A Vindication of the Preacher Sent, Preface

A Vindication of the Preacher Sent · Preface

A vindication of the Epiſtle.

THe vindication of our Epiſtle to the former book intituled the Preacher Sent: Wherein the nature of a Church capable of Officers, and of being preached unto by ſuch Office-wiſe, is cleared from the exceptions of Dr. Collings in his reply, and of Mr. Hudſon in his addition or poſtſcrip to his vindication of the Church Catholick viſible.

As we ſaw it needful to aſsert (in our other book) our perſwaſion of the nature of a Goſpel Church, for the better clearing the nature of office and of power of preaching Office-wiſe therein; So the Dr. ſaw it incumbant unto him to overturne if poſſible, that foundation, which he calleth foreign but we foreign in this controverſie an account whereof was given by us in theſe words; A-Church formed unto fellowſhip in new Teſtament Ordinances, and is a particular company of Saints in mutual union, for mutual fellowſhip in the meanes of worſhip appointed by Chriſt, for the glory of God and edification of their own ſouls and the good of others.

1. This deſcription he examineth in the ſix particulars thereof: That it is a company he grants, and that one cannot properly be called a Church, we accept of this, but if he thinketh by a figure one may be called ſo, (as his aſſertion qualified with a ſtrictly, and properly ſeemeth to imitate) we doubt his figurative, will be found not a Scriptural, but anti-ſcriptural ſenſe, no better then that wherein a Prelate, a Pope claimeth the denomination, not as properly, but vertua… ſo; againſt whoſe uſurpations himſelfe ſtands juſtly engaged; as well may one man be called a City, as one man a Church, which cannot be in any ſenſe.

2: A particular company—Dr. C. I cannot fathom your notion of particular, &c.

Anſw. That notion is not ſingular, a man cannot travel far in this controverſie, ſcarce in any author, but he meets it and comes acquainted with it. It is indeed oppoſed to univerſal.

1. If a univerſal company of Saints, holding forth the word of Life, in a converſation becomming the Goſpel, may be called a univerſal viſible Church. 2. If all the members of particular Churches are, or ought to be members of this univerſal, yet the particular Churches themſelves, as ſuch, are not members: That forme which giveth them their being as ſuch, implyeth another union, and is attended with other Lambs, and orders then the vniverſall is ingaged in, or obliged unto, as ſhall more fully appear in its due place.

3. As therefore a flock of ſheep, a ſwarme of bees being part of that company of ſheep, of Bees, which is in the World, may be called a particular company of ſheep, bees &c. though as a flock Swarme they be no parts, but otherwiſe diſtinguiſhed, and ſo a Church of Saints, part of that company of Saints, which is in the World, may be called a particular company, and ſtand related to the univerſal: but as Saints, not as Churches of Saints, as we expreſsed our ſelves before under this head. But the controverſie is not onelyonly about a word, he now diſputes for the term univerſal to have been put in the place of particular,—Dr. C. an univerſal theam in Logick is that which is apt to be predicated of many: Church is ſuch a Theam.

Anſw. We wonder that a man of learning ſhould run into ſuch a contradiction to Mr. H. unto whom we are ſent for further light i… this controverſie, and alſo to himſelfe within the verge of the ſame Paragraph.

1. He contradicts Mr. H. who expreſly denies that the Church Catholick is a Genus, or univerſal notion and Theame apt to be predicated concerning many, in the 4th Chapter of a vindication, of the eſsence and unity of the Church Catholick viſible.

2. He contradicts himſelfe, when in the next leaf he affirms, that the Church Catholick is Totum integrale, which we are ſure is not apt to be predicated of many naturally, if the whole were predicated of the part, The part might be ſaid Vind. Sheibl. Topic. Cap. 28. Sthal. Axion. Tit. 9. Reg. 9.to be the whole: The head, the body, the branch, the tree, becauſe Animal is predicated of Homo; Homo is aptly ſaid to be Animal. But becauſe he ſends us to Mr. Hudſon, to Mr. H. we will go, and willingly as to a man that underſtands himſelfe, whoſe moderation conjoyned with learning, and diligence in this controverſie, (though profeſſedly againſt us) we highly reſpect and value.

1. He urgeth Scriptures where the word (Church) is uſed not applicable to a particular Church, Acts 8. 3. &c.

2. He uſeth arguments to prove, that every Officer, is an Officer to a univerſal, becauſe by baptiſm he admits into it; and by Excomunication caſts out of it, not into, or out of a particular onelyonly.

