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 every 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are sometimes conjoyned with the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Now 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which without 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
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
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
are said to be come to one mount Sion If so then the Congregations of the Christian Gentiles may well be another mount Sion And if the Nationall church of the Jewes with the assemblies thereof were mount Sion why may not every Nationall-church of Christians with the assemblies thereof we speak now in your language be Sion also and then there being many Nationall churches as you say there are many Sions And what greater absurdity is it to say there are an hundred or a thousand Sions then to say there are an hundred or a thousand Churches Seeing Sion and Church are all one Now you know there were many visible churches in Judea Galatia Macedonia Asia and many other places and if then so many how many more now therefore many Sions and because those many churches then and these now we believe to have been and still to be Congregationall therefore every Congregationall Church we hold to be Sion But you ask an odde strange needlesse to say no worse of it question with a great deal of vehemency Answer viz. Have you not found God present in our Assemblies Have you not by faith closed with the promises in the use of the Ordinances among us Speak out I know you dare not belie your selves us and God himself c. Reply Your question is bottomed upon a mistake when we say that God hath promised to be present in Sion you give this glosse upon it that we deny all your Assemblies to be Sion and will not grant Gods presence at all to be with you and that we appropriate Sion and Gods presence to our selves which is a great injury to us You also put this sense upon our words that God is so present in Sion that he is present no where else and so not present with holy men and women which are out of Church-fellowship nor present with members of many churches meeting together which either is a foul mistake or a slander For we think God to be present with his people when they meet in his feare whether they be Church-members or not Church-members whether they be of one or many churches whether they be in our assemblies or yours provided that his Ordinances be carried according to his minde yea though there should be some error yet he might give his presence (a) Rev. 2.1 with Rev. 2.14.20 Much rather do we think God will be present with persons whom he sets on work to exalt him in the execution of some office as he did the Apostles and now doth ordinary Elders Neverthelesse we conceive God to be most present with his people gathered into a body and compacted together in an instituted Church which we hold to be Congregationall and the reason is because the more any people do fall into the order of the Gospel and come into the way of Christ which he hath appointed for Saints to walk in the more Christ is ingaged to be present with them Now to joyn to some instituted Church of Christ is that way and order which Christ hath directed to therefore with them in such a way as so united and joyned Christ will more especially be present for he vouchsafeth a speciall presence amongst such Churches Rev. 2.1 he styles himself one that walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks he walks in other places and people but he would intimate thus much that his especiall delightsome walk is among them and the more golden the candlesticks are the more pure they be the more delight he takes to walke in the midst of them But Matth. 18. you say is mis-interpeted Your words are these Answer Christ in Matth. 18. promiseth his presence to those that are not a Church for two or three will not make a Church they vers 17 were to give the second admonition the Church the third There is a figure in the number Reply there is a certain number put for an uncertain two or three are put for a few the paucity that may be in a Church shall be no obstacle of Christs presence Pareus upon this Text hath these words It is an argument that the judgement of the Church shall be ratified because Christ himself will be present in the Church as supreme Judge to ratifie it it is also a generall promise of the presence of the grace of Christ in his Church be it great or small Now surely we shall lesse doubt our exposition having so learned a Commentator so well approved of to stand by us in the same POSITION XVII So long as a Believer doth not joyn himself to some particular Congregation he is without in the Apostles sense 1 Cor. 5.12 Those without Answer of whom the Apostle speaketh were unbelievers Pagans and Heathen without Christ as well as without the visible Church Let it be granted that those whom the Apostle speaks of were both without Christ Reply and without the visible Church yet it may be securely affirmed that the Apostle speaks of them under the notion of such as were without the visible church and not of those that were without Christ 1. Singuli de suâ familia judicant non immittunt consuram in alienam samiliam Ergo in Ecclesia similis servetur ratio ut singulae desuit membris judicent Aretius in 1 Cor. 5. Because those without whom the Apostle had not to do to judge stand in opposition to those within vers 