given in all the new Testament that Christians ordinarily meeting together in divers places are yet called one Church except where Church is taken improperly in a distributive sense And therfore in cities where they might and did meet together they are called a Church and in countries where they could not all meet in one but in divers places they are called Churches Many such Churches or Congregations we have in England Answer We say so too Reply and add that either we have such in England or none at all For what other besides such can you shew us And the Beleevers in every Christian Church Answer even in the Church of England and in the Jewish Church also might and did at first meet 1. Reply Can you shew that the Beleevers of any Christian church met onely at first in one place and then afterwards being increased they met not in one place but many places except at some time of hot persecution 2. If Beleevers in England ever met together in one place it was when there was but one congregationall Church in England As for the Jewish Church in it Exo. 34.23.24 Deut. 16.2.16 both at first and afterwards all the males wore to meet by speciall appointment in one place at some seasons though not alwayes and in some ordinances though not all to shew that they were but one Church To say nothing that all the people of the Jewes being about six hundred thousand Answer are called one Congregation and are frequently in the old Testament said to come together and that * One Myriade is 10000. Myriads did come together Act. 21.22 They were one church and therefore did and ought to congregate together and are therefore called one congregation Reply and yet neither they nor those Myriads spoken of Acts 21.22 did then nor can such a number now ordinarily come together Now our Position is to be understood that a Gospel visible church consists of no more then can ordinarily come together into one place nor of so many as sometimes in an extraordinary way have met together How will you make out this Inference The Church of Corinth did meet in one place and so did Antioch Jerusalem Answer therefore no Church in the new Testament must consist of more then can meet in one place You must take the Argument in the scope of it Reply such and such Churches did meet constantly in one place and there is no mention of any Church which did not meet together in one place therefore no Church in the new Testament doth consist of more then can meet in one place the Consequent is now good For we think that patterns that are uncontrolled either by precepts or other patterns have doctrine in them and do teach how things ought to be carried To say there was a Church in Adams house and in Noahs Answer and also in Philemons Aquila's and Priscilla's houses therefore the Church in the old and new Testament must be domesticall is an inconsequent illation contrary to plain Scripture We confesse it and for the reason you render Reply because contrary to plain Scripture Now if you could have shewed us the repugnancy to plain Scripture of the inference which you oppugne wee should have confessed a great oversight in it It is one thing and more warrantable to derive an inference from patterns when they all run one way and be patterns of one kind and another thing and lesse safe to draw an inference from patterns when there is diversity of kinds of them about the same thing Is not the Argument as good if it run thus All the believing Corinthians were of the Church of Corinth 1 Cor. 1.1 2 Cor. 6.11 Answer The Smyrnians and Laodiceans of the Church of Smyrna and Laodicea Col. 2.1 4.16 Rev. 2.8 3.14 Whether they were more or fewer Hence in every city and every church seem to expound one another Acts 14.21.23 with Tit. 1.5 Acts 16.4 5. And it cannot be shewed that any church how numerous soever it grew was divided into two or more churches therefore the believers in any one city or town may be but one church whether they can meet in one place or no. No brother not so Reply because as appeares to us there is light of Scripture gain-saying it For though all the believing Corinthians were of the church of Corinth which yet you seem to contradict in the after part of your Answer while you say that Gaius the Corinthian was the host of another church besides that of Corinth which if true then all believing Corinthians were not of the church of Corinth and though in all other cities all the believers of them were of the church in each of them yet such an inference would be naught because it was so for a speciall reason and in regions and countries where that reason took not place it was otherwise All the Believers in Jerusalem were of one church there because they were not so many but that they might come constantly together into one place and did so But all the Believers in Judea were not of one church there but of many churches because they could not meet constantly in one place And if believers in cities meeting in divers places are yet but one church for this reason because they were of one city as you would seem to inferre then shew but any probable reason why believers meeting in divers places in countries may not be one church because they were of one countrey especially the believers of Judea being but a small countrey and under the same civil government The reason why city and church expound one another was this because there was not more converted in a city then could meet together in a congregation or church And when you can shew us out of the new Testament that believers were so multiplied in any city as that they could not all meet in one place then will we shew you that such churches were divided into more churches Paul writes not only to them which might Answer and did meet in one place but to all that in every place not throughout the world at appeares 2 Cor. 1.1 written to the same persons 1 Cor. 5.1 2. with 2 Cor. 2.1 2. neither is this a Catholique Epistle but that in all Achaia call upon the Name of the Lord. Paul writes and sends this Reply and applieth it to the Corinthianss and to them alone as appears almost in every chapter of the Epistle and in many of the verses of each chapter For all along proper and peculiar things belonging to the Corinthians and not to the Achaians nor Saints in all the world are spoken of in commendation and discommendation and proper reproofes directions exhortations are given yet he intended it for the use and benefit of all Achaia and of the whole world also And it may as properly be called a Catholique Epistle as an Achaian Epistle for the use redounds to the world as well as to Achaia
which to affirme were slat against the Scripture Acts 2.47 If there were no more Beleevers in Ephesus then twelve as there was Answer viz Aquila and Priscilla which knew no more then Johns Baptisme Acts 18.26 with 24.25 if not others yet there were more in ferusalem then an hundred and twenty even five hundred brethren at once c 1 Cor. 15.6 First though Aquila and Priscilla were at Ephesus Reply yet they were but sojourners there as they were also in many other places sometimes at Rome sometimes at Corinth as appeares from Acts 18.2 Rom. 16.3 But to what place they did belong is not certain Secondly your five hundred brethren at Jerusalem is as slightly collected from 1 Cor. 15.6 For 1. doth the Apostle say that he was seen of those five hundred in Jerusalem He shewed himselfe in Galilee and some other places as well as in Jerusalem 2. Though the place of manifesting himselfe might be Jerusalem must the persons therefore be of Jerusalem Why not appertaining unto Judea Or suppose of Jerusalem why might they not be dispersed before Christs ascension For present afterwards when they chose an Apostle they were not which was yet a Church action and without doubt the major part of the Church would have been present at it Adam and Noah with their Families Answer if they were Churches they were but Domesticall Churches not Congregationall Domesticall Churches enjoying Congregationall Ordinances Reply and congregationall Churches are not divers species of Churches neither doe they differ in their nature or kind but in quantity as one Congregation differeth from another as one small Countrey Chappell differeth from a numerous Towne Church What will ye make of Christ and his Disciples Answer a Church distinct from the Jewish You know Christ did not make a new Church or gather men into it but lived and died a member of the Jewish Church d Answer to to 32. q. p. 14. Had they been called a Church as some housholds are in the new Testament e Phile. 2. witnes T.W. to W.R. you had had some more pretext and yet they are but a Domesticall Church c. 1. Whether Christ died a member of the Jewish Church Reply is questionable But that he gathered certain persons to him and that he instituted Baptisme and the Supper amongst them is most certain which were Ordinances of the Gospel Church and he either thereby prepared them for or laid the foundation of a Gospel Church before his death For immediatly after his ascension they were a Gospel Church as appeareth from Acts 1.14 15. 