A Defence of certain Poſitions and Scriptures, againſt an examination thereof by R.H. in which they are charged to be faultie.
POSITION I.
GAthering of Churches in the Name of Chriſt,See almoſt the ſame Argument verbatim, in anſwer from New England to 32. q. p. 35. and ſetting up of Church-Ordinances, cannot be unlawfull for want of a Commandement from Man, as appeareth by the Doctrine and Practice of the Apoſtles, Acts 4.19. & 5.29.
THe Apoſtles never taught or practiſed to gather or ſeparate ſome Chriſtians from others, one part of this true Church,Anſwer. and another part of that, (eſpecially perſons which themſelves converted not) to make a purer Church, neither with nor without the Magiſtrates Authority.
THe Apoſtles both taught and practiſed the ſeparating of ſome Jewes 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 were2 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 Wi••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: We3 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 that4 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 Churchſtate, 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 hath5 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 repaire6 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. )bbThis 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 without7 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 doth.
2. We allow the caſe to be much different: For when we live under a Chriſtian Magiſtrate, inteuding and endeavouring Reformation, we are raiſed up unto an expectation of having all the8 wayes of Chriſt countenanced and confirmed by his authoritie, (which would be a very bleſſed thing) which we have no ſuch ground to look for living under a Heathen Magiſtrate. But how the caſe is different in your ſenſe, we underſtand not: For the Chriſtianity of the Magiſtrate, or his piety and ſedulity, in intending and endeavouring Reformation, cannot take any perſon or perſons off from their dutie, which they would be bound unto, if a Heathen Magiſtrate bore ſway. The Magiſtrate and the Miniſters, and the people, muſt each doe their part, becauſe each ſtands engaged for himſelfe to Jeſus Chriſt, unto the work of his own place. The impediments that come from any unto other, cannot be a diſcharge unto any.
Would our Brethren in New England allow a Presbyterian Church,Anſwer. or but a new Independent Church to be erected in New England, againſt the will and mind of the Magiſtrates and Churches there? 11T. W. to W.R. p. 31.
1. The queſtion is not what they would allow,Reply. but what a company of people planted there (which cannot without unfaithfulneſſe to their own light, be ſubject to any other government ſave the Presbyterian) ought to doe. Whether if their livelihood lie there, and that they cannot remove, they are not bound to keep Faith and a good Conſcience, what ever it be that they ſuffer for it?
2. Our beliefe of New England is this, that they would ſuffer the godly and peaceable to live amongſt them, though they diſſer in point of Church-government from them: Becauſe ſo farre as we could ever learn, they never baniſhed any, but unpeaceableneſſe together with deſperate erroneouſneſſe, was the cauſe of it.
Our Brethren at London (I heare) doe hold it (at leaſt) unſeaſonable,Anſwer. to gather Churches now: how their opinion and yours are reconcileable, I ſee not.
If you had ſaid,Reply. ſome of them did once think it unſeaſonable, you had not much miſſed it. But what croſſing is in this, which ſhould need a reconciliation? The Poſition ſaith, it cannot be unlawfull, the Brethren ſay it was unſeaſonable for that time. Many things may be unſeaſonable (at leaſt in opinion) and yet not unlawfull.
It may be the Browniſts,Anſwer. Anabaptiſts, Antinomians, Familiſts, and other groſſe Hereticks and Schiſmaticks in old or new England, doe alſo9 pretend the Doctrine and practice of the Apoſtles, for the ſetting up of their Churches; yet our godly and conſcientious Divines doe therein oppoſe them.
If groſſe Heretikes and Schiſmaticks doe ſo pretend,Reply. they muſt be found to be liers, and ſo their practice will be found to be unwarrantable, whether they have or have not the commandement of man; yet this will hinder nothing, but that thoſe which not in pretence, but in truth, have the Doctrine and practiſe of the Apoſtles with them, may lawfully practiſe according to it, though they want the commandement of man to warrant it. The falſe Apoſtles pretended to be true Apoſtles, but the Church of Epheſus tried them, and found them liers, and rejected them; and yet accepted of thoſe that were Apoſtles of Chriſt indeed.
POSITION II.
