CHAP. I. Of Gathering Churches .

I Asserted in my answer , That the Apostles never taught or practised to gather or separate some Christians from others , one part of this true Church , and another part of that , ( especially persons which themselves converted not ) to make a purer Church , neither with , nor without the Magistrates Authority . To this you Reply : The Apostles both taught and practised the separating of some Jews from other Jews , and gathering them into a Christian Church , while yet the Jewish Church was not dissolved : for they ceased not to be a Church of God , till the body of them pertinaciously and desperatly rejected Christ : Therefore they preached to the Jews first , and thought themselves bound so to do , because they were the people of God Acts 11.19 . & 13.46 . And yet they had commanded some to separate from the rest ( as your self acknowledg ) Acts 2.40 . And their communion they had with them in Iewish worships , shews that they counted them a true Church . And some think that their Church state ceased not while their Temple stood . And yet before that time many Iews were gathered into many Christian Churches , as both the Acts of the Apostles , and their Epistles do declare . And if they might gather out of one Church , they might as lawfully have gathered out of twenty , or an hundred , had there been so many at that time .

Rejoynder 1. Suppose ( at present ) that the Jewish Church was then a true Church and not yet dissolved , yet it was then in dissolving and ceasing to be a true Church , your own words [ Yet the Iewish Church was not dissolved ] do intimate so much , and the thing is undeniable , that Church was but to continue for a time , and then to be dissolved by Gods appointment . As it was said of the two covenants , that the first was taken away that the other might be established , Heb. 1● . So it was with those two Churches , that legal , this Evangelical ; the first was taken away , that the other might be established : and therefore separation from the then Jewish Church was more warrantable , then from our Churches , unless you count them true Churches only in the sense you speak of , viz. the body of them have not pertinaciously and desperatly rejected Christ come in the flesh , and that ( as the Jewish Church then ) they now are to be dissolved , yea that they are in dissolving by Gods appointment , and ceasing to be true Churches , notwithstanding the progress that is made in Reformation .

2. You do not reply directly and pertinently but obliquely and evadingly ( though in your last book called the Congregational way justifyed P. 17. You are bold to say , that no reply can more front or diametrically oppose my Answer then yours doth ) yea , I dare appeal to your selves whether a precept or president of gathering or separating a Church out of the Churches of Galatia , Corinth , Laodicea , because of their many and great corruptions would not have more fronted , and bin more point-blank opposite to that part of my ( as your wisdoms stile it ) confused answer then this instance of the Jewish Church . For first , Did ever any man deny that there might then be separation from the Jewish Church ? Could you think I did deny it ? Your selves cite me acknowledging it , and you could not but know after I had published my Epistle and Quere's ( what ever you did before ) that an instance of separation from true Christian Churches , would most diametrically have opposed my answer which speaks not of separation of Christians from Jews ( as your instance doth ) but of some Christians from others , and I dare witness thus much for you , that if you had such a one , you would have preferred it before the other . Secondly , Whereas you say in your last P. 18. That you do not consider that Church as Iewish , but under the notion of truth , you acknowledg that you do not consider it as you ought to have considered it , for the seperation was from that Church as it was Jewish , having officers and ordinances different from the Christian Church , which hath Ministers in stead of Priests , which hath not bodily sacrifices of beasts , nor such Sacraments and Ceremonial services , nor the presence of God in one place especially , as the Jews had , and the lawfulness of separation from that Church , ( if it were then a true Church , and had not been Jewish ) is stil uncleared . 3. The Reformed Churches and Ministers , are not to be compared to the then Jewish Church and the Priests thereof , as you seem to compare them by pleading , that the Reformed Churches , and Ministers may be separated from , because the then Jewish Church and Preists were to be separated from ; nor is this concerning the Ministers impertinently shuffled in ( as in your last P. 18. You most untruly alledge ) for they which separate from a Church , do withdraw from the officers of it ; they that separated from the Jewish Church did withdraw from the obedience of their Priests , and they that separate from the Reformed Churches , do withdraw from the obedience of their Ministers , and withdrawing ( your selves tell us , Pag. 60. ) is a negative Excommunication , and therefore the Ministers have as much or more injury , then so many members have in every unjust separation from them , as your selves would say , were it your case ; but this must serve in stead of a better reply . Surely you have either too much charity to the then Jewish Church and Preists thereof , or too litle to our Churches and Ministers . 4. That Church was but one , and you should shew gathering out of several Churches , for whereas you alledge they might have gathered out of twenty , or an hundred , had there been so many at that time . I answer , that it may be there were twenty , possibly an hundred Churches while the Jewish Temple stood : your selves say there were many Christian Churches , and yet I doubt not but you will acknowledg both , that no Churches were gathered or separated out of those or any other true Christian Churches , and also that it is more lawful and orderly to separate the pretious of one Christian Church from the vile therein , and the Godly party to cast out the incurable sinfull party 1 Cor. 5.12 . Then to separate some persons of severall Churches into one distinct Church , the former being not a gathering of a Church but a reforming and purging of it , which is warranted by Scripture .

