THE Doctor having formerly main­tained a Dispute, concerning Baptisme of Infants of Christians, against Master Browne, Preacher to the Anabaptists, lately Printed: Upon another occasi­on, meeting with one of the same Pro­fession, and using the Name of Churches, according to the common use of speech (which hath authoritie and arbitrement in the like case, according to that of the Poet; Si volet usus, quem penes arbitrium est, & vis, & norma loquendi:) The other being impatient, said; What? Doe you call your Meeting-Houses, and Steeple-Houses, Churches? The user of the word askt; If ei­ther the Name of Ecclesia in Greeke or Latine, or of Church in the English, was so unfit, or insolent? Was it not an ordinarie Metonymie, or transferring of Names, to give to the place the Name of the thing pla­ced, or meeting in the place, and haunting the same? Was not Synagoga properly an Assembly, and yet most usuall for the place of Assembling? Hence the Master of the Synagogue, Christ, taught in the Synagogues of Galile; Paul and Barnabas having entred the Syna­gogue [Page 2]on the Sabbath day, sat downe, Act. 13.14. So Ecclesia, albeit first it signifie an Assembly called toge­ther, yet fitly is used for the place; as Proseucha pro­perly signifying in the Greeke a Prayer, or Petition, is transferred to signifie the place of Petitioning: whence Juvenal hath, In quâ te quaero proseucha? In what com­mon place shall I seeke you?

But as to the English Name, Church, there is not so much as a Metonymie, or figure in it, but a proper speech, as the Affirmer offered to prove by this Rea­son:

That use of Names, which is according to the Etymon, and native force of them, is most pro­per;

But the Name of Church (as it is given to the meeting places of Christians) is used according to the Etymon, and native force and vertue thereof:

Ergo, The Name of Church, so used, is most proper.

The Assumption, or Minor, he thus proved: The Etymon of Church, is [...], Curiace, that is, a place belonging to the Lord, as Basilica to the King his Pa­lace: now Churches are the Lords Houses, therefore the Name of the Church is according to the Etymon of the word.

Here the Adversarie replyed, That no place was pe­culiarly the Lords, more then another. To whom it was answered, That sure some places were; he grant­ing, that the Temple of Jerusalem was, which God had chosen to put his Name in. It was askt, If none other? What say you (said the Affirmer) of Psal. 83.12. Let us take the Houses of God in possession; there is the Plu­rall number: and of Psal. 74.8. They burnt up all the Houses of God throughout the Land. Where the Syna­gogues are understood, not onely many yeares later then the Tabernacle, or Temple, but also having no [Page 3]mysterie in them, but appointed for use and order allanerly, as ours are; which, why they may not, and ought not to be called the Lords Houses, or [...], and Churches, no man can shew a reason. Dic aliquem, sedes, hîc Quintiliane colorem; and whosoever either ta­keth them in possession, or destroyeth the same, com­mitteth Sacriledge, a sinne ranked with Idolatrie it selfe, Rom. 2.22. Thou hatest Idols, but committest Sa­criledge.

Here the Adversarie of Churches askt; Is there any holynesse in places, albeit dedicated to God and his ser­vice? The Affirmer answered, by a distinction of holy­nesse: for, sayth he, it is Homonymum, and found in two Categories, or kinds of things; in the Categorie of Qualities, and the Categorie of Relations. Holy­nesse in the first sense, is opposed to wickednesse, or ungodlinesse, and is onely incident to rationall and intellectuall things; and it is a qualitie, disposition, or habit of the mind and affections: in the second sense, it is opposed to Common, Act. 10.15. That which I have purified (or made holy) that call thou not common; where, literally the Vision speaketh of Meats, and my­stically onely of Men. So the holy Citie, Matth. 4.5. the Temple, called the holy Place, Heb. 9.1, 2, 3. So the Vessels serving for the Ministerie, called sacred, or holy, that is, not common, but holy, by a two-fold relation to God, (who as he is holy alone, so things are holy, by reference to him) either as Lord and Possessor in a pe­culiar manner, or by reference to him, as the end for whose service and glory they are appointed and set apart, and whereto he hath promised his presence; which may be reckoned a third relation. So that they are holy, because His, for Him, and He is in them in a speciall manner, as to places; for, where two or three are met together, there am I, Matth. 18.20.