2. For the denomination of Church we passe not much whether we meet with it or not provided that we find the reality of a Church among any persons 3. Many Domesticall Churches may be in one Congregationall in your sense but not in ours We deny and put you to prove that two or three converted in a Family enjoying some Christian Ordinances but no Church Ordinances are called a Church It is an Argument you will not own Answer seven eight twelve may make a Domesticall Church therefore they may make a Congregationall We acknowledge not any such distinction of Congregationall Church Reply and Domesticall as you presse after But say That the foundation of a Congregationall Church may be laid in one Family and may spread unto many It may be laid in seven or eight and may grow up to an hundred or a thousand or to as many as can meet together constantly unto edification in one place The Church in Abrahams Family was the same which was in the Families of all his sonnes and in the Families of their children after them which afterwards grew up into a nation And though the Gospel Church is not now Nationall as the Jewish was yet a congregation of many Families may spring out of a Church of one Family more easily then a Nation did formerly And if seven eight or twelve may not make a congregationall Church in our apprehension what have you been consuting all this while If seven or eight may make a Church Answer then two hundred persons in a Citie may well make twenty distinct Churches and by consequence so many Independent Judieatures First this collection is made to bring an Odium upon congregationall Churches but it may be thus retorted foure or five in a house may make a family therefore three hundred in an house may make sixtie distinct families Foure or five in a family may make a Domestick Church say you then three hundred in a family may make sixty Domestick Churches two thousand in a Field may make an Army therefore two hundred thousand in a Field may make ten distinct Armies under so many independent Generals Secondly we have declared our selves before that seven or eight may make a Church in the first foundation and whilst there are no more persons fitted and that as more in that place shall be converted the Church of them is to be increased And we are utterly against the unnecessary multiplication of Churches as conceiving such small Churches inconsistent to Christs ends which is edification by Pastors Teachers Ruling Elders Deacons which he hath given to his Church But that a Church of seven or eight should require so many Officers or be able to maintain them we cannot understand And we perceive from the patternes presented in the New Testament that Churches in cities which at first were small grew great by the daily addition of others to them Acts 1.14.15 with Acts 2.41 19.7 8 9 with 18 19 20. Acts 20.17.28 So that we would not have beleevers of one citie be of so many Churches if one congregation will conveniently hold them except there be some eminent reason for it But though there should be many Churches consisting of a few members yet without Officers amongst them we doe not assert them to be Independent Judicatures POSITION III. A visible Church in the new Testament consists of no more in number then may meet in one place in one Congegation The like you have Answer to 32 q p. 9. 1 Corinth 11.20 14.23 If you seek for Congregations meeting for prayer hearing the Word Answer Sacraments in one place or that they were called by the name of Church or that all Beleevers in some Cities and Countries when they might did meet in one place I will not contend We plead for congregations meeting together Reply not for prayer hearing the Word Sacraments alone but for the executing of censures also 1 Cor. 5.4 which you leave out as if Church censures belonged not to congregations as those Ordinances you mention do And we say that there is no sacred Worship or Institution prescribed in the Gospel which may not be observed to have been exercised in or appertained unto the congregations And these congregations are called Churches in the Scripture And further we say not onely that all beleevers in some cities did meet together in one place but that there can no instance be
from other Jewes Reply and gathering them into a Christian Church while yet the Jewish Church was not dissolved for they ceased not to be a Church of God till the body of them pertinaciously and desperatly rejected Christ Therefore they preached to the Jewes first and thought themselves bound so to doe because they were the people of God Acts 11.19 13.46 And yet they had commanded some to separate from the rest as your selfe acknowledge Acts 2.40 And their communion they had with them in Jewish worships shews that they counted them a true Church And some think that their Church state ceased not while their Temple stood And yet before that time many Jewes were gathered into many Christian Churches as both the Acts of the Apostles and their Epistles doe declare And if they might gather out of one Church they might as lawfully have gathered out of twenty or an hundred had there been so many at that time Secondly if the Apostles never taught nor practised such a thing what warrant then have our brethren for their Presbyterian Church which is gathered out of many Churches For they Interpret Matth. 18.17 Tell the Church of a Presbyterian Church which consists of the Elders of many Churches Thirdly why may not one Church be gathered of the members of many Churches as well as many Churches consist of the members of one Church For we read that the Church at Jerusalem was scattered upon Stevens persecution and we read not that they returned again but fell into membership with other Churches as is probable which were planted in severall parts of the world Fourthly such a Church which consists of the members of many other true Churches hath formerly been without exception in the dayes of the Prelates how comes it now to be questioned For at least fourteen yeares since such a Church was extant in Wiâ—â—all in Cheshire the vocall covenant being onely wanting which consisted of the choycest Christians of many Parishes who met constantly together upon the Lords day and enjoyed the Word and Seales of the Covenant and maintained a Pastor to dispense the same unto them and never or very rarely repaired to such Parishes where their habitations were And we think it cannot be denied but Mr. John Angiers Church at Denton in Lancashire hath of long time been such and many other such there have been besides And it was accounted an high happinesse to have liberty to make such a Church but was never accounted by the godly sinfull before But if you should answer That the Church consists of such as lived within such a Parish or Chappell and that the rest were strangers We reply If assembling constantly together and participating in all the Ordinances that the rest doe partake of and contributing with the rest in the maintenance of the Minister of such a place and an adhering rather to such a Minister and people then to any other in affection and action if all these together make members of a Church then these persons of other Parishes were not strangers but members and with the rest made such Churches except it shall be said that habitation alone in other Parishes when all the other are wanting makes membership and constitutes Churches which some of our brethren who are Presbyterians have and doe deny Fifthly are not some Parish Churches constituted sometimes of members of other Parish Churches when many persons have left their own places and removed into other Parishes without any consent Yet this hath been judged pious at least honest sometimes upon one ground and somtimes upon another some to have liberty of conscience in such places whither they have removed others to have better preaching others to meet with better society and others for better worldly accommodation What Christian knoweth not well that this hath been common Sixthly that a Church may consist of persons that have been members of other Churches if such persons have been orderly dismissed from such Churches and have come away with consent will be granted of all For none hold Church-membership to be undissolveable The question then will be Whether the members of Churches may depart without consent 1. According to the present constitution of Churches they may For they come in without consent meerly by removing their habitations therefore they may so depart 2. If consent must be had from whom must it be sought From the people or from the Minister That the people have any power either to give or with-hold their consent hath not been granted heretofore That the Ministers consent should be necessary for the departing of every member when yet himselfe it may be hath had his entrance amongst them without their consent seemes to be unreasonable 3. Suppose consent hath been sought and cannot be obtained may not members withdraw their membership in some cases without consent Suppose some Ordinance be corruptly dispensed without all hope of redresse and that men must partake therein without having any power so much as to witnesse against such corruptions unlesse they will be accounted factious and disturbers of the Churches peace or that by remaining where such corruptions are they be in danger to be leavened with the corrupt lump of such a Church of which they be members 1 Cor. 5.6 what must they now doe Doth not that Rule that bids a Church purge out one person that may endanger the leavening of the whole lump when there are no other means to prevent such an evill give warrant to every member that is endangered to be leavened by the lump to withdraw from such a lump because power to purge out the lump they have none when there is no other means to prevent the evill 2 Cor. 13.10 Church membership is for edification of the members not for destruction But you stumble at this because they converted them not To which we reply Persons whom the Apostles converted were ordinarily committed to others to be further edified and the ordinary Pastors and Elders of the primitive times did almost perpetually build upon anothers foundation The persons that watered for the most part were not the same that planted In Acts 11.20 21. we read of a great conversion wrought by the preaching of the scattered Disciples but we read not that they were gathered into Church-state till Barnabas was sent unto them and both Barnabas and Paul assembled with that Church and taught it which yet they converted not And in Acts 19.1 9. Paul found twelve Disciples converted to his hand though not fully instructed and gathered them into the Church which he planted at Ephesus But Brother how comes this to be a stone to stumble at If you hold a succession of Pastors in the same Church the successors may feed a flock which their predecessors converted and not themselves And if you hold transplantation of members from one Church to another then they may feed the members which were of other Churches which themselves converted not But you will say This must be orderly
