members or elders, you infer I have not answered, but trifled about the churches of Galatia. I am ftill ready to acknowledge, that it is the duty of the churches of the faints to hold that communion 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 worship 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 minister a minister but beyond the communion of churches pointed out to me in the New Teftament, I dare not follow you, nor affent to any fuch communion and oneness of churches as has already ferved to deftroy their being, and to bring forth and nurse up the man of fin; and that is the thing you are contending for, without any fhadow of ground for it in the New Teftament. As to your faying, that I have trifled, instead of answering what you say on the churches of Galatia, I tell you again, that it is easier to fpeak thus, after your cuftom, than to be at pains to take my exceptions out of the way. And I am of the mind that I have said more on the churches of Galatia than you durft undertake to answer. Then you proceed to your next import of the word church, which is the paftors and rulers of the visible body of Chrift; and you fatisfy yourself with faying, that I have not answered what you faid on Matth. xviii. and Acts xv. 22. and Acts xviii. 22. and referring the reader to what you have faid, giving him liberty to judge for himself. So that I have no more to do here but refer him alfo to what I have answered, if the bare reading over of these texts be not fufficient to let him fee, that the word church, in them, cannot fignify the elders, as diftinguished, from the flock. But you put me in 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 understand the prefbytery of Antioch; because it was only that presbytery that fent them forth, and not the church; and it is not eafy to conceive that they should report the fuccefs of their embaffy to any but thofe 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 Antioch, Acts xv. 3. 12. fo by the church which they gathered together, and to which they : they rehearsed all that God had done with them, I can understand nothing else but that church wherein that presbyterý was that laid hands on them, Acts xiii. 1. But by the fame rule, by which you make the church diftinguished from the elders, Acts xv. 22. yet to fignify the elders, you may make the church here to fignify the prefbytery that was in it and who would be at pains to confute fuch affertions ? And now, Sir, I have mentioned all the fcriptures that you have called in to the fupport of one of the grand foundations of Popery, namely, a church reprefentative; but let me fay, that there needs no more but the mentioning of these texts, to fhew that the notion of a church reprefentative never took its rife from the use of the word church in the New Testament. But before you leave this head, you tell me you have two things more to propofe on Matth. xviii. For I reckon you imagine your main ftrength lies there. And you begin with declining to fhew a warrant in the New Teftament for elders their binding and loofing any otherwife but in the prefence, and with the confent of the flock. And, as is your custom when it comes to the pinch, you complain of me for giving you a negative to prove. But after the evidence I have brought from the fcripture account of the nature of the rule and government of Chriftian elders, or presidents, leaders, feeders of the flock of God which is among them, not as Lords over God's heritage, but as enfamples to the flock, and after what I have pointed out of the practice of the apoftles and elders of the apoftolic churches, and particularly the practice, Acts xv. 22. to which agrees the practice of the primitive churches as far down as the third cen tury, I must be allowed to say, that the elders of a church are warranted to bind and loose, in the presence and with the confent of the flock which they overfee, and that there is no warrant in the New Teftament for their doing it otherwife. Yea, I may put fuch confidence in you as to reckon, that if you had but had the least shadow of a warrant to produce, you would have produced it, before you had betaken yourself to the shift of making it a negative, and fo refusing to prove it, by a rule of the art of fcholaftic difputing. The two things that you propose, and leave to my cooler thoughts, are, I. Tell the church is meant of a church of "rulers, and confequently it was them the text fpeaks of, "as having the power of binding and loofing, without the "lcaft hint of the neceffity of the confent of private Chri "ftians." "ftians." Well, this is the thing in queftion, and it has been in my thoughts long before now; but neither my coolest nor warmeft thoughts can find any ground for it in the text. How is it proven? By two things again. "1. If the church "here meant be not a church only of rulers, then there may "be a worshipping affembly or organifed church, confifting "of no more but two or three for the promise made y 20. "is unto that number, which plainly fuppofes there may be a church of no more in number." But how does it fuppose that? Are the two or three called the church, † 19. 20.? Or is the church, ỷ 17. no more but the eminent two or three pointed at y 19. and 20.? The church, 17. is a fociety, whereof the trefpaffing brother and the offended brother, to whom the Lord's difcourfe is directed, and the one or two more, are members. And therefore the church, y 17. cannot be merely the two or three fpoke of, y 19. and 20. The promise, 18. is made unto the church, 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 y 18. and thefe are the elders, or these that prefide in the church, or their leaders and enfamples in this matter. Thefe are not called the church, but two of you, which is the very leaft number of which a prefbytery of a church can confift; and these two have this promife as well as twenty. Now, Sir, fuppofe, as our Lord fuppofes, there be no more elders to act in this business but two, then tell me what is intended by you, of whom he says thefe, two are, if it be not the fociety of which he had been fpeaking in the foregoing verfes, whereof the offended brother, to whom his difcourfe is directed from the beginning, is a member? Thus I am of opinion, that you shall never be able to prove, that the two or three, whom our Lord makes only a notable part of the church, are called the church, Matth. xviii. 