Here the Adversarie did object, That these differences and relations were taken away by our Saviour, John [Page 4] 4.21. The houre commeth, and now is, that neither in this Mountaine, nor at Jerusalem, shall ye worship the Father; but the true worshippers shall worship in spirit and truth. For answer whereto, take this first, That our Saviour there taketh the priviledge of place of worship from none, but the two places there mentioned, of whom the question then was, to wit, that Mountaine of Ga­rizim, (pointed at by the Samaritan woman, vers. 20.) and Jerusalem. Secondly, our Saviour taketh the pri­viledge no other wayes from them, then as it was arro­gated and challenged by them, that is, to be the onely place of worship in the world, whither they must ei­ther resort, or direct their faces and prayers, 1 Kings 8. 29, 30. and Daniel 6.10. Our Saviour declareth to her therefore, That henceforth not these places alone should have the priviledge of Gods presence, but also whatsoever places of meeting throughout the world, according to that of Malachy 1.11. and 1 Tim. 2.8. Where, albeit there be an Universall, [...], in every place, yet it is to be extended according to the intention of the place, which is in the generall, con­cerning Church, or publike Service, vers. 1 & 2. and the behaviour of persons thereabout; men, vers. 8. wo­men, 8, 9, 10, 11, &c. Where, as praying publikely is permitted to men in every publike place of Worship, providing they lift up pure hands, (howsoever the place before had beene impure) so he restraineth the women to silence; which cannot be understood of private places of Worship, (for there women are licen­sed both to pray, and aske questions, 1 Cor. 14.35.) but of the Church, or publike places, as it is expounded by the words of the same Apostle, 1 Cor. 14.34. The com­mand then, or licensing of men to pray in every place, is to be taken also of these publike places of Prayer; so that they are not put down under the Gospel, but esta­blished. Neither doe the words of our Saviour, Joh. 4.23. of the true worshipping in spirit and truth, make against [Page 5]it: for if all worship performed by and with the body, or in bodily places, thereby were forbidden, not onely publike but private devotions, and Family-Service should cease, and we must goe out of the body & world too. And what should become of Malachies pure Ob­lation, offered now under the Gospel among the Gen­tiles, from the rising of the Sunne to the going downe of the same? And what of the lifting up of pure hands in every place by men, mentioned 1 Tim. 2.8? And what of Psalmes, Hymnes, and Spirituall Songs, recommended Eph. 5.19?

O but (say some) their melodie to God in the heart is recommended. But I answer: In the heart, [...], is with the heart, or from the heart; as Psal. 15.2. who speaketh the truth in his heart: not that the truth is not to be spoken with the mouth, but insinuating the foun­taine and beginning of truth; from the heart, or with the heart; so that the tongue and heart agree together: and so Eph. 5.19. making melodie to the Lord in your heart, that is, from the heart; and Job. 4.23. in spirit, that is, from the spirit, or with the spirit; yet not ex­cluding the body.

But the words of our Saviour are in opposition to the Jewish and Samaritan worship (of which the wo­man there did speak) which was in carnall ordinances of eating, and abstinence from certaine meats & drinks, and divers baptismes and purifyings of the flesh, not reaching the conscience, Heb. 9. v. 10. & 13. which, as it was opposite to spirituall worship, or worship in spi­rit; so being typicall, and consisting in figures and shadowes, was opposite to the truth, or true worship under the Gospel.

Others oppose the worship in Spirit to the Jewish, and worship in Truth to the Samaritan, which was false, and of the false gods, for they worshipped what they knew not, Ioh. 4.22. But no man of understanding will oppose it to all service of God, to be performed by [Page 6]or with the body, except it end in the body, and doe not edifie or elevate the spirit; as the Jewish abstinences and ordinances, more burthening the spirit then edi­fying them.

Let them talke then as much as they will, of the Church of God in ones house; yet it maketh nothing against the Church of God in Congregations, and Pa­rish s: For the Church being totum homo geneum, a whole made up of parts of the same kind, there are smaller and greater parts therein, and all bearing the name of the whole, yet so, as neigher prejudgeth other; so that every one keepe its owne order and place, and the lesser and subordinate parts doe not lift themselves up against the bigger and superiour, and put them downe.

Neither is it marvell, that their Meetings were in private houses at the beginning; (when they neither had nor could have other places) but now (having plentie and conveniencie of such places of assembling, and libertie and peace to assemble as publikely as we will) to sorsake the same, and get us to private places and wildernesses, it is not so much wantonnesse, as in­solent and unheard of madnesse: As S. Austin speaketh in the like case of these, who leaving the custome of the whole Church, follow (I know not what) private con­ceits of their owne, insolentissimae est insaniae.