<!DOCTYPE ETS PUBLIC "-//UMDLPS//DTD EEBOPROOF 2.0//EN">
<ETS>
<TEMPHEAD>
<REVDESCR>
<CHANGE>
<DATE>9-24-08</DATE>
<RESPSTMT>
<NAME>John Latta</NAME>
<RESP>MURP</RESP>
</RESPSTMT>
<ITEM>Added TEMPHEAD, checked ID, and added TYPEs to DIVs in order to validate. Proofed title page. Checked ^s. Reviewed structure. Checked placement and completeness of PBs. Checked for damage GAPs, #s, @s, --s, oe's, and UNCLEARs. Corrected [dollar]s. Checked for EPIGRAPHs and ARGUMENTs. Checked spacing of foreign GAPs. Checked CLOSERs, BYLINEs, SIGNEDs, OPENERs, SALUTEs, and TRAILERs. Checked for startqs and endqs, abq's, Ae's, qs, and Qs. Checked I / Js and U / Vs. Checked proofsheets and made corrections. Sample: 2 minutes. Proofing: 25 minutes. Tag review and corrections: 25 minutes. DONE.</ITEM>
</CHANGE>
</REVDESCR>
</TEMPHEAD>
<EEBO>
<IDG S="marc" R="UM" ID="A88947">
<STC T="W">M1274</STC>
<STC T="T">E37_19</STC>
<BIBNO T="umi">99860121</BIBNO>
<VID>112228</VID>
</IDG>
<TEXT LANG="eng">
<FRONT>
<DIV1 TYPE="title page">
<PB REF="1" MS="y">
<P>A
Mode&s;t &amp; Brotherly
ANSVVER
To M^r^. CHARLES HERLE his Book,
again&s;t the Independency of Churches.</P>
<P>Wherein his foure Arguments for the Govern|ment
of Synods over particular Congregati|ons,
are friendly Examined, and
clearly An&s;wered.</P>
<P>Together, with Chri&s;tian and Loving Ani|madver&s;ions
upon &s;undry other ob&s;ervable pa&s;&s;a|ges
in the &s;aid BOOKE.</P>
<P>All tending to declare the true u&s;e of Synods, and the
power of Congregationall Churches in the points of
electing and ordaining their owne Officers,
and cen&s;uring their Offendors.</P>
<P><HI>By</HI> RICHARD MATHER <HI>Teacher of the
Church at</HI> Dorche&s;ter; <HI>And</HI> WILLIAM
TOMPSON <HI>Pa&s;tor of the Church at</HI>
Braintree <HI>in</HI> NEW-ENGLAND.</P>
<P>Sent from thence after the A&s;&s;embly of Elders were di&s;&s;olved that
la&s;t met at <HI>Cambridg</HI> to debate matters about <HI>Church-government.</HI></P>
<P>London, <HI>Printed for</HI> Henry Overton <HI>in</HI> Popes-head alley, 1644.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="dedication">
<PB REF="2">
<OPENER><SALUTE>Reverend and Deare Sir,</SALUTE></OPENER>
<P>_THe right forme of Church Government being
more &s;earched into of late time then formerly,
and your &s;elf among&s;t others having written for
the governing power, or juri&s;diction of <HI>Synods,</HI>
over particular Churches: We therfore knowing our &s;elves
bound as well as others, to try all things, and hold fa&s;t that
which is good, have con&s;idered as the Lord hath holpen us;
tho&s;e Arguments of yours which are contained in your
Book, again&s;t the <HI>Indepency of Churches;</HI> and not being
&s;atisfied therewith, your Book being publi&s;hed in Print; we
have therfore thought meet, in like fort to publi&s;h our An|&s;wer,
and in that way to &s;hew unto your &s;elf and others,
what yet hinders us, that we do not think your Arguments
to be convincing. In which attempt we have bin the more
encouraged by your profe&s;&s;ion (which we dare not but be|lieve)
that in what you have written, you have aimed at veri|ty,
and not at victory; wherof we are the rather per&s;waded,
becau&s;e we do perceive your whole di&s;cour&s;e to be carried
along without pa&s;sion and bitterne&s;&s;e, in a &s;pirit of meek|ne&s;&s;e
and love, which al&s;o we are willing to acknowledge be|fore
all men, to your ju&s;t commendation, and the glory of
that grace of God that gives you &s;uch an heart. And it is
our hope, that &s;ith you profe&s;se to aim at the truth, and do
di&s;pute with &s;uch a &s;pirit, as if you meant &s;o indeed; that
therfore it will not be unacceptable to you, if any weakne&s;se
be di&s;covered in tho&s;e grounds wheron you build this per|&s;wa&s;ion,
that in the pre&s;ent Question, the truth doth &s;tand
on your &s;ide. And as your Book doth breathe forth a &s;pirit
<PB REF="3">
of meekne&s;se, ingenuity and love; &s;o we hope you will find,
that we have aimed at the like in our An&s;wer; which as
we have written and now publi&s;hed it for the truths &s;ake;
and for the help of tho&s;e that cannot attaine unto larger,
and more learned Treati&s;es about this Subject; So in &s;pe|ciall
manner in love to your &s;elf, and our deare Country
men &amp; friends, as in other places of <HI>Lanca&s;hire,</HI> &s;o in your
Pari&s;h of <HI>Winwick,</HI> wherin one of us was born, and the
other was for &s;undry Years together an unworthy Mini&s;ter
of the Go&s;pel of Chri&s;t. Accept therfore we doe be&s;eech
you, this brotherly labour of ours, which here we &s;end you,
divided into the&s;e few <HI>Chapters.</HI> We are al&s;o willing upon
this occa&s;ion, to te&s;tifie our thankfullnes for that loving re|&s;pect
which we found from you, when we lived together in
that Country; when you were plea&s;ed to own us in our &s;ad
times. The Father of mercies be with you, and with all
tho&s;e that love the truth in &s;incerity; and ble&s;&s;e that Reve|rend
and Grave <HI>A&s;&s;embly,</HI> wherof we hear your &s;elf are a
Member, that by their wi&s;e and holy indeavours, the truth
may be cleared, and all corruptions removed in the Do|ctrine,
Wor&s;hip, and Church Government in <HI>ENGLAND,</HI>
to his prai&s;e and glory; and the comfort of all tho&s;e who un|fainedly
de&s;ire that the Crowne of <HI>Chri&s;t Ie&s;us,</HI> and the
Scepter of the Son of <HI>God,</HI> may be gloriou&s;ly advanced over
all; which is the prayer of</P>
<CLOSER><SIGNED>Your Loving Brethren,
RICHARD MATHER,
and
WILLIAM TOMPSON.</SIGNED></CLOSER>
</DIV1>
</FRONT>
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="treatise">
<PB REF="3">
<HEAD>A Mode&s;t and Brotherly
ANSWER
TO
M^r^. CHARLES HERLE
His BOOKE again&s;t the Independency
of CHURCHES.</HEAD>
<DIV2 N="1" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAPT. I.</HEAD>
<HEAD TYPE="sub">Containing Ob&s;ervations upon &s;undry pa&s;&s;ages in
your &s;tating the Que&s;tion.</HEAD>
<P>_THE Independants (&s;ay you) deny to a Synod as the name
of a Church, &s;o all manner of power of juri&s;diction, either
to determine,&mdash;, or any way oblige &s;uch as they &s;hall any
way repre&s;ent. <HI>pag.</HI> 2.</P>
<P>Unle&s;&s;e it could be proved that in Scripture the
name of a Church is given to a Synod, we are not
to blamed, though we give not a Synod that
name, &s;ith we are commanded to hold fa&s;t the paterne of the whol|&s;ome
words of Scripture, as &s;ufficient, 2 Tim. 1. 13. though for this
we will not contend. But for power to determine, viz. dogmati|cally,
or by way of doctrine, this we deny not to a Synod: For
that Synod, Act. 15. did put forth &s;uch power, and we acknowledge
other Synods may doe the like upon like occa&s;ion, and their deter|minations
being according to the Scripture, ought to bind all
tho&s;e whom they repre&s;ent.</P>
<P>They acknowledge that neighbour Churches may meet and con&s;ult, and ad|vi&s;e
each other,&mdash;and withdraw all fellow&s;hip from any one that &s;hall grow
pertinaciou&s;ly &s;candalous. <HI>pag.</HI> 2.</P>
<P><PB N="2" REF="4">
And you may adde further, that by their me&s;&s;engers being
met in a Synod they may determine by the Scriptures any mat|ter
of controver&s;ie that may ari&s;e.</P>
<P>But for matter of juri&s;diction or power of the Keyes in excommunica|tion,
ordination, or whatever Cen&s;ure, they hold it is entirely and onely in
every &s;ingle Congregation, though but of 2 or 3 beleevers. <HI>p.</HI> 2.</P>
<P>If any hold &s;o &s;mall a number as 2 or 3 to be a Church &s;o
compleat, as to have power of excommunication, ordination and
whatever Cen&s;ure, they may if they &s;ee cau&s;e declare their
grounds for &s;o holding. But for our parts for ought we yet &s;ee,
a Church that hath &s;uch power as is here &s;poken of, had need to
be a greater number then two or three, even &s;o many as &s;hall be
nece&s;&s;ary and requi&s;ite for the carrying on of Church-worke, in
admonition and reprehen&s;ion of one another, as there &s;hall be
cau&s;e, and therfore they had need to be &s;eaven or more. For a
Brother that &s;inneth mu&s;t &s;o be dealt withall for his recovery,
that if he remain impenitent, the proceeding again&s;t him is &s;till
to goe on by degrees, till at la&s;t the matter be brought unto the
Church, <HI>Mat.</HI> 18. 15, 16 17. But in all the degrees of proceeding
again&s;t him, the per&s;ons before whom he is called, are in every
latter &s;tep and degree more in number, then they were in the
former, and &s;o the Church being the la&s;t is the greate&s;t number
of all. And yet there are three at the lea&s;t that mu&s;t be acquain|ted
with the matter, before it mu&s;t be brought unto the Church,
<HI>viz.</HI> the brother offending, the brother offended, and one
witne&s;&s;e at the lea&s;t; &s;o that the Church con&s;i&s;ting of tho&s;e three
or foure that deal in the matter before it come into the Church,
and of another number greater then they, and di&s;tinct from
them to whom the matter is brought in the la&s;t place mu&s;t needs
con&s;i&s;t of &s;eaven per&s;ons, or more. As for that &s;peech of our
Sauiour, where he &s;peaks of 2 or 3 gathered together in his
Name, <HI>Mat.</HI> 18. 20. He doth not thereby acknowledge &s;uch a
&s;mall number to be a Church; but fetcheth an argument from
thence as from the le&s;&s;er or le&s;&s;e probable, to prove the firm and
inviolable authority of the Church&punc; and her Cen&s;ures, of which
he had &s;poken before v. 18. As if he &s;hould &s;ay, if two agreeing
together upon earth &s;halbe heard in what&s;oever they &s;hall aske,
and if I be pre&s;ent with two or three gathered in my name, then
much more &s;hall the whole Church, who is a greater number,
<PB N="3" REF="4">
and a more &s;olemne a&s;&s;embly be heard in their prayers, and
have Chri&s;ts pre&s;ence in the mid&s;t of them, to bind and loo&s;e in
heaven what they &s;hall bind or loo&s;e in earth. But the former is
true, ver&s;. 19. 20&punc; Therefore the latter is true al&s;o ver&s;. 18.</P>
<P>And for excommunication, ordination and cen&s;ures, there is
nothing in Scripture nor proved in this di&s;cour&s;e of yours, that
the&s;e matters belong onely to a Synod, and not to a particular
congreation; yea wee conceive it will not bee ea&s;ie for any man
what&s;oever to prove, that Synods, and they onely have power to
ordain officers, and to excommunicate offenders; and till this
be proved, the Independants (as you call them) need not to relin|qui&s;h
their judgement and practice in the&s;e particulars. Sure it
is, that Synod in <HI>Acts</HI> 15. did neither meddle with ordi|nation
nor excommunication, but onely determined the con|trover&s;ie
about circumci&s;ion, and gave rules for practice to be
ob&s;erved of the beleeving Gentiles, for avoiding of offence a|mong
the Jewes.</P>
<P>We acknowledge that where there is no con&s;ociation or neighbourhood of
congregations or &s;ingle Churches whereby they may with conveniency be
aiding to each other&mdash;and whereto the particulars may have re|cour&s;e&mdash;there
a &s;ingle congregation mu&s;t not be denied entirene&s;&s;e of
juri&s;diction.</P>
<P>If you acknowledge thus much, (which yet is no more then
truth requires to be acknowledged, and wherin we for our parts,
fully concurre with you) then we &s;uppo&s;e a man may improve
this grant of yours to a confirmation of that independencie of
Churches which you plead again&s;t and to a di&s;proving of a good
part of that authority of Synods which you would e&s;tabli&s;h. For
if a Church that hath no neighbourhood of other Churches;
have power of juri&s;diction entirely within it &s;elfe (as here you
doe acknowledge) then fir&s;t let it be con&s;idered whence &s;uch a
Church hath &s;uch power, and &s;ee if that ground will not reach
to prove the like power in other Churches al&s;o. Now we &s;up|po&s;e
none will deny, but &s;uch a Church hath this authority or
power by the gift of Chri&s;t, and the liberty which he hath gran|ted
to every Church as it is a Church, which we had rather ex|pre&s;&s;e
in Doctor <HI>Ames</HI> his words, then in our own. The power
<PB N="4" REF="5">
it &s;elfe (namely, in reproving &s;candals, and purging out the wic|ked)
of right, or in re&s;pect of the fir&s;t act, cannot be &s;eparated
from a true Church: Becau&s;e it flows immediately and nece&s;&s;arily
from its very e&s;&s;ence; For it is contained in that Covenant, where|by
beleevers are gathered into a Church. <HI>Ca&s;. Con&s;. lib. 4. cap. 24.
Q.</HI> 4. Now if this be &s;o, that power of Juri&s;diction doth immedi|ately
and nece&s;&s;arily flow from the very e&s;&s;ence of a Church, and
&s;o belongs to a Church, as it is a Church, then it will fol|low
that this power mu&s;t not be granted to be in &s;uch a Church
as hath no neighbour Churches, and be denied unto one that
hath: becau&s;e a Church that hath neighbours is a Church,
and hath the e&s;&s;ence of a Church, as truly as that which hath
none. Power of Juri&s;diction flowing immediately from the e&s;&s;ence
of a Church belongs indifferently to all Churches, to one as much
as to another, without re&s;pect of what neighbours they have, whe|ther
many, or few, whether any or none. Secondly, let it be con|&s;idered
al&s;o what is the end and u&s;e of the con&s;ociation and neigh|bourhood
of Churches, and the &s;ame truth will thence appeare
al&s;o; which neighbourhood where it is affoorded is from the be|nefit
of Churches, but not for their hindrance and lo&s;&s;e; And
therefore it may be helpfull by ca&s;ting in more light, but cannot
abridge them of any power which they had before. When Doctor
<HI>Ames (Medul. Theol. l. 1. c. 39. Sect.</HI> 27.) had &s;aid that the combi|nation
of Churches into Cla&s;&s;es and Synods, doth neither con&s;ti|tute
a new forme of the Church, nor ought by any means to take
away or impaire that libertie and power, which Chri&s;t hath left
unto his Churches, &s;ith it &s;erveth onely for the directing and fur|thering
of the &s;ame, what &s;aith Mr. <HI>Paget</HI> hereunto? This, &s;aith he,
we willingly grant (<HI>Paget. Defence. pa.</HI> 107.) Now if this mu&s;t be
granted, then that dependencie of Churches, and that power of
Synods which you plead for mu&s;t not be granted; For let a Church
have entirene&s;&s;e of Juri&s;diction before &s;he have any neighbouring
Churches, and be deprived of the power when God &s;ends &s;uch
neighbours, and by this meanes &s;he &s;u&s;taines lo&s;&s;e by having
neighbours, and comes to be in this re&s;pect in wor&s;e condition,
then when &s;he had none; which is again&s;t the true intent and u&s;e
of the con&s;ociation of Churches.</P>
<P><PB N="5" REF="5">
Moreover, if this grant of yours &s;tand good, then what &s;hall be|come
of that which is intimated, pag. 6. and pa. 10. as a rea&s;on
again&s;t the Independency of Congregations? where, you &s;ay, <HI>that
it is again&s;t the very light of nature, that the adver&s;e party be the &s;ole Judge,
and party too in the cau&s;e; and that it is again&s;t all equity that the offended
party (meaning the Congregation) &s;hould be the &s;ole and finall Judge of the
offence?</HI> Sure we cannot think that there can be &s;uch a ca&s;e ima|gined
wherein you would grant it lawfull for a &s;ingle Congrega|tion
to do that which is again&s;t all equity and the very light of
nature. And yet you grant that the ca&s;e may be &s;uch that a &s;ingle
Congregation may have entirene&s;&s;e of juri&s;diction within it &s;elf;
which &s;eems to us plainly to prove, that for a Congregation to
be &s;o independent, as to be the finall Judge of offences within it
&s;elf, is not again&s;t all equity, nor again&s;t the light of nature, as is
intimated by you in the pages afore-mentioned. But &s;ith in
one place you grant that in &s;ome ca&s;e a Congregation may have
entirene&s;&s;e of Juri&s;diction within it &s;elf, and in another place do
&s;eem to imply that it is again&s;t all equity, and the light of nature,
that they &s;hould be granted, we for our parts are not able to di&s;|cern
how the&s;e things do &s;tand together.</P>
<P>But that too much may not be made of the grant of yours, you
do qualifie it in your &s;ub&s;equent words; wherein you &s;ay, that
<HI>this is a ca&s;e extraordinarie, and falls not within the compa&s;&s;e of the Que|&s;tion,
which is about the ordinarie rule of Church-government;</HI> Whereunto
we an&s;wer two things. 1 That for a Chri&s;tian Congregation to
want neighbour Congregations, to whom they may with conve|nience
have recour&s;e, is not &s;o unu&s;uall, as &s;ome may imagine:
&s;pecially if the &s;tate of things, in times and places of generall per|&s;ecution,
of generall prophanene&s;&s;e, and of new plantations in
heathen Countreys be con&s;idered. For at tho&s;e times, and in tho&s;e
places, it is well, if there be any &s;uch Congregations at all to be
found (as there was one in London, in the dayes of Queen <HI>Mary</HI>)
but it is not like there &s;hould be &s;o many of them, that any one
may have many neighbour ones, to have recour&s;e unto. And your
&s;elf do intimate in page 43 of your book, that in the remoter part
of Wales, and of the North, &s;uch Congregations even at this day,
would be &s;o rare, that in all probability, &s;carce one could be made
up in twentie or thirty miles compa&s;&s;e. 2 Suppo&s;e the ca&s;e were
extraordinarie and rare, would you &s;ay that therefore they may
<PB N="6" REF="6">
violate the ordinarie rules appointed by Chri&s;t for Church admi|ni&s;trations,
and now lawfully exerci&s;e Juri&s;diction entirely within
them&s;elves, which if they had neighbours were unlawfull for
them to do? We &s;uppo&s;e it is good to take heed how farre we yeeld
it lawfull in &s;uch extraordinarie ca&s;es, to tran&s;gre&s;&s;e and violate
ordinarie rules; left &s;ome body do thereupon inferre that though
according to ordinarie rules Bapti&s;me and the Lords Supper mu&s;t
be di&s;pen&s;ed onely by men, and by Mini&s;ters, yet in the want of
the&s;e, the one may be di&s;pen&s;ed by a woman, (&s;uppo&s;e the Mid|wife
or &s;ome other) and both of them by &s;uch as are no Mini&s;ters.
