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
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
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
Gnedah be taken as they may there was but one kinde of Church so combined which was Nationall And in the new Testament we say there is no other combination to enjoy all ordinances and worships instituted in the Gospel but Congregationall and we produce the small countrey of Judea containing a plurality of Churches and thence collect that they must be Congregations and that Congregations are therefore Churches And this is not weakened by what variety of acceptions is brought Furthermore wee do not know that Church or Flock or Lump or Body when referred to God and Christ and is properly taken is used otherwise then in two or three senses either for the mysticall Church Ephe. 5.25 26. or the * 2 Cor. 8.1.19 Congregationall 1 Cor. 1.1 sometimes indeed Rev. 1.4 we reade of it in a sigurative sense as in 1 Cor. 12.28 Gal. 5.9 James 2.2 1 Pet. 5.2 and many more places For though you say That four or five in a Family joyning in the worship of God are the Domesticall Church spaken of by Paul many times in his Epistles yet we conceive otherwise for seeing usually when there were any heads of Families converted some of the houshold were converted with them as we can give many instances wee think that many or the most that Paul saluted had in that sense churches in their Families and therefore Paul would not have singled out and with a note of distinction have spoken of some persons and the churches in their Families for that reason if some other reason had not moved him either then these Families were large and great Families and might be as numerous as some Congregationall Churches or the foundation of a Church might be laid in the persons of a Family but not so to continue but to grow to a Congregation or else some Congregationall Church might meet in such houses which was ordinary in those dayes And for the word Church in Acts 12. either it is to be taken for the mysticall church or else for that particular visible society of Believers which was at Jerusalem though some of them were absent But you proceed to give more particular answers and incounter with a part of the forementioned Position viz. There were Churches in Galatia therefore they were Congregationall Galatia was a large countrey in England a far lesse countrey Answer severall Churches have been heretofore and yet not meerly Congregationall And why are Galatia and Macedonia taken hold of Reply and made use of and Judea left out which in the Position was mentioned as well as they Surely the reason was because in both those countries there was more room for your Nationall Church then in Judea You could not find breadth enough to make a plutality of Diocesan Churches and therefore durst not contend for Nationall But grant wee the largeness of those countries according as you speak were either of them too large to make one Nationall Church wee know you think not so Why then doth not the Apostle knit them all up into one Nationall Church if hee had so intended them But you add The Churches of Galatia might he combined one to another Answer as the Churches of England Scotland Holland France are respectively combined for the Apostle speaks of them as one lump 1 Cor. 5.6 with Gal. 5.9 c. Such a combination wee easily grant to be among the Churches of Galatia as is among the Churches of England Scotland Reply c. and that is none at all or at the most a combination without jurisdiction But if by respectively you mean a combination which each of these Churches hath in it self in all the Congregations of and belonging to it such a combination wee deny to have been in the Churches of Galatia For all our Congregations have been united under one Metropolitane Archbishop of all England and as yet there is none other established and for other combinations such as in Scotland Holland c. without proofe we cannot grant them in Galatia And if Paul had intended by saying A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump that we should gather thence that they were all one Church hee would never have called them churches in the Preface of his Epistle but in a distributive sense it is to be understood For suppose one speak in a literall sense and say a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump doth he thereby make all the dough in a countrey one lump No but of every lump how many soever they be it is to be understood a little leaven leaveneth each of them so of churches a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump that is the whole Church every Church in which it is this maketh not all the Churches in a countrey to be one And the Churches of Macedonia were not so severall Answer but they joyned in one to choose a Brother which I conceive was an authoritative act to go with Paul for the managing of the Churches contributions 2 Cor. 8.18 19. 