A Defense of Sundry Positions of the Congregational Way, Position 4
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 every one of them, and the whole is the flock of each amongſt them, and each of them hath as full power over the aſſemblies that he never ſaw, as over that from which he came, and which ſent him; (as in the repreſentative civill body every Knight and Buegeſſe hath the care of the kingdome upon him, and each hath equall authority of inſpection and deciſion of matters concerning cities and countries, which hee knowes not, as of thoſe whence hee came.) Now if it be ſo, the Queſtion is, whether each be not a Paſſor to every purpoſe, as well as unto one? And whether hee be not to feed by doctrine, as well as by the rod of diſcipline, all ſuch aſſemblies which are under his charge? (Which thing is yet impoſſible to be done.) And what warrant there is of non-reſidencie with the flock unto purpoſes that do moſt concern the flock, ſeeing themſelves are Chriſts Miniſters and ſubſtitutes, and have not power of appointing Miniſters and ſubſtitutes under them; and what ground there is, why they muſt joyntly rule all the aſſemblies, but ſeverally teach each man the congregation to which he is deſigned, without care of the reſt?
Or, if there be any ſuch combination of aſſemblies in a Nation, what is there to warrant it more, then the combination of all Chriſtian aſſemblies in the world, repreſented in an oecumenicall councell, the members of which muſt be univerſall Paſtors, having power over, and care of all churches under them? For, if a Congregationall church muſt depend upon a Nationall church, as the leſſer upon the greater, then a Nationall church muſt depend upon the univerſall, as the leſſer upon the greater. For, look what a Nation is to a Congregation, that the univerſall is to a Nation; and if Nations may be independent of the univerſall, Congregations may be independent of the Nationall.
And if an univerſall viſible inſtituted church be acknowledged, why are there not univerſall repreſentative conventions? What a defect is this in Chriſtendome? And what a fault, that all Chriſtian nations do not endeavour it? But we conceive that they are ſo farre from the endeavouring it, that if there were any ſuch, though they might make uſe of them for advice, yet they would be loth to ſubject themſelves to the binding decrees of them.
Nor ſay wee, that the Scriptures do mention a Nationall church, Anſwer. for the ſupreme Magiſtrate was an enemy to Chriſtian Religion, and Regis ad exemplum, &c. Believers (it is like) were not ſo many as to beare the name of a Land or Nation, nor could they have liberty ſafely to meet in Nationall Synods. Shew mee a Nation of Magiſtrates and people converted, and I will ſhew you a Nationall church. Ultra poſſe, non eſt eſſe, whether Nationall churches be lawfull or unlawfull.
1. Reply. You might have ſaid, Shew me a Nation of Magiſtrates and people converted, and I will ſhew you a Nationall Chriſtian church, framed like the Jewiſh church, with one Nationall Biſhop over it, one Nationall Cathedrall in it, &c. for ſo would Prelaticall men and the Pope himſelf argue. No one Nation was converted then, and therefore there could be no Nationall Paſtor. Many nations were not converted then, therefore there could be no univerſall Paſtor. But what hinders but that there might be afterwards, when a Nation and when the world ſhould come to be converted?
2. Though there was no Nation converted wholly, and therefore (as you ſay) no nationall church could be; yet Chriſts will and minde in that matter, might eaſily have been dictated in the Scriptures, had he intended any ſuch Church afterwards; as Moſes tells the Jewes, Deut. 12.8, 9, 10. That they ſhould not do (when they ſhould come to Canaan) every man what he liſteth, as they did in the Wilderneſſe, but there ſhould be a place appointed, and thither ſhould they bring their offerings and tythes; and though there were not Nations converted, yet there were ſo many in a Nation converted, as made many Aſſemblies; In little Judea there were Congregations, and why (together with the Church at Jeruſalem) might there not have been a Dioceſan or Claſſicall Church? There were enough converted for ſuch a purpoſe. But ſhew the ſootſleps of a Dioceſan or Claſſicall Church, and it ſhall ſerve the turn; then wee will yeeld there might in time be a Nationall.
Arguments taken from the appellation of the word Church, Anſwer. or Churches, are very unſatisfactory, becauſe of the various acceptations of the words Kahal, Gnedah, Eccleſia, Synagoga, which we ſometimes tranſlate Church, but ſhould alwayes tranſlate Convocation, or Congregation, a company called out, or gathered together.