For as you excu&s;e the lawfulne&s;&s;e of entirene&s;&s;e of Juri&s;diction in a
&s;ingle Congregation, even &s;o may they excu&s;e the&s;e di&s;pen&s;ations
here mentioned, by &s;aying that the ca&s;e is extraordinarie, and fals
not within the compa&s;&s;e of the Que&s;tion, which is, what per&s;ons
by ordinarie rule may di&s;pen&s;e Sacraments; Wherefore for ought
we yet &s;ee it is more &s;afe to hold, that &s;ith the di&s;pen&s;ation of Bap|ti&s;me
and the Lords Supper, by ordinarie rules belongs onely to
Mini&s;ters, therefore there can be no &s;uch extraordinarie ca&s;e, in
the&s;e dayes, wherein the di&s;pen&s;ing of them may lawfully be per|formed
by others whether women or men: And &s;ith entirene&s;&s;e of
Juri&s;diction mu&s;t not be denied to a Congregation that wants
neighbours, therefore the thing is agreeable unto ordinary rules;
and &s;o may be allowed in other ca&s;es al&s;o. Becau&s;e the admini|&s;tration
of Sacraments, fore-mentioned, is not allowable by or|dinarie
rules, therefore the extraordinarine&s;&s;e of the ca&s;e will not
make it lawfull; And becau&s;e the independent Juri&s;diction of a
Congregation is lawfull in the ca&s;e afore-mentioned, which you
call extraordinarie; Therefore the &s;ame is allowable by ordina|rie
rule.</P>
<P>There ought to be Synods or A&s;&s;emblies&mdash;with larger power of the
keyes to make Decrees, ordain Pa&s;tors, excommunicate members, or Congre|gations,
pag. 2.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> That there ought to be Synods when occa&s;ion requires,
we freely grant; but the Que&s;tion is not about their being, but
about their power; Wherein, that they have power to ordain and
excommunicate any, we do not yet &s;ee it proved. But that they
&s;hould excommunicate whole Congregations, as here is affirmed,
&s;eemeth to us to be altogether impo&s;&s;ible; For a Congregation be|ing
a Church, it hath communion within it &s;elf, out of which it
<PB N="7" REF="6">
cannot be ca&s;t, no more then ca&s;t out it &s;elf. <HI>Ames. Ca&s;. Con&s;c. lib. 4.
cap. 29. &amp;</HI> 11.</P>
<P>Yet &s;o as in every &s;ingle Congregation, there be left a power, of publick
reprehen&s;ion, and if need be, of &s;u&s;pen&s;ion of its own members from the Lords
table; And in ca&s;e upon &s;uch appeal to the Synod, there appear no difficulty
in the matter, or partialitie in the carriage of it, it is (if between Members
of one Congregation) rather to be remitted to the Congregation it &s;elf, to be
there cen&s;ured and ended. pa. 2. &amp; 3.</P>
<P>This is not much le&s;&s;e, then a clear granting of the whole Cau&s;e,
for here is expre&s;ly left to the Congregation not onely power of
publick reprehen&s;ion, but al&s;o power of &s;u&s;pen&s;ion from the Lords
table, yea, and in &s;ome ca&s;e power of cen&s;uring and ending mat|ters
within them&s;elves, having fir&s;t con&s;ulted and advi&s;ed with
the Synod: which cour&s;e in matters of difficulty and weight, we
for our parts acknowledge very meet to be taken when Synods can
be had, and when they cannot, yet in &s;uch ca&s;es of weight, it is fit
to con&s;ult with neighbour Churches.</P>
<P>Church government mini&s;teriall Independents &s;ay is equally and fully in
every Congregation. <HI>pa.</HI> 3.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> That it is equally in one, as much as in another, your
&s;elf do often grant, though not equally in one as much as in all:
And for fulne&s;&s;e, when a Church is furni&s;hed with a Presbytery
within it &s;elf, by whom the Church &s;hould be governed, then we
know no rea&s;on, but yours may be owned al&s;o.</P>
<P>Above and be&s;ides which (namely, the &s;ingle Congregation) there is no
mini&s;terially governing Church, by any means they &s;ay to be admitted.
<HI>pag.</HI> 3.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> If the Presbytery of a Congregation may be called a
Church, then &s;ith they do admit the governing power of the Pre&s;|byterie,
they do admit a governing Church, be&s;ide the Congre|gation,
if by Congregation you mean the whole multitude of the
Members; And if a Synod may be called a Church, and if power
by di&s;putation and di&s;qui&s;ition to clear up the rule, and then to
command obedience thereto, may be called government, then
they al&s;o admit a Synod to be a governing Church: For the power
here mentioned they do allow unto Synods. But it &s;eems to us
that the power is not properly a power and exerci&s;e of govern|ment
and Juri&s;diction, but a power of Doctrine, and &s;o a Synod is
rather a teaching then a governing Church. But that any other
<PB N="8" REF="7">
Church, be it Synod, or any other be&s;ides the Congregation and
its Presbyterie, &s;hould have &s;uch a governing power above the
Congregation and the Presbyterie thereof, as that neither the
Congregation nor its Presbyterie may ordain their own Officers,
nor excommunicate their own offendors, but both mu&s;t be done
by that other governing Church; This we do not admit indeed,
becau&s;e hitherto, we have &s;een no convincing proofs for the &s;ame.</P>
<P>All and every member hath (&s;ay they) a governing power, as of ordaining
their Pa&s;tors and Officers, &s;o of depo&s;ing and excommunicating&mdash;. pa. 3.</P>
<P>Governing properly &s;o called, we acknowledge not in any, but
in the Elders alone. 1 <HI>Cor. 12. 28. Rom. 12. 8. Hebr.</HI> 13. 17. If that
word be a&s;cribed to the people, it mu&s;t be under&s;tood in a more
improper &s;ence, for that which in propriety of &s;peech were more
fitly called Liberty or Priviledge. And yet the liberty when it is
exerci&s;ed about Ordination, Depo&s;ition, Excommunication, is of
the whole body <HI>Communiter,</HI> or in generall, but not of all and eve|rie
member in particular, as you conceive us to hold; for women
and children are members, and yet are not to act in &s;uch matters,
the one being debarred by their &s;ex, and the other for want of un|der&s;tanding
and di&s;cretion.</P>
<P>We acknowledge that Pa&s;tors and other Officers were anciently, and it is
to be wi&s;hed, thoy &s;till were cho&s;en (at lea&s;t con&s;ented to) by the members of
each re&s;pective Congregation. p. 3.</P>
<P>By [<HI>anciently</HI>] we &s;uppo&s;e you mean, in the Primitive, and Apo|&s;tolick
times; And if in the&s;e times they were cho&s;en by the Con|gregation,
what warrant can there be to take another cour&s;e in
the&s;e dayes; &s;ith the ancient pattern of Scripture in matters of
this nature is a commandment that ought to be kept till the ap|pearing
of Je&s;us Chri&s;t. 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 6. 13, 14. &amp;c.</P>
<P>But they are to be ordoined in a Synod onely&mdash;.</P>
<P>That a Synod hath the power, we would gladly &s;ee it proved
by the Word. But if the&s;e things may be done by a Synod onely
and not el&s;ewhere, then how will that &s;tand which you granted
in the page afore, that in &s;ome ca&s;e a &s;ingle Congregation may
have entirene&s;&s;e of Juri&s;diction within it &s;elf? To be done by a
Synod onely, and to be done by a &s;ingle Congregation entirely
within it &s;elf, are not ea&s;ie for us to reconcile. Further, if Synods
con&s;i&s;t, as you &s;ay, of Presbyteries and other Commi&s;&s;ioners, then
there mu&s;t be Presbyters afore there can be Synods; and thence it
<PB N="9" REF="7">
mu&s;t follow that all Presbyters are not ordained by Synods, but
&s;ome by other men. If it be &s;aid though the Presbyters, whereof
the particular Synod con&s;i&s;teth, were not ordained by the Synod,
but were Presbyters before this Synod had any being, yet they
might be ordained by a former Synod; The an&s;wer is that this
doth not remove the difficultie. For &s;till it would be enquired how
the Presbyters of that former Synod, and &s;o of the fir&s;t Synod that
ever was, how they came to be Presbyters: Sure if the fir&s;t Synod
con&s;i&s;ted of Presbyters, then there were Presbyters before there
was any Synod, and &s;o Presbyters have been lawfully ordained,
and not by a Synod.</P>
<P>In a Synod where all the ultimate power of Decrees and Cen&s;ures re&s;ides&mdash;.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> By power of Decrees, we under&s;tand Power to clear up
the truth dogmatically, for the word tran&s;lated decrees is <HI>dogmata</HI>
in the originall, <HI>Act.</HI> 16. 4. And this power we confe&s;&s;e is in a Synod,
though not all in the Synod alone, but al&s;o in the Presbyterie of
a &s;ingle Congregation. But for power of Cen&s;ures, this we do not
&s;ee to be in the Synod at all; much le&s;&s;e, that it doth all re&s;ide in
the Synod, and not el&s;ewhere. But when you &s;ay, all the ultimate
power of the&s;e things doth re&s;ide in a Synod (though you do im|ply
by the word ultimate that matters ought not to be perpetu|ally
depending, but in &s;ome Judicatory or other be brought unto
their ultimate or la&s;t period, and conclu&s;ion, wherein we concurre
with you, yet neverthele&s;&s;e) your meaning is not &s;ufficiently ex|pre&s;&s;ed,
what Synod this &s;hould be that &s;hould have this ultimate
power. For you know there are divers &s;orts of Synods, &s;ome par|ticular
which are called Cla&s;&s;es, &s;ome Provinciall, &s;ome Nationall,
and &s;ome generall, or Oecumenicall Synods; And we &s;hould be
glad to know, which of all the&s;e it is in whom the ultimate power
of the&s;e things doth re&s;ide, and why it may not re&s;ide in any of
the re&s;t; yea and why the ultimate power of cen&s;ures may not re|&s;ide
in the Congregation, as well as in any of them.</P>
<P>Whether it be nece&s;&s;arie to the well being of a &s;ingle Church or Congrega|tion,
that where it &s;tands in neighbourhood with other Churches, it be equally
and mutually coordinated with the re&s;t, in a dependance on the mini&s;teriall
government of a Synod? This they deny, and we affirm. pa. 4.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> By mini&s;teriall government of a Synod; you meane, a Go|verning
power of ordaining Pa&s;tors for Congregations, and of ex|communicating
offendors; for &s;o you de&s;cribe the power of Sy|nods,
<PB N="10" REF="8">
pag. 3. and pag. 2. where you &s;ay that Pa&s;tors are to be or|dained,
depo&s;ed, excommunicated by a Synod onely; And that
Synods have a larger power of the keyes to make Decrees, ordain
Pa&s;tors, and excommunicate Members, or Congregations; So that
the Que&s;tion is: Whether it be nece&s;&s;arie to the well-being of a
&s;ingle Congregation that hath neighbours, &s;o to depend, on the
government of Synods, as that a Synod onely and not the Con|gregation,
mu&s;t ordain their Pa&s;tors, and excommunicate offen|dors:
Which being the &s;tate of the Que&s;tion, we are content to
joyn i&s;&s;ue with you, upon the &s;ame; And to hear your Arguments
for the affirmative part.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="2" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. II.</HEAD>
<HEAD TYPE="sub">Containing an An&s;wer to your fir&s;t Argument taken from the manner of Go|vernment,
in the Jewi&s;h Church, laid down. Deut. 17. 8, 9, 10.
2 Chron. 19. 8. 10, 11. P&s;al. 122. 4, 5.</HEAD>
<P>THat the Government of the Jewi&s;h Church was by Gods in&s;titution na|tionall,
and dependent, as it clearly appears by the above mentioned
Texts, &s;o it is fully confe&s;&s;ed by Mr. <HI>Ayn&s;worth,</HI> Mr. <HI>Davenport,</HI> Mr.
<HI>Canne,</HI> Mr. <HI>Robin&s;on,</HI> and generally all Judgements. pag. 4.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> In &s;ome of the places of the&s;e Authors which you direct
us unto in your Margent, which we have looked upon, we can find
no &s;uch Confe&s;&s;ion as here you do report of them. It may be the
pages are mi&s;-printed. But what they do confe&s;&s;e or not confe&s;&s;e,
we will not &s;tand long to enquire, &s;uch of them as are yet alive,
may an&s;wer for them&s;elves, if they &s;ee cau&s;e: But it &s;hall &s;uffice us,
to con&s;ider the weight of the Argument it &s;elf, which we &s;uppo&s;e
being put into form mu&s;t run thus, or to the like purpo&s;e.</P>
<P>As the Congregations in I&s;rael were dependent, &s;o mu&s;t con|gregations
be in the&s;e dayes.</P>
<P>But Congregations in I&s;rael were dependent on the Mini&s;teriall
government of a Synod:</P>
<P>Therefore Congregations in the&s;e dayes mu&s;t be dependent on
the Mini&s;teriall government of a Synod.</P>
<P>Indeed in your pro&s;ecution of the Argument, you do not expre&s;|ly
mention any Mini&s;teriall government of a Synod in I&s;rael, upon
<PB N="11" REF="8">
which their congregations did depend: Yet we conceive that mu&s;t
needs be your meaning; becau&s;e otherwi&s;e the Argument which
you bring, doth not reach to conclude the thing in que&s;tion, even
as the que&s;tion is &s;tated by your &s;elfe. For in the words immediat|ly
preceding this fir&s;t Argument, you thus &s;umme up and conclude
your &s;tating the que&s;tion, viz. <HI>Whether it be nece&s;&s;ary&mdash;that a &s;ingle
Congregation, where it &s;tands in neighbourhood with other Churches, &s;hould
be co-ordinated with the re&s;t in a dependency on the Mini&s;teriall government
of a Synod.</HI> And having an&s;wered affirmatively, you then bring in
this for your fir&s;t Argument, taken from the manner of government
in the Jewi&s;h Church, laid down in the Texts above mentioned.
Now if that be the que&s;tion, as you lay it down, and this the Argu|ment
for the affirmative part, then &s;ith the que&s;tion is about de|pendance
on the government of a Synod, the Argument mu&s;t
needs be of the &s;ame, or el&s;e nothing in que&s;tion is concluded. And
if the Argument mu&s;t conclude the que&s;tion, then it mu&s;t be laid
down to the like purpo&s;e as we have done; and being &s;o formed,
our an&s;wer is by denying both parts thereof. For neither is it clear
from tho&s;e texts, that the congregations in I&s;rael did depend on
the mini&s;teriall government of a Synod; nor will it follow that
ours mu&s;t be dependant as theirs were.</P>
<P>Touching the former of the&s;e, (to &s;peak fir&s;t of the minor pro|po&s;ition)
&s;uppo&s;e it were true that the Congregations in I&s;rael did
depend upon the government of the Judicatories or A&s;&s;emblies
mentioned in tho&s;e texts, yet that doth not prove they depended
upon a Synod: And the rea&s;on is, becau&s;e the Judicatories there
mentioned, were not any Synods at all, but A&s;&s;emblies of another
nature. For fir&s;t, Synods (as your &s;elves de&s;cribe them pag, 2.) are
A&s;&s;emblies, con&s;i&s;ting of the &s;everall Pa&s;tors, whom together with
&s;uch other members as &s;hould be thought fit, the &s;everal congrega|tions
are re&s;pectively to chu&s;e &amp; &s;end therto. But tho&s;e Judicatories
in <HI>Deut.</HI> 17. and the other Scriptures, did not con&s;i&s;t of any Pa&s;tors
or members, whom the &s;everall congregations did chu&s;e, and &s;end
thereto; but of the Prie&s;ts and Levites, of the Judges and chiefe of
the Fathers of I&s;rael, which were con&s;tantly re&s;ident at Jeru&s;alem,
the place which the Lord had cho&s;en. And the &s;everall congrega|tions
had nothing to do either to chu&s;e them, or &s;end them.
Secondly, the&s;e Jndicatories at Jeru&s;alem were &s;tanding Courts,
and were con&s;tantly to continue, and therefore they were not Sy|nods;
<PB N="12" REF="9">
for Synods are not wont to &s;tand and continue, but onely
till they have ended the bu&s;ine&s;&s;e which was the occa&s;ion of calling
them, and then to be di&s;&s;olved and ended. Thirdly, Mr. <HI>Page</HI> (out
of whom it &s;eems this argument, and much of the di&s;cour&s;e about
it, is taken) doth confe&s;&s;e, pag. 3. that the authority of Cla&s;&s;es and
Synods, is not civill, neither have they power to inflict civill pnni&s;h|ments,
they onely judge of Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall cau&s;es, and that in Eccle|&s;ia&s;ticall
manner, u&s;ing no other then &s;pirituall cen&s;ures, in pag.
29. of his <HI>Defence.</HI> But the Judicatories in the&s;e texts (as Mr. <HI>Paget</HI>
al&s;o confe&s;&s;eth pag. 34. 35.) were for civill cau&s;es as well as Eccle&s;ia|&s;ticall;
and &s;o it is &s;aid, <HI>Deut.</HI> 21. 5. that by the word of the Prie&s;ts
and Levites every controver&s;ie and every &s;troke ma&s;t be tried even
in civill cau&s;es, as that of trying out an uncertain murther, which
is the cau&s;e &s;poken of in that place. By all which it plainly ap|peares,
that tho&s;e &s;uperior Judicatories in I&s;rael were not Synods;
and then &s;uppo&s;e their congregations did depend upou tho&s;e Ju|dicatories,
and that ours mu&s;t depend as theirs did, yet it will not
follow that ours mu&s;t depend upon Synods.</P>
<P>And thus your Minor failing, this might be enough to take a|way
the whole &s;trength of your Argument. Neverthele&s;&s;e, for fur|ther
an&s;wer, we may al&s;o deny the con&s;equence of your Major
propo&s;ition: For though it were yeelded, that the congregations
in I&s;rael did depend upon a &s;uperiour Judicatory, it will not fol|low
that it mu&s;t be &s;o in the&s;e dayes: And our rea&s;on is, becau&s;e
the particular congregations in I&s;rael (viz. their Synagogues) were
not compleat Churches, as the Congregations in the New Te|&s;tament
are. That they were not entire and compleat Churches,
may appear by this, becau&s;e the people could not lawfully in them
have the u&s;e of the mo&s;t &s;olemne ordinances of God, and par<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="blotted" EXTENT="1 letter">s of
his wor&s;hip, though &s;uch as were of ordinary and continuall u&s;e,
but they mu&s;t goe upto Jeru&s;alem for the performing and enjoy|ment
thereof; and therefore they wete &s;trightly commanded, as
not to keep the Pa&s;&s;over, &s;o not to offer any Offerings or Sacrifices
(which yet were of very frequent u&s;e) in any place within any of
their gates, but onely in Jeru&s;alem, the place which God did chu&s;e
to put his name there, as we read at large <HI>Deut.</HI> 12. and 16. 5, 6.
Neither was it lawfull for the chiefe Mini&s;ters of the Church to
execute the chiefe parts of their office in tho&s;e Synagognes, but on|ly
at Jeru&s;alem. But now with congregations in the&s;e dayes it is
<PB N="13" REF="9">
farre otherwi&s;e; there is none of the &s;olemne Ordinances of God,
which are of ordinarie and continuall u&s;e, but in the&s;e Congre|gations,
they may be enjoyed, nor any ordinarie duties of the Mi|ni&s;tery,
but in them they may be performed, as preaching, prayer,
Sacraments, Di&s;cipline, &amp;c. which &s;hews they are entire Churches
within them&s;elves. Dr. <HI>Ames</HI> hath the &s;aying. <HI>The Synagogues were
not compleat Churches, becau&s;e the whole wor&s;hip of God, and all the &s;acred
communion pre&s;cribed at that time, could not be exerci&s;ed in them. Med.
Theol. lib. 1. ca. 38. The&s;.</HI> 37. And again, <HI>There is nothing read in all the
New Te&s;tament, of the in&s;titution of any greater Church, on which the le&s;&s;er
&s;hould depend: Nor any wor&s;hip or &s;acred ordinance pre&s;cribed, which is not
to be ob&s;erved in every Congregation: Nor any ordinary Mini&s;ter appointed
who is not given to &s;ome one A&s;&s;embly of this kind. Lib. 1. cap. 39. The&s;.</HI> 26.
Now if their Congregations could not enjoy all the Ordinances,
as not being compleat Churches, there might be rea&s;on why they
&s;hould be dependent upon Jeru&s;alem, and the Synedrion and
Temple there, where the Ordinances might be enjoyed; and yet
ours being compleat, and enjoying al the Ordinances within them|&s;elves
need not to be &s;o dependent.</P>
<P>And another rea&s;on why their Congregations might be depen|dent,
and ours not &s;o, may be this. They had a &s;uperiour Judica|tory
to appeal unto which had the <HI>&s;upremum</HI> of Church power
within it &s;elf, and from who&s;e &s;entence there was no appeal to any
further Judge upon earth; for &s;o it is &s;aid of that Synedrion at
Jeru&s;alem. <HI>Deut.</HI> 17. And Rea&s;on requires that &s;ome &s;uch &s;upream
Judicatory there &s;hould be; for controver&s;ies &amp; ca&s;es of doubt mu&s;t
not be drawn out in <HI>Infinitum,</HI> but of nece&s;&s;ity <HI>&s;tandum e&s;t in aliquo
&s;upremo,</HI> we mu&s;t re&s;t in &s;ome &s;upreame, and proceed no further. But
now in the New Te&s;tament, if we once depart from a particular
Congregation or Church, where or when &s;hall we find &s;uch a <HI>Su|premum?</HI>
Surely not before we come to an Oecumenicall or Gene|rall
Councell: For as for Cla&s;&s;icall, Provinciall, and Nationall Sy|nods
there is none of the&s;e, but tho&s;e Ca&s;es which you put of de|ficiency,
and po&s;&s;ibility of partiality may befall the be&s;t of them&punc;
and therefore if for the&s;e cau&s;es the &s;ingle Congregations, mu&s;t not
be Independent, but there mu&s;t be appeals from them, the Synods
being &s;ubject to the like, there mu&s;t be liberty of appeals from
them al&s;o. For like as you do alledge that Congregations may
be partiall, and erre, &s;o we &s;uppo&s;e it will not be denied but the
<PB N="14" REF="10">
Cla&s;&s;is may erre, the Provinciall Synod may erre, the Nationall
may erre: And therefore by this Rea&s;on entirene&s;&s;e of Juri&s;diction
mu&s;t be granted to none of the&s;e. And then whither &s;hall we go
but to a Generall Councill, which as it hath not been &s;een for ma|ny
by pa&s;t generations, &s;o God knows whether ever there &s;hall be
any &s;o long as this world &s;hall endure. But how if the Generall
Councill do erre al&s;o? Sure learned Doctor <HI>Reynolds</HI> doth abun|dantly
clear it, that &s;uch a thing is not impo&s;&s;ible. <HI>The&s;. 2. Sect.</HI> 15.