every one of them and the whole is the flock of each amongst them and each of them hath as full power over the assemblies that he never saw as over that from which he came and which sent him as in the representative civill body every Knight and Buegesse hath the care of the kingdome upon him and each hath equall authority of inspection and decision of matters concerning cities and countries which hee knowes not as of those whence hee came Now if it be so the Question is whether each be not a Passor to every purpose as well as unto one And whether hee be not to feed by doctrine as well as by the rod of discipline all such assemblies which are under his charge Which thing is yet impossible to be done And what warrant there is of non-residencie with the flock unto purposes that do most concern the flock seeing themselves are Christs Ministers and substitutes and have not power of appointing Ministers and substitutes under them and what ground there is why they must joyntly rule all the assemblies but severally teach each man the congregation to which he is designed without care of the rest Or if there be any such combination of assemblies in a Nation what is there to warrant it more then the combination of all Christian assemblies in the world represented in an oecumenicall councell the members of which must be universall Pastors having power over and care of all churches under them For if a Congregationall church must depend upon a Nationall church as the lesser upon the greater then a Nationall church must depend upon the universall as the lesser upon the greater For look what a Nation is to a Congregation that the universall is to a Nation and if Nations may be independent of the universall Congregations may be independent of the Nationall And if an universall visible instituted church be acknowledged why are there not universall representative conventions What a defect is this in Christendome And what a fault that all Christian nations do not endeavour it But we conceive that they are so farre from the endeavouring it that if there were any such though they might make use of them for advice yet they would be loth to subject themselves to the binding decrees of them Nor say wee that the Scriptures do mention a Nationall church Answer for the supreme Magistrate was an enemy to Christian Religion and Regis ad exemplum c. Believers it is like were not so many as to beare the name of a Land or Nation nor could they have liberty safely to meet in Nationall Synods Shew mee a Nation of Magistrates and people converted and I will shew you a Nationall church Ultra posse non est esse whether Nationall churches be lawfull or unlawfull 1. Reply You might have said Shew me a Nation of Magistrates and people converted and I will shew you a Nationall Christian church framed like the Jewish church with one Nationall Bishop over it one Nationall Cathedrall in it c. for so would Prelaticall men and the Pope himself argue No one Nation was converted then and therefore there could be no Nationall Pastor Many nations were not converted then therefore there could be no universall Pastor But what hinders but that there might be afterwards when a Nation and when the world should come to be converted 2. Though there was no Nation converted wholly and therefore as you say no nationall church could be yet Christs will and minde in that matter might easily have been dictated in the Scriptures had he intended any such Church afterwards as Moses tells the Jewes Deut. 12.8 9 10. That they should not do when they should come to Canaan every man what he listeth as they did in the Wildernesse but there should be a place appointed and thither should they bring their offerings and tythes and though there were not Nations converted yet there were so many in a Nation converted as made many Assemblies In little Judea there were Congregations and why together with the Church at Jerusalem might there not have been a Diocesan or Classicall Church There were enough converted for such a purpose But shew the sootsleps of a Diocesan or Classicall Church and it shall serve the turn then wee will yeeld there might in time be a Nationall Arguments taken from the appellation of the word Church Answer or Churches are very unsatisfactory because of the various acceptations of the words Kahal Gnedah Ecclesia Synagoga which we sometimes translate Church but should alwayes translate Convocation or Congregation a company called out or gathered together In this answer you labour to overthrow our Argument Reply for Congregationall churches setched from the appellation of the Apostle when he speaks of Countries and Provinces where more Congregations were he calls them perpetually churches in the plurall number and not church by these suggestions rather then arguments 1. That the words Kahal Gnedah Ecclesia Synagoga should alwayes be translated Convocation a company called out or gathered together if this be yeelded wherein it will advantage you we know not A nationall Convocation or Congregation or gathering together will sound harsher then a nationall Church for every one knows that we have no Nationall Congregation in England But 2. You suggest The English word church Saxon Cyrick and Scots Kirk Answer are derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Cambd. Rem or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Sr. Hen. Spelm. which as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth the place of meeting Hence we reade of robbers of Churches or Temples Acts 19.37 Kahal whence our English word call is sometimes Metonymically understood of the place The Heathen enter into the Sanctuary which God hath forbidden to enter into the Church Lam. 1.10 with Deut. 23.3 Nehem. 13.1 To come together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is if it be rightly translated to come together in one place and so Ecclesia is opposed to the buildings or houses in which they did eat and drink 1 Cor. 11.19 20 21 22. Synagoga is evidently taken for the place of meeting Luke 7.5 Acts 18.7 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the proper signification Reply is appertaining to the Lord and may more properly relate to people appertaining to the Lord then to place because the people do more appertain to the Lord then the place 2. Though Kahal once perhaps and Synagoga oftener may be understood of the place yet Ecclesia never That place in Acts 19.37 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 robbers of Temples not Churches That place in 1 Cor. 11.18 When yee come together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not to be rendered in one place Pareus upon those words utterly denies it And there is good reason why they should rather be referred to the people as a church then to the place For the meaning is when yee meet in the church when yee meet as the church that is to perform Church-work For they
might meet in the place even those very persons and yet not meet as a Church as it might be said when such meet in a Synod it 's meant as a Synod to act some thing as a Synod * As convenire in Senatum is to meet as a Senate not so much referring to the place as to the persons so meeting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 misacrum conventum Beza ibid. i. for a holy meeting Musculus in coetu sacro queÌ„ liâ—vocat Ecclesiam i. in a holy Assembly which he calleth the Church Item Pet. Mart. bid It referres not to the place nor to the persons barely meeting but to the persons meeting as a Synod to act Synodically Besides though Kahal and Synogoga may by a Metonymy be referred to place because there were places built and set apart for Church-services yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the new Testament cannot be so taken because they had no set stated appointed places for the Christian churches to meet in your self assert so much p. 26. Nor is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 opposed to the buildings and houses in which they did eat and drink in 1 Cor. 11.19 20 21. The words are or despise yee the Church of God which respects the people the godly amongst them which told them of their fault and other Churches also as Pareus upon that place observes Unlesse you will say there must be a reverent observance of the place where the Church meets more then of all other places They met in Woods Dens Caves many times in times of persecution and must those places be more respected then mens houses where they did eat and drink in But what would you inferre if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Church were taken for the place Would it profit you Yes for you say afterwards The Scripture calls them Church or Congregation often Answer and sometimes in respect of their severall Synagogues Psal 74.4.8 No wonder therefore if that Christians of one countrey meeting in severall Synagogues James 2.2 Heb. 10.25 Acts 19.8 9. 