Seven, eight, or nine, may make a Church. In Adams and Noahs time there was not above ſeven or eight will you deny them the being of a Church? What will you make of Chriſt and of his Family, which were not above twelve beſides himſelfe, and of the firſt foundationals of the Church of Epheſus, which were about twelve? The number in the firſt beginning of the greateſt Church was ſmall enough in compariſon, Acts 1.15.
The caſe of Adam and Noah was extraordinary:Anſwer. there were no more in the world, and therefore could be no more in the Church.
You grant in an extraordinary caſe, ſeven, eight,Reply. or nine may make a Church: The Poſition ſaith not, that more may not make a Church, but if there be but ſo many, the truth and being of a Church cannot be denied them. We ſay further, that ſuch a number10 may but make a Church in the firſt foundation, or while there be no more perſons ſitted for memberſhip. For when more Saints by calling offer themſelves, they are to be received, and ſo the Church will be increaſed, Acts 19.7, 8, 9, 18.19, 20.
Adam and his wife,Anſwer. and firſt ſonnes, yea Adam himſelfe was the Church, if then there was any; yet you hold not that two or three, yea one may make a Church.
We conceive that the Church is Chriſts body,Reply. and that every body conſiſts of members; If all were one member, where were the body? How therefore one Adam could have been a Church, we underſtand not. Put this we hold, that look how few have ever made a Church ſince the beginning of the world, the ſame number may ſtill make a Church. And the reaſon is, becauſe God hath not preciſely determined what number doth make a Church.
Cain lawfully married his own ſiſter, may other men doe the like? Anſwer.
Have we not a manifeſt prohibition of ſuch marriages in the Scripture? Reply. ſo that though ſometimes they were lawfull, yet now they are not lawfull. But what Scripture have you againſt this, that what number of beleevers have formerly been a Church, ſuch a number may yet be a Church? And no greater number is required to the ſimple being of a Church.
Twelve are more then ſeven or eight,Anſwer. and an hundred and twenty are a competent number; yet it appeareth not that they were called or counted a Church, till they were more increaſed.
Firſt,Reply. though twelve be more then ſeven or eight, yet twelve is not more in the truth of conſtitution of a Church, then ſeven or eight; Is there more of the eſſence of a Church in twelve then in ſeven or eight? [Except you mean it ſo, you declare onely in ſaying ſo, that you can number twelve.] And if you ſo underſtand it, we ſhall demand proof of you for it.
Secondly, the Scripture determines not what number is competent, and what not competent to the being of a Church. How come you then ſo to paſſe your verdict about it; when further you adde, That it appeares not they were called or accounted a Church, till they were more increaſed? that is, till thoſe three thouſand perſons were added to them, Acts 2.41. If ſo, are you not then the more preſumptuous in ſaying, that an hundred and twenty are a competent number to make a Church? Notwithſtanding if you11 will, you may ſee them a Church before they were ſo increaſed: For they performed one great act of a Church, in electing an Officer to be over the Church, Acts 1.23. And when three thouſand were added to them, they came into their ſtate; and if their ſtate were not Church ſtate, then neither were they made a Church by this addition: for let three thouſand be added to no Church, and they are ſtill no Church; 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 oncecc1 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 gather12 men into it, but lived and died a member of the Jewiſh Church. ddAnſwer to to 32. q. p. 14.Had they been called a Church, as ſome houſholds are in the new TeſtamenteePhile. 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 congregationall13 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. 14Sacraments 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.
15They 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 into16 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 not17 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. And if it be not ſo, how can it be ſaid to be Canonicall Scripture? And how comes it to be the foundation of our Sermons, that wee preach out of it?
Beſides, doth all in every place, and Saints in all Achaia expound one another? What Commentator hath ever ſaid ſo? And doth 1 Cor. 5.1. compared with 2 Cor. 2.1. inforce ſuch an expoſition? That which you would ſuggeſt, is that hee writes to the ſame Corinthians, in the ſecond Epiſtle, that he writes unto in the firſt, for more your Scriptures import not; and wee grant it. But the inference you draw is this, ergo, all in every place here, and Saints in all Achaia, are all one; a ſtrange conſequence. If the ſecond Epiſtle be written to the ſame perſons as the firſt, Why do you not expound the ſubject perſons of the ſecond, by the ſubject perſons of the firſt, and ſay, though the Saints in all Achaia be mentioned only, yet under them the Salnts every where in the world are meant, as in the firſt Epiſtle it is expreſſed. This would have been a more naturall expoſition.
