Selected quad for the lemma: christian_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
christian_n	call_v	church_n	congregation_n	1,735	5	9.2238	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A88947	A modest & brotherly ansvver to Mr. Charles Herle his book, against the independency of churches. Wherein his foure arguments for the government of synods over particular congregations, are friendly examined, and clearly answered. Together, with Christian and loving animadversions upon sundry other observable passages in the said booke. All tending to declare the true use of synods, and the power of congregationall churches in the points of electing and ordaining their owne officers, and censuring their offendors. By Richard Mather teacher of the Church at Dorchester; and William Tompson pastor of the Church at Braintree in New-England. Sent from thence after the assembly of elders were dissolved that last met at Cambridg to debate matters about church-government.	Mather, Richard, 1596-1669.; Tompson, William, d. 1666.	1644 (1644)	Wing M1274; Thomason E37_19; ESTC R16954	50,642	62

reference unto then the Church must have power to inflict corporall punishment even to the taking away of life it self because that Judicatory had such power Lastly no other place can be shewed where our Saviour used the word Church for a single congregation Ans. Nor can any other place be shewed where he used the word Church for a Synod nor that he ever used the word at all but onely here and in Matth. 16. Vpon this rock will I build my Church in which place he means a Synod no more then a single congregation But for the Scripture language nothing is more manifest then as it never anywhere useth the word Church for a single congregation unlesse happily in 1 Cor. 14. so nothing is more frequent therein then to call many congregations in a Province or City by the name of a Church pag. 12. Ans. We are willing to consider of both these particulars and first of the former wherein you do acknowledge though a perhaps or happily that in 1 Cor. 14. the word Church is taken for a single congregation but you may acknowledge it undoubtedly and without any perhaps at all because it is said ver. 23. of that Chapter that the whole Church cometh together in one place And in other verses of the same Chapter he speaks how he that prophecieth edifieth the Church how interpreting is that the Church may receive edifying how it is a shame for women to speak in the Church ver. 4 5 35. Yea in ver. 26 27 28. he gives them this direction that when they come together and every one hath a Psalme a Doctrine c. that he that speaks in a strange tongue if there be no Interpreter must keep silence in the Church By all which he plainly sheweth that the name Church is given to the company that did assemble and come together for performance of spirituall duties and for the exercise of spirituall gifts Now a company coming together is a congregation and therefore the name of Church is here given to a congregation But besides this Chapter there are many other places where the word Church is also used in the same sence for instance take these amongst many Act. 14. 27. and 11. 26. and 15. 4 22 30. 1 Cor. 11. 18 20 22 33. 3 Joh. 6. in which places there is mention of assembling with the Church of gathering the Church together of being received by the Church of bearing witnesse before the Church of coming together in the Church of coming together into one place of gathering the multitude together and the like Which places do abundantly shew that a company that are gathered together into one place which is nothing else but a congregation are called by the name of a Church And the Christians of Cenchrea which was but a little village and therefore not like to be many congregations yet they are stiled by the name of a Church Rom. 16. 1. And though Cenchrea were but the port of Corinth and not farre from it like Radcliffe or Lymehouse to London as some have observed yet being a congregation of it self it is a distinct Church of it self as well as Corinth was Much more might be said to make it manifest that a single congregation is called by the name of a Church in many places of Scripture and how then can that stand which is here affirmed by you that the word is never so used unlesse happily in 1 Cor. 14. and that nothing is more manifest But whereas you say That nothing is more frequent then to call many congregations in a Province or Citie by the name of a Church we may rather say that this is so far from being so frequent as nothing more that on the contrary it is very questionable whether it be ever so used at all in all the New Testament Sure it is more frequent to call many Congregations in a Province or Nation by the name of Churches in the plural number and not by the name of Church in the singular which doth strongly imply that if they be many congregations then they are not one Church but many For this purpose it is to be considered how the Scripture mentions not the Church but the Churches of Galatia Gal. 1. 1. 1 Cor. 16. 1. of Macedonia 2 Cor. 8. 1. of Judea 1 Thess. 2. 14. Gal. 1. 21. of Galilee and of Samaria Acts 9. 31. of Syria and Cilitia Acts 15. 41. and of Asia 1 Cor. 16. 