3. Whereas you speak much both in your former and latter Book , of the truth of the then Jewish Church , I pray you what trueness mean you ? A naturall trueness , as a thief or a lyar is a true man , ( id est ) truly a man , and Sathan a true spirit that is truly a spirit , or a morall trueness , viz. that it held and taught the way of salvation , dare you say that the Jewish Church then did hold and teach the way of salvation ? Did they not pertinaciously and desperatly reject Christ ? No not while their Temple stood , as you say , some think ? The Scripture calls them an untoward generation , from which it exhorts tho e that were pricked in their hearts , ( which were but few in respect of the body of the Jews ) to save themselvs , and from amongst which the Lord converted and added to the Christian Church , such as should be saved , Acts 2.40.47 . And they did put the word from them being filled withenty , contradicting and blaspheming , Acts 13.45.46 . Again the Apostle . Rom. 11.11 , 12 , 15 , 19. Plainly implyeth , that the Jewish Church ceased to be a true Church , did fall , was broken off , cast away , before salvation came to the Gentiles . Nor do your Scriptures or reasons solidly prove that the Jewish Church was then a true Church ; for one of your texts , Acts 11. which you produce for that purpose saith , That they that were scattered ( whom in this place you call Apostles contrary to Scripture , Acts 8.1 . and your own assertion elsewhere ; Defence , P. 4. ) Preached some to the Jews only , and some when they were come to Antioch , to the Grecians also , Acts 11.20 . Now the Grecians were not then a Church of God , nor gathered ( yourselvs say ) into Church state til Barnabas was sent to them , Defence p. 4. The other text mentions their Preaching to the Jews first , but that they thought themselves bound to Preach to the Iews first , because they were the people of God , is your gloss , which cannot be inferred from your texts joyntly or severally ; you know Gods command might make it necessary , they should Preach to the Jews first , whether they were at that very time the people of God or no , and that was the true reason of it , as you may see by comparing Acts 13.46.47 . with , Math. 10.1.5.6 . But neither their Preaching first to the Jews nor afterwards to the Gentiles , doth evince that either of them were then the people of God . As for the Communion the Apostles had with the Jews which is your second argument , to prove the trueness of the then Jewish Church , I would you had expressed what Communion what worships you mean , if that which you count properly Church-Communion , then the Apostles did not ( as you say they did ) teach and practise seperation from the then Jewish Church , at least not a totall one , they had yet Church Communion with her , if you mean not Church Communion which is properly and peculiarly such , then it did not shew that they counted her a true Church : Though the Apostles being Jews and formerly members of that Church might become Iews to the Iews , 1 Cor. 9.20 . That they might ga●n the Iews and give no offence , Acts 21. ( which is unlawful to do to those that are within or without the Church , 1 Cor. 10.32 . ) Might give great respect to the Jewish Church and worships even after they were then dead , as in some places by way of funeral pomp , the honour done to great personages by their attendants while they lived is in measure continued to them after their death , till they be buried , as uncovering the head , carrying maces and scepters before them , &c.

Lastly , Vnless you can solidly prove 1. That the Jewish Church was then a true Church by a morall trueness . 2 That there is or ought to be such a change of our Ministry , Sacraments , and service of God in the Churches gathered from amongst us , as was then of the Jewish Priesthood , Sacraments , and service of God , in those Churches which were gathered from amongst them . 3 That the Reformed Churches and Ministers , may as lawfully be forsaken as the then Jewish Church and the Priests thereof . 4 That you have authority to gather Churches amongst us , as wel as the Apostles had for gathering Churches from amongst the Jews . 5 That men are bound to become Independents when they hear you preach , as the Jews were to become Christians when they heard the voyce of the great Prophet , Deut. 18.18 , 19. Vnless also you can invalidate my other fore-mentioned exceptions against this instance I would advise you to lay it aside and to pass to another argument .