But we ſhall declare the Apoſtles naked ſcope, as we underſtand it. The Corinthians (not the Achaians in generall, for the Cenchreans joyned not with them, that wee reade of) had written to Paul, Chapt. 7.1. and Paul had received ſundry reports concerning them (not concerning all the Saints in Achaia, for of the Cenchreans hee had heard nothing, that wee reade of) chap. 1.11. & 5.1. and hereupon he writes unto them; but becauſe this letter might be of common uſe and profit, and eſpecially to the Saints which bordered next upon them, therefore he would have the Achaians their neighbours to peruſe it; yea, the Saints every where to reade it for their edification. Therefore in both his Epiſtles hee mentioneth the Corinthians, as the proper ſubject thereof; but the Achaians he mentioneth but in one, and the Saints every where in another. And he brings them in collaterally, rather then directly; it is to the church of Corinth, but with the Saints in Achaia, and withall, that in every18 place call on the name of the Lord Jeſus, as it were on the bye. And this is Pareus his expoſition upon 1 Cor. 1.2. and he takes occaſion of confuting the vain conceit of Pighius and other Jeſuits, becauſe they would have Pauls Epiſtles to extend to the particular uſes of thoſe times, and not to Saints in all places and ages.
And therefore thoſe words,Anſwer. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (beſides, that being but a ſuppoſition, they put nothing in being, and may fitly be tranſlated, in id ipſum, for the ſame, or, in one, which, though they met in an hundred places, they might do, Acts 4.26. with Pſal. 2.2. 1 Chron. 12.17. ) prove no more that thoſe to whom Paul writ, were of one congregation, then James calling the twelve tribes ſeattered abroad, one Aſſembly, Synagogue, or Church, Jam. 1.1. with 2.2. & 5.14. or Pauls mentioning the Hebrewes aſſembling themſelves together, Heb. 10.25. doth prove that the ſcattered Hebrewes were no more then one particular congregation, which might, and did meet in one place.
1. Reply. You give us another expoſition of the words,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉and would referre them to an identity of things, and not of place, they were together in one thing, but not together in one place. But,
1. Theſe words,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, are ſometimes conjoyned with the Verb,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as 1 Cor. 11.20. & 14.23. and then I hope it will not be denied, but that place is principally meant.
2. Except the words〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, do hold forth a coming together into one place, their meeting at all (any of them) together, though in an hundred places will come to be overthrown. For what gives more light to the coming together of any of them at all into one place, then theſe words? If the words do carry any reſpect to place, then ſeeing it is ſaid,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the whole church, they will be in force to prove, that the whole church came together into one place.
3. When theſe words are found without〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as Act. 2.44. is not the ſenſe darkned, if not overthrown by ſuch an interpetation? And all that believed were together, and had all things common; ſhall it be thus rendered, And all that believed were in one thing, or minde? So they might be, though every one were in his own houſe, and none of them together in the ſame place. But how doth it cohere with the next words, and had all things common, if they met not together in the ſame place?
Beſides, will thoſe words bear ſuch an expoſition in Acts 3.1. 19Now Peter and John went up together into the Temple, ſhall it be thus tranſlated, They went up to the Temple for the ſame thing? not together in company, but for one end? then they might go one after another, if they only met in an oneneſſe of buſineſſe, and not of place; but ſeverall paſſages in the ſtory do flatly contradict it, and do ſhew that they aſcended together in company one of another into the Temple.
But Acts 4 26. compared with Pſal. 2.2. is alledged to confirm the expoſition of〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. To which wee anſwer, that wee ſee nothing, but that the conſpirators againſt Chriſt, met in one place: For, Pſal. 2. ſaith, They took counſell together; and how can that better be done, then by meeting in one place? Acts 4.27.5. ſaith,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which without〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ſignifies, they came together into one place; and they might do it eaſily, becauſe all the perſons mentioned were in one city; and the ſtory makes it plain, that the Rulers and the people of Iſrael, and Pontius Pilate and the Gentiles gathered together; and there is nothing repugnant, but that Herod might meet with them, eſpecially, ſeeing that we reade that Pilate and he were made friends.