In this anſwer you labour to overthrow our Argument; Reply. for Congregationall churches, ſetched from the appellation of the Apoſtle (when he ſpeaks of Countries and Provinces, where more Congregations were, he calls them perpetually churches, in the plurall number, and not church) by theſe ſuggeſtions rather then arguments:
1. That the words, Kahal, Gnedah, Eccleſia, Synagoga, ſhould alwayes be tranſlated Convocation, a company called out, or gathered together; if this be yeelded, wherein it will advantage you we know not. A nationall Convocation or Congregation, or gathering together, will ſound harſher then a nationall Church; for every one knows that we have no Nationall Congregation in England: But,
2. You ſuggeſt;
The Engliſh word church, Saxon, Cyrick, and Scots Kirk; Anſwer. are derived from foreign, as Cambd. Rem. or, foreign, as Sr. Hen. Spelm. which (as foreign) ſignifieth the place of meeting. Hence we reade of robbers of Churches or Temples, Acts 19.37. Kahal (whence our Engliſh word, call) is ſometimes Metonymically underſtood of the place. The Heathen enter into the Sanctuary, which God hath forbidden to enter into the Church, Lam. 1.10. with Deut. 23.3. Nehem. 13.1. To come together, foreign. is (if it be rightly tranſlated) to come together in one place, and ſo Eccleſia is oppoſed to the buildings, or houſes in which they did eat and drink, 1 Cor. 11.19, 20, 21, 22. Synagoga is evidently taken for the place of meeting, Luke 7.5. Acts 18.7.
1. foreign, or, foreign, in the proper ſignification, Reply. is appertaining to the Lord, and may more properly relate to people appertaining to the Lord, then to place; becauſe the people do more appertain to the Lord, then the place.
2. Though Kahal once, perhaps, and Synagoga oftener, may be underſtood of the place, yet Eccleſia never. That place in Acts 19.37. is foreign robbers of Temples, not Churches: That place in 1 Cor. 11.18. When yee come together, foreign, is not to be rendered, in one place. Pareus upon thoſe words utterly denies it. And there is good reaſon, why they ſhould rather be referred to the people as a church, then to the place: For the meaning is, (when yee meet in the church) when yee meet as the church, that is, to perform Church-work. For they might meet in the place, even thoſe very perſons, and yet not meet as a Church; as it might be ſaid, when ſuch meet in a Synod, it's meant, as a Synod, to act ſome thing as a Synod. *As convenire in Senatum, is to meet as a Senate; not ſo much referring to the place, as to the perſons: ſo meeting foreign, miſacrum conventum, Beza, ibid. i. for a holy meeting, & Muſculus in coetu ſacro, quē li…vocat Eccleſiam. i. in a holy Aſſembly, which he calleth the Church. Item Pet. Mart. bid.It referres not to the place, nor to the perſons barely meeting, but to the perſons meeting as a Synod to act Synodically.
Beſides, though Kahal and Synogoga may by a Metonymy be referred to place, becauſe there were places built and ſet apart for Church-ſervices, yet foreign in the new Teſtament cannot be ſo taken, becauſe they had no ſet ſtated appointed places for the Chriſtian churches to meet in; your ſelf aſſert ſo much, p. 26. Nor is foreign oppoſed to the buildings and houſes in which they did eat and drink in 1 Cor. 11.19, 20, 21. The words are, or deſpiſe yee the Church of God? which reſpects the people, the godly amongſt them, which told them of their fault, and other Churches alſo, as Pareus upon that place obſerves; Unleſſe you will ſay, there muſt be a reverent obſervance of the place where the Church meets, more then of all other places. They met in Woods, Dens, Caves, many times in times of perſecution; and muſt thoſe places be more reſpected then mens houſes, where they did eat and drink in? But what would you inferre, if foreign or Church were taken for the place? Would it profit you? Yes; for you ſay afterwards,
The Scripture calls them Church or Congregation often, Anſwer. and ſometimes in reſpect of their ſeverall Synagogues, Pſal. 74.4.8. No wonder therefore if that Chriſtians of one countrey meeting in ſeverall Synagogues, James 2.2. Heb. 10.25. Acts 19.8, 9. & 22.19. Acts 13.15, 16, 43. and houſes, Acts 12.12. Rom. 16.5. do receive the denomination of Churches, which in Scripture phraſe is all one with Aſſemblies, many whereof we confeſſe were in Galatia, Macedonia.
The place you bring from Pſal. 74.4.8. is impertinently alledged: Reply. for the Church of the Jewes which was one, is not called Congregations in verſ. 4. in reference to divers Synagogues they met in, verſ. 8. But Congregations there, is Metonymically uſed, and is all one with Synagogues, and ſignifieth the place, and not the people at all; They roare in the midst of the Congregations, that is, in the midſt of thoſe places where the Congregation met, which places were many, but the Congregation but one, having one high Prieſt, for their chief Paſtor; though meeting in its parts in many places. So that the Church of the Jewes is not called Congregations, as Mollerus ſhewes upon that place. Neither can you ſhew (as wee ſuppoſe) that ever any one Church was called churches in the plurall number, either in the old or new Teſtament, in reference to plurality of places they met in.
