<!DOCTYPE ETS PUBLIC "-//UMDLPS//DTD EEBOPROOF 2.0//EN">
<ETS>
<TEMPHEAD>
<REVDESCR>
<CHANGE>
<DATE>7-11-08</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; removed LISTs out of table of contents; added LABELs. Checked placement and completeness of PBs. Checked for damage GAPs, #s, @s, --s, oe's, and UNCLEARs. Corrected $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, q;s, and Qs. Checked I / Js. Checked proofsheets and made corrections. Sample: 2 minutes. Proofing: 35 minutes. Tag review and corrections: 50 minutes. DONE.</ITEM>
</CHANGE>
</REVDESCR>
</TEMPHEAD>
<EEBO>
<IDG S="marc" R="UM" ID="A88948">
<STC T="W">M1275</STC>
<STC T="T">E386_9</STC>
<BIBNO T="umi">99861982</BIBNO>
<VID>114129</VID>
</IDG>
<TEXT LANG="eng">
<FRONT>
<DIV1 TYPE="title page">
<PB REF="1" MS="y">
<P>A
REPLY
TO
Mr. Rutherfurd,
<HI>OR,</HI>
A defence of the An&s;wer to Re|verend
Mr. <HI>Herles</HI> Booke again&s;t the
Independency of Churches.</P>
<P>VVherein &s;uch Objections and
An&s;wers, as are returned to &s;undry pa&s;&s;ages
in the &s;aid An&s;wer by Mr. <HI>Samuel Rutherfurd,</HI>
a godly and learned Brother of the Church of
<HI>Scotland,</HI> in his Booke Entituled <HI>The Due
Right of Presbyters,</HI> are examined and
removed, and the An&s;wer ju&s;tified
and cleared.</P>
<P>By RICHARD MA<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="blotted" EXTENT="1 letter">HER Teacher to
the Church at <HI>Dorche&s;ter</HI> in New
<HI>ENGLAND.</HI> 1646.</P>
<P><HI>LONDON,</HI>
Printed for <HI>J. Rothwell,</HI> and <HI>H. Allen</HI> at the Sun
and Fountaine in <HI>Pauls</HI> Church-yard, and
the Crown in Popes-head Alley, 1647,</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="to the reader">
<PB REF="2">
<PB REF="2">
<HEAD>The Authors Preface
to the Reader.</HEAD>
<OPENER><SALUTE>Chri&s;tian Reader,</SALUTE></OPENER>
<P>_HAving publi&s;hed &s;ome yeares agoe, a &s;mall
Treati&s;e, in way of a brotherly An&s;wer to
reverend Ma&s;ter <HI>Herle;</HI> I now pre&s;ent unto
thy view a defence thereof again&s;t &s;uch ob|jections
and an&s;wers as have been returned
to &s;undry pa&s;&s;ages therein, by reverend and learned
Ma&s;ter <HI>Rutherfurd.</HI> In which undertaking it hath been
farre from my intention to increa&s;e or uphold the diffe|rences
that have appeared of late yeares in <HI>England</HI> a|mong&s;t
the &s;ervants of the Lord, about matters of
Church government. For I had much rather bring Pray|ers
and teares for the quenching of &s;uch fires, then fewell
or oyle for the increa&s;ing thereof: neither &s;hall the &s;ame
I hope, be any thing at all increa&s;ed by what here I pre|&s;ent
now thy view. At the lea&s;t this I may &s;ay, that I in|tended
<PB REF="3">
no &s;uch thing but the contrary, even the promo|ting
of truth and peace, if it were the will of God &s;o to
ble&s;&s;e my de&s;ires and endeavors. True it is, I have taken
the liberty to con&s;ider and try &s;ome things delivered by
that reverend brother whom here I have to doe withall,
but this I tru&s;t cannot be ju&s;tly offen&s;ive, in as much as
<HI>the Spirit of the Prophets is Subject to the Prophets,</HI> 1 Cor. 14.
32. and the doctrine of the Apo&s;tle him&s;elfe was examin|ed
by tho&s;e noble Bereans, whom the holy Gho&s;t com|mendeth
<HI>for &s;earching the Scriptures daily, whether tho&s;e
things were &s;o</HI> Act. 17. 11. It is al&s;o true which our reve|rend
brother &s;aith in his Epi&s;tle to the Reader, <Q>before
his <HI>Peaceable Plea,</HI> that there is great cau&s;e of &s;orrow
that all the Lords people &s;hould not minde one thing,
and &s;ing one &s;ong, and joyne in one again&s;t the Chil|dren
of <HI>Babel.</HI></Q> Neverthele&s;&s;e, this may be &s;ome comfort
again&s;t this &s;orrow, that by the providence of the Lord
this diver&s;ity of opinions and di&s;putes, if it be Chri&s;tian|ly
carried as it may, may occa&s;ion and produce in the i&s;|&s;ue
the further clearing up of truth. <Q>For as our author
well ob&s;erveth, from the Colli&s;ion of opinions re&s;ulteth
truth:</Q> and di&s;putes as &s;tricken flints ca&s;t fire for light.
<HI>Due Right of Presbyt. Epi&s;tle to the Reader.</HI> The de|&s;ire
and hope whereof, together with the advice of &s;uch
brethren as I con&s;ulted withall, was that which chiefely
prevailed with me for the publi&s;hing of this reply, where|in
the reader will finde &s;undry Scriptures and que&s;tions
controverted in the&s;e times, di&s;cu&s;&s;ed and con&s;idered &s;o
farre as the nature of a Reply or defence did lead thereto;
and I hope &s;ome or other through Gods ble&s;&s;ing may re|ceive
&s;ome profit thereby. And if the humble Chri&s;tian
who de&s;ires to know, and love and practi&s;e the truth,
<PB REF="3">
&s;hall receive any benefit or help for attaining the&s;e ends
by meanes of this labour of mine, it is that which I in|tended
and aimed at, and for which I de&s;ire that God a|lone
may have the prai&s;e and glory. If any &s;hall &s;till re|maine
otherwi&s;e minded; yet in due time I hope God
&s;hall reveale even this unto them. In the meane time, diver|&s;ity
of apprehen&s;ions in the&s;e points ought not to bred any
alienation of affection among&s;t tho&s;e that are otherwi&s;e
Orthodoxe, and &s;incere. It were a thou&s;and pitties, if it
&s;hould. For my part, I cannot but approve what this
<Q>reverend brother &s;ometime profe&s;&s;eth, that he doth
both love and di&s;pute, contradict and reverence at once:
<HI>Peaceable Plea:</HI> Epi&s;t. Yea, he counts him&s;elfe a debt|or
for love, charity, honour and all due re&s;pect in
Chri&s;t Je&s;us, and a &s;eat and lodging in his heart and
highe&s;t e&s;teeme to all tho&s;e that be godly, lovers of the
truth, and &s;ufferers for the truth again&s;t Prelacy,
though po&s;&s;ibly they like not well of Pre&s;byteriall go|vernment:</Q>
<HI>ibid.</HI> In an&s;wer whereto (for I would be
loth that &s;uch love &s;hould be lo&s;t upon us, without due
returne of the like) I would for my part profe&s;&s;e the like
deare and due re&s;pect to all tho&s;e that are qualifyed as
here he doth de&s;cribe (of which &s;ort I know there are ma|ny)
though po&s;&s;ibly they may like better of the way that
is called Pre&s;byteriall, then of the Congregationall. For
tho&s;e that give apparent Te&s;timonies that they are the
Lord's, and &s;o that they mu&s;t live together in heavens, I
know not why they &s;hould not love one another on earth,
what ever differences of apprehen&s;ions may for the pre|&s;ent
be found among&s;t them in &s;ome things. As for bit|terne&s;&s;e
of &s;pirit and tartne&s;&s;e of conte&s;ts, I never
thought that to be Gods way of promoting truth among&s;t
<PB REF="4">
brethren, and therefore I have endevoured in this di&s;|cour&s;e
to avoid the &s;ame. For I beleeve there is more
hope of doing good by &s;olidity of argument with a &s;pirit
of meekne&s;&s;e and love, then by &s;harp and tart language,
the fruit of bitterne&s;&s;e of &s;pirit, wherein for the mo&s;t part
right of rea&s;on is wanting, the pa&s;&s;ions being there mo&s;t
vehement and &s;tirring, where the intellectuals are mo&s;t
<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">eeble and weake.</P>
<P>Now if any aske why this defence hath been &s;o long
deferred, it being now two yeares and more &s;ince Ma&s;ter
<HI>Rutherfurd</HI> his due right of Pre&s;byt. came forth, &s;uch
may be plea&s;ed to con&s;ider that New <HI>England</HI> being
as 'tis counted 3000 miles di&s;tant from old; therefore ma|ny
Books may be extant in <HI>England</HI> a long time afore we
that are &s;o remote can &s;o much as heare any &s;ound there|of:
and tho&s;e few that come to our knowledge, are com|monly
extant in <HI>England</HI> a matter of a yeares &s;pace afore,
and &s;ometimes longer. In which re&s;pect many things
may be &s;poken and Printed again&s;t us, whereto it cannot
be expected that we &s;hould returne any &s;peedy An&s;wer.
And though it be now twelve moneths agoe or more &s;ince
Ma&s;ter <HI>Rutherfurd</HI> his due right of Pre&s;byt. came to my
hands, yet at that time my few &s;pare houres from my
con&s;tant and ordinary employments were wholly taken
up otherwi&s;e, &s;o that I could not attend this bu&s;ine&s;&s;e a|ny
&s;ooner: which I de&s;ire may be accepted as a ju&s;t apolo|gie
for the late coming forth of this Reply; which as it
may &s;eeme late, &s;o it is more large then in &s;ome re&s;pect
I could have de&s;ired, by rea&s;on that I doe u&s;ually tran|&s;cribe
tho&s;e words of Ma&s;ter <HI>Rutherfurd,</HI> whereto I d<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">e
apply my An&s;wer; which cour&s;e I confe&s;&s;e I did not un|willingly
(in &s;ome re&s;pects) chu&s;e, partly to &s;ave the
<PB REF="4">
Reader a labour of turning to the place in Ma&s;ter <HI>Ruther|furd</HI>
which I am &s;peaking too; which el&s;e he mu&s;t have
done, or have taken things upon my report upon tru&s;t;
and partly that my candid and faire dealing with the Au|thor,
whom I have to doe withall might the better ap|peare.
For when a mans words are not kept, but for|&s;aken,
and others &s;ub&s;tituted in their place, his minde
and meaning may &s;oone be mi&s;taken, and repre&s;ented a|mi&s;&s;e
unto the Reader. Which is a practi&s;e that I have
often &s;eene, but never approved; and therefore I have
not u&s;ed it. For I would be loth to wrong any man;
&s;pecially a man of &s;uch worth as I take Ma&s;ter <HI>Rutherfurd</HI>
to be, by imputing to him what he doth not teach nor
deliver: and for this cau&s;e it is that I have u&s;ually tran|&s;cribed
and expre&s;&s;ed his owne words; and by this
meanes my booke is growne to the greater bulk.</P>
<P>One thing more I would adverti&s;e the Reader of, and
then I &s;hall quickly have done: the figures from 185
and &s;o forward, noting the number of the Pages in
Ma&s;ter <HI>Rutherfurd</HI> his Treati&s;e, are &s;et downe twice
therein, once in their proper place, and againe after the
page 484. Wherefore if any of the&s;e pages be quoted in
this Reply, as &s;ome of them are, if the thing that is al|leaged
be not found in the page that is named, looke for
it in the other place of the booke where are the &s;ame fi|gures,
and there you may finde it.</P>
<P>Courteous Reader, &s;tudy the truth in a way of Piety
and peace: Be zealous for it, but lo&s;e not love to the
Saints: beware, when the world is filled with di&s;putes
about di&s;cipline, that thou be not drawne onely to erro|neous
opinions in maine matters of doctrine. Be &s;ure to
practi&s;e and expre&s;&s;e the power of Godline&s;&s;e in humility
<PB REF="5">
of minde, mortification of thy own corruption, faith
in the Lord Je&s;us, and love to all his redeemed; and be
not by any meanes drawne away from the&s;e things, which
doe &s;o mainly conduce to thy &s;alvation. Finally as the
Holy Gho&s;t &s;aith, <HI>Phil.</HI> 4. 8, 9. what&s;oever things are true,
what&s;oever things are hone&s;t, what&s;oever things are ju&s;t,
what&s;oever things are lovely, pure, and of good report,
if there be any vertue, if there be any prai&s;e, thinke on
the&s;e things, and doe them; and the God of peace &s;hall
be with thee. Improve I pray &s;uch intere&s;t as thou ha&s;t
in God through the mediator, by affording the help of
thy Prayers for me, who am</P>
<CLOSER><SIGNED>Truly de&s;irous of thy<LB>
Salvation,<LB>
<HI>R. M.</HI></SIGNED>
<DATELINE><DATE>Decemb. 10. 1646.</DATE></DATELINE></CLOSER>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="table of contents">
<PB REF="5">
<HEAD>A Table of the Contents
of the en&s;uing Treati&s;e.</HEAD>
<LIST>
<ITEM><LABEL>Chap. 1.</LABEL>
OF Appeales from particular Congregations, and the true cau&s;e of
Appeales, and whether by <HI>Mr Rutherford</HI> his doctrine in this
point there mu&s;t not be appeales to Generall Coun&s;ells, who&s;e po|wer
of Iuri&s;diction he doth not yet deny. <LABEL><HI>page.</HI> 2.</LABEL></ITEM>
<ITEM><LABEL>Chap. 2.</LABEL>
Of the power of Synods to give advite and Coun&s;ell, and whether from thence
it doth follow that they have no power to command. <LABEL><HI>page.</HI> 11.</LABEL></ITEM>
<ITEM><LABEL>Chap. 3.</LABEL>
Of the A&s;&s;embly, <HI>Acts.</HI> 15. whether they did exerci&s;e any power of Iuri&s;di|ction,
again&s;t the obtruders of Circumci&s;ion, and whether their rebuking
of them does argue the Affirmative. <LABEL><HI>page.</HI> 15.</LABEL></ITEM>
<ITEM><LABEL>Chap. 4.</LABEL>
Of the Dogmaticall power of Synods: And of the power of Congregations to
determine matters among&s;t them&s;elves, if ability &s;erve thereto. <LABEL><HI>page.</HI> 21.</LABEL></ITEM>
<ITEM><LABEL>Chap. 5.</LABEL>
Againe of that A&s;&s;embly <HI>Acts.</HI> 15. whether their rebuking the fal&s;e teachers do
prove a power of Iuri&s;diction and excommunication in Synods: and whe|ther
preaching do prove the A&s;&s;embly where it is, to be a Church. <LABEL><HI>page.</HI> 24.</LABEL></ITEM>
<ITEM><LABEL>Chap. 6.</LABEL>
Whether the power of Synods be a power of Iuri&s;diction; and of the depen|dance
of the Synagogues upon the Synedrion at Ieru&s;alem. <LABEL><HI>page.</HI> 30.</LABEL></ITEM>
<ITEM><LABEL>Chap. 7.</LABEL>
Whether the lawfulne&s;se or nece&s;&s;ity of Appeales doe prove a &s;uperiority of
Iuri&s;diction in Synods over Congregations, and of &s;undry &s;ayings of our
Author which &s;eeme to interfere. <LABEL><HI>page.</HI> 39.</LABEL></ITEM>
<ITEM><LABEL>Chap. 8.</LABEL>
Whether <HI>Antioch Acts.</HI> 15. had right to have ended the controver&s;ie a|mong&s;t
<PB REF="6">
them&s;elves, if they had bin able, and whether their &s;ending to <HI>Je|ru&s;alem</HI>
for helpe, or their knowledge that other Churches were troubled
with the like evill, or the party among them&s;elves who were again&s;t the
truth, do prove the contrary. And of Supremacy of power in Congrega|tions.
<LABEL><HI>page.</HI> 49.</LABEL></ITEM>
<ITEM><LABEL>Chap. 9.</LABEL>
Whether the Congregationall way or the Presbyteriall do make the Go&s;pel more
defective, then the Law of Excommunication by a Church that hath onely
three Elders, and of doing things &s;uddenly. <LABEL><HI>page.</HI> 66.</LABEL></ITEM>
<ITEM><LABEL>Chap. 10.</LABEL>
Whether the nece&s;&s;ity of di&s;cipline be greater then of Sacraments: and
whether a Congregation that hath neighbours may not exerci&s;e entire|ne&s;&s;e
of Iuri&s;diction, as well as one that hath none; and whether a man
may take on him the whole Mine&s;try, having no outward calling thereto;
and may not as well take on him one act of bapti&s;ing or mini&s;tring the
Lords Supper. <LABEL><HI>page.</HI> 75.</LABEL></ITEM>
<ITEM><LABEL>Chap. 11.</LABEL>
Whether the power of Iuri&s;diction flowing immediately from the e&s;&s;ence of a
Church, doe not agree to a Church that hath neighbours, as well as to a
Church that hath none; and whether otherwi&s;e neighbouring Churches
be not a lo&s;&s;e. And whether pretence of male-admini&s;tration be a &s;uffici|ent
rea&s;on for neighbouring Churches to deprive a Congregation of its
power. <LABEL><HI>page.</HI> 93</LABEL></ITEM>
<ITEM><LABEL>Chap. 12.</LABEL>
Whether it be again&s;t the light of nature that the adver&s;e party be Iudge,
and whether <HI>Mr Rutherford</HI> can &s;afely &s;ay that none of them do &s;o teach;
and whether this &s;aying, that parties may not be Iudges, do make a|gain&s;t
entirene&s;&s;e of power in a Congregation, any more then in a Generall
or Nationall Councell. <LABEL><HI>page.</HI> 104.</LABEL></ITEM>
<ITEM><LABEL>Chap. 13.</LABEL>
Whether the Churches at <HI>The&s;&s;alonica</HI> and <HI>Jeru&s;alem,</HI> were each of them
more then one Congregation, and of <HI>Mr. Baynes</HI> his judgement therein.
Of the A&s;&s;embly mentioned <HI>Luke.</HI> 12. and whether our Saviour did
there &s;peake to his Di&s;ciples onely, or to all the people al&s;o. <LABEL><HI>page.</HI> 112.</LABEL></ITEM>
<ITEM><LABEL>Chap. 14.</LABEL>
Whether the Church at <HI>Corinth</HI> was one Church meeting di&s;tributively in
&s;undry Congregations, or whether it was onely one Congregation. And
whether 1 <HI>Cor. 14. 23. If the whole Church come together in &s;ome
<PB REF="6">
place, &amp;c.</HI> doe make for &s;undry Congregations or for one onely. <LABEL><HI>page.</HI> 123.</LABEL></ITEM>
<ITEM><LABEL>Chap. 15.</LABEL>
Whether the Church at <HI>Ephe&s;us</HI> were more in number then <HI>Corinth</HI> and
<HI>Jeru&s;alem;</HI> and the judgement of <HI>Mr Baynes</HI> whether that Church was
many Congregations or one onely. <LABEL><HI>page.</HI> 137.</LABEL></ITEM>
<ITEM><LABEL>Chap. 16.</LABEL>
Whether the Church at <HI>Antioch</HI> was onely one Congregation: and whether
<HI>Acts.</HI> 14. 27. and 15. 30. doe not prove the affirmative. <LABEL><HI>page.</HI> 140.</LABEL></ITEM>
<ITEM><LABEL>Chap. 17.</LABEL>
Whether or no liberties are given by Chri&s;t to the people, but women mu&s;t
exerci&s;e the &s;ame as well as men. And of the peoples liberty about ordinati|on,
or the calling of Mini&s;ters. <LABEL><HI>page.</HI> 146.</LABEL></ITEM>
<ITEM><LABEL>Chap. 18.</LABEL>
Of <HI>Mr Rutherfords</HI> report of Synodicall propo&s;itions in <HI>New-England.</HI>
<LABEL><HI>page.</HI> 151.</LABEL></ITEM>
<ITEM><LABEL>Chap. 19.</LABEL>
Of the Appeales of <HI>Luther</HI> and <HI>Cranmer,</HI> and of the power of Iuri&s;diction
in generall Councels denied by <HI>Mr. Rutherford;</HI> whether therein be
doe not contradict him&s;elfe, and al&s;o overthrow the Iuri&s;diction of Cla&s;&s;i|call,
Provinciall, and Nationall A&s;&s;emblies. <LABEL><HI>page.</HI> 153.</LABEL></ITEM>
<ITEM><LABEL>Chap. 20.</LABEL>
If it were granted that the light of nature teacheth all &s;ocieties to end in Mo|narchies,
whether would it not follow that the Government of Churches
mu&s;t &s;o end, as well as that Congregations mu&s;t depend on the Government
of Synods, becau&s;e the light of nature teacheth a communion in government
to other &s;ocieties. And whether the multitude of <HI>Grecians</HI> and <HI>Hebrewes,</HI>
who ch<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;e the &s;even Deacons <HI>Acts.</HI> 6. were two Congregations, or one
onely. <LABEL><HI>page.</HI> 159.</LABEL></ITEM>
<ITEM><LABEL>Chap. 21.</LABEL>
Whether Congregations may be excommunicated by Cla&s;&s;es and Synods, by
vertue of tho&s;e words&punc; <HI>Mat. 18. Tell the Church,</HI> as containing a rule
and remedy for all offences, or at the lea&s;t a Church remedy for the offences
of Churches and Church members. And if yea, whether it would not
thereupon follow, that a Nationall Church mu&s;t have the benefit of this
remedy as well as others; and &s;o have no independency of Iuri&s;diction
within it &s;elfe, but be &s;ubject to the juri&s;diction of Generall Coun&s;els,
which yet <HI>Mr. Rutherford</HI> doth deny. <LABEL><HI>page.</HI> 164.</LABEL></ITEM>
<ITEM><LABEL>Chap. 22.</LABEL>
When the &s;upreame Magi&s;trate is a profe&s;&s;ed enemy to Religion, whether
<PB REF="7">
then it be likely and u&s;uall, that the greater part of the people are &s;in|cerely
religious, and whether when the greater part are enemies with
their Magi&s;trates, it be then the duty of a few that are &s;incere, to a&s;|&s;emble
in a Nationall Synod, and there to enter into a Nationall Cove|nant,
and al&s;o to injoyne the &s;ame unto that greater part. <LABEL><HI>page.</HI> 170.</LABEL></ITEM>
<ITEM><LABEL>Chap. 23.</LABEL>
Whether the word <HI>Church</HI> be not given to a &s;ingle Congregation: and
whether a Congregation be a company or Church-meeting onely for
word and Sacraments, and not for any other &s;pirituall duties: and whe|ther
the divers duties, 1. of word and &s;acraments, 2. of di&s;cipline, &amp;c.
mu&s;t needs argue divers Churches. <LABEL><HI>page.</HI> 175.</LABEL></ITEM>
<ITEM><LABEL>Chap. 24</LABEL>
Whether tho&s;e children of <HI>I&s;raell Numb.</HI> 8. 10. who laid hands on the <HI>Le|vites</HI>
were Elders by office, and as &s;o con&s;idered did lay on their hands.
And whether this Scripture do not prove, that where there are no Elders to
be had, there &s;ome principall members though no Elders by office, may im|po&s;e
hands on Church-Officers. <LABEL><HI>page.</HI> 180</LABEL></ITEM>
<ITEM><LABEL>Chap. 25.</LABEL>
Whether a Mini&s;ters calling con&s;i&s;t in election or impo&s;ition of hands, and
whether of the&s;e is greater, and whether is <HI>prior</HI> or <HI>po&s;terior.</HI> Whether
1 <HI>Tim. 4. 14. Acts. 6 2, 3, 4. Acts.</HI> 13. 1, 2, 3. doe prove that the Mini|&s;ters
calling con&s;i&s;ts in impo&s;ition of hands by the Presbeterie, and that
&s;uch impo&s;ition of hands is not a con&s;ummatory rite or benedictory &s;igne.
Al&s;o whether <HI>Rom.</HI> 10. 15. do prove that a man cannot be a Mini&s;ter,
except &s;ome Presbyterie ordaine him before the people choo&s;e him, and whe|ther
otherwi&s;e the people doe &s;end a Mini&s;ter to them&s;elves. And whether
the people of God may not as well di&s;cerne a mans fitne&s;se to be ordained, as
his fitne&s;&s;e to be elected. <LABEL><HI>page.</HI> 196.</LABEL></ITEM>
<ITEM><LABEL>Chap. 26.</LABEL>
Whether the Epi&s;tles to <HI>Timothy</HI> and <HI>Titus</HI> wherein there are contained
rules of direction in laying on of hands, do prove that this action may not
in any ca&s;e be performed by Non-officers, but mu&s;t be performed onely by
Presbyteries; and whether the argument do not make as &s;trongly for the
appropriating of laying on of hands to the Prelates, as to the Presbyteries,
and do not as well exclude the Presbyteries from medling therein, as ex|clude
the people. <LABEL><HI>page.</HI> 206.</LABEL></ITEM>
</LIST>
</DIV1>
</FRONT>
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="treatise">
<PB N="1" REF="7">
<HEAD>To the Christian Reader.</HEAD>
<P>_IN the yeare 1643. there came forth a Treati&s;e a|gain&s;t
Independency, under the name of my Re|verend
and learned Brother Mr. <HI>Charles Herle,</HI>
the Pa&s;tor of <HI>Winwick</HI> in <HI>Lanca&s;hire.</HI> This Trea|ti&s;e,
becau&s;e it &s;eemed to bee written with &s;uch a
Candid and peaceable &s;pirit as might witne&s;&s;e for
its Author that the thing he aymed at therein was
meerly the di&s;qui&s;ition of the Truth; and becau&s;e the Author thereof
was many yeares agoe of my Reverend brother M^r. <HI>Tomp&s;ons</HI> acquain|tance
and mine; therefore we thought it might not be in vaine if we
&s;hould lovingly communicate to the learned Author &s;uch apprehen&s;i|ons
of ours, whereby wee were detained from concurring with his
judgement in the principall Que&s;tion di&s;puted in the &s;aid Treati&s;e.
And therefore in the latter end of the &s;ame yeare, there came forth a
&s;mall Script under our Name in way of a brotherly An&s;wer to that his
loving and learned Treati&s;e. Again&s;t this An&s;wer Mr. <HI>Samuell Ru|therford</HI>
a learned writer of the Church of <HI>Scotland,</HI> hath alledged and
publi&s;hed many Objections. Exceptions, and An&s;wers, in his Booke
entituled <HI>The due right of Presbyteries:</HI> I may call them many, becau&s;e
in that Treati&s;e of his there are no le&s;&s;e then 24 or 25 &s;everall places,
wherein he bring up by name the &s;aid An&s;wer, di&s;puting again&s;t &s;un|dry
pa&s;&s;ages therein as if they were not &s;ound; which pa&s;&s;ages if they
be indeed erronious and un&s;ound, are a great many to bee contained
and found in &s;o &s;mall a Work the whole Booke as it is now printed
containing in it 30. leaves: So that the leaves in the Booke are not
much more then the places therein which this learned Writer doth ob|ject
again&s;t; which being con&s;idered, I thought it therefore needfull
to peru&s;e and weigh as the Lord &s;hould helpe, the &s;everall places of his
fore-mentioned Treati&s;e, wherein he deales again&s;t the &s;aid An&s;wer:
<PB N="2" REF="8">
And having &s;o done, I here pre&s;ent my apprehentions to publike view,
leaving the Prudent and judicious Reader to con&s;ider and judge;
whether this Reverend and learned Brother have &s;ufficiently over|throwne
or weak'ned the &s;aid An&s;wer, or whether the &s;ame doe not
&s;till remaine agreable to the rule of Truth, notwith&s;tanding his Ob|jections
again&s;t the &s;ame, or &s;uch An&s;wers as he doth returne to &s;eve|rall
pa&s;&s;ages therein.</P>
<DIV2 N="1" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. I.</HEAD>
<HEAD TYPE="sub">Of Appeales from particular Congregations and the true cau&s;e
of Appeales; and whether by Mr. Rutherford his doctrine
in this point there may not be Appeales to generall
Councils, who&s;e power of Iu<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">i&s;diction
he doth yet deny.</HEAD>
<P>_FIr&s;t of all in his Page 315. (for that is the fir&s;t place wherein I find
him medling with the An&s;wer) &s;peaking of doubts concerning <HI>Math.
18. 17. Tell the Church;</HI> In a 9.th Objection about that Scripture, be|&s;ides
other particulers hee hath the&s;e words, <HI>viz. There is no rea|&s;on
to appeale to a higher Iudicature becau&s;e the inferiour
may erre, becau&s;e all above a Congregation are Courts which may erre;
Presbyteries Provinciall, Nationall, the univer&s;all Councill of the Catho|licke
Church may erre:</HI> And then for author of this part of the Objection hee
&s;ubjoyneth my Name, and An&s;wer to Mr. <HI>Herle,</HI> Cap. 2. pag. 13, 14.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> When hee is di&s;cour&s;ing of doubts concerning that Scripture, <HI>Math 18.
Tell the Church,</HI> I know no rea&s;on why hee &s;hould bring tho&s;e words of mine at &s;uch
a time or for &s;uch a purpo&s;e. For though I doe acknowledge that I wrote the words
which hee hath &s;et downe or &s;uch like, in the place by him alledged; yet that they
were brought by me for &s;uch purpo&s;e as hee doth report <HI>(viz.</HI> For the cleering of
Doubts concerning the meaning of <HI>Math. 18 17.)</HI> that I doe utterly deny. He that
&s;hall looke upon the Chapter and Pages alledged, will find that I doe not there med|dle
at all with that Scripture, either for one purpo&s;e or another; and therefore can|not
be truly &s;aid to have u&s;ed the words alledged, in way of cleering Doubts concer|ning
the &s;ame. And albeit in another place, (cap. 3. pag. 22. <HI>et &s;equ.)</HI> I doe pur|po&s;ely
&s;peake to that Scripture; yet in that place there is no mention at all of the
words by him alledged nor of any &s;uch like, and where &s;uch words are to be found,
there that Scripture is not mentioned at all. Now who knoweth not that a man may
be much wronged, when the words which hee hath &s;poken are taken and applyed to
&s;uch a purpo&s;e, for which he did never bring them nor intend them.</P>
<P><PB N="3" REF="8">
But to let this pa&s;&s;e, let us heare what our Reverend Author &s;aith again&s;t the
words alledged, in his An&s;wer.</P>
<P>The cau&s;e of Appeales, &s;aith he, is not becau&s;e inferiour Iudicatures
may erre, for &s;o wee might appeale from all Iudicatures, even from a ge|nerall
Councill, for it may erre, Pag. 315. lin. ult.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Is not this the very &s;ame that was &s;aid in the An&s;wer, Pag. 13, 14. The
pages which hee here undertakes to an&s;wer, is it not there &s;aid; <HI>As for Cla&s;&s;ica|ticall
Provinciall, and Nationall Synods, there is none of the&s;e but tho&s;e
Ca&s;es of deficiency and po&s;&s;ibility of Partiality may befall the be&s;t of
them; and therefore if for the&s;e cau&s;es the &s;ingle Congregations may not
be indep<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">ndant, but there may be Appeales from them, the Synods being
&s;ubject to the like, there may bee liberty of Appeales from them al&s;o&mdash;.
For as the Congregations may be partiall and erre, &s;o we &s;uppo&s;e it will not
be denyed but the Cla&s;&s;is may erre, the Provinciall Synod may erre, the
Nationall may erre, yea generall Councils may erre; and &s;o by this rea&s;on
not Synods nor generall Councils may have entirene&s;&s;e of Juri&s;diction,
but there may be liberty of Appeales from them al&s;o.</HI> The&s;e are our words
in tho&s;e very Pages which here Mr. <HI>Rutherford</HI> pretends to An&s;wer and di&s;prove or
confute. But in &s;tead of a Confutation we &s;ee we have nothing but a plaine Con|fe&s;&s;ion
or affirmation of his owne, that the thing is even &s;o as was affirmed by us
before. Now why hee &s;hould make a &s;how of taking away or weak'ning that which
we had &s;aid, and then in &s;tead of accompli&s;hing what he undertakes, to doe no more
but onely to &s;ay the &s;ame thing againe which wee had &s;aid before, what rea&s;on I
&s;ay he had for this I know not; but plaine it is that for the particular in hand, the
An&s;wer which he pretends to weaken, is not yet weakned at all, but rather &s;trength|ned
and confirmed by his apparent yeelding the Cau&s;e, and affirming the &s;ame that
was before affirmed by us.</P>
<P>But &s;aith hee Pag. 316. The true cau&s;e <HI>(viz.</HI> of Appealing to higher
Courts) is, 1. Becau&s;e they doe not &s;o frequently erre. 2. They are not &s;o
inclined and di&s;po&s;ed to erre; for many eyes &s;ee more then one, and doe
more &s;eldome mi&s;carry in taking up the right Object: 3. Becau&s;e wee
conceive more equality and le&s;&s;e partiality in higher Courts.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> The&s;e three Rea&s;ons &s;eeme much what the &s;ame, or to hang one upon an|other;
for therefore they doe more &s;eldome erre becau&s;e they are not &s;o di&s;po&s;ed and
inclined to erre, and they are not &s;o inclined becau&s;e they are more in number, and
becau&s;e there is in them more equality and le&s;&s;e partiality: So that upon the mat|ter
it is but one rea&s;on, <HI>viz.</HI> becau&s;e though they may erre, yet not &s;o frequently and
likely as the Congregation.</P>
<P>Yet (be they three Rea&s;ons, or be they but one) let us con&s;ider what force there
is in this &s;a<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">ing to take away entirene&s;&s;e of Iuri&s;diction from a Congregation, and to
e&s;tabli&s;h the nece&s;&s;ity of appealing from the &s;ame unto a Synod, for this is the thing
that &s;hould be cleared.</P>
<P>Fir&s;t of all it may be a que&s;tion, whether Synods doe more &s;eldome erre then the
<PB N="4" REF="9">
Presbyteries of Congregations: And the rea&s;on of the doubt is; becau&s;e the Pro|mi&s;e
of the pre&s;ence of Ch<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="2 letters">&s;t is not made meerly to multitude or greatne&s;&s;e of num|ber;
but if they bee but two or three gathered together in his Name, his Promi&s;e
is that hee will be pre&s;ent in the mid&s;t of them, <HI>Math.</HI> 18. 20. Now the Promi&s;e
of his pre&s;ence being to &s;o &s;mall a number gathered together in his Name, why may
not a Congregation and its Presbyterie being &s;o gathered, though they be a le&s;&s;er
number then Synods and Councels; yet bee partakers of the benefit of this Pro|mi&s;e,
for the pre&s;erving of them from Error, as well as tho&s;e greater A&s;&s;emblies?
<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 span"> not but in multitude of Coun&s;ellers there is &s;afety: nor doe I doubt but Sy|nods
and Council<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter"> gathered together in the Name of Chri&s;t, may expect the per|<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="4 letters">ance
of this Promi&s;e of our Saviours pre&s;ence: But the thing I doubt of is
this, whether a Congregationall Church of Saints, furni&s;hed with an able and
<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">aithfull Presbyterie (for of &s;uch onely doe I &s;peake) may not by vertue of this Pro|mi&s;e
bee as frequently pre&s;erved fro<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter"> Error as tho&s;e greater A&s;&s;emblies of Synods
and Councils, <HI>Po&s;ito</HI> that the Synods and Counci<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">ls did as frequently come toge|ther
as the Congregation doth: For otherwi&s;e I grant, the Synods meeting more
&s;eldome may erre more &s;eldome: but let the Compari&s;on be equall in re&s;pect of
the time of A&s;&s;embling and comming together, and then I doubt whether Synods
<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 word"> pre&s;erved from Error any oftener then the fore-mentioned le&s;&s;er A&s;&s;emblies.</P>
<P>It is well knowne what <HI>N<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">zianzen</HI> &s;aid of Synods or Councils in his time, <HI>viz.</HI>
That hee had never &s;eene good and happie end of any of them, and that evils were
not &s;o much redre&s;&s;ed as increa&s;ed thereby. <HI>Epi&s;t. ad Procop<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">um, Quae E&s;t numere 42.
Referr. Whitak De Concill. Q. 1. cap.</HI> 3. True it is, <HI>Nazianzen</HI> lived as Dr. <HI>Whi|<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="3 letters"></HI>
ob&s;erveth, <HI>Pe&s;&s;imis &amp; turbulenti&s;&s;imia Eccle&s;iae Temporibus,</HI> in very corrupt and
trouble&s;ome Titues, when by rea&s;on that <HI>Valens</HI> the Emperour was aver&s;e from the
Truth, H<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">retickes much prevailed and Corruptions greatly increa&s;ed; and this
might make the good man &s;omething more to di&s;like all Councils then there was
cau&s;e. Neverthele&s;&s;e his words doe apparently witne&s;&s;e, that in his time Synods
and Councils did not &s;eldome erre but very often; &s;o that hee for his part had ne|ver
&s;eene good that had come by any of them. Then which &s;aying I &s;uppo&s;e one
would not &s;peake more hardly of a particular Congregation and its Presbyterie;
and therefore by this te&s;timony of his my doubt is increa&s;ed; whether the matter be in
<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 span"> Mr. <HI>Rutherford</HI> doth &s;ay, <HI>viz.</HI> That Synods and Councils doe <HI>Rari&ugrave;s er|ra<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="2 letters">,</HI>
more &s;eldome erre then &s;uch a particular Congregation as here I am &s;pea|king
of.</P>
<P>But &s;uppo&s;e it were &s;o as hee doth affirme (and I will not deny it, onely as I &s;aid
I doubt of it) yet I doe not &s;ee what great matter hee can gaine thereby for the fur|thering
of his purpo&s;e, that there mu&s;t be liberty of Appeales from particular Con|gregations
unto Cla&s;&s;es and Synods, as unto higher Courts. For if this be the rea|&s;on
<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 word"> &s;uch Appeales, <HI>becau&s;e &s;uch A&s;&s;emblies doe more &s;eldome erre, be|cau&s;e
many eyes doe &s;ee more, and doe more &s;eldome mi&s;cary in taking up
the right object;</HI> Then it will follow that the greate&s;t A&s;&s;emblies, in as much as
they have the mo&s;t eyes, doe of all others mo&s;t &s;eldome erre, and &s;o to them there
mu&s;t bee the mo&s;t Appeales. For the learned Author well knowes, <HI>&agrave; quaten&ugrave;s ad
Omni<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter"> valet con&s;equentia.</HI> And &s;o by this meanes the true cau&s;e and rea&s;on of Ap|peales
lying (according to Mr. <HI>Rutherford</HI> his apprehen&s;ion) in the rarene&s;&s;e and
<PB N="5" REF="9">
&s;eldomne&s;&s;e of erring in &s;uch A&s;&s;emblies to whom appeales are made, and the cau&s;e
of this &s;eldomne&s;&s;e of Erring lying in the multitude and great number of eyes in
&s;uch A&s;&s;emblies, it mu&s;t needs thereupon follow, that Vniver&s;all or generall Coun|cils
as having in them the mo&s;t eyes, are the A&s;&s;emblies that doe mo&s;t &s;eldome erre,
and &s;o un<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">o them there mu&s;t be mo&s;t Appeales. Which if it be gran<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">ed, the Cla&s;|&s;icall,
<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 word">, and Nationall Synods, are all by this meanes deprived and &s;tri<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">t
of <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 word"> of <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="4 letters">diction as well as the particular Congregations, the Synods
by <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 word"> to generall Councils, as to tho&s;e that doe <HI>ra<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">i&ugrave;s c<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">rare,</HI> a&s;well as the
<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 span"> appeales unto the Synods: And &s;o thera mu&s;t be no entirene&s;&s;e
of <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 span"> onely in the generall Councils, but from all other Synods there
mu&s;t <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 word"> liberty of Appeales, a&s;well as from the Congregation. This Con&s;e|quence
for ought I &s;ee doth unavoidably follow upon that which Mr. <HI>Rutherford</HI>
lay undowne as the cau&s;e of Appealing from a particular Congregation: and &s;o
ou<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter"> Brethren by this meanes have &s;pun a fine thred, drawing forth a Conclu&s;ion
which is every what as prejudiciall to their owne Cau&s;e as to ours.</P>
<P>If any aske why may not this Con&s;equence be owned? Why may wee not &s;ay,
there mu&s;t bee liberty of Appeales from all Synods and Presbyteries, except onely
the generall Councill? The An&s;wer is, th<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">t wee may not &s;o &s;ay; becau&s;e then
Cau&s;es would be too long depending a<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">ore they could come to i&s;&s;ue, yea perhaps
would never come to i&s;&s;ue as long as this world &s;hall endure: For by this Rule
they may by Appeales upon appeales be protracted untill they be brought to a ge|nerall
Councill to be determined there. Now as there hath not beene any &s;uch
Councill for many Ages by-pa&s;t, &s;o it is very uncertaine when there will be one
a&s;&s;embled, whether ever or never whil&s;t this world &s;tands. But wee thinke <HI>Christ
Je&s;us</HI> hath provided better for his Church then &s;o, and hath not appointed &s;uch a
nece&s;&s;itie of Appeales upon appeales, but that Cau&s;es may bee determined afore
any generall Councill can be a&s;&s;embled.</P>
<P>Be&s;ides, if &s;uch A&s;&s;emblies might be frequently attained, yet it is not yet cleered,
that when they are a&s;&s;embled they have any power of Iuri&s;diction at all; but onely
a Doctrinall power to cleare up the Rule, the power of Iuri&s;diction remaining in
&s;ome other A&s;&s;embly. Sure it is, Mr. <HI>Rutherford</HI> thus teacheth expre&s;ly, for his
words are the&s;e; <HI>Verily I profe&s;&s;e I cannot &s;ee what power of Juri&s;diction
to Cen&s;ure &s;candals can be in a generall Councill; there may bee &s;ome
meerly Doctrinall power if &s;uch a Councill could be had, and that is all.</HI>
Due Right, &amp;c. <HI>pag.</HI> 482. and in the end of the &s;ame Page and beginning of the
next, &s;peaking of tho&s;e words, <HI>Math. 18. Tell the Church,</HI> hee &s;aith thus;
<HI>Becau&s;e ordinary Communion faileth when you goe higher then a Natio|nall
Church, and Christ's way &s;uppo&s;eth an ordinary Communion&mdash;;
therefore I deny that this remedy is needfull in any Church above a Na|tionall
Church.</HI> By which &s;ayings it appeareth, that he counts Chri&s;ts remedy to
Cen&s;ure Scandals not needfull in a generall Councill, yea and hee &s;eriou&s;ly pro|fe&s;&s;eth,
that hee cannot &s;ee that &s;uch a Councill if it could bee had, hath any power
of Iuri&s;diction at all to cen&s;ure Scandals. Which being &s;o, it mu&s;t needs follow,
that Scandals mu&s;t be cen&s;ured, and Cau&s;es ended &s;omewhere el&s;e, afore they can
<PB N="6" REF="10">
come <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 word"> &s;uch end to a generall Councill. And if this bee &s;o, then how can that
&s;tand which here hee affirmeth, that the true cau&s;e of Appealing to Synods in this;
becau&s;e they doe <HI>rari&ugrave;s errare,</HI> more &s;eldome Erre, then the particuler Congrega|tion,
and having many eyes doe more &s;eldome mi&s;carry in taking up the right ob|ject:
For this Cau&s;e is mo&s;t properly appliable to the generall Councill, unto
whom notwith&s;tanding hee denies any power of Iuri&s;diction to cen&s;ure Scandals;
and if they h<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">ve no &s;uch Power, there can bee no Appeales to them for &s;uch pur|po&s;e
and end.</P>
<P>And how the&s;e things can &s;tand toget<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">er, That the true cau&s;e of Appeales to
&s;uch or &s;uch A&s;&s;emlies doth he in this, that they doe more &s;eldome erre as having
many eyes, and yet that to generall Councils there &s;hould be no Appeales at all,
as having no power of Iuri&s;diction, though of all others this Cau&s;e be mo&s;t properly
<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">ound in them, I for my part doe confe&s;&s;e I doe not under&s;tand.</P>
<P>If any &s;hall &s;ay, that as Mr. <HI>Ruthe<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">ford</HI> doth make that which I have mentioned
the true cau&s;e of Appeales, &s;o hee doth al&s;o hold a Power of Iuri&s;diction even in
generall Councils; and &s;hall therefore doubt whether I doe truly report him <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 word">
touch the contrary, I would wi&s;h no more favour of &s;uch a one but to peru&s;e the
places which I have here above alledged, and then I hope hee will <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">nd the words
to bee no otherwi&s;e, but as I have &s;et them downe.</P>
<P>I know indeed there are &s;ome places in him which doe looke another way; as that
where hee &s;aith, <HI>It is by accident and not through want of inuat<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter"> and in|trin&s;ecall
power, that the Court of a Catholick Councill can not in an or|dinary
and con&s;tant way exerci&s;e that Power which now we are &s;peaking
of</HI> Due Right, <HI>page 308. And a little after hee &s;aith, He &s;eeth nothing
to prove that a generall Councill hath not power to Excommunicate a Na|tionall
Church. Yea and further, that if there were a generall Councill
at this d<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">y, they might lawfully in a Iuridicall way (&s;o are his words)
doe that to the faction of Romi&s;h pretended Catholicks;</HI> which hee &s;aith, is
Excommunication in the e&s;&s;ence and &s;ub&s;tance of th<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter"> Act. And in the Page next
en&s;uing he &s;aith, This of our Saviour, <HI>Tell the Church, is nece&s;&s;arily to be ap|plyed
to all Churches and Courts of Christ, even to a Catholick Councill.</HI>
The&s;e Places I confe&s;&s;e doe &s;eeme to me not very well to agree with the either afore
alledged: For in the one he plainly affirmes, there is in generall Councils power
of Iuri&s;diction to cen&s;ure Scanda<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">s, and in the other hee doth as plainly deny the
&s;ame. But it is the former places and not the&s;e latter which I doe &s;tand upon; in
which former as I conceive him to hold the truth, &s;o for ought I &s;ee, that which
hee &s;aith in this place wee have in hand about the true cau&s;e of Appealing from
Congregations to Synods is much infirmed thereby. For how can that be taken to
be the true cau&s;e of Appeales, which is mo&s;t properly found in &s;uch A&s;&s;emblies (I
me<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">ne in generall Councils) unto whom as having no Power of Iuri&s;diction, there
mu&s;t be no ap<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">eales at all?</P>
<P>To conclude this Chapter: When wee doe enquire about Power of appealing,
and unto what Courts appeales mu&s;t be brought, our way is not to &s;eeke for &s;uch
<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">ourts as cannot Erre, for &s;uch wee &s;hall never find; nor for &s;uch as we thinke
will more &s;eldome erre, as Mr. <HI>Rutherford</HI> would have it; for that Rule is al&s;o
<PB N="7" REF="10">
&s;ubject to much uncertainty and exception, as hath beene already declared. But
the be&s;t way is to enquire where the Lord <HI>JES&V;S</HI> hath placed the Power of the
la&s;t and finall cen&s;uring and determining of Cau&s;es, and when that is found there|with
to re&s;t contented. And as for Synods and Councils, it is neither their not
Erring, nor their &s;eldome erring that can bee a &s;uffi<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">ient argument to place the
Power of Iuri&s;diction in them; unle&s;&s;e the Lord Ie&s;us had &s;o appointed and ordai|ned,
which yet doth not appeare.</P>
<P>And &s;o much for this fir&s;t place, wherein our Brother deales again&s;t the An&s;wer.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="2" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. II.</HEAD>
<HEAD TYPE="sub">Of the Power of Synods to give advice and Coun&s;ell, and
whether from thence it doth follow, that they have
no power to Command.</HEAD>
<P><HI>_THe next place wherein I find this learned Author dealing with the
An&s;wer, is in his Page 381. Where having in the Clo&s;e of a 4.th
Objection in the prece<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">ent Page brought in the&s;e words,</HI> viz.
A Synod in dogmaticall Power ari&s;eth no higher then this
<HI>(viz.</HI> a man, or a &s;ingle Congregation) as that a divine
In&s;titution doth fall upon it. Amongst other things in his
An&s;wer to the Objection hee &s;aith thus, <HI>viz.</HI> I would know if a Synods
dogmaticall Power be above the power of &s;ingle Congregations; I think
&s;aith he, it is not by our Brethrens tenents; for they &s;ay expre&s;&s;ely that
every particular Church hath right, <HI>jus,</HI> to decide Dogmaticall points:
This right the Church of <HI>Antioch</HI> had (<HI>Act.</HI> 15) an<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter"> laboured to end
that Controver&s;ie within her &s;elfe, which &s;heweth that they had Right
an<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter"> Power: but they had not Ability; and therefore in that ca&s;e they
&s;eeke for Coun&s;ell, light, and advi&s;e from other Churches&mdash;. <HI>And then
among&s;t other places for Proofe that this is our Tenent, hee alledgeth in his mar|gent
my Name and Mr.</HI> Tomp&s;on<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter"> <HI>in the An&s;wer to Mr.</HI> Herle, <HI>Chap. 2. and after
the words above rehear&s;ed and &s;ome others to the like purpo&s;e, hee inferreth thus:</HI>
Hence &s;aith hee, the power of Synods is onely by way of Coun&s;ell and
advi&s;e.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> To omit (at lea&s;t for this time) the other Places alledged in his margent,
and not to examine how farre his An&s;wer reacheth to &s;atisfie the Objection, as him|&s;elfe
hath propounded it; I will onely con&s;ider of &s;uch things as doe directly Con|cerne
the an&s;wer, for that is the &s;cope <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">ayme at, and I endeavour to keepe clo&s;e
thereto.</P>
<P>Fir&s;t therefore I have this to &s;ay, That for the Dogmaticall power of Synods a|bove
Congregations, for the Right and Power of the Church of <HI>Antioch</HI> in parti|cular,
and for the Power of Synods to bee onely by way of Coun&s;ell and advi&s;e,
there is not in the Chapter alledged &s;o much as one word about any one of tho&s;e
<PB N="8" REF="11">
<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 word"> either one way or another; &s;o that I cannot but marvell why this re|verend
Brother &s;hould alledge that Chapter for &s;uch a purpo&s;e.</P>
<P>2. Although in another place of the An&s;wer, <HI>viz.</HI> Page 4<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">. there be words to the
like purpo&s;e with tho&s;e which our Author here &s;ets downe concerning <HI>Antioch,</HI> yet
for the Conclu&s;ion and con&s;equence which hee would thence inferre, <HI>viz.</HI> That the
power of Synods is onely by way of Coun&s;ell and advice, as there is nothing &s;aid
<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter"> the Chapter by him alledged that lookes that way, &s;o there is nothing in the
Page or Chapter where <HI>A<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">tioch</HI> is &s;poken of, nor any where el&s;e in all th<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter"> Booke
<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 word"> as I doe remember, that can any way &s;erve for the proving of &s;uch a Con|clu&s;ion
and tenent to bee ours. The Author alledgeth no place that hath &s;uch a
conclu&s;ion in it, either in direct words or by ju&s;t con&s;equence: and I profe&s;&s;e that
for my part I doe not know of any &s;uch.</P>
<P>3. But this I doe know that the direct contrary to what here is expre&s;&s;ed is plain|ly
to be found in another place of the &s;aid an&s;wer, <HI>viz.</HI> Pag. 7. where there are the&s;e
words, <HI>viz. If a Synod may b<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter"> called a Church, and if Power by di&s;puta|tion
and di&s;qui&s;ition to cleare up the Rule, and then to Command Obedi|ence
thereto, may be called Government, then they</HI> (viz. <HI>the Independants
as they are called) doe admit a Synod to bee a governing Church, for the
Power here m<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">ntioned they doe allow unto Synods.</HI> Now the Power here
mentioned being, as we &s;ee, not onely a Power by di&s;putation to cleare up the
Rule, but al&s;o a Power to Command obedience thereto, they allowing this power
unto Synods as they doe expre&s;tly &s;ay that they doe; I know not why our Brother
&s;hould &s;ay, that they allow unto Synods onely a Power of Coun&s;ell and advice.
For power to Command Obedience, and power onely by way of Coun&s;ell and ad|vice,
I &s;uppo&s;e are not the &s;ame; and if they be not, I know not how this report
in this particuler can bee made good. To me it &s;eemes apparent and undenyable,
that they who have Power to Command Obedience, have more then only a Power
to coun&s;ell and advi&s;e; and they who have onely this latter have no Power of the
<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">orme<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter"> at all. Even interiours, as <HI>Naamans</HI> &s;ervants, 2 <HI>King.</HI> 5. have power to
coun&s;ell and advi&s;e their Ma&s;ter, and yet I hope they had no Power to Command
their Ma&s;ter to yeeld Obedience.</P>
<P>4 Suppo&s;e it bee true (which I deny not) that the An&s;wer in another place,
(<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">hough not in the place by him alledged) doth &s;ay, that <HI>A<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">tioch</HI> had right to have
ended the matter among&s;t them&s;elves, if ability had &s;erved thereto, and that by
rea&s;on of Di&s;tention and through want of Light they were forced to &s;end out to
<HI><GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="2 letters">ru&s;alem</HI> for helpe, mu&s;t it needs follow thereupon that his a&s;&s;embly at <HI>Ieru&s;alem</HI>
had no more Power but onely by way of Coun&s;ell and advi&s;e? (which is the Con|clu&s;ion
which hee endeavours to draw <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="2 letters">om that which is &s;aid concerning <HI>Antioch)</HI>
I <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="3 letters">ceive there is no nece&s;&s;ity at all of &s;uch a con&s;equence.</P>
<P>For whence mu&s;t the &s;ame <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 word"> I &s;uppo&s;e from one of the&s;e two, either from
this, that <HI>Antioch</HI> is &s;uppo&s;ed and &s;aid to have had Right within her &s;elfe, or el&s;e
from this that <HI>Jeru&s;alem</HI> gives Coun&s;ell and advi&s;e. Any other colour for conclu|ding
&s;uch a Con&s;eptionce as is in que&s;tion, the An&s;wer affords none that I know of.
<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 word"> for the&s;e two Particulers here mentioned, they are both in&s;ufficient for &s;uch
<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 word"> purpo&s;e.</P>
<P><PB N="9" REF="11">
For what &s;hould hinder but there bee more Power in the Synod of <HI><GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">eru&s;alem</HI> to|wards
them of <HI>Antioch</HI> then only by way of coun&s;ell and advi&s;e, even power to
command them to do what is their duty, though <HI>Antioch</HI> have right to end the mat|ter
them&s;elves, if ability &s;erves thereto? Doth right in one Per&s;on or A&s;&s;embly to
end their ma<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="2 letters">ers if they be able, extempt them from being under the command of
others? Ho&s;houlders have right to governe and order their families, if &s;o be that
they be able: doth it follow therefore that Superiors in Church or civill &s;tate have
no power to command hou&s;holders to do their duty herein, but only to give coun|&s;ell
and advi&s;e? Or if hou&s;holdere have &s;uch right, doth it follow that therefore
they are under no command, in Church and Common-wealth? I &s;uppo&s;e it will
not follow at all. Or &s;hall we &s;ay, that Cla&s;&s;es and Provinciall Synods have no
right to end their own matters within them&s;elves, if a Nationall Synod have power
to command them? Or if they have &s;uch right, &s;hall we therefore &s;ay they are not
under the command of the Nationall Synod, and that the Nationall Synod hath no
power over them but only by way of Coun&s;ell and advi&s;e? Wee &s;uppo&s;e Ma&s;ter
<HI>Rutherford</HI> will not &s;ay &s;o: and yet he might as well &s;ay it, as &s;ay as hee he doth,
that becau&s;e <HI>Antioch</HI> hath right to <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">nd her own matter if they be able, therefore a
Synod hath no power but only by way of Coun&s;ell and advi&s;e.</P>
<P>And though the Synod is to give Coun&s;ell and advi&s;e (which was the other
ground whereon the conclu&s;ier afore mentioned &s;eemes to be built) yet neither will
Ma&s;ter <HI>Rutherford</HI> his conclu&s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">on, that the power of Synods is only by way of Coun|&s;ell
and advi&s;e, follow from thence at all. For who knoweth not that. Coun&s;ell and
advi&s;e may be admini&s;tred and given by them, who have al&s;o power to command?
Not every one indeed as may advi&s;e and Coun&s;ell, may forth with command and en|joyne:
Neverthele&s;&s;e, Coun&s;ell and Command are not &s;o repugnant, but that they
who may Command, may al&s;o advi&s;e. <HI>Paul</HI> had power to Command and enjoyne
<HI>Phyl<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">mon</HI> to do what was convenient, and yet for loves &s;ake would rather be&s;eech
him, <HI>Philem.</HI> 8. 9. The Lord Ie&s;us to doubt hath ab&s;olute authority to Command,
and yet we find him &s;ometimes &s;peaking to the Sons of men by way of Coun&s;ell or
advi&s;e. <HI>Revel. 3. <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">8. I Coun&s;ell thee to buy of me Gold, that thou maye&s;t he rich, &amp;c.</HI>
&s;hall we now inferre from hence, that the power of the Lord Ie&s;us is only by way of
Coun&s;ell aud advi&s;e, and that his power cannot amount to the nature of a Command?