4. Wee do not ſtand in need of〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to prove that the churches of the Goſpel met in one congregation frequently; for there are other words that carry it cleerly, as may appear from Acts 2.46. & 5.12. & 14.27. & 15.22.30. & 1 Cor. 5.4. and 1 Cor. 11.17.
2. Though you yeeld the tranſlation of〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that it reſpecteth place, yet you ſay, it proves no more, that thoſe that Paul writ to, were of one congregation, then James's calling the twelve Tribes ſcattered one Aſſembly; To which we reply, that there is a palpable difference, betwixt the places alledged by us, to prove a meeting in one place, and thoſe alledged by you againſt it from James, and from the Hebrewes: For,
1. Your places are not ſo full for a meeting in one place; and,
2. James 1.1. contradicts and makes impoſſible ſuch a meeting of all the Hebrewes in one place: And therefore we muſt take it in a diſtributive ſenſe, If there come into your Aſſemblie, that is, into any of your Aſſemblies; ſend for the Elders 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.
20But 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,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &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?
21Hence 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?
223. 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 every one of them, and the whole is the flock of each amongſt them, and each of them hath as full power over the23 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 people24 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 you25 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〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as Cambd. Rem. or,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as Sr. Hen. Spelm. which (as〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) 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,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 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. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉robbers of Temples, not Churches: That place in 1 Cor. 11.18. When yee come together,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, miſacrum conventum, Beza, ibid. i. for a holy meeting, & Muſculus in coetu ſacro, quē li•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 non-Latin alphabet 〉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 is26〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉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〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉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, becauſe27 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 the28 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 ſpoken29 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 belonging30 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 alledged31 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. 8, 9. the matter of it ſhould be viſible Saints and Believers, 1 Cor. 1.2.
True, ſo it ſhould; when an Army is to be raiſed, a City begun,Anſwer. a Family ſet up, much more when a Church is to be erected or continued, the matter of them ſhould be viſible; yea, reall Saints, beloved of God, elect, bleſſed, Deut. 38.14. Iſai. 1.21.26. Acts 16.34. Rom. 1.7. Epheſ. 1.1.2, 3.4. And we heartily wiſh they were all ſuch.
1. The meaning of the Poſition is this:Reply. Viſibility of Saintſhip is requiſite to warrant the ſetting upon ſuch an action as erecting of a Church; elſe the action for the nature of it is naught, might not be performed; Better no Church erected, then not of viſible Saints: The rule is broken, ſin committed. Is this granted by you? If ſo, why is the poſition quarrelled at, ſeeing it is all that is aſſerted?
2. But why do you jumble theſe actions together? The raiſing of an Army, the erecting of a City, the ſetting up of a Family, and the erecting of a Church? As if they were actions of a like nature? As if viſibility of Saintſhip to them all, were of like neceſſity? Do you conceive that the matter of an Army, muſt either be viſible Saints, or there muſt be no Army raiſed? The matter of a city, viſible Saints, or no city erected? Doth the nature of thoſe actions neceſſarily32 require any ſuch qualification in the ſubject perſons performing them, that without ſuch qualifications the ſubject perſons are in a ſtate of incapacity, according to Gods true ſcope and intention to ſet upon ſuch actions? Wee know you hold it not. Heathens may raiſe Armies, and wage war, and not ſin becauſe they do ſo, if the cauſe be juſt. They may erect cities, (and remain Heathens ſtill) and not ſin becauſe they do ſo, for it may be their duty ſo to do; but may they erect a Church to God, and remain Heathens, and not ſin in doing ſo? An Atheiſt and prophane wicked perſon may buy and ſell, and labour in his Calling, and not ſin becauſe he doth ſo, becauſe it is his duty; but may he be one to erect a Church of, and to partake in the ſeal of the Lords Supper, and be an Atheiſt and viſible perſon ſtill, without ſin? Men need not be Believers and Saints to warrant them to perform civill actions, or ſome religious actions, for irreligious wicked perſons, while in that ſtate, are called to them; but to do them with acceptation, and ſo as to be accounted righteous in the doing of them, they muſt be Believers and Saints. But to erect a Church, which is Chriſts body, and is called to have communion with Chriſt in his body, and blood in that Supper which he inſtituted, is an action of another nature, and requires faith and holineſſe in the perſons that conſtitute it, to warrant the conſtitution of it. For Church ſtate being holy, and the Ordinance of it holy, either the ſubject perſons muſt be holy alſo, or all will be grievouſly prophaned, and God foully diſhonoured.