Anſw. The term Church in the ſingular number is frequently uſed in Scripture, to ſignifie not a univerſall Church, nor a ſingular onelyonly, as in ſome of his Scriptures but this and that and the other particular (as amongſt many other) in the Scriptures hereafter mentioned, Mat. 18. 17. Tell the Church, i. e. this or that Church in which the offence was committed; Surely none will ſay that after taking one or two, the offended brother must in the next place tell it to the univerſal Church, where doth any ſuch Church meet for ſuch Acts, to tell it unto? So Epheſ. 3. 10. 21. 1. Tim. 3. 5. If [a man] i. e. any man, knew not to rule his own [houſe] i. e. this or that houſe, how ſhall he take care of [the Church] i. e. this or that Church 1 Tim. 3. 15. in the houſe of God, which is [the Church] i e. in any Church where thou preſideſt, … Tim. 5 16. Let not [the Church] be charged, i. e. any Church where the any man or woman (mentioned by the Apoſtle) having widdowes doth reſide.

Heb. 2. 12. In the midſt of the Church. This declaring praiſe cannot be in the midst of the univerſal Church which never meeteth upon ſuch Acts, and therefore it is not meant of this, or that particular onelyonly.

but this, and that and the other, diſtinct indeed, in distinct individual formes, as Plato & Socrates are diſtinct, but agreeing in common nature inſeparable, inherent in them both.

Thus it is ſaid (the wife) is bound 1. Cor. 7. 39, every particular wife,—(the man) is not of the Woman, 1 Cor. 11. 8. nor this, nor that man, nor any man; when the name of an Integrum is given to a part, its not ſo becauſe its a part, but becauſe of the common nature; ſo that the fleſh of Iohn and the fleſh of Thomas is all fleſh, as well as the fleſh of the Leg and arme of either of them: we do not think a particular Church formed unto fellowſhip, according to inſtitution is (as ſo) a part or hath its denomination for parts ſake, but being of the ſame kind with other Churches of the ſame conſtitution its included in, and repreſented by the ſame name for kindes ſake.

This may anſwer the argument from the Apostles, who becauſe not officers to a certain particular onelyonly, are ſuppoſed to have been ſo to the univerſal: For the Apoſtles were Officers, in and over every particular, by vertue of an immediate call and general commiſſion wherin they have no ſucceſſors, which particulers, though not parts, (as is already expreſſed) may be ſignified by a ſingular word, Church, even as many common wealths, as to order and government Independent may be ſo ſignified, and it may be properly ſaid, God appointed for a common-wealth Rulers, Judgges, &c. (i. e.) for this that, and the other Commonwealth; Nor is it ha…d to Imagin, how one may have power in, and over two or three, or more, yet they have no dependance, one upon an other.

A Father may have ten daughters, and each daughter her family diſtinct, the Father hath power in each family, though the particular ſisters, or their o fficers not ſo, Nor are the arguments more cogent taken from baptiſm and excommunication;-Baptiſm makes not any one stand in relation to the Church more then the Lords-Supper, nor is it administred that perſons may be members of the body, we know our brethren will not administer it to the heathens, or Idolaters, but to perſons called from Idols, (i. e.) to members (in their ſenſe) of the viſible Church.

We know our brethren qualified their Catholick notion with this terme [ſolemn] intending not admiſſion, in a general ſenſe, but ſolemn admiſſion, as the enlisting or enrolment of a ſoldier is his admiſſion into the Army.

But its conſistency with their other principles we ſee not, If a ſoldier be caſheired, he is readmitted by a new enrolment, If a member be excomunicate yet when abſolved he is not rebaptized; We need ſay no more to this argument here, having occaſion to meet it▪ againe and to conſider the Scriptures, whereon its built. We rest very confident that ſome Parent, Maſter, or neighbour, who through providence is inſtrumental to the converting of a ſinner, doth more to the entring a perſon into the body of Chriſt, then any Minister ever did by Baptiſm, or can do.