Sect. 2. Reply , P. 2. Secondly , if the Apostles never taught nor practised such a thing , what warrant then have our brethren for their Presbyterian Church , which is gathered out of many Churches ? For they interpret , Mat. 18.17 . Tell the Church , of a Presbyterian Church , which consists of the Elders of many Churches .

Rejoynder . What do you hence conclude that the Apostles taught and practised to gather some Christians from others , one part of this true Church , & c ? This is it which P. 18. of your last Book you profess to shew at large in this and the subsequent particulars , then belike you acknowledg that the gathering of Presbyterian Churches is according to the doctrin and practise of the Apostles . 2 Between a Presbyterian Church and your gathered and seperated Church there is most difference . For , 1 A Presbyterian Church is not a particular congregation , nor are al her members accounted to be members of a particular congregation , much less covenanted members such as yours are . 2 She doth not refuse the communió of those congregations , out of which you say it is gathered , and therefore cannot be called a seperated Church . 3. She is gathered with the consent of her societies . 4 She doth not cast off the care of government of those societies , but her gathering makes much for the better government of them , and for setling of truth and peace in them , as the convening in Parliament of the principall patriots , out of severall Counties doth make for the good government of the State . Lastly , their gathering is warranted ( as hereafter Pos . 3. & 4. may appear ) by the Doctrin● and practice of the Apostles which you cannot shew of yours . Interim you may take notice that Mr. Cotton himself as he doth assert that Synods rightly ordered and classes and conventions of Presbyters of particular Churches are all one , keyes . P. 42. So he doth call a Synod a Congregation of Churches , or a Church of Churches , which is as much as to say , there is a Presbyterian Classical Church , but of this and of Mat. 17. I shal speak more hereafter .

Sect. 3. Reply , p. 2. Thirdly , why may not one Church be gathered of the members of many Churches , as wel as many Churches consist of the members of one Church ? For we read that the Church at Jerusalem was scattered upon Stevens persecution , and we read not that they returned again , but fell into membership with other Churches , ( as is probable ) which were planted in severall parts of the world .

Rejoynder . Yes they may ; in these troublous times , one family hath oft bin divided into more families ; part of them at Manchester , another at home ; and one family hath consisted of the members of many families , possibly the heads of several Country families have taken one house and dyeted together , yea it may be in times of persecution , wives may live apart from their husbands , and their husbands live together apart from their wives , yet it were strang boldness to say that the Apostles taught and practised the seperation of several husbands , and gathering them into a distinct family from their wives , and it is no less unreasonable from the necessitous condition of a scattered persecuted Church , to infer that the Apostles taught and practised to seperate some Christians &c. Your selves do intimate P. 14. That one Church may meet in many places , in some time of hot persecution , may we thence conclude that the Apostles taught and practised the meeting of one Church in many places ? 2. You read as much of the return of the scattered disciples to Jerusalem , as you read of their falling into membership with other Churches , if therefore it be probable ( as you say it is ) that they fell into membership with other Churches , I am sure it is as probable that they ere long did return to Jerusalem , seing there was the first Church , the chief Church in which the Apostles continued as officers , whose doctrin and government all that were members of that Church could not but much desire , and the persecution was but short though sharp . Acts 9.31.3 . Your selves do in effect acknowledg that this argument doth not necessarily ( if it do probably ) conclude the undertaken conclusion . 4. They that fell into membership with other Churches did not ( nor do you think they did ) separate from the Church of Jerusalem , or refuse communion with her or with the godly of her , aiming at a purer Church , and unless you had shewn this , you have not performed what you say you have performed . When the scattered Disciples left the Church of Jerusalem it was their affliction , not their choice , much less was it their duty , as you pretend your separation to be .

Sect. 4 Reply , p. 2. Fourthly , such a Church which consists of the members of many other true Churches , hath formerly bin without exception in the days of the Prelates ; how comes it now to be questioned ? For at least fourteen years since , such a Church was extant in Wirrall in Cheshire , ( the vocal covenant being only wanting ) which consisted of the choicest Christians of many parishes . And we think it cannot be denied , but Mr. Iohn Angiers Church at Denton in Lancashire , hath of long time been such , and many other such there have been besides . And it was accounted an high happiness to have liberty to make such a Church ; but was never accounted by the godly sinful before . If assembling constantly together , and participating in all the Ordinances that the rest do partake of , and contributing with the rest in the maintenance of the Minister of such a place , and an adhering rather to such a Minister and people , then to any other in affection and action , make members of a Church , then these persons of other Parishes were members , and with the rest made such Churches .