But why do you ſay, They ſhould not only be viſible, but reall Saints; except it be to caſt another miſt before the eyes of the ignorant? For, if an Army were to be raiſed to fight on the Purliament ſide againſt the Cavaliers, you would ſay, it muſt conſiſt of viſible friends which ſeem ſincere and cordiall, elſe let it not be raiſed at all; but you would not ſay it muſt conſiſt of reall friends, for then it would not be raiſed at all: For, if it muſt conſiſt of reall friends, God muſt be the raiſer of it, and not man, who alone knoweth who are reall friends: So of a Church, if it muſt conſiſt only of reall friends, God alone muſt erect it, and man muſt not meddle with it.
And though we reade theſe phraſes, Beloved of God, Elect, bleſſed, yet either they received theſe denominations from the judgement of Charity, becauſe they ſeemed to be ſuch, as Phil. 1.7. or if there were infallibility, it was applicable only to a party within the33 Churches whom the Apoſtle diſcerned to be ſuch, and not to the whole Church.
Yet we dare not uſe unſcripturall wayes and means for the procuring and preſerving of Church-members ſanctity;Anſwer. To be wiſe and holy above the rule, is to be fooliſh, prophane, preſumptuous, ſuperſtitious. Could you ſhew us out of Scripture, that the Church muſt examine perſons that come to be admitted, and that they muſt make any other declaration then profeſſing of faith and repentance: and that the Congregation ought to reject ſuch, of whoſe ſincerity and ſanctity they are not ſatisfied? and that the want of this care in the firſt conſtitution of a Church, doth nullifie it or make it unlawfull for men to joyn to it, or continue in it, and that it is neceſſary to know, that a Church was conſtituted of viſible Saints, before he can in faith joyn to it, we ſhould not differ about the ſanctity of the members.
Here is a deep charge of ſome things practiſed by us,Reply. to preſerve the Churches ſanctity and purity, to be fooliſh, prophane, ſuperſtitious and preſumptuous; And there are inſtances given, in examination of perſons, whether there be the works of Grace wrought in their hearts, or no, &c.
We anſwer for our ſelves:
Firſt, there are ſome things fathered upon us, which we hold not: as,
1. That there muſt be ſome further declaration beſides profeſſion of faith and repentance. We contend for no ſuch thing, but conceive profeſſion of faith and repentance, if in the judgement of charity it may be accounted reall, if there be any thing that may ſerve to give witneſſe unto it, that it is not meerly verball, may be judged ſufficient.
2. That the want of care to try the ſincerity and ſanctity of men, doth nullifie the Church; This is an opinion which we renounce as none of ours.
3. That we muſt know that a Church was conſtituted of viſible Saints before we can in faith joyn to it. We hold flatly againſt ſuch an aſſertion, and do believe a judgement may be made from the preſent faith and order which any Church holds forth, whether it be ſafe or unſafe to joyn to it, or to continue in it.
Secondly, there are other things which ſome Churches hold and practiſe, which we think cannot be condemned: As that a Church muſt examine perſons that come to be admitted, whether the work34 of grace be wrought within them or not. Your ſelf will now admit none (of whom you doubt) to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, till you have firſt examined them of their knowledge; and why may not we examine them of their grace? Is the Lords body diſcerned by knowledge moſt, or by grace? Faith is a grace, and faith is the beſt diſcerner of the Lords body; and if we can but finde grace, we ſhall be ſure to finde knowledge: The Scripture ſaith, Let a man examine himſelf; yet you think not that ſufficient, unleſſe you examine him; if it be no Scripturall way to examine others, why will you be ſo ſooliſh, prophane, preſumptuous, ſuperſtitious? A ſtranger comes to the gate of a Garriſon town, profeſſeth to be a friend, yet except there be ſomething to witneſſe the truth of that profeſſion, he is examined over and over again; and it is ſtrictneſſe that ſhewes faithfulneſſe to the State: And ſhall we be more remiſſe and careleſſe when we receive perſons into the Church, then we are when we receive them into a town? Our too much credulity may ſhew too little fidelity in the matters of Chriſt, as well as in the buſineſſe of men.