22.19 Acts 13.15 16 43. and houses Acts 12.12 Rom. 16.5 do receive the denomination of Churches which in Scripture phrase is all one with Assemblies many whereof we confesse were in Galatia Macedonia The place you bring from Psal 74.4.8 is impertinently alledged Reply for the Church of the Jewes which was one is not called Congregations in vers 4. in reference to divers Synagogues they met in vers 8. But Congregations there is Metonymically used and is all one with Synagogues and signifieth the place and not the people at all They roare in the midst of the Congregations that is in the midst of those places where the Congregation met which places were many but the Congregation but one having one high Priest for their chief Pastor though meeting in its parts in many places So that the Church of the Jewes is not called Congregations as Mollerus shewes upon that place Neither can you shew as wee suppose that ever any one Church was called churches in the plurall number either in the old or new Testament in reference to plurality of places they met in For if it were so how comes it that a Church in a city such as Jerusalem Corinth Ephesus and Rome which met and assembled in many places as our Brethren of the Presbyterie say are never called Churches but alwayes Church And yet a Church in the countrey meeting and assembling in many places are called Churches and not Church And you say there is no wonder of it for this reason because the Houses and Synagogues in the countrey were many in which they met See brother whether you do not in this assertion crosse your self In the city you can finde many meeting houses and but one Church but in the countrey you can finde so many Churches as meeting houses But the truth is it is not place but the combination of a Christian people to meet together for Ordinances that makes a Church For the same Church may meet sometimes together in one place for Church worship and sometimes asunder in many places for Christian worship but they are not therefore divided into sundry Churches And many distinct Churches or parts of them may meet occasionally in one place yet they become not one Church hereby but combination to enjoy Church ordinances together in a constant way makes a Church and all in a city were in this combination to enjoy ordinances together therefore they were a Church But all in a countrey could not be in such a combination to meet together constantly therefore they were not a Church but churches But you go on and say The word Kahal and Gnedah do signifie a dispersed multitude Answer that never met together that the people of Israel though divided into severall domesticall assemblies to keep the Passeover are called one Church That an Assembly is all one with Kahal Ecclesia whether it be good or bad lesse or greater that when the Israelitish men women and children were together they were but one Congregation And when all did not meet though searce half or a third part met yet they were called all the Congregation And when there was a great Assembly then the Scripture tells us there was a great Church accounting no more persons of the Church but those that were then assembled Yea Simeon and Levi's assembly is called a Church and those many which were gathered to pray in the house of Maty are called the Church though many were absent Yea four or sive in a Family joyning in the worship of God are called a Church But suppose there be truth in all that is said what are all these acceptions of the words Kahal and Ecclesia to the purpose Reply Among all these can you finde that ever any one Church is called two or more Churches For except there can be brought instances of this nature the air is but beaten all the while and our assertion stands immovable We find many churches in little Judea in which of the ennumerations of acceptions of those words Kahal Ecclesia doth it appeare that a Church that is really but one multiplies into many and is called churches and yet is but one If you finde not this we cannot believe that a whole Nation or Province of Believers are but one Church in the dayes of the Gospel Besides is your scope to confound and lose your Readers in the various acceptions of the word Assembly or Church so that when they reade the word Church or Churches they shall not be able to know what to make of it How then will they understand your Nationall Church at which your Discourse drives It had been your part to have taken your Reader by the hand and to have shewed him when the word Church is taken properly and when improperly Both you in your Nationall and wee in our Congregationall understand a people combined together into one body to worship God And in the old Testament let the words Kahal
maintenance as need shall require and our practice is sutable hereto Now to give better satisfaction both of our opinion and practice we shall discover our present apprehensions thus 1. We do apprehend tythes to be Jewish maintenance See Jo. Selden of Tythes because they were settled upon the Levites upon consideration of having no inheritance amongst their brethren and were appointed together with offerings Mal. 3.8 and had a particular respect to the Priesthood for the tythe of the Levites was to be tythed and given to the Priests Nehem. 10.38 2. Neither do we see ground for settled slinted maintenance to last from yeere to yeer if it must arise from the Church and not come from the state as in some countries it doth because if the Church must maintain the Ministery among them as God blessed them and a more equall rule then that there can none be found then except they could settle Gods blessing and make it to abide with men in an equall manner without increase or decrease the maintenance may not be settled and this also is an argument against tythes There is a great inequality in tythes and in all settled maintenance if not unrighteousnesse persons whose estates arise from trading and consist in goods not having any lands in some places pay nothing to the Ministery out of duty and so the countrey maintains the Ministery of the town though many Chappels perhaps be robbed thereby we give instance in Manchester whereas the towne is far more able to maintain their own Ministery and the countries also round about them and persons who are much poorer in estate then others but have larger lands then they though others lesse in lands can buy them twice or thrice over yet pay more because of their lands then they and if houses be rated or mens present estate valued and maintenance setled in the just proportion yet because mens estates are like the Moon in the increase some of them and others of them like it in the decrease it will soon grow unto an inequality again Besides mens estates lie many times where their persons inhabite not neither can inhabite and then their estates go to maintain a Ministery to which they do belong not and they are so much the more disabled in supporing the Ministery to which they do belong And this setled visible maintenance can be the maintenance but of peaceable times when the Magistrate is a Christian and countenanceth Religion for in the Apostles dayes and afterwards for three hundred yeers together while the ten Persecutions lasted there neither was nor could be on foot any such maintenance But the Church treasury duly kept up by contributions according as God blesseth every man will afford maintenance while the Church hath any thing at all times whether peaceable or troublesome whether the Magistatre be a Christian or a Heathen 3. This maintenance out of the stock of the Church we think we see most warrant for from the new Testament and as most probable we once disputed it with you and some other Brethren but neither then nor now are we peremptory in it 1. We considered how Christ and the Apostles were maintained in the work of the Ministery and we finde that they had a Stock of monies which came partly at least by contribution Luke 8.2 3. and out of this stock was taken for the poor also as from Joh. 13.29 appeares see Junius (b) Junius Ecclesiast pag. 1954. 2. We consider what was done in the Apostles times after Christ was taken from them in the dayes of the first Christian Church Acts 2.45 4.35 there was a stock then but raised after an extraordinary way and yet by free contribution they brought their whole estates and put them into a common stock which was but a temporary businesse and not astrictive unto all times Now out of this common stock the Apostles themselves and all others that had need were maintained and the Apostles had at first the oversight of this stock 3. After this upon the occasion mentioned Acts 6.1 there were Deacons chosen which had the oversight of the treasure of this Church for the Apostles gave themselves to the Ministery of the Word and to Prayer Acts 6.4 and neither meddled with receiving nor with disposing of what was contributed The Deacons took that burden from off them so that now they received all and disposed of all (c) Junius Eccles p. 1954 if any brought their estate they laid it down at the Deacons feet and if any distribution was made the Deacons made it the Apostles meddled with nothing So then the work was the same which the Deacons managed with that which the Apostles had before managed only it was in other hands the Deacons came into the Apostles place hence it followes that if the distribution was made as every one had need when the Apostles had the oversight and if themselves had a share as their need required and other labourers with them then it was so afterwards when the Deacons were intrusted in it so then the Deacons Office was to receive into stock and to take out and dispose as either the labourers or poore Saints had need and their Office was not to oversee the poor alone as our Brother would suggest (d) Junius Eccles p. 1954 Deacons do distribute to the necessary uses of the Church viz. the sustenance of the Ministers of the Church 4. This Office of the Deacon is not temporary but perpetuall in the Church as from 1 Tim. 3.8 appeares and our Brethren do acknowledge it therefore the work of receiving and disposing the treasure of the Church is perpetuall therefore there must be a constant stock unto which the contributions must be brought and out of which distribution must be made therefore though contributing of whole estates lasted not yet some other manner of contributing came in the room thereof else the Deacons Office would fall to the ground for want of work for they could not distribute out of nothing Hence it is that a commandement comes forth from the Apostle Rom. 12.13 to distribute to the necessity of the Saints and Hebr. 13.16 to do good and to communicate and another commandement which respects the necessity of the Ministers Gal. 6.6 Let him that is taught in the Word communicate to him that taught him in all good things the word though diversly translated in the English is yet but one in the Greek and signifieth to communicate 5. But this comunicating or contributing or distributing for all these are one to the necessity of Saints and to the necessity of the Ministers which will be granted to be a perpetuall duty in all ages doth not uphold the Deacons Office except the Deacons do receive it that so out of it they may dispose portions of it as need shal require therefore to the Deacons this contribution must be brought and we are induced the rather to think so because it is commanded under a word which