And &s;o by this rea&s;on entirene&s;&s;e of Juri&s;diction mu&s;t not be gran|ted
to Generall Councils, but there mu&s;t be liberty of appeals from
them al&s;o. Such con&s;equences do inevitably follow upon that
which you &s;ugge&s;t as a ground of appealing from particular Con|gregations.
And by all this it appeareth, that particular Congre|gations,
have no &s;uch &s;uperiour Judicatory above them, but ac|cording
to your grounds, there may be liberty of appeals from the
&s;ame; And thence it followeth that there is not the like Rea&s;on,
again&s;t their Independency, as again&s;t the Independency of the
Synagogues in I&s;rael: becau&s;e tho&s;e Synagogues had a Judicato|rie
above them, from which there was no appeal. Tho&s;e may be
Dependent which have others above them, which are &s;upreame;
Whereas they which have no &s;uch above them may be &s;upreame
them&s;elves, and con&s;equently be independent.</P>
<P><HI>Obj.</HI> If any &s;hall here ask whether we think it not po&s;&s;ible for
particular Congregations to erre in their judgement of cau&s;es?</P>
<P>We an&s;wer, That we confe&s;&s;e they may; But in our Judgement
that needs not to hinder, but they may have entirene&s;&s;e of Juri&s;|diction
within them&s;elves, and not be under the power of any
other. For that &s;upreame Synedrion at Jeru&s;alem did many times
erre, and gave corrupt Judgement in cau&s;es, and yet was not un|der
the power of any other Judicatory. When we are enquiring
in what Judicatory, the <HI>&s;upremum</HI> of Church-power doth lye, it is
not our be&s;t cour&s;e to look for &s;uch an one as cannot erre: for &s;uch
an one we &s;hall never find, but to look out where God hath ap|pointed
it to lie, and therewith to re&s;t contented: Now in the
old Te&s;tament this <HI>&s;upremum</HI> by Gods appointment, was in that
Synedrion at Jeru&s;alem. But in the new Te&s;tament we know of no
appointment of God, that the like <HI>&s;upremum</HI> mu&s;t be in a Synod;
but for ought we know a particular Congregation may be an|&s;werable
to that Synedrion, as well as any Cla&s;&s;is or Synod; and
<PB N="15" REF="10">
&s;o much the rather, becau&s;e the power in a particular congregati|on,
is con&s;tant, and alwayes ready to be had, as it was in that Sy|nedrion;
whereas Cla&s;&s;es and Synods are more &s;eldome and rare,
and cannot be gathered &s;o often as there may be need of the u&s;e of
Church power, in regard of ordaining of Officers, or cen&s;uring of
offenders, and the like.</P>
<P>Therefore briefly to wind up all, &s;ith Congregations in the New
Te&s;tament, are compleat Churches, which the Jewi&s;h Synagogues
were not; and &s;ith the Synagogues had a &s;upreame judicatory a|bove
them, from which there was no appeale, which our congre|gations
have not: Therefore we conclude, That the dependencie
of the Synagogues upon that &s;uperiour Judicatory, doth not prove
that our congregations mu&s;t depend upon the government of a Sy|nod,
e&s;pecially this being con&s;idered withall, that the Judicatory
upon which the Synagogues did depend, was not any Synod, but
an A&s;&s;embly of another nature: And though the Supremacie mu&s;t
be &s;ome where, even where God hath appointed it to be, yet
the particular congregations may &s;hew as much for that appoint|ment,
as the Synod.</P>
<P>And this &s;hall &s;uffice for an&s;wer to this fir&s;t Argument: Onely
we will adde &s;ome ob&s;ervations upon &s;ome few pa&s;&s;ages in that
which you write for removall of three exceptions which you &s;ay
are given by &s;ome again&s;t this argument of yours.</P>
<P>1. That that government was ccremoniall and typicall. 2. That Papi&s;ts
alledge it again&s;t us for their Hierarchy and appeales to&mdash;the Pope. 3. That
the Prie&s;ts and Levites were then Judges in civill cau&s;es, wherin it was that
the government was then appealative and dependent, <HI>pag.</HI> 5.</P>
<P>If any doe make &s;uch exceptions, we leave it to them that make
them, to undertake the defence of them, or to cleare them as they
&s;hall &s;ee cau&s;e. But for us, the an&s;wer we have given to the Argu|ment,
is that wherein we do re&s;t.</P>
<P>That there ought to be one High-Prie&s;t, in whom all appeales and judge|ments
were to determine. <HI>pag.</HI> 6.</P>
<P>Though there was to be one High-Prie&s;t among the Jewes, yet
that all appeals and judgements were to determine in him, we &s;up|po&s;e
is more then can be proved. Sure Mr. <HI>Paget</HI> pag. 35, 36.
(whom you &s;eem in your di&s;cour&s;e much to follow) doth &s;ay, that
the judgement &s;poken of, <HI>Deut.</HI> 17. was not given by the High-Prie&s;t
alone, but by a Colledge or Senate of Prie&s;ts, noted in the text, and
<PB N="16" REF="11">
approveth the judgement of Doctor <HI>Reynolds</HI> and Doctor <HI>Whitaker,</HI>
giving this an&s;wer as a ju&s;t refutation of the Papi&s;ts, arguing from
this Text to prove there &s;hould bee one &s;upreme Judge of Eccle&s;ia|&s;ticall
cau&s;es.</P>
<P>That there ought to be graduall Judicatories wherein the aggrieved party
may appeale from the le&s;&s;er to the higher&mdash;There can be no ceremony or type
in this&mdash;This was taught by the light of nature to Jethro&mdash;Appeals (&s;aith
Doctor Whitaker) are of divine and naturall right. <HI>pag.</HI> 6.</P>
<P>If this bee meant in civill cau&s;es, where more is left to the
light of nature and civill prudence, according to the general rules
of the Word, the Word not determining all particulars &s;o fully, as
it doth in Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall matters; then we for our parts doe fully
con&s;ent thereto. And though it were extended to Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall
cau&s;es al&s;o, yet this we &s;uppo&s;e is cleare likewi&s;e by the &s;ame light
of nature, that both for civill cau&s;es and Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall, there mu&s;t
be &s;ome finall and &s;upreame judgement, that controver&s;ies may
not by appeales after appeals be &s;pun out in <HI>infinitum.</HI> Now un|le&s;&s;e
it be determined where that &s;upremacie doth lie (which is the
very thing in que&s;tion) the u&s;efulne&s;&s;e and nece&s;&s;ity of appeals may
be granted, and yet we &s;hall be &s;till at uncertainty about the thing
in que&s;tion, and as much to &s;eek as before. That there ought to be
appeals till you come to the highe&s;t, is one thing, and that a Sy|nod
(and not a particular congregation) is the highe&s;t, is another;
and they are &s;o farre different, that though the fir&s;t were granted,
yet the latter is not thereby proved.</P>
<P>That renowned Martyr Cranmer, the forme of his appeale to a Councell,
three times by him urged&mdash;we have recorded by Mr <HI>Fox</HI> at large <HI>pag.</HI> 6.</P>
<P>But how this example doth &s;uit the pre&s;ent que&s;tion, we
doe not under&s;tand: for his appeal was not from a particular con|gregation,
but from the Pope; nor was it to a Synod, but to the
next generall Councell, which from that day to this, hath not yet
a&s;&s;embled, nor been called. If we mu&s;t hold a nece&s;&s;ity of appeales
to &s;uch a Judicatory as <HI>Cranmer</HI> appealed unto, then the &s;uprema|cie
of Synods, Provinciall or Nationall, is utterly taken away.</P>
<P>Generally all that write again&s;t appeals to the Pope, acknowledge yet their
nece&s;&s;ary u&s;efulne&s;&s;e to a Synod; So did that reverend Martyr <HI>Cranmer,</HI>&mdash;So
(be&s;ides the whole &s;tream of Antiquity) <HI>Ur&s;in, Zepperus,</HI> and to
come neerer, <HI>Cartwright, Fenner,</HI> nay <HI>Barrow, Ain&s;worth, John&s;on,
pag.</HI> 6.</P>
<P><PB N="17" REF="11">
We doubt it is a &s;peech a good deale too large, to &s;ay, That all
the&s;e doe acknowledge the nece&s;&s;ary u&s;efulne&s;&s;e of appeales to a
Synod, e&s;pecially if&punc; you mean of &s;uch appeales as you mu&s;t needs
mean, or el&s;e you &s;peak not to the que&s;tion in hand; viz. of ap|peals
from a particular congregation. We have looked upon &s;ome
of the places, and doe per&s;wade our &s;elves that if you doe look up|on
them al&s;o, you will finde this &s;peech of yours to be too exce&s;|&s;ive.
As for Mr. <HI>Paget,</HI> who (pag. 39. 40.) alledgeth all the&s;e very
places that you doe alledge, he doth not &s;ay that tho&s;e Authours
doe all acknowledge &s;uch nece&s;&s;ary u&s;efulne&s;&s;e of appeals to a Sy|nod,
as you doe report them to acknowledge; nor doth alledge
them for that end, but for another purpo&s;e, viz. to &s;hew, that in
the&s;e dayes we may alledge and argue from texts out of the Law
of <HI>Mo&s;es,</HI> and other places of the old Te&s;tament, which if it be right|ly
done, we for our parts &s;ee no rea&s;on to di&s;allow. But that all
the&s;e Authors, even <HI>Barrow</HI> and <HI>Ain&s;worth</HI> doe acknowledge the ne|ce&s;&s;ary
u&s;efulne&s;&s;e of appeales from particular congregations to
the government of Synods, is &s;o large an expre&s;&s;ion, as wee know
not upon what grounds to think it credible; &s;ith it is well knowne
to them that have read their writings, that they acknowledge no
Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall Judicatory &s;uperiour to that of a particular con|gregation.</P>
<P>If the benefit of appeals and con&s;ociation of Churches, to their mutuall
help in government, &s;hould not be as free to us as to the Jewes, how much more
defective and improvident were the Go&s;pel, then the Law? <HI>pag.</HI> 7.</P>
<P>Con&s;ociation of Churches for mutuall help, we willingly ac|knowledge,
&s;o that this con&s;ociation may neither con&s;titute a
new form of a Church, nor take away or impair the liberty and
power which Chri&s;t hath given to Churches; but &s;erve onely ac|cording
to the true u&s;e thereof, for the directing and guiding of the
&s;ame: which provi&s;o (as we &s;aid before) Mr. <HI>Paget</HI> doth willingly
grant.</P>
<P>And for appeals, we do willingly acknowledge any benefit that
may come thereby: But for making the Go&s;pel more defective
then the Law; we conceive if things be well con&s;idered, it is not
our way, but yours, that will be found ju&s;tly culpable, in this re|&s;pect.
For fir&s;t, as the Jews had a &s;upreame Judicatory for the fi|nall
ending of Cau&s;es, &s;o we hold the &s;ame in a particular Con|gregation.
Whereas according to your opinion and grounds, we
<PB N="18" REF="12">
know not where or when to find &s;uch a Judicatory, but there mu&s;t
be appeals upon appeals, from the Congregation to the Cla&s;&s;is,
from a Cla&s;&s;is to a Provinciall Synod, and from them to a Nation|all,
and from that to an Oecumenicall; and by this means cau&s;es
may be &s;o protracted, as not to receive any determination for ma|ny
generations, yea it may be never while this world doth endure.
Secondly, as with them there was a &s;tanding Judicatorie alwaies
in readine&s;&s;e for the hearing of cau&s;es, &s;o we hold the like in the
particular Congregation: Whereas Synods are not alwaies in
readine&s;&s;e, but &s;o &s;eldome, that if they had &s;upreme power to de|termine,
yet cau&s;es ma<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="faint" EXTENT="1 letter"> be long depending, before a Synod can
be called for the determining of them. Thirdly, whereas the &s;u|preame
Judicatorie at Jeru&s;alem, being but one in all the world,
was verie farre remote from all pro&s;elites, that lived in other coun|treys
(as the Eunuch of Ethiopia, <HI>Act.</HI> 8.) yea farre remote from
tho&s;e Jews, that dwelt in the furthe&s;t parts of the Holy Land; God
hath provided better for us in regard that Congregations wherein
we place the &s;upreame Church power being many in number, a
Chri&s;tian may have the u&s;e of that power with much more con|veniencie,
then was affoarded to mo&s;t Jews and Pro&s;elites in tho&s;e
daies; But as for Synods, as they are for time more &s;eldome, then
that Synedrion, &s;o they are to many per&s;ons no le&s;&s;er remote in
place. By all which it doth appear, that the doctrine of the Inde|pendents
(as you call them) doth in &s;ome things make us equall
to the Jews, and in other things, doth make our condition more
excellent then theirs; Whereas according to your way, that are
again&s;t Independencie, in many things our condition is made
more defective then theirs.</P>
<P>How were our Saviour King of peace and righteou&s;ne&s;&s;e, &s;hould he have
ordained now under the Go&s;pel, &s;uch a government as&mdash;were neither
righteous nor peaceable? pa. 7.</P>
<P>That our ble&s;&s;ed Saviour is King of righteou&s;ne&s;&s;e and peace,
and the Church government which he hath ordained both righ|teous
and peaceable, is &s;uch a certain and divine truth, that it
were bla&s;phemous wickedne&s;&s;e to doubt of it; But when the Que|&s;tion
is, what government Chri&s;t hath ordained, it is better argu|ing
to &s;ay, This government the Scripture doth witne&s;&s;e to be or|dained
of Chri&s;t, and therefore it is righteous and peaceable, then
to &s;ay, this government is not righteous nor peaceable, and there|fore
<PB N="19" REF="12">
not ordained of Chri&s;t. We meane plainly thus, that it is more
agreeable to religious &s;obrietie and humilitie, to &s;earch out by
Scripture-grounds, what government Chri&s;t hath ordained, and
when that is once found, then to conclude from thence, the righ|teou&s;ne&s;&s;e
and peaceablene&s;&s;e of the &s;ame; rather then on the o|ther
&s;ide, to think with our &s;elves what government to naturall
rea&s;on &s;eems righteous and peaceable, and thence to gather what
is ordained or not ordained of Chri&s;t, your &s;elf have a &s;aying p. 9.
that laws meerly po&s;itive are therefore Laws becau&s;e commanded.
And why may not we &s;ay in like &s;ort, this or that form of Church
government, is therefore peaceable and righteous, becau&s;e ordain|ed,
&s;ith this or that form is by the po&s;itive law of Chri&s;t.</P>
<P>But (&s;ay you) how can that government be peaceable and righteous,
where parties are made &s;ole Judges? Suppo&s;e the greater number of mem|bers
in a Congregation be again&s;t the Pa&s;tor and Elders. pag. 7.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> It is not unrighteous nor unpeaceable in it &s;elf that they
&s;hould be Judges, whom the God of all righteou&s;ne&s;&s;e and peace
hath appointed &s;o to be. Nor is it rea&s;onable, that they &s;hould be
thru&s;t out of the office, whereto God hath appointed them, under
this pretence, that they are parties; For if good care be not taken
how farre we give way to &s;uch alledgements, we may lay a foun|dation
for weakning, if not utterly evacuating, the authoritie of
all &s;upreame Judicatories what&s;oever. For as you alledge again&s;t
the Congregation, that they may be divided among&s;t them&s;elves,
and then if matters be ended there, parties are made Judges, (<HI>viz.</HI>
the major part again&s;t the minor) &s;o the very &s;ame may be &s;aid of
a Synod, where controver&s;ies may ari&s;e, as well as in a Congrega|tion:
And if Congregations mu&s;t not determine matters ari&s;ing
within them&s;elves, becau&s;e parties mu&s;t not be Judges; then by the
&s;ame rea&s;on matters ari&s;ing in a Synod, mu&s;t not be determined
by a Synod; and &s;o the Synod unto whom, you would have mat|ters
carried from the Congregation, mu&s;t be no more Indepen|dent,
then the Congregation it &s;elf, from whom they are carried.
Yea, by this Rea&s;on, that &s;upreame Synedrion among the Jews,
mu&s;t have been dependent al&s;o. For it is plain, that &s;ometimes
that Synedrion was divided into parts among them&s;elves, as in
that famous in&s;tance, <HI>Act.</HI> 23. where the divi&s;ion of the Councill
was the means of <HI>Paul's</HI> e&s;cape.</P>
<P>Finally, there is not any &s;upreme Judicatory upon earth, nei|ther
<PB N="20" REF="13">
Civill nor Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall, but if they con&s;i&s;t of many per&s;ons,
and be not ab&s;olute and meere Monarchies con&s;i&s;ting of one alone,
the members thereof may be divided among them&s;elves, and yet
they mu&s;t be the finall Judges to determine matters within them|&s;elves,
if the matters mu&s;t be determined at all: &s;o that this which
you &s;eeme to reject as an ab&s;urditie, that parties &s;hould be Judges,
is in &s;ome ca&s;es (and namely when the &s;upreme Judicatory is di|vided
into parts about matters ari&s;ing among them&s;elves) a mat|ter
of unavoidable nece&s;&s;ity, and cannot be otherwi&s;e.</P>
<P>This communion and mutuall a&s;&s;i&s;tance in government,&mdash;God as by his
Word, &s;o by the very light of Nature, teacheth all &s;ocieties whatever, whether
Common-wealths, or Armies, &V;niver&s;ities or Navies, <HI>pag.</HI> 7.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Either this pa&s;&s;age means that all Common-wealths, &amp;c.
are taught &s;uch communion and a&s;&s;i&s;tance in government with o|ther
Common-wealths, &amp;c. as that none of them have entirene&s;&s;e
and &s;upremacie of juri&s;diction within them&s;elves, but are depen|dant
on other the like &s;ocieties for the &s;ame; or el&s;e that the mem|bers
and parts of a Common-wealth, &amp;c. are taught &s;uch commu|nion
and a&s;&s;i&s;tance in government, as not to be entire of them&s;elves,
but to depend upon the whole &s;ociety of which they are members
and parts. If it be taken in the latter &s;en&s;e, then the thing is mo&s;t
true, but no prejudice to our cau&s;e at all, for we grant the &s;ame of
the parts and members of a Congregationall Church, &amp;c. But it
mu&s;t be taken in the former &s;en&s;e, if it make any thing again&s;t us;
and in this &s;en&s;e it will not hold true: for it is well known, that
Common-wealths and Univer&s;ities, as the Common-wealth of
England for example, and the Univer&s;ity of Oxford, have no &s;uch
communion and a&s;&s;i&s;tance in government, with other Common-wealths
and other Univer&s;ities, but that they have entirene&s;&s;e of
juri&s;diction within them&s;elves; and the &s;ame may be &s;aid of Ar|mies
and Navies. The members of all the&s;e &s;ocieties doe depend
on the &s;ocietie of which they are members: But that is nothing
again&s;t us. If the Societies did depend upon other the like Societies,
this indeed were again&s;t us. But this cannot be proved &s;o to be.</P>
<P>Not that therefore this government of Churches &s;hould as tho&s;e end in a
Monarchy on earth.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> We &s;uppo&s;e it is a clear mi&s;take, to &s;ay that the govern|ment
in all tho&s;e &s;ocieties, doth end in a Monarchy: For whatever
may be &s;aid of the re&s;t, Common-wealths you know there are
<PB N="21" REF="13">
&s;undry, who&s;e government is either Democraticall or Ari&s;tocrati|call,
and doth not end in any Monarchy at all; witne&s;&s;e for exam|ple
the Low Countreys.</P>
<P>But if Churches mu&s;t be dependent upon the government of
Synods, becau&s;e the very light of Nature teacheth a communion
and a&s;&s;i&s;tance in government to all Societies whatever; then we
&s;ee not how it will be avoyded, but by the &s;ame rea&s;on Churches
mu&s;t end in a Monarchy upon earth, if it were once proved, that
the light of Nature doth teach all &s;ocieties whatever &s;o to end:
For there is as good rea&s;on for this as for the other. And the old
plea for Bi&s;hops and Popes, <HI>ut capite con&s;tituto &s;chi&s;matis occa&s;io tollere|tur,</HI>
will not be ea&s;ily avoyded. If we yeeld thus much that what the
light of nature teacheth other Societies, the &s;ame mu&s;t be ob&s;erved
in the government of Churches.</P>
<P><HI>You &s;ay indeed that this will not follow,</HI> Becau&s;e the Churches
Monarch or Head is in Heaven, and &s;uch an one, as though in Heaven, yet
&s;till pre&s;ent by his Word and Spirit here on earth too, to all the offices of a
Monarch. pag. 7.</P>
<P>But this we conceive doth not remove the difficultie, partly, be|cau&s;e
the objection is for a vi&s;ible Head, and not an invi&s;ible; and
partly becau&s;e the time hath been when there was one High-Prie&s;t
upon earth, in whom you &s;ay (pag. 6.) that all appeals and
judgements were to determine: And yet at that time the Monarch
or Head of the Church was in Heaven, and pre&s;ent on earth too
by his Word and Spirit, to all the offices of a Monarch, as truly
then as now.</P>
<P>Whereby we may &s;ee, that if you will goe by the light of Na|ture,
it is not the pre&s;ence of Chri&s;t in Heaven, and his &s;pirituall
and invi&s;ible pre&s;ence with his Church on earth, that will take a|way
the nece&s;&s;ity of a vi&s;ible Head upon earth. A &s;urer an&s;wer to
this plea, is to flye to the in&s;titution and appointment of God,
who&s;e wi&s;edome and will it was to appoint one High Prie&s;t upon
earth in former times, but hath not done the like in the&s;e dayes.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="3" TYPE="chapter">
<PB N="22" REF="14">
<HEAD>CHAP. III.</HEAD>
<HEAD TYPE="sub">Containing an an&s;wer to the &s;econd Argument taken from
Matth 18. Tell the Church.</HEAD>
<P>THat this is &s;poken by our Saviour in reference to the Jewi&s;h Church-government,
&mdash;is the joynt judgement of <HI>Ambro&s;e, Theodoret,</HI>&mdash;among
the ancient: <HI>Melanchton, Strigetius, Peretius, Aretius,</HI>&mdash;and
even Mr. <HI>John&s;on</HI> him&s;elfe.&mdash;And if &s;o, then our Saviour here &s;uffici|ently
confirmes to us as lawfull, and conveyes to us as u&s;efull &s;o much of the
Jewi&s;h Church-government as includes an Independencie and liberty of
Appe des therein. <HI>pag.</HI> 9, 10.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> By dependencie here &s;poken of, mu&s;t be meant depen|dencie
upon the government of a Synod; and by Appeal mu&s;t be
meant Appeale from a particular Congregation unto that Synod,
or otherwi&s;e the Argument concludes be&s;ides the Que&s;tion: And
the words being thus under&s;tood, the forme of the Argument mu&s;t
be to this purpo&s;e, viz.</P>
<P>If that which is here &s;poken by our Saviour, be &s;poken in refe|rence
to the Jewi&s;h Church-government, then particular congre|gations
mu&s;t depend upon the government of Synods.</P>
<P>But the fir&s;t is true: Therefore the &s;econd is true al&s;o.</P>
<P>But for confirmation of this Minor Propo&s;ition, you bring no
other proofe but onely the te&s;timonies of a number of Authours, all
cited before by Mr. <HI>Paget</HI> in his <HI>Defence, pag.</HI> 46, 47, &amp;c. And for the
con&s;equence of your Major you bring no proofe at all. Neverthe|le&s;&s;e
we are willing to con&s;ider what &s;trength there may be in the
Argument, and to that purpo&s;e we mu&s;t enquire into your mea|ning
in this phra&s;e of <HI>Reference to the Jewi&s;h Church-government,</HI>
whereby we conceive you intend one of the&s;e two, either that the
word <HI>Church</HI> in our Saviours rule, <HI>Tell the Church,</HI> doth &s;ignifie the
Elders and Governours alone, as &s;ometimes the like word is u&s;ed in
the old Te&s;tament; or el&s;e that no new rule is pre&s;cribed hereby
our Saviour, but the very &s;ame that was formerly given to the
Jews. Mr. <HI>Paget,</HI> who al&s;o takes his &s;econd argument from this place
of <HI>Mat.</HI> 18. doth under&s;tand our Saviours words in this later &s;en&s;e.