For, if it were ſo; how comes it, that a Church in a city, ſuch as Jeruſalem, Corinth, Epheſus, and Rome, which met and aſſembled in many places (as our Brethren of the Presbyterie ſay) are never called Churches, but alwayes Church? And yet a Church in the countrey, meeting and aſſembling in many places are called Churches, and not Church. And you ſay, there is no wonder of it, for this reaſon, becauſe the Houſes and Synagogues in the countrey were many, in which they met. See (brother) whether you do not in this aſſertion, croſſe your ſelf? In the city you can finde many meeting houſes, and but one Church, but in the countrey you can finde ſo many Churches, as meeting houſes.
But the truth is, it is not place, but the combination of a Chriſtian people to meet together for Ordinances, that makes a Church: For the ſame Church may meet ſometimes together in one place for Church worſhip, and ſometimes aſunder in many places, for Chriſtian worſhip; but they are not therefore divided into ſundry Churches. And many diſtinct Churches, or parts of them may meet occaſionally in one place, yet they become not one Church hereby; but combination to enjoy Church ordinances together in a conſtant way, makes a Church; and all in a city were in this combination to enjoy ordinances together, therefore they were a Church. But all in a countrey could not be in ſuch a combination to meet together conſtantly; therefore they were not a Church, but churches. But you go on, and ſay,
The word Kahal and Gnedah, do ſignifie a diſperſed multitude, Anſwer. that never met together; that the people of Iſrael, though divided into ſeverall domeſticall aſſemblies to keep the Paſſeover, are called one Church; That an Aſſembly is all one with Kahal, Eccleſia, whether it be good or bad, leſſe or greater; that when the Iſraelitiſh men, women and children were together, they were but one Congregation: And when all did not meet, (though ſearce half, or a third part met) yet they were called all the Congregation. And when there was a great Aſſembly, then the Scripture tells us, there was a great Church; accounting no more perſons of the Church, but thoſe that were then aſſembled; Yea, Simeon and Levi's aſſembly is called a Church; and thoſe many which were gathered to pray in the houſe of Maty, are called the Church, though many were abſent. Yea, four or ſive in a Family joyning in the worſhip of God, are called a Church.
But (ſuppoſe there be truth in all that is ſaid) what are all theſe acceptions of the words Kahal and Eccleſia to the purpoſe? Reply. Among all theſe, can you finde that ever any one Church is called two, or more Churches? For, except there can be brought inſtances of this nature, the air is but beaten all the while, and our aſſertion ſtands immovable. We find many churches in little Judea; in which of the ennumerations of acceptions of thoſe words, Kahal, Eccleſia, doth it appeare, that a Church that is really but one, multiplies into many, and is called churches, and yet is but one? If you finde not this, we cannot believe that a whole Nation or Province of Believers are but one Church in the dayes of the Goſpel.
Beſides, is your ſcope to confound and loſe your Readers in the various acceptions of the word Aſſembly, or Church; ſo that when they reade the word Church, or Churches, they ſhall not be able to know what to make of it? How then will they underſtand your Nationall Church, at which your Diſcourſe drives? It had been your part to have taken your Reader by the hand, and to have ſhewed him when the word Church is taken properly, and when improperly.
Both you in your Nationall, and wee in our Congregationall, underſtand a people combined together into one body to worſhip God. And in the old Teſtament (let the words, Kahal, Gnedah, be taken as they may) there was but one kinde of Church ſo combined, which was Nationall: And in the new Teſtament we ſay; there is no other combination, to enjoy all ordinances and worſhips inſtituted in the Goſpel but Congregationall; and we produce the ſmall countrey of Judea, containing a plurality of Churches; and thence collect, that they muſt be Congregations, and that Congregations are therefore Churches. And this is not weakened by what variety of acceptions is brought.
Furthermore, wee do not know, that Church, or Flock, or Lump, or Body, when referred to God and Chriſt, and is properly taken, is uſed otherwiſe then in two or three ſenſes: either for the myſticall Church, Ephe. 5.25, 26. or the*2 Cor. 8.1.19. Congregationall, 1 Cor. 1.1. (ſometimes indeed,Rev. 1.4. we reade of it in a ſigurative ſenſe, as in 1 Cor. 12.28. Gal. 5.9. James 2.2. 1 Pet. 5.2. and many more places)
For though you ſay, That four or five in a Family joyning in the worſhip of God, are the Domeſticall Church ſpaken of by Paul, many times in his Epiſtles, yet we conceive otherwiſe; for ſeeing uſually when there were any heads of Families converted, ſome of the houſhold were converted with them, as we can give many inſtances, wee think that many, or the moſt that Paul ſaluted, had in that ſenſe churches in their Families; and therefore, Paul would not have ſingled out, and with a note of diſtinction, have ſpoken of ſome perſons, and the churches in their Families, for that reaſon, if ſome other reaſon had not moved him; either then theſe Families were large and great Families, and might be as numerous as ſome Congregationall Churches; or the foundation of a Church might be laid in the perſons of a Family, but not ſo to continue, but to grow to a Congregation; or elſe ſome Congregationall Church might meet in ſuch houſes, which was ordinary in thoſe dayes. And for the word Church in Acts 12. either it is to be taken for the myſticall church, or elſe for that particular viſible ſociety of Believers, which was at Jeruſalem, though ſome of them were abſent. But you proceed to give more particular anſwers, and incounter with a part of the forementioned Poſition, viz. There were Churches in Galatia, therefore they were Congregationall.