I &s;uppo&s;e we would be afraid and abhorre to deduce &s;uch a con&s;equence. And there|fore,
though a Synod may advi&s;e, yet their power to Command (which is more then
meere Coun&s;ell and adui&s;e) is not from thence concluded to be <HI>Null.</HI> And &s;o much
for Ma&s;ter <HI>Rutherford</HI> his &s;econd place, wherein he deales again&s;t the an&s;wer.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="3" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. III.</HEAD>
<HEAD TYPE="sub">Of the A&s;sembly, Act. 15. Whether they did exerci&s;e any
power of Iuri&s;diction again&s;t the obtruders of Circumci|&s;ion,
and whether their rebuking of them do argue
the Affirmative.</HEAD>
<P><HI>IN his page 388. He laies downe this as a 2^d. Object.</HI> viz. That there
is no cen&s;uring of per&s;ons for Scandals, and that meeting, <HI>Act,</HI> 15. Be|cau&s;e
<PB N="10" REF="12">
there is nothing there but a Doctrinall declaration of the fal&s;hood of
their opinion who taught the nece&s;&s;ity of Circumci&s;ion: and that all is
done by way of Doctrine and by power of the Keyes of knowledge, not of
Iuri&s;diction, is cleere from the end of the meeting, which was <HI>ver&s;e 2 &amp;
6.</HI> To con&s;ider of that Que&s;tion: Con&s;ideration of Que&s;tions being the
end of the Synod, is a thing belonging to Doctrinall Power meerely.
<HI>And then he &s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="2 letters">joyneth my name, and in the Margent alledgeth the an&s;wer,</HI> chap.
1. page 8.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> Whereto I fir&s;t of all returne this an&s;wer. Fir&s;t, that the thing here in Que&s;ti|on
being about the power of that meeting <HI>Acts</HI> 15. There is nothing in the place
alledged by Ma&s;ter <HI>Rutherford</HI> that can warrant him to frame &s;uch an Objection
under Ma&s;ter <HI>Tomp&s;ons</HI> name and mine, as proceeding from us: And the rea&s;on is,
becau&s;e that meeting <HI>Acts</HI> 15, is not mentioned at all in the place by him alledged,
neither for that purpo&s;e which he &s;ets down, nor for any other; much lo&s;&s;e is the
Objection ours in <HI>Terminis.</HI> Now to frame an Objection, and to alledge chapter
and page for proofe that the Objection is ours, when as neither page nor chapter a|leadged
do &s;peake any thing at all of that matter, what rea&s;on can be given for this
I know not.</P>
<P>Neverthele&s;&s;e, becau&s;e the matter contayned in the Objection doth not much
differ from my apprehen&s;ion and judgement, and &s;omething in the an&s;wer el&s;ewhere
may po&s;&s;ibly intimate &s;uch a thing, though but briefly touched, I will therefore
con&s;ider of what he &s;aith for removing the Objection as him&s;elfe hath propounded
the &s;ame.</P>
<P>It is fal&s;e, &s;aith he, that there is no cen&s;uring of per&s;ons here, for&mdash;it
is more then evident that the publike Synodicall cen&s;ure of rebuke is put
upon tho&s;e who held and urged the nece&s;&s;ity of Circumci&s;ion, and why not
Excommunication al&s;o in ca&s;e of ob&s;tinacy? For the Synodicall cen&s;ure
of a publike Synodicall rebuke is only gradually different, not &s;pecifically
from excommunication, &amp; both mu&s;t proceed from ou<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter"> &amp; the &s;ame power.
<HI>So then the &s;umme is, the Synod had power of rebuking, and therefore of Excommu|nication
al&s;o.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> The Con&s;equence is not cleere, for who knoweth not that there may be
power to rebuke, where there is no power of Excommunication? Is it not the ex|pre&s;&s;e
Law of God, that every man &s;hall plainly rebuke his Neighbour and not &s;uf|fer
&s;in upon him, <HI>Levit.</HI> 19. 17? And are not our <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 word"> words as plaine, if thy
brother tre&s;pa&s;le again&s;t thee rebuke him, and if he repent forgive him, <HI>Luke</HI> 17. 3?
Whereby it is evident that one particular per&s;on hath power by the Law of God and
Chri&s;t to put a rebuke upon another, if there be occa&s;ion for it. But will it follow
hereupon that one particular Chri&s;tian hath power to Excommunicate another in
ca&s;e of Ob&s;tinacy? I &s;uppo&s;e Ma&s;ter <HI>Rutherford</HI> will not &s;ay &s;o; and yet unle&s;&s;e
this be &s;aid, I know not how his Con&s;equence can be made good, that if a Synod
may rebuke, they may Excommunicate al&s;o. I know indeed he &s;aith, the Synodicall
rebuke is only gradually different from Excommunication, and not &s;pecifically,
and that both mu&s;t proceed from one and the &s;ame Power. But this would require
<PB N="11" REF="12">
&s;ome proofe, and &s;hould not nakedly be affirmed without any proofe at all. For of it
&s;elfe it is not evident, that where <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">ver there is power to rebuke, there is power
of Excommunication al&s;o. The contrary I &s;uppo&s;e is evident from that which hath
already been &s;aid from <HI>Levit.</HI> 19. 17. and <HI>Luke</HI> 17. 3. and from many other Scrip|tures,
and rea&s;ons, which &s;hew that one man alone hath power to rebuke, who can|not
for that be concluded to have any power of Excommunication. I know the lear|ned
m<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">n is copious in proving from the words of ver&s;e 24. <HI>Certaine men went
from us, and have troubled you with words, &s;ubverting your Soules, &amp;c.
That this A&s;&s;embly doth not only in a Doctrinall way confute the fal&s;e o|pinion
and Doctrine of the&s;e teachers of Circumci&s;ion, but doth al&s;o rebuke
them for another fault, to wit; their obtruding their fal&s;e way upon the
Soules and Con&s;ciences of others, and for their wilfull and ob&s;tinate uphol|ding
that opinion and ray&s;ing a Schi&s;me in the Church.</HI> But if all this were
granted his purpo&s;e were not gained thereby, unle&s;&s;e he would prove that which he
doth but only affirme, to wit, <HI>That a Synodicall rebuke is not &s;pecifically dif|ferent
but only gradually from Excommunication,</HI> and that both mu&s;t pro|ceed
from the &s;ame power, which ye<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter"> he hath not proved at all.</P>
<P>But &s;aith he, I argue thus: If the Apo&s;tles do not only in a Doctrinall
way refute a fal&s;e Doctrine in this Synod, but al&s;o in Church way and by a
Juridicall power do rebuke and Synodically charge the Authors as &s;ubver|ters
of Soules, and Lyers, then they doe not onely u&s;e a meere Doctrinall
power in this Synod, but al&s;o a Juridicall power: but the former is true:
<HI>Ergo,</HI> &s;o is the latter.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> With favour of &s;o learned a man, I thinke this kind of argu<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">ng is but a beg|ging
of the thing in que&s;tion, and a proving of <HI>Idem per Idem.</HI> For if the Synod did
not only in a Doctrinall way refute a fal&s;e Doctrine, but al&s;o by a Iuridicall power
rebuke the Authors of it, then it mu&s;t needs be true indeed that they did not only u&s;e
a Doctrinall power, but al&s;o a Iuridicall power; that is, If they did &s;o, they did &s;o:
if they did u&s;e &s;uch power, they did u&s;e it. But there &s;till lyes the que&s;tion, whether
they did &s;o or no: and whether they did u&s;e &s;uch power or not, and this kind of argu|ing
doth not cleere it all. If we on the contrary &s;hould argue thus, if this A&s;&s;embly
did not put forth any power of Iuri&s;diction or Di&s;cipline, but only in a Doctrinall
way con<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">ute a fal&s;e Doctrine and rebuke the Authors of it, then they did onely put
forth a Doctrinall power, and not any power of Iuri&s;diction, one of farre le&s;&s;e abili|ties
then our learned Author, would &s;oone e&s;py the loo&s;ene&s;&s;e of &s;uch rea&s;oning: at
lea&s;t him&s;elfe, we doubt not, would &s;oone e&s;py it, for &s;ometimes we heare him &s;ay,
friend your Logick is naught, page 177. And yet (be it &s;poke without offence) the
Logick which him&s;elfe doth here u&s;e is not &s;o good, as to be altogether without fault,
no not for the forme of it; and therefore, we do not &s;ee how any thing can be conclu|ded
th<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">reby.</P>
<P>But to leave this mi&s;take, and to con&s;ider of the matter it &s;elfe. If it were granted
that this A&s;&s;embly doth not only in a Doctrinall way con&s;ute a fal&s;e Doctrine, but al|&s;o
rebuke the Authors thereof, mu&s;t it needs follow that this rebuking was done in a
<PB N="12" REF="13">
Iu<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">idicall way? Is there no rebuking of offenders for their faults, but only in a way
of <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="4 letters">ction and Di&s;cipline? I &s;uppo&s;e much needs not to be &s;aid for the cleering
the truth to be otherwi&s;e. For Ma&s;ter <HI>Rutherford</HI> him&s;elfe confe&s;&s;es Page 394.
<HI>That there is great odds to do one and the &s;ame action materially, and to
do the &s;ame formally: and Page 393. That one Apo&s;tle might him&s;elfe
alone have rebuked the&s;e obtruders of Circumci&s;ion.</HI> Which being &s;o, it fol|loweth
thereupon that though this Synod (to call it &s;o) <HI>Act.</HI> 15. Had a Doctrinall
power, yea and a power of rebuking the&s;e fal&s;e teachers; yet the thing that he from
thence would inferre, <HI>viz.</HI> Their power of rebuking in a Iuridicall way, and their
power of Excommunication, the&s;e are neither of them proved thereby.</P>
<P>For if it &s;hould be &s;aid, that though rebuking do not alwayes imply Iuridicall pow|er,
yet if it be a Synod that doth rebuke, then the power here &s;poken of may be con|cluded
thence to be in a Synod. The <HI>An&s;wer</HI> is, that this will not helpe at all, be|cau&s;e
this is nothing but the bringing in of another Efficient, <HI>viz.</HI> The Synod,
for effecting or acting the &s;ame effect. Now Ma&s;ter <HI>Rutherford</HI> confe&s;&s;eth pag. 393.
<HI>That he doth not fetch the &s;pecification of this rebuke and of tho&s;e Decrees
from the efficient cau&s;es; and gives that for his rea&s;on, which to me is
unan&s;werable, to wit, becau&s;e one Apo&s;tle might him&s;elfe alone have re|buked
the&s;e obtruders of Circumci&s;ion:</HI> And in the page next en&s;uing he con|fe&s;&s;eth
al&s;o, that actions have not by good Logick their totall &s;pecification from the
efficient cau&s;e. Which being &s;o, then though it were granted that any Synod may,
and that this Synod did performe this action of rebuking, yet the thing in que&s;tion,
to wit, that the power of a Synod is a power of Iuri&s;diction and of Excommunication
is not at all gained thereby.</P>
<P>At the lea&s;t wi&s;e (to end this pa&s;&s;age) this I may &s;ay, that if this Reverend Bro|ther
will be true to his own Principles, and not gain&s;ay what him&s;elfe hath already
written, he for his part cannot conclude the Synods power to Excommunicate from
this argument of their power to rebuke, nor yet from any other argument what&s;oever:
and the rea&s;on is, becau&s;e he doth el&s;ewhere confe&s;&s;e that Synods are not to Excom|municate
any, and not this Synod in particular to Excommunicate the&s;e fal&s;e teachers,
but to remit the cen&s;uring of them to other Churches, Commanding them to doe it.
His words as they are to be &s;eene in his Page 413. are the&s;e, <HI>viz. I could ea&s;ily
yeeld that there is no nece&s;&s;ity of the Elicit acts of many parts of govern|ment,
&s;uch as Excommunication, Ordination, admitting of Heathens, pro|fe&s;&s;ing
the Faith to Church-member&s;hip, in Synods Provincicall, Natio|nall
or Oecumenicall; but that Synods in the ea&s;e of neglect of Presbyte|rycall
Churches, Command the&s;e particular Churches whom it concern|eth
to doe their duty: and in this &s;ence</HI> Act. 15. <HI>Is to remit the cen&s;ure
of Excommunication to the Presbytery of</HI> Antioch <HI>and</HI> Ieru&s;alem, <HI>in
ca&s;e of the ob&s;tinacy of the&s;e obtruders of Circumci&s;ion.</HI> In which words we
have two things concerning Excommunication (to omit other particulars) fir&s;t, that
there is no nece&s;&s;ity that Synods &s;hould Excommunicate any, but only command the
Churches to do their duty therein. Secondly, in particular concerning that Synod
<PB N="13" REF="13">
<HI>Acts</HI> 15. That they were to remit the cen&s;ure of Excommunication to the Presbyte|ries
of <HI>Antioch</HI> and <HI>Jeru&s;alem,</HI> in ca&s;e of the ob&s;tinacy of the&s;e obtruders or Circum|ci&s;ion.
Which particulars being mo&s;t true (as I for my part &s;o e&s;teeme of them) it
followes thereupon, that what Ma&s;ter <HI>Rutherford</HI> &s;aith in this place we have now in
hand, is greatly weakned thereby. For how both the&s;e can &s;tand together, that this
Synod &s;hould have power not only to rebuke, but to Excommunicate the&s;e fal&s;e tea|chers,
and yet neither Provinciall, Nationall, nor Oecumenicall Synods to Excom|municate
any, nor this Synod in particular to Excommunicate the&s;e fal&s;e teachers,
but to remit the cen&s;ure to other Churches to whom it concerned, commanding them
to do it, how the&s;e things I &s;ay can &s;tand together, I for my part am not able to un|der&s;tand.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="4" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. IIII.</HEAD>
<HEAD TYPE="sub">Of the Dogmaticall power of Synods, and of the power of Con|gregations
to determine matters among&s;t them&s;elves
if ability &s;erve thereto.</HEAD>
<P><HI>_IN his Page 396. alledging Mr.</HI> Tomp&s;ons <HI>name and mine, and chap.
1. page 9. of the An&s;wer.</HI> He &s;aith we there teach that there is a
power of cleering truth dogmatically, &amp; that ultimately where
the controver&s;y is ended: but he &s;aith, we will have this Vl|timate
power not in a Synod only, but al&s;o in a Congregation;
<HI>and then no an&s;wereth three things which there en&s;ue.</HI></P>
<P>An&s;w. <HI>Our words are the&s;e, by power of Decrees we under&s;tand power
to cleere up the truth Dogmatically; for the word tran&s;lated Decrees is</HI>
Dogmata <HI>in the Originall,</HI> Act. 16. 4. <HI>And this power we confe&s;&s;e is in a
Synod, though not all in a Synod alone, but al&s;o in the Presbyterie of a
&s;ingle Congregation.</HI> Now the&s;e bring our words, if therefore this Reverend Bro|ther
would overthrow our Tenent in this particular, he &s;hould have proved that there
is not any power as all in the Presbytery of a &s;ingle Congregation to cleere up the
truth Dogmatically: this indeed had been directly contrary to what we teach: But
this be neither proveth, nor once attempteth to prove; and therefore our Tenent
herein doth yet &s;tand good, for any thing he hath &s;aid to the contrary.</P>
<P>And no marvell, &s;i<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">h the expre&s;&s;e words of the text do witne&s;&s;e that every Bi&s;hop
hath power and is boand by his Office and duty, by &s;ound Doctrin<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter"> both to exhort
and convince gain&s;ayets, <HI>Tit.</HI> 1. 9. And accordingly the Presbitery of <HI>Antioch</HI> did la|bour
to cleere up the truth in that controver&s;y about Circumci&s;ion; and had much
di&s;putation about it among&s;t them&s;elves, afore there was any &s;peech of &s;ending to <HI>Je|ru&s;alem</HI>
for help, <HI>Act.</HI> 15. 2. Which &s;heweth that they had power or right to have
cleered the matter among&s;t them&s;elves, if ability had &s;erved, or el&s;e this indeavour
had been &s;inful as being an attempting to do that whereto they had no right. So that
for ought we yet &s;oe, the power that we &s;peake of, and which wee hold to bee in the
<PB N="14" REF="14">
Presbytery of a Congregation is there indeed by the appointment of the Lord.</P>
<P>But let us heare Ma&s;ter <HI>Rutherfords</HI> An&s;wer.</P>
<P>Fir&s;t, &s;aith he, they &s;eeme to make this Dogmaticall power a Church
power, and the exerci&s;e thereof formally an act of Church government;
and &s;o it mu&s;t be Church power and Church government in the Synod, as
well as in the Congregation.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Whence doth it &s;eeme that we do &s;o make it? Are there any &s;uch words as
here he &s;ets down? Or any words equivalent thereto? Or doth the place make a|ny
mention of Church-power, and Church government at all? Or is there &s;o much
as one word that looketh that way? If there be, let our Brother &s;ay that we &s;eeme to
<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">each as he doth report; but if there be not, we are &s;orry he &s;hould report us to teach
o<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter"> &s;eeme to teach, that which to our remembrance we never &s;aid nor thought. And
&s;ure it is, we have expre&s;ly &s;aid the direct contrary in page 7, the Page next &s;ave one
afore this which heere he is dealing again&s;t, where wee have the&s;e words,
<HI>It &s;eemeth to us (&s;ay we) that this power,</HI> viz. <HI>By di&s;qui&s;ition and di&s;pu|tation
to cleere up the rule (and then to command Obedience thereto) is not
properly a power and exerci&s;e of government and Juri&s;diction, but a power
of Doctrine, and &s;o a Synod is rather a teaching then a governing Church.</HI>
The&s;e are our words in the Page afore alledged; wherein we plainly expre&s;&s;e what
the power of Synods &s;eemeth unto us to be, even the direct contrary to that which he
&s;aith we &s;eeme to make it; wee on the one &s;ide affirming and expre&s;&s;ing, that it
&s;eemes to us, the power of a Synod is no power of government and Iuri&s;diction, but a
power of Doctrine: And he on the other &s;ide reporting that we &s;eeme to make the
exerci&s;e of Dogmaticall power to be formally an act of Church-government, and &s;o
to place Church-government in the Synod. In which report we mu&s;t needs &s;ay, wee
are plainly mi&s;-reported.</P>
<P>His &s;econd an&s;wer is this. The la&s;t period and Conclu&s;ion of the contro|ver&s;ie
cannot be both in the Congregation by right only, and in the Synod
by right only: For two la&s;t powers cannot be properly in two Subordinate
Iudicatures.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> This is very true, but it toucheth not us at all. For we never &s;aid the la&s;t
period of the controver&s;ie is both in the Congregation only, and in the Synod onely.
If we have &s;o &s;aid, let the place be produced where we have &s;aid it; for the place by
him alledged doth afford us no &s;uch thing, nor any place el&s;e that we know of. All
that the place affords concerning this point is only this, that there is a power of clee|ring
the truth Dogmatically in a Synod, though not in a Synod only, but al&s;o in the
Presbytery of a &s;ingle Congregation. And this Doctrine I hope our Brother will not
deny. But whether this power be la&s;t in the Synod, or in the Congregationall Pre&s;|bytery,
of this we do not &s;peaks at all; much le&s;&s;e do we &s;ay as he doth apprehend
and report, that this power is both la&s;t in the Synod and la&s;t in the Congregation
too. Wherefore our defence in this particular mu&s;t needs be this; that what here
he confuteth to be outs, is &s;uch a thing as never fell from our mouths or pens, nor for
ought we know did never enter into our thoughts.</P>
<P><PB N="15" REF="14">
Thirdly, he &s;aith. If a controver&s;ie concerne many Congregations as this
doth <HI>Act.</HI> 15. I &s;ee not how a Congregation except they tran&s;gre&s;&s;e their
line, can finally determine it.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Neither doth this touch us, except we had &s;aid that a Congregation may fi|nally
determine controver&s;ies which concerne many Churches, which yet we have not
&s;aid. As for that controver&s;ie <HI>Act.</HI> 15. It is plaine from ver&s;e 2, that <HI>Antioch</HI> did en|deavour
to have ended it among&s;t them&s;elves, &s;o far as they were troubled therewith.
For &s;ome teaching that corrupt Doctrine among&s;t them, they had much di&s;putation
about the point afore they determined to &s;end out for helpe el&s;ewhere. Now to what
end was thus much di&s;putation, if they had no right to determine the matter? might
they not better have &s;pared their paines? Or did they not tran&s;gre&s;&s;e their line in at|tempting
what they did attempt? Sure it &s;eemes they did, if they had not right to de|termine
the matter. But for our part, &s;ith we do not find them in the lea&s;t reproved
by the Holy Gho&s;t for this attempt, therfore we cannot but think they did well therein.
And thereupon it followeth, that if <HI>Antioch</HI> was a Congregationall Church (as it
&s;eemes to us it was, from <HI>Act. 14. 27.)</HI> either this controver&s;ie did trouble no
Church but <HI>Antioch</HI> only, or el&s;e when a controver&s;ie or corrupt opinion doth trou|ble
many Churches, one of them may lawfully determine and end it, &s;o farre at it
concernes them&s;elves.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="5" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. V.</HEAD>
<HEAD TYPE="sub">Againe of that A&s;sembly, Act. 15. Whether their rebuking
the fal&s;e teachers do prove a power of Iuri&s;diction and Ex|communication
in Synods: and whether Preaching
doe prove the A&s;&s;embly where it is,
to be a Church.</HEAD>
<P><HI>_THe new place where I find him excepting again&s;t the An&s;wer, it in
his Pag. 410. Where he propo&s;eth an Object. to this effect, to wit.
Paul</HI> exerci&s;ed the Keyes of knowledge upon Barbarians,
and might have Preached to Indians, and did to &s;coffing
Athenians&mdash;yea <HI>Paul</HI> by this power Dogmati|call
rebuked the Athenians, <HI>Act.</HI> 17. 22. Yet <HI>Paul</HI> had no
power to Excommunicate the Athenians. <HI>And then he &s;ub|joyneth
my name, and cites in the Margent the 43, and 44 pages of the An&s;wer.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> This Objection being taken from <HI>Pauls</HI> rebuking the Athenians, our Bro|ther
had no rea&s;on to propo&s;e it under Mr. <HI>Tomp&s;ons</HI> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 word"> and mine, for as much
as in all that di&s;cour&s;e of ours, the Athenians to my rememb<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">ance are not &s;o much as
once mentioned: &s;ure in the Pages by him alledged there is no mention of the A|thenians
at all. And therefore why this Objection &s;hould bee propo&s;ed and repor|ted
by him as ours, wee doe not know. Which I doe not &s;ay, <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 word"> though I thought
<PB N="16" REF="15">
the objection &s;o weake, as though the Authors of it may not well owne it. For from
who&s;oever the Objection came, for ought that I yet perceive there is good weight
therein. For which cau&s;e, and becau&s;e in one of tho&s;e Pages wee have delivered
&s;omething concerning a Mini&s;ters power to Preach to Pagans in generall, (though
nothing concerning the Atheni<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">ns in particular, as hee reporteth) therefore I am
willing to con&s;ider what Mr. <HI>Rutherfor<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter"></HI> &s;aith, for the &s;atisfying of the objection pro|po&s;ed,
as not willing to pa&s;&s;e by any thing without con&s;ideration, wherein our
&s;elves may &s;eeme to be concerned or aymed at</P>
<P>I deny not &s;aith he, but there is a great oddes betwixt a concionall rebu|king
by way of Preaching, which may be and is alwayes performed by one,
and a juridicall rebuking by a power Jurididicall of the Keyes, which is
performed only by a Church &s;ociety.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> If all this were granted, you the Objection is not &s;atisfied, nor his purpo&s;e
gained thereby. For the cleering whereof it is good to con&s;ider the thing in Que&s;ti|on,
and how this Objection comes in, and whereto it tends, and then we may better
de&s;cerne how the objection is removed by Mr. <HI>Rutherfords</HI> an&s;wer: The thing in
que&s;tion is, whether a Synod have power of Iuri&s;idiction and Excommunication.
Mr. <HI>Rutherford</HI> his &s;cope in that place is to prove the Affirmative; and therefore
for a dozen or 14 Pages together, hee hath the&s;e words in the top of every lea&s;e,
<HI>The power of a Synod a power of Juri&s;diction:</HI> and his medium to prove this
Tenent is this; Becau&s;e a Synod hath Power to rebuke. Whereupon en&s;ueth the
Objection, that <HI>Paul</HI> might rebuke the Athenians and yet might not Excommuni|cate
them; and therefore enough a Synod may rebuke, it followes not that they may
Excommunicate. This is the order of the Di&s;pute, as is plainly to bee &s;eeme by
p<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="3 letters">&s;ing the place. And now comes in the An&s;wer which Mr. <HI>Rutherford</HI> gives to
the objection; to wit, <HI>That there is a great odds betwixt a Concionall re|buking
and a Juridicall, the one being performed by one, and the other
by many;</HI> Which An&s;wer I conceive is not &s;ufficient, becau&s;e this Difference may
hee granted and many more may be added if hee plea&s;e, and yet the thing in que&s;ti|on
not gained, nor the Objection removed at all. For what though a Concionall
rebuking be performed by one, and a Iuridicall by many? Yet &s;till it remaineth
cleare, that there may bee rebuking where there is no Iuri&s;diction; and therefore,
though a Synod may rebuke, it followes not that they may Excommunicate, nor
have power of Iuri&s;diction. If our Brother would have &s;atisfied the Objection, he
&s;hould not have &s;atisfyed him&s;elfe with alledging the difference mentioned betweene
a Concionall rebuking, and a Iuridicall or Synodicall; but &s;hould have proved
that there cannot be any Concionall rebuking at all, at lea&s;t wi&s;e not any rebuking
of Athenians who are not &s;ubject to Excommunication, and if this had been proved,
the Objection had been fully removed. But this he hath not proved at all, nor once
attempted to prove it, but plainly yeelds the contrary; and therefore for ought
I &s;ee the Objection remayneth in its &s;trength, and &s;o the &s;trength of his argument
removed thereby, who would prove the Synod, power of Iuri&s;diction from their pow|er
of rebuking.</P>
<P>But let as heare what he an&s;wereth in the words en&s;uing.</P>
<P><PB N="17" REF="15">
It cannot be denyed &s;aith he, but the rebuking of men becau&s;e they
&s;ubverted Soules, ver&s;e 24. Is not a meere Concionall rebuking which
may be performed by one. Fir&s;t, it is a rebuking ver&s;e 24. Second, it is a
rebuking performed by many, by a whole Synod, 6. 22. Third, it is per|formed
by a politicall Society.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w,</HI> And what of all this? May it not neverthele&s;&s;e be denyed that this rebu|king
was any other then in a Doctrinall way? Be it granted, that it was a rebuking,
and a rebuking performed by many; and if were granted by a Politicall Society
too; mu&s;t it needs follow that therefore it was Iuridicall, or in way of Iuri&s;diction?
I &s;ee no nece&s;&s;ity of &s;uch Con&s;equence. Nay, Ma&s;ter <HI>Rutherford</HI> him&s;elfe doth
confe&s;&s;e (as we heard afore) in his Page 393. <HI>That the &s;pecification of this re|buke
mu&s;t not be fetched from the efficient cau&s;es, becau&s;e one Apo&s;tle
might him&s;elfe alone have rebuked the&s;e obtruders of Circumci&s;ion.</HI>
If therefore it were granted that many per&s;ons, a whole Synod, a Politicall Society,
or what ever el&s;e he will call them, were the efficient cau&s;es of this rebuke, yet all
this is too little to prove that the rebuke was Iuridicall, unle&s;&s;e the &s;pecification
of it mu&s;t be fetched from the efficient cau&s;es, which Ma&s;ter <HI>Rutherford</HI> him&s;elfe
di&s;claymes.</P>
<P>Moreover, I would put this Ca&s;e: &s;uppo&s;e a Pagan or a Chri&s;tian of another Na|tion
and Kingdome, &s;hall come into a Church A&s;&s;embly, whether the A&s;&s;embly be a
Congregationall Church, or a Synod; and in the A&s;&s;embly &s;hall openly and Scan|dalou&s;ly
mi&s;behave him&s;elfe in one kind or other, to the di&s;honour of God, and
grieving of the godly, and the danger of corrupting others that &s;hall behold &s;uch
bad example. I would gladly know whether this A&s;&s;embly be it Synod or other, may
not lawfully rebuke this Scandalous practice and behaviour, and if they may, whe|ther
it would follow therupon that they may al&s;o lawfully Excommunicate the man,
if his &s;in and impenitency &s;hall de&s;erve the &s;ame. If it be &s;aid they may, I would
know: <HI>quo jure?</HI> And who gave them &s;uch Authority to Excommunicate Pagans,
or men of another Nation, being only there pre&s;ent at that time occa&s;ionally? And
if they may not &s;o proceed again&s;t &s;uch a per&s;on, then the an&s;wer to Ma&s;ter <HI>Ruther|fords</HI>
alledgements in the Ca&s;e we have in hand, is ready and plaine: For as he al|ledgeth,
<HI>Fir&s;t, here is a rebuking. Second, a rebuking of many, even a
whole Synod. Third, of a Politicall Society and Body;</HI> even &s;o the &s;ame
may be &s;aid in this Ca&s;e in all the particulars; For fir&s;t, here is a rebuking. Se|cond,
rebuking of many. Third, by a Politicall Society and body: and yet all this
is too little to prove a power of Iuri&s;diction and Excommunication in the ca&s;e pro|po&s;ed;
and therefore I &s;ee not how it can be &s;ufficient to prove &s;uch a power in a
Synod, for which purpo&s;e Ma&s;ter <HI>Rutherford</HI> brings it. Of nece&s;&s;ity for ought that
I &s;ee, one of the&s;e mu&s;t be &s;aid, either that this A&s;&s;embly have no power to rebuke
the man, but mu&s;t &s;uffer his &s;in to be upon him, though God be di&s;honoured, and o|thers
endangered thereby; or el&s;e it mu&s;t be &s;aid they have power to Excommuni|cate
him as well as to rebuke him; (neither of which I conceive can &s;afely be &s;aid)
or if neither of the&s;e can be &s;aid, it mu&s;t then follow that their may be power to re|buke,
even in an A&s;&s;embly of many per&s;ons, a Politicall Society; and yet the &s;ame
<PB N="18" REF="16">
A&s;&s;embly have no power at all to Excommunicate the per&s;ons &s;o rebuked, and &s;o this
learned Brothers arguing is an&s;wered.</P>
<P>Likewi&s;e, I &s;uppo&s;e it will not be denyed, but one Congregation if need &s;o require,
may rebuke and reprove another Congregation, though neither of them be Superi|our
to other, but both of them equall and Independant of each other in regard of
&s;ubjection, Mr. <HI>Rutherf.</HI> confe&s;&s;eth, p. 294. <HI>That Congregations and Churches
may admoni&s;h and rebuke each other,</HI> And &s;ure it is, that Scripture, <HI>Cant. 8. 8.
We have a little si&s;ter, what &s;hall we do for her?</HI> Doth &s;hew that Churches ought to
take care one for the good of another. And if they mu&s;t take care and con&s;ult for one
another, there is the like rea&s;on that they &s;hould reprove and admoni&s;h one another,
as need &s;hall require. Now when one Church doth &s;o practi&s;e towards another, it
cannot be denyed, but here are the &s;ame things which Mr. <HI>Rutherford</HI> &s;peakes of,
Fir&s;t, a Rebuking Second, a rebuking performed by many. Third, a rebuking
performed by a Politicall Society and Body. But can any man inferre from hence,
that the Church thus rebuking another Church hath power to Excommunicate that
other Church? I &s;uppo&s;e none will affirme it. And if this may not be affirmed, I
do not &s;ee how rebuking performed by many even by a whole Synod, can be any &s;uf|ficient
ground to prove that the Synod hath power to Excommunicate.</P>
<P>The Apo&s;tles and Elders (&s;aith our Author) are not con&s;idered here
as meerely Preachers and teachers in the act of teaching; for why then
&s;hould they not be formally a Church A&s;&s;embly, if they be an A&s;&s;embly
meeting for Preaching the word? Pag. 411. 412.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> When the text <HI>Acts</HI> 15, doth mention &s;ometimes the Multitude, ver&s;e 12.
Sometimes the Brethren, ver&s;e 23. Sometimes the whole Church, ver&s;e 22. Be&s;ides
the Apo&s;tles and Elders, we know no ab&s;urdity in it, if one &s;hould &s;ay, here was for|mally
a Church and a Church A&s;&s;embly; in which Church-a&s;&s;embly the Apo&s;tles
and Elders were teachers and Preachers, though they alone were not the Church.
Yet though wee thinke heere was a Church, and a Church-a&s;&s;embly; wee do not
thinke Mr. <HI>Rutherford</HI> rea&s;on doth prove them &s;o to be. For <HI>Paul</HI> and <HI>S<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">las</HI>
were
Preachers of the word in the Pri&s;on at <HI>Philippi, Act</HI> 16. And at <HI>Mar<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">hill,</HI> and
the Market-place at <HI>Athens, Act.</HI> 17. And yet we thinke it hard to inferre thence,
that the&s;e A&s;&s;emblies were formally Churches.</P>
<P>Yea but &s;aith our Author, the exerci&s;e of the Keyes of knowledge in
the hearing of a multitude, is e&s;&s;entially an act of Preaching of the Word,
Page 412.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w</HI> This is very true indeed, an act of Preaching the word it mu&s;t needs bee,
the word Preaching being taken in its utmo&s;t Latitude. But is not unavoidably and
alwayes a Church-act, or an act that infallibly proves the A&s;&s;embly, where &s;uch an
act is performed, to be formally a Church? This is the thing that &s;hould have been
cleered, or el&s;e the thing is not cleered; But this our Reverend Author doth not
cleere at all; and the contrary is very plaine from &s;undry in&s;tances in the <HI>Acts,</HI>
where the Apo&s;tles did exerci&s;e the Key of knowledge in the hearing of multitudes in
&s;undry places, where yet for all this there was not forthwith any Church; and ther|fore,
<PB N="19" REF="16">
whereas he &s;aith, <HI>The Apo&s;tles and Elders are not con&s;idered in this
A&s;&s;embly as Preachers and teachers in the act of teaching, becau&s;e then
the A&s;&s;embly &s;hould have been formally a Church,</HI> We rather thinke they that
&s;hall con&s;ider it will find that the Apo&s;tles did, and other Elders in the&s;e dayes may
put forth the act of teaching and Preaching in &s;ome A&s;&s;emblies (&s;uppo&s;e A&s;&s;emblies
of Turkes and Indians) and yet the A&s;&s;emblies not thereby proved to be Churches.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="6" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. VI.</HEAD>
<HEAD TYPE="sub">Whether the power of Synods be a power of Iuri&s;diction; and of
the dependance of the Synagogues upon the
Synedrion at Jeru&s;alem.</HEAD>
<P><HI>_NExt of all, in his Page 414 in a 16.th Objection in this and the former
Page he &s;aith thus,</HI> Therefore was the Synagogue of the Jewes
no compleat Church, becau&s;e all the Ordinances of God can|not
be performed in the Synagogue: and therefore, were the
Jewes commanded only at <HI>Ieru&s;alem,</HI> and in no other place
to keepe the Pa&s;&s;eover and to offer Offerings and Sacrifices which were
ordinary wor&s;hip: but there is not any wor&s;hiper Sacred Ordinance (&s;aith
that worthy Divine Dr. <HI>Ames)</HI> of Preaching, Praying, Sacraments,
&amp;c. pre&s;cribed, which is not to be ob&s;erved in every Congregation of
the new Te&s;tament,&mdash;and then he &s;ubjoyneth Mr. <HI>Tomp&s;ons</HI> Name
and mine; and in his Margent cites the An&s;wer, Page 12, 13. And
further &s;aith in the Objection, That others &s;ay becau&s;e there was a re|pre&s;entative
wor&s;hip of Sacrificing of all the twelve Tribes at <HI>Ieru&s;alem,</HI>
therefore all the Synagogues were dependant Churches, and <HI>Ieru&s;alem</HI> the
Supreame and highe&s;t Church.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> To leave what is alledged a<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter"> Objected by others, and to con&s;ider only of
that which concernes our &s;elves. Becau&s;e the Synagogues in <HI>I&s;rael</HI> were dependant
on the great Synedrion at <HI>Ieru&s;alem,</HI> therefore &s;ome would inferre that Congregati|ons
in the&s;e dayes mu&s;t be dependant on the Iuri&s;diction of Synods. To this Argu|ment
we are endeavouring to give an&s;wer in the place alledged by Mr. <HI>Rutherford,</HI>
where we &s;hew that the Synagogues might be dependant and not compleat Churches,
becau&s;e the Sacred Ordinances of God which were of ordinary u&s;e, could not be perfor|med
in them; but Congregations in the&s;e dayes compleat and intire as having liber|ty
to enjoy the u&s;e of all the Ordinances within them&s;elves: for both which particu|lars
we alledge the te&s;timony and words of Dr. <HI>Ames.</HI> The &s;umme is thus much:
If the Synagogues could not enjoy all the Ordinances within them&s;elves, and our
Congregations may, then though the Synogogues were dependant on the Synedrion
<PB N="20" REF="17">
at <HI>Jeru&s;alem,</HI> it will not follow that Congregations in the&s;e dayes mu&s;t be dependant
on Synods. This is the <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 word"> of that which is &s;aid in the an&s;wer: in the place which
Mr. <HI>Rutherford</HI> alledges.</P>
<P>Now what an&s;wer doth he returne to this pa&s;&s;age? Truly none at all that I can
find. None will you &s;ay? How can that be? Doth he not propound it in his 16.th
Objection, as that which he undertakes to an&s;wer? I confe&s;&s;e he doth &s;o, but never|thele&s;&s;e
all that he hath &s;et down for an&s;wer is wholly taken up and &s;pent in two o|ther
things, the Objection which he propo&s;eth as ours, being wholly left untouched.
Tho&s;e two things are the&s;e; the one an an&s;wer to another pa&s;&s;age of ours in another
place of the an&s;wer, the other an an&s;wer to the la&s;t part of his Objection, which him|&s;elfe
doth acknowledge to bee the &s;aying of others, and not ours; and therefore hee
brings it in thus <HI>viz. Others &s;ay,</HI> becau&s;e there was a repre&s;entative wor&s;hip, &amp;c.
by tho&s;e words, Others &s;ay, plainly declaring that what he thus expre&s;&s;eth, procee|deth
not from us, but from others. And &s;o though he returne an&s;wer to this &s;aying
of others, and to another &s;aying of ours which we have written el&s;ewhore, yet for this
of ours which he propo&s;eth in this h<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">s Objection, I find no an&s;wer thereto at all. And
therefore I thinke the thing remaines as it was, unle&s;&s;e wee &s;hall take his meere pro|po&s;ing
of it for a &s;atisfying an&s;wer, which we &s;ee no rea&s;on to do.</P>
<P><HI>Neverthele&s;&s;e, though he turnes away from this pa&s;&s;age of ours without returning
any an&s;wer thereto, yet there is another which he applies him&s;elfe more directly
again&s;t, and therefore to this &s;ixteenth Objection hee begging his an&s;wer thus,</HI>
Surely the afore&s;aid Reverend Brethren of <HI>New-England</HI> have the&s;e
words, but it &s;eemeth to us the power (of a Synod) is not properly a power
and exerci&s;e of government and Iuri&s;diction, but a power of Doctrine, and
&s;o a Synod is rather a Teaching then a governing Church: from whence
(&s;aith he) I inferre, that our Brethren cannot deny a power of governing
to a Synod, but it is not &s;o proper governing as Excommunication and Or|dination
performed in their Congregations; but &s;ay I, it is more proper|ly
governing as to make Lawes and rules of governing is a more Noble,
Emin<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">nt and higher act of governing (as is evident in the King and his
Parliament) then the execution of <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">he&s;e Lawes and rules.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> So then, th<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;e former words of ours propo&s;ed in the Objection, are
wholly for&s;aken and left, and in&s;tead of an&s;wering them, he fals as we &s;et upon other
words which we have written el&s;ewhere, and applies him&s;elfe to deale again&s;t tho&s;e
other. By which dealing the con&s;iderate Reader may judge whether the former words
being thus hand&s;omly for&s;aken and left, do not &s;till remaine in their &s;trength: and
whether it had not been as good never to have propo&s;ed them at all in his Objecti|on,
as having propo&s;ed them to turne away directly and immediately from them un|to
other matters, without returning one word of an&s;wer to the former. The wi&s;e in
heart may con&s;ider what this doth import.</P>
<P>But &s;ich he is plea&s;ed to acquit the former and to apply him&s;elfe to the other, let
us therefore leave the former in its &s;trength and un&s;haken, and con&s;ider of what he
&s;aith in this other.</P>
<P><PB N="21" REF="17">
Wherein when he &s;peakes of making Lawes and rules of governing, either he
me<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">nes this making Lawes and rules properly &s;o called, or el&s;e he meanes it onely of
a Mini&s;teriall power to cleere up the Lawes and rules of Chri&s;t, and in his name to
com<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">and obedience thereto. And it &s;eemes by the in&s;tance which he gives of the
King and his Parliament, that he intends the former &s;ence. And if &s;o, then the an|&s;wer
is that this Noble, Eminent, and high act of governing as he cals it, doth not
belong to any Synods upon earth, but only to the Lord Ie&s;us Chri&s;t in Heaven, the
Script<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">res abundantly witne&s;&s;ing, that he only is the Lord and Law giver to his
Church, <HI>L<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="2 letters">. 4. 12. I&s;a.</HI> 33. 22. For the cleering of which point, much needs not to
be &s;aid, con&s;idering that this learned Brother him&s;elfe doth el&s;ewhere directly and in
expre&s;&s;e termes co<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">fe&s;&s;e as much as we de&s;ire in this matter. For in one place &s;peak|ing
in one place of a Power to pre&s;cribe rules and Lawes, he doth not only di&s;tingui&s;h
them from Lawes p<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">operly &s;o called by the word Directive, calling them directive
Lawes, but al&s;o for further explaining his Mind, annexeth the&s;e words. <HI>They are
not properly Lawes which the Church pre&s;cribeth: Christ is the only
Law-giver:</HI> Due Right, <HI>Page</HI> 395. And in the page following &s;peaking of
a Societies or a Synods power of making Lawes, he addeth for explanation thus,
<HI>I take not here Lawes for Lawes properly &s;o called, but for Mini&s;teriall
directories, having Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall Authority.</HI> So then the Church or the
Synod hath no power at all to make Lawes properly &s;o called, for <HI>Chri&s;t <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">s the onely
Law giver:</HI> And if &s;o, then the governing power of Sy<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">ods which our brother would
prove by this Noble and Eminent and high power of making Lawes is not proved
thereby at all, in as much as this Noble and eminent power of making Lawes doth
not belong to any Synods upon earth, but to Chri&s;t only. And this may be an An&s;wer
to what he &s;aith or a Synods power to make Lawes, it Lawes be taken in their proper
&s;en&s;e.</P>
<P>But if he intend not this &s;en&s;e and meaning in the place we are &s;peaking of, but
only the latter, <HI>viz</HI> That Synods have power to cleere up the Lawes and rules of
Chri&s;t, and to command obedience thereto, then I confe&s;&s;e the an&s;wer in the 7.th
page thereof doth acknowledge &s;uch power to belong unto Synods, but how this can
prove their Power of Iuri&s;diction and government properly &s;o called, which Mr. <HI>Ru|therford</HI>
would thence inferre, we for our parts do not yet perceive. For the power
here de&s;cribed is but a meere Doctrinall power, and we have given &s;undry in&s;tances
in the An&s;wer, Pag. 43. 44. To &s;hew that there may be a power by way of Doctrine
to cleere up the rules and Lawes of Chri&s;t, and to command obedience thereto, where
yet there is no power by way of Iuri&s;diction and Di&s;cipline to puni&s;h the breach of
tho&s;e rules; which in&s;tance, this Reverend brother doth not &s;atisfie at all. And
therefore though Synods have power to cleere up the rules and Lawes of Chri&s;t, and
to command obedience thereto (which power we deny them not) yet that which he
from thence would inferre, that they have al&s;o a power of government and Iuri&s;dic|tion,
doth not follow from thence at all, unle&s;&s;e we &s;hall &s;ay, that Doctrine and Di&s;|cipline,
Doctrine and Iuri&s;diction or government are the &s;ame.</P>
<P>Briefly thus: a power of mak<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">ng Lawes properly &s;o called is a Noble and Emi|nent
kind of government, but this power doth not belong unto Synods, but to Chri&s;t.
A power of cleering up Chri&s;ts Lawes, and commanding in his name obedience
<PB N="22" REF="18">
thereunto doth belong unto Synods, but this is no power of Iuri&s;diction and govern|ment,
but a Mini&s;teriall power of Doctrine, and &s;o &s;till our Tenent doth &s;tand, that
a Synod if it may be called a Church, is rather a teaching then a governing
Church.</P>
<P>Secondly, &s;aith our Author, Our brethren incline to make a Synod a
teaching Church.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> We never yet ab&s;olutely yeelded that a Synod might be called a Church,
<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 word"> on the contrary, <HI>Wee have &s;aid, that 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 be bla|med
though we give not a Synod that name.</HI> An&s;w. Pag. 1. The mo&s;t that
we have yeelded in this point is this, that for the name we will not contend, and that
if a Synod may be called a Church, then &s;ith they have Power by di&s;putation to
cleere up the rule, they are rather a Teaching then a governing Church. <HI>An&s;wer
Pag. 1. &amp;</HI> 7. This is all we have &s;aid, and we de&s;ire our words may not be &s;tretched
beyond our intent and &s;cope therein. But let us heare what our Brother would hence
inferre.</P>
<P>I inferre, &s;aith he, that Synodicall teaching by giving out Decrees, ty|ing
many Churches, as our brethren of <HI>New-England</HI> and the forenamed
Authors teach, is an Ordinance of Chri&s;t, that can be performed in no
&s;ingle Congregation on earth, for a Doctrinall Cannon of one Congregati|on
can lay any Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall tye upon many Churches, <HI>Ergo</HI> by this rea|&s;on
our Congregations &s;hall be dependant as were the Jewi&s;h Synagogues.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> When he &s;aith the Brethren of <HI>New-England</HI> and the Authors of the An|&s;wer
do teach a Synodicall teaching by giving out Decrees tying many Churches,
and aledgeth for proofe in his Margent, <HI>An&s;w.</HI> 7. to 32. q. 9. 14. page 43, 44. and
An&s;wer to Mr. <HI>Herle,</HI> Chap. 4. Pag. 40. 41 with favour of &s;o learned a man, wee
mu&s;t returne this An&s;wer, that neither of the palces alledged will make good his
purpo&s;e, in as much as neither of them doth make any mention at all of the thing
which he reports them to teach, <HI>viz.</HI> Such Synodicall teaching as gives out Decrees
tying many Churches. Let the places be viewed and the thing will be found as I &s;ay.
And therefore how they can be &s;aid to teach that which they neither teach nor men|tion,
doth &s;urmount my ability to conceive. If the Reader would know what it is
that is taught in the places, it is no more but this, that in &s;ome Ca&s;es it is requi&s;ite
that Churches &s;hould &s;eeke for light and Coun&s;ell and advice from other Churches,
as <HI>Antioch,</HI> did &s;end unto <HI>Ieru&s;alem</HI> in a Que&s;tion which they wanted ability to de|termine
among&s;t them&s;elves, and that there ought to be Synods, and that we thinke
that meeting <HI>Act</HI> 15. might be &s;uch an one. The fir&s;t of the&s;e is taught in the for|m<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="2 letters">
of the places, and the other in the other. But for giving out Synodicall Decrees
tying many Churches, this &s;ame be it within the power of Synods or otherwi&s;e, is
<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 word"> taught at all in either of the places, except wee &s;hall &s;ay (which we thinke were
unrea&s;onable) that there can be no Synods, nor con&s;ulting of other Churches for
light and Coun&s;ell and advice, but there mu&s;t be in tho&s;e other Churches &s;o con&s;ul|ted
withall, a power to give out binding Decrees, yea Decrees that &s;hall bind or tye
<PB N="23" REF="18">
many Churches. We thinke this latter doth no wayes nece&s;&s;arily follow upon the for|mer;
and therefore though the places alledged do &s;peake to the former, yet the lat|ter
which this Author reports them to teach, they do not teach at all.</P>
<P>Secondly, I An&s;wer further, that if &s;uch a Doctrine were indeed taught in the pla|ces
by him alledged or any other, yet the inference which he would thence bring in,
<HI>That then our Congregations &s;hall be dependant as were the Iewi&s;h Syna|gogues,</HI>
Th<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">s &s;ame doth not follow at all: and the rea&s;on is, becau&s;e the Syna|gogues
were dependant on the Supreame Synedrion not only for light and Coun&s;ell,
no nor only for Doctrinall Cannons or Decrees, but al&s;o for Iuri&s;diction and Di&s;ci|pline,
that Synodrion being their &s;upreame Court, to who&s;e &s;entence they were all
bound under paine of Death to &s;ubmit, as is cleere, <HI>Deut.</HI> 17. 11, 12. And therefore
if it were granted (which yet we do not &s;ee proved) that Synods may give out De|crees
and Doctrinall Cannons, that &s;hall tye many Churches, it doth not follow
that our Congregations &s;hall therefore be dependant as were the Iewi&s;h Synagogues,
except it were al&s;o proved that they mu&s;t depend upon Synods in point of Iuri&s;dicti|on
and Di&s;cipline, as well as in point of Doctrine, yea and &s;o depend as that the &s;en|tence
of tho&s;e Synods mu&s;t be obeyed under paine of death. Sure the Synagogues
and every member of them were in this &s;ort dependant upon the Supreame Synedrion:
but we hope <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 word"> Reverend brother will not &s;ay that Congregations mu&s;t in this
&s;ort be dependant upon Synods. At the lea&s;t wi&s;e this we hope he will not deny, that
every member of a Church is bound to depend upon the Pa&s;tor of that Church in
point of Doctrine; and yet it will not follow that he mu&s;t depend upon one Pa&s;tor
alone in point of Iuri&s;diction and D<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;cipline. And the rea&s;on is, becau&s;e Doctrine may
be di&s;penced by one Pa&s;tor alone, but Di&s;cipline mu&s;t be di&s;penced by a Church,
which one Pa&s;tor alone cannot be. And therefore if Congregations were to be de|pendant
upon Synods in point of Doctrine, it would not follow that they mu&s;t bee
dependant in point of Iuri&s;diction and Di&s;cipline.</P>
<P>Thirdly, &s;aith he, It is a begging of the que&s;tion to make <HI>Ieru&s;alem</HI> the
Supreame Church and the Synagogues dependant Churches; becau&s;e it
it was lawfull only at <HI>Ieru&s;alem</HI> to Sacrafice; for I hold that <HI>Ieru&s;alem</HI>
was a dependant Church no le&s;&s;e then the &s;malle&s;t Synagogues in all their
Trybes. <HI>And &s;o he proceedeth largely, to &s;hew that &s;acrificing at</HI> Ieru&s;alem <HI>did not
make</HI> Ieru&s;alem <HI>Supreame.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> It this were even &s;o as is pleaded, yet that which we have &s;aid of the
compleatne&s;&s;e of the Synagogues and of their dependancie is not at all removed
thereby: and the rea&s;on is, becau&s;e we do not make the Synagogues dependant nor
<HI>Ieru&s;alem</HI> &s;upreame, meerely upon this ground, becau&s;e <HI>Ieru&s;alem</HI> alone was the place
of Sacrificing, but this is the ground upon which chiefly we go, that at <HI>Ieru&s;alem</HI>
was the Synedrion upon whom all <HI>I&s;raell</HI> mu&s;t depend for judgement, and from
who&s;e &s;entence there was no appeale, which ground wee &s;till thinke doth prove both
the incomplearne&s;&s;e of the Synagogues, and the &s;upremacie of the Synedrion, and
the contrary to this mu&s;t be cleered if our Tenent in this matter be removed. True
it is, we thinke it &s;ome argument of the Synagogues incompleatne&s;&s;e and imperfecti|on
that they were not permitted to enjoy all the Ordinances which were of ordinary
<PB N="24" REF="19">
u&s;e: but the &s;upremacie of <HI>Ieru&s;alem</HI> we do not place in this only, that there was the
place for Sacrifice but in this withall that the &s;upreame Iudicatory was there, upon
which all <HI>I&s;raell</HI> mu&s;t depend, and from the which there mu&s;t be no appeale. And
yet this &s;upremacie we do not place in <HI>Ieru&s;alem</HI> con&s;idered a part from the Synedri|on,
but in the Synedrion it &s;elfe.</P>
<P><HI>And therefore, whereas he &s;aith, Pag. 415. That we might as well con|clude
that all the Cities and Incorporations of</HI> England <HI>are dependant
upon</HI> London, <HI>ina&s;much as the Parliament u&s;eth there to &s;it,</HI> I conceive
the compari&s;on doth not &s;ute, becau&s;e as we do not place the &s;upremacie in <HI>London</HI> or
in <HI>We&s;tmin&s;ter,</HI> con&s;idered apart from the Parliament, but in the Parliament which
u&s;eth there to &s;it, &s;o we place not the &s;upremacie among&s;t the Iewes in <HI>Ieru&s;alem</HI> con|&s;idered
apart from the Synedrion, but in the Synedrion it &s;elfe, which was there &s;ea|ted.
But becau&s;e our Reverend brother in the latter end of this 16.th Objection
bringeth in this particular of <HI>Ieru&s;alems</HI> &s;upremacie by rea&s;on of the Sacrifices, with
Others &s;ay, therefore I conceive he intends not us therein, but &s;ome body el&s;e, and
therefore I will proceed to the next wherein our &s;elves are concerned.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="7" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. VII.</HEAD>
<HEAD TYPE="sub">Whether the lawfulne&s;&s;e or nece&s;&s;ity of Appeales doe prove a &s;u|periority
of Iuri&s;diction in Synods over Congregations,
and of &s;undry &s;ayings of our Author which
&s;eeme to interfere.</HEAD>
<P><HI>_IN his page 422. he propounds a 19.th Objection to this effect,</HI>
If the Government of con&s;ociated Churches be warranted
by the light of Nature, then this light of Nature being
common to us in civill as in Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall cau&s;es, it will
follow that every City governed with rulers within it
&s;elfe&punc; mu&s;t be &s;ubordinate to a Cla&s;&s;e of many Cities, and
that Cla&s;&s;e to a Nationall meeting of all the Cities: and
the Nationall government to be a Catholike or Oecumenicke civill
Court&mdash;. And becau&s;e by the &s;ame light of Nature there mu&s;t bee
&s;ome finall and &s;upreame Iudgement of controver&s;ies, lea&s;t Appeales
&s;hould be &s;pun out in <HI>infinitum,</HI> it mu&s;t be proved that this &s;upremacie
lyeth not in a Congregation. <HI>And in the Margent he citeth Mr.</HI> Tomp&s;on <HI>and
my &s;elfe in page 16 and page 10, of the An&s;wer, as Authors of this la&s;t ba&s;&s;is in
the O<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">ectjection.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> It is true that in one of tho&s;e pages alledged we &s;peake to the like purpo&s;e
<PB N="25" REF="19">
as here is reported. For we there &s;uppo&s;e it to be cleere by the light of Nature, that
there mu&s;t be &s;ome finall and &s;upreame judgement of Cau&s;es, and that unle&s;&s;e it be de|termined
where that &s;upremacie doth lye, (which we account the very thing in que|&s;tion)
we &s;ay the u&s;efulne&s;&s;e and nece&s;&s;ity of Appeales 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;eeke as be|fore,
becau&s;e that there ought to be appeales til you come to the highe&s;t is one thing,
and that a Synod and not a Congregation is the highe&s;t is another. To this purpo&s;e we
have written in one of tho&s;e Pages, the &s;umme whereof is this much; that though
the u&s;efulne&s;&s;e of Appeales till you come to the highe&s;t be granted, yet the &s;uprema|cie
of Synods over Congregations in matter of Iudicature is not concluded thereby.</P>
<P>Now what doth our Reverend Brother returne in his An&s;wer? Doth he prove the
contrary to what is here affirmed by us? Doth he cleere it &s;ufficiently, that if it bee
once granted that there mu&s;t be Appeales till you come to the highe&s;t, then the &s;u|premacie
of Synods over Congregations mu&s;t inevitably follow? I conceive the ne|ce&s;&s;ity
of this con&s;equence had need to be cleered, if that which we have &s;aid be &s;uf|ficiently
an&s;wered. But doth our Brother cleere this? Or doth he &s;o much as once
attempt the cleering thereof? Surely to &s;peake freely what I find, I find nothing that
looketh that way, and therfore cannot but wonder why our opinion &s;hould be alledg|ed
in this Objection, and &s;o his Reader be led into expectation of &s;ome &s;ufficient An|&s;wer
thereto, and then the an&s;wer which he returnes to be taken up in other matters,
our opinion propo&s;ed in the Objection, being wholly in his An&s;wer left untouched. If
that &s;aying of ours be not &s;ound, why doth he not returne &s;ome an&s;wer? If it be &s;ound
and good, why doth he make an Objection of it, and &s;o breed an apprehen&s;ion in
weake Readers of its un&s;oundne&s;&s;e, and put them in hope of a confutation, when no
&s;uch thing is performed? I leave it to the wi&s;e in heart to con&s;ider what this doth argue.</P>
<P><HI>Neverthele&s;&s;e, let us con&s;ider of what he doth returne for An&s;wer, Page</HI> 423.
