Reply to Rutherford, Treatise · Chapter 13
CHAP. XIII.
Whether the Churches at Theſſalonica and Ieruſalem, were each of them more then one Congregation; and of Mr. Baynes his Iudgement therein. Of the Aſsembly mentioned Luke 12. And whether our Saviour did there ſpeake to his Diſciples onelyonly, or to all the people alſo.
IT is a wonder to me ſaith our Author Page 457. That Theſſalonica was but one Congregation—yet the Apoſtle aſcribeth to them that which is a note to worthy Baynes of the unmerous multitude of the Church of Jeruſalem, from whence went the word of Ged to all the World. 1 Theſ. 1. 8. For from you ſounded out the word of the Lord not onelyonly in Macedonia, and Achaia, but in every place your Faith to God-ward is ſpread abroad.
Anſw. All this doth not hinder but Theſſalonica might be one Congregation, though perhaps a great one. For that the word did ſound out from them to others, and their Faith to Godward was ſpread abroad, what is there in all this to prove they were many Congregations in one Church? And for Mr. Baynes whom our Author worthily counts a worthy man, there is nothing in him that will ſerve Mr. Rutherford his purpoſe, but much that makes for the contrary. For it is well known in his Dioceſans Triall he maintaines at large, that Churches by the appointment of Chr…ſt are Congregationall, and denyes that one Congregation may be one Church: and in the particular inſtances of the Church, at Jeruſalem, at Co…i…th, at Epheſus, at Antioch and others, he holds the very ſame that we do, and the direct contrary to that which Mr. Rutherford ſtands for. And therefore whereas he wonders that Theſſalonica ſhould bee one Congregation, conſidering what the Apoſtle ſaith of them, and what Mr. Baynes hath ſaid of Jeruſalem, I may more juſtly wonder that he ſhould once mention Mr. Baynes in this cauſe. For if ever there was man in this world that deny…d many Congregations to be one Church, and allowed onelyonly ſuch Churches to be inſtituted of Chriſt as may meete ordinarily in one Congregation, this Mr. Baynes was one of them; and therefore a wonder it is to me that Mr. Rutherford ſhould thinke to have help from him in this queſtion. But let us conſider what it is that Mr Baynes doth ſay of the Church at Ieruſalem: Why, this which the Apoſtle affirmeth of the Theſſalonians Mr. Baynes doth make a note of the numerous multitude of the Church at Ieruſalem. But doth hee make it a note of many Congregations in one Church at Ieruſalem? If he do, this were ſomething to the purpoſe, I grant. But I hope Mr. Rutherford will not ſo report of Mr. Baynes; For it is plaine Mr. Bayne… doth not ſo ſpeake, but expreſly ſaith the direct contrary; and therefore what ever numerous multitude might be in that Church, and what ever might be a note of ſuch multitude, except Mr. Baynes had ſaid that the multitude was ſuch as made many Congregations and yet all but one Church (which he never ſaid but the contrary) there is no help to be had from Mr. Baynes in this buſineſſe. For who knoweth not that there might be a numerous multitude, and yet but one Congregation? Sure in Mr. Baynes his judgement it might be ſo, and therefore though hee grant a numerous multitude in this Church at Jeruſalem, yet Mr. Rutherford purpoſe for many Congregations in Theſſal…nica and yet all but one Church, is not gained, nor at all holpen thereby.
