A Defense of the Answer Made Unto Nine Questions, Chapter 6
CHAP. VI.
Reply. THe ſeals are given unto the Church not onelyonly in ordinary, (as you ſay) but alſo in extraordinary diſpenſation, &c. And when you ſay, the diſpenſing of the ſeals is an ordinance given onelyonly for the edifying of the Church gathered, muſt it not be underſtood of extraordinary diſpenſation as well as of ordinary, &c. added theſe words [ordinary diſpenſation] were, to prevent the objection which you foreſaw might be made from the Apoſtles practice and example, but ſo as they cut aſunder the ſinews of the conſideration it ſelf, and make it of no force.
Anſw. Before we come to the particulars of the Reply, it is needfull to clear our meaning from this miſtake about the word [ordinary diſpenſation;] which being rightly underſtood, it will appear that it no way cuts the ſinews of the conſideration as is objected. For whereas, firſt, you extend the oppoſite term, [extraordinary diſpenſation] to the whole generall practice of the Apoſtles and Evangeliſts; and ſecondly, take it for granted, that their practice was not to baptize members of particular Churches▪ we neither intended the firſt, nor doe we grant the ſecond; as for the firſt, we acknowledge freely that the Apoſtles and Evangeliſts ordinarily and generally practiced according to comon rules in this point of baptizing, as well as in other, and left their practice for our pattern, and therefore their ordinary practice in this thing we ſhall ſtick to; yet they having not onelyonly extraordinary power above Paſtors and Teachers, but alſo having ſometime an immediate call unto ſome acts and ſpeciall guidance of the Spirit to warrant what they did, therefore there were ſome of their actions, eſpecially in reſpect of ſome circumſtances thereof, which ordinary Paſtors (not ſo aſſiſted) may not doe; as in this caſe when they baptized in private houſes, in the wilderneſſe alone, and not in the face of a Congregation, &c. and therefore if in ſome few caſes ſome doe think they did not baptize into a particular Church; yet if their ordinary practice were otherwiſe, we ought to imitate the ordinary, not ſome extraordinary caſes; and thus the ſinews and force of the conſideration remains ſtrong, notwithſtanding this word of [ordinary diſpenſation:] and that this was our meaning, was not hard to diſcern, by the Scriptures cited in the anſwer, to prove the ſeales are given unto the Church in ordinary diſpenſation, amongſt which, Acts 2.41, 42, 47. containing the Apoſtles firſt practice in this kinde are expreſſed; and Mr. Ball took notice thereof, as appears by his own reference to the ſame afterwards, though in his printed Reply thoſe quotations bee wholly left out.
2 Let us conſider whether the Apoſtles ordinarily did not baptize into particular Churches; and this may be proved from the ſtories of their ordinary practice: Firſt, it will be eaſily granted that the Apoſtles did gather diſciples into particular viſible Churches, but there is no other time or ſeaſon of doing it can be ſhewed in all the ſtories of their Acts; yea, ſometimes they were ſo ſuddenly called away, or enforced away by perſecution after they had converted diſciples, that it is very improbable, if not impoſſible, they ſhould do it at all, but when they converted and baptized them, as Acts 16.40. & 17.5. &c.
But to come more particularly unto the ſtory it ſelf, the Apoſtles firſt, and exemplary practiſe being the beſt interpreter of their commiſſion, and of their ordinary proceeding therein; the firſt converts which the Apoſtles baptized after the viſible kingdom of Chriſt was ſet up, were thoſe in that famous place, Acts 2.41. concerning whom obſerve, firſt, that the Apoſtle Peter not onelyonly preached unto them repentance and faith in the name of Chriſt, with promiſe of remiſſion of ſins▪ and that they ſhould be baptized, but according to that commiſſion, Mat. 28. with many other words he exhorted them, ſaying, Save your ſelves from this untoward generation, being the very ſcope of his exhortation; and this implies a gathering of themſelves to the fellowſhip of the ſaints; and al this Word they gladly received before they were baptized.