Beſides, if the Church be not a common receptacle of all perſons, but that it conſiſt of a ſelected number, and ſome are received, and others rejected, then there are certain rules of reception and rejection. And then there muſt be a triall made by ſome, whether perſons be qualified according to thoſe rules; and this the light of nature teacheth, and the rules of Reaſon lead to it; though there ſhould be nothing in the Scripture expreſly mentioning it. The moſt ſutable means ſerving moſt fitly to atchieve ſuch ends, are alwayes enjoyned in the ends, though they be not particularly expreſſed. But what think you? Is it not as lawfull to try perſons that would be Churchmembers, and make ſome profeſſion in words of ſaith and repentance, but hold forth nothing which may probably give witneſſe to the reality thereof, as it was lawfull and commendable in the Epheſians to try falſe Apoſtles, which profeſſed in words to be true Apoſtles? Rev. 2.2. And is it not as reaſonable for a Church to ſeek ſatisfaction, concerning the reality and ſincerity of ſanctity from perſons of whom they doubt, as it was juſt and equall for the Church at Jeruſalem to ſeek ſatisfaction concerning Saul, whether he were a Diſciple in truth or in pretence only? Acts 9.26, 27.
But you will ſay, there was cauſe of ſuſpicion and jealouſie in them, concerning him, becauſe they knew him formerly to be a deſtroyer of the Church.
35And may not we ſay, there is cauſe of jealouſie, when we know externall profeſſion of faith and repentance to be ſo common, and the fruits which are worthy of it, Mat. 3.8. to be ſo rare and ſcarce to be found?
If the Goſpel and Chriſtian Religion was brought into England in the Apoſtles times, then it was like it was conſtituted of Saints,Anſwer. Church-covenant p. 37.as well as the Church of Corinth, &c.
Becauſe it is uncertain what Congregation was at firſt conſtituted of Saints within this kingdome, and what was not,Reply. we neither juſtifie nor condemn the conſtitution of any; but judge according to the preſent ſtate of them. And if we ſee any viſible Saints (as doubtleſſe there are many in ſome Congregations, and united alſo amongſt themſelves,) we could wiſh they were all ſuch; and in the mean time, for the ſake of thoſe few whom we ſee, ſo united, we acknowledge them a Church, and in all things ſo farre as they carry the ordinances uncorruptly we deſire to have fellowſhip with them.
The Text in 1 Cor. 1. rather ſhewes what the members of the Church of Corinth were at the time of Pauls writing to them,Anſwer. then that they were on ought to have been viſible Saints, at the firſt erection of that Church; yet it ſhewes not, that all the Church-members he writes to, were viſible Saints; for many known evill livers were known Members; The denomination of Saints, is a parce meliore, that is, from the better part, &c.
The Text ſhewes what they either were at firſt,Reply. or ought to have been, or what ſome of them were at that time, and ought all of them to have been, viz. ſanctified in Chriſt, called to be Saints, as Hemingius, Gualter, Pareus upon that place do note, for they ſay, a definition of a Church may thence be fetched. And what rule ſoever there is in Scripture requiring that any be Saints, the ſame rule requires that all be Saints. And there may many Arguments be brought to hold it forth:
1. The end of Church-fellowſhip is not converſion, but edification, Epheſ. 4.11, 12. Acts 9.31. For if it were converſion, then all uncoverted ones, whether they make profeſſion of faith and repentance or no, might enter in, that thereby they might attain one end for which they enter; as we know. Becauſe one end of the preaching of the Word is converſion, therefore all may partake of it, Jewes,36 Turks, Heathens, becauſe they may attain one end whereto it ſerves. It is ſuppoſed then that the perſons that enter into the Church are converted already.