Though baptiſm entereth not a member into any Church, yet, where ever regularly performed is valid to its ends uſes and conſequential priveledges in every Church, not by reaſon of the unity of Churches, but upon an other account. Suppoſe a man be free in London, and have the ſeale of his freedom in that Corporation onelyonly, yet he is free to buy and ſell in every Corporation in England, and intereſted in common Priveledges, where ever he is, though not in proper, as Juriſdiction and Government. If he that ſets the ſeal at London admits not into every Company and Corporation in the Land: If communion with every Corporation in ſome things doth not prove ſuch an union among them all, as is between the members of ſome one Corporation; The argument upon Baptiſm to prove a Catholick Church, falleth to the ground.

Excomunication indeed ſeparateth, the perſon excomunicate, from Relation to and communion with, the body from which he is cut off, 1 Cor. 55. 7. 13. But as a member forfeiting his freedom at London, is formerly deſfranchiſed there, where he was actually a member, and conſequently incapacitated to claim the Priviledges which formerly he enjoyed by vertue of that freedom other where, though London and other Cities and Townes Corporate, make not one Corporation, So it is in this caſe.

Mr. Hudſon objects postcript page 5. ſeveral Corporations are conſtituted by ſeveral Charters &c. and but the univerſal Church hath but one Charter, from our Soveraigne, under the ſame Systeme of Lawes, &c.

Anſw. As the World according to the fellowſhip of Nature, hath one Jus Gentium, and Law of nature for the whole, yet according to the fellowſhip of Order, muſt of neceſſity be under other Lawes for the ſeveral parts thereof, in thoſe combined fellowſhips; ſo the Church in the fellowſhip of its Nature, or the whole company called to union and communion with the Lord Jeſus, hath one Law of faith, obedience, &c. For all its individuals, yet not one Law for the whole, as ſuch for Order Policy, &c. But the Churches in the fellowſhip of order have Lawes ſuitable to their order, by the wil and appointment of Jeſus Chriſt. Its the Law of the univerſal Church, that the members of it worſhip the Lord. Its the Law of the particular, that the members meet and worſhip in one place. 1 Cor. 11. 20. 14. 23. thus they walk [together] in ordinances, ſo that walking in ordinances with an other Church (neglecting it in this) is ſinful, becauſe every one is bound to walk with the ſame Church whereof he is a member. That Text is yet in controverſie. 1. Cor. 12. 28. God hath ſet ſome in the Church,—we ſaid its paralel to God hath ſet the members every one in the body, verſe 18, If this prove not a Catholike body, nor doth that prove a Catholick Church. D…. Collings replyeth the body is totum integrale. If members had been enumerated, not confined to the ſervice of that particular, it would have proved a univerſal body.

Anſw. The body to which the Church is compared is totum intigrale Organicum, but particulare, ſo is the Church. The Apoſtles had place and power over more then this particular, yet as Church-Officers no place in, nor power over any but particulars, It is uſual to apply general termes indeterminately to particular things, as to ſay the wife is bound, the man is the head of the woman, i. e. This and that man, wife, &c. ſo ſet in the Church, i. e. in this, and that and the other Church.

Mr. H. replyeth further, ſeveral bodies are one body genericaly not Integraty, becauſe not united by one external bond but the Vniverſal Church is united into one body by bonds of the ſame Soveraigne, the ſame Lawes, covenant, &c. pa. 6.

Anſw. Either particular aſsociations are no institutions of Chriſt or they have ſeveral unions, Lawes, Acts and Ends; Men as men have their union, Law, Acts, &c. Men as Armies, as bodies politick have their union, Law, Acts differing; So chriſtians as chriſtians have their Law proper to that ſtate; Christians, as a common wealth their Law proper to that ſtate, and differing from the other Law.

If Church Vnion be one and that Catholick union then ſchiſm the breach of that union must be as the catholick breach; ſo that though a member ceaſe worſhipping with this aſſembly in this place, yet if he worſhip with any aſſembly part of the Church Catholike in any place, he is no Schiſmatick: upon which reaſon the loud outcry againſt Sepration is unjust, as it is unreaſonable upon an other account, we therefore yet renounce the name and thing of a Church of Churches, or a viſable Catholick Church formed unto fellowſhip in new Teſtament ordinances, (in which term we declared our ſenſe) but do not renounce the Scripture, nor reaſon, much leſſe our own bretheren, as Dr. Collings hath raſhly affirmed. Our thoughts for this Abrenuntiation were confirmed in five particulars, wherein all exceptions conſidered we find… nothing for Retractation.

1. N… part hath the power of a whole in it: Every particular Church hath the power of a whol in it, Ergo, No particular Chur…h is a part.