2 When the holy Ghoſt, verſ. 41. declareth their baptizing, he records withall their adding to them, the latter being an exegeſis of the former, and that the ſame day, as being performed at the ſame time; and indeed when a convert publickly profeſſeth his faith in Chriſt, is it not as eaſily done▪ to re…eive him to a particular viſible Church, as into the Catholick before Baptiſm; but firſt to baptize them, and then the ſame day to add or joyn them to the Church, is altogether unprobable. And that this adding was to a particular Church, is ſufficiently proved before.
The next place you may note, is Acts 5.14. where the Holy Ghoſt omitting the baptizing of thoſe beleevers, yet ſpeaks of their adding to the Lord, as if the one implyed the other; and that their adding to the Lord, was by their joyning to the Church, is evident by the oppoſition between verſe 13 & 14. Of the reſt durſt no man joyn himſelf to them, but beleevers were the more added to the Lord.
3 In the converſion of Samaria, although ſo great a work is declared in ſo few words in one verſe, Act. 8.12. yet the text puts a manifeſt diſtinction of Philips doctrine between the things of the Kingdom of God, and the name of Jeſus Chriſt: which plainly enough ſheweth, that they taught the obſerving of the order of the Kingdom of Chriſt, as well as the Doctrine of the name of Chriſt, the object of ſaving faith. And this they received by faith, and profeſſed before they were baptized.
Now the firſt and moſt famous examples of the Apoſtles perſwading that ſo they practiſed, why ſhould we doubt of their like practice in other examples when nothing is ſaid that contradicteth the ſame? as Acts 10. in the baptizing of Cornelius his houſe, where ſo many were met, and the Holy Ghoſt fell on all; why ſhould we think the Apoſtle Peter baptized them, and left them out of the order of Chriſt, wherein they ſhould worſhip him, and be edified in the faith? If we doubt of it, becauſe the Scripture is ſilent therein, we may as well queſtion whether thoſe beleevers, Acts 4.4. & 9.35. & verſ. 42. whether any of theſe confeſſed their faith, or were baptized, for nothing is ſaid thereof: So likewiſe Acts 11. where we read of many beleeving, turning to the Lord, verſ. 21. of the adding others to the Lord, verſ. 24. but nothing of their confeſſion of faith or baptiſm, and yet they are called a Church; whereby it appears that the holy Ghoſt ſometime expreſſeth their baptiſm without joyning to the Church; and ſometimes joyning without baptiſm, and ſometime he expreſſeth both, Acts. 2.41. And therefore hence we may conclude the like of the caſe of Lydia and the Jaylor; conſidering the former practice of the Apoſtles: and that the Apoſtle ſpeaks ſo expreſly of a Church at Philippi in the beginning of the Goſpel, Phil. 4. at which time we have no more converſions expreſſed but of thoſe two families; at leaſt, they were the moſt eminent fruits of Pauls Miniſtery at that time; and it is very probable the Church was gathered in Lydia's houſe, ſeeing Paul going out of priſon to her houſe, he is ſaid to ſee the Brethren, and comfort them, ſo departing, verſe 40. Beſides, why might not the Apoſtle baptize them into that particular viſible Church in ſuch a caſe, as well as into the Catholick, or all Churches, as ſome ſay, they profeſſing ſubjection to Chriſt in every ordinance of his, with reference to that Church he had there conſtituted? The fulneſſe of power in the Apoſtles might doe greater matters without breach of order, though no rule for us ſo to do; neither is it ſtrange from the practice of thoſe times to begin a Church in a family, ſeeing the Apoſtle ſpeaks of Churches in three ſeverall families, Rom. 16.5. Col. 4.15. Phil. 2. which though many underſtand to be called Churches in regard of the godlineſſe of thoſe families; yet if we conſider; Firſt, how many eminent Saints the Apoſtle ſalutes, (who no doubt had godly families) not ſo much as naming their houſholds; much leſſe giving them ſuch a title, but onelyonly to theſe three named. Secondly, how diſtinct his ſalutations are, firſt the Governors, and then the Church in their houſe. Thirdly, that the Apoſtle doth not onelyonly ſend his ſalutations to the Church in the houſe of Aquila and Priſcilla, Rom. 16.5. but alſo keeping the name of a Church, he ſends ſalutations from that Church to the Church of Corinth, 1 Cor. 16.19. All which doe ſtrongly argue there is more in it, then that they were godly families, and therefore may perſwade us that there were indeed conſtituted Churches in thoſe Families, though other Chriſtians alſo might joyn with them.
