firffc Churches, advancing fome Things abun- dantly confuted in that Book, as your Notion of ICings their being nurfing Fathers to the Church, and of the Identity of the Covenant with the Jezvifb Nation, and the Covenant with the Chriftian Church or Kingdom of Heaven, page 5, and 6. of your Let- ter. You alfo complain of me for want of Charity to the CommifTion, in faying, " That the Commiffion ** will not affirm thefe Parifhes and their Overfeers are *f of the fame Kind with the firft Chriftian Churches " or Congregations and their Presbyteries." And the Reafon of your Charge is, " Thus you rnuft either *' imagine they were a Set of Men, who fubferibed " one Thing, and believed another, than which there 44 can be no more Unchriftian Charge j or eKc, they " did affirm, that thefe Parifhes are of the fame M Kind and Nature with thefirftChriftian Churches.'* Thus it feems they fubferibed not the 'Formula, but your Senfe of it* And if they fubferibed it in any o- ther Senfe, than this of yours, they are unto you bad Men. Bit I am not fatisfied about your own Svb- fcriptioa C 129 ] 'fcription, if this was it* That the Churches planted by the Apoftles were Parishes 5 For you have affirm- ed that the Churches and their Presbyteries planted by the Apoftles were not Congregations, as Parifhea are, and the Presbytery of an apoftolick Church was not the Presbytery of a Parifh. As to what you fay of Kings being nurfingFathers$ if C0?;?/?rf«////^ becoming a nurfmg Father, in your Senfe of that Expreflion, made not the Churches to alter in Kind from the apo- ftolick Inftitution, or gave not the Clergy an excel* lent Opportunity for it (for truly he was noway to be blamed as they) then I am miftaken as to the Senfe of 2 T*hef. H- 7> 8. and I once more defire you may read and confute what I have faid on that Subject in my Book on the Kingdom of Chrifl. You tell me, •• It is not a Perfori's living in the local Bounds of a as lefore, John ClasI \ jE >>w / V \ f