Rejoynder , 1. If all this were granted it is but an humane testimony not divine , nor can you though you should produce a 1000 more instances ( as you might ) 2 I am informed , and in part know that these were not gathered separated Churches , for those members of other Churches did not refuse communion in Parish-assemblies , they grieved when they were deprived of it for non-conformity ; they did not exclude all that were not visible Saints , much less the known godly of other Churches from their Sacraments , they aimed not principally ( it at all ) at a purer Church but a better Ministry , they possibly having no Ministry at their parish Churches , or a bad one , and it may be dwelling neerer to those , then to their own parochial assemblies , and you confess they wanted the vocal Covenant , and I suppose also they wanted subscription , and signals , of their mutual consent that they would be a Church together ; and they resorted sometimes to their parish meetings , and if they had had such Ministers there , and liberty of conscience in point of gesture as in other places , it may be thought they would not have sought else where . 3 Suppose there were such a Church in the days of the Prelates , and that it was then lawful too ; can you thence infer that it is still lawful , though Innovations and scandalous Ministers and other offensive things be removed , have you as great occasion still of withdrawing as they then had ? 4 That such a separation was never accounted sinful by the godly before is too large a speech , if you mean , That the separation which then was used by them that used it , and possibly by some others was approved , I contend not : but that no godly man accounted it sinful , ordinarily to frequent another assembly ( especially if they had a Minister of ordinary parts and piety ) I cannot think . As for your separation many godly did account it sinful , yea the most eminent non-conformists , yea they which did best affect congregational government ; yea you two have often told me and others of my godly brethren , That you are free in your judgment to baptize my child , or the children of any godly Minister , or member of our Church , or to receive us to the Sacrament amongst you : now if you would act according to your own Principles , ( which I should conceive my self bound in conscience to do in this case ) and would inform your Churches of their duty herein , your separation would be less offensive ; but how you can account admission of us to your Sacraments lawful and yet the denyal , of it not sinful , I see not .

Sect. 5. Reply , P. 3. Fifthly , are not some parish Churches constituted sometimes of members of other parish Churches , when many persons have left their own places , and removed into other Parishes without any consent ? Sixthly , that a Church may consist of persons that have been members of other Churches , if such persons have been orderly dismissed from such Churches , and have come away with consent , wil be granted of all .

Rejoynder , 1. What then ? wil you thence conclude , that the Apostles taught or practiced to gather or separate some Christians from others & c ? Did your selves ever before call this gathering of Churches or separating Christians into Churches ; is this the common acceptation of the words [ Gathering of Churches ] or separating Christians into Churches ? Did your selves dream that was my meaning , or the thing I put you to prove ? Doth remooval from one parish to another , imply the forsaking of , or separating from the communion of the former parish , and refusal to receive the Sacraments with the godly of the former parish ? If not , how doth it , can it justifie your kind of separation from all our parish-assemblies ? And yet you argue thus ; remooval from one parish to another hath bin judged pious or at least honest , therefore your separation is pious and honest , and you should conclude therefore the Apostles taught and practised your separation . For you know the question is not what is judged pious and honest by men , but what is so judged by the spirit of God . Truly I might as well argue , some separation from our parish-assemblies is sinful ( as that of the Papists , Brownists &c. ) Therefore yours is so . And indeed whether your separation be with consent or no it is not much material , for it is sinne to consent sent to such a separation , and sinne to separate , whatsoever consent you have : shew that your gathering of Churches with consent , or without consent is justifyed by the doctrin and practise of the Apostles , and it shal serve your turn .

Sect. 6. Reply p. 3. Suppose some Ordinances , be corruptly dispensed , without all hope of redress , and that men must partake therein without having any power , so much as to witness against such corruptions , unless they wil be accounted factions , and disturbers of the Churches peace ; or that by remaining where such corruptions are , they be in danger to be leavened with the corrupt lump of such a Church of which they be members ; what must they now do ? Doth not that Rule that bids a Church purge out one person that may endanger the leavening of the whole lump , ( when there are no other means to prevent such an evil ) give warrant to every member that is endangered to be leavened by the lump , to withdraw from such a lump , ( because power to purge out the lump they have none ) when there is no other means to prevent the evil ? Church-membership is for edification of the members , not for destruction .