Reply. Thus having cleared our meaning, and the conſideration it ſelf, there will remain very few extraordinary caſes, (if any) of whom it can be proved, they were not joyned to ſome particular Church when baptized; as that of the Eunuch, which as it was done by an extraordinary immediate call of Philip ſo to doe; ſo alſo there was a ſpeciall reaſon thereof, the Lord intending thereby, rather by him to ſend the Goſpel into Ethiopia, then to retain him in any other place, to joyn with his Church: And the Baptiſm of Paul, who as without the Miniſtery of the Word he was converted by the immediate voice of Chriſt, ſo he was baptized by the immediate call of Ananias ſo to do. Now let us proceed to conſider what further is replyed.
Anſw. The ſeals Baptiſm and the Lords-ſupper are given to the Church, not onelyonly in ordinary, but alſo extraordinary diſpenſation: True Baptiſm is not without the Church, but in it, an ordinance given to it. The Sacraments are the ſeales of the Covenant to the faithfull, which is the form of the Church tokens and pledges of our ſpirituall admittance into the Lords family. Hence it is inferred, that if the ſeales in extraordinary diſpenſation were given to the Church, and yet to members of no particular Church, then alſo in ordinary diſpenſation it may be ſo.
1 It will not follow; for firſt, if the Apoſtle in extraordinary caſes baptized privately, will it follow that in ordinary diſpenſation it may be ſo? Secondly, if becauſe the Miniſtery be given to the Church, and extraordinary Officers were not limited to particular Churches; will it therefore follow that in ordinary diſpenſations, Miniſters ought not to be given onelyonly to particular churches? Thirdly, as we have oft ſaid, that ſeals belong de jure to all beleevers, as ſuch, as members of the Catholick church, (they being given unto it firſtly, as to its object and end) and all that are truly baptized, are baptized into it, and thus never out of it, as being tokens of our ſpirituall admittance into the Lords family both in ordinary and extraordinary diſpenſation; but doth it hence follow that actuall fruition of the ſeales (of which the queſtion is ſtated) may ordinarily be had or given to ſuch as ſet looſe from all ſocieties? the Apoſtles had extraordinary power, being generall Paſtors over all perſons beleeving as well as Churches; and therfore at ſome times by ſpeciall guidance of the Spirit they might doe that which ordinary Paſtors may not do.
Reply. Secondly, as the ſeals, ſo the Word of ſalvation preached and received, is a priviledge of the Church, &c. If by preaching be meant the giving of the Word unto a people, to abide and continue with them, and conſequently the receiving of it at leaſt in profeſſion, then it is proper to the church of God.
Anſw. We grant, (in ſome ſenſe) it is a priviledge, and proper to the Church ſo to have the Word; but this no way takes away the difference between the Seals and the Word, which the anſwer makes, viz. That the Word is not ſuch a peculiar priviledge of the Church as the Seals, in that the one is diſpenſed not onelyonly to the Church, but alſo to others for the gathering of them, which is not ſo in the Seals, for the Word of God received in Corinth abiding with them, profeſſed of them, was not ſo peculiar, but an Idiot comming in might partake in the ſame, but not ſo in the Sacraments, 1 Cor. 14.
Reply. The Word makes Diſciples, the Word given unto a people is Gods covenanting with them, and the peoples receiving this Word, and profeſſing their faith in God through Jeſus Chriſt, is the taking of God to be their God, the laws and ſtatutes which God gave unto Iſrael, were a teſtimony that God hath ſeparated them from all other people: the Word of reconciliation is ſent and given to the world reconciled in Ieſus Chriſt, and they that receive the Doctrine, Law, or Word of God, are the diſciples, ſervants, and people of God.