Which will better appeare if Mr. Baynes his Argumentation in the place which I conceive Mr. Rutherford aymes at, be conſidered in Page 3. of his Dioceſans Tryall, he propounds an Argument of theirs who would have many Congregations to be one Church, taken from the example of the ancient Churches of Rome and Alexandria, laid down in theſe words: If the multitude of Chriſtians did in Ieruſalem ſo increaſe within a little time, that they exceeded the proportion of one Congregation, how much more likely is it that Chriſtians in Rome and Alexandria did ſo increaſe in 200 yeares, that they could not keepe in one particular Aſſembly: But the firſt is true, Ergo alſo the latter. Now when he cames to anſwer this Argument, Pag. 18, 19. What doth he then ſay. Firſt of all he ſaith, The Propoſition is not of neceſſary conſequence, for there were ſaith he very extraordinary reaſons of that which was effected in Ieruſalem: And ſo he proceeds to mention 5, or 6. reaſons in particular, of which one is this which it may be Mr. Rutherford hath an eye unto, that the ſtate of this Church was ſuch as that it was to ſend out light to all others, a common aurſery to the World. And therefore if the thing were granted that in Jeruſalem there was a numerous multitude, yea ſuch a multitude as could not be contained in one Congregation, yet ſaith he, It doth not follow from this particular to the ſo great increaſing of theſe Churches, to wit, of Rome and Alexandria in tract of time. And even ſo may I ſay, it doth not follow to the ſo great increaſing of the Church of the Theſſalonians, there being ſuch extraordinary reaſons for that which was effected in Ieruſalem, as neither Rome nor Alexandria, nor yet Theſſalonica could alledge the ſame. And this is his Anſwer to the Propoſition. But for the Aſſumption, where Mr. Rutherford his help muſt chiefly lye, to wit, that the multitude of Chriſtians in Ieruſalem did exceed the proportion of one Congregation, this Mr. Baynes doth expreſly deny: not to mention, ſaith he, That we do deny the Aſſumption. Therefore, the Propoſition being by Mr. Baynes not yeelded, and the Aſſumption expreſly denyed, I ſee not how Maſter Rutherford can have any help to his cauſe from either of both.
He denyes not, he ſaith, What Mr. Tompſon and I do ſay, that 5000 may meet to hear the word, many thouſands were gathered together, Luke 12 to heare Chriſt.
Anſw. If this be not denyed, then ſuppoſe there were 5000 or more in the Church at Ieruſalem, it doth not follow therefore that that Church was many Congregations, and ſo our purpoſe is gained.
But we, he ſaith, Leave out the inconveniences of thronging ſo all at once, for they trod one upon another. Second, Chriſt Preached not to all thoſe thouſands at once, for it is expreſly ſaid verſe 1. Hee began to ſay to his Diſciples; ſo, Chriſt refuſing to Preach to ſuch a diſorderly confluence of people, who could not heare, and his Doctrine being all for his Diſciples, the very Sermon being Preached to his Diſciples onelyonly—evidenceth to me that Chriſt condemneth a numerous multitude to heare at once.
Anſw. The Queſtion is not about the conveniency or inconveniency of ſuch exceſſively great Aſſemblies; but whether there be an impoſſibility in Nature, and reaſon, that ſo many as are ſaid to bee in the Church at Ieruſalem ſhould aſſemble and come together in one Congregation; for this is ſometimes ſaid for the proving of ſundry Congregations in that one Church. Now if this be not impoſſible, then the plurality of Congregations in that one Church cannot bee concluded by thoſe great multitudes that were therein. And that it is not impoſſible for ſuch great multitudes to come together in one Congregation, the Scripture alledged Luke 12, doth witneſſe. If they trod one upon another, that might argue the Aſſembly was very great, and that they were very deſirous to bee neere unto our Saviour for their better hearing, but doth not at all prove that ſuch multitudes are ſo great as that they cannot poſſibly be ſpoke unto and heare in one Congregation. And therefore, whereas our Brother ſaith, Chriſt preached not to all thoſe thouſands at once, and that he refuſed to Preach to ſuch a diſorderly confluence of People, With favour of ſo worthy a man, I thinke the truth is otherwiſe. For though he began to ſpeak to his Diſciples, verſe 1. And exhorted them againſt worldly carefulneſſe, verſe 22. Yet others who were