are said to be come to one mount Sion If so then the Congregations of the Christian Gentiles may well be another mount Sion And if the Nationall church of the Jewes with the assemblies thereof were mount Sion why may not every nationall-Nationall-church of Christians with the assemblies thereof we speak now in your language be Sion also and then there being many Nationall churches as you say there are many Sions And what greater absurdity is it to say there are an hundred or a thousand Sions then to say there are an hundred or a thousand Churches Seeing Sion and Church are all one Now you know there were many visible churches in Judea Galatia Macedonia Asia and many other places and if then so many how many more now therefore many Sions and because those many churches then and these now we believe to have been and still to be Congregationall therefore every Congregationall Church we hold to be Sion But you ask an odde strange needlesse to say no worse of it question with a great deal of vehemency Answer viz. Have you not found God present in our Assemblies Have you not by faith closed with the promises in the use of the Ordinances among us Speak out I know you dare not belie your selves us and God himself c. Reply Your question is bottomed upon a mistake when we say that God hath promised to be present in Sion you give this glosse upon it that we deny all your Assemblies to be Sion and will not grant Gods presence at all to be with you and that we appropriate Sion and Gods presence to our selves which is a great injury to us You also put this sense upon our words that God is so present in Sion that he is present no where else and so not present with holy men and women which are out of Church-fellowship nor present with members of many churches meeting together which either is a foul mistake or a slander For we think God to be present with his people when they meet in his feare whether they be Church-members or not Church-members whether they be of one or many churches whether they be in our assemblies or yours provided that his Ordinances be carried according to his minde yea though there should be some error yet he might give his presence (a) Rev. 2.1 with Rev. 2.14.20 Much rather do we think God will be present with persons whom he sets on work to exalt him in the execution of some office as he did the Apostles and now doth ordinary Elders Neverthelesse we conceive God to be most present with his people gathered into a body and compacted together in an instituted Church which we hold to be Congregationall and the reason is because the more any people do fall into the order of the Gospel and come into the way of Christ which he hath appointed for Saints to walk in the more Christ is ingaged to be present with them Now to joyn to some instituted Church of Christ is that way and order which Christ hath directed to therefore with them in such a way as so united and joyned Christ will more especially be present for he vouchsafeth a speciall presence amongst such Churches Rev. 2.1 he styles himself one that walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks he walks in other places and people but he would intimate thus much that his especiall delightsome walk is among them and the more golden the candlesticks are the more pure they be the more delight he takes to walke in the midst of them But Matth. 18. you say is mis-interpeted Your words are these Answer Christ in Matth. 18. promiseth his presence to those that are not a Church for two or three will not make a Church they vers 17 were to give the second admonition the Church the third There is a figure in the number Reply there is a certain number put for an uncertain two or three are put for a few the paucity that may be in a Church shall be no obstacle of Christs presence Pareus upon this Text hath these words It is an argument that the judgement of the Church shall be ratified because Christ himself will be present in the Church as supreme Judge to ratifie it it is also a generall promise of the presence of the grace of Christ in his Church be it great or small Now surely we shall lesse doubt our exposition having so learned a Commentator so well approved of to stand by us in the same POSITION XVII So long as a Believer doth not joyn himself to some particular Congregation he is without in the Apostles sense 1 Cor. 5.12 Those without Answer of whom the Apostle speaketh were unbelievers Pagans and Heathen without Christ as well as without the visible Church Let it be granted that those whom the Apostle speaks of were both without Christ Reply and without the visible Church yet it may be securely affirmed that the Apostle speaks of them under the notion of such as were without the visible church and not of those that were without Christ 1. Singuli de suâ familia judicant non immittunt consuram in alienam samiliam Ergo in Ecclesia similis servetur ratio ut singulae desuit membris judicent Aretius in 1 Cor. 5. Because those without whom the Apostle had not to do to judge stand in opposition to those within vers 12. the latter part whom the Church of Corinth had to do to judge and consequently if this exposition of yours be true the judgement of the Church of Corinth extended as far as the ultima Thule the lands end of Christianity and only ceased when it came to the consines of Paganisme and consequently any one Church hath power to judge any one Believer in all the world because say you he is not without in the Apostles sense that is to say he is not a Pagan Heathen or unbeliever 2. Suppose the Apostle had known a member of the Church of Corinth what ever he appeared outwardly in the frame of his conversation to be indeed without Christ and in a state of enmity with God if this man had committed a grosse sin might not the Apostle have judged such a one to be excommunicated We suppose you will say he might and if so we demand why should a Church-unbeliever be subject to the Apostles judgement and an Heathenish unbeliever be exempted from the Apostles judgement If Church-membership did not make the one obnoxious to that spirituall judgement more then the other For in the notion of unbelievers and without Christ they both agree and therefore if a Heathen were exempted from judgement because without Christ and not for this reason because without the visible Church why should not a Church-unbeliever be exempted as well as a Heathen 2. If we mistake not a Believer not joyned to any particular congregation is without in reference to Church-judgement and we suppose by vertue of this Text in your Presbyterian
calculation of Ecclesiasticall power For Classicall Provinciall and Nationall Synods have a power of judging or excommunicating those only that are within the combination Now these being representative Churches he that is of no particular Congregation is without the verge of Presbyteriall power or else it will follow that the Presbyteriall Church hath power to excommunicate a person that is not within their combination and if one by the same reason a thousand ten thousand in every quarter and corner of the world But say you The Apostle opposeth Fornicators of the World Answer and Fornicators that are Brethren Persecution in the Primitive times as it is at this day was chiefly if not only levied against those who did joyn themselves to the Churches to the enjoyment of Ordinances Reply or at least otherwise visibly as Paul at his first conversion by preaching declared themselves to be Christs Disciples Hence those to whom God had given so much faith and constancy as to be willing to expose themselves to persecution these did inlist themselves in the Churches frequented their meetings which were observable by the Persecutors and professed themselves of the fraternity of the Church the Church looked on them as her members and accordingly dispensed ordinances and censures to them as they had need Others there were who like Nicodemus came to Christ by night or like those chief Rulers spoken of Joh. 12.42 who though they believe in Christ yet they dare not confesse him by publike joyning of themselves to run all hazards with the Church Hence it is that no politick visible Church doth look upon these as of her fraternity or doth dispence all ordinances and censures to them Now the Brother that is opposed to the fornicators of the world is not he that by the internall and invisible grace of faith is a Brother and of the mysticall body of Christ though peradventure he dare not openly professe Christ But such a one is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Church of Corinth who is a named and professed Brother so looked upon not only by the motherly eye of the Church but oft times by the malitious eye of the world though peradventure they be not truly brethren united with the rest of the faithfull people of God as members of the mysticall body of Christ 2. With such a one not to eat presupposeth in an orderly way a forbearing of voluntary civil and spirituall communion with the party upon this ground that he is under censure in the Church Now the power of Church-censures is not to be executed by the church-mysticall but by the church-visible as such neither is it to be executed upon the members of the Church-mysticall as such but upon the members of the visible church whether they be in truth or only in appearance members of the mysticall church So then Fornicators of the world are to be understood of the world as it stands in opposition to the visible church and so those that are of the mysticall church may be fornicators of the world in that sense And though by the lawes of Christ concerning Church-discipline every man be forbidden to eat with those that are known Fornicators under church-censure in their own church and by vertue of church-communion with those that are fornicators under censure in any other church yet if one that is a member of the mysticall but dares not professe his subjection to Christ in that particular of joyning himself to some visible church shall be a fornicator we know no law of Christ precisely concerning church-discipline that interdicts a man to eat in point of voluntary civill communion with such a man any more then if he were a Pagan or Heathen But Answer say you without are Dogs and Sorcerers such as the Apostle had not to do with What have I to do c. vers 12. and yet he had to do with all Christians by his illimited apostolike power whether they belong to that or any other Congregation or no such as God judgeth or are left to the immediate judgement of God But this is not the case of Believers not joyned especially in your sense of joyning to a particular Congregation nor do you I hope judge it to be the case of Believers in England and Scotland 1. Reply There might be Dogs in the Apostolike Churches as well as without Phil. 3.2 and with such dogs Paul had to do with Nay he had to do with the dogs of the Gentiles he received a key of knowledge by which he was to open the Kingdome of heaven to them in case they would repent and believe and to binde them under the guilt of impenitencie and infidelity in case they would not repent and believe Matth. 