Anſw. In theſe words, and that which follows in the ſecond Paragraph, there ſeems to be a double ſcope: Firſt, to prove the Word proper to the Church; to which is anſwered afore. Secondly, that where-ever the Word of God is, there is the true viſible Church; and ſo where the true Worſhip of God is, there is a mark of the Church, eſpecially where it is received and confeſſed. To which we anſwer:
1 There is a coven…nting between God and man, which is perſonall, and ſo whoſoever receives the Word of Gods grace by faith ſent unto him by God, enters into Covenant to be his, and that before he makes any viſible profeſſion thereof, and ſo every beleever is a diſciple, a ſervant of God, and one of Gods people, but many thouſands of theſe conſidered onelyonly in this their perſonall relation to God, doe not make a viſible Church, many ſuch might be in the world, but no members of the viſible Church, until they came and joyned to the Church of Iſrael of Old, or to the viſible Churches in the New Teſtament.
2 There is a ſociall or common covenanting between God and a people, to be a God to them, and they a people unto God in outward viſible profeſſion of his Worſhip; and ſo the Lord took Abraham and his ſeed into Covenant, and renewed that Covenant with them, as an holy Nation and peculiar people to him; and in this covenanting of God with a people, whereby they become a Church, there is required, firſt, that they be many, not one. Secondly, that theſe many become one body, one people. Thirdly, that they make viſible profeſſion of their Covenant with God really, or vocally. Fourthly, that this Covenant contain a profeſsion of ſubjection to the ordinances of Gods Worſhip, wherein God requires a Church to walk together before him: and all theſe may be ſeen in the Church of Iſrael, who received Gods laws indeed, but ſo as they became one people to God, viſibly avouched God for their God, received and ſubmitted unto all the laws of his Worſhip, Government, and other Ordinances. And this is expreſly or implicitly in every true viſible Church, though more or leſſe fully and purely.
Now if you intend ſuch a covenanting of a people with God, by a profeſſed receiving of his Word, and ſubjection to his Ordinances; we grant ſuch to be true Churches, and to ſuch the ſeals do belong; and therefore we willingly cloſe with the Concluſion that follows, They that have received the Word of ſalvation entirely, and have Paſtors godly and faithfull to feed and guide them, they and their ſeed have right to the ſeals in order. And they that joyn together in the true Worſhip of God, according to his will, with godly and faithfull Paſtors, they have right to the ſacraments, according to Divine inſtitution. Theſe concluſions we willingly embrace, and inferr, that if the ſeals belong to ſuch a Church, then to particular Congregations. For where ſhall we finde a people joyning together with godly Paſtors, but in ſuch particular Aſſemblies? For we doubt not our Brethren doe diſclaim all Dioceſan Paſtors or Provinciall, &c.
Reply. That there is now no viſible Catholick Church in your ſenſe, will eaſily be granted, &c.
If this be granted in our ſenſe, ſo that there be no ſuch Catholick church wherein ſeals are to be diſpenſed; then it will fall to be the right and priviledge of particular Congregations, to have the ſeals in the adminiſtration proper to them; and ſo the cauſe is yeelded; but becauſe there is ſo much here ſpoken of the Catholick viſible Church, and ſo much urged from it, we ſhall refer the Reader to what is ſaid before, onelyonly one thing we ſhall note about the inſtance of Athanaſius, that a man may be a member of the Catholick viſible Church, but of no particular Society.
Reply. You ſay it is evidenced, in that a Chriſtian (as Athanaſius for an example) may be cut off unjuſtly from the particular viſible Church, wher…in he was born, and yet remains a member of the Catholick viſible orthodox Church.