But whether way &s;oever you intend, our an&s;wer is briefly thus:
Fir&s;t, that though we will not now deny the minor Propo&s;ition, yet
this we may &s;ay, That it is not &s;o evident of it &s;elf, but that it needs
<PB N="32" REF="14">
&s;ome better proof then by you is given for the confirmation of it;
for of it &s;elf it is not clear, that by <HI>Church</HI> is meant onely the El|ders
of the Church, nor that all the &s;teps of &s;uch graduall procee|ding
as our Saviour doth pre&s;cribe, were formerly commanded
to the Jews. And your &s;elf profe&s;&s;ing in your Epi&s;tle to the Gen|tlemen,
prefixed before your book, that you like D. <HI>Moulins</HI> re&s;o|lution,
rather to bring one Argument then ten Authors, if accor|dingly
you had confirmed this minor propo&s;ition with &s;ome fur|ther
proof then onely the names of Authors, it could have given
better &s;atisfaction.</P>
<P>But what ever become of the minor, the con&s;equence of the
major may ju&s;tly be denied. For though it were granted that our
Saviours words, <HI>Tell the Church,</HI> were &s;poken with reference to the
Jewi&s;h Church-government in this &s;ence, that this graduall pro|ceeding
in all the &s;teps of it was formerly commanded to the
Jews, yet this is nothing to prove the nece&s;&s;itie of the dependance
of Congregations upon the government of Synods, (which is our
que&s;tion) becau&s;e there may be &s;uch graduall proceedings to the
fulfilling of our Saviours rule, without any u&s;e of a Synod at all.
If it were not &s;o, Synods had need to be more frequent then they
are, or ever were, or are ever like to be, for this rule of our Saviour
is of very frequent u&s;e.</P>
<P>And though it were granted al&s;o, that by <HI>Church,</HI> our Saviour
meant the Elders (which is the other &s;en&s;e of your words of refe|rence
to the Jewi&s;h Church-government) yet neither would this
prove the dependence of Congregations upon the Government of
Synods, becau&s;e there may be and ought to be Elders, and an El|der&s;hip
or Presbyterie in every particular Congregation, and by
telling tho&s;e Elders that rule may be ob&s;erved, if our Saviours
words were taken in that &s;ence. And indeed it &s;eems your &s;elf do
&s;o under&s;tand them, as appears in pag. 17. of your book, and like|wi&s;e
in this place now in hand, becau&s;e one of tho&s;e Authors
whom you alledge for the meaning of our Saviours words, is Mr.
<HI>John&s;on,</HI> who in his latter times, did &s;o under&s;tand them, of whom
you &s;ay, <HI>Even Mr.</HI> John&s;on <HI>him&s;elf though a Pa&s;tor of Separati&s;ts in a pe|culiar
Treati&s;e reduceth him&s;elf from his former error in the contrary opinion,
to this judgement too.</HI> Wherby it &s;eems, that for the meaning of this
text, you concurre in opinion or judgement with Mr. <HI>John&s;on.</HI> And
if &s;o, then though you may by <HI>Church</HI> under&s;tand the Elders as he
<PB N="24" REF="15">
did, yet then you mu&s;t al&s;o acknowledge the Independency of par|ticular
Congregations and the Pa&s;tors thereof; for it is certain
and plain that Mr. <HI>John&s;on</HI> was of that opinion and judgement
too, notwith&s;tanding that his Expo&s;ition of <HI>Matth.</HI> 18. and did
never reduce him&s;elf to this opinion, that Congregations mu&s;t be
dependent upon the Government of Synods, which is your plea.
For which purpo&s;e you may con&s;ider what is to be &s;een in his
<HI>Chri&s;tian Plea,</HI> which was one of the la&s;t books that ever he wrote.
Now in pag. 250, 251. of that book are the&s;e words, <HI>viz. Seeing
now every particular con&s;tituted Church hath right and power within it &s;elf
to celebrate the Lords Supper, which is an&s;werable to the Pa&s;&s;eover that was
kept at Jeru&s;alem, this &s;heweth that now every particular Church is to be
e&s;teemed as Jeru&s;alem, and &s;o to &s;tand immediately under Je&s;us Chri&s;t the
Arch-Pa&s;tor of his &s;heep, and high Prie&s;t of our profe&s;&s;ion.</HI> And again, <HI>All
particular Churches with their Pa&s;tors do &s;tand immediately under Je&s;us
Chri&s;t the Arch-Pa&s;tor without any &s;trange Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall power and autho|ritie
interpo&s;ed between, whether it be of the Prelates, or of their unlawfull
u&s;urping Synods, or any &s;uch like</HI>&mdash;. And in the words following,
&s;peaking how all Churches, and the Mini&s;ters of them, &s;hould be
readie and willing to help and advi&s;e one another, he addeth thus:
<HI>viz. And &s;o to this end, and in this manner, may be had a lawfull and profit|able
u&s;e of Synods, Cla&s;&s;es, &amp;c. for mutuall help and advi&s;e, &s;o as alwaies
it be provided that they do not challenge or u&s;urp any unlawfull Juri&s;diction
or power over the particular Churches, or their Pa&s;tors and Governours.</HI>
By which words it plainly appeareth, that though Mr. <HI>John&s;on</HI> by
<HI>Church</HI> in <HI>Matth.</HI> 18. did under&s;tand the Elders, yet he never held
that particular Churches, and the Elders thereof, &s;hould depend
upon the government of Synods, but be immediately under the
government and authoritie of Je&s;us Chri&s;t, and depend no other
way upon Synods but onely for their advi&s;e and coun&s;ell: and
therefore his Expo&s;ition of <HI>Matth.</HI> 18. will &s;tand you in no &s;tead to
prove the dependance of particular Churches upon Synods.</P>
<P>Wherefore to wind up our An&s;wer to this Argument. Though
it were granted that when our Saviour &s;aith, <HI>Tell the Church,</HI> he
means <HI>tell the Elders,</HI> and though it were granted al&s;o that enjoy|ing
&s;uch a graduall proceeding, he pre&s;cribeth no new rule, but
the &s;ame that had been given before unto the Jews, yet neither of
the&s;e do prove that Congregations mu&s;t depend upon the Autho|ritie
of Synods; and the rea&s;on is, becau&s;e both the&s;e may be per|formed
<PB N="25" REF="15">
in a particular Congregation; for therein a man may pro|ceed
by &s;uch &s;teps and degrees as our Saviour enjoyneth, and may
al&s;o tell his matter to the Elders of that particular Church. And
&s;o the con&s;equence of your major propo&s;ition failing, the whole
Argument mu&s;t fail al&s;o, though the minor were never &s;o &s;trongly
proved: and how much more when the minor is left &s;o weak, nei|ther
of the&s;e particulars being &s;ufficiently cleared and made good
by you, that by <HI>Church</HI> is meant the Elders, nor that all that our
Saviour in that place pre&s;cribeth, was before commanded to the
Jews.</P>
<P>But ina&s;much as your words are, that this of <HI>Matth.</HI> 18. is &s;po|ken
by our Saviour Chri&s;t in reference to the Jewi&s;h Church-go|vernment
before urged, therefore we may give a further An&s;wer
to this Argument, out of that which before hath been an&s;wered
when the Argument from the Jewi&s;h Church-government was
urged. For though it were granted that Chri&s;t &s;peaks in reference
to that government, yea though it were granted (which we &s;up|po&s;e
none will affirm) that all that was u&s;ed among the Jews is
here pre&s;cribed by Chri&s;t, yet all this were too &s;hort to prove that
our Congregations mu&s;t depend upon the government of Synods,
unle&s;&s;e it could be proved that the Jewi&s;h Congregations did &s;o
depend, which we have formerly &s;hewed to be otherwi&s;e, the great
Synedrion at Jeru&s;alem upon which their le&s;&s;er Congregations did
depend, if they were dependent at all, being not any Synod, but
an A&s;&s;embly of another nature.</P>
<P><HI>But you will improve this Text further; and therefore after &s;ome
&s;peech of an Indefinite propo&s;ition in Logick, and an Indefinite
command in Divinitie, and of five graduall</HI> Iffs <HI>in our Saviours
words,</HI> If he &s;hall offend, &amp;c. <HI>you come thus to argue,</HI> viz. The reme|die
of complaint or Appeal mu&s;t be as large as the malady offence, otherwi&s;e
Chri&s;ts &s;alve were not equall to the &s;ore: but offences may ari&s;e as well between
divers Congregations in the &s;ame Church, as between divers members in the
&s;ame Congregation, and therefore particular Congregations as well as mem|bers
have hereby liberty to complain and appeal to a more generall Judge|ment
for redre&s;&s;e. <HI>And a little after:</HI> That &s;uch offences may ari&s;e be|tween
Churches as well as members, appears by that between the Graecians and
Hebrews about the neglect of their widows, <HI>Act.</HI> 6. 1. and that in &s;uch ca&s;es
they may complain and implead each other, appears by that of the Prophet
<HI>Ho&s;ea</HI> 2. 2. even the daughter Church with the mother. <HI>pag. 10. To all
which we thus an&s;wer.</HI></P>
<P><PB N="26" REF="16">
Fir&s;t, though we deny not but offences may ari&s;e betweene
Churches as well as members, yet we do not &s;ee that tho&s;e in&s;tan|ces
alledged by you from <HI>Act.</HI> 6. and <HI>Ho&s;.</HI> 2. do &s;ufficiently prove
the &s;ame; becau&s;e tho&s;e Graecians and Hebrews, <HI>Act.</HI> 6. might be
all of one and the &s;ame Church and Congregation which was at
Jeru&s;alem, and not two Congregations or Churches, the Graecians
one and the Hebrews another, as it &s;eems you do conceive of them.
For when the Apo&s;tles upon occa&s;ion of this murmuring of the
Graecians for the neglect of their widows, did take cour&s;e for the
appointing of Deacons for the remedying thereof, the whole ma|naging
of the bu&s;ine&s;&s;e was tran&s;acted and done in one Congre|gation
alone; for &s;o it is &s;aid, <HI>they called the multitude of Di&s;ciples to|gether,</HI>
ver&s;. 2. they appointed them to look out &s;even men duely
qualified whom they might appoint over that bu&s;ine&s;&s;e, <HI>v.</HI> 3. and
the &s;aying plea&s;ed the whole multitude, who thereupon did chu&s;e
&s;even whom they pre&s;ented unto the Apo&s;tles, <HI>ver.</HI> 5, 6. and the
Apo&s;tles impo&s;ed hands on them, <HI>ver.</HI> 6. In all this there is no
hint of two congregations, one of Graecians and another of He|brews,
but the Text &s;eemeth plain enough, that the whole multi|tude
of Di&s;ciples whether Graecians or Hebrews were all gathered
together into one Congregation about the choice and ordaining
of the&s;e Deacons.</P>
<P>And as for <HI>Ho&s;. 2. 2. Plead with your mother, plead,</HI> &s;ith there is no
mention in that Scripture of any daughter Church, nor of any two
Churches at all; and &s;ith at that time there was only one Church
upon the face of the earth, even the Nationall Church of the
Jewes, therefore we cannot &s;ee how this Text can be any proofe of
Churches complaining and impleading one another. If any man
think otherwi&s;e, and that the daughter-Churches did plead a|gain&s;t
the mother-Church of I&s;rael that is here &s;poken of, then we
would demand what or where was that &s;uperiour Judicatory, be
it Synod or any other, before which they did plead, and before
whom the mother-Church of I&s;rael mu&s;t an&s;wer for her&s;elfe, when
the daughter-Churches did complain again&s;t her. We &s;uppo&s;e
none will affirme there was any &s;uch: and therefore this text can
be no ground for Churches impleading one another. But the true
meaning of the place is thus much, not that one Church mu&s;t plead
again&s;t another, but that the godly members of the Church of I&s;|rael
mu&s;t plead again&s;t the corruptions of that very Church,
<PB N="27" REF="16">
though in re&s;pect of them &s;he were as a mother, and they as chil|dren.
And before whom mu&s;t they plead? Not before any other
Judge upon earth, but before the Lord of heaven, and unto her
own face, laying open her abominations, and &s;hewing unto her,
her &s;ins: And we acknowledge the members of any other Church
may doe the like, if there be the like occa&s;ion, &s;o that they keep
them&s;elves within the bounds of &s;obriety, and their owne cal|ling.</P>
<P>But if it were granted (though the&s;e allegations doe not prove
it) that offences may ari&s;e between Congregations, how doth this
prove the thing in que&s;tion, viz. That Congregations mu&s;t depend
upon the government of Synods? Yes, &s;ay you; <Q>Becau&s;e the re|medy
mu&s;t be as large as the malady; and otherwi&s;e Chri&s;ts
&s;alve were not equall to the &s;ore.</Q> But if this rea&s;on be &s;ufficient
again&s;t the Independency of Churches; then by the like rea&s;on a
man may prove, that the Church of a Nation mu&s;t not be Indepen|dent
neither: For as you alledge, that offences may ari&s;e as well
between divers congregations, as between divers members in the
&s;ame congregation; &s;o a man may alledge, that offences may a|ri&s;e
between divers Nationall Churches. And as you demand,
<HI>What if a brother offend not a particular brother, but the whole Con|gregation?
What if ten brethren offend the whole, or part; &s;hall we think
the offence falls not within our Saviours remedy?</HI> So in like &s;ort a man
may demand, What if the Congregation offend not a particular
Congregation, but the whole Church of a Nation? What if ten,
twenty, fourty congregations, offend the whole Nation, or part?
Yea, we may adde, What if the Nationall Church offend the
Church of another Nation? Would you now &s;ay, that all the&s;e of|fences
mu&s;t fal within our <HI>Saviours</HI> rule of <HI>telling the Church;</HI> and that
this were a &s;ufficient rea&s;on again&s;t the independencie of Natio|nall
Churches and Nationall Synods? We &s;uppo&s;e you would not
&s;ay &s;o: And yet we doe not &s;ee how it can be avoided by your
rea&s;on and ground, &s;ith that ground is appliable to the one ca&s;e as
well as to the other. If the rea&s;on doe overthrow the Independen|cie
of particular Congregations, then of a Nationall Church al&s;o.
If not of a Nationall Church, then how doth it make any more
again&s;t the other? Of nece&s;&s;ity for ought wee can di&s;cern, you
mu&s;t owne the rea&s;on as &s;trong in both ca&s;es, or el&s;e refu&s;e it as
weak in both. Yea, and further, by the like rea&s;on a man might
<PB N="28" REF="17">
prove that Indians and Turkes mu&s;t be complained of unto the
Church, and that the offences of them, or of other Heathen, mu&s;t
fall within the compa&s;&s;e of our Saviours remedy. For as offences
may ari&s;e between members and members, between Churches and
Churches: &s;o it is apparent that offences may ari&s;e between Chri|&s;tians
and Pagans; and if this ground that you lay be &s;ound, that
the <HI>remedy complaint, or oppeale mu&s;t be as large as the malady offence:</HI> and
con&s;equently there mu&s;t be a Church above Congregations; then
if an Indian or other Pagan &s;hall commit an offence, the remedy
mu&s;t be to complain of the Indian to the Church. And &s;ith (as you
&s;ay, pag. 11.) <HI>There mu&s;t be power of judgement to redre&s;&s;e there where the
complaint is to be made;</HI> would it not thence follow, that there mu&s;t
be power of judgement in the Church to redre&s;&s;e the offences of
Indians? Which were directly contrary to the plain words of the
Apo&s;tle, 1 <HI>Cor. 5. 12. What have I to doe to judge them that are without?</HI>
But this inconvenience of the Churches judging them that are
without, doth unavoidably follow upon this which you lay as a
ground again&s;t the independencie of Congregations, viz. that
where an offence may be committed, there Chri&s;ts rule, <HI>Tell the
Church,</HI> may be applied for redre&s;&s;e thereof.</P>
<P>But what &s;hall we &s;ay then? If Indians and other Heathens, if
Congregationall and Nationall Churches of Chri&s;tians, be not
under the power of that rule of Chri&s;t, &s;hall we &s;ay then there is
no &s;alve for all their &s;ores, but &s;o many &s;inners mu&s;t be left law|le&s;&s;e,
and their offences remedile&s;&s;e? God forbid! The Lord hath
provided good &s;tore of help for all the&s;e: but every &s;alve is not for
every &s;ore. Such per&s;ons as are in the Church, all they are &s;ubject
to the di&s;cipline of the Church, and to the power of Chri&s;t admi|ni&s;tred
therein, &s;o that if need &s;o require, they may be excommu|nicated
and ca&s;t out. Whole Churches are &s;ubject to the whol|&s;ome
advice and coun&s;ell of other Churches; and &s;o farre as the
&s;ame &s;hall be according to God, they ought to hearken thereunto:
And if they doe not, they may lawfully be renounced by other
Churches, from all Church-communion with them. And as for
Indians, or others, that are no Churches, nor members of Chur|ches,
though our Saviours Rule of Telling the Church, was not
intended for them, yet both they and Chri&s;tian Churches like|wi&s;e,
and the members of them, are all of them to be &s;ubject to the
Magi&s;trates, and the authority of the higher Powers, who&s;e duty
<PB N="29" REF="17">
it is to be keepers of both Tables of the Law of God, and to do
their endeavour that all the Subjects may lead a quiet and peace|able
life in all godline&s;&s;e and hone&s;tie. <HI>Rom. 13. 1. 1 Tim.</HI> 2. 2.</P>
<P>But, &s;ay you, an offence may be &s;o generall as to defile and make guilty a
whole Land, and why not then the remedie as large as it, Tell the Church?