28.19 with Mark 16.16 But those that Paul had not to do to judge who are said to be without in this place are all such as are contradistinguished to those that are within with whom the Church had to do by way of Ecclesiasticall judgement Now the church of Corinth had power of Ecclesiasticall judgement over all and only those which were within the combination of that church and therefore Paul had nothing to do to judge them that is to say with the judgement mentioned in this place which were out of this combination Now what was this judgement Answ The judgement whereby the Apostle decrees that the church of Corinth shall excommunicate fornicators and consequently shall not eat with them Now the Apostle had received no such power to judge those persons to excommunication and that by the ministery of a church that were never in fellowship with the church But such persons though for their crimes they may be subject to the judgement of the civill Magistrate yet in respect of Ecclesiasticall judgement they are left to the immediate judgement of God And if this be not the case of Believers not joyned to a particular congregation by whom shall those Believers be judged Why shall this Congregationall Classicall Provinciall National-church judge them rather then that May they be judged by all or any one Certainly they stand no more related to one then to another which are members of none at all Where shall the fault be charged if judgement be not passed We said before if a church may judge one out the combination why not a thousand why not ten thousand c. yet we are far from judging those Believers in England and Scotland which are not joyned in our Way of joyning to a particular Congregation therefore to be altogether out of Church-combination not capable of the Ecclesiasticall judgement of their Churches and consequently subject to the immediate judgement of Christ POSITION XVIII The Elders are not Lords over Gods heritage 1 Pet. 5.3 nor do exercise authority as the Kings and Princes of the earth do remembring our Saviours lesson Matth. 20.25 26 Luke 22.25 26. They are not so many Bishops striving for preeminence Answer as Diotrephes did 3 Joh. vers 9 10. (a) These Scriptures
judicatories and appeals such ought to have the judging Church in the dayes of the Gospel This main hypothesis upon which the strength of all depends is unsound For 1. It is necessary that the judging Church in the times of the Gospel should be conformed to spirituall precepts and patterns left us by Christ and his Apostles but Christ hath not appointed the Jewish church in matter of government to be a pattern to Gospel Churches For if so then are not the Churches that are of Presbyterian complexion to be understood in this place for there is a vast difference betwixt your Churches and the Jewish Church For First there is disparity in the manner of the calling of persons for Synods are made up of men chosen and sent forth by particular Churches but the Sanhedrin did not consist of chosen men sent out by the Synagogues but of Priests and Levites which the Synagogues did neither choose nor send forth Secondly there is disparity in matter of power In the Jewish Sanhedrin the chief Priest was chief by vertue of Office 2 Chron. 19.11 but in the Classicall Way all are equall in point of Office Thirdly in respect of the causes judged the Sanhedrin dealt with matters of civill nature Deut. 21.5 but Synods only with Ecclesiasticall Fourthly in respect of the time of judicature The Sanhedrin was a standing constant court but Classicall Provinciall Nationall and Oecumenicall Synods meet but once in a moneth once in half a yeer once in twelve moneths or it may be not once in many ages is an Oecumenicall Synod gathered and so those appeals that are made from a Nationall are in little hope to finde relief from an Oecumenicall Synod 2. If it were necessary that Church-government in the times of the Gospel should beare conformity with the Jewish Government then they must not only have graduall judicatories and appeals but they must have First a stated Oecumenicall judicature constantly to judge all hard controversies between blood and blood plea and plea stroke and stroke into all Churches in the world Secondly that this stated Oecumenicall judicature must have some stated place which God should choose Deut. 17.8 that so appellants might know whither to repaire for redresse of their grievances Thirdly that there must be one chief by vertue of office over all met in this universall court 2 Chron. 19.4 That he that shall do presumptuously and will not hearken to that Catholike councell that man must die Deut. 17.12 3. There may be good reason rendered why the Synagogues should be under a Juperiour judicatory and the same cause there is why Congregationall-churches should be under a Superiour judicatory The Synagogues were parts of a church that had not power to dispence all Gods Ordinances amongst themselves and were branches of a politick Nationall-church endued with power of government as Nationall The Promise and Covenant of God extended to the whole Nation But there is no such power of government left to every or to any Nation in the world neither are particular Congregations parts of a Church as the Synagogues of the Jewes were but they are entire and compleat Churches and may transact all Gods Ordinances walking in truth and peace amongst themselves otherwise all Gods Ordinances could not be transacted unlesse a whole Nation were converted and brought into Church-society This Gospel was writ principally for the Jews some say in Hebrew Answer c. Admitting the Proposition were true Reply which yet we have much cause to doubt of may not Congregationall men that are Christians use this place aright in applying it to Congregationall churches because the whole Gospel was writ principally for the Jews Certainly the undiscernible strength of this reason at least by us will levie war against the Presbyterians except they will professe themselves Jews for applying this place to Presbyterian Churches The Epistles to the Hebrews and James were writ principally for the Jewes and yet Christians that are Gentiles may make a right use of them In it the spirit of God useth much the language and dialect of the old Testament Answer in which Kahal and Ecclesia with the Seventy do sometimes signifie the company of Elders as well as the body of the people a Nationall Church with graduall judicatories and appeals as well as a particular assembly We cannot but despaire of ever seeing the premises delivered of the conclusion Reply Let it be granted that Kahal c. signifies in the old Testament sometimes a company of Elders sometimes the People sometimes a Nationall sometimes a Congregationall Church yet it will not follow that the Congregationall men in applying Mat. 18.17 to the Congregationall Church have offered any violence to the Text. For it will not follow Kahal sometimes signifies a Nationall Church in the old Testament no though to make it more strong you adde that the Spirit useth much the language and dialect of the old Testament I say it will not follow therefore it signifies a Nationall Church in Matth. 18.17 for the Spirit may use by your own confession the language and dialoct of the old Testament and yet it may be understood of a particular Assembly Neither will it follow Kahal sometime in the old Testament Ergo Ecclesia signifies a company of Elders Ergo it signifies a company of Elders in Matth. 18.17 Now there is not a word in the Text Answer to shew either that the Church is not here taken for the Presbyterie but for the People seeing when Christ saith whatsoever ye shall binde c. he speaks to the Disciples vers 1. or Apostles which are elsewhere said to have the power of binding and loosing Matth. 16.19 Joh. 20.23 and were not ordinary Believers but Elders 1 Pet. 5.1 or that it is meant of a parcular Congregation without graduall judicatories and appeals c. These are the Premises Reply but how shall we do to get the conclusion willingly to follow these Premises which must be this Ergo when the Congregationall men affirm that the particular Congregation is the Church to which God hath given the power of government and urge Matth. 18. to prove the exercise of such power by the Church aforesaid they abuse that Text. For the Congregationall men may very securely affirm that those words Tell the Church send the offended Brother to the Congregationall Church in the time of the Gospel even as they sent the Jewés to the Sanhedrin whilest that was in force and yet not send him to the people as they stand in opposition to the Presbyterie which are the most noble organicall parts of the integrally perfect Church For we do not seat the power of the Keys in the people as they are contradistinguished to their Elders but in the whole Church by a most wise and divine dispersion of power unto the dissimilar parts of the Church according to their severall capacities For as the Elders have an authoritative power so the people have a power of liberty in point of