Anſw. This caſe proves nothing; for look how ſuch a Chriſtian ſtands to the Catholick, ſo he ſtands to the particular Church: if he be unjuſtly cenſured, as he remains before God a member of the Catholick, ſo alſo the particular Church, for clavis errans non ligat: and in reſpect of men, and communion with other Churches in the ſeals, if they receive him, being ſatisfied that he is unjuſtly caſt out; they may receive him, not for his generall intereſt in the Catholick church, but in reſpect of his true memberſhip in the particular Church, that unjuſtly caſt him out. Whereas, if the Churches were not perſwaded but that he were juſtly caſt out of the particular, they ought not to admit him to ſeales, were he as Orthodox as Athanaſius himſelf in doctrine, and as holy in his life.
Reply. Though there be no univerſall Congregation, nor can be imagined, yet there are and have been many viſible Aſſemblies or Societies, true Churches of Chriſt, to whom the prerogative of the ſeals is given, which have not been united and knit together into one Congregation or Society in Church-order. For every Society in Covenant with God, is the true Church of God. For what is it to be the flock, people, or ſheep of God, but to be the Church of God? and where there is a Covenant, there is the people of God, &c.
Anſw. This aſſertion ſeems to us very ſtrange to fall from that reverend and learned Author, being a foundation of many inconveniences and abſu…dities, and tending to overthrow the order of Chriſt in his viſible Churches. For,
Firſt, if this be ſo, that every Society in Covenant with God, be the Church of God, then men may ſet up as many Forms of viſible Churches as they pleaſe, (if the people be in Covenant with God viſibly at leaſt) the Archdeacon with his Commiſſary, Prieſts, Churchwardens, &c. being in Covenant with God, are a true Church: So the Dioceſan Biſhop in his Cathedrall with his Clergy, or any ſuch Aſſembly, are the Church of God; or what other form-ſoever men will deviſe, may goe for the Church of God, and to them belong the ſeals, and (you may as wel ſay) diſcipline, and all Ordinances of God, if they bee the true Church.
Secondly, upon this ground every company of godly Chriſtiſtians in Covenant with God, meeting in faſting, prayer, &c. are the true Church of God, and to them (as ſuch) the ſeal… belong, and ſending for a true Miniſter of the Catholick church, they may have Baptiſm and the Lords-ſupper adminiſtred, and by the ſame reaſon diſcipline alſo: yea, if but two or three (as you ſay) being in Covenant with God, meet together in their travail at an Inne, &c. are the Church of God, eſpecially every Chriſtian family i… the Church; for they profeſſe the entire faith▪ joyn (daily) in prayer and thankſgiving, receive the truth of God to dwell amongſt them, are in ſome meaſure obedient unto the command… of God, and in Covenant with God:
And therefore being the Church of God, why not call for a Miniſter, and have ſeals ordinarily diſpenſed to them?
Thirdly, upon this ground a company of Chriſtian Women in Covenant with God are a Church, to whom the ſeal … belong; and who ſees not, how all orderly diſpenſation of Gods Ordinances, and the whole order of viſible Churches in the Goſpel would be overturned by this aſſertion? We verily beleeve this Author was far from admitting theſe things, but the Poſition it ſelf will unavoidably enforce the ſame. Neither can we impute this aſſertion to any inconſiderateneſſe through heat of diſputation. For if any ſhall maintain the perſonall Covenant of people with God to be ſufficient to conſtitute viſible Churches, and not admit a neceſſity of a more publick or generall Covenant explicite or implicite, whereby a company of Chriſtian… are made one people, joyning in one Congregation to worſhip God in his holy Ordinances, and walk together in his way…, they muſt of neceſſity acknowledge every Society in Covenant with God to be a Church, as here is ſaid; and therefore admit all forms of Churches, and all Families, &c. to be Churches, and ſo bring in the confution objected, which we deſire may well bee conſidered.
All your Arguments ſtand upon that ground of perſonall covenant with God, which is too weak to bear up that concluſion, to make all ſuch viſible Churches to whom the ſeals belong, as the abſurd conſequences thereof ſhew.
Theſe Reaſons, and the Scriptures in the margent (ſome of them) will prove them fit matter for viſible Churches, and that they have a remote right unto the ſeals of that Covenant, (which we grant) but they will not prove every Society of ſuch to bee true Churches, having immediate right to have the ſeals diſpenſed unto them.