12. the latter part whom the Church of Corinth had to do to judge and consequently if this exposition of yours be true the judgement of the Church of Corinth extended as far as the ultima Thule the lands end of Christianity and only ceased when it came to the consines of Paganisme and consequently any one Church hath power to judge any one Believer in all the world because say you he is not without in the Apostles sense that is to say he is not a Pagan Heathen or unbeliever 2. Suppose the Apostle had known a member of the Church of Corinth what ever he appeared outwardly in the frame of his conversation to be indeed without Christ and in a state of enmity with God if this man had committed a grosse sin might not the Apostle have judged such a one to be excommunicated We suppose you will say he might and if so we demand why should a Church-unbeliever be subject to the Apostles judgement and an Heathenish unbeliever be exempted from the Apostles judgement If Church-membership did not make the one obnoxious to that spirituall judgement more then the other For in the notion of unbelievers and without Christ they both agree and therefore if a Heathen were exempted from judgement because without Christ and not for this reason because without the visible Church why should not a Church-unbeliever be exempted as well as a Heathen 2. If we mistake not a Believer not joyned to any particular congregation is without in reference to Church-judgement and we suppose by vertue of this Text in your Presbyterian
text that women have a power in Church-censures because women are reproved in this place as being part of the Church We answer when an Epistle is writ to a whole Church it doth respect particular persons according to their severall capacities 1 Cor. 14.34 35. Now women are not in a capacity of dispensing Church-censures therefore the reproof is not extended unto them If things indefinitly spoken to a whole Church because they cannot be verified of one who is not in a capacity to receive them may not therefore be affirmed of another then because a liberty in cutting off offenders by vertue of Gal. 5.9.12.13 doth not belong to women neither doth it belong to Elders or Brethren for the Apostle speaketh to all Likewise because the Holy Ghost writes to the whole Church of Pergamus females as well as males and blames them for not casting out the Balaamites and the Nicolaitans which women have no power to do therefore neither doth the reproof import any such power either in Elders or Brethren This it may be you intended but as a light velitation with these lusorious expressions Sed remove ista luforia decretoriis opus est i. remove these Toyes there is need of Decrees Paul himself say you did excommunicate Alexander Answer and Hymeneus 1 Tim. 1.20 and it is not mentioned that he took the consent of the Church or Presbyterie That Paul alone did excommunicate Alexander and Hymeneus is not so cleare Reply but if we should deny it we could argue probably for the Negative Paul saith to Timothy 2 Tim. 1.6 Stir up the gift of God which is in thee by the putting on of my hands and yet Paul did but lay on hands with the Presbyterie 1 Tim. 4.14 Now if the Apostle did not act in ordination how much lesse in excommunication without the concurrence of the Church the rather because Apostles concurrence with the Church seems to make more 1. For Gods glory in the universall humiliation of the whole Church 2. For the Churches peace who are more likely to subscribe to the equity of those proceedings of which themselves have the cognizance then if they were carried on by a transcendent and superiour motion of Apostolicall power 3. For the edification of the Church in seeing and hearing and concurring in the whole businesse 4. For the attainment of the end of excommunication both the more immediate viz. Non-communion with the party and the more nemote noble end viz. the healing of the party and of the offence 2. Let what is assumed be granted yet we suppose you will make no gain of it For 1. It will not necessarily follow Paul did excommunicate Hymeneus and Alexander himself therefore Paul did without the consent of the Church of Corinth excommunicate the incestuous person For it was but sutable to the holy and self denying frame of the Apostles spirit Jure suo cedere to remit something of his own right 2. Neither is it so much as probablely convincing if we consider that the Holy Ghost makes the subject excommunicating to be the Church of Corinth 1 Cor. 5.4 5. 'T is the Church of Corinth whom the Apostle requires to purge out the old leaven vers 7. 'T is the Church of Corinth in which the Apostle states the power of judging vers 12. do not ye judge them that are within The Apostle saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Answer I have judged as though I were c. which imports rather that Paul himself would deliver him to Satan then that he exhorts them to do it Indeed he commands them to put him away as he writes to them to restore him again to see if they would be obedient in all things 2 Cor. 2.9 Brother we cannot but observe Reply that you manage this argument something tenderly as if you did suspect the ground you tread on for you say not that the words import that Paul would deliver him to Satan himself and not that he exhorts the Corinthians to do it but you say that they import rather the one then the other and this amounts to as much as nothing to the purpose For in regard of the affinity the words