Rejoynder , 1. These passages and your practise of gathering & seperating Churches from amongst us do pass an harsh and heavy censure on our Churches , viz. that there are amongst us not only smaller faults but greater corruptions , and those obstinately persisted in without all hope of redress ; and that there is no other means left to prevent the evil but separation , a censure so void of truth and charity , that it is worthy to be exibilated rather then confuted . 2. When there is indeed such a case as you put , a particular member may and ought humbly to admonish the Ministers and members , plead with the Church . Hose . 2.2 . Bear witness against her sinnes and errors , and act to his utmost in his place for her reformation , both by exciting ( quantum inse ) the power of that particular Congregation , and complaining to superior judicatories , but not presently to separate . The Apostle Paul , notwithstanding the incestuous person was in communion with the Church , and they were puffed up and gloried , 1 Cor. 5.1.2 . Allows worthy receivers to Communicate in it , 1 Cor. 11. 28. & 10.16 . He blames their schismes in it , ( which are less then separation from it ) 1 Cor. 11.18 . & 12.25 . And prescribes the putting away of the old leaven as a means of making a new lump , especially by casting out the grossest offender ( as the incestuous person ) first . 3. Those members which in their place laboured to reform the gross prophanation of the Sacrament , by the Incestuous man ( as it s like some few did ) and mourned for what they could not mend , were not leavened or corrupted ( no more then those of Thyatira were leavened with the false doctrin of Iezabel , by being co-members with her which had not that dostrin &c. Whom the spirit of God acquits . Revel. 2.24 . ) But they that were puffed up and neglected to use the means which they had , be it less or more to the putting of him away . If Iosua and his house serve the Lord and do what in them lies to reform the rest , they are not guilty of all the sinnes and wickedness of their tribe , much less of all the tribes or of all that were in communion with the Jewish Church ; some of your Churches have Brownists ( whose errors the Apologists call fatal shipwracks ) Anabaptists , Antinomians and possibly some other erroneous persons amongst them ; can no member be free from being corrupted and leavened by these unsound opinions ( for false doctrin leaveneth as much , and in some respects more dangerously then prophaness ) except he separate from you if he hath not power to cast them out . 4. Separation from a true Church and refusing to partake the Sacrament in it , or with the godly of it , which is your practise ( of which we speak all along ) savours much of faction , and more disturbs the Churches peace , then witnessing against the corruptions of the Church while we are in her communion , and using means to reform her : and is indeed sinful , being a remedy of your own devising ; the scripture doth require that the bad should be cast out , not that the good should cast out themselves : every person should inform the Church of a brother that wil not be gained by private admonition , and the Church should cast such a one out , but that every person should cast off the Church if the Church doth not heare him , is a step beyond our saviours direction , and we should not be wise above what is written . 5. Your selves when it is your case wil not approve it ; suppose seven or eight should separate from your Congregation , and would not admit either of you to the Sacrament , because you want the Ordinance of prophesying , of singing himnes , of annointing with oyl , holy kiss &c. Or because some are admitted to your Sacraments which they judg not fit , or because Pedobaptism is retained , or because you make not ( as they think ) separation enough from our Churches , ( which is the case of some Congregational Churches ) though they pretend to worship God in a purer way , would or could your Church approve worship God in a purer way , would or could your Church approve of their doings ? Lastly , in 2 Cor. 13.10 . Paul speaks of the power which God had given him over the Church and over every member of it , not of power given to the Church as distinct from officers , not of power given to any member to withdraw from it , not of Church-membership , at least not in your sense . But if he did speak of Church-membership , it wil not serve your turn , unless you could prove ( as you can never do ) that destruction only , and not edification is found in our assemblies , and edification only and not destruction in yours , nor can I think that you hold that every Corinthian ( if in his judgment the Apostle did use his power for destruction and not for edification ) was bound to withdraw from him , which they were too apt to do , and for which he reprehends both them and the Galatians , Gal. 1.6.1 Cor. 4.10.11.13.14.15 . 2 Cor. 10.2 . Cor. 11.

Sect. 7. But you say that I stumble at this because they converted them not : and to this you Reply , Persons whom the Apostles converted , were ordinarily committed to others to be further edified , and the ordinary Pastors and Elders of the primitive times , did almost perpetually build upon anothers foundation . The persons that watered for the most part , were not the same that planted . In Acts 11.20.21 . We read of a great conversion wrought by the preaching of the scattered Disciples , but we read not that they were gathered into Church-state , till Barnabas was sent unto them : and both Barnabas and Paul assembled with that Church and taught it , which yet they converted not . And in Acts 19.1.9 . Paul found twelve Disciples ( converted to his hand , though not fully instructed ) and gathered them into the Church which he planted at Ephesus . But ( Brother ) how comes this to be a stone to stumble at ? If you hold a succession of pastors in the same Church , the successors may feed a flock which their predecessors converted , and not themselves . And if you hold transplantation of members from one Church to another , then they may feed the members which were of other Churches , which themselves converted not .