Reply. Fifthly, If it be gra…ted that the ſeals are the prerogative of particular viſible Churches, known and approved Chriſtians amongst us are members of ſuch Churches, and ſo to be eſteemed amongst you, &c. and every viſible beleever profeſſing the pure entire faith, admitted to the right and lawfull participation of the ſacraments, is a viſible member of the true Church, if he hath neither renounced the Society, nor deſerved juſtly to be caſt out by excommunication, or Church cenſure, &c. And if known and approved Chriſtians, members of our Churches comming to New-England, ſhall deſire to have their children baptized, or themſelves admitted to the Lords-ſupper, before they be ſet members amongst you; we deſire to know upon what grounds from God you can deny them, if you acknowledge our Churches, Miniſtery and Sacraments to be true, (as you profeſſe) and the members of the Church be known and approved, orderly recommended unto you.
Anſw. We grant all this here expreſſed for the ſubſtance, however ſome reaſons ſpoken unto before intermixed we paſſe over, and to your queſtion we frame a ready anſwer from your own words. For, firſt, you grant, that if ſuch members have renounced that Society wherein they did partake of the ſeals, they are not to be reputed members of it; and this is generally the caſe of all approved Chriſtians among us, who though they doe not ſo renounce the Churches that bare them, and gave them ſuck, as no true Churches; yet ſeeing they were grown ſo corrupt many ways, as they could neither enjoy ſome needfull Ordinances, nor partake in thoſe they had without ſin, they have therefore renounced and forſaken all further communion with them, and memberſhip in them; and ſo by your own grant, neither themſelves, nor the Churches here can take them as members of your Churches, to receive them under that reſpect.
Secondly, if any yet have not ſo far renounced thoſe Churches they belonged unto, yet they are not orderly recommended unto us, which alſo you grant ought to be, and indeed otherwiſe we may oft receive perſons juſtly excommunicate, or ſuch as are no members of Churches any where, or otherwiſe under great offence, as frequent examples amongſt our ſelves doe ſhe…e, though the Church may think well of ſuch as offer themſelves. What elſe follows in this Paragraph, is the ſame in ſubſtance, and much of it in words alſo, that we have anſwered before; and therefore we paſſe it over; and that of the Jewiſh Church we ſhall ſpeak to after. As for that you deſire leave to ſet down, and us to examine what may be objected againſt that we affirmed, That the diſtinct Churches named in the New Teſtament were Congregationall Societies; we ſhall conſider as followeth:
Reply. The number of beleevers were ſo great in ſome Cities, that they could not conveniently meet in one place as one Aſſembly to worſhip God according to his will, and for their edifying, as in Samaria, Jeruſalem, Antioch, Epheſus.
Anſw. Although we expected not Objections in this caſe againſt the currant Tenent of our godly Reformers, Baine, Parker, &c. with whom we joyn; and we might refer you to them for anſwer to this beaten. Objection of the Prelates; yet we are not unwilling to examine what is ſaid in this digreſſion. The Argument ſtands thus: If the number of beleevers were ſo great in ſome City, as could not meet in one Aſſembly to edification; then there was ſome other form of a Church beſides Congregationall; But ſo it was in Samaria, &c. Anſw. We deny the conſequences, for when they grew to ſo great a number, they might fall into more Congregationall Churches, and ſo no other form ariſe from the multitude; but we ſuppoſe you mean of ſuch a multitude as is called a Church; and therefore to anſwer to your Aſſumption, we deny that any ſuch multitude of beleevers as is here called a Church were ſo great as could not meet to edification: And firſt concerning Samaria.
Reply. That there was a Church gathered in Samaria, will not be denyed, for they received the Word, and were baptized; but that the Church in that City was onelyonly a Congregationall Aſſembly, is more then can probably be concluded.
