A Defense of Sundry Positions of the Congregational Way, Position 3
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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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. 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. foreign, (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, foreign 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, foreign, are ſometimes conjoyned with the Verb, foreign, 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 foreign, 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, foreign, 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 foreign, 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 foreign. 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, foreign, which without foreign, 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 foreign, 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 foreign, 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.
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, foreign, 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, foreign, &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.