Exception Dr. Col. A particular Church hath not the Power of the whole, becauſe not Power to make a Synod, nor to ordain, nor to excommunicate.

Anſw. His reaſon from a Synod is reaſon'eſſe: The common wealth of England is a whole, and hath the power of a whole in it… yet a controverſie ariſing (of what nature ſoe ver it be) between Eng. and another common-wealth, or commonwealths; Eng. hath no power to constitute commiſſioners who ſhall debate determine and compoſe that difference, yet Power to meet in a treaty, is as much kingdome power, as power to meet in a Synod, is Church power, Ergo; either Englands power is incompleat, or the Drs. Argument is ſo.

His argument from Ordination and Excommunication is but named, therefore in this place we do but deny it: Where nothing is proved, nothing is found to be anſwered.

Excep. Mr. Hudſon—A particular Church is a whole in reference to its own members, but in reference to the reſt of the Church it is a part, as a Corporation is compleat according to its conſtitution, yet a member of a greater body.

Anſw. If a Corporation be conſidered with reference to other Corporations to which it stands co-ordinate, it is a whole, not a member, not a part: If with reference to a Kingdome, to which it ſtands Subordinate, tis a part, a member, not a whole: So if a particular Congregation be conſidered with reference to other Congregations to which it stands Co-ordinate, it is a whole, not a part. If with reference to a Church to which it ſtands Subordinate tis a part, not a whole: But there is no ſuch Church: The Subordination which our brethren plead for, is of the Church to Officers, not of a Church to a Church; And that Officers are not called the Church in Scripture, we ſhall ſhew, and that by their own principles, they cannot be ſtiled ſo.

2. Every whole is really diſtinct from every part, and from all its parts Collectively conſidered; no Church of Churches is really distinct from all particular Churches, Ergo, There is no ſuch Church.

Except. Dr. C. Mr. H. There's a fallacy in the Argument,—It is a Maxime in Logick, Totum reipſa non diſſert a partibus ſimul ſumptis & unitis.

Anſw. Our Argument is right according to that Rule; Partes ſimul ſumptae, do not constitute a Totum, except they be unite; or the whole differs from all the parts Collectively conſidered, though unitively conſidered, it differs not;—ſuppoſe ten heaps of Corne in one Room, contayning all the Corne which is in the World, which afterwards are reduced into one great heap; when they are ten, they are not one, and when they are one, they are not ten.

Of the ſuppoſed union of the univerſal Political Church, ſomething hath been ſpoken already, and more will occur under the head of union.

3. There is no univerſal viſible meeting to worſhip God; Ergo, No univerſal viſible Church; for foreign ſignifies Congregation, or Aſſembly, company meeting together.

Except. Dr. Collings. There is an univerſal meeting of the Church Catholick viſible at the Throne of Grace, &c.

Anſw. We wonder at his diſcourſe upon this Argument; for from our inſtance of the Church of the firſt-borne gathered indeed in one ſpirit, united unto one head, meeting inviſibly in one worſhip, he would obtain this, That although there be no local meeting, yet there may be a viſible Church; when it ſpeakes plainly thus much, viz. as inviſible union, and inviſible communion is neceſſary unto the being of the inviſible, ſo viſible union, & viſible communion is neceſsary to the being of the viſible church; although we may be preſent with Dr. Collings in ſpirit, and he with us, never coming together in the ſame place; yet viſibly preſent we cannot be, nor in the performance of any viſible work.

Exc. Mr. H. foreign ſignifies a calling out, not a calling together,—the particular congregation is rather, foreign then foreign.

Anſw. That particular Congregations and Aſsemblies of people, whether civil or ſacred, are in Scripture alwaies termed foreign never foreign Mr H. cannot be ignorant, what he writes, therefore is not a Corrective from the writings of weake men, but for the Scriptures of the moſt wiſe God, by which alone we deſire to meaſure our notions and expreſſions in this controverſie.

Be it ſo that the Scottiſh word [Kirk] and the Engliſh word [Church] comes from foreign which ſignifies the Lords, all aſſemblies are not ſo properly the Lords as Church-Aſſemblies, as foreign: yet as is the Church, ſo is the union thereof, ſo the worke and meeting thereunto; the Vniverſal Church is the general aſsembly, Heb. 12. 23. meeting in one place ſpiritually, and inviſibly, they are all come to mount Sion, to the City of the living God, To the heavenly Jeruſalem, Heb. 12. 22. They are all choſen out of the World. 10. 15. 19. (i. e.) called out of the World, elſe the World would not hate them, they are all gathered unto Chriſt, Gen. 49. 10.