<HI>pag.</HI> 11.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> In &s;uch ca&s;e of generall and nationall defilements, the re|medie
is generall and Nationall repentance, whereto all the people
mu&s;t be provoked, and exhorted by the Mini&s;ters of the Word in
their &s;everall Congregations. And when the higher powers do
give example thereof in their own per&s;ons, and by &s;ome act of their
Authoritie do call upon all the people for the &s;ame, this is a nota|ble
remedie, through the mercy of God, again&s;t the defilement of
Nationall &s;ins, and the danger that may come thereby. Which as
it was the practi&s;e of <HI>A&s;a, Hezekiah, Jo&s;iah,</HI> and the States of <HI>Judah</HI>
in their times, &s;o we have cau&s;e with all humble thankfulne&s;&s;e to
ble&s;&s;e the Lord that put the like care into the hearts of the <HI>Lords</HI>
and <HI>Commons</HI> a&s;&s;embled in Parliament in our deare native Coun|trey,
who by an Ordinance of both Hou&s;es thought it meet to ex|hort
all the Subjects of England and Wales to the duty of Repen|tance,
both for per&s;onall and Nationall &s;ins.</P>
<P>But &s;uppo&s;e the Magi&s;trate be an Enemy to Religion, and the Land or
whole Church therein have occa&s;ion to make a &s;olemne renewall of their Cove|nant
with God, &s;hall not this whole Church or number in their collective body
have power to enjoyn it?</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> If the &s;upreame Magi&s;trate be an enemie to Religion, it is
not like but mo&s;t or many of the people will be of the &s;ame mind;
<HI>Regis ad exemplum totus</HI>&mdash;as it is at this day in France and
Spaine, and was in England in the dayes of Queen <HI>Mary,</HI> and other
Popi&s;h Princes; and then the beleevers in the Land will not be &s;o
many as to bear the name of the Land or Nation, but of a &s;mall
part thereof, and &s;o at that time it will not be required of them
to make any Nationall Covenant, or to enjoyn the &s;ame. Nor can
it well be conceived how they &s;hould a&s;&s;emble in a Nationall Sy|nod
for that or any other purpo&s;e, when the Magi&s;trate is a pro|fe&s;&s;ed
enemie to their Religion. At &s;uch times it is more like their
meetings in &s;mall congregations will be full of danger, rather then
that they &s;hould have libertie &s;afely and freely to meet in &s;uch
great A&s;&s;emblies as Nationall Synods. And though for lack of
<PB N="30" REF="18">
&s;uch a Nationall Covenant, the remedie be not equall to the of|fence
or need, yet at &s;uch time that remedie being not in the power
of &s;uch beleevers as are in the Land, it is not required at their
hands.</P>
<P>If a whole Congregation, great or &s;mall, play the Foxes, and &s;poil the vine|yard,
why may it not be taken and re&s;trained? <HI>pa.</HI> 11.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> No doubt but it may, but ever in the way, and by the
means which Chri&s;t hath appointed. If tho&s;e Foxes be particular
members of the Church, they may be re&s;trained by doctrine, by
di&s;cipline, and by the Magi&s;trates Authoritie. If they be whole
Churches, they may be re&s;trained by Doctrine, and by the advi&s;e
and coun&s;ell of other Churches, and al&s;o by the Magi&s;trates. But
if they be not members of the Church, they can not be re&s;trained
by Church di&s;cipline, but onely by the Authoritie of the Magi|&s;trate,
and by the preaching of the Word.</P>
<P>To this Argument the Independent party reply or rather labour to obtain
out of the Text three things.</P>
<P>Fir&s;t, that our Saviour &s;peaks here of a &s;ingle Church or Congregation&mdash;
Secondly, to this &s;ingle Church, and to all this Church entirely, not di&s;tin|gui&s;hing
between Elders and Members, he gives the keyes of Excommunica|tion
and Ab&s;olution&mdash;Thirdly, over this Church to a&s;&s;ume a Church power
of Judicature is a Lording it over Chri&s;ts heritage&mdash;</P>
<P>To the fir&s;t of the&s;e exceptions we an&s;wer, that it no way appears that our
Saviour in this place or that, the Scripture el&s;ewhere, u&s;ually means a &s;ingle
congregation by the word <HI>Church,</HI> but that the contrary rather is ea&s;ily
evincible.</P>
<P>Fir&s;t, that he here &s;pake in reference to the Jewi&s;h Church, which way no
&s;ingle congregation hath above &s;ufficiently appeared. <HI>pag.</HI> 11.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> But how in reference? If you mean in this &s;ence, that what
ever was u&s;ed in that Church mu&s;t be u&s;ed in the Chri&s;tian, or that
as that Church was Nationall, &s;o Chri&s;tian Churches mu&s;t be the
like, then we may &s;ay, no &s;uch things hath appeared at all, nor
hath been &s;o much as undertaken to be proved. If you mean onely
thus, that there were &s;uch graduall proceedings in that Church as
Chri&s;t in this place requireth, or that the word <HI>Church</HI> may &s;ignifie
the Elders or Rulers, then we may &s;ay neither of the&s;e have &s;uffici|ently
appeared by any proof that you have brought; and if they
were both granted, they are nothing to the matter now in que&s;ti|on
<HI>viz.</HI> that the word <HI>Church</HI> doth not &s;ignifie one &s;ingle Congre|gation;
<PB N="31" REF="18">
for both the&s;e particulars may be found and made u&s;e of
in &s;uch a Church as is of no larger extent.</P>
<P>Next, that he hath reference herein to that of <HI>Deut.</HI> 19. 15. appears by his
citation of the very words of that text, that in the mouth of two or three wit|ne&s;&s;es
every word may be e&s;tabli&s;hed: Now there the witne&s;&s;es and offenders
were by way of further Appeal to &s;tand before the Lord, before the Prie&s;ts for
judgement, <HI>ver&s;. 17. pag.</HI> 12.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> The words are not as you cite them, <HI>before the Prie&s;ts for
judgement;</HI> but before the Prie&s;ts and Judges which &s;hall be in tho&s;e
dayes. And it appeareth by the puni&s;hment which the&s;e Judges
mu&s;t inflict upon the guiltie per&s;on there &s;poken of, life for life,
eye for eye, tooth for tooth, &amp;c. <HI>v.</HI> 21. that if our Saviour refer his
Church to do like unto that Judicatory which you &s;ay he hath re|ference
unto, then the Church mu&s;t have power to inflict corporall
puni&s;hment, even to the taking away of life it &s;elf, becau&s;e that
Judicatory had &s;uch power.</P>
<P>La&s;tly, no other place can be &s;hewed, where our Saviour u&s;ed the word
<HI>Church</HI> for a &s;ingle congregation.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> Nor can any other place be &s;hewed where he u&s;ed the word
<HI>Church</HI> for a Synod, nor that he ever u&s;ed the word at all, but onely
here, and in <HI>Matth. 16. Vpon this rock will I build my Church:</HI> in which
place he means a Synod no more then a &s;ingle congregation.</P>
<P>But for the Scripture language, nothing is more manife&s;t, then as it never
any where u&s;eth the word <HI>Church</HI> for a &s;ingle congregation, unle&s;&s;e happily
in 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 14.&mdash;&s;o nothing is more frequent therein then to call many congre|gations
in a Province or City, by the name of a Church. <HI>pag.</HI> 12.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> We are willing to con&s;ider of both the&s;e particulars; and
fir&s;t of the former, wherein you do acknowledge (though a per|haps,
or happily) that in 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 14. the word <HI>Church</HI> is taken for a
&s;ingle congregation: but you may acknowledge it undoubtedly,
and without any perhaps at all, becau&s;e it is &s;aid, <HI>ver.</HI> 23. of that
Chapter, that the whole Church cometh together in one place.
And in other ver&s;es of the &s;ame Chapter he &s;peaks, how he that
prophecieth edifieth the Church, how interpreting is that the
Church may receive edifying, how it is a &s;hame for women to
&s;peak in the Church, <HI>ver.</HI> 4, 5, 35. Yea in <HI>ver.</HI> 26, 27, 28. he gives
them this direction, that when they come together, and every one
hath a P&s;alme, a Doctrine, &amp;c. that he that &s;peaks in a &s;trange
tongue, if there be no Interpreter, mu&s;t keep &s;ilence in the Church.
<PB N="32" REF="19">
By all which he plainly &s;heweth, that the name <HI>Church</HI> is given to
the company that did a&s;&s;emble and come together, for perfor|mance
of &s;pirituall duties, and for the exerci&s;e of &s;pirituall gifts.
Now a company coming together is a congregation, and therefore
the name of Church is here given to a congregation. But be&s;ides
this Chapter, there are many other places where the word <HI>Church</HI>
is al&s;o u&s;ed in the &s;ame &s;ence: for in&s;tance, take the&s;e among&s;t ma|ny:
<HI>Act.</HI> 14. 27. and 11. 26. and 15. 4, 22, 30. 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 11. 18, 20, 22, 33.
3 <HI>Joh.</HI> 6. in which places there is mention of a&s;&s;embling with the
Church, of gathering the Church together, of being received by
the Church, of bearing witne&s;&s;e before the Church, of coming to|gether
in the Church, of coming together into one place, of gather|ing
the multitude together, and the like. Which places do abun|dantly
&s;hew, that a company that are gathered together into one
place (which is nothing el&s;e but a congregation) are called by the
name of a Church. And the Chri&s;tians of Cenchrea which was but
a little village, and therefore not like to be many congregations,
yet they are &s;tiled by the name of a Church. <HI>Rom.</HI> 16. 1. And though
Cenchrea were but the port of Corinth, and not farre from it, like
Radcliffe or Lymehou&s;e to London, as &s;ome have ob&s;erved, yet be|ing
a congregation of it &s;elf, it is a di&s;tinct Church of it &s;elf, as well
as Corinth was.</P>
<P>Much more might be &s;aid to make it manife&s;t, that a &s;ingle con|gregation
is called by the name of a Church in many places of
Scripture; and how then can that &s;tand which is here affirmed by
you, that the word is never &s;o u&s;ed, unle&s;&s;e happily in 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 14. and
that nothing is more manife&s;t.</P>
<P>But whereas you &s;ay, <HI>That nothing is more frequent then to call many
congregations in a Province or Citie, by the name of a Church;</HI> we may ra|ther
&s;ay, that this is &s;o far from being &s;o frequent, as nothing more,
that on the contrary it is very que&s;tionable, whether it be ever &s;o
u&s;ed at all in all the New Te&s;tament: Sure it is more frequent to
call many Congregations in a Province or Nation, by the name
of Churches in the plural number, and not by the name of Church
in the &s;ingular; which doth &s;trongly imply, that if they be many
congregations, then they are not one Church, but many. For this
purpo&s;e it is to be con&s;idered, how the Scripture mentions not the
Church, but the Churches of Galatia, Gal. 1. 1. 1 Cor. 16. 1. of Ma|cedonia,
2 Cor. 8. 1. of Judea, 1 The&s;&s;. 2. 14. Gal. 1. 21. of Galilee
<PB N="33" REF="19">
and of Samaria, Acts 9. 31. of Syria and Cilitia, Acts 15. 41. and
of A&s;ia, 1 Cor. 16. 19. In which one Province there were &s;even fa|mous
Churches at once, mentioned Revel. 1. 4. be&s;ides others that
are mentioned el&s;e-where. Now as all the&s;e in&s;tances doe &s;uffici|ently
&s;hew, that &s;omething is more frequent in Scripture, then to
call many Congregations by the name of a Church, &s;o it is worth
our con&s;ideration, what &s;hould be the rea&s;on of this diffrent &s;peech
in Scripture, that when it &s;peaks of the Chri&s;tians of one Congre|gation,
it &s;hould frequently give them the name of a Church, as
we heard before; and when it &s;peakes of the Chri&s;tians in a Pro|vince
or Countrey, where were many congregations, it &s;hould call
them &s;o u&s;ually by the name of Churches in the plurall number.
Sure it &s;eemes to us to be &s;trongly implyed thereby, that one Con|gregation
of Chri&s;tians may be a Church; but if they be many
Congregations, then they are many Churches, and not one
onely.</P>
<P>But you will give foure in&s;tances, where the name of a Church is given to
many congregations, Jeru&s;alem, Rome, Corinth, and Ephe&s;us. And concer|ning
Jeru&s;alem, the number of Di&s;ciples that were there, being 8120, Acts 1.
15. with 2. 41. and 4. 4. and afterward abundantly larger, it was impo&s;&s;ible
all the members &s;hould meet but by way of di&s;tribution into &s;everall congre|gations.
<HI>pag.</HI> 12.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> How large &s;oever that Church was in tho&s;e places you
alledge, yet if the Scripture &s;ay they did meet together in one
place, then we mu&s;t beleeve it was po&s;&s;ible for them &s;o to doe; and
that as they were but one Church, &s;o they were but one Congre|gation.
Now the text is plain, fir&s;t of all, that when they were but
120. they all met together in one place; for otherwi&s;e how could
<HI>Peter</HI> &s;tand up in the mid&s;t of them, and make a &s;peech to them all,
about the election of another Apo&s;tle in the room of <HI>Iudas,</HI> as he is
recorded to have done, Acts 115. Next of all, when 3000 were ad|ded
to them, Acts 2. yet all that multitude before they were con|verted,
did all come together in one place, ver&s;. 6. and <HI>Peter &s;tand|ing
up, lift up his voyce and &s;pake unto them all,</HI> ver&s;. 14. And when they
were converted, both they and the re&s;t of the beleevers were not yet
&s;o many, but the multitude of them were all together, ver&s;. 44. and
continued daily with one accord in the Temple, ver&s;. 46. And when
after this, (the Lord adding daily to the Church &s;uch as &s;hould be
&s;aved) the number of the men was about 5000. Acts 4. 4. yet all
<PB N="34" REF="20">
this company did &s;til meet together in one place: for it is &s;aid, that
when the Apo&s;tles were di&s;mi&s;&s;ed from the Councill with threat|nings,
they went unto their own company and reported what the
chiefe Prie&s;ts and Elders had &s;aid unto them, ver&s;. 23. And when
they heard that, they lifted up their voyce in prayer to God with
one accord, ver&s;. 24. And when they had prayed, the place was
&s;haken where they were a&s;&s;embled together, ver&s;. 31. By which it
is plain, that all this company, whether they were in all 5000. or
(if you will have it &s;o) 5000. be&s;ides the former number, and &s;o in
all 8120. yet &s;till they were all a&s;&s;embled in one place.</P>
<P>And when after this, beleevers were more added to the Lord,
multitudes both of men and women, Acts 5. 14. yet all that time
they were all with one accord in <HI>Salomons</HI> Porch, ver&s;. 12. which
&s;hewes they were not yet &s;o many, but all did meet together in one
Congregation.</P>
<P>Furthermore, when after this, the number of Di&s;ciples in Jeru&s;a|lem
was more multiplied, Acts 6. 1. yet the Apo&s;tle called the mul|titude
of them together, to propo&s;e unto them the choyce of Dea|cons,
ver&s;. 2. and the matter being commended to them by the A|po&s;tles,
it is &s;aid, the &s;aying plea&s;ed the whole multitude, and they
cho&s;e &s;even who are there named, ver&s;. 5. which &s;hewes that the
whole multitude was not &s;o many, but they might a&s;&s;emble and
come together in one place, to heare matters propo&s;ed, and to
make election of Officers.</P>
<P>After this indeed, this Church at Jeru&s;alem were all &s;cattered by
per&s;ecution, except the Apo&s;tles, Acts 8. 1. But when a Church
was gathered again by the Apo&s;tles Mini&s;tery, that Church, even
all the multitude of them, as well as the Apo&s;tles and Elders, did
all a&s;&s;emble and meet together with one accord in one congrega|tion,
about the bu&s;ine&s;&s;e of the controver&s;ie that aro&s;e at Antioch;
&s;o it is plainly &s;aid, Acts 15. That <HI>Paul</HI> and <HI>Barnabas</HI> comming
from Antioch, were received of the Church at Jeru&s;alem, and of
the Apo&s;tles and Elders, ver&s;. 4. And it plea&s;ed the Apo&s;tles and
Elders, with the whole Church, to &s;end me&s;&s;engers to Antioch,
ver&s;. 22. and to that Church letters are written from the Apo&s;tles
and Elders, and Brethren, ver&s;. 23. being all a&s;&s;embled with one
accord, ver&s;e 25. which plainly &s;hewes that the Church at Jeru&s;a|lem
at this time, did not con&s;i&s;t of Apo&s;tles and Elders alone, as a
repre&s;entative Church, but of others al&s;o, who are expre&s;ly di|&s;tingui&s;hed
<PB N="35" REF="20">
from tho&s;e officers: and yet all this Church did a&s;&s;em|ble
with one accord in one place. La&s;tly, for that place, 21. where
you &s;ay;</P>
<P>It is plain, that when the Church met collectively, it was in the Presbyters
and Elders. And that in this Church at Jeru&s;alem the collective meetings were
repre&s;entative in their Elders.</P>
<P>The an&s;wer is, That wee deny not but Elders may meet apart
from the multitude if there be occa&s;ion, and &s;o much may be pro|ved
from ver&s;e 18. where it is &s;aid, <HI>Paul</HI> went in unto <HI>James,</HI> and all
the Elders were pre&s;ent; but this is nothing to the point in hand,
That the Church at Jeru&s;alem was &s;o numerous, that all the mem|bers
could not meet in one, but in &s;everall congregations: Nay,
that very place (though it &s;peak of many thou&s;and Jewes that did
beleeve, ver&s;e 20.) yet as it doth not &s;ay, that all the&s;e were of
that one Church at Jeru&s;alem; &s;o there are good Divines that doe
think they were not: but if they were, it nothing prejudiceth our
cau&s;e in this matter; for when <HI>James</HI> and the Elders &s;peaking to
<HI>Paul</HI> of the Jewes, doe tell him, the multitude mu&s;t needs come to|gether,
for they will heare that thou art come, ver&s;e 22. It appeares
thereby, that their multitude was not &s;uch, but they might all a&s;|&s;emble
and come together.</P>
<P>If any &s;ay, How can the&s;e things be, that &s;o many thou&s;ands
as were members of the Church at Jeru&s;alem, &s;hould all yet be but
one Congregation, be&s;ides what hath been &s;aid to &s;hew that thus
it was; &s;uch an one may con&s;ider further, that many thou&s;ands,
yea Miriads, were gathered together, <HI>Luke</HI> 12. 12. and Chri&s;t &s;pake
unto them all, though unto his Di&s;ciples fir&s;t, ver&s;e 1, 14, 15, 54. and
that Pari&s;hes in England in or about London, and el&s;e-where, as
<HI>Stepney, Giles, Sepulchres,</HI> and others, have many thou&s;and inhabi|tants
in them, all members of one Pari&s;hionall Church, and yet all
but one Congregation. And that of <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tome</HI> on <HI>Matth.</HI> 24. who
as Mr. <HI>Bayn</HI> reports, <HI>Dioe. Triall, pag.</HI> 16. did e&s;teem the company
that heard his voice in one congregation, to be about 5000. per|&s;ons,
and that by means of Scaffolds and Galleries, a man lifting
up his voyce, may &s;o &s;peak, as to be heard of thou&s;ands at a time.</P>
<P>All which being con&s;idered, doe make it le&s;&s;e incredible, that
the Church at Jeru&s;alem, con&s;i&s;ting of &s;uch a great multitude,
yet for all that might bee no more but one ordinarie Congrega|tion.</P>
<P><PB N="36" REF="21">
Next, for the Church at Rome in the Apo&s;tles time, &s;tiled every where in that
Epi&s;tle, by the name of Church, not Churches. pag. 13.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> We &s;uppo&s;e it is a plain mi&s;take, that the Church at
Rome is every where in that Epi&s;tle &s;tiled by the name of a <HI>Church.</HI>
For ought we remember in that Epi&s;tle, it is never &s;o &s;tiled at all;
and yet we deny not but it was a Church, and one Church.</P>
<P>But (&s;ay you) can it be thought that the faith and obedience of a Church
in &s;uch a citie, could be famous throughout all the world, as the Apo&s;tle &s;peaks,
<HI>Rom.</HI> 1. 8. &amp; 16. 19. and yet but one &s;ingle independent congregation?</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> We know nothing to the contrary but it might be &s;o:
For the Church at The&s;&s;alonica was but one congregation, and
yet from them &s;ounded out the word of the Lord, not only in Ma|cedonia
and Achaia, but al&s;o in every place, their faith to God|ward
was &s;pread abroad, 1 The&s;&s;. 1. 8. And there might be other
means to make their faith famous, as well as plurality of congre|gations;
as the re&s;ort and confluence of people of all &s;orts and na|tions
to the place where this Church dwelt, Rome being the Seat
of the Empire, and the Lady of Kingdomes at that time: Al&s;o the
good will of the godly, the malice of the wicked, the newfangled|ne&s;&s;e
of mo&s;t, would open the mouthes of many to talke of the
faith and profe&s;&s;ion of the Chri&s;tian Romans, though they were no
more but one congregation.</P>
<P>Tho&s;e very per&s;ons and families named in the Apo&s;tles &s;alutations of
that Church, even tho&s;e choycer families were able to fill &s;everall congrega|tions.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> We dare not &s;ay &s;o: for there is not named above 30. in
all. Sure if 30. families fill &s;everall congregations, then tho&s;e con|gregations
mu&s;t be very &s;mall ones.</P>
<P><HI>Tertullian</HI> tells us, that in his time the citie was at lea&s;t halfe <HI>Chri|&s;tian:</HI>
And <HI>Cornelius</HI> tells us, that be&s;ides him&s;elfe, there were in that
Church 45. Presbyters.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> But the que&s;tion being, whether many Congregations be
frequently called in Scripture by the name of a Church, the&s;e te|&s;timonies
being not from Scripture doe not &s;uit the que&s;tion, there|fore
we will not in&s;i&s;t upon them, but onely &s;ay this much; that as
they are both alledged by Doctor <HI>Downam,</HI> and them of the Hie|rarchy
that plead for Dioce&s;an Churches again&s;t Congregational,
&s;o they are both &s;ufficiently an&s;wered by Mr. <HI>Bain,</HI> in his <HI>Dioce&s;an
triall,</HI> p. 19, 20. and by the refuter of D. <HI>Downams</HI> Sermon at Lam|beth.