alledged you say The Lord Jesus reproving the Angel of Pergamus Answer sends his Epistle say you not to the Angel but to the Church I adde not to the Church but to the Churches As you gather that the suffering of corrupt persons and practices was the sin of the Church and not of the Angel only so I may gather that it was the sin not of the Church only but the neighbouring Churches also It is like you intended a consutation Reply but it hath befalne you as it did the Potter in the Poet Horat. de Art Poet. amphora coepit Institui currente rota cur urcens exit qui amphoram instituens currente rota effingit urcoum For in stead of a consutation you have brought forth an addition otwo other inferences Now if you should unto this inference of the Elders adde a hundred more of your owne yet this will not prove that the inference of the Elders is injurious to the Text For still it may be doubted whether theirs or yours any of them all of them or none of them be true true inferences from the Text yea or no especially considering that the inferences you bring are of friendly compliance with that that you pretend to confute For you say not to the Church I suppose you mean the Church only for else you harp upon a harsh string in the ears of rationall men to say John writ to all the seven Churches of Asia Ergo he writ not to Perganus one of the seven but to the churches Now can you say the Lord Jesus writing to the Angel of the Church of Perganus sends his Epistle to all the seven Churches and not abuse the Text and yet must we believe it when you tell us that the Elders of New-England in saying Christ writ not to the Angel of the Church of Pergamus only but to the whole Church of Pergamus also do abuse the Text Again if the suffering of Balaamites in the Church of Pergamus was the sin of all the neighbouring Churches and that this may be affirmed by you without wrong to the Text then the suffering of them in the Church of Pergamus it self was the sin of that Church and this may be affirmed by the Elders of New-England without wrong to the Text. 2. But let us look upon the words not as they may afford matter of an argument ad hominem but as they are in themselves Two things you affirm 1. That Christ reproving the Angel of the Church of Pergamus sends the Epistle to the Churches We suppose you mean the other six Churches of Asia 2. That suffering Balaamites which is reproved in the Church of Pergamus was the sin of the neighbouring Churches also For the first 1. The book of the Revlation contains seven Epistles which were of immediate concernment in a distributive sense to seven severall Churches and many other glorrious mysteries that were of equall concernment to all the people of God These all being molded into one book as we said are sent to the seven Churches of Asia Now the Elders of New-England affirm that the Epistles sent to the Angels of Pergamus and Thyatira are sent by way of immediate appropriation and concernment for that is their meaning to the whole Churches of Pergamus and Thyatira Now if in this sense you affirm that Christ reproving the Angel of the Church of Pergamus sends his Epistle to all the Churches you speak to the purpose but not according to truth For 1. What a Pleonasme and redundancy if not a grosse Soloecisme in discourse and absudity it is in a book sent as an Epistle to seven Churches two severall times to mention them together vers 4. John to the seven Churches of Asia vers 11. What thou seest Rev. 1.4.11 write it in a book and send it to the seven Churches of Asia and afterwards to write severall things of a Heterogeneall nature to those seven severall Churches distributively To the Church of Ephesus write thus to the Church of Pergamus thus c. commend one condemn another admonish a third extoll a fourth threaten a fifth c. and yet that these severall Epistles should be of as immediate a concernment to all the rest as to those to which they are particularly directed 2. It will follow that Philadelphia was lukewarm with Laodicea dead with Sardis and of these two lukewarm dead Churches may be verified the Encomiasticks of Ephesus Pergamus and Philadelphia with many such consequences But if your meaning be that the Epistle sent to the Church of Pergamus in respect of that remore and generall concernment whereby it may be of use to all Christians is sent together with the rest of the Book of the Revelations to the seven Churches This though a truth will afford no contribution towards the making good of your charge against the Elders of New-England being that which they deny not 2. For the second it is undeniably manifest that the assertion of the Elders viz. that the Church of Pergamus was guilty of suffering Balaamites and other wicked persons is true yea the truth of this Text. But to have so much faith as to believe that all the rest of the six Churches of Asia if that be the utmost extent of neighbouring Churches in your account were guilty of suffering Balaamites and Nicolaitans yea even Ephesus and Philadelphia that are commended for not suffering those that are evill hating the deeds of the Nicolaitans and keeping the Word of Gods patience would require some further proof then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 your bare assertion for the manifestation of it For if the rest were guilty why are they not blamed Why is the burthen laid only though it might be laid chiefly upon one Church when as the rest are guilty I suppose the building upon which you lay the weight of this roof is this These seven Churches were a combined Presbyterie and therefore as the government so the neglect thereof concernes all Answ If you may assume the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the thing in question as if it were the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a thing out of question you may in time perswade the world that the Elders of New-England have forced this and many other Texts But to prove that the seven Asian Churches were governed by a joynt and common Presbyterie hic labor hoc opus est this is the businesse But suppose that such a common Presbyterie there were and that the Presbyters of all the other six Churches did endeavour the casting out of these Balaamites c. why were they then not cast out Could the Elders of Pergamus over-vote the Elders of all the neighbouring churches in a Synod And if all or at least the major part of the Elders of these seven Churches neglect why are the Elders of Pergamus only reproved Lastly we cannot choose upon this consideration but condole the sad condition of Presbyterian Churches which is such if wicked men be suffered in any particular Congregation in
the work of feeding now whether there were more Congregations in Ephesus or but one yet no Elder could then or can now feed any more then one Congregation therefore they are Overseers only each of them to one Congregation Your selves will grant that they cannot feed in a constant way by word and doctrine and the Sacraments which are the principall works of feeding any more then one Congregation therefore one Congregation bounds their Commission and consequently if they feed ministerially other Congregations they go beyond their Commission and are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. It is more then probable that the flock at Ephesus was but one Congregation First Ephesus was a City and we do not reade of more Congregations of Saints constantly meeting for the worship of God in any City then one Secondly we cannot think but that the Church of Jerusalem Corinth and Antioch were as numerous as Ephesus and yet none of them were more then one Congregation if we be bound to rest upon the Holy Ghosts own testimony who witnesseth that they ordinarily met in one place as before was shewed 3. They are called one flock one Church now we have declared before that one instituted Church and a Congregation are all one when Church is properly taken and without a figure and in this place there is no necessity of a figure for there is no improbability but that they might meet in one place therefore the charge runs to the Elders at Ephesus to feed the Church viz. the Congregation at Ephesus and to that they are so limited The Text in 1 Pet. 5.1 2. gives this charge Feed the flock that is among you Now neither the Elders to whom he writes were together nor the Saints whom they were to feed but both the one and the other scattered abroad through many countries Pontus Galatia Asia c. therefore flock in this Text is to be taken in a figurative sense and distributively of necessity and the charge of feeding the flock is to be limited by the words among you And thus it must be understood you Elders in Pontus feed the flock among you and you Elders in Galatia feed the flock among you and you Elders in Asia feed the flock among you and each of you in every place feed the flock where you be in each place And more distributively yet because neither all the Elders nor all the Saints in Galatia Asia c. were together therefore it is thus to be interpreted ye Elders in this City of Asia feed the flock among you and ye Elders in that City feed the flock among you and so of all the rest so that the restriction in the Commission is in these words among you Now the Saints in Galatia were not with the Elders of Asia nor the Saints of one City of Asia with the Elders of another City of Asia therefore the Elders were by Commission to look to the Saints in every City and place where themselves were and not to others where themselves were not So that if the Elders in Asia should take authoritative inspection over the Saints in Galatia and in other countries they should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishops medling in others Dioces not belonging to them because all Elders are bounded to the Saints among themselves Peter bids the Elders of Pontus Answer Galatia c. to feed the flock of God that is amongst them therefore you say the Elders of one Church of Galatia must not feed the people of