not Diſciples were preſent, and did alſo heare his Sermon: Witneſſe that in verſe 13. Where it is ſaid that one of the company (interrupting our Saviour as it ſeemes) demands of him that hee would ſpeake to his Brother about dividing the Inheritance; to whom our Saviour makes anſwer, verſe 14. Which plainly …hewes that all the p…eſent company were not Diſciples. Yea whereas it is ſaid, that hereupon our Saviour ſpake to them of bewaring and taking heed of Coveteouſneſſe, verſe 15. And ſp…ke a Parable to them of a certain rich man, verſe 16. And after this ſaid to his Diſciples, verſe 22. Take …o thought for your life what you ſhall eate, &c. It appeareth hereby that theſe perſons ſpoken to afterward verſe 15, 16, &c. Were not the Diſciples, who were ſpoken to afterward, verſe 22. But were ſome other people beſides. And what can be more plaine then that in verſe 54. where it is expreſly ſaid, that Chriſt ſpake unto the people, rebuking them for their hypocriſie, that could diſcerne the face of the Skye, and of the Earth, but could not diſcerne that time? And he ſaid alſo to the people, ſaith the Text; doth it not plainly appeare hereby that as Myriads of people were gathered together, ver. 1 So our Saviour ſpake the word unto thoſe people? I ſuppoſe the thing is manifeſt, and that therefore our Brothers words cannot ſtand, when he ſaith, That Christ Preached not to that confluence of people, but refuſed ſo to do, his Doctrine being all for his Diſciples, For we ſee the Holy Ghoſt witneſſeth that hee ſpake not onelyonly to his Diſciples, but to the people alſo: Chemniti…s hath theſe words, Neg…ri non poteſt …n hac ſatis prolixi concione, &c. It cannot bee denyed that Chriſt in this long Sermon of his, directed his ſpeech firſt to his Diſciples, ſecond to his friends, Third to one of the company. Fourth to Peter demanding a queſtion. Fift to all the multitude, and it ſeemes the Ev…ngeliſt was willing as it were to reckon up theſe ſeverall parts or members of the Sermon, Harmon. chap. 110. And the Refuter of Dr. Downams Sermon ſaith, The mention of many thouſands in Jeruſalem doth not make the number ſuch as by no meanes could meete together in the publike worſhip of God, ſeeing it is apparent, Luke 12. 1. that the people which aſſembled unto Chriſt and partake his 'Doctrine were alſo many Myriads: and albeit he began at the firſt to ſpeake to his Diſciples verſe 1. Yet afterward he ſpake to all the people aſſembled, ver. 13. 15. 54. Reply P. 2. P. 90. Wherefore though our Brother ſay Chriſt ſpake not to theſe multitudes of people but to his Diſciples onelyonly, yet ſith wee have the …ext it ſelfe, and the judgement of two Divines of chiefe note, expreſly witneſſing the contrary, therefore we cannot aſſent to him herein. Whereas Chryſoſtome ſaith 5000 did heare his voyce at once in one Congregation by meanes of Scaffolds and Galleries, and Mr. Mather is willing to yeeld 8120 were all aſſembled in one place to heare the word, and that all the multitude of Converts at Ieruſalem were together in Solomons Porch Acts 5 12. I grant 3000 could heare at once, but alas &c Page 458. Anſw. If Chryſoſtomes teſtimony be of any weight, or Mr. Baynes his teſtimony by whom Chryſoſtome is alledged Dioceſans Triall, Page 16. Then a muſt be granted that not only 3000, but a greater number, even 50…0 at leaſt may heare the word at once. And if ſo, then 5000 members in the Church at Ieruſalem will not prove plurality of Congregations in one Church, foraſmuch as here are 5000 people and yet no more Congregations but one.
But alas this is a great uncertainty for independant Congregations, but this is to be proved, firſt that 8000 (Mr. Mather hath not added many other multitudes mentioned, Acts 5. 14. & 6. 17.) did meete dayly in the Temple. Second, dayly or ordinarily from houſe to houſe. Third, to celebrate the Lords Supper dayly in the Temple and in every private houſe, and there were need of many Scaffolds and Galleries, to ſit at one Table. Fourth, to make one Judicature, &c.
Anſw. He that ſhall look upon the Anſwer Page 34 will plainely ſee that I have here ſpoken to both thoſe places of Acts 5. 14. & 6 1. Shewing that neither of them do prove a plurality of Congregations in this Church at Ieruſalem, but rather the contrary. And therefore this Parentheſis which doth intimate that I have omitted to ſpeake to theſe places, muſt not be aſſented to, but denyed.