Anſw. We grant a Church or Churches were gathered in Samaria, and we accept your reaſon as good, becauſe they received the Word, and were baptized wh…e (by the way) you grant what we pleaded for before, That the Apoſtles gathered Churches, when they baptized them: but that there was but one Congregationall Aſſembly, lyes not in … prove, untill you prove that all the beleevers were called a Church, or one Church, which doth not appear in the whole ſtory, … nor any other where that we can finde▪ and it is, very probable that as Philip converted and baptized ſo great a multitude at ſeverall times, and gathered them into the Church or Churches as he baptized them, ſo he might gather ſeverall Churches, as well as one, ſeeing that none doubt but that Congregationall Churches … an ordinance of Chriſt, what ever men contend for beſide▪ And therefore be the number of beleevers in Samaria as great as you would have it, it proves nothing.
Reply. The Church at Jeruſalem was one, and diſtinct, yet encreaſed to 3000, then to 5000, &c.
Anſw. Be it ſo, the increaſe was very great; yet ſo long as they are called one diſtinct Church, it was one Congregation, viz. untill they ſcattering by the perſecution about Stephen, Acts. 7.8. which is evident by theſe two arguments. Firſt, Acts 2.41, &c. where we ſee the 3000 added to the 120. they have their communion together deſcribed: 1 In regard of their ſpirituall communion, to be in the Apoſtles doctrine, fellowſhip, breaking of bread and Prayer, verſe 42. Secondly, in regard of their outward communion in the good things of this life; they had all things common, and ſold their poſſeſſions, &c. verſe 44, & 45▪ Now the manner of both parts of this communion in reſpect of time and place is deſcribed, verſe 46. viz. in their ſpirituall duties, They continued daily with one accord in the Temple. And ſecondly, in reſpect of their outward communion in their States, They eat their meat from houſe to houſe; this latter requiring many tables and many houſes to provide for them; ſo that although in their outward communion, it was in private houſes, yet their ſpirituall communion it was with one accord in one place, viz. the Temple, where they had room enough; being the place erected for a Nationall Church; and having favour with all the people, were not interrupted therein by any perſecution. We need not ſtep out of our way to reply to all that is ſaid againſt this reaſon. It is enough for us to note, that they daily with one accord …, and that in the Temple, which is not anſ…ered by any ….
2 This appeareth, Acts ….1, 5. where it is evident the election of Deaco… was before, and by the multitude, verſe 1. by the whole multitude, verſe 5. and this was the laſt Church-meeting and Church act we read of before their ſcattering; neither can …t appear that the Jews and …recians, whoſe Widows murmured were two diſtinct Congregations; but the contrary is evident, in that the Deacons were choſen al by the whole, and for the whole, not diſtinctly ſo many for this, and ſo many for that Church, as it was needful if they were two Churches. Theſe proofe being ſo clear▪ the inconveniences objected are of no force, and ſufficiently anſwered by many examples of as great Aſſemblies meeting ordinarily to edification; as beſide the Auditory of Chryſoſtome, cited by others; the Aſſemblies of Stepney in London, Yarmouth in Norfolk, and others in our experience. Beza, a man not loving to hyperbolize, ſaith, that being in Paris, there met at a Sermon *Calvin Epiſt. 332.24000. And of a Synodall Aſſembly that they received the Lords ſupper no leſſe then 10000. Beza Epist. 65.
Reply. Without queſtion the number of beleevers at Antioch was not ſmall, of which it is expreſly ſaid, That a great number beleeved, and that a great multitude were added to the Lord by the preaching of Barnabas, &c. and therefore we may think the Church roſe to ſuch a… bigneſſe as could not well aſſemble in one Congregation, Acts 11.21. & 14.27.
Anſw. 1 In that place, Acts 11.21. the great number that beleeved, was the fruit of all the ſcattered Chriſtians at Phenice, Cyprus, and Antioch; for the hand of the Lord was with them all, and their whole ſucceſſe is ſummed up together, nothing ſaid before of the other places.
2 Though Paul and Barnabas taught much people, yet it proveth not that this much people were converted to the Church.
3 Though much people were added to the Lord, yet doth it follow they were more then could meet in one Congregation? and if firſt Diſciples were there called Chriſtians, muſt it needs be for their number, and not rather for eminent likeneſs to Chriſt, with other ſpecialities of providence?