another Church of Galatia A communicant must examine himself will you thence inferre that none else must examine himself The Thessalonians were to know them that were over them and laboured among them and esteem them very high in love for their works sake therefore must they not heare at all or at least not esteem highly for their works sake the Pastors of other Congregations 2 Thes 5.12 13. Your reasoning is not good Reply nor candid by comparing things disparate you would cast an absurditie upon us but it will light upon your self You argue from works of common Christian duty unto works of Office very improperly As suppose the matter were thus laid down The Parliament writes to the Colonels of Lancashire to look well to and rule and govern the souldiers and people that is amongst them an inference is drawn hence the Colonels of Lancashire are not to govern and rule the souldiery and people of Cheshire for their charge is over the souldiery and people amongst themselves this inference is good But you to overthrow it would bring such an argument as this The Colonels of Lancashire must agree amongst themselves must they not therefore agree with the Colonels of Cheshire The souldiers and people of Lancashire must respect and honour their own Commanders must they not therefore respect and honour the Commanders in other counties also This is a weak argumentation to overthrow the former inference the fallacy lieth in this you would extend duties of authority and office in such manner as duties of love and reverence and honour which respect all men all superiours are to be extended Therefore seeing that it is a feeding of office and an authoritative feeding that is enjoyned in those Texts alledged it is limited to the people over whom they are Officers and may not be extended further And yet the people of such Congregations must love their own members so as withall they must love the members of other Congregations and they must reverence their own Officers so as withall they must reverence the Officers of other Congregations yet their own most because relation there is strongest And the reason is because love and reverence are not actions annexed to Office but of a common nature appertaining to men and Christians Take heed to the flock and feeding it Answer doth include administration of the Word and Prayer as well as of Sacraments yet you hold he may notwithstanding this Text preach and pray in another Congregation Taking heed to the flock and feeding it Reply doth include the administration of the Word and Prayer of the Sacraments and the exercise of Discipline and yet your self doth not place a parity in all these For you are apprehensive of a further liberty in preaching and praying then in performing the other actions You will preach to the Heathens as Heathens but not give Sacraments to them you may preach before Ordination for approbation but not dispence the Sacraments before Ordination You may preach to a Congregation in Scotland and yet not act authoritatively in their Synods among them And now what the reason of this should be we cannot imagine unlesse you grant with us a difference betwixt some acts of feeding and other acts of feeding and say some acts are so annexed to Office and are so authoritative that they cannot be performed but where Office is and authority is and other acts of feeding though they they be authoritative to that people over whom the persons performing them are Officers
to the Text to which we answer 1. Here also you fall short of that ingenuity professed in your Preface for doubtlesse Mr. Cotton Reply that denies any ordinary exercise of Prophecy by men not called to the Ministery cannot but in your judgement come neerer the truth then those that say at least as you give it out that gifted men not called to the Ministery nor intended for it may preach which imply to be meant in an ordinary and stated way When you say yet that these did preach ordinarily and usually to the Churches like to Pastors is impossible to be proved Now though you style Mr. Cotton deservedly the Chief of the more ingenuous sort of Congregationall men yet you neither help forward accommodation nor honour Mr. Cottons ingenuity by the least mention of it as you professe 2. You are so far from helping forward accommodation that I know not how to excuse you from making the breach greater then it was For we have consulted advisedly with 73. 80th pages of the 32. Quest and we can find no such Position as you fasten upon the Elders For page 73. they answer the 21. Quest viz. Whether do you hold it lawfull for mere lay or private-men to ordain Ministers in any case And having proved the Affirmative by reasons grounded upon the Word of God they come to urge the consent of some worthy Divines and learned Writers as Doctor Willet Morney Whitakers and others and in the Allegation of Morney they shew that Morney expresseth himself that some of our men expected not the calling of those that under the title of Pastors oppressed the flock but did at first preach without this formall calling and afterwards were called to the Holy Ministery of the Word by the Churches and for this we have examples saith Morney First in the Acts where we read that Philip was but a Deacon preached in Samaria without the calling of the Apostles yea without their privity who for all that gave their allowance to that work So that here he speaks not of an ordinary and usuall course in preaching to the Churches without Office but an extraordinary case of those that because of the corruptions of the times preached to the people without the calling of the Prelates in such places where they had either no Officers or Popish Officers neither doth he speak of gifted men that intended not the Ministery but of gifted men that because they durst not enter by the ordinary door of Prelaticall ordination preached to the people by vertue of their gifts and that internall Prothumie or desire which God had wrought in them and so soon as by the blessing of God upon their endeavours they had so far prevailed as that there were Churches giving them a calling they imbraced that call And this is that he proves lawfull by the Allegation of Philips example So in the 80. page their scope is to shew that the Word may be made effectuall to Conversion though the man that speaks it be not a Church-officer For the people of which they alledge the preaching of those that were scattered by the Persecution of Stephen Acts 8.4 and 11.19 20 21. and Job 4.39 where many of the Samaritans believed upon the saying of the woman of Samaria and that 1 Cor. 7.16 What knowest thou O woman but thou shalt gain thy husband So that you do most miserably wrest their Allegations quite to another purpose then that for which they intended them for they never intended hereby to prove the lawfulnesse of preaching by vertue of gifts without Office but only that those which do preach without Office may be instruments of conversion much lesse did they intend as you would make the world believe that these did preach ordinarily and usually to the Churches like Pastors and received maintenance for they speak of such a kinde of preaching as may be done by a gifted woman as the woman of Samaria or the believing wife 1 Cor. 7. as well as by a gifted man Neither do they speak of the preaching of these that were scattered as it was ordinary and usuall and like unto Pastors but only as performed by men who all of them at least say they were not Church-officers and yet proved effectuall for conversion When we read your marginall note viz. This is but a little altered from Answ to 32. Quest p. 80.73 we imagined at first sight you had made some small alteration in the language and phrase which we could well have born with but we finde that you have made an alteration in the very scope and subject mater insisted upon by the Elders You have taken away their living childe and laid your own dead childe in the room of it so that in your margent we have you though in a mincing extenuating what Ciecro desires his adversary viz. Confitentem reâ—â—â—â— confessing your own guilt which is the greatest expression of ingenulty of all others in this Section 3. But that we may give satisfaction to you and to all men if it be the will of God we shall first declare our judgement concerning the point in debate and then answer your Arguments so far as we conceive them invalid First then we conceive that all the members of the Church so far as their occasions and calling will permit should strive after ability by way of prophesying to speak to exhortation edification and comfort a Hee Prophetiae donum tanquamalus praestantms maximè commendat Apostolus cuiomâ—es studeant 1 Cor. 14.1 2. Parâ—us in Rom. 12. col 1197. i. e. This gift of Propecie as more excellent then the other gifts the Apostle most commends for which all should cover 1 Cor. 14.1 2. 1 Cor. 1 p. 1. and the Hebrewes ought to have been teachers of others though they stood in need to be taught the very Principles of Religion Hebr. 5.12 2. There are for the most part and may alwayes lawfully be some in the Church who devote themselves to the study of the Scriptures and other profitable studies that so they may be the better inabled to understand the meaning of the Word Such were those sons of the Prophets bred up under the Prophets 1 Sam. 19.20 1 King 20.35 2 King 2.3.5 Such were many of our Saviours Disciples who addicted themselves wholly to learn to be fishers of men Such it is probable were some of those Prophets which were in Corinth Antioch and other Churches For the Rules to be observed in the exercise of Prophecie were not proper to the Church of Corinth alone but the same were ordained in all Churches 1 Cor. 14.33 And therefore Prophets whom the Rules concern were or might be in all Churches for having no publike Vniversities or Colledges for Christians 't is probable this was the way of training up men for the work of the Ministery under the Teaching Officers of the severall Churches 3. That ordinarily God chose of those that were sons of the Prophets to be Prophets yet this was not