Bejoynder , 1. I stumble not , but only discover your stumbling and falling , I never denyed or doubted that some might plant and others water ; why do you trifle away time to prove it ? 2. I brought in by a parenthesis an aggravation of the great wrong done , by separation , unto Pastors which are not only robbed of their sheep , but of their children ; in that they are gathered into such societies , as will not eat , or have Church-communion in the Sacrament with their spiritual fathers . 3. Did it not grieve Paul himself when those which God had called by his Ministry were withdrawn from him , Gal. 1. 6.1 . Cor. 4.15 . 2 Cor. 11.2.4 ? And yet they I suppose never proceeded so far as to deny him communion . If they had and should have prooved to him ( as you do to us ) that some plant and some water ( which he knew wel enough ) would this have given him satisfaction or excused their withdrawing from him ? If a father should complain that some Iesuite , Monke , or Nunn , had seduced his children from his family into their scieties , the sayd Iesuite , Monke , or Nunn might make as solid and just Apology for themselves as this is , viz. That oftimes one begetts and another brings up , and upon occasion of the death of parents , removall &c. Children are to be disposed of and transplanted into other famlies , therefore they did the father no wrong ? surely their reasoning and yours too is very weak .

Sect. 8. You suppose I may object , That this separation must be orderly done and with consent an to this you answer , P. 4. No such order can be expected , where no such order hath been wont to be exercised . If any godly person hath removed from one Country to another , and planted himself in Manchester , have the Ministers or people whom he left , sent after him , or challenged him as theirs ? Or have the Ministers or people whom he hath come to , rejected him , as none of theirs , because not orderly delivered into their hands ? Suppose the end of his removall was communion with a better people , or better Ministry , Doth this make it the worse , or more unwarrantable ? Is it lawful to remove to a fatter soil , to a purer aire , And not to a purer Church ? The purer any Church is , doth not Christ the more delight in it ? And desire to be there most ? And why may not persons desire to plant themselves where Christ gives most of his presence ? And if one man may unite to such a Church , may not many agree together to make such a Church ? And this is all the gathering of Churches that we know of , that is either taught or practised .

Rejoynder , 1. You play with your own fancy , for it is not acknowledged that your gathering of Churches is at any time orderly done , whether it be with consent or no. 2. You assert what I think your selves approve not , that order is not to be expected where it hath not bin wont to be exercised : as though custome were the guide of conscience . 3. You take it for granted , 1 That your Churches are purer Churches ( as if humane inventions sundry whereof I have discovered in Quare's , ( to which contrary to my caution given you in my Epistle ) you sent me censures in stead of answers , would make a Churth more pure . 2. That Christ doth delight in your Churches more then in ours , ( as the Anabaptists boast that they have more of Christs presence in their Churches then you in yours ) 3. That your manner of gathering and separating Christians into Churches , is as justifiable as the removal of one or many to dwel in a fatter soyl , clearer aire and under a better Ministry that they may be a purer Church , yea this ( you say ) is all the gathering of Churches you know of , I pray you consider better of it . Lastly , your selves are not determined when a Church is pure enough to live in . Hence many of you do fly from one Church to another , under pretence of attaining more purity though they are usually mistaken , as those Corinthians were , which sleighted Paul , accounting him one of the foolish things of the world , his bodily presence weak and his speech contemptible , and those foolish Galatians which accounted him their enemy because he told them the truth .

CHAP. II. Of Parishes , how they are jure Divino and how not .

Sect. 1. YOu say , the exception is , That there is a removall of persons to other Churches without the removall of their habitations . This exception you take off by saying , why should this be blamed ? 1. If distinction of Parishes by bounds and limits be not Iure Divino , where then is the fault .