The particular Church is a particular aſsembly, or a Society of men aſſembling together, for the Celebration of Ordinances according to Chriſts appointments, not that their aſſembling thereunto conſtitutes them a Church, but it is a main end of their union, and the fruit, iſſue and manifeſtation of their conſtitution by ſuch union. The meetings of the Jewiſh Church at appointed times, were as extenſive as the Church it ſelfe; wherefore we yet conclude, if no National meeting, no National Church, if no univerſal meeting, no univerſal Church entruſted with the adminiſtration of ordi…ances according to the mind of Christ.

4. There are no diſtinct officers appointed for ſuch a Church, Ergo, no ſuch Church.

Exc. Dr. Col. No need of distinct Officers, becauſe the Officers of particular Congregations, which as parts conſtitute the whole, have power to act as Officers in any of thoſe parts, which united make up that whole.

The Church is one body, and as it is una, ſo it is unita, in one common profeſſion, &c. To the ſame purpoſe Mr. H. Every Miniſter hath an indefinite Office, which is equivalent to a general. Every Miniſter hath power in actu primo to diſpenſe the word in any ſacred convention, and though not an actual Officer of the whole, yet hath an habitual power, &c.

Anſw. It cannot be denyed, but in all civil policies, our argument stands good, no greater body is made up of leſser, but it hath a greater authority diſtinct in Law and government from the leſser; divers Townes united into one hundred, divers hundreds into one County, diverſe Counties into one Common-wealth, are in their ſeveral ſubordinations diſtinguiſhed by ſeveral acts and Officers appointed unto them. If diverſe Churches were united into one Church, ſurely it would be ſo alſo. In the Jewiſh politie it was ſo; beſides the Ruler of the Synagogue, beſides the Prieſt and Levite, through every Tribe diſperced, there was a greater authority distinct in Law and Government, in order and ministration from them, viz. the High Prieſt.

Who knowes not that a Church Catholick viſible intruſted with the adminiſtration of Ordinances bath been hotly contended for by the Papiſts as a fit body for the Pope their head?

But as earnestly contended againſt by the reformed; They ſaw no truth in what Dr. C. affirmes, viz. That a Church may be a univerſal viſible, yet have no Officer over it, or Act performed in it, but what is particular.

Nor will it ſalve the buſineſse, to ſay every Miniſter is an indefinite Officer, with habitual power, &c. An Officer actu primo to the Vniverſal Church, who as a Juſtice of peace, may be commiſſioned for a County, though exerciſing but in a part thereof; For a Juſtice of Peace hath power by vertue of his commiſſion to act in the whole County, without any other Call, & fundamentum Exercitii, which is Anſ. of the Aſſemb. pa… 10.denyed a Miniſter; an Officer actu primo is furniſhed with all power needful unto, and productive of a ſecond act. He that is general of an Army in actu primo, hath power over the Army, exercere & cocrcere, a particular Officer not ſo: He that is a King actu primo hath power to governe a Kingdome, a Mayor of a City not ſo: When any thing is in the firſt act, it is in a capacity for a ſecond act, in nature and extent, like unto the firſt. If a miniſter hath not the exerciſe of power in every Church, if he hath not the foundation of the exerciſe in any but his particular Church, to whom he ſtands related as their miniſter, he is not a miniſter, actu primo to every Church.

The caſe of an Officer definite to ſome, viz. to a particular Church and indefinite to others, viz. to a Catholick Church is a strange caſe; inſtances ſometimes given in Lawyers. Phyſitians. &c. reach it not who as ſo, are not officers over any, nor have they office rule to paralel it.

There is no Church greater then that, which hath power to hear and determine upon offences committed, but that is particular.

Exc. Dr. C. This Argument is nothing to the Question, which is not, which is greater, but whether there be any Catholick Church or no; The particular Church hath not power of final determination.

Anſw. When a queſtion is de toto made up of divers parts, it being out of queſtion, that a whole is greater then its parts, he that proves the preended whole not greater then the ſuppoſed parts, pr ves that to be no whole, and theſe to be no parts, and ſo ſpeakes to the Question, and reſolves it.