Fir&s;t he &s;aith, Appeales being warranted by the Coun&s;ell which <HI>Iethro</HI>
gave to <HI>Mo&s;es</HI>&mdash;cannot but be naturall?</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Suppo&s;e this be &s;o, what can there be concluded hence, that makes again&s;t
us? cannot appeales be Naturall, but the &s;upremacie of Synods over Congregations
mu&s;t needs follow? If there mu&s;t be an highe&s;t, mu&s;t it needs be yeelded that the Sy|nod
and not the Congregation is that highe&s;t? I conceive this needs not to be yeelded
at all, and therefore though Appeales be Naturall, I &s;ee not what is gained thereby.</P>
<P>Againe, he &s;aith, God hath appointed that the &s;upremacie &s;hould lye
within the bounds of every free Monarchy or State, &s;o that there can be
no Appeale to any Oecumenicall or Catholike civill Church, for that is
again&s;t the independant power that God hath given to States.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Let this be granted al&s;o, and are we not &s;till where we were before? Is there
in this any thing at all that doth make for the removall of our opinion, as him&s;elfe
hath &s;ee it down in his Objection? We may truly &s;ay we &s;ee it not.</P>
<P><HI>No, nor in that which doth follow,</HI> viz. But in the Church it is farre o|therwi&s;e,
for God hath appoynted no vi&s;&s;ible Monarchy in his Church, nor
no &s;uch independency of policie within a Congregation, Cla&s;&s;icall Provinci|all
or Nationall Church.</P>
<P><PB N="26" REF="20">
<HI>An&s;w.</HI> For that which is &s;aid of a vi&s;ible Monarchy in the Church, I confe&s;&s;e it is
true, God hath appointed none &s;uch. But for the re&s;t, of the&s;e words, &s;ith they
containe an expre&s;&s;e denyall of the &s;upremacie of all Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall Iudicatures, ex|cept
it be the generall Councell, I would gladly know how our Tenent afore ex|pre&s;&s;ed
is di&s;proved, or how the nece&s;&s;ity of that Con&s;equence afore mentioned is at
all cleered hereby. If there be no independencie of policie in Congregations, nor
yet in any Synods exc<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">pt it be the Oecumenicall, doth this prove that the &s;uprema|cie
doth lye in Synods and not in the Congregation? Nothing le&s;&s;e: for how can
our Brother prove that it lyes in the one and not in the other, by &s;aying as here he
doth, that indeed it lyes in neither? Or how is that Con&s;equence made good, that if
there mu&s;t be appeales till we come to the highe&s;t, then the Synod is the highe&s;t?
How is this I &s;ay made good by affirming, that neither the Congregation nor the
Synod is the highe&s;t? For my part I mu&s;t confe&s;&s;e it pa&s;&s;eth my under&s;tanding to
conceive, how the denying of a thing &s;hould be the proving and cleering thereof.
And yet except this be admitted, I know not how our apprehen&s;ion in the matter we
have in hand is at all di&s;proved. For whereas we &s;ay, Appeales may be granted and yet
the &s;upremacie of Synods over Congregations will not follow, Mr. <HI>Rutherford</HI> for
the di&s;proving of what wee apprehend herein, doth bring nothing in the place wee
have in hand but only this, that the Supremacie doth neither lye in the Congregati|on
nor in the Synod. Which is no di&s;proving of us all, except as I &s;aid, that the de|nying
of a thing may &s;uffice for the confirming and cleering thereof. For I conceive
if we be di&s;proved the &s;upremacie of Synods mu&s;t be proved and cleered, which here
our Brother doth not, but on the contrary denies the &s;ame.</P>
<P><HI>Furthermore, if there be no independency of policie within a Congrega|tion,
a Cla&s;&s;icall, Provinciall or Nationall Church,</HI> As here our Brother af|firmeth,
then what &s;hall become of that which he tels us el&s;ewhere, <HI>viz.</HI> Page 483.
<HI>That that remedie of our Saviour, Tell the Church, is not needfull in any
Church above a Nationall?</HI> For &s;ure if there be no independencie of policie in
any of the le&s;&s;er Churches, nor yet in the Nationall Church, one would thinke that
of our Saviour &s;hould be needfull in &s;ome Church above the Nationall. Or if it be
nor needfull in any Church above Nationall, then one would thinke there &s;hould be
&s;ome indepencie of policie in the Nationall Church, or in &s;ome of the former. For my
part I know not how this difficulty will be expedited, I meane how both the&s;e &s;ayings
of our Brother can &s;tand good, except we &s;hall &s;ay that which I &s;uppo&s;e he will not
&s;ay, <HI>viz.</HI> That independencie of policie is no where. And yet I cannot &s;ee but this
mu&s;t be &s;aid, if both the other &s;ayings &s;tand good? For if independencie of policie be
neither in the Nationall Church nor in any Church above it, nor in any Church be|low
it, I know not where we &s;hall have it.</P>
<P>Againe, if there be no independencie of policie in any of the Churches afore named,
what &s;hall we &s;ay to that pa&s;&s;age where our Brother doth verily profe&s;&s;e,
<HI>That he cannot &s;ee what power of Juri&s;diction to cen&s;ure Scandals can be
in a generall Councell, affirming further, that there might be &s;ome meerly
Doctrinall power if &s;uch a Councell could be had, and that is all, Pag</HI> 482.
For if there be no Independencie of policie in any Church below a generall Councell,
<PB N="27" REF="20">
one would thinke there &s;hould be in the generall Councill &s;ome power of Iuri&s;dicti|on
to cen&s;ure Scandals, yea and an independant power too&punc; Or if there be not &s;uch
power in the generall Councill, nor yet in the Nationall Church, nor in any Church
below the Nationall, we mu&s;t then &s;ay there is no independant Power of Iuri&s;diction
to cen&s;ure Scandals in any Church upon earth. Which latter if it be not owned, as
I conceive our Brother will no<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">, I know not how the other two can both &s;tand.</P>
<P>Though appeales be warranted both in Church and State by the light
of Nature, yet appeales to Exotique and forraigne Judicatures is not war|ranted
by any &s;uch light, but rather the contrary.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Let this be granted al&s;o, and are we ever a whit neerer to the point, then
before? Is this good arguing, appeales to exotique Indicatures are not warrantable,
<HI>Ergo</HI> a Synod and not the Congregation is the &s;upreame Iudicature? Is this Con&s;e|quence
&s;trong and cleere? If it be not, how is our Tenent removed? If our Brother
intend it not for a removall thereof, why is it brought in for an&s;wer to an Objection
propo&s;ed by him&s;elfe as ours?</P>
<P>Further, let this &s;entence be compared with the former immediately preceding,
and more difficulties &s;till ari&s;e. For in this he tels us we &s;ee, <HI>That appeales to for|raigne
Judicatures are not warrantable;</HI> And in the other he tels us as wee
heard afore, <HI>That there is no independencie of policie within a Congregati|on,
a Cla&s;&s;icall, Provinciall, or Nationall Church.</HI> Now to find how the&s;e
things do agree, I am at a lo&s;&s;e, for if there bee no independencie of policie in the
Congregation, nor the other Churches mentioned, I &s;hould have thought, it might
have been lawfull to have appealed from them to others. For why may there not bee
appeales from them in whom no independen<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">ie of Policie is &s;eated? Yet now we are
re&s;trained from &s;uch appeales, for that all other Iudicatures are accounted forraigne
and Exotique. So that of two &s;entences the one immediately following upon the o|ther,
the former tels us there is no independencie of policie in any of the Churches
mentioned, which are Dome&s;ticque and neere, and the other tels us that other Chur|ches
are &s;o Exotique and forraigne, that appeales to them are unwarrantable: and
what to &s;ay for the reconciling of the&s;e things, I mu&s;t confe&s;&s;e I find not.</P>
<P>I grant it is true, Appeales to Exotique and forraigne Iudicatures are not warrant|able.
But why are we not certified what Iudicatures are to be accounted Exotique
and Forraigne? For here I conceive lyes the pinch of the que&s;tion; and unle&s;&s;e
this be determined, the thing in que&s;tion is &s;till left at uncertainty. For as in civill
&s;tates there are many Cities and Townes which have independent power within
them&s;elves, as <HI>Geneva, Strasburgh, Zuricke, Ba&s;ill,</HI> and many others, and Appeales
from any of the&s;e, though to the City or Town next adjoyning, would be to a Iudica|ture
Exotique or forraigne, &s;o &s;ome are apt to conceive the like of Congregationall
Churches. And therefore it had need to be cleered that Appeales from &s;uch Churches
is not to Exotique and forraigne Iudicatures; for if this be not cleered, the unlawful|ne&s;&s;e
of Appeales to forraigne and exotique Powers may be granted, and the que&s;tion
will remaine uncleered.</P>
<P>Church Appeales though warranted by the light of Nature, yet it is
&s;uppo&s;ed they be rationall, and grounded on good rea&s;on, as that either the
<PB N="28" REF="21">
matter belong not to the Congregation, or then it bee certain or morally
pre&s;umed the Congregation will be partiall or unju&s;t, or the bu&s;ine&s;&s;e bee
difficill and intricate; and if appeales be groundle&s;&s;e and unju&s;t, neither
Chri&s;t nor Natures light doth warrant them. Yea in &s;uch ca&s;e the &s;upre|macie
from which no man can lawfully appeale, lyeth &s;ometime in the Con|gregation
&s;ometime in the Cla&s;&s;icall Presbytery, &s;o as it is unlawfull to
appeale for <HI>Illud tantum po&s;&s;umus quod jure po&s;&s;umus.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> The &s;hort &s;umme is thus much, that appeales are then lawfull when there
is ju&s;t ground and rea&s;on for them, otherwi&s;e they are unlawfull. Now fir&s;t of all
how doth this prove (for we would &s;till keep to the point) the nece&s;&s;ity of that Con|&s;equence
whereof we &s;peak afore, <HI>viz.</HI> That if appeales be lawfull, then there is a
&s;upremacie of Syno<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">s over Congregations. I conceive it is not proved hereby all;
but contrarily appeales may be granted lawfull, when there is ju&s;t rea&s;on and ground
for them, and yet the &s;upremacie of Synods over Congregations is &s;till uncle<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">red.
Nextly, it &s;till remaines a que&s;tion, who mu&s;t be judge of the rea&s;onablene&s;&s;e of the
Appeale and of tho&s;e ca&s;es that are put to &s;hew when they are rea&s;onable, <HI>viz.</HI> That
the matter belongs not to the Congregation and the re&s;t that are named: and unle&s;&s;e
it be cleered to whom it belongs to judge the&s;e things, we are &s;till left at uncertainty,
in the maine matter, <HI>viz.</HI> In whom the &s;upremacie doth lye, from whom we may not
appeale. For to &s;ay as our Reverend Author doth, <HI>That in &s;ome ca&s;e the &s;upre|macie
from which no man can lawfully appeale, lyeth in the Congregation,
and &s;ometimes it doth not: Appeales when they are grounded upon good
rea&s;on are warrantable, el&s;e they are not: when the matter belongs not to
the Congregation or the Congregation will be partiall and unju&s;t, or when
the bu&s;ine&s;&s;e is diffic<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">ll and intricate, then we may appeale from the Con|gregation,
el&s;e we may not,</HI> The&s;e things I &s;ay doe not cleere the matter at all,
becau&s;e &s;till the que&s;tion remaines who mu&s;t be judge of the&s;e things, whether the par|ty
appealing, or the Congregation from whom, or the Synod to whom the appeale is
made: and unle&s;&s;e this be determined, the things mentioned alledged by our Brother
do afford us &s;mall help in the matter for the cleering of it. And therefore, what we
&s;aid in the An&s;wer doth &s;till for ought I &s;ee remaine &s;ound, <HI>viz. That there
mu&s;t be &s;ome finall and &s;upreame judgement that controver&s;ies may not by
appeales after appeales be &s;pun out in</HI> infinitum, <HI>and to determine where
that &s;upremacie doth lye, is the maine que&s;tion, which unle&s;&s;e it be deter|mined,
the u&s;efulne&s;&s;e of appeales 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;eeke as before,
becau&s;e that there ought to be appeales till you come to the highe&s;t is one
thing, and that a Synod and n<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">t the Congregation is the highe&s;t is another.</HI>
Now whether our Brother in that which we have hitherto heard have &s;ufficiently
cleered it unto us, that we may know where this &s;upremacie doth lye, I leave it to the
Iudicious to con&s;ider.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="8" TYPE="chapter">
<PB N="29" REF="21">
<HEAD>CHAP. VIII.</HEAD>
<HEAD TYPE="sub">Whether Antioch, Act. 15. Had right to have ended the con|trover&s;ie
among&s;t them&s;elves, if they had been able; and
whether their &s;ending to Jeru&s;alem for helpe,
or their knowledge that other Churches were
troubled with the like evill, or the party a|mong
them&s;elves who were again&s;t the
truth, doe prove the contrary.
And of &s;upremacy of power
in Congregations.</HEAD>
<P><HI>_BVt though our Author doe not cleere it to us where the &s;uprema|cie
doth lye yet in this pag 423, and 424. He u&s;eth an argument
from the practi&s;e of the Church of</HI> Antioch, Act. 15. <HI>And our
own Doctrine concerning the &s;ame to prove that it doth not lye
in the Congregation, which argument we are willing to con&s;ider.
His words are tho&s;e.</HI> That &s;upremacie of power &s;hould bee
in a Congregation without any power of appealing, I
thinke our Brethren cannot teach. For when the Church of <HI>Antioch</HI> can|not
judge a matter concerning the nece&s;&s;ity of keeping <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> Law, they by
Natures direction, <HI>Act.</HI> 15. 2. Decree to &s;end <HI>Paul</HI> and <HI>Barnabas</HI> and others
to <HI>Jeru&s;alem,</HI> to the Apo&s;tles and Elders, as to an higher Judicature, that
there truth may be determined: and then he addeth that <HI>Mr. Tomp&s;on</HI>
and my &s;elfe do teach that the Church of <HI>Antioch</HI> had <HI>jus,</HI> power to judge
and determine the controver&s;ie, but becau&s;e of the difficulty, had not light
to judge thereof (alledging for this in the Margent the an&s;wer, Chap. 4.
Page 42.) <HI>Ergo</HI> &s;aith he, they mu&s;t acknowledge Appeales by Natures
light warrantable, as well as wee.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> That appeales are warrantable, and warrantable by Natures light till we
come to the &s;upreame judicatorie, this we deny not, but have formerly yeelded no
le&s;&s;e. But for that our Brother here aymes at, <HI>viz.</HI> Appeales from a Congregatio|nall
Church (as not being &s;upreame) to another Iudicatory, this we conceive is not
proved by the example of the Church of <HI>Antioch,</HI> nor by any thing that we have writ|ten
concerning the &s;ame And the rea&s;on it becau&s;e <HI>Antioch</HI> had right and Authority to
have ended the matter among&s;t them&s;elves if ability had &s;erved thereto: and their
&s;ending to <HI>Ieru&s;alem</HI> for helpe may argue want of agreement, or imperfection of light,
but argues no want of Authority or right within them&s;elves. For it is plain ver&s;e 2,
<PB N="30" REF="22">
that <HI>Antioch</HI> did endeavour to have ended the matter among&s;t them&s;elves, and had
much di&s;putation about it for that end, afore there was any &s;peech of &s;ending to <HI>Ieru|&s;alem.</HI>
Now this endeavour doth argue their right; for otherwi&s;e it had been &s;infull,
as being a pre&s;uming to do that which did not belong to them. This rea&s;on we have
rendered afore in the place which our Author alledgeth, and he doth not at all re|move
it; and therefore we are &s;till of the &s;ame mind as before, that <HI>Antioch</HI> was not
dependant upon the Iuri&s;diction of other Churches, but had independant power with|in
them&s;elves, as many may have who yet need the help of light from others, for
their direction in u&s;ing their power. Great Kings and Monarchs have received light
from their Councellours without any impeac<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">ment of their independant power,
which they have in them&s;elves, and without any a&s;cribing of that power to tho&s;e
their Coun&s;ellours. As we &s;aid in the place alledged, <HI>Antioch</HI> may &s;end to <HI>Ieru&s;a|lem</HI>
for help, and yet this &s;ending neither prove right of Iuri&s;diction in them who are
&s;ent unto, nor want of Iuri&s;diction in them who do &s;end.</P>
<P>And therefore whereas our Brother &s;aith, Antioch <HI>becau&s;e of the difficulty of
the controver&s;ie, had not light to judge thereof,</HI> Ergo <HI>we mu&s;t acknow|ledge
Appeales to be warrantable,</HI> We would rather argue thus, <HI>Antioch</HI> want|ed
light, <HI>Ergo</HI> Coun&s;ell and light is to be &s;ought el&s;ewhere; and thus we conceive
the inference will hold: but to &s;ay, <HI>Ergo</HI> there mu&s;t be Appeales from the
Congregation to others in matter of Iuri&s;diction, this we conceive will not follow at
all. No more then it will follow, Kings or other &s;upreame civill Rulers mu&s;t &s;eek
light and direction from their Coun&s;ellours, <HI>Ergo</HI> there lyes an appeale from them
to tho&s;e Coun&s;ellours, which Con&s;equence none will maintain nor affirme.</P>
<P>If the Scriptures had &s;aid that <HI>Antioch</HI> did never attempt to <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">nd that controver&s;ie,
as knowing that the ending thereof belonged not to them but to others: or if it had
&s;aid, that the cen&s;uring of the&s;e obtruders of Circumci&s;ion had been performed by
them of <HI>Jeru&s;alem,</HI> and not by them of <HI>Antioch</HI> as not belonging to <HI>Antioch</HI> but to
them of <HI>Jeru&s;alem,</HI> then our Brother might have had &s;ome ground from <HI>Antioch</HI> to
prove the nece&s;&s;ity or warrantablene&s;&s;e of appeales from Congregationall Churches
to other Iudicatories: but &s;uch no &s;uch thing is &s;aid, we &s;ee not how this example can
be any ground for the e&s;tabli&s;hing of &s;uch appeales, or the taking away from Congre|gationall
Churches their power of Iuri&s;diction within them&s;elves.</P>
<P>E&s;pecially, wee &s;ee not how this our Brother can alledge the &s;ame for &s;uch a pur|po&s;e,
con&s;idering what him&s;elfe hath written el&s;ewhere in this learned Treati&s;e of his
wherein he examines that an&s;wer of ours. Two pa&s;&s;ages in his treati&s;e I propound to
con&s;ideration, which &s;eeme to me to make for that independant or &s;upreame power in
Congregations, which here he is di&s;puting again&s;t, the one is that which we touched
before in his Page 413. <HI>Where he &s;aith that Synods in ca&s;e of neglect of
Presbyteriall Churches are to command the particular Churches whom it
concerneth, to do their dutie, as in other particulars there named, &s;o in ex|communication
of offenders; and further that the Synod,</HI> Act. 15. <HI>Is to
remit the cen&s;ure of Excommunication to the Presbytery of</HI> Antioch <HI>and</HI>
Ieru&s;alem, <HI>in ca&s;e of the ob&s;tina<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">ie of the&s;e obtruders of Circumci&s;ion.</HI>
Which I conceive is very truly &s;poken, and thereupon it followes that there was a &s;u|premacie
<PB N="31" REF="22">
of Iuri&s;diction in that Church of <HI>Antioch,</HI> and no nece&s;&s;ity of appealing from
them to the Iuri&s;diction of others. For <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">ith the Synods are only to command the Chur|ches
to do their duty, and to remit the cen&s;ure of offenders to the Churches them|&s;elves
to whom the offenders belong, it plainly appeareth thereby where the &s;upre|macie
of Iuri&s;diction doth lye.</P>
<P>The other place is in his Page 307. Where we have the&s;e words, <HI>viz.
The power of Juri&s;diction ordinary inten&s;ive and</HI> quo ad e&s;&s;entiam Ec|cle&s;iae
Mini&s;terialis, <HI>according to the intire e&s;&s;ence of a Mini&s;teriall
Church, is as perfect and compleat in one &s;ingle Congregation as in a Pro|vinciall,
as in a Nationall. Yea as in the Catholike vi&s;ible body whereof
Christ is the head.</HI> Now if there be &s;uch perfect &amp; compleat power of Iuri&s;diction
in a &s;ingle Congregation, I know not how there can be &s;uch nece&s;&s;ity of Appeales
from them to the Iuri&s;diction of others as he is pleading for, nor how that &s;upreame
and independant power in Congregations can be denyed, which here he di&s;puteth a|gain&s;t.
For let this compleat and perfect Power of Iuri&s;diction be acknowledged as
due to &s;uch Churches, and appeales from them to other Iuri&s;dictions will be of &s;mall
nece&s;&s;ity or u&s;e.</P>
<P>I know indeed this Reverend Author &s;ayeth in the Page la&s;t mentioned, and with|in
a few lines of the words which I have here alledged, <HI>That a Congregation is
&s;o a part of the Presbytery that it hath not a whole intire compleat inten|&s;ive
power over its own members to Excommunicate them&mdash;. And
therefore the con&s;ociated Churches mu&s;t have a power over the members of
a Congregation.</HI> Which words I confe&s;&s;e &s;eeme not well to agree with the former,
becau&s;e in the one intire compleat inten&s;ive Power is denyed to a Congregation, and
in the other the Power of Iuri&s;diction, ordinary inten&s;ive, is &s;aid to be as compleat
and perfect in the Congregation as in the great Churches. But it is not the latter
words but the former which I do &s;tand upon; and by them (as I conceive) the &s;upre|macie
of Congregations is e&s;tabli&s;hed, and the nece&s;&s;ity of appeales from them to o|ther
Iuri&s;dictions is cleerely takes away. For if the Power of Iuri&s;diction be as intire
perfect and compleat in the Congregation as in the greater Churches, as our Bro|ther
expre&s;ly affirmes it to be, I know not the rea&s;on why there mu&s;t be appeales
from the Iuri&s;diction of the Congregation unto the Iuri&s;diction of tho&s;e other Chur|ches.
If the Power &s;poken of were more imperfect and incompleat in the Congrega|tion,
then it is in the other Churches, then there might be more rea&s;on or <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">ayrer
pretence for tho&s;e appeales: but &s;ith our Author confe&s;&s;eth it is no more intire com|pleat
and perfect in the&s;e then in the Congregation, but as compleat and perfect in
the Congregation as it is in the other, I am yet to &s;eeke of a &s;ufficient ground for the
nece&s;&s;ity of appeales from the Iuri&s;diction in a Congregation. For is it rea&s;onable to
appeale from one Iudicatory to another, and yet the power of Iuri&s;diction be as intire
compleat and perfect in the former from which the appeale is made, as in the latter
to which the cau&s;e is brought by &s;uch appeale? It &s;eemes by &s;uch appeales we are not
like to be much helper, nor much to mend the matter above what it was before, and
therefore the u&s;efulne&s;&s;e and nece&s;&s;ity thereof is &s;till uncl<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="4 letters">.</P>
<P>I thinke the Brethren erre in this to teach that <HI>Antioch</HI> had power to
<PB N="32" REF="23">
determine the controver&s;ie, <HI>Act.</HI> 15. When the Churches of <HI>Syria</HI> and
<HI>Cicilia,</HI> to their knowledge were troubled with the like que&s;tion as ver&s;e
24. may cleere,&mdash;I doubt much if they had power to determine a que&s;ti|on
that &s;o much concerned all the Churches.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> It is not cleere from ver&s;e 24. nor from any part of the Chapter as farre as
I can find, that <HI>Antioch</HI> did know that other Churches were troubled with this que&s;ti|on;
and if they had known it, I &s;ee nothing therein but they might notwith&s;tanding
lawfully end the matter &s;o farre as concerned them&s;elves. For when this que&s;tion
was &s;tarted among&s;t them by &s;uch as came from <HI>Judea</HI> and taught this corrupt Doc|trine
at <HI>Antioch,</HI> the text is very cleere ver&s;e 2, that they had much di&s;putation a|mong&s;t
them&s;elves to have ended the matter, afore there was any &s;peech of &s;ending
to <HI>Ieru&s;alem:</HI> which di&s;putation is an argument that they had right to have ended it,
if ability had no<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter"> been wanting.</P>
<P>And as for our Brothers rea&s;on for the contrary taken from their knowledge that
the other Churches of <HI>Syria</HI> and <HI>Cicilia</HI> were troubled with the like que&s;tion, there is
not one word in the ver&s;e alledged to &s;hew that <HI>Antioch</HI> had knowledge of any &s;uch
matter, nor is <HI>Syria</HI> and <HI>Cicilia</HI> once mentioned therein: And though they be men|tioned
ver&s;e 23. Yet neither doth this ver&s;e declare that <HI>Antioch</HI> had any knowledge
that this que&s;tion had ever troubled tho&s;e other Churches. Say it be true that indeed
they had been troubled therewith, and that the Epi&s;tle from the Synod doth intimate
no le&s;&s;e, this may prove that when the Epi&s;tle came to be read at <HI>Antioch,</HI> then <HI>Anti|och</HI>
by this meanes might come to the knowledge thereof; but all this doth not prove
that <HI>Antioch</HI> knew &s;o much afore. And therefore they might endeavour to end the
matter among&s;t them&s;elves, as not knowing for any thing our Author hath yet
brought to the contrary, that any other Churches be&s;ides them&s;elves were troubled
therewith. But &s;uppo&s;e they had known &s;o much, I &s;ee nothing in this to hinder but
<HI>Antioch</HI> might lawfully cleere up the truth in the que&s;tion, and cen&s;ure &s;uch of their
Church as &s;hould ob&s;tinately hold and teach that fal&s;e Doctrine, notwith&s;tanding
their knowledge that others had been troubled with the like Doctrine and teachers.
Suppo&s;e a Chri&s;tian family be troubled with lying Children, or &s;ervants, or &s;uch as
are di&s;obedient and undutifull in one kind or in another; &s;uppo&s;e they al&s;o knew that
their neighbour families are troubled with the like, &s;hall this knowledge of theirs
hinder the Parents or Ma&s;ters in &s;uch a family from cen&s;uring or correcting the&s;e
that are under their government, according to their demerits? If not, why &s;hall <HI>An|tioch</HI>
be hindered from cen&s;uring offending members of their Church, only upon
this ground becau&s;e to their knowledge other Churches are troubled with the like
offenders? A City or Corporation is troubled with Drunkards, with theeves, or
other vicious and lewd per&s;ons, and knoweth that other Cities or Corporations are
troubled with the like: A Nationall Church, as <HI>Scotland</HI> for example, is troubled with
obtruders of Ceremonies, Service booke, Epi&s;copacie or other corruptions, and know|eth
that <HI>England</HI> or other Churches are troubled with the like, &s;hall <HI>Scotland</HI> now be
hindered from removing the&s;e corruptions, and the obtruders of them from among&s;t
them&s;elves, only upon this ground, becau&s;e <HI>England</HI> to their knowledge is troubled
with the like? Or &s;hall the Corporation <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">ee hindered from puni&s;hing theeves and
&s;uch other malefactors, only for this rea&s;on, becau&s;e to their knowledge other Cor|porations
<PB N="33" REF="23">
are troubled with the like lewd per&s;ons? I &s;uppo&s;e it is ea&s;ie to &s;ee the in|&s;ufficiency
and invalidity of &s;uch Con&s;equences? And therefore if <HI>Antioch</HI> did know
that other Churches were troubled with the like offenders, as them&s;elves were trou|bled
withall, this needs not to hinder but they may determine que&s;tions that ari&s;e a|mong&s;t
them&s;elves, and may cen&s;ure &s;uch of their members as &s;hall trouble the
Church or Brethren therewith, and ob&s;tinately per&s;i&s;t in &s;o doing.</P>
<P>This being con&s;idered withall, that in thus doing they do not go beyond their line,
nor meddle with matters any farther but as they are within their Compa&s;&s;e. For when
divers Churches are troubled with the like corruptions in Doctrine or practi&s;e, and
&s;ome one of tho&s;e Churches by u&s;ing the Key of Doctrine or di&s;cipline or both, doth
endeavour the removall of the&s;e corruptions, they do not hereby attempt and endea|vour
to remove them out of other Churches (which might be an appearance of
&s;tretching their line beyond their compa&s;&s;e) but out of their own Church, and only
&s;o farre as concernes them&s;elves, and in &s;o doing no man can ju&s;tly &s;ay they meddle
further then their Power doth reach.</P>
<P><HI>But he gives another rea&s;on why</HI> Antioch <HI>had not right to determine the que&s;tion,</HI>
And this is taken from the &s;trong party that was in <HI>Antioch</HI> again&s;t the
truth, which was &s;uch as that they oppo&s;ed <HI>Paul</HI> and <HI>Barnabas:</HI> concer|ning
which he &s;aith, that when the greate&s;t part of a Church as <HI>Antioch</HI>
is again&s;t the truth, as is cleere, <HI>Act.</HI> 15. 2. He beleeveth in that they
loo&s;e their <HI>jus,</HI> their right to determine <HI>eatenus</HI> in &s;o farre; for Christ
hath given no Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall right and power to determine again&s;t the
truth, but onely for truth; and therefore in this, Appeales mu&s;t be
nece&s;&s;ary.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> How is it cleere that the great&s;t part of the Church at <HI>Antioch</HI> was again&s;t
the truth? The text doth not &s;ay &s;o much, but only this, that certain men which
came from <HI>Iudea,</HI> taught the Brethren and &s;aid except ye be Circumci&s;ed ye cannot
be &s;aved, and that <HI>Paul</HI> and <HI>Barnabas</HI> had no &s;mall di&s;&s;en&s;ion and di&s;putation with
them about the matter, and that in the i&s;&s;ue they determined that <HI>Paul</HI> and <HI>Barnabas</HI>
and certaine others &s;hould go up to <HI>Ieru&s;alem</HI> about the que&s;tion: Thus much the
Scripture witne&s;&s;eth, <HI>Act.</HI> 15. 1, 2. But whether they that held that corrupt Doctrine
at <HI>Antioch</HI> were the major or the minor part of the Church, the text doth not expre&s;&s;e,
except we &s;hall &s;ay that where a fal&s;e Doctrine is taught by &s;ome, and greatly oppo|&s;ed
and di&s;puted again&s;t by others, there it mu&s;t needs bee that the greate&s;t part are
tainted with that fal&s;e Doctrine, which wee thinke is no good Con&s;equence.
<HI>And therefore whereas our Author &s;aith, the greate&s;t part of this Church
was again&s;t the Truth, and that &s;o much is cleere from ver&s;e</HI> 2.
I an&s;wer, fir&s;t that I do not perceive this cleerene&s;&s;e, neither from ver&s;e 2, nor from
any other place of the Chapter.</P>
<P>Nextly, &s;uppo&s;e this were cleere, this may argue that they wanted ability and light
to end the matter, but mu&s;t it needs argue that they wanted right though they had
been able? Or &s;hall we &s;ay that they who want ability to doe things as they &s;hould
be done, do therefore want right to <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="2 letters">al<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter"> in them at all? I conceive it will not fol|low,
<PB N="34" REF="24">
and the rea&s;on is becau&s;e this right in Churches is Naturall, or Connaturall to e|very
Church, and this want of ability is only accidentall, and therefore this latter
cannot totally hinder the former.</P>
<P>That light of government is Naturall or connaturall to every Church, our Bro|ther
own words do te&s;tifie Page 341. Where he &s;aith this, <HI>viz. Suppo&s;ing that
Christ have a vi&s;ible Church it is morall that &s;he have power of govern|ment
al&s;o, in &s;o farre as &s;he is a Church; yea, power of government upon
this &s;uppo&s;ition is Naturall or rather connaturall. And in Page 307,
he &s;aith as was alledged before, That the power of Iuri&s;diction ordinary
inten&s;ive&mdash;. Is as perfect and compleat in one &s;ingle Congregation as
in a Provinciall, or in a Nationall; yea, as in the Catholike vi&s;ible body
whereof Christ is the head. And in Page 383. He &s;aith, That to a
Congregation Christ hath given by an immediate flux from him&s;elfe a
politicall Church power intrin&s;ci<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">ally in it, derived from none but imme|diately
from Ie&s;us Chri&s;t:</HI> And the like he &s;aith of a Presbyteriall Church. Now
whether <HI>Antioch</HI> was a Congregationall Church as we hold, or a Presbyteriall as is
holden by this our Brother, yet it is cleere by tho&s;e words of his here alledged, that
being e&s;&s;entially a Church; it had a politicall Church power intrin&s;cically within it
&s;elfe, yet a perfect and compleat power of Iuri&s;diction, yea and &s;uch a power as was
naturall or connaturall unto her, as &s;he was a Church. But now the light of know|ledge
whereby they &s;hould be enabled well to u&s;e this power, did not adde any power
unto them which they had not before, not did the want of it, being but accidentall,
deprive them of that Power, which was intrin&s;cicall, e&s;&s;entiall and connaturall unto
them as they were a Church of Chri&s;t. Onely this want did hinder their ability to
expre&s;&s;e their power well, but their right as being a thing Connaturall did &s;till
remaine.</P>
<P>Our Brother hath a &s;aying or two about the civill Power, which by proportion may
well illu&s;trate this that I am &s;peaking o<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="2 letters">bo it y^e Church-power. In one place he &s;aith
thus, <HI>There is a two-fold power in a King, one in a King as a King, and
this is a like in all, and ordinary regall, coactive: whether the King be an
Heathen, a Turke, or a &s;ound believing Chri&s;tian: there is another pow|er
in a King as &s;uch a King, either as a Propheticall King as</HI> David <HI>and</HI>
Solomon <HI>or as a Christian believing King. And of this latter he &s;aith,
that it is not a new regall power, but</HI> pote&s;tas execuliba, <HI>a power or gra|cious
ability to execute the Kingly Power, which he had before as a
King; Page 387. &amp;c.</HI> 388. <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">ow why may it not be &s;aid in like &s;ort, there is
in a Church two-fold Power, one in a Church as it is a Church, and this is a like
in all true Churches of Chri&s;t, whether the Church in this or that particular que&s;ti|on
have light to di&s;cerne, and hold the truth, or otherwi&s;e: another in a Church, as
it is &s;ound believing Church, holding the truth in &s;uch or &s;uch que&s;tion; and this
is but only a gracious ability to exerci&s;e the power which they had before, not adding
to them any new Power at all? Againe, in his Page 393. he hath the&s;e words.
<PB N="35" REF="24">
<HI>Though the King were not a Chri&s;tian Magi&s;trate, yet hath he a Kingly
power to command men as Chri&s;tians, and it is by accident that he cannot
in that &s;tate command Chri&s;tian duties, and &s;ervice to Christ; becau&s;e he
will not, and cannot command tho&s;e dutyes remaining ignorant of Chri&s;t;
even as a King ignorant of nece&s;&s;ary civill dutyes cannot command them,
not becau&s;e he wanteth Kingly power to command the&s;e civill things, for
undeniably he is a Iudge in civill things, but becau&s;e he hath not know|ledge
of them.</HI> And may we not &s;ay in like &s;ort, though a Church want the know|ledge
of the truth, in &s;ome particular que&s;tion, yet they have a Church power to deter|mine
&s;uch que&s;tions, &amp; to command obedience therein, and it is by accident they can|not
in that &s;tate determine rightly, becau&s;e they will not, being ignorant of the truth
therein, not becau&s;e they want Church-power to determine &s;uch matters, but becau&s;e
they have not the knowledge of them. Againe a little after in the &s;ame P. he tels us,
<HI>That Chri&s;tianity addeth no new fatherly power to a Father over his
Children, nor giveth a new husband right to the husband, once an Heathen
over his wife; for an heathen Father is as e&s;&s;entially a Father over his
Children as a Chri&s;tian Father, and an heathen husband an heathen ma&s;ter
&amp;c. are all as e&s;&s;entially Husband, Ma&s;ters, &amp;c. as are the Chri&s;tian
husbands, ma&s;ters, &amp;c.</HI> And may we not as well &s;ay, &s;oundne&s;&s;e of knowledge
in &s;uch or &s;uch a particular que&s;tion addeth no new Church power to a Chri&s;tian
Church over their own members, nor giveth a new Church right over them which
they had not before; for a Church that wanteth &s;uch knowledge is as e&s;&s;entially a
Church, inve&s;ted with Church power over her members as is another Church? For
ought I perceive the ca&s;es are alike; and if &s;oundne&s;&s;e of knowledge do not give to a
Church their Church-right in this or that que&s;tion, how can want of that
knowledge deprive them of that right? Sure one would thinke the whole &s;ub&s;tance
of Chri&s;tianity might do as much for the adding of Kingly right, Fatherly right,
Husband right, &amp;c. As &s;oundne&s;&s;e of knowledge in &s;ome one particular que&s;tion, for
the adding of Church right; &amp; that the want of all Chri&s;tianity &s;hould be as available
for taking away the Kingly right, the Fatherly right, &amp;c. As the want of knowledge
in one particular point for y^e taking away of Church-right; and &s;ith we have our Bro|thers
own te&s;timony cleer and full for the one, it &s;eems to me the ca&s;es are &s;o parallel
and proportionable, that the other is unavoidable: I meane thus, &s;ith in the one ca&s;e
the whole &s;ub&s;tance of Chri&s;tianity doth not give power, nor the want thereof take a|way
the &s;ame by our Brothers own teaching, I know not how in the other ca&s;e &s;ound|ne&s;&s;e
of knowledge in one particular que&s;tion &s;hould give power or right, &amp; want of
&s;uch knowledge take away the &s;ame. And &s;o for <HI>Antioch</HI> in particular, if it were as
our Brother &s;uppo&s;eth that the greater part of them did hold again&s;t the truth in
that que&s;tion about Circumci&s;ion, I &s;ee not how this could deprive them of their
Church right which they had before.</P>
<P><HI>As for our Brothers rea&s;on that Chri&s;t hath given no Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall
right and power to determine again&s;t the truth, but onely for the truth,</HI>
<PB N="36" REF="25">
This &s;aying I confe&s;&s;e is very true, but doth not &s;uffice for the purpo&s;e for which hee
brings it, <HI>viz.</HI> To prove that <HI>Antioch</HI> being ignorant of the truth in that que&s;tion a|bout
Circumci&s;ion, or holding again&s;t the truth therein did thereby lo&s;e their
Church right to determine. For if this rea&s;on be good, then a man may conclude a|gain&s;t
that power in heathen Kings, Parents, and Husbands, to governe their Sub|jects,
children and Wives; which our Brother, as we heard afore, hath granted and
taught: For &s;uppo&s;e that <HI>Antioch</HI> were ignorant of the truth in that particular is it not
cleere that the Kings, Parents, and Husbands mentioned are ignorant of the truth in
many more matters? And it <HI>Antioch</HI> do hereupon loo&s;e their right, becau&s;e Chri&s;t
hath given no power to determine again&s;t the truth but for the truth, how will it be
avoided but by the &s;ame rea&s;on, <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">he Kings and the others mentioned mu&s;t likewi&s;e lo&s;e
their right to governe their own &s;ubjects and families? For the Lord gives no right,
I hope, to Pagans again&s;t the truth, no more then he doth unto Churches. And ther|fore
if the rea&s;on be valid and &s;trong in the one ca&s;e, and for the purpo&s;e, for which
our Brother brings it, it &s;eemes to be as &s;trong in the other ca&s;e al&s;o, which &s;hall be
contrary to what our Brother him&s;elfe doth teach.</P>
<P>In a word&punc; Churches and <HI>Antioch</HI> in particular have right to determine que&s;ti|ons,
and they ought to determine only according to the truth: They have formally a
right to determine, and when their determinations are according to truth, then they
will <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">ind <HI>&V;i mat<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="2 letters">i<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter"></HI> which el&s;e they will not. They have right to determine in <HI>fore
Humano,</HI> and if their determinations be for matter agreeable to truth, they will be
ratifyed in <HI>foro Div<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="2 letters">o,</HI> but not el&s;e. Now our Brothers arguing doth &s;eeme to con|found
the&s;e two; and becau&s;e of the latter which is freely granted, he would conclude
again&s;t the former, which we thinke is not good rea&s;oning; but on the contrary do
&s;till thinke, that though Churches ought to give out no determinations but &s;uch as
are agreeable to truth, and that otherwi&s;e their determinations, in re&s;pect of the mat|ter
of them will not bind before God, yet for all this they may have right formally
and in <HI>Foro humano</HI> to judge, and to determine of &s;uch things.</P>
<P>Moreover, if this were granted for true, that <HI>Antioch</HI> when they are again&s;t the
truth do lo&s;e their right to determine Controver&s;ies, yet we are not hereby much nee|rer
to an i&s;&s;ue, unle&s;&s;e it be determined withall who mu&s;t be judge whether they be
again&s;t the truth or no, and the rea&s;on is becau&s;e if they be not again&s;t the truth but
for it, then I hope, it will be granted that they doo not lo&s;e their right at all. The
que&s;tion therefore &s;till remaines, who hath this Mini&s;teriall Power to Iudge whether
this or that Church, <HI>Antioch</HI> or any other be again&s;t the truth or for it; and unle&s;&s;e
this be cleered we are but where we were before.</P>
<P>But to draw towards an end of this pa&s;&s;age about the Church of <HI>Antioch:</HI> whether
they had right to determine Controver&s;ies when ability failed, or whether they did
when lo&s;e that right, I will here tran&s;cribe a few words of our Brother as I find them
in his &s;econd, 331. Page. Wherein he either cleerely yeeldeth the cau&s;e, and &s;aith the
&s;ame that we do or I am much mi&s;taken. The words are the&s;e, <HI>There is a diffe|rence
between ability to judge, and right or power to judge. A presbyteri|all
Church, (and he di&s;puteth in &s;ix Pages together to prove</HI> Antioch
<HI>&s;uch a one, Page</HI> 470. 471. &amp;c. &s;equ.) <HI>may have right,</HI> jus, <HI>and Eccle&s;i|a&s;tic<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">ll
law to judge of a point, to the judging whereof they want ability:
<PB N="37" REF="25">
therefore</HI> de facto, <HI>it belongeth to an higher Synod where more learned
men are, though</HI> de jure <HI>the Presbytery may judge it.</HI> The&s;e words I wi&s;h
to be well con&s;idered. For whereas in the place we have been &s;peaking of, he &s;aith
<HI>Antioch,</HI> the greater part of them being again&s;t the truth, did lo&s;e their <HI>jus,</HI> their
right to determine, for which as wee have heard, he gives this rea&s;on, becau&s;e Chri&s;t
hath given no right and power to determine again&s;t the truth but for it, yet now wee
&s;ee he grants di&s;tinction between ability and right, and &s;aith, a Presbyteriall Church
may &s;till retaine this latter of their right, even then, when they want the other of a|bility.
Which two &s;ayings whether they do perfectly agree, and whether in the latter
of them he do not plainly come up to us, again&s;t whom he hath been di&s;puting in the
former, I leaue it to the wi&s;e in heart, and e&s;pecially to him&s;elfe to con&s;ider. For,
for my part I mu&s;t confe&s;&s;e that the&s;e two &s;ayings, A Presbyteriall Church as <HI>Anti|och</HI>
may have right, <HI>jus</HI> to judge a point, to the judging whereof they may want a|bility;
and, <HI>Antioch</HI> a Presbyteriall Church wanting ability did thereby lo&s;e their
right, or <HI>jus</HI> to determine the point, the&s;e two I &s;ay, are &s;uch &s;ayings as are not ea&s;ie
for me to reconcile.</P>
<P>La&s;tly, if it be &s;aid our Brother doth not deny unto <HI>Antioch,</HI> or a Church in error
all power &s;imply to determine, but only to determine <HI>tali mode,</HI> that is, to determine
again&s;t the truth; for his words are, they lo&s;e their <HI>jus</HI> their right <HI>eatenus,</HI> in &s;o far.
I an&s;wer, he hath &s;uch a word indeed, as <HI>eatenus,</HI> in &s;o farre: but if any &s;hall &s;ay he
meant no more in this di&s;pute, but only that &s;uch a Church hath no right to deter|mine
again&s;t the truth, I conceive that he that &s;hall &s;o &s;ay, &s;hall therein impute &s;ome
fault unto our Brother, even the fault of wre&s;ting Mr. <HI>Tomp&s;ons</HI> Tenent and mine,
and &s;ugge&s;ting again&s;t us unto his Reader, as if we had held &s;uch a thing as we never
wrote nor thought. For it is plain, that our Brother in his Pag. 424. is di&s;puting a|gain&s;t
us; <HI>For he &s;aith, that we teach the Church of</HI> Antioch <HI>had</HI> jus,
<HI>power to judge and determine the controver&s;ie, but becau&s;e of the difficul|ty
had not light to judge thereof,</HI> And &s;ets down Ma&s;ter <HI>Tomp&s;ons</HI> name and
mine as the men that &s;o teach, in An&s;wer, Page 42. And a few lines after he &s;aith,
<HI>I thinke the Brethren erre in this, to teach, that</HI> Antioch <HI>had power to
determine the Controver&s;ie,</HI> Act. 15. And then hee gives two rea&s;ons for the
contrary. So that it is manife&s;t that he intends this di&s;pute again&s;t us. Now what
have we &s;aid in this matter? Have we delivered any &s;uch thing, that <HI>Antioch</HI> had right
to determine again&s;t the truth? Let the An&s;wer be viewed in the place which he al|ledgeth,
<HI>viz.</HI> Page 42. And I am &s;ure no &s;uch gro&s;&s;e Tenent will be there found, no
nor any where el&s;e in our writing. That which we have &s;aid, is this, that <HI>Antioch</HI>
had right to have determined the matter if ability had &s;erved thereto: but for right
to determine again&s;t the truth, we never &s;pake one word that &s;oundeth that way. Our
Brother therefore intending this di&s;pute again&s;t us, and plainly expre&s;&s;ing &s;o much,
and our Tenent being no other then as I have &s;aid, it mu&s;t therefore needs follow
that his intendment is, that <HI>Antioch</HI> had no right to determine that matter. But for
right to determine again&s;t the truth, he cannot confute &s;uch a Tenent as ours, we ne|ver
having delivered any &s;uch thing, but he mu&s;t withall be culpable of manife&s;t
mi&s;taking and mi&s;-reporting of us to the World; and we are, and mu&s;t be &s;low to
<PB N="38" REF="26">
believe that a man of &s;uch worth would willingly do us &s;uch wrong. It remains there|fore,
that right to determine and not right to determine again&s;t the truth, is the thing
which he oppo&s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">t<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter"> as ours, and therefore it is that in this &s;ence and meaning I have
here applyed my an&s;wer.</P>
<P>The <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 span"> thus much; That <HI>Antioch</HI> had right to determine again&s;t the
<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 span"> that may &s;oone be con<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">uted, but the Tenent is none of ours: That
<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 span"> to determine, is indeed our Tenent, and whether this be con<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">uted
<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 span">, let the wi&s;e and Iudicious con&s;ider.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="9" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. IX.</HEAD>
<HEAD TYPE="sub">Whether the Congregationall way or the Presbyteriall doe
make the Go&s;pell more difficultive then the Law.
Of Excommunication by a Church that
hath only three Elders, and of
doing things &s;udainly.</HEAD>
<P><HI>_IN the latter end of his Page 424 meaning Mr</HI> T<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">mp&s;on <HI>and me, and
alledging Page 17, 18. of the An&s;wer.</HI> He writes that we &s;ay
our oppo&s;ites do much Judaize in that they multiply appeales
upon appeales, from a Congregation to a Cla&s;&s;is, then to a Sy|nod,
then to a Nationall A&s;&s;embly, then to an Oec<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="4 letters">nicke
Councell; and this way while the world endureth cau&s;es are never de|termined,
and Synods cannot alwayes be had; even as in <HI>Ieru&s;alem</HI> the
&s;upreame Iudicature was farre remote from all Pro&s;elites, as from the
Eunuch of <HI>Ethiopia, Act.</HI> 8. And from the remote<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="2 letters"> parts of the Holy
Land: but God hath provided better for us in the new Te&s;tament, where
every Congregation which is at hand may decide the Controver&s;ie: And
then, Page 425. He &s;ubjoyneth his An&s;wer.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Though I deny not but &s;ome of the things here alledged are written by us in
the Pa<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="3 letters"> nam<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">d, yet that they are written for the purpo&s;e which our Brother expre&s;|&s;eth,
<HI>viz.</HI> To &s;hew that our Brethren of the oppo&s;ite judgement do much Iudaize,
that I do utterly deny. For the places being viewed will plainly witne&s;&s;e that wee
bring the things alledged for another end, <HI>viz.</HI> To &s;hew whether the way that is
called Independencie, do make the people (as &s;ome have thought of it) more defec|tive
and improvident then their Law. For this being objected again&s;t that way, wee
in an&s;wer thereto do &s;hew by &s;undry particulars, that it is not that way that is ju&s;tly
culpable in this re&s;pect, but the way of our Brethren of the other Iudgement; one
way on the one &s;ide making the &s;tate of Chri&s;tians in the&s;e dayes in &s;ome things equall
to the Iewes, and in other things more excellent; and on the other &s;ide the way of
<PB N="39" REF="26">
our Brethren making our condition in many things more defective then was the con|dition
of the Iewes. So that (not Iudayzing but) making our condition more defective
then the Iewes, is the thing which we here note in the Doctrine of our Brethren. Nor
do I &s;ee how our Brother in his An&s;wer doth free their Doctrine and way from being
ju&s;tly culpable in this re&s;pect. If we had intended the thing which he reporteth, we
would never have u&s;ed &s;uch a rea&s;on as he truly report<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter"> us to u&s;e, <HI>viz.</HI> That by ap|peales
upon appeales cau&s;es according to our Brethrens way may be &s;o protracted as
never to be determined nor ended. For this rea&s;on hath neither &s;trength nor colour
of &s;trength for &s;uch a purpo&s;e, as he &s;aith we bring it for, ina&s;much as it is well known,
that the Iewes had a &s;upreame Iudicatory for the finall ending of cau&s;es among them.
And therefore to &s;ay that our Brethren do Iudaize, and then to give that for a rea|&s;on
which doth &s;hew that the Iewes and they are very unlike, the Iewes having a &s;u|preame
Iudicatory for the finall ending of Cru&s;es, and they having none, were to
&s;hew our &s;elves very irrationall or wor&s;e: end why our Brother &s;hould put &s;uch a
thing upon us, we being no wayes guilty thereof, we do not know. But we de&s;ire that
our rea&s;on may be applyed to our own conclu&s;ion, to which we did and do apply it,
and not to this other expre&s;&s;ed by our Brother, which indeed is none of ours, and then
we are content that rationall and judicious Readers may judge whether or no there
be any &s;ufficient weight therein. Which that they may more readily do, I have here
recollected the &s;ame into this &s;hort &s;umme, that they may briefly behold it with one
view, <HI>viz</HI> If the Iewes had a &s;upreame Iudicatory for the finall ending of cau&s;es, and
the Congregationall way hath the like: If the Iewes had a &s;tanding Iudicatory al|wayes
in readine&s;&s;e for the hearing of cau&s;es, and the Congregationall way hath the
like: and if the &s;upreame Iudicatory among the Iewes was very farre remote from
many of them, and in the Congregationall way be more convenient and neere at
hand, then the Congregationall way is in &s;ome things equall to the Iewes and in o|ther
things more excellent.</P>
<P>But the fir&s;t is true in all the particulars, and therefore the &s;econd is true al&s;o.
Againe, If the Iewes had a &s;upreame Iudicatory for the finall ending of cau&s;es, and
the way of our Brethren hath not: If the Iewes had a &s;tanding Iudicatory alwayes in
readine&s;&s;e for the hearing of cau&s;es and the way of our Brethren hath not: and if the
&s;upreame Iudicatory among the Iewes was very remote from many of them, and Sy|nods
among our Brethren are the &s;ame, then the way of our Brethren is in &s;ome
things as defective as the Iewes, and in other things more defective then theirs.</P>
<P>But the fir&s;t is true in all the particulars of it, and therefore the &s;econd is true
al&s;o.</P>
<P>Both the A&s;&s;umptions in all the branches thereof, I conceive are cleerely proved
in the An&s;wer in the Pages which our Brother doth alledge, and whether the Con&s;e|quence
be good let the wi&s;e judge.</P>
<P>Having thus reduced our Argumentation to its own proper and genuine &s;hape, let
us now con&s;ider of Mr. <HI>Rutherfords</HI> an&s;wer thereto.</P>
<P>Fir&s;t, &s;aith he, The &s;peedine&s;&s;e of ending controver&s;ies in a Congrega|tion
is badly compri&s;ed with the &s;uddainne&s;&s;e and temerity of delivering
men to Satan upon the deci&s;ion of three Elders, without &s;o much as asking
<PB N="40" REF="27">
advi&s;e of any Cla&s;&s;es of Elders, and with deciding que&s;tions deepe and grave
which concerneth many Churches, which is a putting of a private &s;ickle in
a common and publicke harve&s;t.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> If advi&s;e from other Churches may be had, we never &s;pake word for doing
weighty matters without the &s;ame, but in &s;uch ca&s;es it is both our practi&s;e and advi&s;e
to make u&s;e thereof, And therefore this delivering men to Satan in way of temerity
or ra&s;hne&s;&s;e toucheth not us who&s;e opinion and practi&s;e is other wi&s;e.</P>
<P>As for &s;uddainne&s;&s;e, I conceive if the &s;ame be &s;ometimes accompanyed with temeri|ty
and ra&s;hne&s;&s;e, and &s;o worthy to be blamed, yet not alwayes: for in the Reformati|on
of the Hou&s;e of God in the dayes of <HI>Hezekiah,</HI> it is &s;aid, that the thing was done
&s;uddainly. 2 <HI>Chron. 29. 36. Where &s;uddainne&s;&s;e doth not &s;ignifie any &s;infull temerity
or r<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;hne&s;le.</HI> But contrarily doth te&s;tifie Gods great goodne&s;le that had &s;o prepared
the people to &s;o good a worke: for this cau&s;e this &s;uddainne&s;&s;e was to <HI>Hezekiah,</HI> and
Gods people an occa&s;ion and ground of great joy and gladne&s;&s;e, which temerity could
not have been. And therefore &s;uddainne&s;&s;e and temerity mu&s;t not alwayes be con|founded
and coupled together, as if they were the &s;ame.</P>
<P>Though ha&s;ty delivering of men to Satan without due con&s;ideration be not good,
yet overlong delay of due proceeding again&s;t Delinquents is bad al&s;o, for the Holy
Gho&s;t tels us becau&s;e &s;entence again&s;t an evill worke is not executed &s;peedily, there|fore
the heart of the &s;ons of men is fully &s;et to do evill, <HI>Eccl. 8. 11. For which cau&s;e
execute judgement in the morning,</HI> that is to &s;ay &s;peedily is &s;ometimes expre&s;ly re|quired,
<HI>Jer.</HI> 21. 12. Which being &s;poken of ju&s;tice to be executed by civill Autho|rity
doth hold by proportion and like rea&s;on in Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall cen&s;ures, for as much
as &s;peedine&s;le is a duty, and delayes are daangerous in the one ca&s;e as well as in the
other.</P>
<P>Whereas our Author thinkes much that Excommunication &s;hould proceed upon the
deci&s;ion of three Elders, as we know nothing but a Congregation may have more El|ders
then the three, if God provide them fit men and the numerou&s;ne&s;&s;e of the Con|gregation
&s;o require, in which ca&s;e our Author &s;aith nothing to the contrary, but
they may have power to Excommunicate, &s;o if they have but three, we know nothing
in this, but they may have power to Excommunicate notwith&s;tanding, &s;ince him&s;elfe
teacheth, <HI>Due Right.</HI> Page 61. <HI>That the Iewes had their Congregationall
Churches as we have, and had their meeting in their Synagogues, not
only for Doctrine, but al&s;o for Di&s;cipline and Excommunication;</HI>
Which if it be &s;o, it &s;eemes there might be Excommunication by as &s;mall a number
as three, unle&s;&s;e it could appeare that in every Synagogue the Elders and Rulers in
it were a greater number then is here mentioned, which is more then I do remember
to be expre&s;&s;ed in Scripture. Yea and further he tels us, <HI>That the inferiour Iu|dicatures
in</HI> I&s;rael <HI>had power of life and death, Page</HI> 315. Now the Iudges
in the&s;e inferiour Iudicatures though they mu&s;t never be under that number of three,
yet they did not alwayes exceed the &s;ame, for ought that doth appeare. And if three
Iudges had power of life and death, why may not a Congregation with three Elders
have power of Excommunication? Moreover, in his Page 454. He gives us the&s;e
<PB N="41" REF="27">
words for a Propo&s;ition, <HI>That it floweth connaturally from a Church to which
agreeth the e&s;&s;ence of Church to exerci&s;e Juri&s;diction over all its own mem|bers;
to which tho&s;e words do al&s;o agree, Page</HI> 287. viz. <HI>The power and
right to Di&s;cipline is a propriety e&s;&s;entiall to a Church and is not re|moved
from it till God remove the Candle&s;ticke, and the Church cea&s;e to
be a vi&s;ible Church: And in Page 302. Hee affords us the&s;e words for
an A&s;&s;umption, that a Congregation is a Church, wanting nothing of the
being and e&s;&s;ence of a Church:</HI> And hence the conclu&s;ion is obvious, that a Con|gregation
may exerci&s;e Iuri&s;diction over all it own members: and in as much as a
Congregation in which are but three Elders, is a Congregation, it followeth that a
Congregation in which are but three Elders may exerci&s;e &s;uch Iuri&s;diction. This
conclu&s;ion our Author cannot deny in as much as it nece&s;&s;arily and directly followeth
from Premi&s;es which are both his own. Yea in his Page 302. H<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter"> &s;aith, <HI>That this
is a principle of Church policie, that every politicke body of Chri&s;t hath
power of Church government within it &s;elfe.</HI> Either therefore a Congregati|on
with only three Elders is no politicke body of Chri&s;t, or el&s;e it mu&s;t have power
of Church government within it &s;elfe. <HI>Be&s;ides, if the power of Iuri&s;diction
ordinary inten&s;ive be according to the entire e&s;&s;ence of a Mini&s;teriall
Church be as compleat and perfect in one &s;ingle Congregation, as in a Pro|vinciall,
Nationall, or Catholike Church as our Author &s;aith it is P.</HI> 307.