4 It is expreſly ſaid, the Church was gathered together, Acts 14.27. which is not meant of the Elders onelyonly, as if they onelyonly could meet; for Chap. 15.30. They gathered the multitude together; ſo that it was no… … but … to g…ther in … place.
Reply. The number of beleevers was great at Epheſus, where Paul preached two years; all that dwelt … heard … and effectuall ways open … the … of Di…na her Temple were in danger to be ſe… a… …ought; … thoſe …, burnt their books openly: which could not … great danger of the Church, unleſſe a great part of the City had …, Acts 19.10, 19, 27.
Anſw. 1 Be it ſo, that many were converted, and the Word gr…w mightily; this proves not th… all who heard Paul, were of the Church of Epheſus, for then all … ſhould be of that Church, (Acts 19.10.) who did hear the Word … Jewe and Gentiles; As for the danger of the Shrines, and Diana's Temple to be ſet at nought, a little ſpark might …indle ſuch fears, and raiſe ſuch out-cryes in the covetous Craftſmen, by whom the whole City was ſee in a ſuperſtitious …; our own experience may teach, how ſoon a prophane people will cry our againſt a faithfull Miniſter before he hath converted ten … in a City.
2 That they could not burn their books openly without danger to the Churches, except a great part of the City beleeved, ſeems a ſtrange reaſon▪ as if beleevers … not profeſſe openly, except they had a great number to maintain them with club-law: open profeſſion in thoſe times even amongſt a few, was not wont to be daunted with the grim looks of perſecution.
3 And laſtly, we grant Epheſus might be a numerous Church; yet neither there, no… any thing that is ſaid from Rev. 2.7. (Hear what the Spirit …) can perſwade us that it was any more then one Congregation; for that argues no more, that Epheſus was a compound of many Churches, then that it was compounded with all the other ſix Churches of Aſia; yea, the Churches of all the world▪ for what the Spirit ſpeaketh to one Church, is ſpoken for the uſe of all.
Reply. It is not eſſentiall to the Church to … together in one place ordinarily, no… is the Society broken off by perſecution…, when … together in one place be interrupted.
Anſw. It is true; one Church or Society by perſecution or otherwiſe, may meet in ſeverall companies; neither doe we ſay, that place, or meeting in one place, is properly eſſentiall to the Church, yet i… to neceſſary both …, to …e able at leaſt ſo to doe▪ for though it be not neceſſary to … of the Society thus to meet together, yet it is neceſſary to the communion thereof in all Ordinances. It is not neceſſary to the unity of a Claſſicall Presbytery to meet ordinarily in one place, but unto the communion thereof it is neceſſary. When the Papiſts to maintain their private Maſſes, ſay, That place is but accidentall to the ordinance: And that Chriſtians are not bound to the circumſtance of place (as H…rdin objects) any more, then to obſerve dayes, monethmonth… times, condemned as beggerly Elements by the Apoſtle, Gal. 4. As alſo, that all the faithfull are united together by the Sacraments though they meet not in the ſame place, as the Ancients …o tell,Chamier de Euchar. cap. 13. How doth learned Chamity anſwer them▪ he tels them, That although this or that particular place is not neceſſary, yet a place indefinitely taken is … And that the Sacrament is reſtrained to be adminiſtred in a place, becauſe it cannot be adminiſtred but conventu fidelium▪ and this conventus muſt be in ſome place: And he adds, That although all the faithfull have communion in the Sacrament, though they meet not in one and the ſame place; yet this (he ſaith) is to be underſtood of ſpirituall, not ſacramentall communion; Nunquam …rim auditum, qui Hieroſolymis erant, ſacramentaliter communicaſſe cum iis qui Alexandrie: and therefore he thought communion in one place together neceſſary to Church-communion, as wee doe.
Reply. Seventhly, Seeing then both the ſeals in ordinary and extraordinary diſpenſation, &c.
Anſw. This, with that which follows, being but a recapitulation of the ſeverall Replies made, we ſhall leave it to the judicious, having well obſerved our anſwer, to embrace or reject the Concluſion.