1. Reply Then to choose an Officer is much more an authoritative act which you grant to appertain unto the people then the people may act authoritatively which is none of our assertion but yours and the people are beholden to you for it 2. A combination of churches without jurisdiction will enable them to such an act nay if there were no combination at all yet when many churches are alike interessed in a businesse reason shews they ought to joyn alike to promove it 3. They did not make him an Officer by this act of choosing him but they deputed him thereby to a particular work which when accomplished all was ended The churches of Judea Answer consisting of Myriads of people did come together Acts 21.20 21 22. to be satisfied of Paul concerning an accusation that they had received against him and are called a Church Gal. 1.13 Acts 12.1 and an House Heb. 3.4 Not the Jewes of Judea alone did gather together Reply but the Jews of all other parts as appeareth from Acts 21.27 But be it that they gathered alone yet are they called one Church the place alledged is Gal. 1.13 I persecuted the Church of God What Church Churches in Judea No Paul saith hee persecuted them unto strange cities and Damascus was one of them The meaning is them that were of Jerusalem he persecuted to strange cities or he persecuted the Saints in generall Who as they are parts of the mysticall Church may be called by a Synecdoche the Church And Herod stretched out his hands to vex certain of the Church What church Either the mysticall or that at Jerusalem or any Church within his reach And his house Heb. 3.4 to be understood of the churches of Judea What strange mis-interpreting of Scripture is this house in that place is all the churches that were then or ever were to be in the world Christ is the builder of them all POSITION V. When a visible Church is to be erected This is not unlike the Answer to 32. q. p.
of the Church that is of the church he is of Not forsaking the assembling of your selves together that is no one with his own church that he is of or each church with it self But there is no need of any such figure in the Texts which wee alledge but the literall sense may passe and in some places must passe or there will be no sense For 1. The persons which wee say came together they might do it they were neither so many nor so remote but they might And if the Holy Ghost say they did wee must believe it and not seek a figure when wee are not enforced to it 2. The Text in 1 Cor. 14.23 saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when the whole church comes together Now let the Reader judge whether any of your Texts have any such fulness of words in them to sway to a meeting in one place as this one Text hath which we have brought Some of your own side have been convinced with the evidence of this Text that the church of Corinth was but one congregation and came together into one place Especially Answer seeing the Apostle writes to the Achaians 2 Cor. 1.1 1 Cor. 16.1 with 2 Cor. 9.2 11.10 Now there were other churches in that Region at least two Corinth and Cenchrea Rom. 16.1 To say nothing of the church whereof Gaius the Corinthian was the Host 1. Reply Paul writes to the Achaians no otherwise then hee doth to the Saints which call on the name of the Lord Jesus every where 1 Cor. 1.1 with 2 Cor. 1.1 2. Hee writes not to them as making one church with the Corinthians for hee mentioneth them with a note of distinction from the Corinthians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The places which you would have compared will not enforce any such thing For hee might have a scope that the other churches in Achaia from the Epistle hee sent to Corinth which they were to peruse as the Laodicean church was to reade the Epistle written to the Colossians should be stirred up to the same duty of contribution c. So that the onenesse of the Congregation of the church of Corinth is not yet infringed 4. Doth the Apostle write to the Achaians and were there in that Region two churches at least Corinth and Cenchrea why then doth not the Apostle say To the Churches of Achaia as in all other such cases he doth To the churches of Galatia The churches of Judea Macedonia Asia Why is the church of Corinth mentioned and the church at Genchrea wholly silenced in the first Epistle and not mentioned directly and by name in the second Hence there is mention of churches to which the women hee writes to for he saith Your women not women or all women did resort Answer Or how else could they keep selence in the churches 1 Cor. 14.34 1. These Epistles were written for the use and direction of all churches and therefore the Apostle nameth churches Reply because this was to be a standing rule for all churches and by your women the Corinthian women were primarily meant to whom the Epistle was sent yet in regard of use not they alone but they with the women of Achaia and all that call on the name of the Lord Jesus in every place It was a command intended for universall direction for the women of all other churches 2. Women were wont to go from one church to another upon occasion as Rom. 16.1 Phebe from Cenchrea went to Rome so might the Corinthian women go to other churches and in