p. 65.</P>
<P><PB N="37" REF="21">
Next, the Church at Corinth every where &s;tiled a Church, not Chur|ches.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> This we grant: But why might it not be one Congrega|tion,
as well as one Church; The onely rea&s;on you bring to the
contrary is, becau&s;e <HI>They had &s;o many In&s;tructers,</HI> 1 Cor. 4. 15. <HI>and Buil|ders,</HI>
1 Cor. 3. 12. <HI>So many Prophets (&s;ay you) and Teachers, &s;peakers with
Tongues,&mdash;could not que&s;tionle&s;&s;e have their ordinary locall meetings, but
by way of di&s;tribution into &s;everall congregations.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> This arguing about the Church of Corinth, doth not
very well agree with that which went before, p. 12. where you &s;ee|med
to grant, that though no other place in Scripture, yet that
place, 1 Corinth. 14. doth give the name of Church to one &s;ingle
Congregation; whereas now you give Corinth al&s;o as one in&s;tance
where many congregations are called a Church. It is &s;trange to
us, how Corinth &s;hould be an example of both the&s;e, viz. of the
name of Church given to one &s;ingle congregation, as you doe ac|knowledge,
pag. 12. and of many congregations called by the
name of one Church, as now you would have it. But the place,
1. Cor. 14. 23. that &s;peakes of the whole Church commiug together
into one place, doth unavoidably prove (for ought we can di&s;cern)
that Corinth had their meetings, and not by way of di&s;tribution
into &s;everall Congregations, but altogether in one congregation:
and doth al&s;o an&s;wer your rea&s;on drawn from the variety of Tea|chers
and Prophets in that Church: For it is plain from that very
Chapter, that the Church of Corinth had many Prophets; <HI>Let the
Prophets &s;peake two or three, and let the re&s;t judge,</HI> ver&s;. 39. and many
that &s;pake with Tongues, who mu&s;t &s;peake by cour&s;e two or three&punc;
and one interpret, ver&s;e 27. yea every one generally had a P&s;alme,
or a Doctrine, or a Revelation, or an Interpretation, ver&s;e 26. as
indeed they came behind in no gift, 1 Cor. 1. &amp; yet for all their va|riety
of gifts, and gifted men, Prophets, Interpreters, &s;peakers with
Tongues, and the like, both they and the whole Church al&s;o,
even women and all, u&s;ed to come together into one place.</P>
<P>But it is with much in&s;tance urged generally by all the Separati&s;ts, that
tho&s;e among whom the Corinthian fornicatou<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="faint" EXTENT="1 letter"> was&mdash;they were all to be ga|thered
together, and all to deliver him to Satan; therefore the power of the
keye is alike in all the members,&mdash;and not in the Elders alone. <HI>pag.</HI> 14.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> This and all that follows for two whole pages may be
&s;omething pertaining to the &s;econd of your three exceptions fore|mentioned;
<PB N="38" REF="22">
but nothing concerns the Que&s;tion now in hand. For
whether the Church of Corinth, that mu&s;t excommunicate the in|ce&s;tuous
man, were the Elders alone, as you hold; or all the people
al&s;o, as others: This is nothing to the pre&s;ent point of the &s;ence of
the word <HI>Church,</HI> which is, whether is be taken in Scripture, for
many Congregations or one onely: and therefore we marvell why
you would here bring it in. Neither indeed is it any thing to the
maine Que&s;tion, of the Dependencie of Congregations upon the
government of Synods; For if all were granted, that here is argu|ed
for, <HI>viz.</HI> that the Church that mu&s;t excommunicate the delin|quent
Corinthian was not the common people, but the Elders a|lone,
yet the authoritie of Synods is not a whit holpen thereby;
unle&s;&s;e it could be proved that the Church of Corinth had no El|ders
of their own; which we are per&s;waded you will not affirm,
becau&s;e you grant pag. 13. that they had many In&s;tructors, many
builders, many leaders, many Prophets and Teachers. Wherefore
this Di&s;pute being be&s;ides the Que&s;tion, we will not &s;pend time in
an&s;wering of it, becau&s;e we would ha&s;ten to go forward with the
re&s;t, that pertains to the Que&s;tion, as you have &s;tated it.</P>
<P><HI>Your la&s;t in&s;tance of many Congregations, called by the name
of</HI> Church, <HI>is Ephe&s;us, where you argue,</HI> There mu&s;t needs be many con|gregations,
becau&s;e there was a great doore, and effectuall opened unto <HI>Paul,</HI>
&s;o mightily there grew the Word of God and prevailed, the greatne&s;&s;e of the
price of the conjuring books burnt publickly, and God him&s;elf te&s;tifies, he had
many people in that Citie.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> When the Lord &s;aith to <HI>Paul, I have much people in the City,</HI>
it is a plain mi&s;take to under&s;tand this of Ephe&s;us, for it was &s;po|ken
of Corinth, and not of Ephe&s;us. <HI>Act.</HI> 18. 10. But if it had been
&s;poken of Ephe&s;us, as we deny not, but that there were many
Chri&s;tians there, how doth this prove the point, that they were
not one Congregation, but many? We do not think they were
more in number, then in Corinth and Jeru&s;alem, where the Chri|&s;tians,
as we have &s;hewed, did u&s;ually meet in one place; and there|fore
at Ephe&s;us, they might do the like, though there were a great
number of Chri&s;tians there.</P>
<P>As for that which you &s;ay, that as this Church could not po&s;&s;ibly ordinarily
in all its members meet but di&s;tributively; &s;o that it did meet collectively in
its Presbytery and Elder&s;hip; that which ordained <HI>Timothy</HI> (there by the
Apo&s;tles own te&s;timony) appears in the 17. 28. and 26. ver&s;es of the 20.
Chapter, beyond all exception.</P>
<P><PB N="39" REF="22">
We an&s;wer thereto, it is not beyond all exception, that at Ephe|&s;us
was one Church con&s;i&s;ting of many Congregations, which is
our Que&s;tion. It may be granted that the Elders of that Church
upon <HI>Paul's</HI> &s;ending for them did meet at Miletum apart from the
people, as was noted before out of <HI>Act.</HI> 21. Of the Elders of Jeru&s;a|lem;
but this is nothing to our Que&s;tion, whether a Church be
many Congregations, or one onely.</P>
<P>As much might he &s;aid of the other of the &s;even Churches of A&s;ia, with
that at Antioch, Philippi and The&s;&s;alonica.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> And if as much were &s;aid of the&s;e as of the other, as much
might al&s;o be an&s;wered. And though Philippi and The&s;&s;alonica
had many Bi&s;hops, Deacons, Over&s;eers, yet all this is too &s;hort to
prove they were many Congregations; for what &s;hould hinder but
one Congregation may have many Officers?</P>
<P>That which followeth in this &s;ixteenth page, and &s;o forward to
the middle of pag. 19. is &s;pent in an&s;wering the other two excep|tions
which you formerly propo&s;ed pag. 11. Concerning which
we need not to &s;pend much time; the one of them, as we &s;aid be|fore,
is altogether be&s;ides the purpo&s;e, and on which &s;ide &s;oever
the truth doth lie in that matter, the pre&s;ent Que&s;tion is nothing
at all cleared thereby; and for the other, we leave it to them that
make it to undertake the defence of it. For us it is &s;ufficient to
have &s;hewed that all that you have &s;aid from <HI>Matth. 18. Tell the
Church,</HI> doth not prove that Congregations mu&s;t depend upon the
government of Synods, nor that many Congregations are in Scri|pture
u&s;ually called by the name of a Church; and this being al|readie
performed in that which we have an&s;wered, we therefore
now proceed to con&s;ider of your third Argument.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="4" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. IIII.</HEAD>
<HEAD TYPE="sub">Containing an An&s;wer to your third Argument from Acts 15.</HEAD>
<P>IF that all ancient and modern Writers, of all &s;orts, (excepting onely &s;ome
few of the&s;e la&s;t fiftie yeers, engaged by their own tenet of independency)
have with one voice concluded this Chapter, a formall pre&s;ident for Synods,
would weigh any thing herein, the matter would &s;oon be at an end; but how|ever
the <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="blotted" EXTENT="1 letter">ext it &s;elf is &s;o pregnant of this truth, that it hath of it &s;elf &s;trength
enough to deliver it &s;elf of it.</P>
<P><PB N="40" REF="23">
Here's all that goes to the making up of a compleat Synod, Fir&s;t, here's the
occa&s;ion&mdash;Secondly, here's a de&s;ignation both of the Commi&s;&s;ioners and
place,&mdash;Thirdly, here's the matter of a Synod,&mdash;Fourthly, here's the
form of a Synod,&mdash;Fifthly, here's the end of a Synod,&mdash;La&s;tly, here's the
proper effect of a Synod,&mdash;<HI>pag.</HI> 19.</P>
<P>If all this were granted, yet the thing in difference, as your &s;elf
have &s;tated the Que&s;tion, in pa. 2, 3, 4. of your book, is not conclu|ded
thereby. For all this that is here &s;aid, goeth no further, but
onely to &s;hew that there ought to be Synods; whereas the que&s;tion
is about the power of Synods, and how far the &s;ame doth reach,
whether &s;o far as that a Synod onely (and not a particular congre|gation)
ought to ordain officers, and excommunicate offenders:
and between the&s;e two is a wide difference; &s;o that many a man
may acknowledge the former, which is all that is here concluded,
and yet not acknowledge the latter, which is the maine point,
which &s;hould have been cleared. For our parts we deny not but
there ought to be Synods, and your Argument concludes no more:
yea your &s;elf do te&s;tifie, pag. 2. that tho&s;e whom you deal again&s;t,
do acknowledge as much in effect as here by you is concluded; for
there you &s;ay that they acknowledge, that neighbour Churches
may meet, con&s;ult and advi&s;e, &amp;c. and if they acknowledge all
this, then they acknowledge a u&s;e of Synods, becau&s;e the&s;e things
we &s;uppo&s;e, cannot be done by many Churches at once, unle&s;&s;e it
be by their me&s;&s;engers, and Deputies a&s;&s;embled together, which
A&s;&s;embly is no other then a Synod. Wherefore &s;ith no more is here
concluded, then is by the Independents parties (as you call them)
acknowledged, we need not in&s;i&s;t long, in giving an&s;wer to this
Argument. We will therefore onely briefly mention &s;ome grounds,
that incline us to think that this A&s;&s;embly in <HI>Act.</HI> 15. was a Synod,
and then give &s;ome annotations upon &s;ome few pa&s;&s;ages in your
Di&s;cour&s;e about this place, and &s;o proceed to the next Argument.
Touching the former, when we &s;ay this meeting in <HI>Act.</HI> 15. was a
Synod, we mean at lea&s;t &s;uch an one as Mr. <HI>Parker Pol. Eccl. lib. 2. c.
23. Sect.</HI> 1. under&s;tands it to be, <HI>viz.</HI> a con&s;ociation or combination
of more Churches then one, even of two at lea&s;t. Or as Doctor
<HI>Whitakar</HI> who counts it neither a generall Councill, nor yet a Na|tionall,
or Provinciall, but a particular Councill, as he cals it, le&s;&s;e
then either of the other. <HI>de Concil. Q. 1. c.</HI> 2. And that matters were
carried in it, in way of an ordinarie Synod, may appear by two
<PB N="41" REF="23">
things. 1 The per&s;ons imployed in it, which were not onely the
Apo&s;tles, tho&s;e extraordinarie Officers, but al&s;o the ordinarie El|ders
and brethren of Jeru&s;alem. <HI>Ver.</HI> 6, 22, 23. And be&s;ides <HI>Paul</HI> and
<HI>Barnabas,</HI> certain others that were &s;ent with them from Antioch,
<HI>v.</HI> 2. Secondly, the meanes u&s;ed for clearing the controver&s;ie, then
in hand, was not the Apo&s;tolicall Authoritie, nor any extra ordi|narie
revelation, vouch&s;afed to the Apo&s;tles and &s;uch extra ordi|narie
per&s;ons: there is not a word mentioned of any &s;uch thing;
but the means they u&s;ed, was the &s;ame, that is common to ordi|narie
Synods, <HI>viz.</HI> much di&s;putation, <HI>v. 7. Peter's</HI> experience of
Gods ble&s;&s;ing upon his Mini&s;terie, to <HI>Cornelius,</HI> and his companie,
<HI>v.</HI> 7. And the like is done by <HI>Paul</HI> and <HI>Barnabas,</HI> for their part, <HI>ver.</HI>
12. And as for <HI>James,</HI> he alledgeth the te&s;timonie of the Prophet
<HI>Amos, v.</HI> 15, 16. and the Law of <HI>Mo&s;es,</HI> read and preached in the
Synagogues, everie Sabbath day, <HI>v.</HI> 21. Now all the&s;e means being
no other, but &s;uch as may be u&s;ed, in ordinarie Synods, therefore
we &s;ee no other, but this meeting might be &s;uch an one.</P>
<P>Here is a de&s;ignation (&s;ay you) of the Commi&s;&s;ioners and place. <HI>p.</HI> 19.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> But the&s;e Commi&s;&s;ioners, and this place, were de&s;igned
onely by them of Antioch, <HI>v.</HI> 2. which &s;hews that this meeting,
was not of any more, but two Churches, Antioch and Jeru&s;alem:
For if there had been more, how came it to pa&s;&s;e, that onely they
of Antioch determine the place? Rea&s;on would have required, that
if there had been others, they al&s;o &s;hould have had a voice in de|termining
the place of meeting.</P>
<P>Here is the matter of a Synod, not onely Apo&s;tles but Elders, and of &s;eve|rall
Churches. <HI>pag.</HI> 20.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> True: but the&s;e Churches are not mentioned, to be any
other, but onely Antioch and Jeru&s;alem.</P>
<P>Both thus meeting, to determine &s;o great a matter, con&s;equently all matter
of juri&s;diction, is not confined to one &s;ingle Congregation. <HI>pag.</HI> 20.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> The matter determined, was a matter of doctrine, <HI>viz.</HI>
whether Circumci&s;ion was nece&s;&s;arie to &s;alvation: <HI>v.</HI> 1. and there
fore no matter of juri&s;diction, unle&s;&s;e juri&s;diction, and Doctrine be
the &s;ame. And though they that taught this Doctrine, (if they
perfi&s;ted pertinaciou&s;ly therein,) de&s;erved to be cen&s;ured, as you
do truly alledge, from <HI>Tit.</HI> 3. 10. Reject an heretick, the di&s;pencing
of which cen&s;ure, is a matter of juri&s;diction. Yet (for ought that
doth appear to the contrary) both the&s;e Churches might concur,
<PB N="42" REF="24">
to clear up the doctrine, and yet one onely, even that congregation
(whereof the offenders were properly members) might di&s;pence
the cen&s;ure, that was due for their pertinacious defence of &s;uch
Doctrine. The concurrence of both, to clear up the Doctrine, doth
argue want of light in the one; but neverthele&s;&s;e there might be
entirene&s;&s;e, of juri&s;diction in each.</P>
<P>But if Churches had then been independent, Antioch had undertaken and
been able her &s;elfe &s;ufficiently, and finally to have judged the cau&s;e, and pre|vented
the danger.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Antioch did undertake to have ended the matter among
them&s;elves, and &s;pent much time about it, before there was any
&s;peech of &s;eeking out for help el&s;ewhere, as appears, ver&s;. 2. and this
doth &s;ufficiently declare it, that they were not nece&s;&s;arily depen|dant
upon any other Church, or Churches, but had right to have
ended the matter within them&s;elves, if ability had &s;erved thereto,
or el&s;e this undertaking of theirs had been &s;infull, as being an at|tempting
to doe that whereto they had no right. And though by
rea&s;on of much di&s;&s;ention among them&s;elves, they were forced to
&s;eek for help for ending the cau&s;e, this may argue want of ability
and light, but argues not any want at all of authority or right: In
which re&s;pect they might be independent, notwith&s;tanding their
imperfection in the other regard. Suppo&s;e a father of children, or
ma&s;ter of a family, through want of wi&s;dome, or courage, be not
able to rule his own children, and hou&s;hold, as <HI>Eli,</HI> or &s;uppo&s;e a
King that is a child, as <HI>Salomon</HI> &s;peaks, (<HI>Eccle&s;.</HI> 10.) or Princes that
are babes, (as the Prophet termeth them, <HI>I&s;ai.</HI> 3.) be not able to
govern their own &s;ubjects, as <HI>Rehoboam,</HI> 2 King. 12. would you think
this want of &s;ufficient ability, a &s;ufficient argument to prove, that
&s;uch a Father or Ma&s;ter, had no authority or right to rule his own
children, or hou&s;hold; nor &s;uch a Prince any right to rule his &s;ub|jects;
but that the families of the one mu&s;t depend upon other fa|milies;
and the common-wealth of the other upon other com|mon-wealths?
We &s;uppo&s;e you would not &s;ay &s;o? And yet you
may as well &s;ay it, as &s;ay as here you doe, that if Churches had
been independent, Antioch had been able her &s;elfe &s;ufficiently to
have ended the cau&s;e. Antioch finding her &s;elfe not able, may &s;end
to Jerulem for help; and yet this &s;ending neither proves right of
juri&s;diction in them of Jeru&s;alem, who are &s;ent unto, nor want of
juri&s;diction in them of Antioch, who &s;o doe &s;end. Yes, &s;ay you.</P>
<P><PB N="43" REF="24">
An obliging the Churches by decrees, laid on them, as a burden, is a u&s;e of
the keyes, in which u&s;e of them, Ephe&s;us is commended, Pergamus and Thya|tyra
reproved, <HI>pag.</HI> 25.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> But if this be a u&s;e of the Keyes, may it not be of the Key
of Doctrine, as well as the Key of Di&s;cipline, &s;ith the burdens laid
on them, were not burdens of penalty, but burdens of duty; not
puni&s;hments to be &s;uffered for offence given; but rules of practice
to be ob&s;erved, le&s;t offence &s;hould be taken; as is plaine, if the par|ticulars
be con&s;idered, pag. 29. And therefore it &s;eems the impo|&s;ing
the&s;e burdens, was not &s;o properly an act of juri&s;diction, and
di&s;cipline, as an act of Doctrine. As for Ephe&s;us, the u&s;e of the
Keyes (for which they are commended) is not (as you affirme) for
impo&s;ing decrees as burdens upon one another; nor is Pergamus or
Thyatyra reproved, for neglect of &s;o doing, but trying and detect|ing
counterfeit Apo&s;tles, which was a matter of doctrine, and not
bearing with them that were evil, which was matter of di&s;cipline,
are the things for which Ephe&s;us is commended; and &s;uffring them
which were evill (which was a neglect of Di&s;cipline) is that for
which the other are reproved, Rev. 2. 2. 14. 20. But neither is the one
commended for impo&s;ing decrees, nor the other reproved for negle|cting
&s;o to doe. But you will prove that the Synod had juri&s;diction
and power of the Keyes of di&s;cipline; becau&s;e, &s;ay you,</P>
<P>This Decree is it &s;elf a Rule given, wherein and whereby to u&s;e the keyes,
upon &s;uch as &s;hall prove &s;tubborn, in defending the contrary of what is here
decreed&mdash;, and that authority which can give the rule, can (<HI>a fortiori</HI>)
back and puni&s;h its breach. <HI>p.</HI> 25.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> But is this certain and clear, that whoever hath authority
by way of doctrine, to impo&s;e a rule, hath al&s;o authoritie, by way
of di&s;cipline, to puni&s;h its breach? we propo&s;e to con&s;ideration,
the&s;e in&s;tances for the contrarie. Fir&s;t of all the Prophets in I&s;rael,
<HI>I&s;aiah, Joel, Amos,</HI> and the re&s;t, had authoritie by way of doctrine,
(as being &s;ent of God for that purpo&s;e) to deliver the wil of God, as
a rule to be ob&s;erved, not onely by all the Princes, and people, but
even by the Prie&s;ts and Levits al&s;o; for &s;o we read they many times
did, and yet not being Prie&s;ts them&s;elves, nor Levites, they had not
authority to puni&s;h, by way of Di&s;cipline, &s;uch as di&s;obeyed their
doctrine, and tho&s;e holy rules which they delivered from the
Lord.</P>
<P>Nextly, any one Mini&s;ter, who is truely &s;ent of God, may in his
<PB N="44" REF="25">
doctrine, deliver the rules of Gods word, to the people he is &s;ent un|to,
and impo&s;e tho&s;e rules as burthens, and nece&s;&s;ary things to be
ob&s;erved; and yet one Mini&s;ter alone cannot puni&s;h the breach of
tho&s;e rules, in a way of di&s;cipline, becau&s;e Church-di&s;cipline is to
be di&s;penced by a Church, Matth. 18. 17. and one man alone (we
are per&s;waded) you will not &s;ay, can be a Church.</P>
<P>Further, any Mini&s;ter or Mini&s;ters of one Church (be it Congre|gationall
or Nationall) may upon occa&s;ion being de&s;ired thereto,
preach the word of God in another the like Church, and &s;o impo&s;e
burdens of Chri&s;tian duties to be ob&s;erved by them, that they thus
occa&s;ionally preach unto; yet it would not follow they might
by di&s;cipline puni&s;h &s;uch as &s;hould walke contrary to tho&s;e rules,
becau&s;e the power of juri&s;diction which they have when they are
at home in their owne Church, doth not reach &s;o farre as unto that
other Church where now they are called to preach the doctrine of
the word. La&s;tly, there is no doubt but any Mini&s;ter, or Mini&s;ters
of the Go&s;pel (if occa&s;ion &s;erved thereunto) might by way of Do|ctrine
deliver rules of faith and obedience, unto Pagans, and &s;uch
as are no members of any Chri&s;tian Church at all, and might com|mand
them in the name of the Lord, to ob&s;erve tho&s;e rules; and
yet it would not therefore follow, that they might puni&s;h tho&s;e
Pagans in a way of di&s;cipline, for the breach of tho&s;e rules; be|cau&s;e
the Apo&s;tle &s;aith plainly, <HI>What have I to doe to judge them that
are without?</HI> 1 Cor. 5. 12. Yea, there are &s;undry good Writers in
reformed Churches, who do hold, that Doctors in the Church have
authority by their office, to deliver &s;ound whol&s;ome doctrine, from
the Scriptures, and yet may not meddle, with di&s;pen&s;ation of Sa|craments,
nor Di&s;cipline; See among others for this, <HI>Calvines In&s;tit.
lib. 4. Ch. 3. Sect.</HI> 4. And if this be &s;o, this may be another in&s;tance
for the &s;ame purpo&s;e as the re&s;t, and by all this, we &s;uppo&s;e it is
clear, that &s;ome men may have authoritie, by way of doctrine, to
impo&s;e rules, that mu&s;t be ob&s;erved, as nece&s;&s;ary things, and yet
not have authoritie, by way of di&s;cipline, to puni&s;h tho&s;e that
&s;hall di&s;obey tho&s;e rules. And therefore though the fir&s;t of the&s;e
were granted, to be within the power of a Synod, yet that they have
power to do the other al&s;o, is not proved thereby.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="5" TYPE="chapter">
<PB N="45" REF="25">
<HEAD>CHAP. V.</HEAD>
<HEAD TYPE="sub">Containing an An&s;wer to your fourth Argument, taken from 1 Tim. 4. 14.
laying on of the hands of the Presbytery.</HEAD>
<P>HEnce I argue thus. Such as are for independency, admit of no other rule
in Church-government, but the Scripture practi&s;e or in&s;titution, but
where in all the Scripture, read we of any ordination, of Pa&s;tors, but by Pre&s;|byters?