Galatia was a large countrey; in England a far leſſe countrey, Anſwer. ſeverall Churches have been heretofore and yet not meerly Congregationall.
And why are Galatia and Macedonia taken hold of, Reply. and made uſe of, and Judea left out, which in the Poſition was mentioned as well as they? Surely the reaſon was, becauſe in both thoſe countries there was more room for your Nationall Church, then in Judea. You could not find breadth enough to make a plutality of Dioceſan Churches, and therefore durſt not contend for Nationall.
But grant wee the largeneſs of thoſe countries: (according as you ſpeak) were either of them too large to make one Nationall Church? (wee know you think not ſo.) Why then doth not the Apoſtle knit them all up into one Nationall Church, if hee had ſo intended them? But you add,
The Churches of Galatia might he combined one to another, Anſwer. as the Churches of England, Scotland, Holland, France, are reſpectively combined; for the Apoſtle ſpeaks of them as one lump, 1 Cor. 5.6. with Gal. 5.9, &c.
Such a combination wee eaſily grant to be among the Churches of Galatia, as is among the Churches of England, Scotland, Reply. &c. and that is, none at all: or at the moſt a combination without juriſdiction. But, if by reſpectively you mean a combination, which each of theſe Churches hath in it ſelf, in all the Congregations of and belonging to it; ſuch a combination wee deny to have been in the Churches of Galatia. For all our Congregations have been united under one Metropolitane Archbiſhop, of all England, and as yet there is none other eſtabliſhed; and for other combinations, ſuch as in Scotland, Holland, &c. without proofe we cannot grant them in Galatia. And if Paul had intended by ſaying, A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump, that we ſhould gather thence, that they were all one Church, hee would never have called them churches in the Preface of his Epiſtle; but in a diſtributive ſenſe it is to be underſtood: For ſuppoſe one ſpeak in a literall ſenſe, and ſay, a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump, doth he thereby make all the dough in a countrey one lump? No, but of every lump (how many ſoever they be) it is to be underſtood, a little leaven leaveneth each of them; ſo of churches, a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump, that is, the whole Church, every Church in which it is, this maketh not all the Churches in a countrey to be one.
And the Churches of Macedonia were not ſo ſeverall, Anſwer. but they joyned in one to chooſe a Brother (which I conceive was an authoritative act) to go with Paul for the managing of the Churches contributions, 2 Cor. 8.18, 19.
1. Reply. Then to chooſe an Officer is much more an authoritative act; which you grant to appertain unto the people; then the people may act authoritatively, which is none of our aſſertion, but yours, and the people are beholden to you for it.
2. A combination of churches without juriſdiction, will enable them to ſuch an act; nay, if there were no combination at all, yet when many churches are alike intereſſed in a buſineſſe, reaſon ſhews they ought to joyn alike to promove it.
3. They did not make him an Officer by this act of chooſing him, but they deputed him thereby to a particular work, which when accompliſhed, all was ended.
The churches of Judea, Anſwer. conſiſting of Myriads of people, did come together, Acts 21.20, 21, 22. to be ſatisfied of Paul, concerning an accuſation that they had received againſt him, and are called a Church, Gal. 1.13. Acts 12.1. and an Houſe, Heb. 3.4.
Not the Jewes of Judea alone did gather together, Reply. but the Jews of all other parts; as appeareth from Acts 21.27. But be it that they gathered alone, yet are they called one Church? the place alledged is, Gal. 1.13. I perſecuted the Church of God. What Church? Churches in Judea? No, Paul ſaith, hee perſecuted them unto ſtrange cities, and Damaſcus was one of them. The meaning is, them that were of Jeruſalem he perſecuted to ſtrange cities, or, he perſecuted the Saints in generall. Who, as they are parts of the myſticall Church, may be called by a Synecdoche, the Church. And Herod ſtretched out his hands to vex certain of the Church. What church? Either the myſticall, or that at Jeruſalem, or any Church within his reach. And his houſe, Heb. 3.4. to be underſtood of the churches of Judea? What ſtrange miſ-interpreting of Scripture is this? houſe in that place, is all the churches that were then, or ever were to be in the world; Chriſt is the builder of them all.