may have with the one importment more then the other they may be said to import the one rather then the other and yet in their proper sense import neither Luke 18.14 The Publican is said to go away justified rather then the Pharisee and yet the words do not positively import that either of them were justified And yet you have a good minde to make your Reader believe that Paul himself delivers him to Satan and not the Corinthian Church by their authority and this you prove From the Gammaticall Syntax of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Answ Doubtlesse there must be an Accusative case importing the subject delivering understood and this must be either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with reference to the Apostle or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with relation to the Church Not the first as we conceive 1. For if so it is probable the Apostle would have said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have delivered him that hath so done this thing to Satan and have commanded the Church only to take notice of it and to abstain from communion with him 2. The Apostles judgment was such a judgement as was passed at the writing of the Epistle and therefore the Apostle saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have judged or I have judged already him that hath done this thing and therefore his judgement of the man was not the actuall casting out of him but only a judgement that the Church should passe the judgement of Excommunication against him assuring them that not only his spirit but the power of Christ should go along with them 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To deliver to Satan notes such a publike and solemn transaction of an Ordinance as Paul was in no possible capacity to do for he did nothing by proxie being absent For it notes 1. A publike binding of the person under the guilt of sin by the Key of Faith 2. An observable exemplary ejection of the person out of the fraternity of the Church and a shutting of the door of communion against him untill he repent by the Key of Church order Now must the whole come together and look one upon another in silence and upon the incestuous person imagining him to be thus excommunicate because Paul had judged to have him excommunicate and so after this dumb shew depart one from another Therefore we conceive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be understood as going before the Infinitive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to relate to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the rule of Grammarians Si infinitivus Participium praecedens pertinent ad eandem persmam non additur accusativus personae sed subintelligitur But it may be you will say Objection that you affirm that the Church is commanded to do it and therefore
the work of feeding now whether there were more Congregations in Ephesus or but one yet no Elder could then or can now feed any more then one Congregation therefore they are Overseers only each of them to one Congregation Your selves will grant that they cannot feed in a constant way by word and doctrine and the Sacraments which are the principall works of feeding any more then one Congregation therefore one Congregation bounds their Commission and consequently if they feed ministerially other Congregations they go beyond their Commission and are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. It is more then probable that the flock at Ephesus was but one Congregation First Ephesus was a City and we do not reade of more Congregations of Saints constantly meeting for the worship of God in any City then one Secondly we cannot think but that the Church of Jerusalem Corinth and Antioch were as numerous as Ephesus and yet none of them were more then one Congregation if we be bound to rest upon the Holy Ghosts own testimony who witnesseth that they ordinarily met in one place as before was shewed 3. They are called one flock one Church now we have declared before that one instituted Church and a Congregation are all one when Church is properly taken and without a figure and in this place there is no necessity of a figure for there is no improbability but that they might meet in one place therefore the charge runs to the Elders at Ephesus to feed the Church viz. the Congregation at Ephesus and to that they are so limited The Text in 1 Pet. 5.1 2. gives this charge Feed the flock that is among you Now neither the Elders to whom he writes were together nor the Saints whom they were to feed but both the one and the other scattered abroad through many countries Pontus Galatia Asia c. therefore flock in this Text is to be taken in a figurative sense and distributively of necessity and the charge of feeding the flock is to be limited by the words among you And thus it must be understood you Elders in Pontus feed the flock among you and you Elders in Galatia feed the flock among you and you Elders in Asia feed the flock among you and each of you in every place feed the flock where you be in each place And more distributively yet because neither all the Elders nor all the Saints in Galatia Asia c. were together therefore it is thus to be interpreted ye Elders in this City of Asia feed the flock among you and ye Elders in that City feed the flock among you and so of all the rest so that the restriction in the Commission is in these words among you Now the Saints in Galatia were not with the Elders of