19. In which one Province there were seven famous Churches at once mentioned Revel. 1. 4. besides others that are mentioned else-where Now as all these instances doe sufficiently shew that something is more frequent in Scripture then to call many Congregations by the name of a Church so it is worth our consideration what should be the reason of this diffrent speech in Scripture that when it speaks of the Christians of one Congregation it should frequently give them the name of a Church as we heard before and when it speakes of the Christians in a Province or Countrey where were many congregations it should call them so usually by the name of Churches in the plurall number Sure it seemes to us to be strongly implyed thereby that one Congregation of Christians may be a Church but if they be many Congregations then they are many Churches and not one onely But you will give foure instances where the name of a Church is given to many congregations Jerusalem Rome Corinth and Ephesus And concerning Jerusalem the number of Disciples that were there being 8120 Acts 1. 15. with 2. 41. and 4. 4. and afterward abundantly larger it was impossible all the members should meet but by way of distribution into severall congregations pag. 12. Answ. How large soever that Church was in those places you alledge yet if the Scripture say they did meet together in one place then we must beleeve it was possible for them so to doe and that as they were but one Church so they were but one Congregation Now the text is plain first of all that when they were but 120. they all met together in one place for otherwise how could Peter stand up in the midst of them and make a speech to them all about the election of another Apostle in the room of Iudas as he is recorded to have done Acts 115. Next of all when 3000 were added to them Acts 2. yet all that multitude before they were converted did all come together in one place vers. 6. and Peter standing up lift up his voyce and spake unto them all vers. 14. And when they were converted both they and the rest of the beleevers were not yet so many but the multitude of them were all together vers. 44. and continued daily with one accord in the Temple vers. 46. And when after this the Lord adding daily to the Church such as should be saved the number of the men was about 5000. Acts 4. 4. yet all this company did stil meet together in one

and therefore particular Congregations as well as members have hereby liberty to complain and appeal to a more generall Judgement for redresse And a little after That such offences may arise between Churches as well as members appears by that between the Graecians and Hebrews about the neglect of their widows Act. 6. 1. and that in such cases they may complain and implead each other appears by that of the Prophet Hosea 2. 2. even the daughter Church with the mother pag. 10. To all which we thus answer First though we deny not but offences may arise betweene Churches as well as members yet we do not see that those instances alledged by you from Act. 6. and Hos. 2. do sufficiently prove the same because those Graecians and Hebrews Act. 6. might be all of one and the same Church and Congregation which was at Jerusalem and not two Congregations or Churches the Graecians one and the Hebrews another as it seems you do conceive of them For when the Apostles upon occasion of this murmuring of the Graecians for the neglect of their widows did take course for the appointing of Deacons for the remedying thereof the whole managing of the businesse was transacted and done in one Congregation alone for so it is said they called the multitude of Disciples together vers. 2. they appointed them to look out seven men duely qualified whom they might appoint over that businesse v. 3. and the saying pleased the whole multitude who thereupon did chuse seven whom they presented unto the Apostles ver. 5 6. and the Apostles imposed hands on them ver. 6. In all this there is no hint of two congregations one of Graecians and another of Hebrews but the Text seemeth plain enough that the whole multitude of Disciples whether Graecians or Hebrews were all gathered together into one Congregation about the choice and ordaining of these Deacons And as for Hos. 2. 2. Plead with your mother plead sith there is no mention in that Scripture of any daughter Church nor of any two Churches at all and sith at that time there was only one Church upon the face of the earth even the Nationall Church of the Jewes therefore we cannot see how this Text can be any proofe of Churches complaining and impleading one another If any man think otherwise and that the daughter-Churches did plead against the mother-Church of Israel that is here spoken of then we would demand what or where was that superiour Judicatory be it Synod or any other before which they did plead and before whom the mother-Church of Israel must answer for herselfe when the daughter-Churches did complain against her We suppose none will affirme there was any such and therefore this text can be no ground for Churches impleading one another But the true meaning of the place is thus much not that one Church must plead against another but that the godly members of the Church of Israel must plead against the corruptions of that very