Rejoynder , 1. The Parishes now are some too great , some to little , some unfitly and incommodiously divided , and where they are most fitly divided these or those limits are of politique and not of divine constitution , and are alterable upon just occasion , and the law ( if there be any such ) whereby all that dwel within such a line are accounted of the Church there , proceeds from a supposition that a due profession of Christianity is made by all the inhabitants , I say [ if there be any such law ] because many Jews , Pagans , Papists have formerly , and yet may dwel within the percinct of some Parish , as many Heathen did dwel amongst the Church-members of Jerusalem , Corinth &c. ( though no Christians of other Churches did ) and so may many ignorant and scandalous persons which by the laws of the land and orders of the Church are to be kept from our Sacraments . 2. It is most agreeable to the law of nature and scripture , that there should be Parishes , that is that Churches should be confined within convenient local limits . For first , else the members of one Congregation might live each of them , 10.20.50 . an 100. miles asunder without blame . 2. The Scripture usually denominates Churches from places , as the Churches of Ierusalem , of Rome , Antioch , Corinth , and Cenchrea are denominated respectivly from the Cities of Ierusalem , Rome &c. So that ( for ought we know ) Churches were then so exactly distinguished by local bounds , that a man might have stood in some place between Corinth and Cenchrea ; and have said no member of the Church of Corinth dwels on this side , and no member of the Church of Cenchrea on that side . 3. In constant scripture-phrase the Christian inhabitants of such a town , city or place were the Church in that city or place , The Christian Corinthians , Smyrnaeans , Laodicaeans were the Church of Corinth Smyrna , Laodicea , 1 Cor. 1.1 . 2 Cor. 6.11 . Col. 2.1 . & 4.16 . Rev. 2.8 . & 3.14 . 4. Cities and Churches in scripture-phrase do expound one another ( as you confess defence P. 16. ) Which could not be if all the members of the Church were not in the city , for certainly all the citizens ( many being Heathens ) were not of the Church , Acts chap. 16. verse 4 , 5. Acts chap. 14. ver. 23. cum Tit. c. 1. v. 5. 5. The way of Christ all along in Scripture is , That Christians dwelling together should together make one Congregation , and the converting of many Christians in a place to be a Church was all the gathering of Churches that then was . 6. They that did remove from place to place did ( it is very probable ( as your selves acknowledge page 2. in the case of the scattered disciples ) fall into membership with those Churches where they did reside , so Aquila and Priscilla might fall into membership sometime of the Church of Rome , sometime of the Church of Corinth , &c. Acts 18.2 , 24 , 25 , 26. Rom. 16.3 . and so many persons removing their places may well be of other Churches and yet transgress no scripture Rules , as your separation doth . 7. If Church-members should not cohabite , how can Pastors feed the flock that is amongst them , and be resident with them if they be not resident amongst themselves ? 8 This is a pattern uncontrouled by preceps and other patterns , which kind of pattern ( your selves say , Defence , p. 15. ) hath doctrine in it , for no instance can be given , either that any dwelt in a Town or City where there was a Church , though very corrupt , as Corinth , Laodicea , Sardis , &c. and was a member of a Church in another City or Town , as Cenchrea , &c. Or that any dwelt neerer to one Church , and was a member of a remoter Church , Or that any Christians dwelling remote one from another , were united into one particular Church . This hath also the consent of godly learned men , as Mr Carwright , Mr Parker , and others non-conformists , which agree against the Brownists in the lawfulness and expediencie of confining , for orders sake , particular Churches within the bounds of distinct Parishes ; and in New England it self ( as I hear ) Congregations are divided and bounded by the divisions and boundings of Towns and Parishes , as Cambridge , New Plimouth , Boston , &c. 3 Suppose distinction of Parishes by bounds and limits , were but of humane and Politick or ( as a nouresident Doctor in justification of his non-residency said ) of Popish institution , it will more disadvantage then advantage you ; for before the said division , many Congregations did but make one Church , and the Presbytery did teach and rule in Common , and probably the severall Assemblies were not fixed , but fluid , consisting now of some persons , and then of others ; sometimes of more , and sometimes of fewer ; and the reason of division of Parishes was , Ne administratio in promiscuo esset , Poll. Verg. intimating plainly , That no Presbyter did know his particular Congregation , whereof he had more care than another Presbyter , or then himself had of another Assembly within such and such limits , as of a City , &c. but after Division of Parishes this particular Minister and assembly were better known , more related , and fastned one to another ; if this be of a Politique or Popish institution , what do you gain by it ? 4. I cannot but observe that you plainly intimate that he that transgresseth such bounds or limits as are not jure Divino is not in any fault .