Asia nor the Saints of one City of Asia with the Elders of another City of Asia therefore the Elders were by Commission to look to the Saints in every City and place where themselves were and not to others where themselves were not So that if the Elders in Asia should take authoritative inspection over the Saints in Galatia and in other countries they should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishops medling in others Dioces not belonging to them because all Elders are bounded to the Saints among themselves Peter bids the Elders of Pontus Answer Galatia c. to feed the flock of God that is amongst them therefore you say the Elders of one Church of Galatia must not feed the people of another Church of Galatia A communicant must examine himself will you thence inferre that none else must examine himself The Thessalonians were to know them that were over them and laboured among them and esteem them very high in love for their works sake therefore must they not heare at all or at least not esteem highly for their works sake the Pastors of other Congregations 2 Thes 5.12 13. Your reasoning is not good Reply nor candid by comparing things disparate you would cast an absurditie upon us but it will light upon your self You argue from works of common Christian duty unto works of Office very improperly As suppose the matter were thus laid down The Parliament writes to the Colonels of Lancashire to look well to and rule and govern the souldiers and people that is amongst them an inference is drawn hence the Colonels of Lancashire are not to govern and rule the souldiery and people of Cheshire for their charge is over the souldiery and people amongst themselves this inference is good But you to overthrow it would bring such an argument as this The Colonels of Lancashire must agree amongst themselves must they not therefore agree with the Colonels of Cheshire The souldiers and people of Lancashire must respect and honour their own Commanders must they not therefore respect and honour the Commanders in other counties also This is a weak argumentation to overthrow the former inference the fallacy lieth in this you would extend duties of authority and office in such manner as duties of love and reverence and honour which respect all men all superiours are to be extended Therefore seeing that it is a feeding of office and an authoritative feeding that is enjoyned in those Texts alledged it is limited to the people over whom they are Officers and may not be extended further And yet the people of such Congregations must love their own members so as withall they must love the members of other Congregations and they must reverence their own Officers so as withall they must reverence the Officers of other Congregations yet their own most because relation there is strongest And the reason is because love and reverence are not actions annexed to Office but of a common nature appertaining to men and Christians Take heed to the flock and feeding it Answer doth include administration of the Word and Prayer as well as of Sacraments yet you hold he may notwithstanding this Text preach and pray in another Congregation Taking heed to the flock and feeding it Reply doth include the administration of the Word and Prayer of the Sacraments and the exercise of Discipline and yet your self doth not place a parity in all these For you are apprehensive of a further liberty in preaching and praying then in performing the other actions You will preach to the Heathens as Heathens but not give Sacraments to them you may preach before Ordination for approbation but not dispence the Sacraments before Ordination You may preach to a Congregation in Scotland and yet not act authoritatively in their Synods among them And now what the reason of this should be we cannot imagine unlesse you grant with us a difference betwixt some acts of feeding and other acts of feeding and say some acts are so annexed to Office and are so authoritative that they cannot be performed but where Office is and authority is and other acts of feeding though they they be authoritative to that people over whom the persons performing them are Officers
it in a definite latitude especially since no reason is or we suppose can be by you brought why we may not take it in a limited sense and yet deny it to be taken in an unlimited sense Is not this an ignorance of the Elench Can you ever inferre contradictorium propositionis negatae with this medium St John saith Christ hath made us Kings and Priests c. Because these words Rev. 1.6 Kings and Priests taken in their indefinite latitude will inferre that the people of God are temporall kings having Soveraign power over others and Priests to offer up corporall sacrifices to God as the Priests of the Law did Will it therefore follow that he that shall expound these words in a definite latitude as importing only that in Christ they have overcome the Law Death Sin the World and do triumph over them that they are Priests by a speciall sequestration of themselves from the world to offer up spirituall sacrifices to God the Father do pervert and abuse this Text Questionlesse there were Elders amongst them Answer it may be the Seventy Disciples were not quite out of Commission certainly Philip was amongst them who was an Euangelist c. Suppose that amongst those that were scattered and preached Reply some were Elders yea preaching Elders Suppose the Commission of the Seventie by vertue of which they were to