It is then a marvell why &s;uch a Congregation having onely three Elders, may not
have power to Excommunicate. La&s;tly, his words are expre&s;&s;e, Page 338.
<HI>Where there are not many Churches con&s;ociated, then Ordination and
Excommunication may be done by one &s;ingle Congregation.</HI> If therefore a
Congregation have not above three Elders, yet being not con&s;ociated with other
Churches, it may lawfully Excommunicate, by his own grant.</P>
<P>For deciding que&s;tions that concerne many Churches, if they decide them no fur|ther
but onely as they concerne them&s;elves, this is no putting a private &s;ickle in a
common and publike Harve&s;t, but a medling with matters onely &s;o farre as they doe
concerne them&s;elves.</P>
<P>Secondly, he &s;aith, All appeales without warrant from Chri&s;ts will we
condemne, as the abu&s;e of Appeales to a Court which is known &s;hall never
be, Page 425.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> If appeales without warrant from Chri&s;t will be condemned, why are wee
not told what appeales they are, that have the warrant of Chri&s;ts will, and what Ap|peales
have not? For &s;uch a generall word a<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter"> this, of the warrant of Chri&s;ts will,
without &s;ome further and more particular explication doth leave the matter as darke
as it was before. If the meaning be, that only &s;uch Appeales are unwarrantable as
are made to a Court which is known &s;hall never be, and that all others are warrant|able,
then it will follow that appeales to generall Councels and all other Courts,
except only from a generall Councell are warrantable, for who doth certainely
know that a generall Councell will never be? And &s;o by this meanes the Cla&s;&s;es, <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 word">
<PB N="42" REF="28">
Synod, and the Nationall Church are all deprived of &s;upremacie, and independen|cie
of Iuri&s;diction as well as the Congregacion.</P>
<P>Thirdly, he &s;aith, <HI>Antiochs</HI> appeale to a Synod 200 miles di&s;tant as our
Brethren &s;ay, was no Judaizing but that which <HI>Paul</HI> and the Apo&s;tles
were guilty of as well as we.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Whether <HI>Antioch</HI> and <HI>Jeru&s;alem</HI> were 200 miles di&s;tant or no as we have
never affirmed &s;o much, &s;o I will not &s;tand now to inquire. But this I &s;tand upon,
that no Scripture doth witne&s;&s;e that <HI>Antioch</HI> did appeale to <HI>Jeru&s;alem</HI> in the point of
Iuri&s;diction, about which our que&s;tion doth lye, if they did appeale to them for a
Doctrinall deci&s;ion or determination of the que&s;tion, that nothing hindereth our
cau&s;e who do not deny &s;uch a Doctrinall power in Synods. But their power of Iuri&s;|diction
is the thing that &s;hould be proved. La&s;tly, if this example of <HI>Antioch</HI> doe
prove that there may bee and ought to bee appeales from Congregations to Synods,
though tho&s;e Synods be 200 miles di&s;tant, then that which wee &s;aid in the An&s;wer is
here confe&s;&s;ed to be true: <HI>viz.</HI> That according to our Brethrens Iudgement the &s;tate
of the Church in point of Di&s;cipline is as defective and burden&s;ome in the time of the
Go&s;pell, as it was in the dayes of the old Te&s;tament. For as then the &s;upreame Iu|dicatory
at <HI>Jeru&s;alem</HI> was many miles di&s;tant from &s;uch as dwelt in the furthe&s;t parts
of the Holy Land, and &s;pecially from the Pro&s;elites that dwelt in other Countries, &s;o
here our Author &s;eemes to yeeld that in the&s;e dayes of the new Te&s;tament there mu&s;t
or may be appeales to Synods, though they be 200 miles di&s;tant. I hope then if o|thers
blame our way for making the Go&s;pell as defective and improvident as the Law,
or more defective then it, yet this our Brother will not do &s;o, but on the contrary will
acknowledge for us and with us, that the way which him&s;elfe pleads for, is more ju&s;tly
culpable in this re&s;pect.</P>
<P>Fourthly, he &s;aith, Matters concerning many Churches mu&s;t be hand|led
by many.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> This may be granted in a &s;afe &s;ence without any prejudice at all unto our
cau&s;e, for we are well content that &s;o farre as they concerne many they may be hand|led
by many, &s;o that each Congregation may have liberty to deale in them &s;o farre
as they concerne them&s;elves.</P>
<P>And thus you have all which Mr. <HI>Rutherford</HI> hath brought again&s;t that pa&s;&s;age of
ours wherein we &s;ay it is not our way but theirs, that doth make the Go&s;pell more de|fective
then the Law, in&s;tead whereof he is plea&s;ed to make us &s;ay that they doe Iu|daize;
But for eleering their way from that which wee object again&s;t the &s;ame, or
for convincing out way to be guilty thereof as by &s;ome hath been objected, which is
the thing in que&s;tion in the place by him alledged, for ought I perceive there is no|thing
in the foure particulars of his an&s;wer, that doth any thing availe to either of
the&s;e: for if a ra&s;h delivering of men to Satan have more evill in it then &s;peedy end|ing
of controver&s;ies hath good&punc; If appeales without warrant from Chri&s;ts will, be un|lawfull:
If <HI>Antioch</HI> did appeale to a Synod 200 miles di&s;tant, and if matters concer|ning
many Churches mu&s;t be ended by many, which foure particulars are the whole
&s;ub&s;tance of his an&s;wer, what is there in all this (for I would gladly apply his An|&s;wers
to the <GAP DESC="foreign"> the thing in que&s;tion, what is there I &s;ay in all this that
<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 word"> convince our way to be more defective then the way under the old Te&s;tament?
<PB N="43" REF="28">
Or that doth cleere the way of our Brethren from being truly culpable thereof&punc;
Let all the evill that can be found in ra&s;h delivering men to Satan be extended to the
utmo&s;t, and let the re&s;t of the foure particulars be granted, doth all this &s;ufficiently
cleere it that the way which we plead for is more defective, or the way of our Bre|thren
more perfect and excellent, then the way that was u&s;ed under the Law? If they
do not amount to the cleering of this, they do not come up to cleere the thing in
que&s;tion, which for ought I perceive doth &s;till remaine as it was notwith&s;tanding all
that our Brother here brings.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="10" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. X.</HEAD>
<HEAD TYPE="sub">Whether the nece&s;&s;ity of Di&s;cipline be greater then of Sacra|ments:
and whether a Congregation that hath neighbours
may not exerci&s;e intirene&s;se of Iuri&s;diction as well as one that
hath none: and whether a man may take on him the whole
Mini&s;tery having no outward calling thereto; and may not
as well take on him one act of Baptizing or Mini&s;tring the
Lords Supper.</HEAD>
<P><HI>_THe next place where I find our Reverend Brother dealing with the
An&s;wer, is in Page 453, 454. Where di&s;puting that there was a
Presbyteriall Church at</HI> Ieru&s;alem, <HI>he &s;aith it is Objected by us (al|ledging
the An&s;wer, Page 6.)</HI> That if a Church in an Iland
by Divine in&s;titution and &s;o the fir&s;t Congregation as <HI>Ie|ru&s;alem</HI>
which did meete in <HI>Solomons</HI> Porch had once
an intire power of Iuri&s;diction, though in an extraordinary ca&s;e, the ca&s;e
is ordinary, as in the Dominion of <HI>Wales</HI> there is &s;carce a Congregation
to be found within 20, or 30 miles. 2. Suppo&s;e the ca&s;e were extraordi|nary
and rare, may they violate the ordinary rules of Chri&s;t? For &s;o
&s;ome may thinke and &s;ay that though according to ordinary rules, Bap|ti&s;me
and the Lords Supper mu&s;t be di&s;pen&s;ed only 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 or
mid-wife, and both of them by &s;uch as are no Mini&s;ters. And then hee
&s;ubjoyneth his An&s;wer.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Our Authors &s;cope and intention being to prove a Presbyteriall Church
at <HI>Ieru&s;alem,</HI> I cannot apprehend a good rea&s;on, why now he &s;hould fall upon the
place of the An&s;wer alledged, in as much at the place makes not any mention of <HI>Ie|ru&s;alem</HI>
at all, nor of any Presbyteriall Church there, either one way or other. But it
&s;eemes he was willing to go &s;omething out of his way that &s;o he might have a &s;aying
<PB N="44" REF="29">
to the An&s;wer, yet if it mu&s;t needs be &s;o, I could have de&s;ired that the words of the
An&s;wer might have been kept, without making alteration by leaving &s;ome things out,
and putting others in of his own accord, and by mentioning others with another face
then was ever intended by us. For though he is plea&s;ed to mention a Church in an
Iland and the fir&s;t founded Congregation at <HI>Ieru&s;alem,</HI> in his Objection which he<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">
brings in under Mr. <HI>Tomp&s;ons</HI> name and mine, yet he that &s;hall peru&s;e the place
will find that neither of the&s;e are once mentioned by us at all, and why then they
&s;hould be brought in as ours I do not know. And for the former part of our An&s;wer,
wherein we &s;how that for a Chri&s;tian Congregation to want neighbour Congregati|ons
to whom they may with conveniency have recour&s;e, and not &s;o unu&s;uall as &s;ome
may imagine, we do not only alledge for that end the Dominion of <HI>Wales</HI> as our Bro|ther
doth report, but al&s;o the remoter parts of the North, and &s;pecially the &s;tate of
things in times and places of generall Per&s;ecution and generall prophanene&s;&s;e, and
new Plantations in Heathen Countries; all which our Brother doth omit, as if wee
had not mentioned any of them. And whereas we mention the &s;carcity of Congrega|tions
in the remoter parts of <HI>Wales</HI> and of the North, as intimated by our Reverend
Brother Mr. <HI>Herle</HI> in that learned and loving di&s;cour&s;e of his, whereto we doe apply
our An&s;wer, Mr. <HI>Rutherford</HI> concealeth that we do mention this, as the apprehen&s;ion
or intimation of another, and in&s;tead thereof makes bold to &s;et it downe under our
name, as if we had delivered it as our own. All which alterations, omi&s;&s;ions and ad|ditions
are &s;uch as wee for our parts would not willingly have made the like in any
worke of his nor of any other man. For let &s;uch liberty as this be taken in repeating
what men do &s;peake or write, and mi&s;apprehen&s;ion of their true <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">ntent and meaning
mu&s;t needs be bred hereby in the minds of all tho&s;e that &s;hall read or heare &s;uch re|ports
and beleeve the &s;ame. Neverthele&s;&s;e, let us con&s;ider what our Brother doth re|turne
in his An&s;wer.</P>
<P>We thinke &s;aith he, a Mini&s;tery and Di&s;cipline more nece&s;&s;ary to a Con|gregation
in a remote Iland, or to the Church of <HI>Ieru&s;alem</HI> before they
increa&s;e to &s;uch a number as cannot meet for their numerous multitude
in one Congregation, then the Sacraments when there be no Mini&s;ters to
di&s;pen&s;e them.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Would not one thinke by th<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;e words, and the other laid down in the Ob|jection,
that we had &s;poken &s;omething of a Church in an Iland, and of the Church
in <HI>Jeru&s;alem?</HI> El&s;e why &s;hould the&s;e be objected, and an&s;wered as ours? But th
truth is we have not &s;poken one word either of the one or the other of the&s;e particu|lars:
which will plainly appeare to him that &s;hall view the place. Something wee
have &s;poken in the generall of a Congregation that wants neighbours, which we did
being thereunto led by our Reverend Brother Mr. <HI>Herle,</HI> but of a Church in an I+land,
and of the Church at <HI>Ieru&s;alem</HI> in particular, of which Mr. <HI>Rutherford</HI> heere
&s;peaks, of the&s;e we have &s;aid nothing.</P>
<P>Second, the former part of our an&s;wer, that for a Congregation to want neigh|bours
is not &s;o unu&s;uall as &s;ome may imagine, this Mr. <HI>Rutherford</HI> wholly pa&s;&s;eth o|ver
in &s;ilence, only he propounds it in his Objection in &s;uch &s;ort as we have heard,
and &s;o leaves it, whereby it &s;eemes he yeelds the thing. And thereupon it followes,
that intirene&s;&s;e of Iuri&s;diction in a Congregation mu&s;t be yeelded frequently lawfull,
<PB N="45" REF="29">
it being frequently &s;eene, that Congregations want neighbours in which ca&s;e their in|tirene&s;&s;e
of Iuri&s;diction is not denyed.</P>
<P>Third, for the &s;econd part of our an&s;wer, we thus expre&s;&s;e our &s;elves therein. <HI>viz.
That we &s;uppo&s;e it is good to take heed how farre we yeeld it lawfull in ex|traordinary
ca&s;es to tran&s;gre&s;&s;e and violate ordinary rules, whereof wee
render the rea&s;on, lea&s;t &s;ome body doe thence inferre the lawfulne&s;&s;e
of mini&s;tring Sacraments by non-Mini&s;ters, in ca&s;e Mini&s;ters be wanting.</HI>
This is that which we have &s;aid in this matter. If therefore Mr. <HI>Rutherford</HI> would
take away what we have &s;aid herein, he mu&s;t &s;ay it is not good nor needfull to take
&s;uch heed, but men may yeeld it lawfull in &s;uch ca&s;es to tran&s;gre&s;&s;e and violate ordi|nary
rules, and never need to take heed how farre they yeeld therein. This indeed
were contradictory to what we have &s;aid, and if this be once cleered for truth, then I
mu&s;t confe&s;&s;e our &s;aying is cleerely di&s;proved. But the cleering of this we hope our
Brother will never attempt: Sure yet he hath not done it, and &s;o our &s;aying yet re|maines
as it was.</P>
<P>Fourth, Whereas he &s;aith he thinkes a Mini&s;tery and Di&s;cipline more nece&s;&s;ary in
the ca&s;es he &s;peaks of, then Sacraments and there be no Mini&s;ters, though this be not
directly oppo&s;ite to what we have &s;aid, yet becau&s;e I would con&s;ider of every thing
wherein he &s;eemes to ayme at us, therefore I am willing to con&s;ider of this al&s;o. Our
Reverend Brother thinkes Di&s;cipline in the ca&s;es mentioned more nece&s;&s;ary then
Sacraments: and yet in his Page 287, 288. handling that que&s;tion, whether Di&s;ci|pline
be a marke of the vi&s;ible Church, and laying down &s;undry di&s;tinctions about
the &s;ame, hee gives us the&s;e &s;everall Propo&s;itions in termes: <HI>Fir&s;t, care to ex|erci&s;e
Di&s;cipline may be wanting in a true Church. Second, right Di&s;ci|pline
is not nece&s;&s;ary to the e&s;&s;ence of a vi&s;ible Church as a City may bee
without Wals, a Garden without a hedge. Third, the exerci&s;e of Di&s;ci|pline
may be wanting, and the Church a true vi&s;ible Church. Fourth, the
Church may retaine the e&s;&s;ence and being of a vi&s;ible Church, and yet
have no Di&s;cipline in actuall u&s;e or little, in which place he cites and ap|proves
the judgement of</HI> Parker, Cartwright <HI>and others; who make
Di&s;cipline nece&s;&s;ary only to the wel-being of the Church, as being not in|different
but commanded in the word and nece&s;&s;ary in re&s;pect of its end.</HI>
Now if this be all the nece&s;&s;ity that is in Di&s;cipline, how is Di&s;cipline more nece&s;&s;a|ry
then Sacraments? For may not as much bee &s;aid of them as here is &s;aid of Di&s;ci|pline?
Are not Sacraments nece&s;&s;ary to the well-being of the Church, as being com|manded
in the word, as well as Di&s;cipline is? And &s;erving for excellent ends, as
well as Di&s;cipline doth? I &s;uppo&s;e it will n<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="2 letters"> be denyed, and therefore the nece&s;&s;ity
of Di&s;cipline above Sacraments doth not yet appeare. E&s;pecially if that be con&s;ide|red
withall which our Brother teacheth el&s;e-where. <HI>viz.</HI> In his &s;econd P. 211. <HI>&amp;

&s;equ.</HI> Where he tels us, <HI>That Sacraments are not only declarative &s;ignes,
but al&s;o reall exhibitive &s;eales of Grace, having a cau&s;ality in them to make
a thing that was not, and &s;o excelling all civill Seales which do adde no
<PB N="46" REF="30">
new Lands to the owner of the Charter &s;ealed therewith.</HI> Now if Sacra|ments
be thus excellent and effectuall, how is it that in the place wee have in hand,
Di&s;cipline is made more nece&s;&s;ary then they? For a greater Elogie then here hee
gives to Sacraments, I &s;uppo&s;e him&s;elfe would not give unto Di&s;cipline. Yea in P.
302 he expre&s;ly affirmes, <HI>That Preaching of the word and admini&s;tration of
the Sacraments are e&s;&s;entiall notes of the vi&s;ible Church.</HI> But of Di&s;cipline
I conceive he will not &s;ay the &s;ame, &s;ure it is in the Page following di&s;tingui&s;hing
betwixt notes of the Church which are nece&s;&s;ary <HI>ad<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;&s;e, To the very being of a
vi&s;ible Church, and &s;uch as are nece&s;&s;ary only</HI> ad bene e&s;&s;e, <HI>to the well-being
thereof, he expre&s;ly makes Di&s;cipline a worke or note of this &s;econd
&s;ort, and as we heard ere-while, he in Page 287 expre&s;ly affirmes it is not
nece&s;&s;ary to the e&s;&s;ence of a Church.</HI> And therefore it is &s;ome marvell why
now <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 word"> makes Di&s;cipline more nece&s;&s;ary then Sacraments.</P>
<P><HI>But he gives us two rea&s;ons of this greater nece&s;&s;ity of Di&s;cipline then of Sacra|ments.</HI>
Fir&s;t, that intire power of Di&s;cipline in a Congregation that wants
neighbours is not extraordinary Second, that there is no &s;uch morall ne|ce&s;&s;ity
of Sacraments, as there is of Di&s;cipline, Page 455.</P>
<P><HI>Concerning the former his words are the&s;e,</HI> viz. <HI>That the Church be
in an Iland it &s;elfe alone may po&s;&s;ibly be extraordinary, but that in &s;uch a
ca&s;e they have intire power of di&s;cipline whole and entire within them&s;elves
to Excommunicate Scandalous per&s;ons is not extraordinary.</HI> Wherein fir&s;t
of all I ob&s;erve a difference between him and our Reverend Brother Mr. <HI>Herle,</HI> who
having granted that where there is no con&s;ociation or neighbour-hood of Congrega|tions,
there a &s;ingle Congregation mu&s;t not be denyed intirene&s;&s;e of Iuri&s;diction,
doth pre&s;ently adde that the ca&s;e is extraordinary, and &s;o fals not within the com|pa&s;&s;e
of the que&s;tion of the ordinary rule of Church-government: Independencie of
Churches, P. 2. plainly confe&s;&s;ing that the ca&s;e is extraordinary, whereas Mr. <HI>Ru|therford</HI>
here &s;aith it is not.</P>
<P>Second, as he expre&s;ly differs from Mr. <HI>Herle,</HI> &s;o it is con&s;iderable whether his
words do well agree with them&s;elves. <HI>For &s;aith he, That the Church be in an
Iland it &s;elfe alone may be extraordinary, but that in &s;uch ca&s;e they have
entire power of Iuri&s;diction of Di&s;cipline within them&s;elves, to Excom|municate
Scandalous per&s;ons, is not extraordinary.</HI> Which &s;aying needs
good explication. For it &s;eemes hard to conceive how the power and actions of any
&s;ubject or efficient &s;hould be more u&s;uall and ordinary then its very being and &s;ub|&s;i&s;tance:
Which yet mu&s;t needs bee, if this &s;tand good that the being of a Church in
an Iland is extraordinary, and yet the power of &s;uch a Church to Excommunicate is
u&s;uall and ordinary</P>
<P>Third, If their power of Di&s;cipline, yea intire Power be in the ca&s;e expre&s;&s;ed or|<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="3 letters">ary,
&s;hall we then &s;ay that if the ca&s;e <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">e otherwi&s;e &s;o that a Church be not alone
<PB N="47" REF="30">
but have neighbours, entirene&s;&s;e of power in &s;uch a ca&s;e is extraordinary? It &s;eemes
a<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter"> mu&s;t <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">ay <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 word">, or el&s;e wee mu&s;t &s;ay that intirene&s;&s;e of power in both ca&s;es is ordinary.
If this latter be &s;aid, it is as much as we de&s;ire: for then I hope it mu&s;t not be a &s;mall
<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 word"> ordinary matter, that mu&s;t hinder a Church that hath neighbours from exerci&s;ing
<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 span"> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="4 letters">diction within them&s;elves, no more then a Church that lives alone,
<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 span"> power being ordinary in them both. For if it be &s;o in them both, in the
one as well as in the other, I know not why any &s;mall or ordinary matter &s;hould hin|der
the one Church any more then the other from the u&s;e and exerci&s;e of &s;uch entire
power. If we &s;ay that entirene&s;&s;e of power in a Church that hath neighbours is ex|traordinary,
though in a Church that is alone it be ordinary, be&s;ides that &s;uch a &s;ay|ing
&s;ounds har&s;hly and &s;eemes very improbable, we &s;hall by this meanes make ca&s;es
extraordinary to be very frequent &amp; u&s;uall, in as much as all men know it is very u|&s;uall
for Congregationall
Churches to have neighbours: and &s;o if entirene&s;&s;e of power
in a Church that hath neighbours be extraordinary, it will follow that extraorninary
power is very u&s;uall and frequent; &s;o that inconveniences on each &s;ide do &s;eeme ine|vitably
to follow again&s;t our Brothers cau&s;e, upon this which here he affirmeth, that
entirene&s;&s;e of power in a Church that is alone is not extraordinary.</P>
<P>But let us here his rea&s;on in the &s;ub&s;equent words, why this entirene&s;&s;e of power
in a Church that is alone is not extraordinary. <HI>For it floweth &s;aith he, continu|ally
from a Church, to which agreeth the e&s;&s;ence of a Church, to exerci&s;e
Iuri&s;diction over all its own members.</HI> And I &s;uppo&s;e he mu&s;t meane this of
Iuri&s;diction entire and compleat, for of this is the que&s;tion, and a few lines afore,
<HI>He expre&s;ly cals it entire power of Di&s;cipline, whole and entire within
them&s;elves.</HI> Now if this be true which here is &s;aid, as for my part I conceive no o|ther
of it, that it floweth connaturally from a Church, to which agreeth the e&s;&s;ence of
a Church to exerci&s;e entire Iuri&s;diction over all its own members, then it will follow
that a Church that hath neighbours as well as a Church that hath none mu&s;t have
this entirene&s;&s;e of Iuri&s;diction, &s;ith the e&s;&s;ence of a Church doth agree to the one as
well as to the other, to a Church that hath neighbours as well as to a Church that is
alone. Our Author tels us Page 302. <HI>That a Congregation in an Iland is a
Church properly &s;o called, and hath the e&s;&s;entiall notes of a vi&s;ible Church
agreeing to it, and wants nothing of the being and e&s;&s;ence of a Church.</HI>
And if this be true of a Church that is alone, &s;hall we thinke it is not true of a Church
that hath neighbours? Doth the acce&s;&s;ion of neighbours to a Congregation take a|way
from &s;uch a Congregation the e&s;&s;ence of a Church which it had before? I con|ceive
none will &s;o &s;ay. And if every Church to which agreeth the e&s;&s;ence of a Church
may exerci&s;e entire Iuri&s;diction over all its own members, as our Brother doth ac|knowledge,
it followeth unavoidably thereupon that all Congregationall Churches,
&s;uch as have neighbours and &s;uch as have none may exerci&s;e &s;uch entirene&s;&s;e of Iuri&s;|diction,
&s;ith the e&s;&s;ence of a Church doth agree unto them all. Vnle&s;&s;e he will deny
the e&s;&s;ence of a Church to a Congregation which hath neighbours, which hee freely
yeeldeth to a Congregation which is alone, he mu&s;t grant entirene&s;&s;e of Iuri&s;diction
unto them both, becau&s;e he grants it to the one upon this rea&s;on, that the e&s;&s;ence of a
<PB N="48" REF="31">
Church doth agree thereunto, which rea&s;on if it agree to both, how can i<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter"> be avoided
but entirene&s;&s;e of Iuri&s;diction mu&s;t be in both? And how can it be affirmed or imagi|ned
that a Congregation having the e&s;&s;ence of a Church afore and have neighbours,
&s;hould lo&s;e this e&s;&s;ence of a Church when neighbours are added to it? A family ha|ving
the e&s;&s;ence of a family now it is alone, doth not lo&s;e this e&s;&s;ence by meanes of o|ther
families added. Nor doth a City that is &s;uch, as it is alone lo&s;e the e&s;&s;ence of a
City by the acce&s;&s;e of other Cities: and the &s;ame might be &s;aid of a Corporation, a
Province, a Kingdome, or any other &s;ociety what&s;oever. And that it &s;hould be other|wi&s;e
with a Congregationall Church, that it &s;hould lo&s;e the e&s;&s;ence of a Church as
other neighbours Churches do ari&s;e, doth &s;eeme very &s;trange and unrea&s;onable. And
let the e&s;&s;ence of a Church be &s;till retayned by &s;uch a Congregation, as I conceive it
mu&s;t, and then intirene&s;&s;e of Iuri&s;diction mu&s;t not be denyed to &s;uch a Congregation,
&s;ith it doth flow connaturally from every Church to which the e&s;&s;ence of a Church
doth agree.</P>
<P>If there bee no more con&s;ociated with that Church that is by accident,
and an extraordinary exigence of Gods Providence. As a Ma&s;ter of a
family is to educate his children in the feare of God, but if God take
all his children from him by death, he doth not tran&s;gre&s;&s;e the ordinary
rule of educating his children in the feare of God, as he hath none.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> If this compari&s;on doe &s;uit the pre&s;ent purpo&s;e and ca&s;e in hand, then this
Ma&s;ter of a family is a Congregation, and the&s;e his children are the members of o|ther
Congregations: And &s;o as a Ma&s;ter of a family needs not to educate his chil|dren
in Gods feare, when they are all taken from him by death, &s;o a Congregation
needs not to governe the members of other Congregation as there are no other Con|gregation
extant, but it &s;elfe is left alone in an Iland. In which kind of arguing &s;un|dry
things may be excepted again&s;t. As fir<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="2 letters"> of all that there &s;hould be &s;uch power
in a Congregation as in a Ma&s;ter of a family over his own children, which needs a
good deale of proofe afore it may be yeelded, in as much as the power of the one is
plainly and plentifully taught in the Scripture, as <HI>Eph. 4. 6. Col. 3. Deut. 6. 7.
Deut.</HI> 21. And many other places. But I de&s;ire one cleere place of Scripture, in all
the Book of God either old Te&s;tament or new, to &s;hew the like power in a Congre|gationall
Church, over the members of other Churches. Againe, when a Ma&s;ter of
a family hath all his children taken from him by death, he hath then no children of
his own to governe, but wants a Congregationall Church &amp; is left alone in an Iland,
the Presbytery of that Congregation is left alone, but have &s;till the members of that
Congregation whom they may and ought to guide and governe in the feare of God,
which is another particular wherein the compari&s;on failes.</P>
<P>But though the &s;imilitude as Mr. <HI>Rutherford</HI> hath laid it down, doth not confirme
his purpo&s;e, yet I conceive it may be&punc; &s;o framed and applyed as that it may well &s;erve
for the weekning thereof, thus; A Ma&s;ter of a family having (when that family is
alone) entire power to governe his family in the feare of God, when other families
do ari&s;e that become neighbours neere adjoyning, he is not by this meanes deprived
of the power which he had before, but &s;till retaines the &s;ame entire and compleate as
formerly it was: even &s;o the Presbytery of a Congregationall Church having
(when that Congregation is alone,) entire power of Iuri&s;diction over its own mem|bers,
<PB N="49" REF="31">
is not when neighbour Congregation do ari&s;e, deprived by this meanes of the
power which it had before, but &s;till retaines the &s;ame entire as formerly it was. A|gaine,
though when God takes away a mans children by death, he is no longer bound
to educate and governe tho&s;e children in the feare of God, yet as long as his children
live with him in his family, it is not the &s;itting down of other families neere by him
that can take away this power from him, or di&s;charge him of this duty: even &s;o,
though when members of a Congregation be taken away by death or otherwi&s;e, the
Congregation or its Presbytery doth no longer &s;tand charged or bound with the over|&s;ight
and government of &s;uch members yet as long as they live in the Congregation,
it is not the ari&s;ing of other Congregations neere to them that can free them from the
power wherewith they were inve&s;ted, nor from the duty wherewith they were former|ly
charged towards &s;uch members, Thus the compari&s;on runs even, and we &s;ee our
Brothers cau&s;e is not a little di&s;advantaged thereby. But as he hath laid it down, it
doth &s;o apparantly faile that I do not perceive how it can afford him any helpe at
all.</P>
<P>This argument &s;uppo&s;eth that the Congregation hath no power of Ex|communication
at all, either compleat or incompleate, as the Midwife hath
no power to Baptize, either compleate or incompleate.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Suppo&s;e a Congregation have an incompleate power when they have
neighbours, how &s;hall it appeare that when they are alone their power is now com|pleat?
Or how will it be avoided but by the like rea&s;on, one Elder alone may Ex|communicate
in ca&s;e there be no other Elders to joyne with him? For plain it is,
that one Elder when their is a full Presbytery or Cla&s;&s;is hath an incompleate power,
though not a compleat. And yet I hope this incompleat power in one Elder when there
are other Elders joyned with him, will not warrant him to exerci&s;e a power compleat
when he is alone, becau&s;e &s;uch a power mu&s;t be exerci&s;ed by a Church, with one El|der
alone cannot be. And if one Elder having an incompleat power when he is joyned
with others, may not exerci&s;e a compleat power when he is alone, how will the in|compleat
power of a Congregation when they have neighbours (&s;uppo&s;e that in &s;uch
ca&s;e their power were indeed incompleate) how will this I &s;ay warr<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">nt that Congre|gation
when they are alone to exerci&s;e a compleat power? For ought I &s;ee, the com|pleat
power of the Congregation is no more warranted upon this ground, then the
like power of one Elder upon the &s;ame ground, the ca&s;es being alike in both.</P>
<P>Neither doth a Congregation tran&s;gre&s;&s;e any rule of Christ at all when
it exerci&s;eth entire power of cen&s;ures within it &s;elf, whereas there be no
con&s;ociated <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">hurches to &s;hare with it in that power.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> This I grant is very true; and I de&s;ire it may not be recalled, but may
&s;till &s;tand as here it is expre&s;ly given to us; and then I de&s;ire to know what rule of
Chri&s;t is tran&s;gre&s;&s;ed, if an other Congregation, I meane a Congregation that hath
neighbours, do exerci&s;e the like power. For my part I know no &s;uch rule, nor any
good rea&s;on but if that the one Congregation may &s;o practi&s;e, the other Congregati|on
may do the like, and that the grounds (at lea&s;t &s;ome of them) which will warrant
the one, will al&s;o &s;uffice to warrant the other. Neverthele&s;&s;e when any rule of Chri&s;t
&s;hal be produced that doth re&s;traine a Congregation that hath neighbours of this en|tire
power, which is &s;o freely and plainly granted to the Congregation that is alone,
<PB N="44" REF="32">
I &s;hall then grant that the former mu&s;t have le&s;&s;e liberty to exerci&s;e this power, then
is here granted to the latter. In the meane time, that which here is yeelded to the
one doth among&s;t other things induce me to thinke that the &s;ame ought to be granted
to the other, and &s;o that entirene&s;&s;e of power is in them both.</P>
<P>A Congregation <HI>(viz.</HI> which is alone) is capable of entire Juri&s;dicti|on
becau&s;e it is a Church.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> How will it then be avoided but a Congregation which hath neighbours,
or a Congregation which was alone and now hath neighbours added to it, how will it
be avoided I &s;ay, but &s;uch a Congregation as this is al&s;o capable of entire Iuri&s;dicti|on?
For can it be denyed but &s;uch a Congregation is a Church, as well as the other?
Sure if Mr. <HI>Rutherford</HI> his Doctrine el&s;ewhere delivered do &s;tand good, this cannot
be denyed at all. For in his Page 301 he &s;aith, <HI>That is a Church, and hath
the e&s;&s;ence of a Church, to which agree the e&s;&s;entiall notes of a vi&s;ible
Church, and Preaching of the word and admini&s;tration of the Sacraments
&s;aith he are e&s;&s;entiall notes of a vi&s;ible Church.</HI> Which if it bee &s;o, then a
Congregation that hath neighbours is a vi&s;ible Church, and hath the e&s;&s;ence of a
Church, becau&s;e Preaching of the word and admini&s;tration of the Sacraments are
cleerely found in &s;uch a Congregation. And if &s;uch a Congregation be a Church,
then by his own Doctrine in this place which we have in hand, &s;uch a Congregation
is capable of entire Iuri&s;diction. For thus I argue from his own words</P>
<P>Every Congregation which is a Church is capable of entire Iuri&s;diction.</P>
<P>But a Congregation which hath neighbours is a Church.</P>
<P>Therefore a Congregation which hath neighbours is capable of entire Iuri&s;|diction.</P>
<P>The conclu&s;ion is that which we &s;tand for, and it makes directly again&s;t our Bro|ther,
and yet I &s;ee not how he can avoyd it, becau&s;e both the premi&s;es are his own.
For the Propo&s;ition is plaine from the words we have in hand, <HI>v<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">z. A Congrega|tion
is capable of entire Juri&s;diction becau&s;e it is a Church.</HI> Now
if this be the rea&s;on why it is capable thereof, then looke to what Congregation this
rea&s;on doth agree, every &s;uch Congregation mu&s;t be &s;o capable. For our Author well
knoweth that <HI>&agrave; quatenus ad omnia con&s;equentia.</HI> And for the A&s;&s;umption, the &s;ame is
confirmed by his words, Page 302, <HI>Where he makes that to be a Church, and
to have the e&s;&s;ence of a Church, to which the Preaching of the word,
and admini&s;tration of the Sacraments do agree.</HI> And the&s;e agreeing to a
Congregation that hath neighbours, it followeth that a Congregation that hath
neighbours is a Church. Vnle&s;&s;e hee will deny to a Congregation that hath neigh|bours
power of Preaching the word and admini&s;tring the Sacraments (which I am
per&s;waded he will not deny at all) it will unavoidably follow from his own ground
that &s;uch a Congregation is a vi&s;ible Church. And if &s;uch a Congregation be a vi|&s;ible
Church, then by his own ground al&s;o, &s;uch a Congregation mu&s;t be capable of
entire Iuri&s;diction: which conclu&s;ion if it bee granted we de&s;ire no more, for it is the
thing that we hold.</P>
<P>A woman in no ca&s;e is capable of admini&s;tring Bapti&s;me or the Lords
Supper, except &s;he were extraordinarily and immediately in&s;pired to bee a
<PB N="41" REF="32">
Prophete&s;&s;e, but for the exerci&s;e of entire power of Juri&s;diction by a Con|gregation
in a remote Iland, I hope it hath no &s;uch need of immediate in|&s;piration.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Nor do wee thinke otherwi&s;e; but (that we may keepe to the points and
bring up the di&s;pute to the thing in que&s;tio) if &s;uch a Congregation having no
&s;uch in&s;piration may notwith&s;tanding lawfully exerci&s;e intire power of Iuri&s;diction
within them&s;elves, and that upon this rea&s;on, becau&s;e they now are alone, which if
they had neighbours were not lawfull for them to do, then let it be well con&s;idered,
whether by the like rea&s;on in the like extraordinary ca&s;e, Bapti&s;me and the Lords
Supper may not be admini&s;tred the one of them by a woman, and both of them by
&s;uch as are no Mini&s;ters. For as in one ca&s;e the plea, to make it lawfull is this, be|cau&s;e
&s;uch a Congregation hath no neighbours, &s;o in the other the plea is becau&s;e
the Congregation hath no Mini&s;ters, nor perhaps there are no men at hand. And
if the one which at other times were unlawfull, yet in &s;uch an extraordinary exigence
of Gods Providence may be lawfully done, though there be no immediate in&s;pirati|on
to warrant the &s;ame, why doth there need &s;uch immediate in&s;piration to warrant
the other, the extraordinary exigence of Gods Providence being alike in both. I
de&s;ire I may not be mi&s;taken in this pa&s;&s;age, for I doe not affirme (nor ever did)
that the di&s;pen&s;ation of Di&s;cipline and of Sacraments in the ca&s;es mentioned are both
alike unlawfull, or el&s;e both alike lawfull. The An&s;wer will not witne&s;&s;e that I
have &s;o affirmed, neither yet this pre&s;ent di&s;cour&s;e t<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter"> much le&s;&s;e do I hold that Sacra|ments
may be di&s;pen&s;ed by women or by men that are not Mini&s;ters. All that I
have &s;aid in this matter is thus much, that it is good to take heed how farre we yeeld
it lawfull in &s;uch extraordinary ca&s;es, as want of neighbours, to tran&s;gre&s;&s;e and vio|late
ordinary rules, lea&s;t &s;ome body do thence inferre that Sacraments may be di&s;|pen&s;ed
by women or men that are no Mini&s;ters, in ca&s;e that Mini&s;ters or men be
wanting. This I have &s;aid indeed, as being tender and afraid to open a dore too far
for liberty of tran&s;gre&s;&s;ing ordinary rules, and conceiving that keeping clo&s;e to tho&s;e
rules is the &s;afe&s;t way. If any man be more bold and dare open the dore further then
I dare adventure to do, and thinke he can ea&s;ily &s;hut the &s;ame againe, to &s;top the in|conveniencies
and ill con&s;equents which I feare may thence en&s;ue. I &s;hall leave him
to his di&s;cretion, and the guidance of God therein, onely craving thus much for my
&s;elfe that no more may be imputed to me, nor reported of me in this or other matters,
then indeed I have affirmed or expre&s;&s;ed.</P>
<P><HI>Concerning his &s;econd rea&s;on of the greater nece&s;&s;ity of Di&s;cipline then of Sacra|ments,
his words are the&s;e.</HI> There is no &s;uch morall nece&s;&s;ity of Sacraments
as there is of the Mini&s;tery of the word and con&s;equently of the u&s;e of the
Keyes, where a Scandalous per&s;on may infect the Lords flock: for where
vi&s;ion cea&s;eth the people peri&s;h. But it is never &s;aid where Bapti&s;me cea|&s;eth
the people peri&s;h, Pag. 455.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> How &s;hall we be &s;ure that by vi&s;ion, <HI>Prov.</HI> 26. 18. Is meant Di&s;cipline?
Yea Di&s;cipline not in a large &s;en&s;e as comprehending generally all order and beha|viour
concerning a Church and outward duties therein, but Di&s;cipline &s;trictly taken
for admini&s;tration of cen&s;ures (for of this is one que&s;tion) how I &s;ay &s;hall wee be
&s;ure that by vi&s;ion is meant this Di&s;cipline? The u&s;uall Expo&s;iters <HI>Tremeli<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="2 letters"></HI> and <HI>Ju|nius,
<PB N="52" REF="33">
<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 span">,</HI> and others doe expound the &s;ame of the Preaching and
di&s;pen&s;ing of the word, making no mention at all of Di&s;cipline as meant thereby. And
the <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 word"> branch of the ver&s;e, <HI>He <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">hat keepeth the Law is ble&s;&s;ed,</HI> doth <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">hew that by
vi&s;ion in the former branch is mean the Law, or Doctrine or word of God. And if
the Scripture do not &s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">y, where Bapti&s;me cea&s;eth the people peri&s;h, yet neither doth
it &s;ay, where admini&s;trat<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">on of Cen&s;ures cea&s;eth the people peri&s;h; and therefore no
nece&s;&s;ity of cen&s;ures above Sacraments can be concluded hence.</P>
<P>Vncalled Mini&s;ters in ca&s;e of nece&s;&s;ity without Ordination or calling
from a Presbytery may Preach and take on them the holy Mini&s;tery and
exerci&s;e power of Juri&s;diction, becau&s;e of the nece&s;&s;ity of the Soules of a
Congregation in a remote Iland requireth &s;o.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w</HI> If they may do the&s;e things without Ordination (as for my part I deny it
not, &s;o that the election or con&s;ent of the Congregation be not wan<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">ing, for that I
&s;uppo&s;e might be a good part of an outward calling) then I demand whether one Mi|ni&s;ter
alone may not thus do, I meane whether one alone may not in the ca&s;e propo|&s;ed
take on him the holy Mini&s;tery and Preach the word as a Mini&s;ter. If many may
do it, then I &s;uppo&s;e there is no que&s;tion but one may do it much rather. And if &s;o,
then I demand further whe<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">her &s;uch a &s;ingle Mini&s;ter may not al&s;o admini&s;ter the Sa|craments
to &s;uch a Congregation: I &s;uppo&s;e it cannot be denyed, for if he lawfully
take on him the Mini&s;tery and Preach as a Mini&s;ter, what &s;hould hinder, but he may
al&s;o Baptize, and mini&s;ter the Lords Supper? And if hee may thus doe, then I de|mand
la&s;tly, whether this &s;ingle Mini&s;ter may al&s;o admini&s;ter Di&s;cipline and cen|&s;ures
in that Congregation. If he may, then either the power of tho&s;e cen&s;ures mu&s;t
be in him&s;elfe alone, or in the Congregation al&s;o, in him&s;elfe alone it cannot be, be|cau&s;e
cen&s;ures mu&s;t bee di&s;pen&s;ed by a Church, and one man alone cannot bee a
Church, If it be in the Congregation al&s;o, then here is a power of Excommunication
or other cen&s;ures even in the people which is again&s;t our Brothers judgement. If it
be &s;aid that this &s;ingle Mini&s;ter as long as he wan<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">s other Mini&s;ters joyned with him
may not admini&s;ter cen&s;ures or Di&s;cipline, then it will follow that power of cen&s;ures
is not alwayes annexed to the Mini&s;tery as an in&s;eparable adjunct thereof, nor are
Cen&s;ures to be preferred before Sacraments as more nece&s;&s;ary, as our Brother would
have it, for as much as here is a Mini&s;tery and the admini&s;tring of Sacraments, the
nece&s;&s;ity of the &s;oules of the Congregation requiring &s;o, and yet for all this not any
power of cen&s;ures at all. Our Brother therefore may make his choyce, whether hee
will grant the power of the Keyes of Di&s;cipline to bee in the people, or whether he
will &s;ay the nece&s;&s;ity of the &s;oules in a Congregation doth require Sacraments more
then Di&s;cipline; For though the&s;e be both again&s;t him&s;elfe, yet upon the ground
which him&s;elfe doth here lay, the one of the two is unavoidable.</P>
<P>But I hope no nece&s;&s;ity in any of the mo&s;t extraordinary ca&s;e requireth
that a Midwife may Baptize, or that a private man remaining a private
man may celebrate the Lords Supper to the Church, without any calling
from the Church.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Concerning the Midwife I thinke the &s;ame that he doth. And concerning
the private man, I al&s;o therein <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="2 letters">curre that without calling from the Church hee
may not performe what here is &s;poken of. But here I would make this <HI>Quare</HI> whether
<PB N="53" REF="33">
<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 word"> man that never was a Mini&s;ter may not as well in an extraordinary ca&s;e performe
<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 word"> act of admini&s;tring of Bapti&s;me or the Lords Supper, without any calling from
the <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 word"> bytery or the Church unto whom the office of Mini&s;tery, as take on him with|out
any &s;uch calling the whole Mini&s;tery, and &s;o Preach and exerci&s;e the power of
Iuri&s;diction as a Mini&s;ter For as for the one of the&s;e, our Brother expre&s;ly grants a
man m<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">y lawfully take it on him without any &s;uch calling, the nece&s;&s;ity of the Soules
of a Congregation in an Iland requiring &s;o; and if this nece&s;&s;ity will warrant the
one which is the whole and &s;o the greater, why will it not warrant the other which is
but one act and &s;o the le&s;&s;er? One would thinke one act of di&s;pen&s;ing Bapti&s;me or
the Supper were a le&s;&s;er matter then the whole Mini&s;tery, and all the actions there|of.
And marvell it is, that the nece&s;&s;ity of the Soules of a Congregation &s;hould war|rant
this which is the greater, and yet the &s;ame nece&s;&s;ity &s;hould not be &s;ufficient war|rant
for the le&s;&s;er, a mans calling being otherwi&s;e alike unto both, that is, having
an outward calling to neither Him&s;elf doth &s;ometimes rea&s;on thus, <HI>If wee give to
beleevers that are not in office one pa&s;torall act, wee may with the like
weight of rea&s;on give them all: Peaceable plea, Page</HI> 272. Now if this rea|&s;oning
be good from one Act to all, why is no this as good, from all to any one or to
&s;ome one? And why may we not in like maner argue thus, If per&s;ons uncalled
may without Ordination or calling take on them the whole Mini&s;tery, why may not
per&s;ons uncalled without Ordination or calling take on them to Baptize or Mini&s;ter
the Supper? Not that I thinke &s;uch a practi&s;e to be lawfull, but only I intend to
make quaere about the validity of our Brothers kind of arguing. Yea, it is el&s;ewhere
his arguing, that it per&s;ons not in office of Mini&s;tery may execute cen&s;ures and Di&s;ci|pline,
they may then admini&s;ter the Sacraments. <HI>For &s;aith he, What hinders by
this rea&s;on but they may al&s;o without Mini&s;ters Prea<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">h and admini&s;ter
the Sacraments:</HI> Peaceable Plea, <HI>Page 196. Yea &s;aith he, I &s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">e not but
with a like warrant private men may admini&s;ter the Sacraments:</HI> Vbi
Supra, <HI>Page</HI> 196. This we &s;ee is his arguing el&s;ewhere: And yet in the place
we have in hand he grants that per&s;ons uncalled may in ca&s;e of nece&s;&s;ity without Or|dination
or calling take on them the Mini&s;tery in generall, and in particular may ex|erc<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;e
the power of Iuri&s;diction, and yet for all this he &s;ayes, that no nece&s;&s;ity will
warrant a man to celebrate the Lords Supper without a calling from the Church.
Which two &s;ayings for ought I perceive do not agree. For in the one it is affirmed
that if they may exerci&s;e Di&s;cipline and cen&s;ures, they may by the like rea&s;on admi|ni&s;ter
Sacraments: and the other &s;aith they may exerci&s;e Di&s;cipline and cen&s;ures and
yet may not admini&s;ter Sacraments; and yet both the &s;ayings are expre&s;&s;ed by the
&s;ame Authors Pen.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="11" TYPE="chapter">
<PB N="48" REF="34">
<HEAD>CHAP. XI.</HEAD>
<HEAD TYPE="sub">Whether the power of Iuri&s;diction flowing immediately from
the e&s;sence of a Church doe not agree to a Church that
hath neighbours as well as to a Church that hath none: And
whether otherwi&s;e neighbouring Churches bee not a lo&s;&s;e.
And whether pretence of male-admini&s;tration be a &s;uffici|ent
rea&s;on for neighbouring Churches to deprive a Congre|gation
of its power.</HEAD>
<P><HI>_THe next place where I find Mr.</HI> Rutherford <HI>dealing with the An&s;wer,
is in his Page 455. Where he brings in the&s;e words under Mr.</HI> Tomp|&s;ons
<HI>name and mine,</HI> viz. If the power of Juri&s;diction flow
immediately and nece&s;&s;arily from the e&s;&s;ence of a Church,
and a Congregation be e&s;&s;entially a Church, then this power
agreeth to all Churches whether con&s;ociated, or not con&s;oci|ated,
and without re&s;pect of what neighbours they have, whether many or
few, whether any or none. Second, a Congregation it &s;elfe alone cannot
have &s;ole power of Iuri&s;diction and then be deprived of it, when God &s;end|eth
neighbours, for then neighbouring Churches which are given for help
&s;hould be given for lo&s;&s;e, the contrary whereof <HI>Ames</HI> &s;aith no. Doe Synods
&s;aith he, Con&s;titute a new forme of a Chur<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">h.</P>
<P>Thus farre Mr. <HI>Rutherford</HI> who in his Margent alledgeth Mr. <HI>Tomp&s;on</HI> and me,
16. Pag. 4, 5.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> In one of the&s;e Pages of the An&s;wer, <HI>viz.</HI> P. 5. there is nothing at all to
be found that looks toward &s;uch a purpo&s;e as our Brother hath in hand, and there|fore
this Page &s;hould not have been here alledged. The words of Dr. <HI>Ames</HI> are more
imperfectly cited by our Brother, then they were alledged in the An&s;wer, For
the An&s;wer alledgeth them thus out of <HI>Medull. Theol.</HI> Lib. 1. Chapter 3. Sect 27.
<HI>That the combination of Churches into Cla&s;&s;es, and Synods doth neither
con&s;titute a new forme of a Church, nor ought by any meanes to take away
or impayer that liberty and power which Chri&s;t hath given to his Chur|ches,
&s;ith it &s;erveth only for the directing and furthering of the &s;ame.</HI>
Wher<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">as our Brother expre&s;&s;eth only tho&s;e fir&s;t words that Synods do not con&s;titute
a new forme of a Church, but all the re&s;t wherein the chiefe &s;trength of Dr. <HI>Ames</HI>
his te&s;timony doth lye, them he doth wholly omit and leave out. He al&s;o leaves out
the a&s;&s;ent which is given by Mr. <HI>Paget,</HI> to this te&s;timony of Dr. <HI>Ames,</HI> which a&s;&s;ent
as it is expre&s;&s;ed in his defence P. 107. in the&s;e words, <HI>This we do willingly grant,</HI>
<PB N="45" REF="34">
is al&s;o in the <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">ame words alledged by the An&s;wer in P. 4. But this is wholly pa&s;&s;ed o|ver
by Mr. <HI>Rutherford</HI> in &s;ilence. Now two &s;uch men as the&s;e being alledged in the
An&s;wer, as plainly affirming that the combination of Churches into Cla&s;&s;es and Sy|nods
mu&s;t neither <HI>tollere</HI> nor <HI>minuere,</HI> take away not impaire or dimini&s;h the liberty
or power of Churches, but only &s;erve for the directing and furthering of the &s;ame,
And the one of them being the chiefe Patron of the power of Cla&s;&s;es and Synods, It
is &s;ome marvell to me that no word of An&s;wer is vouch&s;afed to them by Mr. <HI>Ruther|ford,</HI>
but that their words are thus pa&s;&s;ed by with &s;ilence, and the name of one of
them not &s;o much as mentioned. How ever this is cleere, that he that gain&s;ayes the
An&s;wer in this pa&s;&s;age, hath not only the An&s;wer, but al&s;o the Reverend Author here
mentioned to be again&s;t him. But let us come to con&s;ider of Mr. <HI>Rutherford</HI> his An|&s;wer
which he &s;ubjoyneth in the&s;e words, <HI>viz.</HI></P>
<P>Power of Iuri&s;diction floweth from the e&s;&s;ence of a Congregation in an
Iland, <HI>ergo</HI> a totall and compleat power of Iuri&s;diction floweth from the
e&s;&s;ence of a Church or Congregation con&s;ociated, it followeth no wayes.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w</HI> I de&s;ire the rea&s;on may be laid down according to our true meaning there|in,
and in its full &s;trength; and then the former part thereof mu&s;t not only &s;peak of
power of Iuri&s;diction flowing from the e&s;&s;ence of a Church that want neighbours, but
of entire power, for thereof is the que&s;tion; and in the latter part the termes mu&s;t
no: be a Church con&s;ociated but a Church that hath neighbours; Now if entire pow|er
and Iuri&s;diction do flow from the e&s;&s;ence of a Church, and therefore this e&s;&s;ence
of a Church being found in a Congregation that wants neighbours, this entirene&s;&s;e
of power mu<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">t thereupon be granted to &s;uch a Congregation; I then demand why
the like entirene&s;&s;e of power mu&s;t not be granted as well to a Congregation that hath
neighbours, &s;ith the e&s;&s;ence of a Church is found in this Congregation, as well as in
the other. For ought I &s;ee either the e&s;&s;ence of a Church mu&s;t be denyed to a Con|gregation
that hath neighbours or el&s;e it will follow that entirene&s;&s;e of power mu&s;t
be granted to &s;uch a Congregation, Ri&s;ibility and power of rea&s;on flowing immedi|ately
and nece&s;&s;arily from the e&s;&s;ence of a man, and power to defend it &s;elfe and
purge out excrements flowing in like &s;ort from the e&s;&s;ence of a humane body, and
power to governe it &s;elf with family government flowing in like &s;ort from the e&s;&s;ence
of a family; therefore we mu&s;t not grant the&s;e powers to be entire in &s;uch a man, &s;uch
a body, or &s;uch a family as is alone, and deny the &s;ame to one that hath neighbours,
but mu&s;t grant them alike unto all, becau&s;e this power flowes from their very e&s;&s;ence,
which is as truly found in &s;uch as have neighbours, as it is in tho&s;e that are alone.
And the like may be &s;aid in other ca&s;es. And why it &s;hould be otherwi&s;e in a Congre|gationall
Church, that the power of the Iuri&s;diction flowing from the e&s;&s;ence of &s;uch
a Church &s;hould therefore be entire in &s;uch a Congregation as is alone in an Iland,
and yet not entire in a Congregation that hath neighbours, though this Congregati|on
hath the e&s;&s;ence of a Church as well as the other, why the&s;e Congregations I &s;ay
&s;hould thus greatly differ in their power, and yet be alike in their e&s;&s;ence from
whence their power doth flow, for my part I yet do not under&s;tand the rea&s;on.</P>
<P>Nor doth that &s;atisfy which Mr. <HI>Rutherford</HI> here alledgeth, <HI>That one Pa&s;tor
in a Congregation hath as a Pa&s;tor power to rebuke &s;in and to admini&s;ter
the Sacraments, and yet when three Pa&s;tors are added to help him he hath</HI>
<GAP DESC="duplicate" EXTENT="1 page"><PB N="48" REF="35">
<GAP DESC="duplicate" EXTENT="1 page"><PB N="45" REF="35">
<PB N="56" REF="36">
<HI>not the &s;ole power of rebuking &s;in, and the &s;ole and entire power to admini|&s;ter
the Sacraments, but the&s;e three Pa&s;tors have power with him:</HI>
This I conceive doth not help the matter at all: For though it be true that the&s;e
three Pa&s;tors being added to the fir&s;t have each of them the like power as the
fir&s;t had, yet the power of the fir&s;t for the performance of the&s;e things mentioned, is
as comple<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">t in him notwith&s;tanding this addition, as it was before, and not any whit
abated nor impayred thereby: And the rea&s;on is, becau&s;e matters of order flowing
from the e&s;&s;ence of a Pa&s;tor may bee &s;ufficiently and compleatly performed by one
Pa&s;tor &s;ingly, which acts of Iuri&s;diction cannot. Mr. <HI>Rutherford</HI> his own words in
this ca&s;e are the&s;e, <HI>viz. A &s;ingle Pa&s;tor may Mini&s;terially give out Com|mandements
in the authority of Chri&s;t, but hee cannot him&s;elfe cen&s;ure or
Excommunicate the contraveners of tho&s;e Commandements:</HI> Due Right,
<HI>Page 387. And againe, Page 387, 388 It is proper is acts of Iuri&s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">ic|tion
Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall that they cannot be exerci&s;ed by one alone, but mu&s;t be
exerci&s;ed by a &s;ociety: but a Pa&s;tor as a Pa&s;tor him&s;elfe alone without any
collaterally joyned with him exerci&s;eth his Pa&s;torall acts of Preaching
and admini&s;tring the Sacraments.</HI> Now if a Pa&s;tor as a Pa&s;tor him&s;elf alone
without any collatterally joyned with him, may thus exerci&s;e his Pa&s;torall acts, then
indeed the acce&s;&s;e or addition of other Pa&s;tors is not at all de&s;tructive of his Pa&s;torall
power, but he &s;till retaineth the &s;ame as compleat and perfect as before, becau&s;e hee
doth the&s;e acts as a Pa&s;tor and remaineth a Pa&s;tor &s;till. But how this example and
in&s;tance can any thing further Mr. <HI>Ruth<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">rford</HI> his purpo&s;e, I do not under&s;tand. For
his intention is to make good that a Congregation may have entire power when it is
alone, a<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">d yet not &s;o when other Congregations do ari&s;e; and for the con&s;uming of
this hee brings this in&s;tance and example from a Pa&s;tor that hath a Pa&s;torall power
afore other Pa&s;tors are added; who by the addition of others hath no le&s;&s;e power
then afore; which example I conceive rather makes again&s;t him then for him.
<HI>For &s;aith he, Page 456. Their Pa&s;torall power added to him is Cumula|tive
and auxiliary, but not privative or de&s;tructive of his Pa&s;torall power,
and therefore that the fir&s;t Pa&s;tor &s;uffereth lo&s;&s;e by the addition of the&s;e
three to him, who, &s;aith he, will &s;ay this?</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> I know none that will &s;ay it; but if their power be Cumulative and auxi|liary
to his Pa&s;torall power, and no wayes privative or de&s;tructive thereof, then
what power he had afore they were added, the &s;ame he hath &s;till in as great mea&s;ure
as formerly, and &s;o his Pa&s;torall acts are as perfect and valid as they were before.