Church though in respect of them she were as a mother and they as children And before whom must they plead Not before any other Judge upon earth but before the Lord of heaven and unto her own face laying open her abominations and shewing unto her her sins And we acknowledge the members of any other Church may doe the like if there be the like occasion so that they keep themselves within the bounds of sobriety and their owne calling But if it were granted though these allegations doe not prove it that offences may arise between Congregations how doth this prove the thing in question viz. That Congregations must depend upon the government of Synods Yes say you Because the remedy must be as large as the malady and otherwise Christs salve were not equall to the sore But if this reason be sufficient against the Independency of Churches then by the like reason a man may prove that the Church of a Nation must not be Independent neither For as you alledge that offences may arise as well between divers congregations as between divers members in the same congregation so a man may alledge that offences may arise between divers Nationall Churches And as you demand What if a brother offend not a particular brother but the whole Congregation What if ten brethren offend the whole or part shall we think the offence falls not within our Saviours remedy So in like sort a man may demand What if the Congregation offend not a particular Congregation but the whole Church of a Nation What if ten twenty fourty congregations offend the whole Nation or part Yea we may adde What if the Nationall Church offend the Church of another Nation Would you now say that all these offences must fal within our Saviours rule of telling the Church and that this were a sufficient reason against the independencie of Nationall Churches and Nationall Synods We suppose you would not say so And yet we doe not see how it can be avoided by your reason and ground sith that ground is appliable to the one case as well as to the other If the reason doe overthrow the Independencie of particular Congregations then of a Nationall Church also If not of a Nationall Church then how doth it make any more against the other Of necessity for ought wee can discern you must owne the reason as strong in both cases or else refuse it as weak in both Yea and further by the like reason a man might prove that Indians and Turkes must be complained of unto the Church and that the offences of them or of other Heathen must fall within the compasse of our Saviours remedy For as offences may arise between members and members between Churches and Churches so it is apparent that offences may arise between Christians and Pagans and if this ground that you lay be sound that the remedy complaint or oppeale must be as large as the malady offence and consequently there must be a Church above Congregations then if an Indian or other Pagan shall commit an offence the remedy must be to complain of the Indian to the Church And sith as you say pag. 11. There must be power of judgement to redresse there where the complaint is to be made would it not thence follow that there must be power of judgement in the Church to redresse the offences of Indians Which were directly contrary to the plain words of the Apostle 1 Cor. 5. 12. What have I to doe to judge them that are without But this inconvenience of the Churches judging them that are without doth unavoidably follow upon this which you lay as a ground against the independencie of Congregations viz. that where an offence may be committed there Christs rule Tell the Church may be applied for redresse thereof But what shall we say then If Indians and other Heathens if Congregationall and Nationall Churches of Christians be not under the power of that rule of Christ shall we say then there is no salve for all

question therefore we will not insist upon them but onely say this much that as they are both alledged by Doctor Downam and them of the Hierarchy that plead for Diocesan Churches against Congregational so they are both sufficiently answered by Mr. Bain in his Diocesan triall p. 19 20. and by the refuter of D. Downams Sermon at Lambeth p. 65. Next the Church at Corinth every where stiled a Church not Churches Answ. This we grant But why might it not be one Congregation as well as one Church The onely reason you bring to the contrary is because They had so many Instructers 1 Cor. 4. 15. and Builders 1 Cor. 3. 12. So many Prophets say you and Teachers speakers with Tongues could not questionlesse have their ordinary locall meetings but by way of distribution into severall congregations Answ. This arguing about the Church of Corinth doth not very well agree with that which went before p. 12. where you seemed to grant that though no other place in Scripture yet that place 1 Corinth 14. doth give the name of Church to one single Congregation whereas now you give Corinth also as one instance where many congregations are called a Church It is strange to us how Corinth should be an example of both these viz. of the name of Church given to one single congregation as you doe acknowledge pag. 12. and of many congregations called by the name of one Church as now you would have it But the place 1. Cor. 14. 