carry neither purse nor scrip nor shoes neither were to salute any man by the way Luke 10.1 2. Nullos dum habes hic Apostolos sed Discipulos illorum Discipuloriâ— Discipulos sic quovis medio utiliter Deus uti potest Aretius in Acts 11. but to go before the face of Christ two and two into every city and place whither Christ himself would come were in full force at this time Lastly Suppose that Philip were an Euangelist amongst them Will it from hence follow that all that preached were Church-officers and that none of them were gifted persons out of Office and consequently that those that say that all were not Officers that went preaching do abuse the Text certainly this is a wide consequence But you say They were all filled with the Holy Ghost Answer Acts 2.4.10 and 4.31 which made them Doctors the first day and gave both ability and a call to speake the Word c. Reply But did their extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost make them all Officers yea or no for you suppose that all received the Holy Ghost If so then there was a Church of Officers and none over whom those Officers were set and that were under the authority of Office If the gifts did not make them Officers then we have what we assume viz. Gifted persons not in Office may preach yea if all the members of a Church had gifts fit for the work all might preach Numb 11.29 1 Cor. 14.12.31 If it be said Objection these were extraordinary gifts by immediate inspiration So were the gifts of the Officers in those times Answer Now by the same reason you deny Church-members though orderly called to the work we mean not to the Office because eminently gifted for it a liberty to exercise their gift because their gifts are not extraordinary as were those of the Primitive Christians By the same reason you may deny Officers though both orderly called and competently gifted a liberty to exercise their gift because their gifts are not extraordinary as were the gifts of the Primitive Officers Again if a Brother gifted by immediate inspiration might preach or prophesie publikly in those Churches where the Officers were gifted by immediate inspiration then a Brother eminently gifted by Gods blessing upon his labour and industry being orderly called thereunto may preach in those Churches where the Officers are gifted only by Gods blessing upon their labour and industry without any immediate inspiration That these did preach ordinarily Answer and usually to the Churches like to Pastors and receive maintenance for the same as some do in London and elsewhere is impossible to be proved That which is not affirmed by the Elders Reply need not be proved by them We have already proved that eminent gifted persons being orderly called thereunto may lawfully preach though not in Office and if by ordinarily and usually you mean that toties quoties as oft as the Church shall have need suppose by reason of the sicknesse death or just absence of the Pastor or any other lawfull ground and occasion and his calling and condition will permit we suppose the person eminently gifted may preach though for divers moneths together And if he do the work why may he not receive the wages not in the capacity of a Pastor but of one that hath done the work that deserves wages Suppose he hath spent his means in many yeers painfull study in the Vniversity may he lawfully preach and yet must he necessarily famish because he is not in the Pastorall relation May he lawfully dispence unto them his spirituall things and may he not lawfully receive of them a dispensation of their temporall things May he nay must he by a conflux and concentering of all things that make up his Call to such a work for such a time usually and ordinarily tread out the corn and yet his mouth be muzzled during all that space May he lawfully communicate unto them by teaching them in the Word and may he not lawfully communicate with them in receiving who are freely willing to communicate with him in giving all good things In the Church of Israel none besides the Priests and Levites Answer did ordinarily prophesie either in the Temple or in the Synagogues unlesse they were either furnished with extraordinary gifts of prophecy as the Prophets of Israel or were set apart and trained up to prepare for such a Calling c. In case that either those whose Office it is in an ordinary way to prophesie be unable many of them to the work Reply or the people grown bold in sinfull courses so that they sleight and contemn them If the King and certain choyce men of the Princes of the Realm be able and in parts no way inferiour to those able men whose Office it is to preach unto the people they may they ought to prophesie as well as Kings Princes Noble-men being gifted may sit in Ecclesiasticall Synods and declare what they conceive to be the minde of God therein And this Jehosaphat and his Princes did by vertue of that generall equity which is of perpetuall use whereby eminent gifts are to be put forth upon just occasion for the Publike good though by men not in Office Luther and the first Preachers in the beginning of Reformation were not Church-officers nor could be unlesse we will say that the Antichristian Hierarchie could institute a Christian Ministery and yet they preached lawfully as gifted persons stirred up by God in a time of defection and apostasie And so Jehosaphat and his Princes preached not meerly as King and Princes for then all Kings and
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