Now let the &s;ame bee granted to a Congregation that hath neighbour Congregations
added, and we have what we demand: And if this be not granted, then though the
power of tho&s;e other Pa&s;tors be Cumulative and auxiliary to the other Pa&s;tor, yet
the power of tho&s;e other Congregations &s;eemes not &s;o to the former Congregation,
but rather privative or de&s;tructive of its power, and then how can this example con|firme
our Brothers purpo&s;e, or how can it be avoided but the example which he pro|duceth
doth make again&s;t him&s;elfe? Sure if the power of the&s;e other Pa&s;tors bee not
de&s;tructive to the former Pa&s;tors power, but auxiliary thereto, &s;o that what power
<PB N="65" REF="36">
he had before, the &s;ame he retayneth &s;till, and in the &s;ame mea&s;ure, then it mu&s;t bee
&s;o likew<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;e in a Congregation when neighbour Congregations are added, or el&s;e this
example will not &s;uit: But make the examples to agree and our cau&s;e is advantaged
thereby.</P>
<P>Our Brethren doe conceive the power of Congregations in its kind and
e&s;&s;ence to be Monarchicall, &s;o as if any power from con&s;ociated Congrega|tions
be added thereunto, the Congregations power Monarchicall is dimi|ni&s;hed
and the e&s;&s;ence of it changed.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> The power of Congregations we <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">old to be Mini&s;teriall, as being delega|ted
from Chri&s;t Ie&s;us, and to be exerci&s;ed according to his appointment; and in him
alone and in no other do we place this Monarchicall power; according to what the
Holy Gho&s;t witne&s;&s;eth, that there are differences of admini&s;trations but the &s;ame
Lord, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 12. 5. And though our Brother is plea&s;ed to put this upon us,
that we conceive the power of Congregations to bee Monarchicall, yet in truth the
&s;ame is farre from us: Nor do I thinke that &s;o much as one of us can be named, that
at any time hath &s;o &s;poken: Nor doth &s;uch a thing follow from any thing delivered
by us concerning the power of Congregations. For as for that which here he intima|teth
and el&s;ewhere expre&s;&s;eth more plainly, &s;o that the power of Iuri&s;diction in Con|gregations
is clo&s;ely made void or de&s;troyed by that power which &s;ome a&s;cribe unto
Cla&s;&s;es, if this be holden by us, doth it thence follow that we hold the power of Con|gregations
to be Monarchical<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="2 letters"> It followes not at all. For then by the like rea&s;on
I could prove that him&s;elfe d<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">th hold a power Monarchicall in the univer&s;all or Pro|vinciall
Churches: For he expre&s;ly affirmeth, Page 337. <HI>That the Popes power
de&s;troyeth the power of the Church univer&s;all, and the Prelates power
de&s;troyeth the power of the Church whereof hee is pretended Pa&s;tor.</HI>
And yet I hope he doth not hold a Monarchicall power in the one Chu<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">ch nor in the
other, nor in any Church or Churches but in Chri&s;t alone; nor can the &s;ame bee
truly concluded upon that which hee affirmeth of de&s;troying the power of Churches
by the power of the Pope and Prelate. And if not, how then can any man conclude
again&s;t us that we hold a Monarchicall power in Congregations, though wee &s;hould
hold that the power of Congregations is de&s;troyed or dimini&s;hed by that power which
&s;ome would give unto Cla&s;&s;es<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter"> If our pr<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">mi&s;es will warrant him to fa&s;ten &s;uch a
Tenent upon us, his own will give a warrant for the like again&s;t him&s;elfe. And if
the ground be in&s;ufficient to beare &s;uch a conclu&s;ion again&s;t him, as I confe&s;&s;e it is,
I know no &s;ufficient ground why the &s;ame &s;hould be imputed unto us.</P>
<P>Compleat and en<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">ire power to rule both the Congrega<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">ion and members
of con&s;ociated Churches in &s;o farre as they do keep communion with that
Congregation, and may either edifie or Scandalize them, floweth not im|meaiately
and <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">ece&s;&s;arily from the e&s;&s;ence of every Congregation even in
remote Ilands not con&s;ociated with others, that we never &s;aid.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;wer.</HI> Indeed it were an ab&s;urd and gro&s;&s;e &s;aying for any man to &s;ay, that a
Congregation in a remote Iland not con&s;ociated with others &s;hould have power, yea
compleat and entire power to rule the Congregation and members of Churches con|&s;ociated
<PB N="58" REF="37">
and that this &s;hould flow immediately and nece&s;&s;arily from the e&s;&s;ence of
&s;uch a Congregation. But there is no need that our Brother &s;hould cleere him&s;elfe
from this &s;aying, for I know none that imputes it to him. Neverthele&s;&s;e, the &s;aying
here <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="faint" EXTENT="2 letters">joyned cannot be denyed, for they are his own <HI>verb<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="faint" EXTENT="1 letter">ti<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="faint" EXTENT="2 letters">.</HI></P>
<P>Fir&s;t, the ordinary power of Iuri&s;diction becau&s;e of neere&s;t vicinity
and contiguity of members is given by Ie&s;us Chri&s;t to one Congregation in
an I&s;le, becau&s;e that Church is a Church properly &s;o called: It is a little
City, and a little Kingdome of Ie&s;us Chri&s;t, having within it &s;elfe power
of the <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="faint" EXTENT="1 letter">ord and Sacraments and that is a Church and hath the e&s;&s;ence of
a Church to which agree the e&s;&s;entiall notes of a Church: now Preaching
of the word and admini&s;tration of the Sacraments are e&s;&s;entiall notes of a
vi&s;ible Church: Page 302.</P>
<P>Second, a Congregation is a Church wanting nothing of the being and
e&s;&s;ence of a Church, Page 302.</P>
<P>Third, where con&s;ociation is not, Ordination and Excommunication
may be done by one &s;ingle Congregation, Page 338.</P>
<P>Fourth, that in &s;uch ca&s;es <HI>(viz.</HI> When a Church is in an Iland it &s;elfe
alone) they have the word Preached and entire power of Di&s;cipline whole
and entire within them&s;elves to Excommunicate Scandalous per&s;ons, is
not extraordinary, Page 454.</P>
<P>Fift, it floweth co<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="blotted" EXTENT="1 letter">naturally from a Church to which agreeth the
e&s;&s;ence of a Church, to exerci&s;e Iuri&s;diction over all its owne members,
<HI>ibid.</HI></P>
<P>Sixt, neither doth a Congregation tran&s;gre&s;&s;e any rules of Chri&s;t at
all, when it exerci&s;eth entire Power of cen&s;ures within it &s;elfe, whereas
there be no con&s;ociated Churches to &s;hare with it in that power, <HI>ibid.</HI></P>
<P>Seaventh, a Congregation is capable of entire Iuri&s;diction, becau&s;e it
is a Church, <HI>Ibid.</HI></P>
<P>Such &s;ayings as the&s;e him&s;elfe hath delivered in the pages and places here cited, and
in the words and termes here expre&s;&s;ed; and therefore from the&s;e he cannot cleere
him&s;elfe And if from the&s;e the entirene&s;&s;e of Iuri&s;diction in a Church that hath
neighbours may ju&s;tly be deduced, as I conceive it may, and have above manife&s;ted,
it will then but little availe him to wa&s;h his hands from the &s;tayne of that other ab|&s;urd
&s;aying afore mentioned, which no man that I know do charge him withall. For
as long as the&s;e other &s;ayings do &s;tand unrecalled, &s;o long wee have cleere grounds
from him&s;elfe and his own words, for entirene&s;&s;e of Iuri&s;diction in every Congrega|tionall
Church, and &s;o for the weakening of his cau&s;e, and for the &s;trengthening of
our own.</P>
<P>A power to governe well and according to the rule of the Word added
to an other power to governe well and according to the Word, is an auxi|liary
<PB N="59" REF="37">
power and no way de&s;tructive to that power to which it is added. In|deed
a power to governe well added to a power of male-admini&s;tration in a
Congregation is de&s;tructive of that power, and rea&s;on it &s;hould bee &s;o,
becau&s;e Christ never gave any &s;uch power of male-admini&s;tration to a
Congregation.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Here our Brother &s;peakes of two ca&s;es, fir&s;t of a Power of governing well
added to a power of governing well. Second, of a power of governing well added to a
power of governing ill; but be&s;ides the&s;e, there is a third ca&s;e which had need to bee
con&s;idered al&s;o, <HI>viz.</HI> A power of governing ill added to a power of governing well,
which may be the ca&s;e when the power of Cla&s;&s;is is added to a Congregation; for it
is not impo&s;&s;ible but the Congregation may be in the right and the Cla&s;&s;is in the
wrong. Now what &s;hall be &s;aid or done in this <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">a&s;e? Shall the Congregation now
have the free exerci&s;e of its power, or &s;hall it not? To &s;ay yea, would &s;atisfie the
minds of many, if the Congregation them&s;elves may be judge that they are in the
right, or if it were determined who mu&s;t judge thereof. And to &s;ay no, and that the
power mu&s;t &s;till be in this erring Cla&s;&s;is, were to &s;ubject righteou&s;ne&s;&s;e to wicked|ne&s;&s;e,
and truth to fal&s;hood, and I conceive our Brother will not maintain &s;uch pow|er
in a compound or Presbytery or Cla&s;&s;is. For in Page 335. &s;peaking of this very
ca&s;e, and the greater Presbytery is wrong in their voicing, and the Elders of a Con|gregationall
Church are right, and have the be&s;t in judging of a ca&s;e before them, he
plainly affirmeth, <HI>That the power which in this ca&s;e the Presbytery exer|ci&s;eth
is not of Chri&s;t, and that</HI> de jure <HI>the power of the greater Presby|tery
in this ca&s;e ought to be &s;wallowed up of the voices of the Elders of a
Congregation, though they be fewer in number.</HI> Now if this be &s;o, then the
thing in que&s;tion is &s;till as uncertain as before, and &s;till wee are to &s;eeke where the
power of cen&s;ures or Iuri&s;diction doth finally re&s;ide. For in the one place our Bro|ther
tels us, Chri&s;t never gave power of male-admini&s;tration to a Congregation, and
in the other he tels us the like of a Cla&s;&s;is or great Presbytery, and that Chri&s;t hath
given no power to any Church to erre. By which &s;ayings we are left at great uncer|tainty:
for &s;till the que&s;tion will be whether the Congregation doth erre or no, and
&s;o whether the Cla&s;&s;is do erre or no, and unle&s;&s;e it be determined who mu&s;t judge of
this, we are &s;till but where wee were, and no neerer an i&s;&s;ue then before.</P>
<P>This indeed is mo&s;t true and mu&s;t be &s;o acknowledged, that though the Lord Al|mighty
have given a power unto Societies, whether they bee families, Common|wealths,
or Churches, and have made &s;undry of them &s;ubordinate to none other the
like Societies in the exerci&s;e of their power, but to have &s;upremacy of power within
them&s;elves, yet he hath al&s;o given them ju&s;t and holy rules in his word for the direct|ing
of them in the u&s;e of this Power, from which rules it is not lawfull for them to
&s;werve or go a&s;tray; but if they do, it will be &s;in unto them, and he will &s;urely re|quire
it of them: But now between the&s;e two the power it &s;elfe and the abu&s;e or right
u&s;e of the power, we mu&s;t carefully di&s;tingui&s;h, for though abu&s;e of their power bee
not given of God, from whom comes nothing but good, yet the power it &s;elfe being
good is given of him, and is &s;o to be acknowledged. And though abu&s;e of their power
do ju&s;tly de&s;erve at his hands that they &s;hould be deprived of the power it &s;elfe, ye<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">
<PB N="60" REF="38">
God doth not alwayes forthwith deale with men according to their de&s;erts herein, but
many times continues &s;till to them their power, though they have abu&s;ed the &s;ame,
much le&s;&s;e doth he allow others to deprive them of this power becau&s;e of every abu&s;e
thero<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">: witne&s;&s;e among others the examples of the Pagan Princes in the Apo&s;tles times,
who through their ignorance, infidelity, pride and other &s;ins, could not but in great
mea&s;ure abu&s;e their authority, and yet the Holy Gho&s;t commands the Chri&s;tians to
be &s;ubject and obedient thereunto, <HI>Rom. 13. 1, 2. &amp;c. Tit</HI> 3. 1. Not to obey them
indeed, in doing evill at their commands, for in &s;uch ca&s;e they mu&s;t obey God rather
then man, as <HI>Act</HI> 5. 29. Yet &s;till they mu&s;t be &s;ubject to the powers either actively
or pa<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="2 letters">ively, even then when the powers were &s;infully abu&s;ed. Even &s;o, if a family
&s;hall abu&s;e their power, it doth not follow that other families, may lawfully for this
cau&s;e take away their power from them: Or if a Corporation &s;hall &s;o offend, it will
not follow that other Corporations may deprive them of their power. And if it be
&s;o in Commonwealths, and families, why may wee not &s;ay the &s;ame of Churches?
Or how will it follow, if a Church &s;hall abu&s;e their power, that other
Churches in &s;uch ea&s;es may take away the power from &s;uch a Church?
For ought I &s;ee, this will not follow at all, no more then the other. For though Chri&s;t
have not given to any Church a power of male admini&s;tration as Mr. <HI>Rutherford</HI>
&s;peaks, yet hath he given to every Church a power of admini&s;tration, which if they
manage not aright but do abu&s;e the &s;ame, the Lord Ie&s;us will be di&s;plea&s;ed with them
for this abu&s;e, and other Churches may and ought to advi&s;e them and admoni&s;h
them and te&s;tifie again&s;t them for the &s;ame; but for the power it &s;elfe, as Chri&s;t
him&s;elfe doth not forthwith deprive them thereof, &s;o much le&s;&s;e may other Churches
take it from them, for who gave them this authority? <HI>Per in parem non habet pote&s;|tatem:</HI>
and Churches are all of equall authority, and not one &s;uperior or inferior to
another, as therefore when children or &s;ervants in a family are not governed as they
ought to be, yet neighbour families have not warrant becau&s;e of this male admini&s;tra|tion
to invade the rights and de&s;troy the power of &s;uch a family, even &s;o it is in this
ca&s;e of Churches&punc; this male-admini&s;tration in a Church is not forthwith a &s;ufficient
warrant for neighbour Churches to invade the rights of &s;uch a Church, and to take
away its power from it. E&s;pecially if we do con&s;ider that this male-admini&s;tration in
a Congregation may po&s;&s;ibly be but pretended and not reall, and that the admini|&s;tration
of the Cla&s;&s;es may paradventure be really &s;uch; in which ca&s;e Mr. <HI>Ruther|ford</HI>
&s;aith the power of the Cla&s;&s;is is not of Chri&s;t, but their voices ought <HI>de jure</HI> to
be &s;wallowed up by the Congregation and the Elders thereof. This argument there|fore
from male-admini&s;tration of the power of a Congregation, which Mr <HI>Rutherford</HI>
&s;aith, it is rea&s;on &s;hould be de&s;troyed by another power added to it, meaning the pow|er
of a Cla&s;&s;is is of no &s;ufficient force to take away the power of a Congregation at
all, not to e&s;tabli&s;h the power of the Cla&s;&s;is over the &s;ame, being as ju&s;tly applyable
again&s;t the Cla&s;&s;is it &s;elfe: Therefore for ought that doth yet appeare, &s;upreame Mi|ni&s;teriall
Church power which I conceive mu&s;t needs be &s;omewhere, may as well be in
the Congregation as in the Cla&s;&s;is, and can neither by this argument of male-admini|&s;tration
nor by any other that we have yet &s;eene, bee placed in the Cla&s;&s;is any more
then in the Congregation.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="12" TYPE="chapter">
<PB N="61" REF="38">
<HEAD>CHAP. XII.</HEAD>
<HEAD TYPE="sub">Whether it be again&s;t the light of Nature that the adver&s;e
party be judge; and whether M^r. Rutherford can &s;afely
&s;ay that none of them do &s;o teach, and whether this
&s;aying that parties may not be judges do make
again&s;t entirene&s;se of power in a Con|gation,
any more then in a gene|rall
or Nationall Councell.</HEAD>
<P><HI>_THe next place where Mr.</HI> Rutherford <HI>deales with the An&s;wer, is in his
P. 456. Where alledging Mr.</HI> Tomp&s;on <HI>and me, Page 5. he hath the&s;e
words as ours,</HI> viz. If it be again&s;t the light of Nature that
the adver&s;e party be the &s;ole Iudge, which mu&s;t be if the
&s;ole power of Iuri&s;diction be in the Congregation (as wee
grant in an extraordinary ca&s;e and the Congregation is in an
Iland it &s;elfe alone) and &s;o it &s;hall be lawfull for a &s;ingle Congregation to
do that which is again&s;t all equity, and the very light of Nature, it mu&s;t
then follow, that it is not again&s;t the light of Nature that a Congregation
though con&s;ociated with other Congregations have entire Juri&s;diction
within it &s;elfe.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Our words in the Page alledged are more pro&s;picuous and cleere, then
the&s;e which are here &s;et down for ours: neither do wee make any mention of a Con|gregation
in an Iland, nor yet of a Congregation con&s;ociated with other Churches,
lea&s;t of all do we &s;ay (or report others to &s;ay) that it is lawfull for a &s;ingle Congre|gation
to do that which is again&s;t all equity and the very light of Nature; none of
the&s;e things are ours. And therefore, that our true meaning may plainely
appeare as it is, I will tran&s;cribe a few of our words, which are the&s;e, <HI>viz.
Sure we cannot thinke that there can be &s;uch a ca&s;e imagined, wherein
you would grant it lawfull for a &s;ingle Congregation 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;elfe; which &s;eemes to us plainly to prove that for a Con|gregation
to bee &s;o independent as to be the finall Judge of offences within
it &s;elfe, is not again&s;t all equity nor again&s;t the light of Nature, as is in|timated
by you.</HI> The&s;e are our words, much differing from tho&s;e which Mr. <HI>Ru|therford</HI>
&s;ets down as ours, which I thought meet to relate out of the An&s;wer, that our
<PB N="62" REF="39">
meaning might appeare as it is, and no otherwi&s;e. And now let us heare what our
Brother &s;ubjoyneth for an&s;wer.</P>
<P>None of us, &s;aith he, Do teach that it is again&s;t the light of Nature
that the adver&s;e party be the Iudge: it might fall out in a generall Coun|cell
lawfully convened from which their is no Provocation: Yea and in a
Nationall Councell (for all Councels may erre) the adver&s;e party may
Judge; as it was a lawfull Councell according to a Church con&s;titution
that condemned Chri&s;t of Bla&s;phemy and they were al&s;o his enemies.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> And may it not al&s;o fall out in a Provinc<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">all Synod, and in a Cla&s;&s;is or
Presbtytery of many Churches? I &s;uppo&s;e it cannot be denyed, but the Iudges in all
the&s;e may be the adver&s;e parties; and &s;o if the adver&s;e party may not be Iudge, then
neither generall nor Nationall Councels, nor Provinciall Synods, nor Cla&s;&s;es, nor
Presbyteries may be Iudges; becau&s;e there is none of the&s;e but po&s;&s;ibly they may be
parties. And &s;o this argument, parties may not be Iudges, doth make no more again&s;t
the Congregations power of judging, then again&s;t all Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall A&s;&s;emblies
what&s;oever. Vnle&s;&s;e therefore men would overthrow the power of all Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall
Iudicatories what&s;oever without exception of any, they can have no help from this
Argument to overthrow the power of Iuri&s;diction in Congregations. Not to in&s;i&s;t
upon that which might al&s;o be truly alledged, that the Objection hath the like
force, (if any at all) again&s;t civill Iudicatories.</P>
<P>But is it &s;o indeed as our Brother affirmeth, that none of them do teach that it is
again&s;t the light of Nature that the adver&s;e party be the judge? I thinke he &s;hould
not thus have &s;poken, for I am much mi&s;taken if the contrary hereunto be not cer|tainly
true. For fir&s;t of all, I alledge the words of Reverend Mr, <HI>Herle,</HI> in his
Book of Independency Page 5. alledged in the An&s;wer: Page 6, the very Pag. which
here Mr <HI>Rutherford</HI> is dealing again&s;t. In which place of Mr. <HI>Herle</HI> there are the&s;e
words, <HI>viz. That there ought to be graduall Judicatories, wherein the
agrieved party may appeale from the le&s;&s;er to the higher, that again&s;t the
very light of Nature the adver&s;e party be not the &s;ole Iudge and party too
in the cau&s;e, there can be no Ceremony or Type in this,</HI> Next of all I alledge
the words of the &s;ame Reverend Author in his Page 10&punc; (Which is al&s;o alled|ged
in the forementioned place of the An&s;wer) Where the words are the&s;e,
<HI>What if a Brother offend not a particular Brother, but the whole Congre|gation?
What if ten Brethren offend the whole or part? Shall we thinke
the offence fals not within our Saviours remed or complaint or Appeale
here? That the offended party be not again&s;t all equity the &s;ole and finall
Judge of the offence.</HI> In which places wee &s;ee it is plaine, yet this Reverend Au|thor
counts it again&s;t the very light of Nature; that the adver&s;e party &s;hould bee
Iudge and party too in the cau&s;e, and that it is again&s;t all equity that the party offen|ded
&s;hould bee &s;ole and finall Iudge of the offence. And therefore it is marvellous
that Mr. <HI>Rutherford</HI> &s;hould &s;ay that none of them do &s;o teach: Yea, it is the more
marvellous ina&s;much as both the&s;e places of Mr. <HI>Herle</HI> are expre&s;ly mentioned in
<PB N="63" REF="39">
that very page of the An&s;wer which here Mr. <HI>Rutherford</HI> is di&s;puting again&s;t. And
therefore it he had not remembred that him&s;elfe had read the &s;ame in Mr <HI>Herle,</HI> as
like enough he had, yet finding the &s;ame alledged by us in that Scripture of ou<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">s, it is
marvell hee would not turne to the places alledged to &s;earch and &s;ee whether the
thing were &s;o or no, afore he had denyed the &s;ame. Whereas on the contrary, whe|ther
he &s;earched or &s;earched not, this we &s;ee that he roundly affirmes, that none of
them do so teach; to which &s;aying I know not how to a&s;&s;ent, our eyes having &s;o plain|ly
&s;eene and read the direct contrary,</P>
<P>Yea and further, it is yet more marvellous that Mr. <HI>Rutherford</HI> &s;hould thus write,
con&s;idering not only what hath been already &s;aid, but al&s;o what him&s;elfe hath written
el&s;ewhere: I will mention a few of his own &s;ayings, and then him&s;elfe &s;hall be <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">udge,
whether the thing we have now in hand was by him advi&s;e<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">ly and well &s;poken. In
his <HI>Pe<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">ceable Plea,</HI> Page 218 he hath the&s;e words, <HI>When the</HI> Graecian <HI>Church
offendeth the</HI> Hebrew <HI>Church, the</HI> Hebrew <HI>Church cannot complaine to
the</HI> Graecian <HI>Church, for the Law forbiddeth the party to bee Judge.</HI>
And what Law hee meanes may be perceived by his words in Page 208. of the &s;ame
Treati&s;e, where he &s;aith, <HI>If one man be wronged and &s;ee truth &s;uffer by parti|ality,
the Law of Nature will warrant him to appeale to an A&s;&s;embly,
where there is more light and greater Authority, as the weaker may fly to
the &s;tronger.</HI> Now let him&s;elfe be judge whether in the&s;e te&s;timonies compared, he
do not teach, that it is again&s;t the Law of Nature that parties &s;hould be Iudge<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">, and
that therefore men may appeale from them. Againe, tho&s;e words Page 27 of the
&s;ame Book are &s;o plaine as that nothing can be more, <HI>The&s;e words &s;aith he what
&s;oever yee bind on earth, &amp;c. Mu&s;t be meant only of the Apo&s;tles, and of
the Church,</HI> ver&s;e 18. <HI>Yea, and it mu&s;t exclude</HI> Peter <HI>and his offending
Brother, &s;uppo&s;e they were both beleevers; becau&s;e parties by the Law of
Nature and Nations cannot be Iudges.</HI> La&s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">ly, tho&s;e words are expre&s;&s;e in
his <HI>Due Right of Presbytery,</HI> in his &s;ee <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">nd P. 338, 339. Where hee writes thus,
<HI>If according to the Law of Nature and Nations, no man can be Iudge in
his own cau&s;e, then are appeales from the Elder&s;hip of one
Congregation, when they are a party to the cau&s;ed per&s;on, Naturall&mdash;but the former
is rea&s;on, Nature, Law of Nations.</HI> Ergo <HI>&s;o is the latter.</HI> In the A&s;&s;ump|tion
of which Sylogi&s;me he plainly affirmes that it is rea&s;on, Nature, and the Law of
Nations, that no man may be judge in his own cau&s;e, and by all this I &s;uppo&s;e t<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter"> is
manife&s;t that the thing which he &s;aith none of them do teach is expre&s;ly and plainly
taught by &s;ome of them, and among others even by him&s;elfe, who therefore ought
not to have denyed the &s;ame, nor can bee cleered from much forgetfulne&s;&s;e in &s;o
doing.</P>
<P>And if &s;o great an over&s;ight be found in him, I hope him&s;elf may thereby be intrea|ted
to be tender of agravating matters again&s;t us or others, at lea&s;twi&s;e not &s;o farre to
agravate them, as to impute unto us matters which we do not hold: for a mans owne
<PB N="64" REF="40">
infirmities &s;hould make him more equitable and favourable towards others. And
Chri&s;tian Readers may be warned hereby not ha&s;tily to receive all that Mr. <HI>Ruther|ford</HI>
hath written, afore they have duly examined and tryed the &s;ame, whether the
things bee &s;o or not, for wee &s;ee through forgetfulne&s;&s;e or otherwi&s;e hee may greatly
mi&s;take him&s;elfe, and mi&s;&s;e of the truth, and give forth &s;uch &s;ayings and expre&s;&s;ions
for truth, as are in no &s;ort to be maintained but recalled, though neverthele&s;&s;e he is o|therwi&s;e
a man of great worth, and &s;o ever to be acknowledged.</P>
<P>We teach that it is not Congruous to the wi&s;dome of Christ, nor
to the light of Nature, that Chri&s;t &s;hould have appointed all the ordinary
Church Courts, &s;o many thou&s;and Congregations, who may rather crie
then extraordinary and higher Synods to bee the onely ordinary Iudges in
their own cau&s;e.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> The&s;e qualifications and limitations of the matter of parties being Iudges
are &s;uch as to my remembrance I never heard given afore now. Now indeed it is &s;aid
1. That all Congregations being &s;o many thou&s;and. 2. May not be the only ordi|nary
Iudges in their own cau&s;e, but it would bee again&s;t the wi&s;dome of Chri&s;t and
light of Nature if it &s;hould &s;o be; Yet formerly it was delivered ab&s;olutely and &s;im|ply,
that it is again&s;t the light of Nature for parties to be Iudges, without any &s;uch
modifications and qualifications as now Mr. <HI>Rutherf.</HI> gives to help the matter withall.
Neverthele&s;&s;e by qualifying the thing in this &s;ort, it &s;eemes thereby to bee &s;till grant|ed
that though &s;o many thou&s;and Congregations may not ordinarily be Iudge in
their own cau&s;e, but the light of Nature will be again&s;t it, yet for &s;ome Congregati|ons
and at &s;ome times the thing may be allowed well enough: el&s;e why is the thing
denyed only to &s;o many Congregations, and ordinarily, if it be not thereby implyed
that &s;ome Congregations and at &s;ome times may thus practi&s;e? Now hereupon the
que&s;tion groweth, whether &s;ome at &s;ome times may bee allowed to do contrary to the
light of Nature, though all may not: or whether the light of Nature bee changed
when there comes to be many Congregations, and be not the &s;ame that it was before,
when there was no more Congregations but one, whether I &s;ay &s;ome new light of
Nature do ari&s;e with the ri&s;e of new Congregations, &s;o that when they are many it
would be again&s;t this light for them thus to bee Iudges, though it was not &s;o when
there was but one: or whether we mu&s;t &s;ay the light of Nature remaining in the &s;ame,
one Congregation remaining alone may be allowed to do contrary thereto, but many
may not. It &s;eemes to be inconvenient and ha<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">d to affirme either of the&s;e; and yet the
one or the other &s;eemes unavoidable by this that Mr. <HI>Rutherford</HI> here teacheth. For
let it be granted that a Congregation that is alone, yea a generall Councell, yea a
Nationall Councell al&s;o may be Iudges in their own cau&s;e, and that no light of Na|ture
is again&s;t the &s;ame, and yet many Congregations may not be &s;o, but then the
light of Nature will be again&s;t it, let the&s;e things I &s;ay be granted, which are all of
them granted and taught by Mr. <HI>Rutherford,</HI> and then I de&s;ire to know how the in|conveniences
mentioned can be avoided; I meane how it can be avoided, but either
&s;ome men or Church A&s;&s;emblies may lawfully do that which is again&s;t the very light
of Nature, or el&s;e that the light of Nature is changed when many Congregations do
<PB N="65" REF="40">
ari&s;e, from that which it was when there was but one. Yea the difficulty and intrica<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">y
in this way is yet more, if it be well con&s;idered. For fir&s;t of all when a Congregation
is alone, it is yeelded that it is not again&s;t Natures light for them to bee Iudges in
their own cau&s;e. Secondly, when many Congregations do ari&s;e, now it is &s;aid it is a|gain&s;t
&s;uch light, that they &s;hould &s;o be Iudges: Yet thirdly, when the&s;e Congrega|tions
do gather into a Nationall Councell, then this light of Nature will allow
them to be Iudges, as in the fir&s;t ca&s;e of a &s;ingle Congregation that is alone: And
the &s;ame is al&s;o &s;aid of the generall Councell: &s;o that here is &s;trange varying and
changing of the light of Nature, and of that which is again&s;t it, lawfull or unlawfull
thereby. And when good rea&s;on and ground is given for the cleering of the&s;e things,
we &s;hall then con&s;ider further thereof, and &s;ee more then yet we do. In the meane
time taking what is granted, that no light of Nature forbids a Congregation when it
is alone, to have entirene&s;&s;e of Iuri&s;diction within it &s;elfe, nor forbids the &s;ame to
the generall or Nationall Councels, I thinke it may thence be inferred, that the like
mu&s;t be allowed to Congregationall Churches that have neighbours, and that en|tirene&s;&s;e
of Iuri&s;diction in the&s;e is no more again&s;t the light of Nature, then in the
other. For to &s;ay that one Congregation may have this entirene&s;&s;e of Iuri&s;diction and
the light of Nature allowe<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter"> it, and others may not but the light of Nature forbids it;
yea to &s;ay fir&s;t the light of Nature allowes it, and then it forbids it, and then it al|lowes
it againe, the&s;e are &s;uch ab&s;tru&s;e and intricate things, yea &s;o apparantly incon|gruous
and incon&s;i&s;tent, that it pa&s;&s;eth my under&s;tanding to perceive how they can
&s;tand together.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="13" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. XIII.</HEAD>
<HEAD TYPE="sub">Whether the Churches at The&s;&s;alonica and Ieru&s;alem, were
each of them more then one Congregation; and of M^r.
Baynes his Iudgement therein. Of the A&s;sembly
mentioned Luke 12. And whether our Saviour
did there &s;peake to his Di&s;ciples onely,
or to all the people al&s;o.</HEAD>
<P><HI>_IT is a wonder to me &s;aith our Author Page</HI> 457. That <HI>The&s;&s;alo|nica</HI>
was but one Congregation&mdash;yet the Apo&s;tle a&s;cribeth
to them that which is a note to worthy <HI>Baynes</HI> of the un|merous
multitude of the Church of <HI>Jeru&s;alem,</HI> from
whence went the word of Ged to all the World. 1 <HI>The&s;. 1.
8.</HI> For from you &s;ounded out the word of the Lord not onely in <HI>Macedo|nia,</HI>
and <HI>Achaia,</HI> but in every place your Faith to God-ward is &s;pread
abroad.</P>
<P><PB N="66" REF="41">
<HI>An&s;w.</HI> All this doth not hinder but <HI>The&s;&s;alonica</HI> might be one Congregation,
though perhaps a great one. For that the word did &s;ound out from them to others,
and their Faith to Godward was &s;pread abroad, what is there in all this to prove
they were many Congregations in one Church? And for Mr. <HI>Baynes</HI> whom our Au|thor
worthily counts a worthy man, there is nothing in him that will &s;erve Mr. <HI>Ru|therford</HI>
his purpo&s;e, but much that makes for the contrary. For it is well known in
his Dioce&s;ans Triall he maintaines at large, that Churches by the appointment of
Chr<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;t are Congregationall, and denyes that one Congregation may be one Church:
and in the particular in&s;tances of the Church, at <HI>Jeru&s;alem,</HI> at <HI>Co<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">i<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">th,</HI> at <HI>Ephe&s;us,</HI>
at <HI>Antioch</HI> and others, he holds the very &s;ame that we do, and the direct contrary to
that which Mr. <HI>Rutherford</HI> &s;tands for. And therefore whereas he wonders that <HI>The&s;|&s;alonica</HI>
&s;hould bee one Congregation, con&s;idering what the Apo&s;tle &s;aith of them,
and what Mr. <HI>Baynes</HI> hath &s;aid of <HI>Jeru&s;alem,</HI> I may more ju&s;tly wonder that he &s;hould
once mention Mr. <HI>Baynes</HI> in this cau&s;e. For if ever there was man in this world that
deny<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">d many Congregations to be one Church, and allowed onely &s;uch Churches to
be in&s;tituted of Chri&s;t as may meete ordinarily in one Congregation, this Mr. <HI>Baynes</HI>
was one of them; and therefore a wonder it is to me that Mr. <HI>Rutherford</HI> &s;hould
thinke to have help from him in this que&s;tion. But let us con&s;ider what it is that Mr
<HI>Baynes</HI> doth &s;ay of the Church at <HI>Ieru&s;alem: Why, this which the Apo&s;tle affir|meth
of the</HI> The&s;&s;alonians <HI>Mr.</HI> Baynes <HI>doth make a note of the numerous
multitude of the Church at</HI> Ieru&s;alem. But doth hee make it a note of many
Congregations in one Church at <HI>Ieru&s;alem?</HI> If he do, this were &s;omething to the
purpo&s;e, I grant. But I hope Mr. <HI>Rutherford</HI> will not &s;o report of Mr. <HI>Baynes;</HI> For
it is plaine Mr. <HI>Bayne<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter"></HI> doth not &s;o &s;peake, but expre&s;ly &s;aith the direct contrary; and
therefore what ever numerous multitude might be in that Church, and what ever
might be a note of &s;uch multitude, except Mr. <HI>Baynes</HI> had &s;aid that the multitude was
&s;uch as made many Congregations and yet all but one Church (which he never &s;aid
but the contrary) there is no help to be had from Mr. <HI>Baynes</HI> in this bu&s;ine&s;&s;e. For
who knoweth not that there might be a numerous multitude, and yet but one Congre|gation?
Sure in Mr. <HI>Baynes</HI> his judgement it might be &s;o, and therefore though hee
grant a numerous multitude in this Church at <HI>Jeru&s;alem,</HI> yet Mr. <HI>Rutherford</HI> pur|po&s;e
for many Congregations in <HI>The&s;&s;al<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">nica</HI> and yet all but one Church, is not gai|ned,
nor at all holpen thereby.</P>
<P>Which will better appeare if Mr. <HI>Baynes</HI> his Argumentation in the place which I
conceive Mr. <HI>Rutherford</HI> aymes at, be con&s;idered in Page 3. of his <HI>Dioce&s;ans Tryall,</HI>
he propounds an Argument of theirs who would have many Congregations to be one
Church, taken from the example of the ancient Churches of <HI>Rome</HI> and <HI>Alexandria,</HI>
laid down in the&s;e words: <HI>If the multitude of Chri&s;tians did in</HI> Ieru&s;alem
<HI>&s;o increa&s;e within a little time, that they exceeded the proportion of one
Congregation, how much more likely is it that Chri&s;tians in</HI> Rome <HI>and</HI>
Alexandria <HI>did &s;o increa&s;e in 200 yeares, that they could not keepe in
one particular A&s;&s;embly: But the fir&s;t is true,</HI> Ergo <HI>al&s;o the latter.</HI>
Now when he cames to an&s;wer this Argument, Pag. 18, 19. What doth he then &s;ay.
<HI>Fir&s;t of all he &s;aith, The Propo&s;ition is not of nece&s;&s;ary con&s;equence, for
<PB N="67" REF="41">
there were &s;aith he very extraordinary rea&s;ons of that which was effected
in</HI> Ieru&s;alem: And &s;o he proceeds to mention 5, or 6. rea&s;ons in particular, of
which one is this which it may be Mr. <HI>Rutherford</HI> hath an eye unto, that the &s;tate of
this Church was &s;uch as that it was to &s;end out light to all others, a common aur&s;ery
to the World. And therefore if the thing were granted that in <HI>Jeru&s;alem</HI> there was a
numerous multitude, yea &s;uch a multitude as could not be contained in one Congre|gation,
yet &s;aith he, <HI>It doth not follow from this particular to the &s;o great in|crea&s;ing
of the&s;e Churches, to wit, of</HI> Rome <HI>and</HI> Alexandria <HI>in tract of time.</HI>
And even &s;o may I &s;ay, it doth not follow to the &s;o great increa&s;ing of the Church of
the <HI>The&s;&s;alonians,</HI> there being &s;uch extraordinary rea&s;ons for that which was effected
in <HI>Ieru&s;alem,</HI> as neither <HI>Rome</HI> nor <HI>Alexandria,</HI> nor yet <HI>The&s;&s;alonica</HI> could alledge the
&s;ame. And this is his An&s;wer to the Propo&s;ition. But for the A&s;&s;umption, where Mr.
<HI>Rutherford</HI> his help mu&s;t chiefly lye, to wit, that the multitude of Chri&s;tians in <HI>Ieru&s;a|lem</HI>
did exceed the proportion of one Congregation, this Mr. <HI>Baynes</HI> doth expre&s;ly
deny: not to mention, &s;aith he, <HI>That we do deny the A&s;&s;umption.</HI> Therefore,
the Propo&s;ition being by Mr. <HI>Baynes</HI> not yeelded, and the A&s;&s;umption expre&s;ly deny|ed,
I &s;ee not how Ma&s;ter <HI>Rutherford</HI> can have any help to his cau&s;e from either of
both.</P>
<P>He denyes not, he &s;aith, What M^r. <HI>Tomp&s;on</HI> and I do &s;ay, that 5000
may meet to hear the word, many thou&s;ands were gathered together, <HI>Luke</HI>
12 to heare Chri&s;t.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> If this be not denyed, then &s;uppo&s;e there were 5000 or more in the Church
at <HI>Ieru&s;alem,</HI> it doth not follow therefore that that Church was many Congregations,
and &s;o our purpo&s;e is gained.</P>
<P>But we, he &s;aith, Leave out the inconveniences of thronging &s;o all at
once, for they trod one upon another. Second, Chri&s;t Preached not to all
tho&s;e thou&s;ands at once, for it is expre&s;ly &s;aid ver&s;e 1. Hee began to &s;ay
to his Di&s;ciples; &s;o, Chri&s;t refu&s;ing to Preach to &s;uch a di&s;orderly con|fluence
of people, who could not heare, and his Doctrine being all for his
Di&s;ciples, the very Sermon being Preached to his Di&s;ciples onely&mdash;evidenceth
to me that Chri&s;t condemneth a numerous multitude to heare
at once.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> The Que&s;tion is not about the conveniency or inconveniency of &s;uch ex|ce&s;&s;ively
great A&s;&s;emblies; but whether there be an impo&s;&s;ibility in Nature, and rea|&s;on,
that &s;o many as are &s;aid to bee in the Church at <HI>Ieru&s;alem</HI> &s;hould a&s;&s;emble and
come together in one Congregation; for this is &s;ometimes &s;aid for the proving of
&s;undry Congregations in that one Church. Now if this be not impo&s;&s;ible, then the
plurality of Congregations in that one Church cannot bee concluded by tho&s;e great
multitudes that were therein. And that it is not impo&s;&s;ible for &s;uch great multitudes
to come together in one Congregation, the Scripture alledged <HI>Luke</HI> 12, doth witne&s;&s;e.
If they trod one upon another, that might argue the A&s;&s;embly was very great, and
<PB N="68" REF="42">
that they were very de&s;irous to bee neere unto our Saviour for their better hearing,
but doth not at all prove that &s;uch multitudes are &s;o great as that they cannot po&s;&s;i|bly
be &s;poke unto and heare in one Congregation. <HI>And therefore, whereas our
Brother &s;aith, Chri&s;t preached not to all tho&s;e thou&s;ands at once, and
that he refu&s;ed to Preach to &s;uch a di&s;orderly confluence of People,</HI>
With favour of &s;o worthy a man, I thinke the truth is otherwi&s;e. For though he began
to &s;peak to his Di&s;ciples, <HI>ver&s;e</HI> 1. And exhorted them again&s;t worldly carefulne&s;&s;e,
<HI>ver&s;e</HI> 22. Yet others who were not Di&s;ciples were pre&s;ent, and did al&s;o heare his Ser|mon:
Witne&s;&s;e that in <HI>ver&s;e</HI> 13. Where it is &s;aid that one of the company (inter|rupting
our Saviour as it &s;eemes) demands of him that hee would &s;peake to his Bro|ther
about dividing the Inheritance; to whom our Saviour makes an&s;wer, <HI>ver&s;e</HI> 14.
Which plainly <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">hewes that all the p<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">e&s;ent company were not Di&s;ciples. Yea where|as
it is &s;aid, that hereupon our Saviour &s;pake to them of bewaring and taking heed of
Coveteou&s;ne&s;&s;e, <HI>ver&s;e</HI> 15. And &s;p<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">ke a Parable to them of a certain rich man, <HI>ver&s;e
16.</HI> And after this &s;aid to his Di&s;ciples, <HI>ver&s;e 22. Take <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">o thought for your life what
you &s;hall eate, &amp;c.</HI> It appeareth hereby that the&s;e per&s;ons &s;poken to afterward <HI>ver&s;e
15, 16, &amp;c.</HI> Were not the Di&s;ciples, who were &s;poken to afterward, <HI>ver&s;e
22.</HI> But were &s;ome other people be&s;ides. And what can be more plaine then that in
ver&s;e 54. where it is expre&s;ly &s;aid, that Chri&s;t &s;pake unto the people, rebuking them
for their hypocri&s;ie, that could di&s;cerne the face of the Skye, and of the Earth, but
could not di&s;cerne that time? And he &s;aid al&s;o to the people, &s;aith the Text; doth
it not plainly appeare hereby that as Myriads of people were gathered together, <HI>ver.</HI> 1
So our Saviour &s;pake the word unto tho&s;e people? I &s;uppo&s;e the thing is manife&s;t,
and that therefore our Brothers words cannot &s;tand, when he &s;aith, <HI>That Christ
Preached not to that confluence of people, but refu&s;ed &s;o to do, his Doc|trine
being all for his Di&s;ciples,</HI> For we &s;ee the Holy Gho&s;t witne&s;&s;eth that
hee &s;pake not onely to his Di&s;ciples, but to the people al&s;o: <HI>Chemniti<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">s</HI> hath the&s;e
words, <HI>Neg<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">ri non pote&s;t <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">n hac &s;atis prolixi concione, &amp;c. It cannot bee de|nyed
that Chri&s;t in this long Sermon of his, directed his &s;peech fir&s;t to his
Di&s;ciples, &s;econd to his friends, Third to one of the company. Fourth to</HI>
Peter <HI>demanding a que&s;tion. Fift to all the multitude, and it &s;eemes the
Ev<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">ngeli&s;t was willing as it were to reckon up the&s;e &s;everall parts or mem|bers
of the Sermon,</HI> Harmon. chap. 110. And the Refuter of Dr. <HI>Downams</HI>
Sermon &s;aith, <HI>The mention of many thou&s;ands in</HI> Jeru&s;alem <HI>doth not make
the number &s;uch as by no meanes could meete together in the publike wor|&s;hip
of God, &s;eeing it is apparent,</HI> Luke 12. 1. <HI>that the people which a&s;&s;em|bled
unto Chri&s;t and partake his 'Doctrine were al&s;o many Myriads: and
albeit he began at the fir&s;t to &s;peake to his Di&s;ciples</HI> ver&s;e 1. <HI>Yet after|ward
he &s;pake to all the people a&s;&s;embled,</HI> ver. 13. 15. 54. Reply <HI>P. 2. P.</HI> 90.
Wherefore though our Brother &s;ay Chri&s;t &s;pake not to the&s;e multitudes of people but
to his Di&s;ciples onely, yet &s;ith wee have the <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">ext it &s;elfe, and the judgement of two
Divines of chiefe note, expre&s;ly witne&s;&s;ing the contrary, therefore we cannot a&s;&s;ent
<PB N="69" REF="42">
to him herein. <HI>Whereas</HI> Chry&s;o&s;tome <HI>&s;aith 5000 did heare his voyce at
once in one Congregation by meanes of Scaffolds and Galleries, and M^r.</HI>
Mather <HI>is willing to yeeld 8120 were all a&s;&s;embled in one place to heare
the word, and that all the multitude of Converts at</HI> Ieru&s;alem <HI>were toge|ther
in</HI> Solomons <HI>Porch</HI> Acts 5 12. <HI>I grant 3000 could heare at once, but
alas &amp;c Page 458. An&s;w.</HI> If <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tomes</HI> te&s;timony be of any weight, or Mr.
<HI>Baynes</HI> his te&s;timony by whom <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tome</HI> is alledged <HI>Dioce&s;ans Triall,</HI> Page 16.
Then a mu&s;t be granted that not only 3000, but a greater number, even 50<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">0 at lea&s;t
may heare the word at once. And if &s;o, then 5000 members in the Church at <HI>Ieru|&s;alem</HI>
will not prove plurality of Congregations in one Church, fora&s;much as here
are 5000 people and yet no more Congregations but one.</P>
<P>But alas this is a great uncertainty for independant Congregations, but
this is to be proved, fir&s;t that 8000 (Mr. <HI>Mather</HI> hath not added many
other multitudes <HI>mentioned, Acts</HI> 5. 14. &amp; 6. 17.) did meete dayly in the
Temple. Second, dayly or ordinarily from hou&s;e to hou&s;e. Third, to cele|brate
the Lords Supper dayly in the Temple and in every private hou&s;e,
and there were need of many Scaffolds and Galleries, to &s;it at one Table.
Fourth, to make one Judicature, &amp;c.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> He that &s;hall look upon the An&s;wer Page 34 will plainely &s;ee that I have
here &s;poken to both tho&s;e places of <HI>Acts</HI> 5. 14. &amp; 6 1. Shewing that neither of them
do prove a plurality of Congregations in this Church at <HI>Ieru&s;alem,</HI> but rather the
contrary. And therefore this Parenthe&s;is which doth intimate that I have omitted to
&s;peake to the&s;e places, mu&s;t not be a&s;&s;ented to, but denyed.</P>
<P>But why mu&s;t the&s;e foure particulars be proved? I &s;uppo&s;e he meanes becau&s;e of
that which is &s;aid <HI>Act. 2 46. They continued dayly with one accord in the Temple,
&amp;c.</HI> But this doth not cleere it, that the&s;e foure particulars mu&s;t needs be proved, and
the rea&s;on is; Fir&s;t, becau&s;e Iudicature which is one of the particulars, is not mentio|ned
at all in that Scripture; nor is it &s;aid by us, that a dayly exerci&s;e thereof is nece&s;|&s;ary
in every Church or in any. Second, the Lord Supper, which is another of the
particulars, is not mentioned at all in that Text, at lea&s;twi&s;e not in tho&s;e words or
termes which Mr. <HI>Rutherford</HI> &s;ets down; much le&s;&s;e is it &s;aid as he expre&s;&s;eth it, that
they did dayly celebrate the &s;ame both in the Temple and in every private hou&s;e:
nor can the &s;ame for ought I know be proved by this or by any other Scripture, nor
was &s;uch a thing ever affirmed by us, &s;o farre as I know. I &s;uppo&s;e if they had cele|brated
it in the Temple alone, or in &s;ome private hou&s;e or hou&s;es alone, that might
have been &s;ufficient, without any nece&s;&s;ity of celebrating the &s;ame in both places up|on
one day, both in the Temple and in the hou&s;es too. Nay it is a que&s;tion whether
the Lords Supper bee at all intended in this place; though I doubt not but they ob|&s;erved
that Ordinance, and ver&s;e 42. may po&s;&s;ibly teach &s;o much. But for the ver&s;e
we are &s;peaking of, <HI>viz,</HI> Ver&s;e 46&punc; there is no nece&s;&s;ity that the breaking of Bread
there &s;poken of, mu&s;t needs be meant of that Ordinance. Sure he was a judicious
expo&s;itor who under&s;tands it otherwi&s;e, <HI>Quod hic fractionem panis &amp;c.</HI> That is,
<PB N="70" REF="43">
whereas &s;ome expound breaking of Bread in this place of the Lords Supper, it &s;eems
to me to be farre from <HI>Lukes</HI> intention: <HI>Calvin</HI> in <HI>Act.</HI> 2. 46. So then, of Mr <HI>Ru|therfords</HI>
foure particulars which he &s;aith we mu&s;t prove, there is not pa&s;t the halfe
of them that needs to be proved at all, the two la&s;t being already removed. And for a
third which is of breaking of Bread dayly and ordinarily from hou&s;e to hou&s;e, under|&s;tand
this breaking of Bread as <HI>Calvin</HI> doth, of their civill repa&s;t, and then it hurts
not our cau&s;e at all, though it be yeelded that they did dayly meet for &s;uch purpo&s;e in
&s;everall companies, in their private hou&s;es; for this they might do and bee no more
but one Congregation. There remaines therefore onely one that needs to be proved,
namely the fir&s;t, that they did dayly meete in the Temple; and this may bee proved
with ca&s;e, becau&s;e the plain words of the Text do affirme it, <HI>They continued dayly with
one accord in the Temple;</HI> &s;o that yet we have found nothing that proves <HI>Ieru&s;alem</HI> to
be many Congregations in one Church.</P>
<P>Nay I conceive, that one of the&s;e foure particulars, <HI>viz.</HI> The fir&s;t, of their dayly
meeting in the Temple, doth apparently &s;hew that how great &s;oever the number was,
yet it was not exceeding the proportion of one Congregation, which might come toge|ther
in one place; For the Temple was but one in all the City, I meane there was
but onely one individuall Temple, and not many Temples, which if there had been
then our Brethren might po&s;&s;ibly have &s;aid, that they met di&s;tributively in &s;undry
le&s;&s;er companies, but were to many too meete all in one Congregation; for &s;o they
were wont to expound &s;undry other phra&s;es u&s;ed by the Holy Gho&s;t, to declare their
comming together. True &s;ay they, they come together, but how? Not collectively
all of them together in one place, they were too many for that; but they came toge|ther
di&s;tributively, &s;ome of them in one place, and &s;ome in another, and &s;o they think
they have an&s;wered &s;ufficiently. But now to this of their meeting together in the
Temple, they cannot an&s;wer &s;o; for then there &s;hould have been &s;undry Temples, in
which they might have met, di&s;tributed into &s;undry companies; but there being no
more Temples but one, and the Text affirming plainly that they all met with one ac|cord,
in the Temple, it mu&s;t needs be, that they met collectively, all of them toge|ther
in one and the &s;ame place; and hence it followeth, that they were not &s;o many
but &s;till they might be one Congregation as well as one Church.</P>
<P>So that of the foure particulars, which he &s;aith we mu&s;t prove, &s;ome wee &s;ee need
not to be proved at all, and the fir&s;t of them which we can prove with ca&s;e doth make
much for the weakning of his cau&s;e, and for the &s;trengthening of ours.</P>
<P>Yea Mr. <HI>Mather</HI> will have the whole containing as one independant
Congregation, <HI>Act.</HI> 6. 1, 2, 3, 4. And the many Myriads or thou&s;ands
of beleeving Jewes, <HI>Acts</HI> 21. 21, 22, 23. To meete as one Congrega|tion.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> When in the An&s;wer I &s;peake of the&s;e places, the word Independant was
not there u&s;ed by me at all, but only is here added by him&s;elfe, for what cau&s;e him&s;elfe
can be&s;t tell. But for the matter, I conceive the thing which I there delivered is cleere
from the Texts them&s;elves, that the multitude of tho&s;e Iewes did a&s;&s;emble and come
together, in one place; for as for one of the places <HI>Act.</HI> 6. It is expre&s;ly there &s;aid
that the Apo&s;tles called the multitude together to propo&s;e unto them the choice of
<PB N="71" REF="43">
Deacons, <HI>ver&s;e 2&punc;</HI> and bad them look out from among&s;t them&s;elves &s;eaven Men, qua|lifyed
as the Apo&s;tles do there de&s;cribe, <HI>ver&s;e</HI> 3. whereupon it is &s;aid that the &s;aying
plea&s;ed the whole multitude and they cho&s;e &s;eaven who are there named <HI>ver&s;e</HI> 5. and
pre&s;ented them unto the Apo&s;tles that they might lay their hands on them, <HI>ver&s;e</HI> 6.
Which plainely &s;hewes that the who&s;e multitude how many &s;oever they were, yet
were not &s;o many, but they might all a&s;&s;emble in one place, to heare matters propo|&s;ed
to them, to con&s;ider thereof, and upon liking to put them in execution, as in other
things &s;o in this particular, of making election of Officers, as there they are Recor|ded
to have done. And as for the other place <HI>Act.</HI> 21. though it be a Que&s;tion, whe|ther
tho&s;e many thou&s;and Iewes, that beleeved were all members, of that one Church
at <HI>Jeru&s;alem,</HI> yet it cannot be any que&s;tion, whether they might come together in one
place, &s;ith <HI>Iames</HI> and the Elders do expre&s;ly there &s;ay unto <HI>Paul,</HI> the multitude mu&s;t
needs come together, for they will heare that thou art come. Nor can we &s;ay they
might come together onely di&s;tributively, in &s;undry companies, but not all in
one place, for the end of their comming together will not beare that expo&s;ition, which
end was, that they might &s;ee, and heare <HI>Paul,</HI> and try what &s;atisfaction he would give
them, in the matter whereof they were informed of him, that he taught the Iewes, to
for&s;ake <HI>Mo&s;es,</HI> and to omit Circumci&s;ion and other Iewi&s;h cu&s;tomes. The&s;e things
they were informed to have been taught by him among&s;t the Gentiles, and hearing
that he was come to the City, they mu&s;t needs come together to heare what he would
&s;ay to the matter, and how hee would cleere him&s;elfe. Now if this was the end of
their comming together it mu&s;t needs be that their comming was altogether unto one
place, and not in &s;everall companies; for this could not an&s;wer their end, ina&s;much
as <HI>Paul</HI> being but one per&s;on, it was not po&s;&s;ible they could &s;ee him, nor heare him
in &s;undry places at once; and therefore they might as well have &s;taid at home, and
not have come together at all, as come together in &s;uch &s;ort.</P>
<P>Plaine it is therefore, that the multitude &s;poken of in the&s;e two Scripures were not
&s;o many but they might meete in one Congregation.</P>
<P>Which point as &s;omething hath been &s;aid in the An&s;wer P. 34, 35. For the clee|ring
of it, &s;o I am the more confirmed in it by Mr. <HI>Rutherford</HI> his dealing concerning
the&s;e Scriptures. For though he make mention of them in this place, as we &s;ee, and
of that apprehen&s;ion of mine concerning tho&s;e Scriptures, yet he doth not at all re|move
the grounds, which were given for that apprehen&s;ion in the An&s;wer, but doth
wholly pa&s;&s;e them by in &s;ilence. Now taking occa&s;ion to &s;peak of the Scriptures, and
relating what my apprehen&s;ion was concerning the &s;ame, and yet &s;aying nothing at
all to the gronnds, whereon that apprehen&s;ion was built, it &s;eemes hereby to bee im|plyed
that indeed he had nothing in readine&s;&s;e to object again&s;t the &s;ame. So that I
may &s;till conceive of tho&s;e Scriptures as I did before, for any thing yet brought to
induce me to be of another mind.</P>
<P>As for that which next followes, certainly the Apo&s;tles practice must
be our rule, and then 500 or 1000 being &s;o farre beneath 10 or 8000, may
well &s;eeme a number for fewne&s;&s;e not competent, and what &s;hall wee then
thinke of 7 only, or 10.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> The an&s;wer is, that the Apo&s;tles practi&s;e doth not at all condemn ours,
<PB N="72" REF="44">
though our Congregations have not in them the like numbers, but &s;ometimes more
and &s;ometimes le&s;&s;e; for was it not &s;o in that Primative Apo&s;tolike Church? Is it not
plain, that that Church was for number farre le&s;&s;er at the fir&s;t, then afterward, when
they grew to 4000 or more; and yet after this they grew to be fewer againe, when
Per&s;ecution &s;cattered them all abroad except the Apo&s;tles, <HI>Act.</HI> 8. 1. And therefore
if 10 or 8000, being once the number in that Church, be a rule condemning out
Churches, as being for fewne&s;&s;e not competent, when they are beneath that number,
how will it be avoided but by the &s;ame rea&s;on the practi&s;e of that Church at one time,
&s;hall be a rule, for the condemning of it &s;elf at another time? For &s;ure it is, their num|ber
was not at all times alike, but &s;ometimes more, and &s;ometimes le&s;&s;e; as in the
Sea it is not alwayes full tyde, but &s;ometimes low ebbe, nor is the Moone alwayes at
full, but &s;ometimes at the Change; Nay if the Apo&s;tles practi&s;e mu&s;t be our rule,
then ina&s;much as their Churches, had not alwayes the like numbers of members in
them, but &s;ometimes the number was greater, and &s;ometimes le&s;&s;er, it will follow
therefore that the number of members in our Churches needs not alwayes to bee the
&s;ame, but though greater numbers be lawfull, yet the lawfulne&s;&s;e of le&s;&s;er numbers
may not be denyed.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="14" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. XIV.</HEAD>
<HEAD TYPE="sub">Whether the Church at Corinth was one Church, meeting di|&s;tributively
in &s;undry Congregations, or whether it was
onely one Congregation. And whether 1 Cor. 14.