That power of final determination is in the particular Church, we proved, Mat. 18. 17. which Scripture either is no rule, to bring the offence unto the Church particular at all, or is a rule to end it there: And if Chriſt hath placed power in the hand of ſeven, we may not remove it to place it in the hand of ſeventy, though more wiſe and juditious then the).

Exc. Mr. H. By the Church, Christ doth mean the Elders, The people never had any right of judicature among the Jewes, but the Courts where appeales were from three Judges to 23. and from 23. to the Sanhed…im, no Chriſtian congregation was instituted when Christ ſpake, Mat. 18. 17. Its to be taken therefore in the Jewes Dialect, &c.

Anſw. That the elderſhip of a Church is by a Synechdoch… called a Church in Scripture, cannot be clearly evinced from one Text, nor is it ſuitable to Mr. H. his principle to attribute that denomination to Officers either in congregational or claſſical, or higher aſſemblies: For he ſaith vindic. p. 126. The body of Officers is a governing body; But the whole Church whether general or particular is not a governing body, Ergo, Say we. the body of officers is not the Church general or particular; again, every Church (ſaith he) is a ſimilar part of the Catholick, obtayning its denomination upon that account, pag. 123. and elſe-where, whence this is clear, that the Elderſhip of leſser or greater Congregations is not a Church.

Such a body indeed is a body of Organs, not an Organical body, though it ſhould be ſuppoſed a part of the Catholick, yet could it not be ſaid to be a ſingular part; ſo that upon the account of ſimilarity, it ſhould, though a particular bear the name of the univerſal, and be ſtiled a Church. That offences among the Jewes were never brought before the people to be judged and ſenſured, but before Officers meeting apart from them, we believe not, mos ſuit Hebraeis rem ultimo loco ad multitudinem, foreign i. e. eorum qui eadem inſtituta ſectarentur producers, cujus tamen multitudinis juditia ſeniores tar quam preſides moderabantur, Grot. in Mat. 18. 17. and this was the cuſtome of Christians in Tertullians time (who was converted to the faith, An…o. Dom. 200) and had his approbation in his famous apology for Chriſtians more then 1400 yeares old, who Cap. 39. denies the Chriſtians being a factious ſociety, as they were aſperſed, and ſhewes their manner: We make (ſaith he) a Congregation; by certaine knowledge all conſpire in the ſervice of the true God, where we live united under one diſcipline▪ &c. We aſſemble together by Troops in our prayers to God, in theſe aſſemblies we make Exhortations, and Threatnings and Exerciſe Divine cenſure that baniſheth ſinners, and excludes them from our communion, &c.

That our Saviour in ſaying, tell the Church, ſhould ſend his Diſciples, in caſe of ſcandal (Suppoſe committed against Religion, and his Law) to thoſe Courts to whom Religion it ſelfe was a ſcandal, and offence, is not by ſober men to be imagined. That he ſhould allude to thoſe Courts, intending ſuch like to be erected, when the Jewiſh politie ſhould be taken downe, as it leaves the offended without remedy to day; So the Rule impracticable till Chriſt be …ead and riſen again. It is far more probable, that as (the Temple yet ſtanding, and the great Congregation meeting therein) Phariſees, Saduces, Eſſenes, &c. Had their caetus proprios, their diſtinct Aſſ…mblies, in which they did conſult the peace, and proſperity of their Order reſpectively, and ſenſure and judge Offences committed againſt the Lawes, and inſtitutions thereof.

So Chriſt having gathered a company under him, and made known his Law, this company did meet together, Acts 1. 21. where (with reaſon we may conclude) the concernments of Chriſtianity were propounded and conſidered; and offences heard and finally determined, if this were the Church, of which Chriſt, Mat. 18. 17 doth ſpeak, it cleares our Argument; but ſuppoſe the Rule were impracticable for the preſent, yet he cannot ſo ſpeak in the Jewes dialect, as to aſſert that ſuch Courts ſhould …e erected as, were amongſt them; for the word Church is never uſed in Scripture for an Elderſhip, but for a company of viſible believers united to walk together in the ſame numerical Ordinances, and it is plain that Chriſt would have the offence told to ſuch an Aſſembly as he giveth the name of Church to; And alſo Chriſts order here is quite different from that amongſt the Jewes, they after private admonition had not an inſtitution for taking one or two private perſons to admoniſh before bringing the matter to their Courts.