But why muſt theſe foure particulars be proved? I ſuppoſe he meanes becauſe of that which is ſaid Act. 2 46. They continued dayly with one accord in the Temple, &c. But this doth not cleere it, that theſe foure particulars muſt needs be proved, and the reaſon is; Firſt, becauſe Iudicature which is one of the particulars, is not mentioned at all in that Scripture; nor is it ſaid by us, that a dayly exerciſe thereof is neceſſary in every Church or in any. Second, the Lord Supper, which is another of the particulars, is not mentioned at all in that Text, at leaſtwiſe not in thoſe words or termes which Mr. Rutherford ſets down; much leſſe is it ſaid as he expreſſeth it, that they did dayly celebrate the ſame both in the Temple and in every private houſe: nor can the ſame for ought I know be proved by this or by any other Scripture, nor was ſuch a thing ever affirmed by us, ſo farre as I know. I ſuppoſe if they had celebrated it in the Temple alone, or in ſome private houſe or houſes alone, that might have been ſufficient, without any neceſſity of celebrating the ſame in both places upon one day, both in the Temple and in the houſes too. Nay it is a queſtion whether the Lords Supper bee at all intended in this place; though I doubt not but they obſerved that Ordinance, and verſe 42. may poſſibly teach ſo much. But for the verſe we are ſpeaking of, viz, Verſe 46▪ there is no neceſſity that the breaking of Bread there ſpoken of, muſt needs be meant of that Ordinance. Sure he was a judicious expoſitor who underſtands it otherwiſe, Quod hic fractionem panis &c. That is, whereas ſome expound breaking of Bread in this place of the Lords Supper, it ſeems to me to be farre from Lukes intention: Calvin in Act. 2. 46. So then, of Mr Rutherfords foure particulars which he ſaith we muſt prove, there is not paſt the halfe of them that needs to be proved at all, the two laſt being already removed. And for a third which is of breaking of Bread dayly and ordinarily from houſe to houſe, underſtand this breaking of Bread as Calvin doth, of their civill repaſt, and then it hurts not our cauſe at all, though it be yeelded that they did dayly meet for ſuch purpoſe in ſeverall companies, in their private houſes; for this they might do and bee no more but one Congregation. There remaines therefore onelyonly one that needs to be proved, namely the firſt, that they did dayly meete in the Temple; and this may bee proved with caſe, becauſe the plain words of the Text do affirme it, They continued dayly with one accord in the Temple; ſo that yet we have found nothing that proves Ieruſalem to be many Congregations in one Church.
Nay I conceive, that one of theſe foure particulars, viz. The firſt, of their dayly meeting in the Temple, doth apparently ſhew that how great ſoever the number was, yet it was not exceeding the proportion of one Congregation, which might come together in one place; For the Temple was but one in all the City, I meane there was but onelyonly one individuall Temple, and not many Temples, which if there had been then our Brethren might poſſibly have ſaid, that they met diſtributively in ſundry leſſer companies, but were to many too meete all in one Congregation; for ſo they were wont to expound ſundry other phraſes uſed by the Holy Ghoſt, to declare their comming together. True ſay they, they come together, but how? Not collectively all of them together in one place, they were too many for that; but they came together diſtributively, ſome of them in one place, and ſome in another, and ſo they think they have anſwered ſufficiently. But now to this of their meeting together in the Temple, they cannot anſwer ſo; for then there ſhould have been ſundry Temples, in which they might have met, diſtributed into ſundry companies; but there being no more Temples but one, and the Text affirming plainly that they all met with one accord, in the Temple, it muſt needs be, that they met collectively, all of them together in one and the ſame place; and hence it followeth, that they were not ſo many but ſtill they might be one Congregation as well as one Church.
So that of the foure particulars, which he ſaith we muſt prove, ſome wee ſee need not to be proved at all, and the firſt of them which we can prove with caſe doth make much for the weakning of his cauſe, and for the ſtrengthening of ours.
Yea Mr. Mather will have the whole containing as one independant Congregation, Act. 6. 1, 2, 3, 4. And the many Myriads or thouſands of beleeving Jewes, Acts 21. 21, 22, 23. To meete as one Congregation.