23. that speakes of the whole Church commiug together into one place doth unavoidably prove for ought we can discern that Corinth had their meetings and not by way of distribution into severall Congregations but altogether in one congregation and doth also answer your reason drawn from the variety of Teachers and Prophets in that Church For it is plain from that very Chapter that the Church of Corinth had many Prophets Let the Prophets speake two or three and let the rest judge vers. 39. and many that spake with Tongues who must speake by course two or three and one interpret verse 27. yea every one generally had a Psalme or a Doctrine or a Revelation or an Interpretation verse 26. as indeed they came behind in no gift 1 Cor. 1. yet for all their variety of gifts and gifted men Prophets Interpreters speakers with Tongues and the like both they and the whole Church also even women and all used to come together into one place But it is with much instance urged generally by all the Separatists that those among whom the Corinthian fornicatou● was they were all to be gathered together and all to deliver him to Satan therefore the power of the keye is alike in all the members and not in the Elders alone pag. 14. Answ. This and all that follows for two whole pages may be something pertaining to the second of your three exceptions forementioned but nothing concerns the Question now in hand For whether the Church of Corinth that must excommunicate the incestuous man were the Elders alone as you hold or all the people also as others This is nothing to the present point of the sence of the word Church which is whether is be taken in Scripture for many Congregations or one onely and therefore we marvell why you would here bring it in Neither indeed is it any thing to the maine Question of the Dependencie of Congregations upon the government of Synods For if all were granted that here is argued for viz. that the Church that must excommunicate the delinquent Corinthian was not the common people but the Elders alone yet the authoritie of Synods is not a whit holpen thereby unlesse it could be proved that the Church of Corinth had no Elders of their own which we are perswaded you will not affirm because you grant pag. 13. that they had many Instructors many builders many leaders many Prophets and Teachers Wherefore this Dispute being besides the Question we will not spend time in answering of it because we would hasten to go forward with the rest that pertains to the Question as you have stated it Your last instance of many Congregations called by the name of Church is Ephesus where you argue There must needs be many congregations because there was a great doore and effectuall opened unto Paul so mightily there grew the Word of God and prevailed the greatnesse of the price of the conjuring books burnt publickly and God himself testifies he had many people in that Citie Answ. When the Lord saith to Paul I have much people in the City it is a plain mistake to understand this of Ephesus for it was spoken of Corinth and not of Ephesus Act. 18. 10. But if it had been spoken of Ephesus as we deny not but that there were many Christians there how doth this prove the point that they were not one Congregation but many We do not think they were more in number then in Corinth and Jerusalem where the Christians as we have shewed did usually meet in one place and therefore at Ephesus they might do the like though there were a great number of Christians there As for that which you say that as this Church could not possibly ordinarily in all its members meet but distributively so that it did meet collectively in its Presbytery and Eldership that which ordained Timothy there by the Apostles own testimony appears in the 17. 28. and 26. verses of the 20. Chapter beyond all exception We answer thereto it is not beyond all exception that at Ephesus was one Church consisting of many Congregations which is our Question It may be granted that the Elders of that Church upon Paul's sending for them did meet at Miletum apart from the people as was noted before out of Act. 21. Of the Elders of Jerusalem but this is nothing to our Question whether a Church be many Congregations or one onely As much might he said of the other of the seven Churches of Asia with that at Antioch Philippi and Thessalonica Ans. And if as much were said of these as of the other as much might also be answered And though Philippi and Thessalonica had many Bishops Deacons Overseers yet all this is too short to prove they were many Congregations for what should hinder but one Congregation may have many Officers That which followeth in this sixteenth page and so forward to the middle of pag. 19. is spent in answering the other two exceptions which you formerly proposed pag. 11. Concerning which we need not to spend much time the one of them as we said before is altogether besides the purpose and on which side soever the truth doth lie in that matter the present Question is nothing at all cleared thereby and for the other we leave it to them that make it to undertake the defence of it For us it is sufficient to have shewed that all that you have said from Matth. 18. Tell the Church doth not prove that Congregations must depend upon