all churches must keep silence 3. Though it he said your women yet it is not said your churches but in the churches that is churches every where and the verse before gives some light hereto For hee had said As in all the churches of the Saints And he addes Let your women keep silence in the churches What churches The churches of the Saints every where POSITION IV. The visible Church in the new Testament is not Nationall as the Iewes was hence we reade of the Churches of Galatia Macedonia ludea not Church of Galatia 1 Cor. 16.1 2 Cor. 8.1 We say not that the Christian Church is Nationall Answer as was the Jewish church viz. that it hath a nationall Tabernacle Temple or House of God and solemne worship peculiar to it to which all the members or all the males must sometimes resort towards which the absent are to pray and in which the Priests in their courses do minister unto God 1. Why do you yet find fault with the Position Reply when you agree with us in the same 2. Why do you not lay down in what sense the Christian church is nationall and in what sense not nationall 3. If in any proper manner of speaking you will have the Christian church nationall meaning by nationall the Saints that live within such a nation as distinguished from the Saints of another nation in countrey and place of habitation without any othertie amongst them being all of them parts only of the Mysticall or Catholique church as wee know the Sea that washeth the British shores is called the British Sea and that which washeth the Belgick shores is called the Belgick Sea though they be not distinct Seas but parts of the great Ocean yet in reference to an adjunct of place they run by they receive distinct denominations and by a Synecdoche the parts carry the names of the whole in this sense we do yeeld the exposition or phrase of nationall church But if you mean by nationall church an instituted church of nationall extent in point of power and jurisdiction upon which particular congregations within that nation do depend wee want light that there is or ought to be any such church in the times of the Gospel For if there ought to be such a nationall church for patterns we have none as your self do confesse then in this church there must be some nationall combination nationall place for convention nationall Pastor upon which it must depend and nationall Ordinances For seeing there was no such church extant when the Gospel was written nor rules left for you would have alledg'd them we suppose had there been any how all things must be carried in such a nationall church what reason can be shewed if such a church must be why there should be a departing from the pattern of the nationall church among the Jewes in which they had all these things Therefore those seem to do best that in thir moulding of their nationall church come neerest to the example of the Jewish church Or if you will have another modell of this nationall church of your owne framing viz. a nation of Assemblies combined together and represented in their officers meeting in one place and consulting the good of the whole and executing authority over the whole then these persons must stand in relation to all and each one of the Assemblies of the Nation under their jurisdiction and so they are Nationall Officers
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
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
done and with consent Answ No such order can be expected where no such order hath been wont to be exercised If any godly person hath removed from one Countrey to another and planted himselfe in Manchester have the Ministers or people whom he left sent after him or challenged him as theirs Or have the Ministers or people whom he hath come to rejected him as none of theirs because not orderly delivered into their hands Suppose the end of his removall was communion with a better people or better ministery Doth this make it the worse or more unwarrantable Is it lawfull to remove to a fatter soile when the place a man lives in is more barren Is it lawfull to remove to a purer aire when the aire one hath lived in is worse and distempers the body And is it not lawfull to remove to a purer Church The purer any Church is doth not Christ take the more delight in it And doth he not desire to be there most And why may not persons desire to plant themselves where Christ gives most of his presence And if one man may unite to such a Church that is purer may not many agree together to make such a Church that may be purer And this is all the gathering of Churches that we know of that is either taught or practised But the exception is That there is a removall of persons to other Churches without the removall of their habitations But why should this be blamed 1. If distinction of Parishes by bounds and limits be not Jure divino where is then the fault Selden of Tithes 2. Was there not liberty within this very Kingdome fromerly for persons to pay their tythes to what Minister they pleased And consequently they were not tied to the Parish they lived in but might chuse their own society