&mdash;<HI>Timothy</HI> was ordained by the laying on of the hands of the
Presbytery: <HI>Titus</HI> was for this very cau&s;e, left at Creet that he &s;hould ordain
Elders in every City. <HI>pag.</HI> 26, 27.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> All that is here &s;aid is onely about ordination of Officers,
which (at the mo&s;t) is but one part of the Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall govern|ment,
or juri&s;diction. And therefore if it were granted, that this or|dination
belongeth onely to a Synod, yet the Que&s;tion (being not
of one part, but of the whole juri&s;diction) is not concluded there|by.
Neverthele&s;&s;e we are willing to con&s;ider what is &s;aid about
this particular, and therefore our An&s;wer is di&s;tinctly thus. 1 That
if a Congregation have Elders of it own, then when other Officers
are to be ordained, in that Church, &s;uch ordination is to be per|formed,
by the impo&s;ition of the hands of tho&s;e Elders. This we
never denied, and a good deale of your proofs, do conclude no
more. For what if the Presbyterie at Ephe&s;us, did lay hands upon
<HI>Timothy, 1 Tim.</HI> 4. 14. and the Presbyterie, at Antioch upon <HI>Paul,</HI> and
<HI>Barnabas, Act.</HI> 13. 1, 2. which are two of your proofs? this may
evince, that in Churches furni&s;hed with a Presbyterie, (as Ephe&s;us
and Antioch were) that that Presbyterie is to perform impo&s;ition
of hands, which is nothing again&s;t us, neither do willingly ac|knowledge
the &s;ame.</P>
<P>But it may be in this Argument you intend a further matter,
<HI>viz.</HI> that ordination cannot be performed lawfully, by any, but
onely by Elders.</P>
<P>For where (&s;ay you) in all the Scripture do we read of any ordination of
Pa&s;tors but by Presbyters?</P>
<P>Whereto we an&s;wer three things. 1 That we do read of &s;uch a
matter in the Scripture. 2 That if we did not, yet we read &s;o much
as b<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="faint" EXTENT="1 letter"> good con&s;equence doth infer the lawfulne&s;&s;e of the practi&s;e.
3 That which we do read, that may &s;eeme, to make again&s;t this
practi&s;e, is not becau&s;e the thing, is in every ca&s;e, unlawfull, but
<PB N="46" REF="26">
for other rea&s;ons. 1 For the fir&s;t of the&s;e, we alledge <HI>Numb.</HI> 8. 10.
which place &s;heweth, that though the Levites were Church Offi|cers,
and the Children of I&s;rael were none, yet the Children of
I&s;rael did lay their hands upon the Levites; by which Scripture,
thus much is manife&s;t, that when a Church hath no Elders, but the
fir&s;t Elders them&s;elves are to be ordained, and this at &s;uch times,
and in &s;uch places, where Elders can not conveniently be borrow|ed
from any other Church, in &s;uch ca&s;e impo&s;ition of hands may
lawfully be performed, by &s;ome principall men of the Congrega|tion,
although they be not Elders by office; for &s;ith it was &s;o in the
Church of I&s;rael as this text doth witne&s;&s;e, what &s;hould hinder
but in the like ca&s;e, the like may be lawfully done in the&s;e dayes?
If any &s;hall ask how was it po&s;&s;ible, that the Children of I&s;rael,
being 600000 &s;hould all lay hands upon the Levites at once? <HI>An|&s;wer.</HI>
It is not like that all did it, but &s;ome in&s;tead of the re&s;t:
and &s;o when &s;ome do impo&s;e hands, in &s;tead of all the Congrega|tion,
that may be &s;ufficient.</P>
<P>If it &s;hall be &s;aid, the&s;e Children of I&s;rael, might be Elders, and
&s;o their example will be no warrant for impo&s;ition of hands by
non-elders: The an&s;wer is, it is like they were Elders, as being the
chief and principall members, of the Congregation; but yet their
example proveth the point if two things be con&s;idered. Fir&s;t, that
they did not this as a work peculiar to them as Elders. Secondly,
that they did it not for them&s;elves onely, but for all the Congre|gation;
the former of which may be thus manife&s;ted; If they did
it as Elders, then either as Elders and Governours Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall, or
as Civill governours but not the fir&s;t, for that charge was onely
belonging to <HI>Aaron</HI> and his &s;ons, <HI>Levit.</HI> 8. and the&s;e Levites now
ordained, If the &s;econd be &s;aid, then it will follow, that Civill Ma|gi&s;trates
though no Church officers, may impo&s;e hands in ordina|tion
of Church officers, and &s;o the point is gained. For if Magi|&s;trates
may do it, then it will follow that a Church wanting Ma|gi&s;trates
may perform this action by other the fitte&s;t In&s;truments
&s;he hath. For this is not a work properly tied to the Magi&s;trates
office; becau&s;e then the Church in the Apo&s;tles time, wanting Ma|gi&s;trates,
could not have had Officers; the contrary whereof is ma|nife&s;t
in the Scripture, <HI>Act. 14. 23. Tit.</HI> 1. 5. Secondly, as the&s;e Chil|dren
of I&s;rael (&s;uppo&s;e they were the chief Fathers of families) im|po&s;ed
hands on the Levites, not as Elders and governours Eccle|&s;ia&s;ticall,
<PB N="47" REF="26">
or Civill but as principall members of the Church, &s;o
what was herein performed by them, was not done by them&s;elves
onely, but for all the Congregation. And this appears, fir&s;t becau&s;e
the&s;e Levites now to be ordained by impo&s;ition of hands, were
taken in &s;tead of all the fir&s;t-born of I&s;rael, and not in &s;tead of the
fir&s;t born of Elders onely: <HI>Numb.</HI> 3. 40, 41. Secondly, they were pre|&s;ented
to the Lord, as an offering of the Children of I&s;rael, <HI>Numb.</HI>
8. 11. and not of the Elders onely; and ina&s;much as all offerings
were to be pre&s;ented at the doore of the Tabernacle, with the im|po&s;ition
of his hands who&s;e the offering was, <HI>Levit.</HI> 1. 3. 4. it is
therfore evident, that they that impo&s;ed hands on the Levites, did
it in the name of all the people, who&s;e offering the&s;e Levites were.
Thirdly, it was u&s;uall, that when all the multitude brought an
oblation, the Elders put their hands on the head of the &s;acrifice.
<HI>Levit. 4. 14, 15. viz.</HI> in &s;tead of all the multitude, who&s;e the &s;acri|fice
was. And thus you &s;ee, we read in Scriptures of the impo&s;ition
of hands, performed by them that were no Elders, by office, and
&s;o this demand of yours, where in Scripture do we read of &s;uch a
practi&s;e, is an&s;wered. But if we did not read of any &s;uch thing, yet
it may &s;uffice (which was our &s;econd particular to be proved) that
we do read &s;o much as by good con&s;equence, inferreth the lawful|ne&s;&s;e
of the practi&s;e. And for this purpo&s;e, fir&s;t, we propound <HI>Act.</HI>
1. <HI>Act.</HI> 6. and <HI>Act.</HI> 14. where we read of the peoples electing, and
chu&s;ing officers, of which places, more may be &s;poken afterward;
Now if the people may elect Officers, then in &s;ome ca&s;es, they may
ordain them al&s;o, becau&s;e ordination is le&s;&s;e then election, and de|pends
upon it as a nece&s;&s;arie antecedent; by vertue whereof it is
ju&s;tly admini&s;tred. Yea it is not onely le&s;&s;e then election, but le&s;&s;e
in the &s;ame kind, being nothing el&s;e, but the accompli&s;hment of
election, or the admi&s;&s;ion of a per&s;on into the po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion of that of|fice,
whereto he had right before by election. And hence it follows
by good con&s;equence, that if a &s;ingle congregation, may elect offi|cers,
which is the greater, they may al&s;o in &s;ome ca&s;e ordain them,
which is the le&s;&s;er. For your &s;elf do grant that to argue affirma|tively,
from the greater, to the le&s;&s;er in the &s;ame kind is good con|&s;equence,
and &s;uch is this; Which kind of arguing is al&s;o u&s;ed by
Doctor <HI>Whitaker</HI> concerning this very particular.</P>
<P>Be&s;ides, we read, Heb. 6. 2. that impo&s;ition of hands is among&s;t
the principles of religion, and joyned by the Apo&s;tle with bapti&s;me,
<PB N="48" REF="27">
re&s;urrection, and the eternall judgement; and therefore an in&s;ti|tution
of ordinary and perpetuall u&s;e, as all principles are, and &s;o
not to be omitted in the ordination of Officers. And if &s;o, it will
therefore follow, that in &s;ome ca&s;e it may be performed by &s;uch as
are not in office; becau&s;e the ca&s;e may &s;o be, that otherwi&s;e it
cannot be performed at all, &s;o that either no Officers mu&s;t be or|dained,
nor any impo&s;ition of hands u&s;ed at all; or el&s;e impo&s;i|tion
of hands in &s;ome ca&s;e may be performed by them that are
not in office. Now that it cannot alwayes be performed by Offi|cers,
three in&s;tances make it manife&s;t: Fir&s;t, when there are no Of|ficers
of any other Church to be had, as at the fir&s;t ri&s;e of the fir&s;t
Chri&s;tian Church in a Pagan Countrey, far remote from all Chur|ches,
as here in America by the Engli&s;h; &amp; in the ca&s;e which you put
of a company of Chri&s;tians by &s;hipwrack ca&s;t upon an Iland where
no Pa&s;tors were. Secondly, when tho&s;e that may be had, are &s;o ex|ceedingly
corrupt, and the Churches to whom they do belong, that
it could not be convenient to make u&s;e of them, but very dangerous
to fetch ordination onely from them, as at the fir&s;t reformation af|ter
the times of Popery, when there were none to be had, but from
the Popi&s;h Bi&s;hops and Prie&s;ts; from whom to receive ordination,
were as much as to &s;ay, either that the Mini&s;ters of Antichri&s;t may
ordain Mini&s;ters to the Church of Chri&s;t, or el&s;e that Popi&s;h Bi|&s;hops
are true Mini&s;ters of Chri&s;t: And &s;ure if Chri&s;tians might
not have any Mini&s;ters, unle&s;&s;e ordained by the Popi&s;h Bi&s;hops, the
ca&s;e were as pittifull as if &s;heep might have no Shepheards, but
&s;uch are appointed to them by the Wolves. Thirdly, when tho&s;e
that are more de&s;ireable, have no &s;ufficient calling to di&s;pence or|dination
in another Church which is the ca&s;e when they are not
reque&s;ted thereto; For &s;ith ordinary Elders are not like Apo&s;tles,
to feed all flocks, but that flock of God, which dependeth upon
them, 1 Pet. 5. 2. that flock over which the holy Gho&s;t hath made
them over-&s;eers, Acts 20. 28. Therefore wee doe not under&s;tand,
how they can a&s;&s;ume authority and power unto them&s;elves, to
ordain Elders to other Churches, whereof them&s;elves are neither
Elders nor members, unle&s;&s;e they had a calling thereto, by the re|que&s;t
of that Church where the Elders are to be ordained. So that
by the&s;e in&s;tances it appeareth, that &s;ometimes officers of other
Churches are not to be had, &s;ometimes tho&s;e that may be had, are
as ill as none, and not to be depended on, or de&s;ired; and &s;ome|times
<PB N="49" REF="27">
tho&s;e that are more de&s;ireable, have no &s;ufficient calling to
ordain Mini&s;ters in any other Church; and therefore in &s;uch ca|&s;es
as the&s;e, &s;ith Officers mu&s;t not be admitted without impo&s;ition
of hands, impo&s;ition of hands mu&s;t be performed by non-Of|ficers.</P>
<P>But you will &s;ay, we read in &s;undry places, where impo&s;ition of
hands, was performed by Elders, and not one place in all the
new Te&s;tament, where it was performed by others. Whereto we
an&s;wer, That all this is true, but nothing again&s;t what we have
&s;aid; becau&s;e (which was our third particular to be cleared) the
true rea&s;on of this, that is here alledged, was not, as if ordinati|on
by non-Elders were in every ca&s;e unlawfull: But becau&s;e in tho&s;e
times Elders were not wanting; for there were the Apo&s;tles and A|po&s;tolicke
men, who were Elders in all Churches. And we do wil|lingly
grant, that where a Church is furni&s;hed with Elders, impo|&s;ition
of hands is to be performed by the Elders, and &s;o much the
examples in the New Te&s;tament doe evince. But we have al&s;o &s;hew|ed
from <HI>Numb.</HI> 8. that if there be no Elders, as at the fir&s;t, nor any
that can conveniently be gotten from other Churches, then impo|&s;ition
of hands may lawfully be performed by others.</P>
<P>But you will prove, that it doth not belong to the congregation with or
without a Pa&s;tor, to ordain Elders; becau&s;e the rules of direction, how to pro|ceed
in ordination, and the Epi&s;tles wherein tho&s;e rules are, are not written or
directed to the whole Churches of Ephe&s;us or Creet, but to <HI>Timothy</HI> and <HI>Ti|tus</HI>
only, as their in&s;criptions &s;peaks.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> If this be a &s;ufficient rea&s;on, to prove that the people may
not in any ca&s;e, meddle with ordination, then by as good a rea|&s;on,
a man may prove that ordination belongs not to the Presby|tery,
nor to the Synods, but onely to one man, as the Prelats would
have it: for a man may turn the rea&s;on again&s;t your &s;elfe, and &s;ay,
The rules of direction how to proceed in ordination, and the Epi|&s;tles
wherein tho&s;e rules are, are not directed to any Presbytery or
Synod at Ephe&s;us or Creet, or any where el&s;e, but onely to <HI>Timothy</HI>
and <HI>Titus,</HI> who were each of them but onely one man. But look how
you would an&s;wer this plea for Epi&s;copall ordination, the &s;ame
an&s;wer may be given to yours. And for us, we cannot but approve
the an&s;wer given to this kind of rea&s;oning, by the refuter of Do|ctor
<HI>Downhams</HI> Sermon at Lambeth, who in his <HI>Reply, part. 2. pag.</HI> 107.
doth &s;hew, that the lawes of Church-government pre&s;cribed in the
<PB N="50" REF="28">
Epi&s;tles of <HI>Timothy</HI> and <HI>Titus,</HI> were not provided for Bi&s;hops alone,
nor Elders alone, but for a mixt &s;tate, wherein many Presbyters
under the guidance of one Pa&s;tor or Pre&s;ident, doe admini&s;ter and
execute all matters with the peoples con&s;ent and approbation. In
which affirmation he alledgeth the con&s;ent of mo&s;t &amp; be&s;t Divines
of later times, in&s;tancing in <HI>Calvin</HI> &amp; <HI>Beza,</HI> &amp; e&s;pecially the Apo&s;tles
own warrant in the clo&s;e of tho&s;es Epi&s;tles, with the&s;e words, <HI>Grace
be with you,</HI> or <HI>with you all, 2 Tim. 4. 22. Tit.</HI> 3. 15. And by this, &s;aith he,
it appeareth, that what was written &s;pecially by name to <HI>Timothy</HI>
&amp; <HI>Titus,</HI> was intended to be of common u&s;e, not only for other mi|ni&s;ters,
but al&s;o in &s;ome &s;ort to all the Saints that then conver&s;ed in
tho&s;e places. Now if what was written by name to <HI>Timothy</HI> and <HI>Ti|tus,</HI>
was intended to be of common u&s;e to all the Saints, then there
is no rea&s;on that you &s;hould appropriate tho&s;e rules onely to the
u&s;e of Presbyteries and Synods, no more then others only to the
u&s;e of Prelats; e&s;pecially this being con&s;idered withall, that if once
the Saints be excluded from being at all concerned in tho&s;e rules,
they that would appropriate them to one man, have a fairer co|lour
for their plea, then they that would appropriate them to a
Presbyterie, or Synod, con&s;i&s;ting of many; becau&s;e <HI>Timothy</HI> or <HI>Titus</HI>
to whom tho&s;e Epi&s;tles are by name directed, are not many per&s;ons,
but either of them one onely.</P>
<P>But it appeares, &s;ay you, that we read in Scripture, that this part of Ju|ri&s;diction
was di&s;pen&s;ed by the Elder&s;hip onely, and that a con&s;ociated El|der&s;hip.