23. If the whole Church came together in &s;ome
place &amp;c. Doe make for &s;undry Congre|gations
or for one onely.</HEAD>
<P>_PAge 464. I cannot but thinke that weake which Mr.
<HI>Mather</HI> and Mr. <HI>Tomp&s;on</HI> &s;ay (An&s;wer Page 37.)
the place 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 14. 23. That &s;peaketh of the whole
Church comming together to one place doth unavoida|bly
prove, that <HI>Corinth</HI> had their meetings and not by
way of di&s;tribution into &s;everall Congregations, but al|together
in one Congregation: and it is plaine, that though they had vari|ety
of teachers and Prophets, yet they all u&s;ed to come together to one place.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> If that which wee &s;ay be weake, it is more ea&s;ie for one of &s;uch ability and
&s;trength as Mr. <HI>Rutherford</HI> to overthrow the &s;ame. Yet it is not words that will &s;uf|fice,
but weight of rea&s;on that mu&s;t availe thereto. Let us heare therefore his An&s;wer
to this pa&s;&s;age which he thinkes and cen&s;ures to be &s;o weake.</P>
<P><PB N="73" REF="44">
The place &s;aith he, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 14. 23. If the whole Church come toge|ther
&amp;c. Deth evince the contrary. For the Apo&s;tle doth there rea&s;on
<HI>ab ab&s;urdo,</HI> from a great incongruity: it were incongruous &s;aith he, and
ridiculous that the whole Church of <HI>Corinth</HI> and all their guifted men
&s;peaking with Tongues (&s;o that they could not be under&s;tood by Infidels)
&s;hould all Convene in one place, and &s;peake with divers Tongues: For
the unlearned and unbeleevers would &s;ay they were madde; therefore hee
pre&s;uppo&s;eth that the whole Church &s;hould not all come to one place, but that
they &s;hould &s;o come to one place, in divers A&s;&s;emblies.&mdash;</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> And is it true indeed, that this place doth evince the contrary? <HI>viz.</HI> That
the Church at <HI>Corinth</HI> did not all meet in one Congregation: How &s;hall we be a&s;&s;u|red
that &s;uch a thing is evinced by the place? For as for the rea&s;on given, &amp;c. That
the Apo&s;tle d<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">th there rea&s;on <HI>ab ab&s;urdo,</HI> or from great incongruity, this doth not
prove the thing at all, partly becau&s;e they might practi&s;e &s;omething that were not
meete but had incongruity in it, and partly (and more e&s;pecially) becau&s;e the Apo&s;tle
doth not lay the ab&s;urdity where Mr. <HI>Rutherford</HI> layes it, <HI>viz.</HI> In the convening of
the whole Church in one place, but in their &s;peaking with &s;trange Tongues when
they were convened and come together.</P>
<P>Touching the former of the&s;e, Mr. <HI>Rutherford</HI> rea&s;oneth to this effect. If it were
an incongruous or un<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">it thing that the whole Church at <HI>Corinth</HI> &s;hould come together
in one place, then they did not &s;o come together: but the fir&s;t is true, <HI>Ergo</HI> the &s;econd
is true al&s;o. In which kind of rea&s;oning (&s;uch is our weakne&s;&s;e) we thinke neither
part of the argument to be free from ju&s;t exception. For as we wholly deny the A&s;|&s;umption,
&s;o we al&s;o thinke there is no &s;ufficient &s;trength of con&s;equence in the maine
Propo&s;ition, fora&s;much as &s;undry things were practi&s;ed in that Church which were
no wayes fit not meet to be practi&s;ed, and which the Apo&s;tle doth therefore reprove,
and &s;eekes the redre&s;&s;e of the &s;ame: witne&s;&s;e their Factions and divi&s;ions: <HI>Chap.</HI> 1.
&amp; 3. Their neglecting Church cen&s;ures again&s;t the ince&s;tuous per&s;on, and on the
contrary being puffed up, <HI>Chap.</HI> 5. their going to Law one with another before the
Infidels, <HI>Chap.</HI> 6. their abu&s;es in Prayer and Prophe&s;ying, their women uncovered
and their men covered, <HI>Chap.</HI> 11. their abu&s;es in the Lords Supper, when they &s;o
came unto it that one was hungry and another drunken, <HI>Chap.</HI> 11. Now as it were
an un&s;ufficient kind of arguing to &s;ay, the&s;e things were unfit and unmeet, and there|fore
that Church did not &s;o practi&s;e, even &s;o Mr. <HI>Rutherford</HI> his arguing &s;eemes
to be no better, who would prove they did come together in one place, becau&s;e the
Apo&s;tle, as he thinks, did count &s;uch comming together unmeet. For if it were gran|ted
that &s;uch a comming had been unmeet, yet it doth not follow, but &s;uch might bee
their practi&s;e notwith&s;tanding: and therefore as hee counts our apprehen&s;ion in this
matter to be weak, &s;o I leave it to him&s;elf and others to con&s;ider, whether in this con|&s;equence,
It was not meet they &s;hould all come together in one place, <HI>Ergo</HI> they did
it not, be very &s;trong.</P>
<P>I de&s;ire here not to be mi&s;taken: for I do not grant that their comming together
in one place was unmeet, nor that the Apo&s;tle doth reprove them for the &s;ame; I have
<PB N="74" REF="45">
already &s;aid the contrary, in denying the A&s;&s;umption afore mentioned, which I do
&s;till deny. But the thing I intend, is to con&s;ider the &s;trength of Mr. <HI>Rutherford</HI> his
rea&s;oning, and for that cau&s;e to apply it to the thing in que&s;tion, which I &s;till de&s;ire
to keepe clo&s;e unto, if it may be. Now the thing in que&s;tion, being this, whether the
Church at <HI>Corinth,</HI> were &s;o many at that they could nor meet together in one A&s;&s;em|bly,
but had many Congregations, and all but one Church, and Mr <HI>Rutherford</HI>
maintaining the affirmative, and bringing this rea&s;on for it, taken from the Congru|ity
of meeting all together, I therefore thought meet, to weigh the &s;trength of this rea|&s;on,
which I do not perceive to be in any wi&s;e convincing: but &s;uppo&s;ing the Apo&s;tle
had counted &s;uch meetings, inconvenient and unmeet, yet this rea&s;on as I conceive,
is too weak to prove Mr. <HI>Rutherford</HI> his purpo&s;e, that their number was &s;uch as that
they could not all po&s;&s;ibly meet in one place; for they might po&s;&s;ibly do that which
were unmeet to be done, in this particular as well as they did in many other things.</P>
<P>But in this particular I do not thinke, they did any thing ab&s;urd, or unmeet at all;
and therefore for further an&s;wer to this rea&s;on I would &s;ay: that the Apo&s;tle
doth not &s;ay the ab&s;urdity, where Mr. <HI>Rutherford</HI> layes it, to wit, in that the whole
Church did convene, and come together, but in &s;peaking with &s;trange Tongues when
they were convened, this latter being incongruous: and ab&s;urd indeed; for the In|fidels
comming into the Church A&s;&s;embly, and hearing them &s;o &s;peake, might thinke
them madde, as the Apo&s;tle &s;ayes; but for a&s;&s;embling all in one place, I know no
madne&s;&s;e that was in that; nor &s;hew thereof; nor do I yet beleeve that the Apo&s;tle
doth place the ab&s;urdity there. For though Mr. <HI>Rutherford</HI> bee a worthy man and
learned, yet &s;uch a thing as this had need of &s;ome further proofe then his bare word.
If a Church &s;hould meet di&s;tributively in divers A&s;&s;emblies, and being &s;o met &s;hould
&s;peake with &s;trange Tongues, I demand whether this manner of &s;peaking, do prove
&s;uch a way of meeting ab&s;urd; I &s;uppo&s;e he will &s;ay no, becau&s;e it is the way of mee|ting
which he holds the Apo&s;tolike Churches did u&s;e; And if &s;o, then &s;uppo&s;e they
&s;hould &s;o &s;peake with &s;trange Tongues, when they meet collectively all in one A&s;|&s;embly,
how can this manner of &s;peaking conclude the ab&s;urdity of &s;uch kind of
meeting any more then it did in the other? For my part, though &s;uch kind of &s;peak|ing
have incongruity and inconveniency in it, yet I conceive a&s;&s;embling collectively
and in one Congregation is no more prejudiced thereby, then a&s;&s;embling di&s;tribu|tively
in many.</P>
<P>Hee (that is the Apo&s;tle) pre&s;uppo&s;eth that the whole Church &s;hould
come to one place, in divers A&s;&s;emblies, and all Prophecy in a Tongue
known to the Infidels, as the unbeleever being convinced and judged of all
the Prophets might fall down in his face, &amp;c.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> If the Prophets were met in divers A&s;&s;emblies at once, I marvell how the
unbeleever &s;hould be convinced and judged of them all; for I hope one &s;ingular and
individuall unbeleever was not pre&s;ent in divers A&s;&s;emblies at once, nor convinced
and judged (as here he is &s;aid to be) by tho&s;e Prophets, from who&s;e A&s;&s;embly he was
ab&s;ent. Eithe<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter"> therefore the Prophets were all met in one A&s;&s;embly and not in divers,
or el&s;e it is yet a Quaere how he could be convinced by them all. For &s;ure the unbe|leever
could not be pre&s;ent in &s;undry A&s;&s;emblies at once.</P>
<P><PB N="75" REF="45">
Page 465. The whole Church is not the whole much people of <HI>Co|rinth</HI>
that beleeved, that did ordinarily meet in one place, the Text &s;aith
no &s;uch thing, and that is to be proved and not taken as granted.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Suppo&s;e it were true, that the whole Church was not the whole much peo|ple
of <HI>Corinth</HI> that beleeved, this doth nothing prejudice our cau&s;e, for as much as our
Que&s;tion is not about the whole much people that beleeved, but about the whole
Church. If therefore it be granted that the whole Church collectively did come to|gether
in one place, we have what we de&s;ire, and require no more. As for the whole
much people that beleeved, whether this be the &s;ame with the former or no, wee &s;hall
have no need to prove or take for granted that the&s;e did in like manner come toge|ther,
for as much as our que&s;tion in the termes of it is not about the&s;e, but about the
other.</P>
<P>But why is not the whole Church the whole much people that beleeved? Shall
we &s;ay the whole Church is more then the people that beleeved? Or &s;hall wee &s;ay
it is not &s;o much? I conceive it mu&s;t be one of the&s;e, or el&s;e it mu&s;t be the &s;ame. If
it be &s;aid it is more, then &s;till we have our de&s;ire, if not more then we demand. For
if a company that is greater then all the much people that beleeved, were neverthe|le&s;&s;e
not &s;o great, but they might and did a&s;&s;emble in one Congregation, then that
much people that beleeved might &s;o a&s;&s;emble much more. For if there be no impo&s;&s;i|bility
but a company that is greater may &s;o a&s;&s;emble, I &s;uppo&s;e the &s;ame cannot bee
denyed of a company that is le&s;&s;er. Againe, to &s;ay this whole Church was a greater
number then the much people that beleeved, is directly to gain&s;ay him&s;elfe, who in
Page 460, 461. <HI>Makes the much people a greater number then the Congre|gation
meeting for the Word, Sacraments, and Church cen&s;ures; becau&s;e
&s;uch a Congregation, he &s;aith, could not conveniently exceed one thou&s;and,
whereas the much people mu&s;t bee much in compari&s;on of thou&s;ands of
Jewes who rejected Christ, for that otherwi&s;e it would not have beene
much for</HI> Pauls <HI>comfort, for which end it is mentioned and brought.</HI></P>
<P><HI>If it be &s;aid the whole Church be le&s;&s;e then the people that beleeved, then it fol|lowes
that &s;ome of tho&s;e beleevers were not of the Church, and &s;o what him&s;elfe
hath written, Page 125. 242. 251. will not &s;tand. For in Page 125, hee &s;aith,</HI>
That the Seale of Bapti&s;me and the profe&s;&s;ion of the truth is that which
makes one member of the vi&s;ible Church&mdash;and by this are all the Citi|zens
and dome&s;ticks in-Churched, and received into a vi&s;ible Church.
And Page 242. He &s;aith any who blamele&s;&s;ely profe&s;&s;e Chri&s;t is Eccle|&s;ia&s;tically
&mdash;<HI>in foro Eccle&s;iae,</HI> a true and valid member of the Church
vi&s;ible, having Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall power valid for that effect, and Page 251.
he &s;aith, a vi&s;ible profe&s;&s;ion of the truth and Doctrine of goline&s;&s;e is that
which e&s;&s;entially con&s;tituteth a vi&s;ible Church and every member of the
vi&s;ible Church. <HI>Now if the&s;e things be &s;o, then it followes that this whole peo|ple
<PB N="76" REF="46">
that beleeved were all of them members of the Church, ina&s;much as they were all
partakers of Bapti&s;me and profe&s;&s;ion, which he &s;aith do e&s;&s;entially con&s;titute the vi&s;i|ble
Church and every member thereof. And they were all members of the Church,
then the Church was not a le&s;&s;er company then they.</HI></P>
<P>Nor can hee &s;ay it was a greater company, for the rea&s;ons mentioned
before.</P>
<P>And if it was neither a greater company nor a le&s;&s;er, was it not then the &s;ame.
And if it was the &s;ame, then how can this &s;tand which he affirmeth in the place wee
have in hand, where hee &s;aith the whole Church is not the whole much people that
beleeved? It &s;eemes to me, that which way &s;oever he &s;hall take, his own pen will be
witne&s;&s;e again&s;t him&s;elfe; for in the place wee have in hand, hee &s;aith the whole
Church is not the whole much people that beleeved: and in another place hee tels
us, that the much people that beleeved was a greater number then the whole
Church meeting for Word, Sacraments, &amp;c. And yet in a third place hee tels us,
that in effect it was not greater, ina&s;much as all Baptized profe&s;&s;ing beleevers, hee
&s;aith, are of the Church.</P>
<P>Further, when the Text &s;peakes of the whole Church comming together in &s;ome
place, let the wi&s;e judge whether it be a good Expo&s;ition to &s;ay, by the whole is not
meant the whole, but only a part. Which I conceive is Mr. <HI>Rutherfords</HI> Expo&s;iti|on,
who will not yeeld that the whole did come together in any one place, but part
in one place, and part in another, the whole being di&s;tributed into &s;everall parts,
and tho&s;e parts into &s;everall places. So that the whole Church comming together
into &s;ome place, mu&s;t have this meaning, the whole came not together in any place,
but part in one place and part in another, which I feare is too much violence offered
to the Sacred Text, which &s;hould be handled with reverence.</P>
<P><HI>But he brings a rea&s;on for this Expo&s;ition, and that is this,</HI> Becau&s;e el&s;e we
mu&s;t &s;ay that at any one A&s;&s;embly all the Prophets and teachers did Pro|phe&s;y
at <HI>Corinth;</HI> for the Text &s;aith, he is convinced of all, he is judged
of all, whereas the con&s;equence &s;hould bee ab&s;urd, it &s;hould bee a long&s;ome
and weari&s;ome meeting, Page 465.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> And if they Prophe&s;yed not all in one A&s;&s;em<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">ly but divers, how could the
unbeleever bee convinced and judged by them all? It will not bee ea&s;ie to conceive
how it could be, they Prophe&s;ying in &s;uch a way: for the unbeleever &s;ure could not
be pre&s;ent in &s;undry A&s;&s;emblyes at once, but in one onely. And therefore, tho&s;e
words, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all, will lay as much ab&s;urdity upon his
Expo&s;ition of the words as upon ours, or rather a great deale more. For as for ours,
there is no ab&s;urdity therein at all, for a&s;much as by all the Prophets is meant all
that Prophe&s;ied at the time, when the unbeleever was pre&s;ent, and not that all mu&s;t
Prophe&s;y upon one day as Mr. <HI>Rutherford</HI> would have it. But the Text doth not &s;o
&s;ay, nor any Interpreter that I have met withall. Sure I am <HI>Beza</HI> &s;aith, the expre&s;&s;e
contrary, for upon <HI>ver&s;e 31. Ye may all Prophe&s;y one by one, &amp;c.</HI> He hath this note,
<HI>Non eodem &s;ane die, &s;ed ternis &amp;c.</HI> That is indeed not all upon one day (which is
Mr. <HI>Rutherfords</HI> Expo&s;ition) but three at every moeing, having their turne to &s;peak
till all had &s;poken by cour&s;e.</P>
<P><PB N="77" REF="46">
Interpreters &s;ay they met in divers A&s;&s;emblies, Page 465.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Let tho&s;e Interpreters be named; and there words &s;et down, and then by
Gods help we &s;hall con&s;ider of what they &s;ay, and of the grounds and rea&s;ons thereof&punc;
in the meane time to &s;ay that interpreters &s;ay it, and yet neither to tell us the rea&s;ons
nor the words of tho&s;e Interpreters, nor &s;o much as the names of any of them, how
&s;hould this prevaile with us to turne us away from our former apprehen&s;ions in the
point?</P>
<P>True it is in another place, &amp;c. Pag 461. Speaking of ver&s;e 31. Yea
may all Prophe&s;y one by one, hee there tels us that <HI>Diodatus</HI> under&s;tands
it that they might Prophecy, by cour&s;e and in divers or &s;undry A&s;&s;em|blies;
And <HI>E&s;&s;ius,</HI> &s;aith he, &s;aith the &s;ame, to wit, that the&s;e Prophets
were to Prophe&s;y in divers A&s;&s;emblies.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> For <HI>Diodatus</HI> I have him not at hand, and therefore I cannot peru&s;e the
place; But for <HI>E&s;tius,</HI> this I may &s;ay, that he neither &s;aith what here is reported in
his Commentary upon the ver&s;e alledged, nor upon any ver&s;e el&s;e in all the Chap|ter,
as farre as I can ob&s;erve, and I have read and peru&s;ed him on purpo&s;e to &s;ee
what were to be found in him: But though I cannot find him affirming that which
Mr. <HI>Rutherford</HI> brings him for, yet I find &s;undry places, wherein he &s;eemes to me to
affirme the contrary; for in&s;tance, Commenting upon the ver&s;e alledged, hee hath
the&s;e words as the &s;ence which he mo&s;t preferres, <HI>viz. Quod &s;i non unus tantum
Propheta &s;ed plures &amp;c. That is, If not only one Prophet but &s;undry, yea
all do &s;peake in the A&s;&s;embly in order, it will come to pa&s;&s;e that tho&s;e all
may al&s;o learne, and receive exhortation, there being never a one of them,
who is not al&s;o a hearer.</HI> Wherein we &s;ee he &s;peaks not one word of Prophe|&s;ying
in divers A&s;&s;emblies at the &s;ame time, but that they were &s;o to Prophe&s;y that
all of them were to be hearers, and learners, as well as &s;peakers. Which doth plain|ly
imply, that there mu&s;t be many Prophets in one A&s;&s;embly at once. Againe, up|on
ver&s;e <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">9, he hath the&s;e words as the &s;en&s;e of the place, <HI>Quamvis forte multi
&s;uit in Eccle&s;iae&mdash;ve&s;tra Prophetae &amp;c. That is, Although perhaps
there be many Prophets in your Church, yet it will be &s;ufficient if two or
three do &s;peake at one meeting, and for others it &s;hall be their duty to
judge, that is to &s;ay, to examine and try whether the&s;e things be true
and &s;ound which are &s;poken by them that &s;peake.</HI> Wherein he plainly &s;hewes
his judgement to be that at one meeting they were to have many Prophets pre&s;ent, of
whom two or three onely were to &s;peake, and the re&s;t to try and examine what
was &s;poken. And to the &s;ame purpo&s;e he &s;peakes upon <HI>ver&s;e</HI> 32. Which he counts to
be the &s;ame with that of judging, <HI>ver&s;e</HI> 29. Further the&s;e words <HI>ver&s;e</HI> 23. Of the
whole Church comming together into one place, he expounds thus, <HI>Alicujus loci to|tus
populus fidelis,</HI> That is, all the faithfull or beleeving people of a place; which is
contrary to Mr. <HI>Rutherford</HI> who will not have the whole Church, to be the whole
<PB N="78" REF="47">
much people that beleeved. Finally, &s;peaking of tho&s;e words <HI>ver&s;e</HI> 24. if all Prophe|&s;y,
he hath the&s;e words, <HI>Nec omnes inteligit ab&s;olut&eacute;, &amp;c. That is, the
Apo&s;tle under&s;tands not all ab&s;olutely but to this &s;en&s;e, to wit, if all that
&s;peake in the A&s;&s;embly of the Church do Prophe&s;y, that is, if Prophets on|ly
do &s;peake, and they that have the gift of Tongues do hold their peace.</HI>
Which is contrary to Mr. <HI>Rutherford</HI> who under&s;tands the Text &s;o, that they were
all to Prophe&s;ie at one time; and becau&s;e at one meeting there were but two or
three to Prophe&s;ie, which two or three hee thinkes could not be all, hee will there|fore
have it that they were di&s;tributed into &s;everall A&s;&s;emblies, and &s;o did Prophe&s;ie
all at once, though onely two or three at one meeting. For which interpretation,
though he alledgeth <HI>E&s;tius,</HI> yet <HI>E&s;tius</HI> wee &s;ee affords him no help at all. Where|upon
I have marvelled why <HI>E&s;tius</HI> &s;hould be alledged, &s;ometimes thinking with my
&s;elfe whether his name might not bee mi&s;-Printed by the Printer, in&s;tead of &s;ome
other man; &s;ometimes thinking whether Mr. <HI>Rutherford</HI> his memory might not
faile him in this particular, having read the thing in &s;ome other Author, and
&s;uppo&s;ing it had been in <HI>E&s;tius.</HI> But what ever might be the rea&s;on of this mi&s;take,
he that &s;hall examine <HI>E&s;tius</HI> will not find in him any help at all for Mr. <HI>Rutherfords</HI>
cau&s;e in this particular, but the contrary.</P>
<P>The Text &s;aith expre&s;ly, ver&s;e 29, that at one time they Prophe&s;ied but
two or three.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;wer.</HI> This is a mi&s;take al&s;o: for the words are, let the Prophets &s;peake two
or three, and let the other judge. Now let them do &s;o, doth not &s;hew their practi&s;e,
but their duty: not what they did, but what they &s;hould have done. The Text &s;aith,
if there be no interpreter let him that hath an unknown Tongue keepe &s;ilence in the
Church, <HI>ver&s;e</HI> 20. And let your Women keepe &s;ilence in the Churches, <HI>ver&s;e</HI> 34.
Now &s;hall any man &s;ay, that the&s;e Texts do expre&s;ly prove that it was the manner
of their Women and of their men that had unknown Tongues to keepe &s;ilence. I
&s;uppo&s;e no man can &s;ay it, the words being not a report of what their practi&s;e was,
but a rule of direction to &s;hew them how they ought to practi&s;e. And &s;o wee &s;ay of
the ca&s;e in hand. But let it be &s;uppo&s;ed that it was not onely their duty, but al&s;o
their practi&s;e to Prophe&s;ie at one meeting but onely two or three, what can Ma&s;ter
<HI>Rutherford</HI> gaine heereby? His words following do tell us, where hee &s;aith,
<HI>If two onely Prophe&s;yed at one A&s;&s;embly, as this Text will warrant
cleerely.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Not &s;o, the Text allowes three, which is more then two onely. But go on,
and let us heare the con&s;equence.</P>
<P>Then how doth this whole Church con&s;i&s;ting of all the beleevers at <HI>Co|rinth,</HI>
as is &s;uppo&s;ed by our Brethren, convince the Infidell, &s;o as it may
beare this &s;ence, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all&punc; Can two Pro|phets
be all Prophets?</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Though wee &s;uppo&s;e the whole Church con&s;i&s;ted of all the Beleevers at
<PB N="79" REF="47">
<HI>Corinth,</HI> yet that the whole Church did convince the the Infidell, this wee never
&s;aid nor &s;uppo&s;ed at all: For wee &s;uppo&s;ed and &s;o do &s;till, that hee was to bee
convinced onely by the Prophets, be&s;ides whom there were many others that were of
the Church.</P>
<P><HI>But for his demand, Whether two Prophets can bee all Prophets,</HI>
The an&s;wer is, that though two bee not all where there are more then two, yet if
there bee no more, there it is otherwi&s;e; and &s;o where there are but two or three
that doe Prophe&s;ie at one meeting, there hee that is convinced by tho&s;e two or
three, may bee &s;aid to bee convinced of all, that is of all that doe Prophe&s;ie.
This &s;ence of the place mu&s;t needs bee received, el&s;e how &s;hall the Apo&s;tles
words bee reconciled and &s;tand together? For as in one ver&s;e hee requireth,
that the Prophets &s;peake two or three at one meeting, and the re&s;t to Iudge,
<HI>ver&s;e</HI> 29. And in another ver&s;e affirmeth that the Infidell in the ca&s;e there
propo&s;ed, is judged of all, <HI>ver&s;e</HI> 24. So hee doth not onely &s;uppo&s;e in the
very &s;ame ver&s;e, that they did all Prophe&s;ie, if all, Prophe&s;ie &s;aith hee, and
there come in one that beleeveth not, &amp;c. But moreover in <HI>ver&s;e</HI> 31. Hee
expre&s;ly and plainely allowes them thus to Prophe&s;ie; Yee may all Prophe&s;ie,
&s;aith hee, one by one, that all may learne and all may bee comforted. Which
places compared doe evince the &s;ence of the words heere given, and doe plainely
&s;hew that what hee &s;aith <HI>ver&s;e</HI> 24. Of the Infidell being convinced of all and judged
of all, may bee truely made good, if hee bee convinced of all and Iudged of all
that Prophe&s;yed at that meeting, though their number that &s;o Prophe&s;yed were no
more but two or three.</P>
<P>And therefore whereas hee concludes, <HI>Surely for my part I thinke it
mu&s;t unavoidably bee &s;aid, that they Prophe&s;yed di&s;tributively and
in &s;everall Congregations,</HI> The An&s;wer is, that this needs not to bee
&s;aid at all, but may bee avoided with <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">a&s;e; and the contrary may bee &s;afely
held; to wit, that they Pro<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="3 letters">cied collectively and in one Congregati|on.</P>
<P>For fir&s;t, they did &s;o Prophe&s;y, that one that beleeved not, and one un|learned
might come in among&s;t them when they were Prophe&s;ying, and by
that meanes might bee convinced of all and judged of all, <HI>ver&s;e</HI> 24. Which
might well bee done, if they Prophe&s;yed all in one Congregation, but otherwi&s;e
it could not, for as much as one unbeleever could not bee pre&s;ent in &s;everall Con|gregations
at once.</P>
<P>Secondly, they were &s;o to Prophe&s;ie, that the Prophets when they Prophe|cied
were to have the re&s;t of the Prophets to bee <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 word">, to heare and Iudge
of that which was delivered, let the Prophets &s;peake two or three, and the re&s;t
judge, <HI>ver&s;e</HI> 29. and the &s;pirits of the Prophets are &s;ubject to the Prophets, <HI>ver&s;e</HI> 32.
The former of which &s;ayings Mr. <HI>Rutherford</HI> him&s;elfe doth under&s;tand of a Colledge
Prophets, having a power Dogmaticall of judging, and cen&s;uring the Doctrine of
the Prophets delivered. <HI>What they &s;peake, &s;aith he, Page 467. Is to bee
<PB N="80" REF="48">
judged and put under cen&s;ure; for the whole Colledge mu&s;t judge;
for which he alledgeth ver&s;e 29. And a little after, this is not a Power
of judging which every Chri&s;tian hath, for</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>&s;aith</HI> Pi&s;cator <HI>doth
relate to the Prophets, who are to judge; but as <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter"> take it a Propheticall
judging, which may warrant the Iuridicall power of a Presbytery, &amp;c.</HI>
By all which it plainely appeareth that when the Prophets did Prophe&s;y, the
other Prophets were to bee pre&s;ent, to heare and judge of the Doctrines delivered;
and if &s;o, how can it bee that they Prophe&s;yed in &s;everall Congregations at the
&s;ame time? For had it been &s;o, they could not have judged of one anothers
Doctrine, which they could not heare, being them&s;elves at that time imployed
in &s;peaking in &s;ome other place.</P>
<P>And therefore it &s;eemes more likely, that they met in one Congregation, where
they might all Prophe&s;y, fir&s;t one and then another, &s;ome at one time and &s;ome at
another, and &s;o all of them might al&s;o heare and learne, and judge of the Doctrine
delivered by others.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="15" TYPE="chapter">
<PB N="71" REF="48">
<HEAD>CHAP. XV.</HEAD>
<HEAD TYPE="sub">Whether the Church at Ephe&s;us were more in number then Corinth
and Jeru&s;alem, and the judgement of Mr. Baynes; Whether that
Church was many Congregations, or one onely?</HEAD>
<P><HI>_PAg.</HI> 470. Having &s;ugge&s;ted &s;undry things, to prove that <HI>Ephe&s;us</HI>
was many Congregations, and yet but one Church; hee concludes this,
<HI>viz.</HI> upon the&s;e con&s;iderations, I leave to our reverend Brethren
their judgement; if Mr. <HI>Mather</HI> and Mr. <HI>Thomp&s;on</HI> &s;ay right,
we doe not thinke they were more in number at <HI>Ephe&s;us</HI> then in <HI>Co|rinth</HI>
and <HI>Jeru&s;alem,</HI> where the Chri&s;tians met all in one place.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> The exception then which in this place is taken a|gain&s;t
Mr. <HI>Thomp&s;on</HI> and me, is for this, that we doe not thinke
the Chri&s;tians at <HI>Ephe&s;us,</HI> to be more in number then at <HI>Jeru&s;alem</HI> and <HI>Corinth.</HI> Con|cerning
which, I will not &s;ay much, but onely this, that as we have onely delivered
what we think in this matter, without determining or a&s;&s;erting any thing perempto|rily;
&s;o we &s;hall readily imbrace the contrary, when good grounds &s;hall be &s;hewed for
the &s;ame: which though we doe not yet perceive to be performed in all that Mr. <HI>Ru|therford</HI>
hath &s;aid; yet I will not here &s;pend time in examining the &s;ame, becau&s;e I do
not count this point of &s;o much importance concerning the principall thing in que&s;tion.
For whether the Church at <HI>Ephe&s;us</HI> were more in number then <HI>Corinth</HI> and <HI>Jeru&s;alem,</HI>
or whether it were otherwi&s;e; there is no great matter in this as touching the maine
que&s;tion. For if all of them were &s;uch Churches, as might u&s;ually meet together in
one Congregation, as I conceive they were&punc; it matters not much which of them was
mo&s;t in number.</P>
<P>But doth not M. <HI>Rutherford</HI> prove that the one Church at <HI>Ephe&s;us</HI> was more then
one Congregation? I confe&s;&s;e, he hath &s;undry things in the precedent pages, which he
intendeth that way. But in a&s;much as they doe not concerne M. <HI>Tomp&s;on</HI> and me in
particular, nor are by him applyed again&s;t any pa&s;&s;age in the an&s;wer; I will therefore
pa&s;&s;e them over more briefly, my purpo&s;e being chiefly, to con&s;ider of &s;uch particulars,
wherein he takes exception again&s;t the An&s;wer. Only, thus much I would adverti&s;e the
Reader, that a good part of that which Mr. <HI>Rutherf.</HI> brings to prove many Congre|gations
in one Church at <HI>Ephe&s;us,</HI> hath been an&s;wered long agoe by Mr. <HI>Baynes</HI> in his
<HI>Dioce&s;ans triall,</HI> pag. 5. which I the rather Commend to Mr. <HI>Rutherfords</HI> con&s;ideration,
becau&s;e, he counts him a man of worth, calling him worthy <HI>Baynes:</HI> And for the help
of &s;uch Readers, as cannot readily come to the book it &s;elf, I will here tran&s;cribe a few
lines out of the &s;ame worthy <HI>Baynes,</HI> as they are to be found in his <HI>Dioce&s;. triall.</HI> p. 5, 6.
<HI>viz.</HI></P>
<P>The Church of <HI>Ephe&s;us</HI> was but one flock; Fir&s;t, it is likely that it was of no other forme
then the other. <HI>(Sir,</HI> Ieru&s;alem, Antioch <HI>and</HI> Corinth, <HI>which he had before &s;hewed to be
each of them one Congregation.)</HI> Secondly, it was but one flock, that which Presbyters
might joyntly feed: they had no Dioce&s;an Pa&s;ter: If Presbyters onely, then none but Pa|ri&s;honall
Churches in and about <HI>Ephe&s;us:</HI> theremay be many flocks, but God ordained none
<PB N="72" REF="49">
but &s;uch as may wholely meet with tho&s;e who have the care of feeding and governing of them:
<HI>Peter</HI> indeed 1 <HI>Pet.</HI> 5. 2. calleth all tho&s;e he writteth unto one flock, but that is in regard
either of the my&s;ticall e&s;tate of the faithfull, or in re&s;pect of the common nature, which is in
all Churches one and the &s;ame: but properly and in externall adunation, one flock is but one
Congregation. Thirdly, Pari&s;hes according to the adver&s;e opinion were not then divided:
Neither doth the long and fruitfull labours of the Apo&s;tle argue that there &s;hould bee Pari&s;h
Churches in Dioce&s;an wi&s;e added, but a great number of Si&s;ter Churches. But when it is
&s;aid, that all <HI>A&s;ia</HI> did heare, the meaning is that from hand to hand, it did runne through
<HI>A&s;ia;</HI> &s;o as Churches were planted every where, even where <HI>Paul</HI> came not, as at <HI>Collo&s;&s;e:</HI>
there might be many Churches in <HI>A&s;ia,</HI> and many converted by <HI>Peter,</HI> and others fruitfull la|bours,
without &s;ubordination of Churches.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="16" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. XVI.</HEAD>
<HEAD TYPE="sub">Whether the Church at Antioch was onely one Congregation, and whe|ther
Acts 14. 27. and 15. 30. doe not prove the Affirmative.</HEAD>
<P>_THE An&s;wer, having in pag. 5. alledged <HI>Acts.</HI> 14. 27. and 15. 30, 31.
to prove that the Church at <HI>Antioch</HI> was no more then might be gathered
together into one place, Mr. <HI>Rutherford</HI> in An&s;wer hereto &s;aith, p. 472,
473. <HI>That the place</HI> Acts 14. 27. <HI>is the repre&s;entative Church, and that he
beleeveth the A&s;&s;embling of the multitude,</HI> Acts 15. ver&s;. 30. <HI>mu&s;t be ta|ken
di&s;tributively.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> This an&s;wer of Mr. <HI>Rutherfords,</HI> to the former place, was removed long ago
by worthy Mr. <HI>Baynes,</HI> who al&s;o under&s;tands the latter place as we doe, and not as Mr.
<HI>Rutherford:</HI> For in his <HI>Dioce&s;. triall,</HI> maintaining this po&s;ition, that the Churches in|&s;tituted
by the Apo&s;tles, were onely &s;uch as might meet in one Congregation ordinari|ly,
and giving this very place and in&s;tance of the Church of <HI>Antioch,</HI> for one of his
grounds, for confirming the &s;aid po&s;ition, <HI>p.</HI> 5. Hee comes imediately thereupon to
an&s;wer an objection, which is the very &s;ame that here Mr. <HI>Rutherford</HI> brings to the
former place, <HI>viz.</HI> that the Church mentioned in that place, was the Mini&s;ters or repre|&s;entative
Church: for the removing whereof Mr. <HI>Baynes</HI> returneth 4. things, 1. that
the word Church, is never &s;o u&s;ed: 2. He argues by analogy from that <HI>Acts</HI> 11. where
<HI>Peter</HI> gives account before the whole Church, even the Church of the faithfull, and
therefore in like &s;ort, <HI>Paul</HI> and <HI>Barnabas</HI> might report before the whole Church of the
faithfull, what things God had done by them. 3. Saith he, they made relation to that
Church which had &s;ent them forth, with Prayer and Impo&s;ition of Hands; and this
Church &s;tood of all tho&s;e who a&s;&s;embled to the publicke &s;ervice and wor&s;hip of God,
(which is cleere, <HI>Acts 13. 2.)</HI> 4. His fourth particular is this other place of <HI>Acts</HI> 15.
ver&s;. 30. where, &s;aith he, the people of the Church of <HI>Antioch</HI> were gathered together,
to con&s;ider of Decrees &s;ent them by the Apo&s;tles from <HI>Ieru&s;alem,</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">. In all
which, we cleerly perceive the judgement of this worthy man to be the &s;ame with us, and
as clearly again&s;t Mr. <HI>Rutherford,</HI> as can be expre&s;&s;ed, which being &s;o, and his judge|ment
being delivered upon &s;uch rea&s;ons, as &s;eem to me weighty, and which Mr. <HI>Ru|therford</HI>
<PB N="73" REF="49">
doth not remove; I therefore &s;ee no &s;ufficient rea&s;on to think otherwi&s;e of the
Church of <HI>Antioch</HI> then formerly.</P>
<P>For as for M. <HI>Rutherford</HI> his rea&s;on to prove the place, <HI>Acts</HI> 14. 27. to be meant of a
repre&s;entative Church, <HI>viz. That they met for a matter of Di&s;cipline, at lea&s;t for a matter that
concerned all the Churches, to wit, to know how God had opened the doore of &s;aith unto the
Gentiles:</HI> The an&s;wer is, that this doth not evince the thing: 1. Becau&s;e rehear&s;ing,
how God had opened the doore of Faith unto the Gentiles, being neither admi&s;&s;ion of
Members, nor of Officers, nor any matter of cen&s;ure, nor any thing el&s;e; but onely
a meer declaration of the gracious workings of the Lord, cannot be any matter of
Di&s;cipline, as I conceive.</P>
<P>2. Suppo&s;e it were a meeting for matter of Di&s;cipline, mu&s;t it needs be a meeting
for Elders alone, without the pre&s;ence of the faithfull? Will Mr. <HI>Rutherford</HI> deny it to
be l<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">wfull for any to be pre&s;ent at matters of Di&s;cipline, but onely the Elders? I &s;up|po&s;e
he will not deny it at all, &s;ure I am he hath heretofore written otherwayes; Peace|able
Plea p. 49. <HI>Where he granteth that all matters of Di&s;cipline mu&s;t be done with the
peoples con&s;ent, and alledgeth about 19. or 20. Divines old and new for the &s;ame Tenet.</HI>
Now if matters of Di&s;cipline mu&s;t be done with the peoples con&s;ent, then the people
mu&s;t be pre&s;ent thereat; For el&s;e they give their con&s;ent blindefold. And if they mu&s;t
be pre&s;ent at &s;uch matters; then &s;uppo&s;e the matter mentioned in the Scripture we have
in hand, had been of that nature, yet the Church that was gathered together about
the &s;ame, needed not to be a repre&s;entative Church of Elders alone, as Mr. <HI>Rutherford</HI>
would have it, but might con&s;i&s;t of the people al&s;o, who by his own grant may be lawful|ly
pre&s;ent at &s;uch matters.</P>
<P>3. Be it a matter of Di&s;cipline, or a matter that concerned all the Churches, or
what el&s;e Mr. <HI>Rutherford</HI> will have it? It is plain that <HI>Paul</HI> and <HI>Barnabas</HI> when
they were at <HI>Ieru&s;alem,</HI> did declare &s;uch matters as here they do declare at <HI>Antioch,</HI> not
onely to the Apo&s;tles and Elders, whom he perhaps would make a repre&s;entative
Church, but al&s;o to a Church be&s;ides them, I mean be&s;ides the Apo&s;tles and Elders;
for &s;o it is &s;aid, <HI>Acts</HI> 15. 4. That at <HI>Ieru&s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">lem</HI> they were received of the Church, and
of the Apo&s;tles and Elders, and declared all things that God had done with them: and
ver&s;. 12. they declared to the multitude what miracles and wonders God had wrought
among the Gentiles by them. Now if they declared the&s;e things at <HI>Ieru&s;alem</HI> not one|ly
to the Apo&s;tles and Elders, as to a repre&s;entative Church, but to the Church of the
Faithfull al&s;o, as the Text &s;aith, they did, what rea&s;on can be rendred that the Church,
which was gathered together at <HI>Antioch,</HI> &s;hould be onely a repre&s;entative Church? And
that the people there were not pre&s;ent? For my part, I &s;ee no rea&s;on for it, but that they
might declare the&s;e things to the Brethren a<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter"> <HI>Antioch,</HI> as well as to the Brethren at <HI>Ie|ru&s;alem;</HI>
and as well to a repre&s;entative Church at <HI>Ieru&s;alem,</HI> as to a repre&s;entative
Church at <HI>Antioch.</HI> And therefore &s;ith it is apparent that at <HI>Ieru&s;alem</HI> they declared
the&s;e things to a Church, which con&s;i&s;ted of others be&s;ides Apo&s;tles and Elders; the
Church at <HI>Antioch</HI> to whom they declared the &s;ame things, might be al&s;o a Church of
the like kinde, and not a repre&s;entative Church, as our Brother conceives it to be.</P>
<P>4. The nature of the thing, which they doe declare to this Church was &s;uch, as that
it was fit enough for the people to be acquainted therewith; which the text mentions
in two clau&s;es; fir&s;t, more generally, all that God had done with them: Secondly,
<PB N="74" REF="50">
more &s;pecially, how he had opened the doore of Faith to the Gentiles. Now &s;uppo&s;e
the people had nothing to do in matters of Judicature by way of power therein, yet to be
informed of other peoples conver&s;ion, and how God ble&s;&s;ed the labors of the Apo&s;tles
to that end, which are the things they declared to this Church, the&s;e are no &s;uch mat|ters,
but the people may bee acquainted therewith for their comfort, and that God
might have prai&s;es from them all; and therefore the Church to whom <HI>Paul</HI> and <HI>Bar|nabas</HI>
declared the&s;e things, needs not to be under&s;tood of the Elders alone, but may
well enough be a Church con&s;i&s;ting al&s;o of ordinary Chri&s;tians.</P>
<P>5. <HI>Paul</HI> thought it not unmeet to make known to all the <HI>Corinthians</HI> the grace of
God be&s;towed on the Churches of <HI>Macedonia, 2 Cor.</HI> 9. 1, 2. and declareth to them of
<HI>Macedonia,</HI> the forwardne&s;&s;e of the <HI>Corinthians</HI> in the grace of liberality, 2 <HI>Cor.</HI> 9. 2.
&s;hewing the good that came hereby, in that the example of Gods grace, in &s;ome provo|ked
many others to the like, 2 <HI>Cor.</HI> 9. 2. your zeale, &s;aith he, hath provoked very many;
and likewi&s;e in that, by this meanes, there redounded many thank&s;givings unto God,
ver&s;. 12, 13. And if upon the&s;e and other good cau&s;es he did thus practice towards the
Chri&s;tians of <HI>Macedonia</HI> and <HI>Achaia,</HI> I know no good rea&s;on why he and <HI>Barnabas</HI>
&s;hould deal otherwi&s;e with the Chri&s;tians at <HI>Antioch,</HI> and conceale from them the
gracious workings of God by their Mini&s;tery among&s;t the Gentiles; and make known
the &s;ame onely to a repre&s;entative Church of Elders.</P>
<P>As for our Brothers an&s;wer to the other Scripture, <HI>Act. 15. 30. That the a&s;&s;embling
of the multitude, there &s;poken of, mu&s;t be taken di&s;tributively,</HI> I conceive the text will
not beare that expo&s;ition: for the words are that they gathered the multitude together,
then delivered the Epi&s;tle. Now if this multitude was gathered together not in one
a&s;&s;embly but diver&s;e, how could the Epi&s;tle being but one, be delivered to them all?
Can one Epi&s;tle be delivered to &s;undry or &s;everall a&s;&s;emblies at one time? I &s;uppo&s;e it
is not po&s;&s;ible, except we &s;hall imagine there be &s;undry Coppies, one to be read in one
a&s;&s;embly, and another in another; whereof in the pre&s;ent ca&s;e, there is not &s;o much as
the lea&s;t hint. And if we would imagine &s;uch a matter, for which there is &s;mall rea&s;on;
yet &s;ince it is, <HI>Iudas</HI> and <HI>Silas,</HI> by whom this Epi&s;tle was &s;ent, and who were to tell the
&s;ame things by mouth, and who al&s;o upon the delivering of the Epi&s;tle exhorted the
breathren of <HI>Antioch,</HI> with many words, as is cleare, ver&s;. 22, 23, 27, 32. <HI>Iudas</HI> and
<HI>Sila<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">,</HI> I &s;ay, being but two men could not be pre&s;ent, and &s;peak, and act the&s;e things in
many a&s;&s;emblies at once, but mu&s;t of nece&s;&s;ity be both in one a&s;&s;embly, or at the mo&s;t
in two: but the text makes no mention of their being in two, but plainly enough inti|mates
the contrary, that they were both together: and yet where they were pre&s;ent,
there was the multitude gathered together, to receive the Epi&s;tle by their hands, and to
heare the report and word of exhortation at their mouth. Unle&s;&s;e therefore we will
imagine that <HI>Iudas</HI> and <HI>Silas</HI> could be pre&s;ent, and act in many a&s;&s;emblies at once,
there is no rea&s;on to think this multitude among whom they were pre&s;ent and acted,
to be many Congregations or a&s;&s;emblies.</P>
<P>And therefore for his conclu&s;ion, pag. 475, 476. <HI>That the mentioning of one multi|tude
in the &s;ingular number,</HI> Acts 15. 30. <HI>can never prove that there was but one &s;ingle Con|gregation
at</HI> Antioch. The an&s;wer is, that we doe not lay the force of our rea&s;on in the
mentioning of the multitude in the &s;ingular number, and therefore it can not thus be
&s;atisfied, or put off: for our words are the&s;e: <HI>The whole multitude of them were gathe|red
<PB N="75" REF="50">
together at the return of</HI> Paul <HI>and</HI> Barnabas <HI>from the Synod at</HI> Jeru&s;alem, <HI>to heare the
Epi&s;tle read, which was &s;ent from that Synod:</HI> An&s;wer p. 50. wherein it is ea&s;ie to perceive,
that we lay the force of our rea&s;on not in this, that the Church is called a multitude in
the &s;ingular number; but in this, that the whole multitude were gathered together,
for &s;uch an end, as there is expre&s;&s;ed: and this we &s;till conceive may prove the point:
For a Church, which is &s;uch a multitude, as is gathered together, for the receiving of
one Epi&s;tle, which was &s;ent unto them all, and which is gathered together to heare the
Epi&s;tle read, and al&s;o to heare the &s;ame things by mouth, the men from who&s;e mouth
they mu&s;t &s;o heare, and from who&s;e hands they mu&s;t &s;o receive, being no more but
two; &s;uch a Church as this can be no more, but one Congregation, or A&s;&s;embly.
Now <HI>Antioch</HI> was &s;uch a Church: and therefore was no more but one Congregation.
If this conclu&s;ion be not granted, &s;ome way mu&s;t be devi&s;ed how many &s;everall a&s;&s;em|blies
might all be receivers and hearers of one and the &s;ame Epi&s;tle at the &s;ame time,
there being but one coppy of the Epi&s;tle, as al&s;o how they might at one time heare the
&s;ame things declared to them by mouth, when there was but two men to declare the
&s;ame. And when &s;uch a way is found out, we may then further con&s;ider thereof. But
in the mean time, the grounds and rea&s;ons alledged doth induce me to think, that <HI>An|tioch,</HI>
where tho&s;e things were thus done, was indeed, but one Congregation.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="17" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. XVII.</HEAD>
<HEAD TYPE="sub">Whether no liberties are given by Chri&s;t to the People, but women
mu&s;t exerci&s;e the &s;ame, as well as men: and of the peoples liber|ty
about Ordination, or the Calling of Mini&s;ters.</HEAD>
<P><HI>_IN the an&s;wer, p. 8. we have the&s;e words,</HI> viz. Governing properly &s;o cal|led
we acknowledge not in any, but in the Elders alone, 1 <HI>Cor. 12. ver&s;. 28.
Rom. 12. 8. Heb.</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;en&s;e; for that which impropriety of &s;peech
were more fitly called liberty or priviledge: and yet this liberty when it is ex|erci&s;ed
about Ordination, Depo&s;ition, Excommunication, &amp;c. is of the whole body communi|ter,
or in generall, but not of all and every 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 de|barred
by their &s;ex, and the other for want of under&s;tanding and di&s;cretion. <HI>This pa&s;&s;age
Mr.</HI> Rutherford <HI>having related (though with &s;ome variation) in his pag. 476: in an|&s;wer
thereto, he &s;aith thus, p.</HI> 477. If there be no governing power in women, nor any act
at all in Excommunication, you loo&s;e many arguments, that you bring 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 5. to prove
that all have hand in Excommunication, 1. Becau&s;e <HI>Paul</HI> writeth to all. 2. All were to
mourne. 3. All were to forbeare the company of the Excommunicated: then belike <HI>Paul</HI>
writeth not to all Saints at <HI>Corinth,</HI> not to women, and women were not to mourne for the
&s;candall, nor to forbeare his company.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> If Mr. <HI>Tomp&s;on</HI> and I doe being &s;uch arguments from 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 5. why is not
the place quoted, where we doe bring them? I &s;uppo&s;e there is no &s;uch place at all that
can be produced; and therefore I de&s;ire &s;o much favour, that what we never &s;aid, may
<PB N="76" REF="51">
not be imputed to us, nor divulged abroad, as ours. If others doe bring &s;uch argu|ments
from 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 5. they that bring them are able to &s;peake for them&s;elves, and to
give account of their own arguments; but I know no rea&s;on that doth require, that
we &s;hould be drawn to defend &s;uch arguments as we never u&s;ed; nor that doth allow
our Reverend Brother to report &s;uch arguments as ours; which having never been
u&s;ed by us, I counted it therefore an impertinent digre&s;&s;ion, to &s;pend time in the defence
of them.</P>
<P>The priviledge, &s;aith he, being a part of liberty purcha&s;ed by Chri&s;ts body, it mu&s;t be due
to <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 span"> for the liberty wherewith Chri&s;t hath made women free, cannot be taken away
<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 span"> of God from their &s;ex, except in Chri&s;t Ie&s;us there be a difference between Iew
and Gentile, male and female.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> That which is in the people, we &s;ay, in propriety of &s;peech, is more <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">itly cal|led
liberty or priviledge: but of liberty purcha&s;ed by Chri&s;ts body or blood, we make
no mention at all: and therefore our Brother might have &s;pared &s;peech thereof. But
it is true indeed, that the people can have no liberty, but women al&s;o may exerci&s;e the
<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 span"> el&s;e their liberty purcha&s;ed for them by Chri&s;t is taken away? It &s;eems, he &s;o
conceives: but then I de&s;ire to know how his own doctrine el&s;ewhere, and the Apo|&s;tl<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">s
w<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="2 letters">ds can &s;tand together: for in one place, he &s;aith, that <HI>Acts 14. 23. Proveth
that Elders ordaine Elder, with lifting up of the hands of the people, and this, &s;aith he, is</HI>
<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 span"> <HI>doctrine,</HI> Due Right p. 190. <HI>and in another place, he &s;aith, The people have Gods
right to choo&s;e Mini&s;ters, for &s;o the word pre&s;cribeth; for which in his margent he alledgeth
<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 word"> &s;everall texts of Scripture,</HI> Acts 15. 22. 1 Cor. 16. 3. 2. Cor. 8. 19. Acts 6. 4.
Acts 14. 23. <HI>and in his text alledgeth</HI> Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambro&s;e, Origen, Chry|&s;o&s;tome,
<HI>the Councell of</HI> Nice, <HI>the fir&s;t generall Councell of</HI> Con&s;tantinople, <HI>with other
Councels and Authors witne&s;&s;ing the &s;ame:</HI> pag. 201, 202. <HI>And in a third place, he grants
that all matters in the Church mu&s;t be done with the peoples con&s;ent,</HI> con&s;entiente plebe, <HI>al|ledging
a matter of 18. or 19. Authors for the &s;ame tenet.</HI> Peaceable Plea, <HI>p. 49. and in
another place he alledgeth and approveth the judgement of Mr.</HI> Calderwood, <HI>and Mr.</HI> Cart|wright
<HI>affirming that this liberty is purcha&s;ed by the blood of Chri&s;t: Due Right,</HI> Secondly,
pag. 464. All which, do plainly &s;hew that in his judgement, the people have &s;ome <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 word">,
or priviledge, or right in Church matters; yea, as him&s;elf &s;aith in this, they have <HI>di|vinum
jus,</HI> Gods right: And yet for all this, the Apo&s;tles words do plainly forbid wo|men
to &s;peak in the Church, 1 <HI>Cor. 14. 34. 1 Tim.</HI> 2. 12. which very prohibition to
women doth al&s;o &s;ecretly imply, that men may have liberty to practi&s;e, though women
may not. Now then, if the people have liberty, priviledge, right to con&s;ent, and act
in Church matters; yea, to &s;peak in the Church, and yet women may not &s;peak therein,
how can this &s;tand, which here M. <HI>Rutherford</HI> writes, That if the people have any liber|ty,
this liberty mu&s;t al&s;o be due to women? If the Apo&s;tles words and our Brothers
own doctrine in the places cited do &s;tand, his &s;aying in the place, we have now in hand,
cannot &s;tand, they being &s;o contrary one to another. Thirdly, &s;aith he, <HI>What privi|ledge
the people have in Ordination to conferre a mini&s;tery, which they neither have formally,
nor virtually,</HI> I know not.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Neither formally, nor virtually? then hear your own words, pag. 7. <HI>I de|ny
not but there is a power virtuall, not formall in the Church of beleevers, to &s;upply the want
of ordination of Pa&s;tors,</HI> hic &amp; nunc; <HI>this power is virtuall, not formall, &amp;c.</HI> Whereas
<PB N="77" REF="51">
in the place we have in hand, the virtuall power as well as the formall is denyed;
which things are not free from Interferring, or &s;trong appearance thereof.</P>
<P>Our words are not ju&s;t the &s;ame which M. <HI>Rutherford</HI> &s;ets downe, a priviledge in or|dination
to conferre a Mini&s;tery; but the&s;e are our words, a liberty exerci&s;ed about or|dination,
&amp;c. And who knows not but there may be a liberty exerci&s;ed about ordina|tion,
or any other Ordinance by way of con&s;ent thereto, or de&s;ire thereof, &amp;c. with|out
any authoritative acting therein? And if this liberty about ordination be &s;uch a
fault, then how &s;hall he be ju&s;tified, who doth give to the people a greater matter then
this liberty doth amount unto, even a power to do that which &s;hall &s;tand for ordina|tion
it &s;elfe? which to do I conceive is more then to exerci&s;e &s;ome liberty about ordi|nation.
And when the reader &s;hall have con&s;idered the&s;e en&s;uing words of M <HI>Ruther|ford:</HI>
then let him be judge, whether M. <HI>Rutherford</HI> do not give this power unto the
people in &s;ome ca&s;es. <HI>As a ro&s;e, &s;aith he, cau&s;ed to grow in winter by art, is of that &s;ame
nature with a ro&s;e produced in &s;ummer by nature, though the manner of production be diffe|rent;
&s;o are they both true Pa&s;tors, tho&s;e who have no call, but the peoples election, and tho&s;e
who have ordination by Pa&s;tors,</HI> p. 186. <HI>And in the page following, he gives two rea&s;ons
to prove that in &s;ome ca&s;es election by the people onely may &s;tand for ordination: 1. Becau&s;e
God is not nece&s;&s;arily tyed to &s;ucce&s;&s;ion of Pa&s;tors: 2. Becau&s;e where men are gifted for the
work of the Mini&s;tery, and there be no Pa&s;tors to be had, the giving of the Holy Gho&s;t is a
&s;igne of a calling of God, who is not wanting to his own gracious intention, though ordinary
means faile.</HI> Now if the people without Pa&s;tors may do that which &s;hall &s;tand for or|dination,
and if their election do make a Mini&s;ter in &s;ome ca&s;es; this &s;eems to be more
then onely to exerci&s;e &s;ome liberty about ordination, for as much as they may doe this
latter, and po&s;&s;ibly no Mini&s;ter be made thereby; whereas in the other ca&s;e a man is
made a true Pa&s;tor and Mini&s;ter, as well as by ordination it &s;elfe. Marvell it is there|fore
that the greater is allowed as lawfull, and not the le&s;&s;er: that &s;ome liberty about
ordination may not be allowed, and yet that can be allowed which may &s;tand for ordi|nation
it &s;elf, and which makes a Mini&s;ter<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter"> as truly as ordination doth.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="18" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. XVIII.</HEAD>
<HEAD TYPE="sub">Of Mr. Rutherfords report of Synodicall propo&s;itions in
new-England.</HEAD>
<P><HI>_NExt after this, our reverend Author falls to &s;canning, as he &s;aith,</HI> pag. 476.