Anſw. When in the Anſwer I ſpeake of theſe places, the word Independant was not there uſed by me at all, but only is here added by himſelfe, for what cauſe himſelfe can beſt tell. But for the matter, I conceive the thing which I there delivered is cleere from the Texts themſelves, that the multitude of thoſe Iewes did aſſemble and come together, in one place; for as for one of the places Act. 6. It is expreſly there ſaid that the Apoſtles called the multitude together to propoſe unto them the choice of Deacons, verſe 2▪ and bad them look out from amongſt themſelves ſeaven Men, qualifyed as the Apoſtles do there deſcribe, verſe 3. whereupon it is ſaid that the ſaying pleaſed the whole multitude and they choſe ſeaven who are there named verſe 5. and preſented them unto the Apoſtles that they might lay their hands on them, verſe 6. Which plainely ſhewes that the whoſe multitude how many ſoever they were, yet were not ſo many, but they might all aſſemble in one place, to heare matters propoſed to them, to conſider thereof, and upon liking to put them in execution, as in other things ſo in this particular, of making election of Officers, as there they are Recorded to have done. And as for the other place Act. 21. though it be a Queſtion, whether thoſe many thouſand Iewes, that beleeved were all members, of that one Church at Jeruſalem, yet it cannot be any queſtion, whether they might come together in one place, ſith Iames and the Elders do expreſly there ſay unto Paul, the multitude muſt needs come together, for they will heare that thou art come. Nor can we ſay they might come together onelyonly diſtributively, in ſundry companies, but not all in one place, for the end of their comming together will not beare that expoſition, which end was, that they might ſee, and heare Paul, and try what ſatisfaction he would give them, in the matter whereof they were informed of him, that he taught the Iewes, to forſake Moſes, and to omit Circumciſion and other Iewiſh cuſtomes. Theſe things they were informed to have been taught by him amongſt the Gentiles, and hearing that he was come to the City, they muſt needs come together to heare what he would ſay to the matter, and how hee would cleere himſelfe. Now if this was the end of their comming together it muſt needs be that their comming was altogether unto one place, and not in ſeverall companies; for this could not anſwer their end, inaſmuch as Paul being but one perſon, it was not poſſible they could ſee him, nor heare him in ſundry places at once; and therefore they might as well have ſtaid at home, and not have come together at all, as come together in ſuch ſort.
Plaine it is therefore, that the multitude ſpoken of in theſe two Scripures were not ſo many but they might meete in one Congregation.
Which point as ſomething hath been ſaid in the Anſwer P. 34, 35. For the cleering of it, ſo I am the more confirmed in it by Mr. Rutherford his dealing concerning theſe Scriptures. For though he make mention of them in this place, as we ſee, and of that apprehenſion of mine concerning thoſe Scriptures, yet he doth not at all remove the grounds, which were given for that apprehenſion in the Anſwer, but doth wholly paſſe them by in ſilence. Now taking occaſion to ſpeak of the Scriptures, and relating what my apprehenſion was concerning the ſame, and yet ſaying nothing at all to the gronnds, whereon that apprehenſion was built, it ſeemes hereby to bee implyed that indeed he had nothing in readineſſe to object againſt the ſame. So that I may ſtill conceive of thoſe Scriptures as I did before, for any thing yet brought to induce me to be of another mind.
As for that which next followes, certainly the Apoſtles practice must be our rule, and then 500 or 1000 being ſo farre beneath 10 or 8000, may well ſeeme a number for fewneſſe not competent, and what ſhall wee then thinke of 7 only, or 10.
Anſw. The anſwer is, that the Apoſtles practiſe doth not at all condemn ours, though our Congregations have not in them the like numbers, but ſometimes more and ſometimes leſſe; for was it not ſo in that Primative Apoſtolike Church? Is it not plain, that that Church was for number farre leſſer at the firſt, then afterward, when they grew to 4000 or more; and yet after this they grew to be fewer againe, when Perſecution ſcattered them all abroad except the Apoſtles, Act. 8. 1. And therefore if 10 or 8000, being once the number in that Church, be a rule condemning out Churches, as being for fewneſſe not competent, when they are beneath that number, how will it be avoided but by the ſame reaſon the practiſe of that Church at one time, ſhall be a rule, for the condemning of it ſelf at another time? For ſure it is, their number was not at all times alike, but ſometimes more, and ſometimes leſſe; as in the Sea it is not alwayes full tyde, but ſometimes low ebbe, nor is the Moone alwayes at full, but ſometimes at the Change; Nay if the Apoſtles practiſe muſt be our rule, then inaſmuch as their Churches, had not alwayes the like numbers of members in them, but ſometimes the number was greater, and ſometimes leſſer, it will follow therefore that the number of members in our Churches needs not alwayes to bee the ſame, but though greater numbers be lawfull, yet the lawfulneſſe of leſſer numbers may not be denyed.