<HI>pag.</HI> 27.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> That it was di&s;pen&s;ed by the Elder&s;hip, we willingly
grant; but that it was di&s;pen&s;ed by the Elder&s;hip onely, and that
the Elder&s;hip by which it was di&s;pen&s;ed, was a con&s;ociated Elder|&s;hip
(that is to &s;ay, a Synod) neither of the&s;e doe appeare at all:
Nay, we &s;uppo&s;e the contrary to both the&s;e may appeare. For as
for the former, we have &s;hewed the contrary already; and for the
latter, we will onely in&s;tance in that Elder&s;hip at Antioch, Acts 13.
that laid hands on <HI>Paul</HI> and <HI>Barnabas,</HI> which Elder&s;hip was not any
Synod, but an Elder&s;hip of one Congregation: for it is plain out of
Acts 14. 27. that the Church of Antioch was no more then might
be gathered together in one place; yea, the whole multitude of
them were gathered together at the return of <HI>Paul</HI> and <HI>Barnabas</HI>
from the Synod at Jeru&s;alem, to heare the Epi&s;tle read which was
&s;ent from that Synod, Acts 15. 30. 31. And therefore this Church
<PB N="51" REF="28">
being but one Congregation, that Elder&s;hip therein by whom <HI>Paul</HI>
and <HI>Barnabas</HI> were ordained, could not be any Synod.</P>
<P>But, &s;ay you, there mu&s;t be triall of parties to be ordained, and hands mu&s;t
not be laid on &s;uddenly on any, and 'tis laid down what kind of men they
ought to be, before they be ordained. And that this triall and approbation of
the parties to be ordained, is in the hands of the Presbyterie, and con&s;ociated
Elder&s;hip, not the whole. <HI>pa.</HI> 27.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> That they ought to be tried, before they be ordained,
yea and afore they be cho&s;en, we freely grant; but that this triall
is in the Synod alone, hath not appeared, by the former texts, nor
by any of them. We cannot perceive how any of them, do in any
&s;ort, look towards &s;uch a thing. And as for this which is here al|ledged
of the impo&s;&s;ibilitie of di&s;charging it by a &s;ingle congrega|tion,
with or without a Pa&s;tor; We an&s;wer thereto; Fir&s;t, that if a
Congregation that is without a Pa&s;tor could not di&s;charge it, yet
if they be furni&s;hed with an able and faithfull Pa&s;tor, we know not
what &s;hould hinder but they might be able thereto. An able and
faithfull Pa&s;tor, one would think &s;hould be able to try others, that
are to be ordained Pa&s;tors; And therefore we marvell that you
&s;hould denie this abilitie to this Congregation, as well as to the
other. Secondly, &s;uppo&s;e they be without a Pa&s;tor, yet if they be
beleevers, they are not altogether without abilitie of &s;pirituall di&s;|cerning,
to di&s;cern whether that which is taught be whol&s;ome do|ctrine,
or otherwi&s;e. Witne&s;&s;e the words of our Saviour, who &s;aith,
that his &s;heep know his voice, but a &s;tranger they will not follow,
but will flee from him, for they know not the voice of &s;trangers:
and though there had been many theeves and robbers, yet the
&s;heep did not hear them. <HI>Joh.</HI> 10. Which plainly &s;hews, that the
&s;heep of Chri&s;t, have &s;ome abilitie, to trie and di&s;cern, whether the
doctrine that men teach, be the whol&s;ome Doctrine of truth, or
otherwi&s;e. Which may be the more confirmed, by the promi&s;e,
they &s;hall be all taught of God, <HI>I&s;a.</HI> 54. 13. and by that of <HI>Joh.</HI> 7. that
if any man will do Gods will, he &s;hall know the doctrine, whether
it be of God, or men &s;peak it of them&s;elves. There mu&s;t be &s;ome
abilitie to di&s;cern, whether men be qualified according to the rule,
afore they ought to be elected, and cho&s;en into office; and the peo|ple
of God have &s;o much abilitie, to di&s;cerne this fitne&s;&s;e, as that
they may lawfully, make this election; and what then &s;hould hin|der,
but they may have &s;o much abilitie, as is of nece&s;&s;itie required,
<PB N="52" REF="29">
afore there be proceedings unto Ordination.</P>
<P>As for that in&s;tance which you give about the union of the two natures in the
per&s;on of Chri&s;t, whether the nature a&s;&s;umed the nature, or the per&s;on the
per&s;on; or the nature the per&s;on, or the per&s;on the nature. And again, whether
this a&s;&s;umption was by way of compo&s;ition, or conjunction, or conver&s;ion, or vi|&s;ion
(we &s;uppo&s;e it &s;hould be union) wherein you think it would be hard for
the&s;e examiners in a congregation, to hit upon the right judgement, and of
four Preachers to ordain him that were orthodox in this matter.</P>
<P>We &s;ay no more to this in&s;tance, but onely thus much, That as
he is the be&s;t Preacher who mo&s;t teacheth the people knowledge,
<HI>Eccle&s;.</HI> 12. and who had rather &s;peake five words to the under&s;tan|ding,
&s;o as he may teach others, and the hearers be edi&s;ied, rather
then ten thou&s;and words in a &s;trange tongue, and uncoth termes,
that him&s;elfe might be admired, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 14. 19. So we know no|thing
but the people of God in a Congregation: the&s;e terms being
explained unto them, might be able to di&s;cern which were the or|thodox
tenent of the four particulars, and accordingly pitch upon
him that holds it.</P>
<P><HI>La&s;tly, you &s;peak, pag.</HI> 29. of four things that are oppo&s;ed about this
matter of Ordination.</P>
<P>Where, though we will not take upon us to ju&s;tifie all tho&s;e rea|&s;ons,
but leave them to the authors of them, to undertake the de|fence
of them, if &s;o be there be any that doe &s;o argue; yet we may
&s;peak a word or two to &s;ome pa&s;&s;ages in your an&s;wer to the&s;e four
particulars.</P>
<P><HI>Fir&s;t of all, to the ca&s;e of a</HI> Company of Beleevers ca&s;t by &s;hip-wrack
upon an I&s;land, where are no Pa&s;tors, your an&s;wer is, that the que&s;tion is about
the ordinary way of Scripture-in&s;titution in this matter of ordination, not
what may be done in extraordinary ca&s;es.</P>
<P>Whereby it &s;eems that in the ca&s;e propo&s;ed, you grant ordina|tion
may be performed by non-Elders. And if &s;o, what then be|comes
of all you have &s;aid before of <HI>Timothy</HI> and <HI>Titus,</HI> and of the
rules about Ordination in the Epi&s;tles to the&s;e two Evangeli&s;ts, of
the Presbytery at Antioch, that laid hands upon <HI>Paul</HI> and <HI>Barna|bas,</HI>
of the inability of people to examine and try who were fit for
office, and the re&s;t? For granting what here you doe, you plainly
declare, that all your former rea&s;oning amounts but to this much,
That when Pa&s;tors can be had, then impo&s;ition of hands is be&s;t
performed by tho&s;e Pa&s;tors, otherwi&s;e it may be done without
<PB N="53" REF="29">
them; wherein we for our parts con&s;ent with you. But by this
means the nece&s;&s;ary dependance upon Synods for ordination of
officers, is utterly overthrowne.</P>
<P>But, &s;ay you, Indepencie of every &s;ingle congregation, to bee the ordinary
way, herein is the claime of the independent party.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> What others claim, they may declare their grounds for
the &s;ame as they &s;ee cau&s;e; for our &s;elves, that which we hold,
with the grounds thereof, is briefly this, in four Propo&s;itions; two
of them concerning what is to be done in ca&s;e a Chhurch have El|ders
of its own: and two concerning what is to be done in ca&s;e it
have not. In re&s;pect of the former.</P>
<P><HI>Propo&s;ition</HI> 1. If a Church have Elders of its own, impo&s;ition of
hands in ordination is to be performed by tho&s;e Elders, and not by
the people.</P>
<P><HI>Propo&s;ition</HI> 2. A Church that hath Elders of its own, needs not
to depend upon a Synod, or the Presbyteries of other Churches,
con&s;ociat or &s;ingle, for the the ordaining of its Officers; but the
&s;ame may be performed lawfully and &s;ufficiently by its owne El|ders.</P>
<P>In re&s;pect of the latter: 1. In a Church that hath no Elders, im|po&s;ition
of hands in ordaining of officers, may lawfully be perfor|med
by &s;ome principall members in the congregation.</P>
<P>2. If the Church have Elders of its own, it may doe well to
crave the approbation of the Mini&s;ters of neighbouring congrega|tions
if there be any &s;uch.</P>
<P>The grounds of the fir&s;t and third of the&s;e Propo&s;itions hath been
declared already; and for the &s;econd we thus argue:</P>
<P><HI>Arg.</HI> 1. If &s;uch a Church may elect and chu&s;e Officers to it &s;elf,
without any nece&s;&s;ary dependance upon Synods; then they may or|dain
them al&s;o, having &s;o fit in&s;truments as Elders of their own to
doe it by. But the fir&s;t is true, as we have el&s;ewhere &s;hewed in this
An&s;wer of ours: Therfore the &s;econd is true al&s;o. The con&s;e|quence
of the Major is cleare by this rea&s;on, That they which
can doe the greater, can doe the le&s;&s;er al&s;o, if it be of the &s;ame
kind.</P>
<P><HI>Arg.</HI> 2. If &s;uch a Church as we here &s;peak of, may not ordaine
their Officers without dependance on a Synod, or a Cla&s;&s;is; then
neither may they admini&s;ter Seals without &s;uch dependance: For
<PB N="54" REF="30">
the word makes &s;uch dependance, no more requi&s;ite in the one
ca&s;e, then in the other.</P>
<P><HI>Arg.</HI> 3. If it were not thus, it were not po&s;&s;ible, there &s;hould be
any Synod or Cla&s;&s;is upon the face of the earth; for what is a Cla&s;|&s;is
or a Synod? but a companie of Mini&s;ters or Elders, of &s;everall
Congregations, a&s;&s;embled together to con&s;ider of things concern|ing
them&s;elves, and the Churches of Chri&s;t, &s;pecially &s;uch Chur|ches,
whereto they do peculiarly belong; Now this a&s;&s;embling of
Elders into a Cla&s;&s;is or Synod, doth imply that there were Elders
before there was any Cla&s;&s;is, or Synod; and if &s;o, then certainly
there was no concurrence, of the Cla&s;&s;is or Synod in the ordinati|on
of tho&s;e Elders; &s;ith they were Elders before that Synod had
any being; Which doth &s;ufficiently &s;hew, that the concurrence of
a Synod, is not alwaies required in the ordaining of Elders.</P>
<P><HI>Obj.</HI> If it be &s;aid the Synod did ordain <HI>Timothy,</HI> an Evangeli&s;t,
an Officer of many Churches, 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 4. 14. and therefore much more
mu&s;t ordain Officers of one particular Church.</P>
<P>The An&s;wer is, fir&s;t, that the con&s;equence is not &s;trong, becau&s;e a
particular Church might have authoritie &s;ufficient, to ordain by
their Elder&s;hip the Officers of their particular Church onely; and
not &s;ufficient to ordain &s;uch as mu&s;t be Officers in all Churches,
what&s;oever. The help of a Cla&s;&s;is or Synod, where is a combination
or con&s;ociation of Elders, of many Churches, might be requi&s;ite
for ordaining an Officer of many Churches, and yet the elder&s;hip
of our particular Church, might be &s;ufficient for ordaining &s;uch a
one, as is to be officer, to no more but onely to that particular
Church.</P>
<P>Secondly, the ground hence is not certain. For though <HI>Timothy</HI>
was an Evangeli&s;t, and &s;o to travell from one Church to another,
yet the Presbyterie 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 4. 14. that laid hands on him, might be
the Presbyterie of one particular Church, and not any Synod or
Cla&s;&s;is. For <HI>Paul</HI> and <HI>Barnabas</HI> were Apo&s;tles, <HI>Act.</HI> 14. 4. and 14.
<HI>Gal.</HI> 2. 9. and yet they were ordained, not by any Cla&s;&s;is or Pre&s;|byterie
of many Churches, but by the Presbyterie of one Church,
the Church at Antioch. <HI>Act.</HI> 13. 1, 2, 3.</P>
<P>Tho&s;e (&s;ay they) that can do the greater (that is to &s;ay) make a Church,
can do the le&s;&s;e, make Pa&s;tors of that Church.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> We would rather argue thus; tho&s;e that have power of
electing Officers, they have power of ordaining Officers; But the
<PB N="55" REF="30">
people that have no Officers, have the former. Therefore they have
power to do the latter. The con&s;equence is proved, becau&s;e electing
is greater then ordaining, and greater not in another kind, but in
the &s;ame; <HI>viz.</HI> about the placing of a Mini&s;ter, or the de&s;igning of
a per&s;on to the office, of Mini&s;terie. Now an Argument from the
greater to the le&s;&s;e, in the &s;ame kind, you confe&s;&s;e will hold.</P>
<P>Which vi&s;ible Mini&s;tery where it is, this propertie or proper power of or|daining
Officers, is a nece&s;&s;arie and immediate ordinarie concomitant there|of.
<HI>pag.</HI> 31.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> If this be &s;o, then there may be Officers ordained, and
not by a Synod, even in a particular congregation; becau&s;e in &s;uch
a one there may be a vi&s;ible Mini&s;terie.</P>
<P>Although that which you have &s;aid in this Argument, be not
expre&s;ly again&s;t the Congregations, electing their Officers; but one|ly
again&s;t their ordaining of them, by impo&s;ition of hands; yet in
a&s;much as &s;undrie pa&s;&s;ages in your book, and in this Argument
e&s;pecially, do &s;eem to make as much again&s;t the one, as the other.
Therefore as we have alreadie &s;poken, to the point of ordination,
&s;o we will al&s;o, for the Readers further direction, give &s;ome
grounds for confirmation of this po&s;ition, about election, <HI>viz.</HI> Ele|ction
of ordinarie officers belongeth to the Church, whereof the
partie is to be an officer, &s;o that they proceed in this election, ac|cording
to the rules of the Word; both chu&s;ing a man fitted by
God for the office, unto which they chu&s;e him, and carrying their
choice, in an orderly manner. <HI>Rea&s;on</HI> 1 It was thus in the Apo|&s;tles
times, and therefore it ought to be &s;o now. The antecedent is
clear from <HI>Act.</HI> 1. where in the very choice of an Apo&s;tle, the Church
are not wholly excluded; for though the office of an Apo&s;tle being
extraordinarie, the expre&s;&s;e de&s;igning of the particular per&s;on, is
determined by God by lot, yet the Church appoints two that one
of them may be &s;ingled out, <HI>v.</HI> 23. and when the lot had fallen up|on
<HI>Matthias,</HI> it is &s;aid he was numbred with the eleven Apo&s;tles,
<HI>v.</HI> 26. that is, he was by common &s;uffrage of the Churchcho&s;en to
be of that number; for &s;o doth the word &s;ignifie, that is u&s;ed,
<GAP DESC="foreign"> and therefore it is tran&s;lated by <HI>Scapula, Omnium cal|culis
allectus.</HI> And it is ob&s;ervable, that though the office was ex|traordinarie,
and though the Apo&s;tles (who were extraordinarie
officers, and had received their calling and extraordinarie autho|ritie
from Chri&s;t him&s;elf, immediately) were now pre&s;ent, yet for
<PB N="56" REF="31">
all this, the Church hath a &s;troke in this matter, both fir&s;t appoint|ing
two, and then approving by their common &s;uffrage or con&s;ent
him of the two, on whom the lot had fallen; to be for in&s;truction
unto us in after times, that in the choice of ordinarie officers, it
&s;hould be farre from any of the &s;ons of men, to exclude the people
of God, from their right and intere&s;t therein; For if they had a
&s;troke in the choice of an Apo&s;tle; how much more &s;hould they have
the like, in the choice of ordinarie officers? And if the Apo&s;tles
them&s;elves being pre&s;ent, would not abridge the people of this li|bertie,
much le&s;&s;e may others do it; doubtle&s;&s;e they that engro&s;&s;e
the authoritie of chu&s;ing Mini&s;ters into their own hands, excluding
the people, they arrogate more unto them&s;elves then the Apo&s;tles
ever did. So likewi&s;e in <HI>Act.</HI> 6. when Deacons were to be appoint|ed,
the Apo&s;tles do not take all the bu&s;ine&s;&s;e into their own hands,
as if election of &s;uch officers appertained onely to them&s;elves, and
not at all unto the people: but they call the whole multitude unto
them, <HI>ver.</HI> 2. and bid them chu&s;e out &s;even men, fitly qualified for
the office, <HI>ver.</HI> 3. and accordingly the &s;aying plea&s;ed the whole
multitude; and they cho&s;e &s;even that are there named, <HI>ver.</HI> 5. and
having &s;o done, they &s;et them before the Apo&s;tles that they might
ordain them by laying their hands on them, <HI>ver.</HI> 6. And in <HI>Act.</HI> 14.
23. it is &s;aid that the Apo&s;tles ordained Elders, by election, or lift|ing
up of hands, (for &s;o doth <GAP DESC="foreign"> &s;ignifie) in every
Church.</P>
<P><HI>Obj.</HI> The word &s;ignifieth nothing el&s;e, but laying on of hands,
which was the act of the Apo&s;tles alone, and not of the people.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> The word is never u&s;ed for laying on of hands in all the
Scripture, but the word u&s;ed for that is <GAP DESC="foreign">, betwixt which
and this word <GAP DESC="foreign">, there is as much difference as betweene
holding up and laying down. If <HI>Luke</HI> the writer of the Acts had
intended the laying on of hands, it had been ea&s;ie for him to have
u&s;ed the other word, which is proper to expre&s;&s;e &s;uch an action,
and frequently u&s;ed by him&s;elf in that &s;ence in this book. <HI>Act.</HI> 6. 6.
and 8. 17. and 9. 17.</P>
<P><HI>Object.</HI> But be it laying on, or lifting up, that was not the act of
the people, but of the Apo&s;tle alone.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Of the Apo&s;tles it is confe&s;&s;ed: For who doubts, but as
they moderated the whole action, and laid on their hands in or|dination;
&s;o they might al&s;o concurre in the election, by lifting
<PB N="57" REF="31">
up their hands? But it will not follow, that therefore that lifting
up of hands was performed by the Apo&s;tles onely; for el&s;ewhere
the word is u&s;ed to expre&s;&s;e the act of the whole Church, and is
tran&s;lated (<HI>was cho&s;en,</HI> 2 Cor. 8. 19. <GAP DESC="foreign">; <HI>was
cho&s;en of the Churches:</HI> Even as one place mentioneth a gift that was
in <HI>Timothy,</HI> by the laying on of <HI>Pauls</HI> hands, 2 <HI>Tim.</HI> 1. 6. which mu&s;t
not be under&s;tood of <HI>Pauls</HI> hands alone, becau&s;e another Scripture
mentioneth the hands of the Presbytery, 1. <HI>Tim.</HI> 4. 14. By all which
it appeareth, that in the Apo&s;tles times, the people had one hand in
the election of their Officers. And if &s;o, then it ought to be &s;o al&s;o
in the&s;e dayes: for the practice of the Apo&s;tles recorded in the Acts
is pre&s;identiall for all Churches in all ages, in tho&s;e things that
were not of particular rea&s;on and re&s;pect; which for the peoples
chu&s;ing their Mini&s;ters, cannot be &s;aid. Be&s;ides, when the Apo&s;tles
were alive, the Churches were in the greate&s;t purity, and therefore
we may more &s;afely tread in their &s;teps. And further, if this pra|ctice
had not been according to the mind of Chri&s;t, we may be &s;ure
the Apo&s;tles would not have countenanced it, nor have directed
the Churches to have u&s;ed it, but would have left and pre&s;cribed
&s;ome other cour&s;e to be ob&s;erved in the choyce of Mini&s;ters, which
we &s;ee they have not done.</P>
<P>Secondly, if Mini&s;ters mu&s;t not be cho&s;en by the Church, then ei|ther
they mu&s;t be called of God immediatly, or Mini&s;ters without
any calling at all, or be cho&s;en and appointed by &s;ome other men:
But not the fir&s;t, becau&s;e &s;uch immediate calling is now cea&s;ed (as
being peculiar to the extraordinary function of Apo&s;tles, Prophets,
&amp;c.) which in the&s;e times are not to be expected; Nor the &s;econd,
becau&s;e that is expre&s;ly again&s;t the Scripture, which &s;aith, <HI>No man
mu&s;t take this honour to him&s;elfe, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron,
Heb.</HI> 5. 4. And therefore they that ran when God &s;ent them not, are
many times, and very &s;harply reproved in the Prophets, <HI>Jer.</HI> 23. 21.
Nor the third: For 1. God hath not given any &s;uch authority to o|ther
men that are not of the Church, to appoint Officers to the
Church: Nor 2. may &s;ome of the Church arrogate this power
onely to them&s;elves, excluding the re&s;t; becau&s;e that which con|cerneth
all (as this matter doth) ought to have approbation of all,
unle&s;&s;e it might appeare, that God had committed the thing only
to &s;ome, which for the chu&s;ing of Officers cannot be &s;aid. 3. It is
&s;utable to right rea&s;on, that it &s;hould be thus: For 1. by this means
<PB N="58" REF="32">
the liberty of the Church is not infringed by thru&s;ting officers up|pon
them without their con&s;ent, and whom they never cho&s;e. Al&s;o
2. this is a &s;trong engagement to the people, to yeeld due reve|rence,
&s;ubjection and obedience to their Mini&s;ters, becau&s;e they are
the men whom them&s;elves have cho&s;en; whereas one thru&s;t upon
them again&s;t their wills, is not like to be much beloved, but rather
contemned and hated; and how then &s;hall they profit by his do|ctrine?
Finally, the people have a right originally to chu&s;e their civil
officers, as is al&s;o practi&s;ed at this day in many places: And when
the Lord brings a &s;word upon a land, the Scripture &s;aith expre&s;ly,
<HI>that the people of the land may take a man of their coa&s;ts, and &s;et him for their
watchman, Ezek.</HI> 33. 2. And if &s;o, then they may well have liberty to
chu&s;e &s;uch as mu&s;t be watchmen for their &s;ouls: for it is much more
unrea&s;onable, that there &s;hould be thru&s;t upon them &s;uch watch|men
and officers, upon whom the &s;alvation or damnation of their
&s;ouls doth depend, then &s;uch as upon whom dependeth no more
but their wealth, or commodity of this life. And this &s;hall &s;uffice
for an&s;wer to your fourth and la&s;t Argument.</P>
<P>There are in your book two other general heads which are &s;om|thing
in&s;i&s;ted on, the one about clearing &s;uch objections as are not
reducible to your former arguments; the other of appealing to the
judgement of the adver&s;e party: In both which, thopugh we might
ob&s;erve &s;undry things which were worth your &s;econd review, yet in
as much as our <HI>intentions</HI> were chiefly to con&s;ider the weight of your
arguments, but not to undertake the defence of every objection
which you propo&s;e; and con&s;idering withall, that tho&s;e con&s;idera|tions
from the order, unity, peace, and &s;trength of government with
the re&s;t, are not intended by you (as we &s;uppo&s;e) as convincing, but
onely as probable grounds again&s;t that way which you deale a|gain&s;t;
therfore for the&s;e and &s;ome other rea&s;ons, having &s;poken to
that which we conceive to be the main &s;ub&s;tance of your book, we
will here for this time &s;urcea&s;e, <HI>praying the Father of mercies for Chri&s;t
Je&s;us his &s;ake, to poure out his rich ble&s;&s;ings of truth &amp; peace upon our deare
native countrey, and to guide all his &s;ervants there &amp; here by a Spirit of truth,
into all truth. And to give us &s;uch hearts and grace, that we may follow the
truth in love, till Antichri&s;tiani&s;me be utterly rooted out, and Sion be re&s;tored,
(e&s;pecially in England) to her former beiuty, and new Jeru&s;alem come down
from heaven, as a Bride adorned for her Husband, the Lord Je&s;us Chri&s;t. To
whom be all glory and prai&s;e for ever and ever. Amen.</HI></P>
<TRAILER>FINIS.</TRAILER>
<PB REF="32">
</DIV2>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT>
</EEBO>
</ETS>