<HI>&s;ome Synodicall propo&s;itions of the Churches of New England, as he calls them,
together with a Table of Church power, which he calls the Table of New
England.</HI> But with favour of &s;oworthy a man, he doth greatly mi&s;take
the matter: for neither was there any &s;uch Synod, nor Synodicall pro|po&s;itions
as he &s;peaks of, nor any &s;uch Table of New England, as hee mentioneth.
There was indeed at <HI>Cambridge</HI> in the year 1643. a printed conference of &s;ome of the
Elders of that Country; where &s;undry points of Church judgement were privatly di|&s;cour&s;ed
of, and this was all. But as the meeting was not any Synod, as Synods are
u&s;ually under&s;tood, &s;o neither were there any Synodicall propo&s;itions there agreed
upon, nor any table of propo&s;itions agreed upon to be given forth as the Doctrine of
<PB N="78" REF="52">
New England. This I am able to te&s;tifie, having been pre&s;ent at that meeting from
the beginning thereof unto the end: and &s;undry others of the Elders of the&s;e Churches
can te&s;tifie the &s;ame, upon the &s;ame ground: And knowing full well the truth of what
I heare relate, I will not &s;pend time in replying to what he hath written upon &s;o mani|fe&s;t
mi&s;information, and mi&s;take. What information he goeth upon, I know not:
per adventure &s;ome notes may have come to his view, which one or other might gather
at that conference for his own private u&s;e: Peradventure &s;ome in their &s;implicity mea|ning
no hurt, many have called that private conference by the name and tearme of a Sy|no<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">,
and M. <HI>Rutherford</HI> might thereupon adventure to publi&s;h in print as here we &s;ee.
But however they mi&s;take a Ro&s;e, &s;ure I am, Synodicall propo&s;itions there were none;
<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 word"> any Synod at all, not New England Table. And therefore I think him&s;elfe and
others may do well and wi&s;ely hereafter, to be informed by good and &s;ufficient intelli|gence
of &s;uch things as they publi&s;h to the world concer<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">ing the Churches in New
England, or el&s;e not to beleeve the &s;ame, much le&s;&s;e to divulge the &s;ame in print. For
what comfort can it be to any Chri&s;tian to receive, and publi&s;h to the world again&s;t a
mans neighb<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">u<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">, &s;pecially again&s;t whole Churches of Chri&s;t, &s;uch reports as for the
matter contained in them do not agree with truth?</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="19" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. XIX.</HEAD>
<HEAD TYPE="sub">Of the Appeales of Luther and Cranmer: and of the power and juri&s;|diction
in generall Councells denyed by Mr. Rutherford; whe|ther
therein he do not contradict him&s;elfe, and al&s;o over|throw
the juri&s;diction of Cla&s;&s;icall, Provinciall,
and Nationall A&s;&s;emblies.</HEAD>
<P><HI>_IN his page 482. alledging Mr.</HI> Tomp&s;on <HI>and me, pag.</HI> 16, 17. Hee re|ports
us to &s;ay, that though &s;ome have appealed, as <HI>Luther</HI> and <HI>Cranmer</HI> from
the Pope to a generall Councell, yet not from a Congregation to a generall
Councell.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> As he one of the&s;e pages hath nothing at all concerning this
matter, and therefore might well have been &s;pared, &s;o neither of them both doth make
any mention of <HI>Luther,</HI> either of one purpo&s;e or other: and therefore it is &s;ome mar|vaile,
why he &s;hould be mentioned as thus &s;poken of by us, who do not &s;peak of him
at all &s;o much as one word, for any purpo&s;e what&s;oever. Nor do the re&s;t of the words
of appealing from a Congregation to a generall Councell agree with ours, as we have
&s;et them downe in the 16. page alledged; and therefore that our mind and meaning
may appeare, let me relate our own words which are the&s;e, <HI>How this example (&s;c. of</HI>
Cramners <HI>appealing to Councell, related by Mr.</HI> Fox) <HI>doth &s;uit the pre&s;ent que&s;tion, we do
not under&s;tand; for his appeale was not from a particular Congregation, but from the Pope: nor
was it from a Synod, but to the next generall Councell, which from that day to this hath not
yet been a&s;&s;embled nor called. If we mu&s;t hold a nece&s;&s;ity of appeales to &s;uch a Iudicatory as</HI>
Cranmer <HI>appealed unto, then the &s;upremacy of Synods provinciall, and nationall is utterly
taken away.</HI> The&s;e are our words in the place alledged by Mr. <HI>Rutherford:</HI> now what
doth he an&s;wer thereto?</P>
<P><PB N="79" REF="52">
In matters doctrinall, &s;aith he, &s;ome as <HI>Luther,</HI> and others have ju&s;tly appealed from
Congregation to a generall Councell, though <HI>Luther</HI> and <HI>Cranmer</HI> did it not.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Say it be true, that <HI>Cranmer</HI> did it not, yet for <HI>Luther</HI> how can it be that he
&s;hould be an in&s;tance, both of &s;uch as did it not, and of &s;uch as did it? for <HI>Luther</HI> and
others have ju&s;tly done it, and yet <HI>Luther</HI> and <HI>Cranmer</HI> are two of them that did it not,
the&s;e are &s;ayings which &s;eem not to agree. Againe, if <HI>Luther</HI> did &s;o appeale, why is no
proof alledged for Confirmation of what here is affirmed? which if there had been, we
might have con&s;idered thereof. But &s;ith there is not, we may be allowed to forbeare
a&s;&s;ent, till that which is here nakedly affirmed, be further &s;trengthened by &s;ome proofe
or other, to make it good. La&s;tly, if <HI>Luther</HI> or others have ju&s;tly appealed from a Con|gregation
to a generall Councell, then why will it not be lawfull for others upon like
occa&s;ion to do the like? And if &s;o, then (as we argued in the an&s;wer) the &s;upremacy
of Cla&s;&s;icall, Provinciall, and Nationall Presbyteries is utterly taken away: and &s;o,
by this meanes cau&s;es and controver&s;ies may &s;till be depending, and never come to be
determined &s;o long as this world &s;hall endure; which whether it be agreeable to the wi&s;|dome
of Chri&s;t, and good of his people let the wi&s;e judge.</P>
<P>Though verily, I profe&s;&s;e, I cannot &s;ee what power of Juri&s;diction to cen&s;ure &s;candalls, can
be in a generall Councell; there may be &s;ome meerly doctrinall power, if &s;uch a Councell could
be had, and that is all.</P>
<P>An&s;w. <HI>For my part, I am altogether of the &s;ame minde. But here I have a quere or
two to propo&s;e to our reverend Brothers &s;erious con&s;ideration; fir&s;t of all, how this
pa&s;&s;age doth agree with that which him&s;elf hath written, pag. 387. where he &s;aith,</HI> It
may be made good that a power Dogmaticall is not different in nature from a power of Juri&s;|diction,
and that we read not of any &s;ociety, which hath power to meet to make lawes and de|crees,
which have not power al&s;o to back their decrees with puni&s;hment. Yea, he &s;aith further
that if the Jewi&s;h Synodry might meet to declare judicially what was Gods law in point of
con&s;cience, and what not, farre more may they puni&s;h contraveners of the law: For Anomo|thetick
power in a &s;ociety, which is the greater power, and is in the fountaine, mu&s;t pre&s;up|po&s;e
in the &s;ociety <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 word"> le&s;&s;er power, which is to puni&s;h. Anomothetick power mini&s;teriall can|not
want a power of cen&s;uring. <HI>So that whereto in the place we have in hand, he &s;aith,
there may be in a generall Councell, &s;ome <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 word"> doctrinall power without any power
of juri&s;diction to cen&s;ure, in this other place, he &s;aith, the&s;e powers do not differ in
nature, nor can the former be without the latter; but doth alwayes pre&s;uppo&s;e the &s;ame,
as that which is le&s;&s;er, and which it cannot want. Now how the&s;e things do agree I am
not able to under&s;tand: next of all how doth this pa&s;&s;age we have in hand agree, with
that which is written p.</HI> 308, 309. Where he &s;aith, it is by accident, and not through want of
inate and intrin&s;ecall power, that the court of a Catholick Councell can not in an ordinary and
con&s;tant way exerci&s;e the power which Chri&s;t hath given to her; <HI>and what that power is he
expre&s;&s;eth in two or three lines proceeding, viz.</HI> A power of juri&s;diction to Excommunicate
and relax from Excommunication even nationall Churches. If the Lord &s;hould be plea&s;ed to
give the Chri&s;tian Churches a generall Councell this day, might lawfully in a juri&s;dictiall way
declare the faction of the Romi&s;h pretended Catholicks to be my&s;ticall Babylon&mdash;which in
Excommunication in the e&s;&s;ence and &s;ub&s;tance of the act. And againe, This of our Saviour,
Tell the Church, is nece&s;&s;arily to be applyed to all Churches and Courts of Chri&s;t, even to a ge|nerall
Councell. And in page 304. He tells in that a power of juri&s;diction (though he call
<PB N="80" REF="53">
it extraordinary and remote, and which is but rarely to be put forth in acts) is given to the
Catholick vi&s;ible Presbytery, of the whole Catholick vi&s;ible Church. <HI>In all which places
he plainly affirmeth there is a power of juri&s;diction to cen&s;ure &s;candalls in a generall
Councell, which in the place we have in hand he doth as plainly deny.</HI></P>
<P>Thirdly, if there be no power of juri&s;diction to cen&s;ure &s;candals in a generall Coun|cell,
then how &s;hall it appeare that there is &s;uch power of Juri&s;diction in the Cla&s;&s;icall,
Provinciall and Nationall Presbyteries, which are farre le&s;&s;e? Yea, and that there is
in the&s;e Presbyteries a power Independent and Supreame, without appeale to any other.
For &s;uch power there mu&s;t be in &s;ome of them, if there be any power of juri&s;diction in
them at all, &s;ith we are told there is no power of juri&s;diction in the generall Councell
to appeale unto. Now how &s;hall it appeare that any &s;uch Independent &s;upream power
of juri&s;diction is given to any of tho&s;e Presbyteries? where are the texts of Scripture
that &s;peak of &s;uch power? For our parts we know of none, but do &s;till think that this
power is placed by Chri&s;t in a &s;ingle Congregation and its Presbytery, and are the ra|ther
&s;trengthened in this apprehen&s;ion, for that the rea&s;on which is wont to be given a|gain&s;t
the Congregations power, and wherein our Brethren are wont to place their grea|te&s;t
&s;trength, <HI>&s;c.</HI> that appeals are <HI>juris naturalis,</HI> and that defects, in the parts are to be
&s;upplyed and holden by the whole, this rea&s;on we &s;ee is now removed and utterly taken
away, fora&s;much as all power of juri&s;diction is denyed to the generall Councell which
is the inevitable. Now if there be no power of juri&s;diction within the generall Councell,
then there can be no appeals to &s;uch a Councell for &s;uch an end: and if no appeales to
that Councell, then the rule doth not alwayes hold, that there mu&s;t be appeals from the
le&s;&s;er a&s;&s;emblies to the greater: and if this do not alwayes hold, then there may be in|dependent
power of juri&s;diction in a Congregation without appeals from the &s;ame,
though it be a le&s;&s;er a&s;&s;embly then the Cla&s;&s;icall, Provinciall and Nationall Presby|teries,
and thus our purpo&s;e is gained. For how can it be avoided, except this power
of juri&s;diction (yea &s;upream or independent power) which is denyed to the generall
Councell, could be proved to be in the Cla&s;&s;es, Synods, or nationall Presbyteries,
which we think cannot be done. Indeed to &s;ay on the one &s;ide, that <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 word"> is no indepen|dent
power in the Congregation, and to &s;ay on the other &s;ide, that there is no power at
all of juri&s;diction in generall Councells, this doth inevitably lay a nece&s;&s;ity of &s;uch In|dependent
power in the&s;e intermediat a&s;&s;emblies of the Cla&s;&s;icall, Provinciall and na|tionall
Presbyteries; except we &s;hall &s;ay there is no &s;uch power at all appointed by
Chri&s;t in any Church a&s;&s;emblies on earth. Now if &s;uch independent power be given
to the Presbyteries mentioned, (as it needs mu&s;t if it be neither in the generall Coun|cell,
nor in the &s;ingle Congregations) then I de&s;ire to know upon what &s;cripture or &s;cri|tures,
&s;uch power in the &s;aid Presbyteries is grounded and built; and whether the &s;aid
power belong unto them all, or only unto &s;ome of them, and which they be, and why
not to the re&s;t as well: yea, why not to the &s;ingle Congregation, nor yet to the generall
Councell, as well as to any of them. When this quaere is an&s;wered, and the an&s;wer &s;uf|ficiently
proved by &s;cripture, then we &s;hall &s;ee more rea&s;on for the juri&s;diction of &s;uch
a&s;&s;emblies over the particular Congregations then yet we have &s;een. In the mean, time
this quaere with the re&s;t I leave to our Brethrens con&s;ideration.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="20" TYPE="chapter">
<PB N="81" REF="53">
<HEAD>CHAP. XX.</HEAD>
<HEAD TYPE="sub">If it were granted that the light of nature teacheth all &s;ocieties to end in
Monarchies, whether it would not thence follow, that the government
of Churches mu&s;t &s;o end, as well as that Congregations
mu&s;t depend on the government of Synods, becau&s;e
the light of nature teacheth a Communion in go|vernment
to other &s;ocieties. And whether the
multitude of Grecians and Hebrews,
who cho&s;e the &s;even Deacons,
Act. 6. were two Congre|gations
or one onely.</HEAD>
<P><HI>_PAG.</HI> 482. If Churches mu&s;t be dependent on Synods, becau&s;e the light of na|ture
teacheth a communion and a&s;&s;i&s;tance in government, by the &s;ame rea&s;on
Churches mu&s;t end in a Monarchy on earth; for which he alledgeth the an&s;w.
pag. 20. and then &s;ubjoyneth his an&s;wer, thus: I &s;ee this &s;aid without any
approbation: Churches depend on many above them for unity; but what con|&s;quence
in this, Erg<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter"> they depend upon one vi&s;ible Monarch? It is an unju&s;t con&s;equence.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> With favour of &s;o worthy a man, he greatly wrongs our words (and thereby
wrongs the reader) by leaving out tho&s;e words wherein the plainene&s;&s;e and &s;trength of
our argumentation lyes. Therefore I am forced here to relate the order and progre&s;&s;e
of the di&s;pute in that &s;cript of ours, and to &s;et down our words there u&s;ed, becau&s;e as
Mr. <HI>Rutherford</HI> hath &s;et them down, the &s;trength of con&s;equence is &s;uppre&s;&s;ed from the
Readers knowledge, and &s;o indeed his an&s;wer is made ea&s;ie: but the naked truth lyes
thus. Our reverend Brother to who&s;e Treati&s;e we return an&s;wer in that &s;mall piece of
ours, having &s;aid, that communion and a&s;&s;i&s;tance in government is taught by the very
light of nature to all &s;ocieties what&s;oever, whether Commonwealths, or Armies, Uni|ver&s;ities,
or Navies; he pre&s;ently addeth by way of prevention. <HI>Not that therefore this
government of Churches &s;hould (as tho&s;e) end in a Monarchy upon earth.</HI> In an&s;wer whereto,
be&s;ides other things, we have the&s;e words, pag. 21. <HI>If Churches mu&s;t be dependent on the
government of Synods, becau&s;e the light of nature teacheth a communion and a&s;&s;i&s;tance in
government to all &s;ocieties what&s;oever, then we &s;ee not how it will be avoided, but by the &s;ame
rea&s;on, Churches mu&s;t end in a Monarchie on earth, if it were once cleared, that the light
of nature doth teach all &s;ocieties whatever &s;o to end; &s;o there is as good rea&s;on for this as for
the other.</HI> Which la&s;t words, if it were once proved &amp;c. Mr. <HI>Rutherford</HI> wholy leaves
out and &s;uppre&s;&s;eth, and &s;o makes his own an&s;wer more ea&s;ie. But I de&s;ire &s;o much
favour, which I think is but rea&s;onable, that he that will undertake to an&s;wer our
writing, would repre&s;ent our words and arguing as it is, and no otherwi&s;e, and then I
am content that the &s;ame may come under tryall. Now our arguing is this; If Chur|ches
mu&s;t be dependent upon the government of Synods upon this rea&s;on; becau&s;e the
light of nature teacheth a communion and a&s;&s;i&s;tance in government to all &s;ocieties what|&s;oever;
<PB N="82" REF="54">
then by the like rea&s;on let it be once proved (which is by Mr. <HI>Herle</HI> affirmed)
that the light of nature teacheth all &s;ocieties to end in a Monarchy, and it will thereup|on
follow that Churches mu&s;t likewi&s;e end in the &s;ame manner. If we yeeld thus much
that what the light of nature teacheth other &s;ocieties, the &s;ame mu&s;t be ob&s;erved in the
government of Churches: I think it will then follow, that if the light of nature teach o|ther
&s;ocieties to end in a Monarchy on earth, the government of Churches mu&s;t do &s;o
al&s;o. This is our manner of arguing, in which the con&s;equence is the &s;ame with that
which our Brethren think &s;o &s;trong, <HI>viz.</HI> that becau&s;e the light of nature teacheth a
communion and a&s;&s;i&s;tance in government, therefore there mu&s;t be in the Churches a
government of Synods.</P>
<P>If any &s;ay the con&s;equence is not alike nece&s;&s;ary in both ca&s;es, becau&s;e the ground
doth not hold alike in both, for the light of nature doth not teach all &s;ocieties on
earth to end in a Monarchie, as it doth teach a communion and a&s;&s;i&s;tance in govern|ment
The an&s;wer in that we have plainly &s;aid the &s;ame, in the place of the An&s;werer
alledgeth, <HI>viz.</HI> p. 20, 21. But the main que&s;tion lyes not there, whether other &s;ocieties
do end in Monarchies, (for though the reverend author whom we there doe an&s;wer,
do &s;eem &s;o to judge; yet we have there plainly declared, that we conceive of that mat|ter
otherwi&s;e:) but here doth lye the main que&s;tion, <HI>viz.</HI> Suppo&s;e it were granted, that
light of nature doth teach all &s;ocieties to end in a Monarchy on earth, whether would it
not then follow that Churches mu&s;t al&s;o &s;o end: And that this is the thing in que&s;tion wil
plainly appear to any that &s;hall peru&s;e the place. And to this que&s;tion, our an&s;wer is
that the con&s;equence for the affirmative is as good as in that other ca&s;e, in which our
Brethren do think it &s;o &s;trong: <HI>viz.</HI> for the government of Synods over congrega|tions,
from the communion and a&s;&s;i&s;tance&mdash;government taught by the light of na|ture
to other &s;ocieties: and our reverend brother granting that the light of nature doth
teach the one as well as the other unto other &s;ocieties, that is, that they &s;hould end in
Monarchies, as well as have communion in government, our an&s;wer is that thereupon
the con&s;equence will be as &s;trong for the one as for the other in Churches. In which
arguing it is ea&s;ie to perceive that we go upon the ground which was laid and given us
by our author: and therefore for M. <HI>Rutherford</HI> to &s;uppre&s;&s;e this ground which we have
there &s;o plainly expre&s;&s;ed, and to repre&s;ent and &s;et down our arguing as if there had been
no &s;uch matter; this indeed may make way for him&s;elf to give an&s;wer to us with ea&s;e,
but whether it be candid and faire thus to deale, I leave it to him&s;elf, and the godly wi&s;e
to con&s;ider.</P>
<P><HI>In the &s;ame pag. 482. he alledgeth the an&s;wer pag. 26. and &s;ets down the&s;e words
as ours,</HI> viz. The Graecians and Hebrews made not two Churches, but one Congregation;
they called the multitude of the Di&s;ciples together, ver&s;. 2.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Here againe our words are &s;et down unperfectly: for the que&s;tion being,
whether tho&s;e Graecians and Hebrews, <HI>Act.</HI> 6. were two &s;everall Congregation in one
Church, or both but one Congregation, we for this latter do not onely alledge that one
particular which Mr. <HI>Rutherford</HI> mentioneth, that the Apo&s;tles called the multitude of
the di&s;ciples together, <HI>ver&s;.</HI> 2. but moreover that this multitude mu&s;t look out &s;even
men duely qualified, whom they might appoint over that bu&s;ine&s;&s;e, <HI>v.</HI> 3. and that the
&s;aying plea&s;ed this whole multitude, and that they thereupon cho&s;e &s;even who are there
named <HI>v.</HI> 5. and &s;et them before the Apo&s;tles, <HI>v.</HI> 6. who laid their hands on them: <HI>ibid.</HI>
<PB N="83" REF="54">
In all which, &s;ay we, there is no hint of two Congregations, one of Graecians and ano|ther
of Hebrews, but all the bu&s;ine&s;&s;e of chu&s;ing and ordeyning the&s;e Deacons, &s;eems
to be tran&s;acted and done in one Congregation. For when the text &s;aith that the Apo|&s;tles
called the multitude of the di&s;ciples unto them, and made a &s;peech to this multi|tude
being a&s;&s;embled, and the whole multitude did hear what the Apo&s;tles &s;pake, and
well liked the &s;ame, and thereupon joyntly concurred in one act of chu&s;ing &s;even,
and pre&s;enting them being cho&s;en before the Apo&s;tles, it &s;eems to me more rationall to
look at the&s;e things as done in one Congregation, then to imagine there were two, one
of Graecians another of Hebrews: for of two Congregations wherein this choi&s;e of
Deacons &s;hould be made, the text for ought I perceive doth not afford the lea&s;t hint.</P>
<P><HI>But let us hear Mr.</HI> Rutherford <HI>his an&s;wer.</HI> That the chiefe, &s;aith he, of both Graecians
and Hebrews were contained in one, to give their con&s;ent to the admi&s;&s;ion of the Deacons, I
conceive.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> The chief are not &s;o much as once mentioned in the &s;tory: but contrarily
the text expre&s;&s;ely mentioneth the multitude, <HI>ver&s;.</HI> 2. and the whole multitude, <HI>ver&s;.</HI> 5.
Now to exclude the multitude, whom the text doth expre&s;ly mention, and to attribute
the a&s;&s;embling and acting only to the chiefe, of whom the holy Gho&s;t &s;peaks not one
word, this (to &s;ay no more) &s;eems a violent forcing of the text.</P>
<P>And if &s;omthing had not forced him to it, I think he would not have u&s;ed it; for el&s;|where
<HI>(viz.</HI> p. 495, 496.) he alledgeth this very &s;cripture, and that three &s;everall times,
within the &s;pace of a doozen or &s;ixteen lines, to prove that the people, yea the multitude
are to have the choi&s;e of Officers; and &s;aith he, <HI>If it plea&s;e not the whol multitude,</HI> Act. 6.
ver&s;. 5. <HI>it is not a choi&s;e.</HI> And in pag. 190. <HI>He tells us, that the multitude</HI> Act. 6. <HI>are di|rected
to choo&s;e out &s;even men, as being be&s;t acquainted with them; and that accordingly they did
look out &s;even men and cho&s;e them.</HI> In which places we &s;ee he can attribute this choi&s;e to the
whole multitude, without any mention of the chief, or &s;o much as the lea&s;t intimation
of the action to be performed by them, the multitude being excluded or ab&s;ent; yea,
he gives a rea&s;on of this choi&s;e, which will reach the multitude, and not the chief only,
except we &s;hall &s;ay, that the chief only were acquainted with the&s;e &s;even: whereas in the
place we have in hand, he would exclude the multitude, and a&s;cribe the action to the
chiefe onely.</P>
<P>But that all the thou&s;ands of the Church of <HI>Jeru&s;alem</HI> were here as in one ordinary Con|gregation,
I judge unpo&s;&s;ible.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> For a&s;much as the text tells us that the whole multitude of the di&s;ciples were
gathered together to act as here is recorded about the election of Deacons, therefore we
judge that it was not unpo&s;&s;ible for them &s;o to do; for how &s;hould we judge the thing
unpo&s;&s;ible, except we would judge the words of God to be unpo&s;&s;ible to be true? Be|&s;ides,
how many &s;oever they were the text tels us <HI>Act.</HI> 2. 46. that they continued daily
with one accord in the Temple: Now Temples we know there were none but one;
and therefore that they &s;hould all a&s;&s;emble in one Congregation, we dare not judge a
matter unpo&s;&s;ible, lea&s;t in &s;o judging we &s;hould &s;eem to que&s;tion the truth of Gods
Te&s;timony.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="21" TYPE="chapter">
<PB N="84" REF="55">
<HEAD>CHAP. XXI.</HEAD>
<HEAD TYPE="sub">Whether Congregations may be excommunicated by Cla&s;&s;es and Synods,
by vertue of tho&s;e words, Matt. 18. tell the Church, as containing a rule
and remedy for all offences, or at the lea&s;t a Church remedy, for
the officers of Churches, and Churchmembers? And if yea,
whether it would not follow, that a nationall Church mu&s;t
have the benefit of this remedy as well as others, and
&s;o have no independency of juri&s;diction within
it &s;elf, but be &s;ubject to the juri&s;diction
of generall Councels, which yet
Mr. Rutherford doth
deny?</HEAD>
<P><HI>_IN the &s;ame p.</HI> 482. He excepteth again&s;t another pa&s;&s;age in the an&s;wer p. 27,
28. where he &s;ets down the&s;e as our words, <HI>viz.</HI> If our argument be good, If
thy Brother offend and refu&s;e to &s;ubmit, tell the Church, becau&s;e Chri&s;ts reme|dy
mu&s;t be as large as the di&s;ea&s;e; then if a nationall Church offend, you are
to complain to an higher Church above a nationall Church; and becau&s;e offences
may ari&s;e between Chri&s;tians and Indians, you may complain of an Indian to the Church:
and then he &s;ubjoyneth his an&s;wer.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Yet againe our words are &s;o imperfectly related, as that our &s;cope and intent
doth not &s;ufficiently appear to his reader. I mu&s;t therefore for the readers under&s;tan|ding,
relate the pa&s;&s;age according to the true and plain meaning thereof. The que&s;tion
between reverend Mr. <HI>Herle</HI> and us being this, whether Congregations mu&s;t depend on
the government of Synods, and this rea&s;on being brought for the affirmative, that Chri&s;ts
remedy, <HI>Matth.</HI> 18. Tell the Church, mu&s;t be as large as the maladie, offence; if there|fore
there ari&s;e offences between Congregations, there mu&s;t be a Church of Synods
above Congregations, and tho&s;e Synods mu&s;t judge and redre&s;&s;e tho&s;e offences: to this
we there an&s;wer that all offences do not fall within the compa&s;&s;e of this rule and remedy,
tell the Church; and &s;o no dependency of Congregation upon the juri&s;diction of Sy|nods
can be &s;ufficiently proved by this text. Fir&s;t of all, we in&s;tance in the offences of
nationall Churches, of which we &s;uppo&s;e our Brother will not &s;ay that they fall within
the compa&s;&s;e of our Saviours rule, Tell the Church, for then the independency of nation|all
Churches and nationall Synods is overthrown, as well as the Congregations; which
we &s;uppo&s;e he will not grant; and yet it cannot be avoided if his rea&s;on for the depen|dency
of Congregations upon Synods do &s;tand firm. And next of all we in&s;tance in
the offences of Turks and Indians and other heathens, who may offend Chri&s;tians and
yet are not to be complained of to the Church, the Apo&s;tle expre&s;&s;ely teaching the con|trary,
1 <HI>Col.</HI> 5. This being the &s;cope of that pa&s;&s;age in the an&s;wer, which here Mr. <HI>Ru|therford,</HI>
excepteth again&s;t, let us now hear what it is, which he &s;aith thereto.</P>
<P>Becau&s;e, &s;aith he, ordinary communion faileth when you go higher then a nationall Church,
<PB N="85" REF="55">
and Chri&s;ts way &s;uppo&s;eth art ordinary communion, as is cleare, If thy brother offend, &amp;c
therefore I deny that this remedy is needfull in any Church above a nationall Church.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> 1. If this remedy be not needfull in any Church above a nationall, then the
rule doth not univer&s;ally hold true, that the remedy, complaint to the Church, mu&s;t be
as large as the malady, offence: and &s;o our purpo&s;e is gained; For our purpo&s;e in that
place is to prove this very thing, by this &s;ame in&s;tance of the offence of a nationall
Church; wherein Mr. <HI>Rutherford</HI> we &s;ee doth come over to us, and affirms the &s;ame
that we do. To what end therefore was it to make &s;hew of removing or weakening
what he had &s;aid, &s;ith when it comes to the i&s;&s;ue, he plainly concurs with us? For by
this means our tenent is not confuted, but confirmed with his atte&s;t thereto.</P>
<P>2. Though here he &s;aith, this remedy is not needfull in any Church above a natio|nall,
yet I am mi&s;taken, if el&s;ewhere he &s;peak not otherwi&s;e. For in pag. 311. pre|pounding
this objection, viz. <HI>Chri&s;t here &s;pe<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">keth of a pre&s;ent and con&s;tant removall of
&s;candalls&mdash;A Catholike councell of the whole vi&s;ible Church is farre of, and cannot be
had,</HI> he returneth this for an&s;wer thereto: <HI>That Chri&s;t, &s;aith he, &s;peaketh of a pre&s;ent and
con&s;tant remedy only, and of no remedy again&s;t the &s;candall of whole Churches, is denyed. He
&s;peaketh of all remedyes to gain any offenders, per&s;ons or Churches. And in</HI> pag. 322. <HI>he
&s;aith, Chri&s;t giveth an in&s;tance only in an offending brother; but the doctrine is for the curing
of an offending Church al&s;o, and for all per&s;ons to be gained, Thou ha&s;t gained thy Brother:
and &s;aith he, we are to gain Churches, as we are not to offend Churches:</HI> 1 Cor. 10. 32.
<HI>Again in his &s;econd</HI> pag. 332. <HI>&s;peaking of five &s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">rts of Synods, of which he cals the fifth the
generall and Oecuminick Councell, he &s;aith, that all the&s;e differ not in e&s;&s;ence but in degrees,
and what word of God, as</HI> Matth 18. 16, 17. <HI>proves the lawfulnes of one, is for the law|fulne&s;&s;e
of all the five &s;orts of Synods. La&s;tly, nothing can be more plain then tho&s;e words</HI>
pag. 39. <HI>This of our Saviour, Tell the Church, is nece&s;&s;arily to be applyed to all Churches and
Courts of Chri&s;t, even to a Catholike Councell:</HI> (The &s;ame is al&s;o to be &s;een in the <HI>Peace|able
Plea</HI> p. 86.) In all which &s;ayings, he plainly under&s;tands the text we have in hand,
to &s;peak of a remedy, for all that are to be gained, yea a remedy for the offences of all
per&s;ons and Churches that may give offence; which Churches he &s;aith may do, and
expre&s;ly affirms that it is to be applyed to generall Councels, and that nece&s;&s;arily: and
how the&s;e things do agree, with the place in hind, where he &s;aith, he denyes the remedie
is needfull in any Church above a nationall, let the wi&s;e and him&s;elf judge. For, for
my part, except there be &s;ome difference between <HI>nece&s;&s;ary</HI> and <HI>needfull,</HI> the &s;ayings to
me do &s;eem incon&s;i&s;tent, one affirming the place is <HI>nece&s;&s;arily</HI> to be applyed to all Chur|ches
and Courts of Chri&s;t, even to generall Councells; and the other denying that the
remedy there mentioned is <HI>needfull</HI> in any Church above a nationall</P>
<P>2. Chri&s;ts remedy, &s;aith he, is a Church remedy for offences among the brethren, and mem|bers
of the vi&s;ible Church. And Indians are nomembers of the vi&s;ible Church, and &s;o being
without they cannot be judged, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 5. 12.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> That Indians cannot be judged by the Church is very true, but nothing a|gain&s;t
us: for the very &s;ame that here is &s;aid by Mr. <HI>Rutherford,</HI> was &s;aid by us before,
in the place which him&s;elf doth alledge, where we al&s;o brought the very &s;ame text of
Scripture which him&s;elf doth bring. Now why &s;hould the&s;e things be brought as a con|futation
of us, which are nothing but a reception of that which we had delivered afore
as our own judgement? May not his reader be induced hereby to think that we had
<PB N="86" REF="56">
&s;poken otherwi&s;e? But to let this pa&s;&s;e. If Indians cannot be judged by the Church,
then &s;till our purpo&s;e is gained; for by this it appeareth that an offence may be com|mitted,
where Chri&s;ts remedy, Tell the Church, may not be applyed for the redre&s;&s;e
thereof; and &s;o that univer&s;all propo&s;ition, Chri&s;ts remedy is as large as the maladie,
and where an offence may be committed, there to tell the Church, is the remedy for the
redre&s;&s;e of the &s;ame, which our brethren do lay as the foundation on which to build the
juri&s;diction of Cla&s;&s;es and Synods, the univer&s;ality, I &s;ay, of this propo&s;ition is utterly
overthrown by this in&s;tance of Indians; and &s;o that &s;cripture, <HI>Matth.</HI> 18. appears to
be too weak a bottome, to bear the building which our brethren would erect upon it.</P>
<P>Nor is the matter much amended by that which our brother here brings for the
helping and clearing of it, <HI>That Chri&s;ts remedy is a Church remedy for offences among bre|thren
members of the vi&s;ible Church.</HI> For let this be granted, as I know none that denies
it, yet &s;till the que&s;tion remains, what is that Church to which our Saviour here gives
power to remove and redre&s;&s;e &s;candals by excommunicating the offenders? we con|ceive
this Church is only the particular Congregation, and its Presbytery; and our
brethren think it is al&s;o the Cla&s;&s;es and Synods: but this apprehen&s;ion of theirs is not
confirmed by &s;aying our Saviours remedy is a Church remedy for offences among&s;t
members of the Church, ina&s;much as the members of a nationall Church, as &s;uch are
members of the vi&s;ible Church in our brethrens judgement, and yet our brother holds
here is nor remedy pre&s;cribed for a delinquent nationall Church.</P>
<P>And if he can &s;o under&s;tand this Church remedy, as that for all this, the nationall
Church mu&s;t not partake thereof, &s;o as to be cen&s;ured and excommunicated by any
Church above it, why may not others under&s;tand it &s;o, as that Synods and Cla&s;&s;es,
yea and Congregations too be exempted from the juri&s;diction of Churches? For my
part, I know no rea&s;on, but if the Congregation be lyable to the cen&s;ure of Cla&s;&s;es and
Synods by this Scripture; becau&s;e our Saviours remedy is a Church remedy, by the
&s;ame rea&s;on the Cla&s;&s;es and Synods mu&s;t be lyable to cen&s;ure al&s;o; yea, and the natio|nall
Church likewi&s;e, becau&s;e this rea&s;on is applyable to all the&s;e as well as to the Con|gregation.
So that this notion of a Church remedy doth not help his cau&s;e at all, nor
hurt ours, any more then it hurts him&s;elf. If this rea&s;oning be good, it is a Church reme|dy,
therefore the Congregationall Church mu&s;t be lyable to cen&s;ure for their offences,
then this rea&s;oning is as good, it is a Church remedy, therefore the Cla&s;&s;es, Synods,
yea and the nationall Church mu&s;t be lyable to cen&s;ure for their offences: but this lat|ter
at lea&s;t, for the nationall Church, our brother &s;peaks again&s;t, and therefore he may
not pre&s;&s;e nor urge the former.</P>
<P>If he or other &s;hall &s;ay, that this Scripture contains a remedy even for a nationall
Church, then it will follow that the juri&s;diction of a nationall Church is not indepen|dent,
but depends upon the Oecumenicall: but this our brother cannot &s;ay, unle&s;&s;e
he will gain&s;ay him&s;elf, becau&s;e he hath already &s;aid the contrary, and &s;eriou&s;ly prote&s;ted
it w<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="2 letters">h a verily, <HI>that verily be cannot &s;ee what power of juri&s;diction to cen&s;ure &s;candalls can
be in a generall Councell: onely a meer doctrinall power in all the power that he can &s;ee in
&s;uch a Councell,</HI> pag. 482. So that let him hold to what he hath thus &s;eriou&s;ly prote&s;ted,
and this rule of Chri&s;t affords no remedy by way of cen&s;ure for the &s;candalls of a na|tionall
Church. Be&s;ides, if the juri&s;diction of a generall Councell be e&s;tabli&s;hed by
our Saviour in this or other Scriptures, then it will not only follow that the indepen|dent
<PB N="87" REF="56">
juri&s;diction of nationall Churches; yea, and much more of Cla&s;&s;es and Synods
is overth<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="2 letters">wn, which I &s;uppo&s;e our brethren will not grant, but moreover it will
follow that Chri&s;t hath not &s;ufficiently provided Church remedies for redre&s;&s;ing &s;can|dal<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">s
of Church members: the rea&s;on of the con&s;equence is, becau&s;e all other juri&s;di|ctions
being &s;ubordinate one to an<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">ther, and all of them under the juri&s;diction of the
generall Councell, which alone is &s;upream, there may therefore in all of them be appeals
from the inferiour to the higher judicatories, till at the la&s;t <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">atters and cau&s;es be tran&s;|mitted
from them all to the generall Councell; and &s;o by this means matters &s;hall or
may never be ended, nor &s;candalls remedied, till a generall Councell &s;hall effect the
&s;ame; which generall Councels all know are rare, and difficult to be attain<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter"> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 word"> and
therefore there were &s;mall &s;ufficiency in our Saviours remedy, if matters may or mu&s;t
depend till generall Councels &s;hall be a&s;&s;embled for the hearing and determining there|of,
and may not be ended &s;coner.</P>
<P>Therefore we cannot &s;ee that this rule, nor any other, e&s;tabli&s;heth the juri&s;diction of
generall Cou<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">cels; and then nationall Churches can have no benefit of our Saviours
remedy of, Telling the Church; no more then the Churches, which are congregation|all;
and &s;o whether is the &s;aying univer&s;ally true, that where there may be offence com|mitted,
there our Saviours remedy of Telling the Church, may be applyed for the re|dre&s;&s;e
thereof, nor doth this &s;aying hold, being narrowed according to Mr. <HI>Ruther|fords</HI>
minde, who would have it under&s;tood onely of a Church remedy, for the offences
of Church members. For we &s;ee there may be offences in Churches, according to our
brethrens judgement, which cannot be redre&s;&s;ed by the help and remedy of this rule.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="22" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. XXII.</HEAD>
<HEAD TYPE="sub">When the &s;upream magi&s;trate is a profe&s;&s;ed curing to Religion, whether
then it be likely and u&s;uall that the greater part of the people are &s;incere|ly
religious: and whether when the greater part are enemies with
their magi&s;trates, it be then the duty of a few that are &s;in|cere,
to a&s;&s;emble in a nationall Synod, and there to en|ter
into a nationall Covenant, and al&s;o to en|joyn
the &s;ame unto that greater part.</HEAD>
<P><HI>_PAG.</HI> 483. We &s;ay, that if the magi&s;trate be an enemy to Religion, may not
the Church without him conveen and renew a Covenant with God? <HI>Mr.</HI> Ma|ther
<HI>and Mr.</HI> Tomp&s;ons <HI>an&s;wer p.</HI> 29. that if the &s;upream magi&s;trate be an ene|my
to Religion, it is not like, but mo&s;t or many of the people will be of the &s;ame
minde: <HI>Regis ad exemplum totus</HI>&mdash;and then the <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 word"> in the land with not be able
to beare the name of the land or nation, but of a &s;mall part thereof, not can it be well con|tained
how they &s;hould a&s;&s;emble in a nationall Synod, for that or any other purpo&s;e, when the
magi&s;trate is a profe&s;&s;ed enemy, nor doth God require it at their hands.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> The que&s;tion between Mr. <HI>Hefle</HI> and us, as it is &s;poken to, by us, in this pa&s;|&s;age,
<PB N="88" REF="57">
is &s;till about the meaning of our Saviours words, Tell the Church: which will
plainly appear to him that &s;hall look upon Mr. <HI>Herles</HI> Treati&s;e and our An&s;wer, and
compare them together. And though we &s;peak &s;omthing of the Churches renewing a
a Covenant with God, when the magi&s;trate is an enemy to Religion, yet the que&s;tion
lyes not meerly &s;o and no further; but fir&s;t, this Church is called the Land or the whole
Church therein, or the whole number of Beleevers. Secondly, The thing inquired in|to
concerning this Church, is whether they have not power to enjoyn a &s;olemn renew|all
of the Covenant. In an&s;wer whereto we fir&s;t of all &s;ay, that in ca&s;e the magi&s;trate
be an enemy to Religion, the beleevers in the land are not like to be &s;o many, as that
they &s;hould bear the name of the land or nation, but of a &s;mall part therein. Second,
that in &s;uch ca&s;e, it is not like they can have &s;uch liberty as &s;afely to meet in &s;uch great
a&s;&s;emblies as nationall Synods: and hereupon we conclude that renewing of Covenant
and enjoyning the &s;ame in national Synods, being not in the power of &s;om few beleevers
in a land, is not then required at their hands. This being &s;aid for clearing the &s;cope and
&s;umme of that pa&s;&s;age in the an&s;wer, let us now hear what Mr. <HI>Rutherford</HI> &s;aith thereto.</P>
<P>This &s;aith he, is a weak an&s;wer.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w. Sat magi&s;trabiter:</HI> would it not do well fir&s;t to di&s;prove and confute, and
then to cen&s;ure, rather then to cen&s;ure fir&s;t? But if it be &s;o weak, it will be more ea&s;ie
to overthrow it: let us hear therefore why it is &s;o weak.</P>
<P>The Chri&s;tians under <HI>Nero</HI> were not like their Prince: and its not like, but &s;incere Chri|&s;tians
will be &s;incere Chri&s;tians and profe&s;&s;e truth, even when the magi&s;trate is an enemy.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> And what of this? doth this &s;trongly overthrow that &s;aying, which was cen|&s;ured
for &s;o weak? If &s;incere Chri&s;tians be &s;incere Chri&s;tians, when the magi&s;trate is
an enemy, &s;uppo&s;e as bad as <HI>Nero,</HI> doth it follow thereupon, that in &s;uch times the &s;in|cere
Chri&s;tians will be &s;o many in number as to bear the names of the land or nation,
where they are, (for there lyes the que&s;tion) and that it is not like to be otherwi&s;e? I &s;up|po&s;e
no man can ju&s;tly affirm it. For were they &s;o many in <HI>England</HI> in the dayes of
Queen <HI>Mary?</HI> were they &s;o many in <HI>Scotland</HI> in the dayes of popi&s;h Princes, afore the
reformation? Are they &s;o many in <HI>Spain,</HI> in <HI>Italy,</HI> in <HI>Turkey</HI> at this day? doth not the
Scripture &s;ay, that when <HI>Rehoboam,</HI> for&s;ook the Lord, all <HI>I&s;rael</HI> did the &s;ame with him?
2 <HI>Chron.</HI> 12. 1. And that <HI>Ieroboam</HI> did not only &s;inne, but made <HI>I&s;rael</HI> to &s;inne?
and that when a ruler hearkneth to lyes, all his &s;ervants are wicked, <HI>Prov. 29. ver&s;.</HI> 12.
which &s;ayings and many more that might be alledged, be&s;ides common experience do
abundantly witne&s;&s;e, that when the &s;upream magi&s;trate is an enemy to religion, often
times (if not alwayes&punc;) &s;incere beleevers in tho&s;e dayes are the &s;maller part of that land.
If M. <HI>Rutherford</HI> can prove this apprehen&s;ion weak, he mu&s;t then prove the contradicto|ry
to be true, <HI>viz.</HI> that when the &s;upream magi&s;trate is an enemy to religion, it is not
like that many of the people will be of the magi&s;trates mind, but contrarily the greate&s;t
part of the land will be &s;incere beleevers, though the magi&s;trate be an enemy. And
when he hath confirmed this po&s;ition which &s;trong and convincing proofes; he may
then more freely take his liberty to condemne the other for weak: In the mean time,
I think it were weakne&s;&s;e in us to depart from this apprehen&s;ion without &s;ome better
grounds then yet are given to di&s;cover the weakne&s;&s;e of it.</P>
<P>2. Saith he, If your meaning be, it cannot be conceived how they &s;hould a&s;&s;emble in a na|tionall
a&s;&s;embly, when the magi&s;trate is an enemy, becau&s;e it is not &s;afe for feare of per&s;ecu|tion,
<PB N="89" REF="57">
then you &s;ay nothing to the argument, becau&s;e the argument is drawn from a duty.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Are tho&s;e things duties, which are in nature impo&s;&s;ible? If not, how is it a
duty of a few beleevers in a land (for when the magi&s;trate is a profe&s;&s;ed enemy, I
doe &s;till conceive the beleevers in that land to be but few, a &s;mall part of the land)
how is it a duty, I &s;ay, for the&s;e few beleevers, in a land to a&s;&s;emble in a nationall Sy|nod,
and there to enjoyn a nationall Covenant, to be entered into, not onely by them|&s;elves,
which are but a few in compari&s;on, but al&s;o by the re&s;t of the land which are
farre the greater number? If this be a duty, it is more then I yet under&s;tand? Sup|po&s;e
it be their duty to enter into covenant with God for their own part; Suppo&s;e al&s;o
it were the duty of others to doe the like, yet when the greater part will not &s;o doe, but
are enemies to the truth of God like their magi&s;trates, is it neverthele&s;&s;e a duty of this
&s;maller number to a&s;&s;emble in a nationall Synod, and there to enjoyne a &s;olemn Co|venant
to be taken by the land? I mean not onely by them&s;elves; but al&s;o by others,
who are farre more in number then they? do they fall &s;hort of their duty, if they do
not thus a&s;&s;emble, and impo&s;e the Covenant? In the dayes of <HI>Ieroboam,</HI> when the ge|nerality
of the land walked after his wicked commandement, <HI>Ho&s;.</HI> 5. 11. who made <HI>I&s;|rael</HI>
to &s;in, yet then there were &s;ome in <HI>I&s;rael</HI> who retained their integrity, and &s;et their
hearts to &s;eek the Lord, who al&s;o for that end came to <HI>Ieru&s;alem,</HI> to &s;acrifice to the Lord
God of their Fathers, 2 <HI>Chron. 11. v.</HI> 16. But I doe not remember that the&s;e few that
were &s;incere in wor&s;hip, did ever come together in a nationall a&s;&s;embly in <HI>I&s;rael,</HI> to re|new
the Covenant with God, and to enjoyn the &s;ame to that great multitude of the
back&s;lyding <HI>I&s;raelites,</HI> nor that &s;uch a duty was required of them, nor that they are bla|med
by <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 word"> Lord, nor any of his Prophets for the neglect thereof. And the ca&s;e we
have in &s;tand is the &s;ame.</P>
<P>If you mean that becau&s;e the Princes power is again&s;t the Synodicall meeting, this is nothing
again&s;t the power of the Synods that Chri&s;t hath given to his Church.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> We mean as we have &s;aid, that tho&s;e few beleevers in a land, being overpo|wered
with the Prince and People that are enemies, therefore this a&s;&s;embling of tho&s;e
few in a nationall Synod, and there enjoyning a nationall Covenant is now not in their
power, and &s;o not required at their hands.</P>
<P>If your meaning be that, it is not lawfull to them to conveen in a nationall Synod to renew
a Covenant with God, again&s;t the &s;upreame magi&s;trates will; I hope you minde no &s;uch
thing.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> If it be our meaning, how can it be hoped that we do not mind it? Can our
<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="4 letters">ing be one thing, and our mind another? But for his &s;atisfaction and re&s;olution,
<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 word"> plain an&s;wer is this, that we neither had mind nor meaning to medle at all with that
que&s;tion; whether Churches may a&s;&s;emble in nationall Synods again&s;t the &s;upreame
magi&s;trates will. For we did not think that Mr. <HI>Herles</HI> treati&s;e did lead us thereunto:
<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 span"> &s;uch a matter. Nor am I willing at this time to turn a&s;ide to the &s;ame, but
to keep clo&s;e to my &s;cope and ayme, which is to con&s;ider of Mr. <HI>Rutherford</HI> his exce|ptions
again&s;t the an&s;wer. And therefore for his di&s;cour&s;e, which here he fals upon,
maintaining at large again&s;t malignants, and namely again&s;t <HI>Tho: Fuller,</HI> that the re|formation
begun in <HI>Scotland</HI> and pro&s;ecuted in <HI>England,</HI> again&s;t the Kings will is law|ful<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">
and warrantable by the word<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter"> this di&s;cour&s;e, I &s;ay, being altogether concerning
others, and not us; I will therefore pa&s;&s;e it over, and come to that wherein our &s;elves
are concerned.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="23" TYPE="chapter">
<PB N="90" REF="58">
<HEAD>CHAP. XXIII.</HEAD>
<HEAD TYPE="sub">Whether the word Church be not given to a &s;ingle Congregation, and
whether a Congregation be a Company or Church, meeting only for
Word and Sacraments, and not for any other &s;pirituall du|ties:
and whether the divers duties, 1. of Word and Sa|craments.
2. Of Di&s;cipline, &amp;c. mu&s;t needs
argue divers Churches.</HEAD>
<P><HI>_PAG.</HI> 489. The name Church, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 14. 4, 5, 35. 27, 28. is plainly
given to that company that did a&s;&s;emble and come together for performance of
&s;pirituall duties, and for the exerci&s;e of &s;pirituall gifts, as <HI>Act.</HI> 14. 27. and
11. 26. and 15. 4. 22. 30. and 1 <HI>Cor. 11. 18, 20, 22, 23, 3 John</HI> 6.
which places do abundantly &s;hew, that a company gathered together in one place,
is called by the name of a Church, as Centhera, <HI>Rom.</HI> 16. 1. which could not contain many
Congregations, being but the part of <HI>Corinth. And for this pa&s;&s;age he alledgeth the
an&s;wer. pag.</HI> 32.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Mr. <HI>Herle</HI> having &s;aid, that the Scripture never u&s;eth the word Church for
a &s;ingle Congregation, unle&s;&s;e happily, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 14. and that many Congregations in
one Province or City are frequently called by the name of a Church, we in an&s;wer to
the former of the&s;e doe give many in&s;tances, <HI>p.</HI> 31, 32. where a &s;ingle C<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="3 letters">regation
Is called by the name of a Church, not onely in 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 14. which Mr. <HI>Herle</HI> acknow|ledgeth
(though with a perhaps) but al&s;o in &s;undry other &s;criptures, which here Mr.
<HI>Rutherford</HI> quoteth. Now let us heare his an&s;wer to this pa&s;&s;age.</P>
<P>Wee &s;eek no more, &s;aith he.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Are we then agreed, that in &s;cripture language the word Church is &s;undry
times given to a &s;ingle Congregation? If &s;o, then for this point the an&s;wer is not con|futed
but confirmed.</P>
<P>If it be called a Church which conveeneth for performance of &s;pirituall duties, as &s;ome of
your places doe well prove, ergo, no a&s;&s;embly &s;hould have the name of Church, but &s;uch as
a&s;&s;emble for Word and Sacraments, this now you cann<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">t affirm and it followeth not.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> If this follow not, what needs it? we never affirmed it, and our purpo&s;e that
the word Church is given in &s;cripture to a &s;ingle Congregation, is &s;ufficiently gained
without it.</P>
<P>The Church &s;poken of <HI>Matth.</HI> 18. is not a&s;&s;embled to Word and Sacraments, but to binde
and loo&s;e: the meeting 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 5. is not for Word and Sacraments, but to deliver to Satan;
the word Church <HI>Act.</HI> 14. 27. is not an a&s;&s;embly for Word and Sacraments, but to hear how
God hath opened the doore of Faith unto the Gentiles.&mdash;If to be received of the Church,
<HI>Act.</HI> 15. 4. be matter of Word and Sacraments, let all judge: If to &s;end a decree of a Sy|nod,
<HI>Act.</HI> 15. 22. be the act of a Church a&s;&s;embled for Word and Sacraments, let the world
judge.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Reverend Sir, keep to the point, we never &s;aid that di&s;cipline, and all other
acts, whether performed by a Church, are Word and Sacraments: and therefore there
<PB N="91" REF="58">
was no need to prove they are not, and then to triumph as in a great victory: The
thing in que&s;tion is this, whether the name or word Church, be given in &s;cripture to a
&s;ingle Congregation: and if this be proved (as the in&s;tances given, I hope, do prove it
&s;ufficienly) then it matters not what that particular &s;pirituall Church action is, for
which they do meet: For whether it be that they meet for Word and Sacraments alone;
or whether it be for the Word and Prayer alone, and not at that time for Sacraments at
all, or whether it be for di&s;cipline, or for any other Church duty, yet &s;till if they come
together into one place, be it for all or for any of the&s;e ends, they are then a Congre|gation,
(for what is a Congregation but a company &s;o a&s;&s;embled in one place) and &s;o
our tenet &s;tands good, and our purpo&s;e is gained: For if they that come together into
one place for Church actions and ends, be called in &s;cripture by the name of a Church,
then the word Church is given to a company that &s;o came together; and &s;uch a com|pany
being a Congregation, it follows that the word Church is u&s;ed for a Congrega|tion.
What this Congregation doth when they are come together, is not the que&s;tion:
but if a Congregation coming together for Church duties be in Scripture called a
Church, we have our intent.</P>
<P>If the word Church, be a meeting of per&s;ons a&s;&s;embled to one place for Spirituall duties,
&s;ometimes for Word and Sacraments onely, &s;ometimes for acts of juri&s;diction onely, then is the
word Church by our brethrens argument taken both for the Congregation, and for the El|ders
of one, or of divers Churches, and &s;o we have our intent.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Let the antecedent be granted, yet the con&s;equence is denied: For the word
Church may be a meeting a&s;&s;embled, &s;ometimes for Word and Sacraments onely, and
&s;ometimes for acts of juri&s;diction only, and I adde, &s;ometimes for the Word and Pray|er
only, without exerci&s;e of juri&s;diction or Sacrament, and &s;omtimes for &s;ome other act
or acts, then any of the&s;e that are named, and yet for all this, it may not be taken for the
Elders alone of one Church, and much le&s;&s;e for the Elders of divers Churches;
the rea&s;on is, becau&s;e all the&s;e acts may be performed by the Congregation a&s;&s;embling
&s;ometimes for one of them, and &s;ometimes for another. And therefore your intent is
not yet attained; who would have the word Church to be taken &s;omtimes for the Con|gregation,
and &s;ometimes for the Presbyters or Elders alone?</P>
<P>We de&s;ire our brethren to prove (which they mu&s;t if they oppo&s;e our principles) that the
word Church is never taken for the Elder&s;hip alore, in all the word of God.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Mu&s;t we prove a negative: and is that &s;aying, <HI>Affirmanti incumbit <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="2 letters">us pro|bandi,</HI>
now become unrea&s;onable, unnece&s;&s;ary, or of no force? For my part I am &s;till
of the mind, that he that affirms, mu&s;t in equity and rea&s;on prove what he affirms. Be|&s;ides
for our &s;elves we have this to &s;ay further, that If we prove what we undertook, we
have done as much as can in rea&s;on be required of us, though we do not prove this that
Mr. <HI>Rutherford</HI> would impo&s;e upon us: And what was that which we undertook to
prove? nothing in this place, but onely this, that the word Church is taken for a Con|gregation,
in other Scriptures be&s;ides, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 14. and this we have performed and pro|ved
already. Mr. <HI>Rutherford</HI> him&s;elf allowing &s;ome of our proofs for good: And there|fore
having performed this point, it is more then needs to be required of us, to prove
another al&s;o, which we never undertook to prove, as being quite be&s;ides our que&s;tion,
which we were and &s;till are de&s;irous to keep clo&s;e unto, and not to wonder or be diverted
from it by any means.</P>
<P><PB N="92" REF="59">
Whereas our brethren &s;ay, a company gathered into one place (which is nothing el&s;e but a
Congregation) are called by the name of a Church, I an&s;wer &s;uch a company is only (I &s;uppo&s;e
this is mi&s;printed, for is not onely) called by the name of a Church, for a company meeting for
di&s;cipline only, is a Church al&s;o.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> If a company gathered into one place, which is a Congregation, be called by
the name of a Church, this is as much as we de&s;ire: for our tenent is herein expre&s;ly
granted to be true: If a company meeting for di&s;cipline onely be a Church al&s;o, yet as
long as the former is not denyed, the adding of this other doth no hurt to us at all.</P>
<P>It is fal&s;e that a company gathered into one place, are nothing el&s;e but a Congregation.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w. Bona verba qua&s;o:</HI> we had thought that as a company a&s;&s;embled, is an a&s;&s;em|bly,
a company met, is a meeting, a company convocated, a convocation; &s;o a company
gathered together or congregated, had been a Congregation: But this is peremptori|ly
now condemned as fal&s;e: yet let us hear why.</P>
<P>As you take the word Congregation: for &s;o your Congregation is an a&s;&s;embly of men and
women meeting for Word and Sacraments, with the Elders of the Church.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> And what if they meet for prayer al&s;o, what if for the Word and Prayer
without Sacraments, for this or that time? what if they meet for the admi&s;&s;ion of
members al&s;o, or for cen&s;uring delinquents? Can Mr. <HI>Rutherford</HI> prove that either of
us, I mean either Mr. <HI>Tomp&s;on</HI> or my &s;elf, or indeed any man el&s;e of that judgement,
which he oppo&s;eth, have denyed an a&s;&s;embly meeting for &s;uch ends, as the&s;e to be a
Congregation? I &s;uppo&s;e he cannot: And therefore it was not well done to impute
unto us &s;uch a &s;ence of the word Congregation, as we never &s;pake nor thought of, and
then to &s;ay, <HI>It is fal&s;e that a company gathered into one place is a Congregation, as that
word is taken by us.</HI></P>
<P>I appeale to the judgement of our reverend brethren, if the Church, <HI>Matth.</HI> 18. a&s;&s;embled to
to bind and loo&s;e, if the Church a&s;&s;embled, 1 <HI>Corin.</HI> 5. to deliver to Satan, (and &s;undry
others are there named to the like purpo&s;e) be a Congregationall Church a&s;&s;embled for Word
and Sacraments.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> If the Word and Sacraments be not mentioned in the places alledged, but
other actions and duties, mu&s;t it needs follow that the Churches &s;poken of in the&s;e pla|ces
did a&s;&s;emble for Word and Sacraments? may not one and the &s;ame Church a&s;&s;em|ble
for diver&s;e ends and actions? yea, po&s;&s;ibly for diver&s;e upon one day? At the lea&s;t
wi&s;e it cannot be denyed, but at &s;everall times of a&s;&s;embling a Church may attend to
diver&s;e duties and actions, and yet &s;till be one and the &s;ame Congregation or Church,
at one time which they were at another. Or otherwi&s;e we mu&s;t &s;ay (which were a very
unwi&s;e &s;aying) that a Church meeting for diver&s;e actions to be performed upon one
day, as the Word, Prayer, P&s;alms, Sacraments, &amp;c. is not the &s;ame Church is one
of the&s;e actions, that it was in another, but is one Church when they are at Prayer,
another when they are &s;inging P&s;alms, another when they are in exerci&s;e of the Word
or Sacraments, &amp;c. Or if they meet one day, for Word and Sacraments, and another
day for Word and Prayer without Sacraments, that n<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">w they are diver&s;e Churches,
and not the &s;ame upon one of the&s;e dayes, that they were upon another, the nature and
kind of their Church being altered according to the &s;everall duties wherein they are ex|erci&s;ed.