and Pastor and hence it is that there are some pieces of Parishes in some places six or eight miles distant from other parts of it and whole Parishes betwixt Why therefore now should there be an abridgement 3. There are many inconveniences both to Minister and people arising hence 1. The Pastors of Parish Churches are onely at certainty what houses they have under their Ministery not what persons for they may goe which way they will leaving their houses but their houses and lands are sixed and they shall alwayes find them there 2. The members of these Churches though they have been bred up under the wing of such Churches and Pastors thereof and have taken a love and liking to the same yet if they remove from their habitation but a stones cast sometimes they must be broken off thereby from such Churches in point of Membership 3. A mans habitation may be neerer to some Church that is out of that parish and so far off from his own Parish Church that he cannot conveniently repaire thereunto must he yet be bound to his own Parish Church by his habitation 4. Suppose a man have many houses in severall Parishes and would desire sometimes to live in one and sometimes in another must he needs alter his Church membership as oft as he changeth his habitation Or can he be a member in all the Parishes where he hath houses The Apostles being not of men Answer nor by men but by Jesus Christ Gal. 1.1 b This was proper to the Apostles or Apostolick men Answ to 9. Pos p 76. T.W. to W.R. p. 67. did preach not onely without but against the peremptory command and Lawes of the Magigistrate Acts 4.17 18 21. 5.28 So did the ordinary Pastors and Teachers of those times as well as the Apostles and many of them were martyred for their labour which yet had not an immediate call from Christ as the Apostles had Reply Therefore it was not an Apostolick businesse as you would make it But you professe not such a latitude of opposition against Magistracy Answer We professe subjection to Jesus Christ Reply without any opposition at all against Magistracie though you would suggest the contrary onely thus If Magistrates command any thing contrary to Christ we rather chuse to deliver up our persons into their hands then our consciences and practices unto their commands And this we hope cannot be interpreted an opposing of Magistracy Nor doe you hold I suppose that our godly non-conformable Brethren suspended by the Bishops Answer or New-England Ministers deposed by their Churches to say nothing of Ministers deprived by the Parliament for Malignancie are bound by the Apostles example to execute their Ministery in the Churches notwithstanding such suspension or deposition c. We conceive you have not equally yoked the Bishops Reply New-England Churches and the Parliament together For 1. The Parliament challengeth not the execution of Ecclesiastical censure and yet can tell how to punish malignancie in Ministers or any others 2. The Bishops have laid claim to it and exercised it without any just or true title to it Therefore though godly non-conformable Ministers might in prudence give place to violence especially when their people deserted them and Pulpit doores were shut against them yet in conscience and in obedience to such suspensions and depositions they neither did neither ought to have done desist from the execution of their office 3. Ministers that are censured by a lawful power where ever it lies whether in their own Congregationall Churches or in a Presbytery for we will not dispute that now in this place whether the censure be inflicted justly or unjustly ought to submit thereto and forbeare the execution of their Ministery in that place till they be restored again else Ecclesiasticall government which is Christs ordinance in the Church as Civill government is in the Common-wealth might come to be undermined and subverted by pretence of unrighteousnesse in the managing of it or the peace of the Church be disturbed But wherein makes this against the Position We conceive that those very Pastors and Teachers of the Primitive Churches which continued to preach though the expresse command of the Heathen Magistrate was against it lest they should offend Christ by desisting were yet taken off from preaching when silenced by their own Churches and that upon the same ground lest they should offend Christ in persisting But you goe on to say Had you such an immediate commission sealed from Heaven Answer and such infallible direction of the Holy Ghost as the Apostles had you might more boldly imitate them therein especially if the case of living under a Christian Magistrate intending endeavouring and consusting with Divines about the Reformation of the Church and of living under a Heathen Magistrate were not much different 1. The warrantablenes ariseth not from the immediatnesse of the Commission Reply but from the truth and reality of it If a Commission be as really sealed by Christ and from heaven thought not so immediatly as the Apostles was yet it binds as truly to the execution of the work of it till it be called in as the immediate