Sect. 2. Reply , P. 5.2 . Was there not liberty within this very Kingdom formerly , for persons to pay their tythes to what Minister they pleased ? And consequently , they were not tyed to the Parish they lived in , but might choose their own society and Pastor ( and hence it is , that there are some pieces of Parishes in some places six or eight miles distant from other parts of it , and whole Parishes betwixt . ) Why therefore now should there be an abridgment ?

Rejoynder , Suppose Mr. Selden say so , and that it be true that he saith yet , 1. You know this doth not evidence the doctrine and practise of the Apostles . 2. I cannot think that from their payment of tythes to such a Minister or society , it can be concluded that they did choose to be of that society , for they sometimes payd their tythes to Regulars , sometimes to Seculars , sometimes they payd one year to one , and another year to another , and possibly a 3 year to a third person . 3. That people payd their tythes to what Minister they pleased , within such or such limits , within which Ministers did administer ; and several assemblies of people did partake in ordinances promiscuously , is not so hard to beleeve as that after the division of Parishes , ( as you intimate , saying they were not tyed to their own Parish ) they did so . 4. Suppose the people had then free choice of their society and Pastor , and afterwards according to their choice Parishes were divided , ( which you to the discredit thereof make the occasion of inconvenient division of Parishes ) must it always be free , notwithstanding any obligation by consent of Churches , custome , command of authority for every private person to live where he listeth , and to choose his own society and Pastor ? Is it an abridgment of the children of your Church-members liberty to be accounted of your Church , or may they separate themselves from your communion , and gather whensoever they conceive there is just occasion into any Church which they think is purer ? Sure you must say that they may ; for seeing their parents voluntarily chose your Church , why should there now be an abridgment ?

Sect. 3. Reply , P. 5. 3d There are many inconveniences both to Minister and people , arising hence : 1. The Pastors of parish Churches are only at certainty what houses they have under their Ministry , not what persons : for they may go which way they wil leaving their houses , but their houses and lands are fixed , and they shal always find them there . 2. The members of these Churches , though they have been bred up under the wing of such Churches and Pastors thereof , and have taken a love and liking to the same , yet if they remove from their habitation but a stones cast sometimes , they must be broken off thereby from such Churches in point of Membership . 3. A mans habitation may be nearer to some Church that is out of that Parish , and so far off from his own Parish Church that he cannot conveniently repaire thereunto , must he yet be bound to his own Parish Church by his habitation ? 4. Suppose a man have many houses in several Parishes , and would desire sometimes to live in one , and sometimes in another , must he needs alter his Church membership as oft as he changeth his habitation ? Or can he be a member in all the Parishes where he hath houses ?

Rejoynder , Pastors may be at certainty what persons they at present have under their Ministry but for time to come indeed they are not certain , nor can you shew us where the word of God requireth that they should have such certainty , your selves are not certain how long you shal have your members , for death may take them away , or they may turn Anabaptists , seekers , or fall into such sinnes as they may be cast out or they may voluntarily , notwithstanding any covenant ( which binds no further then it is lawful and warrantable ) desert you : Nor are we certain what houses we shal have in our Parishes , A fire may burn them , or the sea in some places may overflow them , or the wind may blow them down , we cannot say what shal be to morrow . 2. The removeal of men from one Parish to another , is for the most part volunt●ry ( possibly ) for some secular ends and volenti non fit injuria . 3. Distinction of Parishes are in some cases , is or ought to be dispensed with where Parishes are in conveniently divided . 4. A Christian removeing from one Parish to another ; may be a member ( at least a transient one ) in any Parish where he dwels , as a man that hath houses in several counties , cities and towns , may be a member of any of those several counties , cities and towns where he dwelleth : they that were scattered from the Church of Ierusalem , fell ( you say ) into membership with other Churches , was this any inconvenience to the ? Aquila and Priscilla dwelling sometimes in one place sometimes in another , were members of several Churches . And if a Christian citizen of Corinth did dwel at Cenchrea , he did ( as is probable ) fall into the membership of the Church of Cenchrea . 5. If Parishes or neighbourhoods of people to be in one Church-society be an ordinance of God , ( as hath bin proved Sest. 5. ) then allegation of these or many more such inconveniences cannot equallize the inconveniences and unwarrantableness of your gathered or separated Churches . 6. The cohabitation of Church members is ful of conveniency , 1. For their more commodious meeting together in publike with ease , frequency , less expence of time and money . 2. Their more easy conversing with , and watching over , comforting and releeving one another . 3. For the preventing of confusion , contention , and offence . 4. For their more convenient inspection over their families that their families as wel as themselves do sanctify the Sabbath .