2. Excommunication is an ordinance in the Church, and one end of it is, to recover perſons that are deſperately ſick, and ready to die; it is in the uſe of it as phyſick, 1 Cor. 5.5. and therefore ſuppoſeth the perſons to whom applied to be alive, therefore all Churchmembers are to be reputed in the judgement of charity, to be living ſtones, 1 Pet. 2.5.
3. If excommunication be an ordinance to throw forth viſible ſinners, of all ſorts, then the Church ſhould conſiſt of viſible Saints. 1. It appeareth that all ſcandalous groſſe ſinners ought to be caſt out from 1 Cor. 5. and that all other ſinners which are not ſeandalous, if they will not be healed of their leſſer faults, and brought to repentance, ought to be duly proceeded againſt untill at laſt it come to an excommunication, Matth. 18.15, 16, &c.
He writes to the Church called to be Saints,Anſwer. or called Saints, not to the Saints called to be a Church, or to the Church conſtituted of Saints: which expreſſion rather of the two proves there was a Church, before they were Saints (See verſ. 1. Paul called to be an Apoſtle,) then that they were Saints before they were a Church.
He writes to the Church of God;Reply. and can there be a Church of God, before there be Saints? What a Church of God is that, which had no viſible Saints in it when it was firſt conſtituted? Surely, except you will ſay, they were a Church of God while they were Heathens, you muſt confeſſe, that profeſſing to be turned by the power of the Goſpel in a time of perſecution from the ſervice of Idols, to imbrace the living God in Chriſt, they muſt be judged viſible Saints at the firſt when they were a Church of God. And theſe words (Paul called to be an Apoſtle) will not avail you; for Paul was a man, and a Chriſtian too, before an Apoſtle; but what would you have the Church of God to be before they were viſible Saints?
But how appeareth it that all the honourable Titles and Epithets given Paul,Anſwer. are given with relation to Church-members? The Corinthians were enriched by God in all utterance, &c. Will you thence conclude, that all Church-members muſt be ſo, &c.
There are ſome names which ſhew the intrinſecall nature of the things to which they are given,Reply. and they do agree to all of that37 kinde. As if one ſhould write to the Army of ſuch a Generall, called to be ſouldiers, this name ſhewes the intrinſecall nature of the thing to which applied. Such is the name Saint, when applied to the Church of God; but there are other names which are extrinſecall, and ſuperadditionall to the nature of the things given to, and ſeparable, and may be in ſome, and not in other of that kinde: As if one ſhould write, to the Army of ſuch a one enriched with gold and ſilver, apparell, this is extrinſecall and caſuall, and may agree to ſome Armies, and not to others; ſuch are the Epithets, 1 Cor. 5. inriched with wiſdome, utterance, &c. Concerning the names, Elect, &c. we have anſwered them before.
POSITION VI.
The form of a Church, is the gathering together of theſe viſible Saints, and combining and uniting them into one body by the form of a holy Covenant, Deut. 29 1.10, 11, 12. by which is plainly ſhewed, that a company of people become. Gods people, that is, a Church, by entring into Covenant with God. If it be ſaid, they were a Church before; yet that was when the Church of the lewes was conſtituted in Abrahams Family by Covenant.
You intend not that this Covenant doth make a true Church,Anſwer. but a pure Congregationall Church, as it is refined according to the platform of the Goſpel.
We intend that the combination of Saints into one body by ſome kinde of Covenant, either expreſſe or implicite,Reply. or by ſome kinde of ſpeciall bond (as Dr. Ames calls it) doth make a true Church. The ſeed of Jacob, and the Sechemites could not make a Church together, Gen. 34.15, 16. but by becoming one, and they could not become one, but by coming into the ſame Covenant, therefore they ſay (though deceitfully, for they never meant it; yet therein they38 ſhew how ſuch a thing could only be done,) if you will be as we be, that every male be circumciſed, then we will become one people; and we would demand, had thoſe Sechemites been Believers, and had this buſineſſe been carried without guile, whether they had not by this doing become one Church?
We conceive relation or combination into one unto domeſtick ends and purpoſes is the form of a Family, and relation and combination into one unto politick and civill ends and purpoſes is the form of a Commonwealth, and