17. It is to me manifeft, that the whole church, the whole fociety, whereof two or three are an eminent part, has fome part to act in this matter of binding and loofing: for thefe two or three are plainly two or three of that church to which the offended brother tells the trefpafs, y 17. and of them that bind or loofe on earth," with a promife of "binding. "and loofing in heaven" what they "bind and loofe on the "earth," 18. The brother that tells the church whereof he is a member the trefpafs, has plainly a part to act in this matter; and fo has the whole brotherhood, according to VOL. I. thefa thefe words, "If he neglect to hear the church, let him be "to thee as an Heathen man and a publican. Verily I fay 66 unto you, Whatsoever ye fhall bind on earth fhall be bound "in heaven. Again, I fay unto you, That if two of you "fhall agree on earth as touching any thing that they fhall "afk, it fhall be done for them," &c. Now, as I reckon you will not confine to elders what is faid to the offended brother, left you make this whole dif courfe to touch only offences and trefpaffes among elders; fo you may fee that thefe to whom he fpeaks, together with the offer.ded brother, are more than the two or three of them. Thefe two or three, then, are not the whole fociety that acts in binding and loofing, or the church; but they are thofe that prefide among them, that guide and lead them, not as lords, but enfamples in the bufinefs of binding and loofing; and they have a special promife, as they are fuch a part of the binding and loofing fociety, or of the church; but they have no promife as feparated from that society, and aling without them, or agreeing to afk, touching binding and loofing, and gathering together without them, to that purpose. By what has been faid, you may see the great weakness of your inference; if the church be not meant of a church only of rulers, then there may be an organifed church, confifting only of two or three and you may alfo perceive the falfehoed of the alledgeance that fupports it, viz. That the promife, y 20. being made to that number, fuppofes there may be a church of no more but that number, And from what has been faid, you have an eafy anfwer to your fecond argu ment, to prove that the church, y 17. means a church only of rulers for you propofe a queftion upon y 19. which you do not cite fairly; and the queftion is, "Now, is the church here meant in the preceding verfe, of a congregation of Je fus Chrift with its prefbytery?" And then you tell me, "If I will not reject thefe words, they muft ftand as a de"monftration, that "Tell the church" is meant of a church : reprefentative." But y 19. can never fhew that the church, 17. is to be understood only to mean the two, who are the finalleft prefbytery that can be in a church. This is not the whole church to which the promife was made, y 18. but an eminent part of it, even the prefidents in it and the promise made to these two, y 19. is not made to them as acting fe parately from their brethren, the members of the church, fo as to bind and loofe without them, but as acting their proper proper part among them, as prefidents in the fociety wl ere. this affair is tranfacted. The promife fuppofes there are no more but two of that kind in the fociety of which he had been before fpeaking: and his words for the encouragement of the smallest presbytery or council of bishops in a church, and therefore alfo of the greateft, are, "If two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they fhall afk, it "fhall be done for them." Now these two, or as many more elders as can be in a church, are not the whole church, but two of the church: fo that, in anfwer to your question, I can tell you that I find both congregation of Jefus Chrift, you, and its prefbytery, two of you, pointed at 19. And thus, this verse can never demonftrate, that Tell the church, 17. is meant of a church-reprefentative, but the contrary. But indeed you fay nothing for a church-representative here, till you prove that the two or three are called the church, fe parately from the fociety where they rule; which, for what I can fee, can never be done. From what has been said, you may alfo fee, how groundlefs your bold affertion is, "There is nothing here to give "the leaft countenance to the confent or concurrence of a "congregation in binding or loofing." You conclude what you fay on this head with fomething like a contradiction to yourfelf: for you had told in your book, p. 607. 608. That to meet in Chrift's name included their concord and agree. ment in the thing they are to addrefs him for; and that this is pointed out to us in what he immediately lays down, be fore he gives this encouraging promife to fuch as affemble in his name, 19. and then you apply all this that is said to two or three to twenty or thirty, p. 610. 611.612. But now you tell, where there are a multitude of rulers, the agreement of the plurality muft determine the caufe, unless we fhould put it in the power of any one to have a negative over a whole assembly, which is abfurd, and contrary to com mon sense. It is true you ftill acknowledge, what cannot be denied, that where there are only two, as is fuppofed in the text, there cannot be a decifion but by their agreement or joint act; and you further acknowledge, there cannot be a decifion by two against one, if there be three, as is fuppofed in the following verfe. But is it any way more abfurd, and contrary to com mon fenfe, that ten fhould have a negative upon twenty, than one should have a negative over two? Further, if the multitude of rulers meet in Chrift's name, then it is not con |