In the cloſe of our diſcourſe, for the compleatneſſe of a particular Church, and against a Univerſal, we minded this object. viz. Though Churches meet not in all their members, yet they may meet in their repreſentatives, which being met, may be called a Claſſical, Provincial or National Church. To which we anſwered, that ſuch a Church is not a true Church.

Dr. Collings replyeth, A Synod is a true Church, or our definition is not true; for a Synod is a particular company of Saints in mutual union, for mutual fellowſhip in means of worſhip, &c.

Anſw. To ſay a repreſentative is a true Church, is to ſpeak contradictions, If it be an image, it is not a man, if a ſhadow, its not a ſubſtance, if the repreſentative of a true, its truly a repreſentative, but not that which is repreſented in truth.

A Synod (in Dr. C. ſenſe) differs from a Church by us deſcribed, toto coelo; 1 Saints as ſo are fit mater for a Church but ſaints as gifted, are only fit matter for a Synod, Saints qualified for Synodal debats and determinations.

2. Saints as united are a Church, or stand related unto it: Saints or holy men delegated, are a Synod, or ſtand related to it.

3. In a Church body members are united unto fellowſhip in meanes of instituted worſhip: In a Synod unto council, &c. Here is differing matter, differing form, and differing ends. But we now returne from walking the bounds of the Church, to take a further view of the buildings thereof, and of the precious ſtones therein; we ſaid of this particular company, It is an Holy company, a company of Saints. This D. Collings grants, Sa…o ſenſu, as he ſaith upon ſome arguments concluſive enough urged by us, Mr. H. doth distinguiſh of Saints, Some by dedication and conſecration, ſome by regeneration, and ſuppoſeth we mean by viſible Saints, ſuch as are ſo in the former ſenſe: Accordingly the Dr. not dealing with our arguments but going about another way, doth deny, that a viſibility of ſaving Grace is needful to the conſtitution of a Church in all the members of it, and Mr. H. ſaith we have no certain rule to judge of the regeneration of another. In which diſcourſe they do in effect ſpeak thus unto us, you do well to ſee that your Church members be Saints, Holy perſons, but you have nothing to do to enquire about truth of Grace, nor to conclude of Saintſhip and holyneſſe from the appearance or viſibility thereof: As if holineſſe or ſaintſhip could, under the Goſple, be placed at the foot of any other account then that of the preſence or appearance of Grace.

Special ſaving grace is indeed an inviſible thing, and of it we can make no true (i. e.) certain and infallible judgement, yet we may and must make a Church judgement, and a judgement of ſaving Grace in order to communion in the Lords Supper, he doth allow, though he ſaith a judgement of ſaving Grace is impoſſible, what conſiſtency there is in ſuch expreſſions, let him conſider, yea in the cloſe of his Epiſtle he ſits in judgement upon our hearts, but how he ſhould diſerne our ſecrets that doth profeſſe againſt inquiring about the inward work, let the Reader judge. The children of the members we regard as foreign 1 Cor. 7. 14. not barely from the parents profeſſion, but the manifeſtation of God, ſaying he is their God, and of Chriſt, ſaying of ſuch is the kingdome of Heaven, they are partakers of that fulneſſe foreign (as profeſsors are, which the Elect and called are foreign partakers of.

The Apostolical practice doth not evince Acts 2. Act. 4. That the thouſands baptized were baptized upon a bare owning the Goſpel, without any reſpect to ſaving grace: They which were baptized, renouncing the Religion in which educated, embracing the Goſpel under perſecution and contempt, they were pricked in heart, they gladly received the word, Acts 2. 37. 41. a bare profeſſion where that alſo is a carnal ingagement, is not ſo ſignal in the hundred part. His eaſy anſwer to our question, concerning tryal of Grace in order to Communion in the ſupper, and not to Church Communion is indeed, as he calleth it, an eaſy anſwer, we no where find (ſaith he) let a man Examine himſelfe and ſo come into the fellowſhip of the Church, he thinks the 3000. and the 5000. had ſcarce any leaſure, before their admiſſion to do it throughly.

Anſw. Commendable was that fear, Acts 5. 11. not onelyonly the fear of the Church, but of others alſo, ne laederent hunc caetum, nec contemnerent, nec temere, ſe illis conjungerent, ſed qui vellent ſuſcipi agerent hoc ſerio &c. Arel. in loc. Muſt not all our works be done in faith? All our homage to God, in ſpirit and truth? Shall men enter the Church as the unclean beasts the Ark, not knowing that they are unclean: As we hinted before, the 3000. had not onelyonly leaſure, but did evidence their being pricked at the heart, &c. Acts 2. 37. 41.

Let the Dr. read over again our arguments for ſuch a qualification of members, as is by us aſſerted, and (at leaſt until ſome anſwer be made which may plead ſatisfaction) not judge us in the least obſtinate, if we yet ſit down in this perſwaſion, viz. That… men viſibly unbelieving and unregenerate are de jure no members in that ſociety; it is to be made up of believers, of the children of God. &c.

Nor is this company ſo qualified a Church except a united company. Our Arguments for this alſo the Dr. thought fit to wave, and by an attempt like Alexanders upon the Gordian knot, to cut the diſcourſe in pieces, rather then to unty it: with what ſucceſſe is now to be conſidered.

He offers, Acts. 19. where mention is made of a company called foreign not a united company, but preſently he diſmiſseth the argument, calling the company a rout, and ſo do we, having determined the ſubject of the union, we ſpeak of a Church formed unto fellowſhip.

He affirmes, That a Church inorganical needs no union but what is in profeſſion, upon which account the company in a particular houſe is called a Church. Coloſs. 4. 15. Rom. 16. 5.

Anſw. If profeſſion be the Church union, then Apoſtacy onelyonly is the ſeparation, and Independents must be acquitted of Schiſme until they can be proved Apoſtates.

No Political union is founded in profeſſion; A Goldſmith in London, is not of the company, becauſe a Goldſmith; when mention is made of a Church in a houſe, it either may denote the company meeting in that houſe in the ſame numerical administrations, or a good part of the Church living therein: In either ſenſe not the meer profeſſion, but the union by conſent to worſhip God in the ſelfe ſame ordinances, is the reaſon of the denomination.

He grants it reaſonable that a Church Organical ſhould be a company united by conſent, but ſaith its not neceſſary this conſent be explicit, yet its very convenient it be ſo, and they heartily wiſh it might be ſo.

Anſw. We are glad if conſent be ſeen reaſonable upon any account, if any conſent, …ut if implicit conſent be reaſonable, then Explicit is ſo much more; A man may enter his Neighbours houſe without knocking, but tis not ſo orderly, or peaceable a way.

We wonder at his declamation against explicit Covenant, as if there were not the leaſt warrant in Gods word for it, when in the next line, he tels us of many wiſhes for it. We ſuppoſe his members when he ſhall urge ſubmiſſion by explicit conſent upon them, will ſay, but who hath required that at our hand? Is it from Heaven or of men? If he ſaith its of Heaven, God requireth it, then tis neceſsary he must urge it: If he ſay tis not of Heaven, but of men, why doth he ſo much wiſh it, or deſire it?

Againſt our 5th and 6th particular no objection is lifted up, onelyonly Dr. Collings complaines of one paſsage, which almost made his head ake in ſtudying the connexion of it, but it was the Printers fault, not ours; we crave the many literal ſylabycal and verbal miſtakes, of which no account is given in the Errataes, be not imputed to us, who live at a great distance from the Preſſe, we had ſome thoughts when first we received the book to have printed a paper of corrections by it ſelfe, for the benefit of them that ſhould peruſe the Book, but have been prevented until now, and (not) remaines in that troubleſome paſsage inſtead of (now) correct that, our ſenſe is clear, for thus the words run, Our brethren being now baptized into a belief, &c.

As to the Divine original of Presbyterial government, we are yet perſwaded the Reverend Aſſembly was not confident of it, at least they did not intimate ſo much in that third propoſition, nay they, ſuggeſt the contrary, ſaying, many particular Congregations may be under one Presbyterial Government. Many Cities, Townes, Countries may be under the Government of one, though no Jus Divinum be ſtampt upon that Government; for ſo they may be under a Councel of ſtate, a Parliament▪ &c. They that ſuppoſe the forme of Church-government left undetermined, ſay Epiſcopal may be, Presbyterial may be, but they that ſuppoſe otherwiſe ſay. This or that forme must, be We find nothing more but words, and though we have reaſon'd this caſe, yet we delight not to word it, onelyonly ſome account is given of that kind of Querimonial Rhetorick in our▪ advertiſement to the Reader.