This arguing I &s;uppo&s;e Mr. <HI>Rutherford,</HI> would not own for good, and yet for
ought I &s;ee, it is no wor&s;e, but the very &s;ame with that which him&s;elf doth here u&s;e, who
<PB N="93" REF="59">
becau&s;e the Church mentioned <HI>Matth.</HI> 18. 1 Corinth. 5. and other places by him na|med,
is &s;aid to meet for di&s;cipline or other duties, would thereupon have it thought,
that the Church mentioned in tho&s;e places was not a Church that did ever meet for
Word and Sacraments, but was &s;ome other Church of another kinde: which arguing
may be good, if the&s;e which I have here above expre&s;&s;ed be good, but otherwi&s;e I con|ceive
it cannot &s;tand.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="24" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. XXIV.</HEAD>
<HEAD>Whether tho&s;e children of I&s;rael, Numb. 8. 10. who laid hands on the
Levites, were Elders by Office, and as &s;o con&s;idered, did lay on their hands.
And whether this Scripture do not prove that where there are no
Elders to be had, there &s;ome principall members, though
not Elders by Office, may impo&s;e hands on
Church Officers.</HEAD>
<P>_THe children of I&s;rael which were not the Church officers laid hands on the Le|vites,
<HI>Numb.</HI> 8. 10. therefore when a Church hath no Elders, the people may
conferre Ordination, and it is not to be tyed to the Presbyters only: And for
this be alledgeth the an&s;wer. <HI>pag.</HI> 46. And then he addeth, that other of our
brethren &s;ay, Ordination is but accidentall to a Mini&s;ters calling, and may be
wanting if the people &s;hall chu&s;e, in defect of Elders, <HI>pag.</HI> 491.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> This latter clau&s;e &s;hould not have been added, as de&s;erving a confutation,
except our brother would confute him&s;elf: for as we heard afore, him&s;elf doth plainly
affirm <HI>pag. 186, 187. That both are true Pa&s;tors, tho&s;e who have no call, but the peoples
election, and tho&s;e who have Ordination by Pa&s;tors; and that election by the people only may
&s;tand for Ordination, where there be no Pa&s;tors at all:</HI> which if it be &s;o; why &s;hould the
&s;ame thing in effect when it is holden by others, be here in&s;erted in an objection as wor|thy
to be &s;poken again&s;t, when him&s;elf doth ca&s;t the very &s;ame?</P>
<P>It is marvell that our reverend brother &s;hould thus go on in repre&s;enting our words
and mind ami&s;&s;e: for as here he &s;ets down the objection under our name, &s;ome of our
words are changed and altered, others being &s;ub&s;tituted in their place, &s;ome are wholly
&s;uppre&s;&s;ed as if there had been none &s;uch, and others are added as <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 word"> which never
came from us: Of the fir&s;t &s;ort, are tho&s;e of the peoples conferring Ordination; wher|as
our words are not &s;o, but that the people may impo&s;e or lay on hands. <HI>Now between
the&s;e two him&s;elf</HI> pag. 492. <HI>doth make a great difference, even as much as between the au|thoritative
calling of a Mini&s;ter, and a rite annexed to that calling: and further &s;aith, that
though he think impo&s;ition of hand<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter"> not &s;o e&s;&s;entiall perhaps, at that a Mini&s;ter can be no Mi|ni&s;ter
without it, yet of Ordination he thinks otherwi&s;e,</HI> And if he make &s;o great a diffe|rence
between Impo&s;ition of hand<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter"> and Ordination, why &s;hould our words be for&s;a|ken
which import the le&s;&s;er matter in his judgement, and tho&s;e other which he accounts
do import much more, be &s;ub&s;tituted in the room? was this to burden our opinion or
apprehen&s;ion with a greater odium then our words in his own judgement will beare?
or was it to make his confutation of us more ea&s;ie, then it would have been, if our own
<PB N="94" REF="60">
words had been retained and kept? what ever was the cau&s;e hereof, we cannot but
think it had been better if it had been otherwi&s;e.</P>
<P>For omitting and &s;uppre&s;&s;ing &s;ome words of ours (which was the &s;econd particular)
I alledge tho&s;e of the time and places where Elders cannot co<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">veniently be borrowed
from any other Church: the whole pa&s;&s;age is this: viz. <HI>by which, &s;cripture, (to wit</HI>
Num. 8. 10.) <HI>thus much is manife&s;t, that when a Ch<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">rch hath no Elders, But the fir&s;t El|ders
them&s;elves are to be ordained, and this at &s;uch times and in &s;uch places, where Elders
cannot conveniently be borrowed from any other Churches, in &s;uch ca&s;e Impo&s;ition of hands
may lawfully be performed by &s;ome principall men of the Congregation, although they be not
Elders by Office:</HI> In which place, the&s;e words, at &s;uch times <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">nd in &s;uch places, &amp;c.
though they contain a great part of the ca&s;e, wherein we think Impo&s;ition of hands may
be performed by non-Elders, yet they are wholy concealed by Mr. <HI>Rutherford,</HI> as if there
had been none &s;uch; for what purpo&s;e, him&s;elfe be&s;t knows. But this is apparent, that
by his concealment or omi&s;&s;ion, the way is made more ea&s;ie and the ground more ra|ti<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">n<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">ll
for that pa&s;&s;age of his in the following page, where he &s;aith, <HI>What if there be no
Elders in a &s;ingle Congregation? it will not follow therefore the people are to lay on hands,
except &s;aith he, there were no Elders in the land, or nationall Church to lay on hands.</HI> Now
had our words been delivered and &s;et down by him as they came from us, this &s;peech
and pa&s;&s;age of his would have been u&s;ele&s;&s;e, and apparently brought in without cau&s;e:
For to what purpo&s;e &s;hould he bring in this exception, &s;aying, <HI>Except there be no Elders
in the land &amp;c.</HI> when our &s;elves had prevented him in this, by putting &s;uch an exce|ption
expre&s;ly into the prohibition, which we deduce and gather from that &s;cripture of
<HI>Numb.</HI> 8. 10. Sure this had not needed, but might have been &s;pared, if our words had
been fully related: But by this omi&s;&s;ion and concealement, his own &s;peech hath more
appearance of ground and rea&s;on in it, then otherwi&s;e it would have had, and our ap|prehen&s;ion
doth not appear to his reader as indeed it is, nor as him&s;elf received it from
us in that our an&s;wer. Which we have rea&s;on to take &s;omwhat unkindly from him, and
the rather becau&s;e it is not only once, but twi&s;e at the lea&s;t, that we have thus expre&s;&s;ed
our &s;elves in that an&s;wer: once in the words which I have here above repeated and tran|&s;cribed,
and again in <HI>pag.</HI> 49. where &s;peaking again of this &s;ame &s;cripture, Numb. 8.
v. 10. <HI>We &s;ay thus, that we have &s;hewed from that &s;cripture, 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:</HI> Neverthele&s;&s;e though we have thus expre&s;&s;ed
our &s;elves, once and a &s;econd time, yet M. <HI>Rutherford</HI> doth not once give notice hereof
unto his reader, for ought that I can find; but &s;till pa&s;&s;ing by the&s;e words of borrow|ing
Elders from other Churches, doth take advantage of the want thereof, which in|deed
are not wanting in our Churches, which he deals again&s;t, but twi&s;e at the lea&s;t are
plainly expre&s;&s;ed therein, and would not have been wanting in this pa&s;&s;age, which here
he &s;ets down as ours, if him&s;elf had not concealed and &s;uppre&s;&s;ed the &s;ame. Now to
leave out tho&s;e words of ours, which we have plainly expre&s;&s;ed two &s;everall times at the
lea&s;t, and then to make advantage for him&s;elfe again&s;t us for want thereof, whether
this be not &s;uch mea&s;ure as we have cau&s;e to take unkindly, let him&s;elf and others con|&s;ider.
The third particular of adding words which never came from us, I will brief|ly
pa&s;&s;e over, becau&s;e it is of le&s;&s;e moment, as not &s;o much mi&s;repre&s;enting our mea|ning;
yet I conceive tho&s;e words, <HI>it (by Ordination) is not to be tyed to the Presbytery
<PB N="95" REF="60">
alone, which here are pre&s;ented to the Reader as ours, are not at all to be found in our wri|ting:</HI>
but I will not in&s;i&s;t on this, but come to con&s;ider of his an&s;wer.</P>
<P>There is not, &s;aith he, a place in all the word of God, where people con&s;er<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">e Ordination to
the Pa&s;tors of the New Te&s;tament, therefore our brethren flee to the Old Te&s;tament to prove
it from the Levites, who received Impo&s;ition of bands from the Children of I&s;rael.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> We have given a rea&s;on, why no &s;uch &s;cripture can be expected in the New
Te&s;tament, <HI>viz.</HI> becau&s;e in tho&s;e times Elders were not wanting; for there were the
Apo&s;tles and Apo&s;tolike men, who were Elders in all Churches: and &s;ay we, <HI>we do
willingly grant, that where Elders are not wanting, Impo&s;ition of hands is to be performed
by the Elders: An&s;.</HI> p. 49. Now for our brethren to require of us an example of Impo|&s;ition
of hands performed without Elders in the Apo&s;tles times, in which times there
were Elders to be had, this we think to be unrea&s;onable, fir&s;t it is our opinion, that when
Elders are to be had, Impo&s;ition of hands is not to be performed without tho&s;e Elders,
but by them.</P>
<P>Moreover, if it be &s;uch a di&s;paragement to our cau&s;e, that the &s;cripture of the New
Te&s;tament affords no example of Impo&s;ition of hands by the people, how will Mr. <HI>Ru|therford</HI>
free his own way from another objection, which we think as &s;ore and weighty
again&s;t the &s;ame, as this which they think of &s;o much weight again&s;t us? The objection
I mean is this, that there is not any place in all the &s;cripture of the New Te&s;tament,
where ordinary Pa&s;tors or Elders Impo&s;ed hands on ordinary Pa&s;tors or Elders; but
all the examples in &s;cripture concerning this matter are &s;uch, where either the per|&s;ons
Impo&s;ing, or the per&s;ons on whom hands were Impo&s;ed, or both, were officers of
extraordinary note and degree, &s;uch as now are not extant in the Church, but are
cea&s;ed long again: Not that I deny, but an argument may be taken from tho&s;e exam|ples
for Impo&s;ition of hands in the&s;e dayes: but the thing I &s;tand upon is this, that no
example can be given from &s;cripture directly parallel, to the way which our brethren in
the&s;e dayes do practi&s;e and allow, but &s;ome di&s;&s;onancy will be found therein: from
their way as well (and perhaps as much) as from the way of Impo&s;ition of hands per|formed
by the people in &s;ome ca&s;es: let them tell us of <HI>Act.</HI> 6. v. 6. and 14. 23. and
<HI>1. Tim.</HI> 5. 22. and we an&s;wer the per&s;ons impo&s;ing hands in tho&s;e places were Apo&s;tles
and Evangeli&s;ts, &s;uch as our brethren are not, nor do &s;o account them&s;elves. Let them
name <HI>Act.</HI> 13. 3. and 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 4. 14. and we an&s;wer, the per&s;ons on whom hands were
there laid were the like, even Apo&s;tles and Evangeli&s;ts, whatever the impo&s;ers were,
and therefore neither will the&s;e places perfectly &s;uit the ca&s;e&punc; So that if we could give
no example in the New Te&s;tament of Impo&s;ition of hands performed in &s;ome ca&s;es
by the people, we think Mr. <HI>Rutherford</HI> and out brethren of his way might be favourable
to us for their own &s;ake.</P>
<P>Yet for the ju&s;tification of our way, and for further an&s;wer to this pa&s;&s;age of Mr.
<HI>Rutherford,</HI> we have this to &s;ay further, that an example in the Old Te&s;tament of a
practi&s;e not aboli&s;hed in the New as ceremoniall, typicall, or of &s;ome peculiar rea&s;on
&s;pecially concerning tho&s;e times and peoples, but of morall equity and rea&s;on; &s;uch an
example we think a &s;ufficient warrant unto us, for the like practi&s;e upon the like occa|&s;ion
in the&s;e dayes: This I thinke Mr <HI>Rutherford</HI> mu&s;t acknowledge, for el&s;e he &s;hall
loo&s;e many arguments which he frequently u&s;eth in this Treati&s;e, from the example of
<HI>A&s;a, Hezekiah, Jo&s;iah,</HI> and others in the Old Te&s;tament, for the proving of things to
<PB N="96" REF="61">
be practi&s;ed in the New: And el&s;e him&s;elf and we all &s;hall loo&s;e the argument for Pe|dobapti&s;me
which is taken from Circumci&s;ion. Yea, and which is more, if it were not
thus, the Apo&s;tles arguing would not be &s;trong, who do frequently argue from the
examples of the Old Te&s;tament to confirm and prove truth and vertue, and to reprove
and to condemn the contra<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">y in the New: to in&s;tance in no more but 1 <HI>Cor. 9. 10. 2.
Heb.</HI> 3. 24. which examples, together with that &s;aying, <HI>Rom. 15. 4. What&s;oever was
written in former time, was written for our learning;</HI> and many more that might be al|ledged,
do abundantly and plainly prove the point in hand: And therefore Mr. <HI>Ruther|ford</HI>
&s;hould bear with us, if we &s;omtimes argue from examples of the Old Te&s;tament.</P>
<P>As for that which followeth, where he &s;aith, <HI>But our brethren hold that the calling of
the Levites and of the Pa&s;tors of the New Te&s;tament are different, as the officers and Chur|ches
of the Jewi&s;h and Chri&s;tian Churches are different;</HI> the an&s;wer is, that I do not re|member
that we have &s;poken one word of this matter, either one way or other; nor
doth he mention any place where we have &s;poken ought of the&s;e things. And for the
thing it &s;elfe, though many differences may be a&s;&s;igned between the Levites and Pa|&s;tors
of the New Te&s;tament, and between the Jewi&s;h and Chri&s;tian Churches, yet I
know no &s;uch difference between them, but that in things which are of generall and
common nature concerning them both, in tho&s;e we may lawfully argue from them
and their times, unto our &s;elves and our times. If Mr. <HI>Rutherford</HI> know we have given
any &s;uch difference as will not &s;uffer us thus to argue, when he &s;hall expre&s;&s;e the &s;ame,
we may con&s;ider further thereof.</P>
<P>Our brethren grant <HI>pag.</HI> 49. that it wanteth all example in the New Te&s;tament that the
people lay on hands.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> And we have al&s;o in the &s;ame pag. 49. rendred the rea&s;on hereof, <HI>viz.</HI> be|cau&s;e
Elders then were not wanting: Why then did not our brothers ingenuity &s;o farre
prevaile with him as to mention this, when he mentioned the other? however yet this
he may be plea&s;ed to ob&s;erve, that as we grant the thing he &s;peaks of, &s;o them&s;elves, I
think mu&s;t grant al&s;o, that it wanteth all example in the New Te&s;tament, where
ordinary Elders do Impo&s;e hands on ordinary Elders: for my part I remember none,
nor do I remember that them&s;elves have yet produced any.</P>
<P>The&s;e who laid on hands on the Levites <HI>Numb.</HI> 8. were Elders, and our brethren &s;ay it is
like they were; but 1. They did not as Elders: 2. But as repre&s;enting the people; not as
Elders Civill, for that belonged to <HI>Aaron</HI> and his Sonnes, <HI>Levit.</HI> 8. el&s;e it will follow that
where a Church hath no magi&s;trates to lay on hands, there the Church may doe it: Nor did
they lay on hands as Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall Elders, becau&s;e what the&s;e which laid on hands did, they
did as from the Congregation: For 1. the&s;e Levites were taken in &s;tead of the fir&s;t born of
I&s;rael, and not in&s;tead of the fir&s;t born of the Elders only, <HI>Numb.</HI> 3. 40, 41. 2 They
were pre&s;ented to the Lord as an offering of the Children of I&s;rael, not of the Elders onely.
3. When the multitude brought an oblation, the Elders put their hands on the heads of the
&s;acrifice, <HI>Levit.</HI> 4. 15. in&s;tead of all the multitude.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> In relating this pa&s;&s;age, our meaning is exceedingly mi&s;taken, and both
our meaning and our words repre&s;ented farre ami&s;&s;e unto the reader: the particulars
which in this re&s;pect may be excepted again&s;t, are &s;uch as the&s;e.</P>
<P>1. That reporting us to &s;ay, it is like they who laid on hands were Elders, he there
breaks off the &s;peech; and &s;o &s;uppre&s;&s;eth that which follows; wherein we fir&s;t of all do
<PB N="97" REF="61">
give an explication in what re&s;pect they might be &s;aid to be Elders, <HI>viz.</HI> as being the
chiefe and principall members of the Congregation; and next of all we do adde, that
neverthele&s;&s;e therein example doth prove the point, if two things be con&s;idered which
there we do expre&s;&s;e. But both the&s;e particulars, I mean, both the explication and the
addition or exception, are wholly &s;uppre&s;&s;ed by Mr. <HI>Rutherford,</HI> and &s;o the conce&s;&s;ion;
It is like they were Elders, is left &s;tanding alone by it &s;elfe.</P>
<P>2. He reports us to &s;ay, <HI>they did it not as Elders civill: for that belonged to Aaron and
his Sons;</HI> wherein he fathers on us a palpable errour, of accounting <HI>Aaron,</HI> and his
&s;onnes to be Elders civill, or magi&s;trates, which never came into our thoughts: nay
it was &s;o farre from us that we plainly &s;aid the contrary, in that very place, to wit, that
they were Elders Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall. Our words are the&s;e, If they, (that is, the children
of I&s;rael) <HI>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 belonged to Aaron and his &s;onnes:</HI> Levit. 8.
<HI>and the&s;e Levites now ordained.</HI> In which words we plainly a&s;cribe to Aaron and his
&s;onnes the charge of Elders and Governours Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall, but not of civill gover|nours,
as Mr. <HI>Rutherford,</HI> is plea&s;ed to report.</P>
<P>3. In the&s;e words, <HI>El&s;e it will follow, that where a Church hath no magi&s;trates to lay on
hands, there the Church may do it;</HI> our words are &s;o mi&s;erably mangled, that no tole|rable
&s;ence can appeare: for here is expre&s;&s;ed an inference or con&s;equence, that mu&s;t
follow, and yet no ground or antecedent at all from which it &s;hould follow, which is to
repre&s;ent us to the world as men that were <HI>loe&s;i cerebro.</HI> For men that were in their right
wits, I conceive, would &s;carcely ever argue in this fa&s;hion, as here we are reported
to do: But our words are the&s;e, <HI>If the &s;econd be &s;aid, viz. that the children of I&s;rael
did lay on hands as civill governours, then it will follow that civill magi&s;trates, though
no Church-officers may Impo&s;e hands in Ordination of Church-officers, and &s;o the point is
gained: (viz.</HI> that Church-officers may be ordained by tho&s;e that are no Church-officers)
which we do further manife&s;t in the following words in this manner:
<HI>If the magi&s;trate may doe it, then it will follow that a Church that hath no magi&s;trate may
perform this action by other the fitte&s;t in&s;trument<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter"> &s;he hath;</HI> For which we there give this
ground, <HI>for that this is not a work properly tyed to the magi&s;trates office, becau&s;e then
the Church in the Apo&s;tles times wanting magi&s;trates, could not have had officers; the
contrary whereof we &s;ay is manife&s;t in the Scriptures,</HI> Act. 14. 13. Tit. 1. 5. This
is our manner of arguing in the place alledged, which is farre different from that which
Mr. <HI>Rutherford</HI> reporteth as ours.</P>
<P>4. Whereas he reports us to &s;ay, <HI>Nor did they lay on hands as Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall Elders,
becau&s;e what the&s;e which lay on hands did, they did as from the Congregation;</HI> in this he
al&s;o reports us to &s;peak quite be&s;ides our plain meaning and expre&s;&s;e words. For
whereas, he &s;o &s;ets down this &s;entence, as that the latter clau&s;e or branch therein is made
the rea&s;on of the former; the truth is this, that the&s;e clau&s;es in the an&s;wer, have no de|pendance
the one upon the other at all; but the former hath another rea&s;on given for
it, which here is not mentioned, and the latter which is here mentioned as the rea&s;on of
the former is not &s;o mentioned by us, but for another end and purpo&s;e.</P>
<P>Touching the former of the&s;e two, when we &s;aid that the children of I&s;rael, did not
impo&s;e hands on the Levites as eccle&s;ia&s;ticall Elders, the rea&s;on we give for this &s;ay|ing
is this, becau&s;e that charge was onely belonging to Aaron and his &s;onnes, and
<PB N="98" REF="62">
tho&s;e Levites now ordained: which rea&s;on Mr. <HI>Rutherford</HI> never mentions, but men|tions
another &s;peech, as our rea&s;on, which was delivered by us for another purpo&s;e.
The like mea&s;ure doth he afford to us in the &s;econd branch of the &s;entence by him ex|pre&s;&s;ed:
For whereas we give two rea&s;ons of the main thing in que&s;tion, that this ex|ample
of the children of I&s;rael, impo&s;ing hands on the Levites doth prove that in &s;ome
ca&s;es, non-officers may impo&s;e hands upon Church officers, the one becau&s;e what the&s;e
children of I&s;rael did, they did it not as Elders; the other that what they did, they did
it not for them&s;elves alone, but for all the Congregation, Mr. <HI>Rutherford</HI> applies not
the&s;e two rea&s;ons to the thing in que&s;tion as they were applyed by us, but in&s;tead there|of
makes one of them to be a rea&s;on of the other, which was no part of our meaning,
nor could ju&s;tly be gathered from our words.</P>
<P>This being &s;aid for clearing this pa&s;&s;age of ours from his manifold mi&s;takes, let us
now heare his an&s;wer.</P>
<P>Pag. 49<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">. The&s;e who laid on hands did it as a work peculiar to the Elders, becau&s;e the
Elders were a part of the fir&s;t borne, who by office were Elders, and in who&s;e &s;tead the Le|vites
were a&s;&s;umed, Numb. 3. 40, 41.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> If the Elders were but a part of the fir&s;t born, then how could all the fir&s;t
born be Elders by office? or if all the fir&s;t born were by office Elders, then how could
the Elders be but a part of the fir&s;t born? The&s;e things &s;eem not to be here. But be it
&s;o, that the Elders were a part of the fir&s;t born as here is affirmed, how doth this prove
that they who laid on hands did it as a work peculiar to the Elders? Is there any nece&s;|&s;ary
or clear con&s;equence in &s;uch a propo&s;ition? For my part, I &s;ee it not: but on the
contrary, I &s;uppo&s;e it is certaine, that the Elders might be part or all of the fir&s;t born,
and yet they who did the work of impo&s;ing hands might neither impo&s;e as Elders, nor
of nece&s;&s;ity be Elders. Though in the &s;en&s;e expre&s;&s;ed in the an&s;wer, I will not deny
but there might be Elders, that is chiefe and principall members of the Congregation.
But if this were granted in the &s;en&s;e expre&s;&s;ed, mu&s;t it needs follow that they impo&s;ed
hands as Elders, and as Elders by office too? Can a man &s;u&s;tain no relation, but
all his actions mu&s;t be actions of that relation? Cannot a man be an husband, or a
parent, &amp;c. but his actions of plowing &s;owing, &amp;c. mu&s;t needs be performed by him,
as he is a husband, or parent? Cannot a mini&s;ter pray in his family, in&s;truct his
children, or receive the bread and wine in the Lords &s;upper in the Congregation, but all
the&s;e things mu&s;t be performed by him as a Mini&s;ter? I &s;uppo&s;e that none will &s;ay that
this doth follow: and if not, then &s;uppo&s;e that the&s;e who impo&s;ed hands were Elders,
how doth it follow, that when they impo&s;ed hands, they did impo&s;e as Elders?</P>
<P>El&s;e the Church of I&s;rael being a con&s;tituted Church before this time wanted officers, which
is again&s;t all truth.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> El&s;e, el&s;e what? let the antecedent or ground of this inference be taken from
the words preceding, or from any of them (and whence el&s;e to take it I cannot tell) and
no nece&s;&s;ity of con&s;equence I think will appear. The words preceding are no more but
the&s;e, <HI>The&s;e who laid on hands, did it as a worke peculiar to the Elders, becau&s;e the Elders
were a part of the fir&s;t born, who by office were Elders, and in who&s;e &s;teed the Levites were
a&s;&s;umed, and then comes in this inference, el&s;e the Church of I&s;rael wanted officers.</HI> Now
how this mu&s;t needs follow upon any or all of tho&s;e preceding, I &s;ee not. Not that
I deny the truth of all tho&s;e preceding words, for of &s;ome of them I think otherwi&s;e,
<PB N="99" REF="62">
but &s;uppo&s;ing that were all true, which is more then doth yet appeare, yet here is that
which I am doubtfull in, whether this inference mu&s;t needs follow upon the &s;ame?
For ought I &s;ee, the Church of I&s;rael might have officers, and yet the particulars here
mentioned not be all true, but &s;ome of them fal&s;e notwith&s;tanding. At lea&s;t wi&s;e if
they were true, yet the rea&s;on here u&s;ed would not inferre &s;o much. For, to con&s;ider
a little of the particulars: The Church of I&s;rael had officers, <HI>ergo,</HI> the Elders were a
part of the fir&s;t born (which is one of the particulars) The Church of I&s;rael had offi|cers;
<HI>ergo</HI> the fir&s;t born were Elders by office; (which is another) The Church of
I&s;rael had officers: <HI>Ergo,</HI> the Levites were a&s;&s;umed in&s;tead of the fir&s;t born (which is
another of them) is there any nece&s;&s;ity of con&s;equence in any of the&s;e? For my part I
&s;ee it not: but &s;uppo&s;e they were in them&s;elves true, yet, the medium here u&s;ed doth
not proove them &s;o to be. And for that which is the fir&s;t, and as I conceive the cheif, to
wit, that the&s;e who impo&s;ed hands did it as a work peculiar to Elders, mu&s;t this needs
be granted, if it be granted, that the Church of I&s;rael was not without officers? I &s;ee
no nece&s;&s;ity of granting this neither, but the contrary to me &s;eems po&s;&s;ible enough, that
thee might be officers afore this time in that Church; and yet what was now done by
them who impo&s;ed hands, not be done by them, as Elders by office, but as prime and
principall members of the Congregation.</P>
<P>For the clearing whereof a little further, we may ob&s;erve that they who impo&s;ed hands
on the Levites are not here called Elders, nor rulers, nor officers, nor fir&s;t born, nor
any &s;uch like, but the term whereby they are expre&s;&s;ed is this, the children of I&s;rael;
<HI>The children of I&s;rael, &s;aith the Lord, &s;hall put their hands upon the Levites,</HI> Numb. 8. 10.
Now this term being u&s;ed in the 9. ver&s;e imediately preceding, and in the 11. ver&s;. ime|diately
following, yet in neither of both can it be meant of Elders and officers alone,
but in both ver&s;es is undoubtedly meant of all the body of the Congregation: and
therefore if the context and circum&s;tances of the place be regarded, the&s;e children of I&s;|rael,
who impo&s;ed hands on the Levites, v. 10. cannot in that act be con&s;idered under
the not<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">on of officers. Sure it is when the ver&s;e before tells us that the whole a&s;&s;embly
of the children of I&s;rael mu&s;t be gathered together, and the ver&s;e following tells us that
<HI>Aaron</HI> mu&s;t offer the Levites for an offering of the children of I&s;rael; in neither of the&s;e
can the children of I&s;rael be under&s;tand of the officers alone, but the whole Congre|gation
is meant hereby in both ver&s;es: rea&s;on therefore requires that this tenth ver&s;e
&s;tanding in the mid&s;t between the other two, the word children of I&s;rael, being u&s;ed
therein &s;hould be taken in the &s;ame &s;en&s;e in this ver&s;e, in which it is taken in the ver&s;e
before, and in the ver&s;e that comes after.</P>
<P>Nay and further, he that &s;hall peru&s;e this chapter <HI>Numb.</HI> 8. may ea&s;ily finde that this
word, the children of I&s;rael is u&s;ed therein no le&s;&s;e then fifteen or &s;ixteen &s;everall times;
and &s;ometimes foure or five times in one ver&s;e; and yet of all the&s;e, I think here is not
&s;o much as one, where it can be under&s;tood of the Elders and Officers as &s;uch, but
is u&s;ed to &s;ignifie all the Congregation. And therefore to give &s;uch a &s;ingular inter|pretation
of this word, in <HI>v.</HI> 10. &s;o far different from the &s;en&s;e of the &s;ame word, in all the
re&s;t of the ver&s;es both before and after, and tho&s;e being not only one or two, but &s;o very
many; this kind of practi&s;e and interpretation had need to be builded upon very plain
and pregnant, very cleare and cogent rea&s;on and demon&s;tration, or el&s;e our brethren
may excu&s;e us if we be not over ha&s;ty and forward to receive it.</P>
<P><PB N="100" REF="63">
Again, the ninth and eleventh ver&s;es tell us plainly, that the&s;e Levites were to be of|fered
to the Lord for an offering, not of the Elders alone, but of the children of I&s;rael,
even of all the a&s;&s;embly of the children of I&s;rael, and other &s;criptures tell us as plainly
that all offerings were to be pre&s;ented with the impo&s;ition of his hands, who&s;e the offe|ring
was, <HI>Levit.</HI> 1. 3, 4, and 4. 24, 29, 33. whereby it &s;eems evident, that the&s;e children
of I&s;rael, who impo&s;ed hands on the&s;e Levites, at this time when they were offered for
an offering, were the whole Congregation or &s;ome in your name and &s;tead, &s;ith the&s;e
Levites were an offering of the whole Congregation.</P>
<P>Wee grant the magi&s;trates laid not on hands, but they who laid on hands, did it as Eccle|&s;ia&s;ticall
Elders.</P>
<P>Reconcile this with that pag. 188 l. 1. where tis &s;aid, <HI>the Princes and heads of tribes
laid hands on them:</HI> now what were the&s;e Princes and heads of tribes, but magi&s;trates?
and if they were Princes and Magi&s;trates how could they be con&s;idered in this act as
Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall Elders?</P>
<P>The rea&s;ons again&s;t this conclude not. <HI>The fir&s;t rea&s;on concludeth not.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> Here again our meaning is pre&s;ented ami&s;&s;e to the reader; for tho&s;e three rea|&s;ons
of ours were given by us to prove another point, and not this to which Mr. <HI>Ruther|ford,</HI>
applyes therein, as is plainly to be &s;een in an&s;wer, <HI>pag.</HI> 46, 47. where the reader
may perceive that tho&s;e rea&s;ons were brought to &s;hew, that when the children of I&s;rael
impo&s;ed hands, if the&s;e children of I&s;rael were not all the Congregation, yet what they
performed herein was for the Congregation, and not for them&s;elves onely: And if
tho&s;e rea&s;ons prove this, as I hope they doe; it is no great di&s;paragement to them not
us, if they prove not another point for which they were never intended. But let us hear
the an&s;wer.</P>
<P>The fir&s;t rea&s;on concludeth not, becau&s;e tho&s;e who laid on hands were the fir&s;t born, who by
office were Church-men.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> How &s;hall we be &s;ure that tho&s;e who laid on hands were the fir&s;t born?
though I deny it not, yet a bare affirmation proves not.</P>
<P>Again, &s;uppo&s;e what here is affirmed were al&s;o &s;ufficiently confirmed, how is the
point in que&s;tion proved hereby? for, &s;ay they were the fir&s;t born, they might notwith|&s;tanding
do what they did for all the people, and not for them&s;elves above.</P>
<P>The other two rea&s;ons proves nothing.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Let them be applyed to the thing, whereto they were intended and applyed by
us, and then let the reader judge. The po&s;ition was, that tho&s;e who impo&s;ed hands on
the Levites, did it for the Congregation or in their &s;tead. The fir&s;t of the two rea&s;ons
is, that the Levites were the Congregations offerings, and all offerings were to be
pre&s;ented with the impo&s;ition of his hands, who&s;e the offering was: The other is
this, that it was an u&s;uall thing when the Congregation were to pre&s;ent an offering,
that the Elders &s;hould impo&s;e hands on the Congregations offering, in the Con|gregations
&s;tead, <HI>Levit.</HI> 4. ver&s;. 14, 15. Now let the Prophets judge, whether the&s;e rea|&s;ons
prove what they were brought to prove, to wit, that they who impo&s;ed hands on the
Levites did it for, or in &s;tead of the Congregation: or whether it be as our reverend bro|ther
affirms, that the&s;e two rea&s;ons proves nothing: yet let us hear why they prove nothing.</P>
<P>Becau&s;e the&s;e who laid on hands, did lay on hands as repre&s;enting the whole Congregation.
Alas it doth no wayes conclude that they laid not on hands, as it is a worke peculiar to them
<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 word"> Elders.</P>
<P><PB N="101" REF="63">
<HI>An&s;.</HI> If it doe not, yet if our rea&s;ons do conclude that they did it in&s;tead of the Con|gregation,
we have our intent: But to follow Mr. <HI>Rutherford</HI> a little in digre&s;&s;ing
from the point; why, do not our rea&s;ons conclude this other?</P>
<P>The High-prie&s;t offered &s;acrifice, fir&s;t for his own &s;ins, and then for the peoples; <HI>Heb. 7.
v.</HI> 27. and &s;o did repre&s;ent the people; but I hope it followeth not that therefore the Prie&s;t
did not &s;acrifice as a Prie&s;t, and by virtue of a peculiar office, but only as a principall mem|ber
of the Congregation.</P>
<P>An&s;w. <HI>Mr.</HI> Rutherford <HI>him&s;elf gives us a di&s;tinction which may be &s;ufficient for an|&s;wer
to this pa&s;&s;age.</HI> A repre&s;enter, &s;aith he, &s;tandeth for another either objectively or &s;ub|jectively.
The former of the&s;e is he that doth a bu&s;ines for another, or in <HI>rem ejus,</HI> for his be|half
and good, as the eye &s;eeth and the eare heareth for the whole body; and thus objective|ly
the Presbytery doth repre&s;ent the people, that is, for your good and &s;alvation of the people.
The other repre&s;enting another &s;ubjectively is when the repre&s;enter hath its power from that
which it repre&s;enteth, as he who carrieth the room and per&s;on of a King as an Amba&s;&s;adour:
but thus, &s;aith he, the Presbytery or Elder&s;hip doth not repre&s;ent the People. Due right of
Presbyt. p. 316, 317. <HI>Now as the Presbytery repre&s;ents the people, &s;o may it be &s;aid
of the Prie&s;t,</HI> viz. <HI>that he repre&s;ented the people only objectively, for their good, but
not &s;ubjectively in their room and &s;tead, and therefore the ca&s;es are not alike; for we
think that what was done by tho&s;e who impo&s;ed hands,</HI> Numb. 8. <HI>was not only done
for the good of the children of I&s;rael, but al&s;o in their room and &s;tead, which he will
not &s;ay of the Prie&s;t &s;acrificing for the people, having already &s;aid the contrary of the
Presbytery.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Pag.</HI> 493. You will &s;ay, in a Church, in an Iland, one may be a Pa&s;tor without any ordi|nation
if the people elect him, and there be no Elders to ordain; I an&s;wer it is true.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> If this be true, then what becomnes of that which was &s;aid in the precedent
page, <HI>That though impo&s;ition of hands be not &s;o e&s;&s;entiall, as that a Mini&s;ter can be no Mi|ni&s;ter
without it, yet for Ordination it is otherwi&s;e, this being the authoritative calling of
a Mini&s;ter, and the other but a rite annexed to the calling. In which place he counts ordina|tion</HI>
&s;o e&s;&s;entiall, as that a Mini&s;ter can be no Mini&s;ter without it, and yet in the very
next page confe&s;&s;eth, as we &s;ee, that in &s;ome ca&s;e one may be a Pa&s;tor without ordina|tion:
whereupon it mu&s;t needs follow either that one may be a Pa&s;tor without any
authoritative calling or el&s;e that ordination is in effect, but the &s;ame with impo&s;ition
of hands, and &s;o there is no &s;uch difference between them as is pretended.</P>
<P>But &s;o many Pa&s;tors &s;end a Pa&s;tor to a Congregation, though that Congregation never
chu&s;e him.</P>
<P>An&s;w. <HI>Take your own words for an&s;wer pag.</HI> 496. We never read that in the Apo|&s;tles
Church a man was obtruded upon the people again&s;t their will and therefore Election by
the people in the Apo&s;tolike Church as <HI>Act. 1. 26. Act. 6. 2, 3, 4. Rev. 2. 1, 2. Act. 20.
v.</HI> 28. mu&s;t be our rule. Any election without the peoples con&s;ent mu&s;t be no Election, for
if it plea&s;e not the whole multitude as <HI>Act.</HI> 6. 5. it is not a choi&s;e. And in <HI>pag.</HI> 465. he
tells us that all incorporations have power by the law of nature to chu&s;e their own rulers and
officers, and that Chri&s;t hath provided the &s;ame in an eminant manner for his Church. And
therefore for this pa&s;&s;age that many Pa&s;tor may &s;end a Pa&s;tor to be Pa&s;tor to a Congregation,
though that Congregation never choo&s;e him, we de&s;ire that he would take his own money for
payment.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="25" TYPE="chapter">
<PB N="102" REF="64">
<HEAD>CHAP. XXV.</HEAD>
<HEAD TYPE="sub">Whether a Mini&s;ters calling con&s;i&s;t in Election or in Impo&s;ition of hands,
and whether of tho&s;e is greater, and whether is prior or po&s;terior. Whe|ther,
1 Tim. 4. 14. Act. 6. 2, 3, 4. Act. 13. 1, 2, 3. do prove that the
Mini&s;ters calling con&s;i&s;ts in impo&s;ition of hands by the Presbytery, and
that &s;uch impo&s;ition of hands is not a con&s;umatory rite, or benedictory
&s;igne. Al&s;o whether Rom. 10. 15. do prove that a man cannot be a Mi|ni&s;ter
except &s;ome Presbytery ordain him afore the People chu&s;e
him, and whether otherwi&s;e the people doe &s;end a Min&s;ter to
them&s;elves: and whether the people of God may not
a&s;well di&s;cern a mans fitnes to be ordained
as his fitnes to be elected.</HEAD>
<P><HI>_PAg.</HI> 493. If the people may elect Officers, then in &s;ome ca&s;es they may ordaine
them al&s;o, becau&s;e Ordination is le&s;&s;e then election, and dependeth upon it as a
nece&s;&s;ary antecedent, and it is nothing but a con&s;ummation of election, or the
admi&s;&s;ion of a per&s;on into the po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion of that office, whereto he had right be|fore
by election. If then a &s;ingle Congregation may elect, which is the greater,
they may ordain, which is the le&s;&s;e. And for this he alledgeth the An&s;wer <HI>pag.</HI> 46, 47. And
then gives an&s;wer thereto in the&s;e words, Ordination is the more and Election the le&s;&s;er; for
Ordination is an act authoritative of the Presbytery, 1. <HI>Tim.</HI> 4. 14.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Take Ordination as we take it for Impo&s;ition of hands on a Church officer,
and then we think it is le&s;&s;e then Election, as being but a Rite or Ceremony u&s;ed at a
Mini&s;ters entrance into his Office, but not at all of the e&s;&s;ence thereof. Nor are we a|lone,
or the fir&s;t that have &s;o thought: For to omit others, he that wrote the book, cal|led
the unbi&s;hoping of <HI>Timothy</HI> and <HI>Tytus</HI> affirmeth pag. 114. <HI>That it is no e&s;&s;entiall, but
a ceremoniall part of Ordination, which may be &s;ufficiently made without it, and &s;aith that</HI>
Angelus de Clava&s;io, Peter Martyr <HI>and others both Papi&s;ts and Prote&s;tants affirm
the &s;ame. And in pag. 116. he &s;aith it is an act of &s;ervice or Mini&s;tery, not of Authority,
and no more then an externall complement or Ceremony, alledging Dr.</HI> Ames <HI>&amp; others for
the &s;ame tenent.</HI> But now election is more then a ceremony that may be omitted, Mr.
<HI>Rutherford</HI> him&s;elf being judge: for in his pag. 496. <HI>He tells us, that in the Apo&s;to|like
Churches, a Mini&s;ter was never obtruded upon the people again&s;t their will, but that they
&s;till had the election of their Mini&s;ters, and this he &s;aith mu&s;t be our rule, &s;o that any election
without the peoples con&s;ent mu&s;t be no election, for if it plea&s;e not the whole multitude it is not
a choi&s;e. And in p. 202. he tells us out of Chry&s;o&s;tome that all Election of Pa&s;tors is null with|out
the con&s;ent of the people.</HI> Whereby it &s;eems that Election is &s;omething e&s;&s;entiall; and &s;o
con&s;equently more then impo&s;ition of hands, which is but a Rite or Ceremony, which
may be ab&s;ent, and yet a man have all the e&s;&s;entialls of a Mini&s;ter notwith&s;tanding.
As for 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 4. 14. the impo&s;ition of hands of the Presbytery there &s;poken of, I con|ceive,
could not be any act of &s;uperior authority but onely an approbatory &s;igne or
<PB N="103" REF="64">
rite which might be u&s;ed by inferiours towards your &s;uperiours. For <HI>Timothy</HI> being
an Evangeli&s;t, how could any ordinary Presbytery have authority over him, or give
office or authority to him? Be&s;ides it is not &s;aid that <HI>Timothy</HI> received his gift by the
laying on of the hands of the Presbytery, but by the Prophe&s;ie, and by the laying
on of <HI>Pauls</HI> hands, and with the laying on the hands of the Presbytery. Now between
tho&s;e two phra&s;es, by the laying on of hands, and with the &s;ame, there is great difference,
the one importing &s;ome cau&s;e or authority or power, the other importing no more but
an approbatory rite, or a &s;igne u&s;ed in a &s;olemne commending of one to God by Pray|ers:
<HI>Altare Dama&s;cen. pag.</HI> 161. of which more is to be &s;een in the plea for the Chur|ches
in New England part of the &s;econd chap. 12. que&s;t. 2, 4.</P>
<P>For ought I &s;ee the Authors might argue thus, The people may ordaine: <HI>Ergo,</HI> they may
preach and bapti&s;e, for all the three are Presbyteriall acts given to men in Office.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> We read in <HI>Mornay de Eccle&s;ia chap. <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">.</HI> that of old time it was an argument
ri&s;e in the Church, he may bapti&s;e, he may admini&s;ter the Lords &s;upper; <HI>Ergo,</HI> he may
lay on hands; but &s;uch arguing as Mr <HI>Rutherford</HI> u&s;eth, they may lay on hands, <HI>ergo,</HI>
they may bapti&s;e; this we remember not that we have read in any authors, except in
him: Nor doe we think the con&s;equence the &s;ame, ina&s;much as in the one the argu|ment
proceeds from the greater to the le&s;&s;e, and in the other from the le&s;&s;e to the grea|ter,
and yet affirmatively in both. Thus the argument is under&s;tood by the forenamed
author of the unbi&s;hoping of <HI>Timothy</HI> and <HI>Tytus,</HI> who in <HI>pag.</HI> 100. &s;peaking of the&s;e
words of <HI>Mornay</HI> layes down the argument thus, <HI>He can bapti&s;e, he can con&s;ecrate and
admini&s;ter the Lords &s;upper which are the greater and more honorable actions,</HI> Ergo, <HI>he may
lay on hands which is the le&s;&s;e:</HI> and this kind of arguing for my part, I think to be good&punc;
but for that of Mr. <HI>Rutherfords,</HI> I &s;ee no more con&s;equence therein, then if one &s;hould
&s;ay, he that may doe the le&s;&s;er, may doe the greater al&s;o&punc; in which I &s;ee, no &s;trength of
con&s;equence at all.</P>
<P>Pag. 493, 494. Whereas &s;ome &s;ay <HI>Act.</HI> 6. 3, 4, 5. Election of &s;even men to be Dea|cons
goeth before Ordination or Impo&s;ition of hands, v. 6. <HI>An&s;w.</HI> Election of the people goeth
before Ordination in the relation of <HI>Luke,</HI> true; <HI>Ergo,</HI> Election is prior by order of nature,
it followeth not.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> The place cannot be &s;o &s;atisfied; for the text is very plain, that the&s;e &s;even
were elected by the multitude afore the Apo&s;tles laid their hands on them; yea, and
not onely afore in re&s;pect of priority of nature, but al&s;o in re&s;pect of time; for other|wi&s;e,
how could the Apo&s;tles &s;ay as they doe unto the multitude; brethren look out
&s;even men among you whom we may appoint over this bu&s;ines? Can any man imagine
they would thus have &s;poken, if them&s;elves had already found out the men, and likewi&s;e
had impo&s;ed hands upon them? for my part, I &s;ee no rea&s;on for &s;uch an apprehen&s;ion;
but think it is undenyably plain in the text, that the election of the&s;e &s;even by the peo|ple
was prior to their Ordination, by Impo&s;ition of the Apo&s;tles hands, not onely in
the relation of <HI>Luke</HI> as Mr. <HI>Rutherford</HI> would have it, but al&s;o in nature and time, and
that the contrary cannot be &s;aid without violence to the text, and injury and wrong
unto the Apo&s;tles, who by Mr. <HI>Rutherfords</HI> expo&s;ition are made to have bidden the
multitude to look out for the men among&s;t them of hone&s;t report, &amp;c. with a profe&s;|&s;ion
that when the multitude had &s;o done they would then appoint the men to the bu&s;i|ne&s;&s;e,
when as by this expo&s;ition they had already appointed them thereunto, and had
<PB N="104" REF="65">
impo&s;ed their hands on them, which kinde of dealing had been &s;uch, that I think that
Apo&s;tles were farre from it.</P>
<P>It cannot be that Election of the people is the whol calling of a man to the Mini&s;tery, and Or|dination
only a &s;upplement &amp; a con&s;ummatory rite, or a benedictory &s;ign, which may be &s;pared.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Take Ordination as we do, and why cannot this be? him&s;elf told us p. 492.
<HI>That he thinks not Impo&s;ition of hands &s;o e&s;&s;entiall, but that a Mini&s;ter may be a Mini&s;ter
without it, and that to him it is but a rite annexed to the calling:</HI> which is ju&s;t the &s;ame
that we hold, and yet when it comes from us it cannot be accepted. Again, he told us
pag. 186, 187. <HI>That there are true and lawfull pa&s;tors, who have no call but peoples election:</HI>
Which if it be &s;o, doth it not then follow, that the election of the people with the mans
acceptance thereof is his whole calling? For if <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="2 letters">ey be true and lawfull pa&s;tors, who
have no more but this election, it &s;eems it mu&s;t needs be that this is the whole, and yet
here this is denyed. But let us hear the rea&s;ons of this denyall.</P>
<P>1. Becau&s;e by the Impo&s;ition of the hands of the Presbytery <HI>Timothy</HI> was made a Mini|&s;ter,
1 <HI>Timothy</HI> 4. 14.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> The text is not by the Impo&s;ition of their hands, but with it, not <GAP DESC="foreign"> but,
<GAP DESC="foreign">, as was noted afore out of <HI>Didoclavius Altare Dama&s;cen. p.</HI> 161. who al&s;o &s;heweth
in the &s;ame place at large, that this Impo&s;ition of hands upon <HI>Timothy</HI> was onely for a
te&s;timonall of the approbation of his calling, and for a ceremony u&s;ed in commending
him to God in their Prayers. And in a&s;much as the office of <HI>Timothy</HI> was the office of
an Evangeli&s;t, how could an ordinary Presbytery giving him either the gifts or the
power belonging thereto? When Mr. <HI>Rutherford</HI> hath &s;atisfied Mr. <HI>Calderwood</HI> in the&s;e
things (a man of his own nation) for I &s;uppo&s;e Mr. <HI>Calderwood</HI> to be the authour of
that treati&s;e of <HI>Altare Dama&s;cen.</HI> then if we require more may be &s;aid of this place. In
the mean time I proceed to the next.</P>
<P>By this Impo&s;ition of hands <HI>Paul</HI> and <HI>Sylas</HI> were &s;eparated to preach to the Gentiles,
<HI>Acts</HI> 13. 1, 2, 3.</P>
<P>An&s;w. Paul <HI>and</HI> Sylas <HI>are not once mentioned in that place, but</HI> Paul <HI>and</HI> Barna|bas;
<HI>But not to in&s;i&s;t upon this mi&s;take, let M.</HI> Calderwood <HI>an&s;wer for us concerning this
&s;cripture:</HI> Litigent, <HI>&s;aith he,</HI> inter &s;e pontifieii utrum impo&s;itio i&s;ta manuum fuerit ordi|nativa,
&amp;c. that is, let the Papi&s;ts contend among&s;t them&s;elves whether this impo&s;ition of
hands was for Ordination, or onely for Prayer: we hold that it was for Prayer and Comen|datory
(for they commended them to the grace of God, as its &s;aid, <HI>Act. 14. 26.)</HI> yet as they
could not ord<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="2 letters">n them and call them to this Mini&s;tery they being Apo&s;tles, who were called
extraordinarily, &s;o neither could they appoint them to any certain imployment or place, for the
holy Gho&s;t did direct the Apo&s;tles in their troubles, and here it is expre&s;ly &s;aid, that they were
&s;ent forth by the holy Gho&s;t <HI>Altare Dama&s;cen. pag. 160. and then &s;peaking of certain
words of</HI> Spalato, <HI>who &s;aith, this Impo&s;ition of hands was a pious ceremony, and u&s;ed
at that time as a certain part of an efficatious Prayer; he addeth,</HI> Rectius diceret fui&s;&s;e,
&amp;c. he might more rightly &s;ay, it was a rite and ge&s;ture of one that prayed, &s;hewing the per|&s;on
for whom he did implore grace, rather then to call it an efficacious part of prayer. <HI>Where
we plainly &s;ee that he counts this Impo&s;ition of hands on</HI> Paul <HI>and</HI> Barnabas <HI>no ordain|ing
of them to the office, as &s;ome Papi&s;ts and it &s;eems Mr.</HI> Rutherford <HI>would have it;
but onely a rite or ge&s;ture u&s;ed when the Presbytery commended</HI> Paul <HI>and</HI> Barnabas <HI>to
God by Prayer. This authour of</HI> Altare Dama&s;cenam <HI>al&s;o addeth,</HI> Cum a&s;&s;umendi erant
<PB N="105" REF="65">
Levitae, &amp;c. That is, when the Levites were to be taken from among&s;t the Children of I&s;|rael,
the Lord commands that they &s;hould be brought before Jehova<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">, and that the Children
of I&s;rael &s;hould lay their hands upon the Levites, <HI>Numb.</HI> 8. 9, 10. Although the Lord
had commanded to con&s;ecrate the&s;e Levites unto the Mini&s;tery; yet he commands the I&s;raelites
to lay their hands upon the Levites, as if they had of their own accord in their name given them
up to the Mini&s;tery, <HI>as</HI> Junius <HI>in his Analy&s;is doth fitly interpret it: Thus far Mr.</HI> Cal|derwood
<HI>who&s;e judgement of this &s;cripture Numb. 8. whether it be not the &s;ame with
ours, which was formerly expre&s;&s;ed, let Mr.</HI> Rutherford <HI>him&s;elf be judge.</HI></P>
<P>Mr. <HI>Rutherford</HI> addeth that by Impo&s;ition of hands the Deacons were ordained, <HI>Act.</HI> 6.
and that this is enjoyned with the right manner of acting it to <HI>Timothy, 1 Tim. 5. 22. and
2.</HI> 2. 2. as a mini&s;teriall act.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Whereas, he &s;aith, it cannot be that laying on of hands &s;hould be onely a
con&s;ummatory rite or benedictory &s;igne, and brings the example of the&s;e Deacons,
<HI>Acts.</HI> 6. for proof, I de&s;ire no more, but that he would accept his own words for an|&s;wer.
Now in pag. 169. his words are the&s;e; <HI>It is not &s;aid that the Deacons were or|dained
with Fa&s;ting and Prayer, as hands are laid upon</HI> Paul <HI>and</HI> Barnabas, Act. 13. 3, 4.
<HI>but &s;imply that the Apo&s;tles prayed and laid their hands on them; which &s;eems to me to be
nothing but a &s;igne of praying over the&s;e Deacons, and no Ceremony or Sacrament conferring
on them the holy Gho&s;t.</HI> Now if it was nothing but a &s;igne of Praying over the&s;e Dea|cons,
then 1 the &s;ub&s;tance of their calling con&s;i&s;ted not in this laying on of hands,
but in &s;ome thing el&s;e; and what &s;hould that be but their election by the people? 2. If
it was nothing but a &s;igne of praying over then, then why is a con&s;ummatory rite and
a benedictory &s;igne gain&s;aid and oppo&s;ed? For what great difference is there between
a &s;ign of prayer and a benedictory &s;igne? And how &s;hall he be reconciled with him&s;elf,
that &s;aith it was nothing but &s;uch a &s;ign of praying, and yet will not yeeld that it was
onely a benedictory &s;igne?</P>
<P>And for the other particular where he &s;aith, <HI>this laying on of hands was enjoyed to</HI>
Timothy <HI>as a mini&s;teriall act,</HI> if by mini&s;teriall act he mean an act that could be law|fully
performed by none, but onely by a Mini&s;ter; then I de&s;ire &s;ome proof that this
was &s;o enjoyned to <HI>Timothy.</HI> That it was enjoyned to him I grant, but that it was &s;o
enjoyned needs &s;ome better proof then a bare and naked aff<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">rmation; &s;pecially &s;ith
many things were enjoyned to <HI>Timothy</HI> in tho&s;e examples, which were and are ju&s;tly
applyable to all Chri&s;tians.</P>
<P>Furthermore &s;uppo&s;e it were true that Impo&s;ition of hands were enjoyned to <HI>Timothy</HI>
as a mini&s;teriall act, how doth this reach to make good the thing in que&s;tion? what
&s;hould hinder but the peoples election might contain the &s;ub&s;tance of a Mini&s;ters calling
notwith&s;tanding? or how doth it therfore follow that Impo&s;ition of hands was not a con|&s;ummatory
rite or benedictory &s;igne, but &s;omthing more? Is there any &s;uch nece&s;&s;ary
con&s;equence here, that the one of the&s;e mu&s;t needs follow upon the other? For my
part I &s;ee it not, nor &s;ee any thing to the contrary, but if Impo&s;ition of hands were &s;uch
a mini&s;teriall act, as he &s;aith it is, yet it might &s;till be meerly a con&s;ummatory rite or
benedictory &s;igne, and the &s;ub&s;tance of the calling con&s;i&s;t &s;till in the peoples Election.
Him&s;elf doth &s;ay, as we hear even now, that Impo&s;ition of hands <HI>Act.</HI> 6. though here
he call it a mini&s;teriall act, was nothing but a &s;igne of praying over the Deacons. And
therefore the&s;e two, to be a mini&s;teriall act&punc; and yet to be nothing but a &s;igne of prayer
<PB N="106" REF="66">
or benedictory &s;ign (which to me are the &s;ame) are not &s;o incon&s;i&s;tent by his own do|ctrine,
but that they may well &s;tand together; And him&s;elf doth al&s;o hold that the
laying on of hands mentioned <HI>Numb.</HI> 8. 10. was a mini&s;teriall act, and that they who
did it, performed the &s;ame as Eccle&s;ia&s;ticall Elders; and yet I hope, he will not deny
that the &s;ub&s;tance of the Levites calling was in the immediate de&s;ignement and appoint|ment
of the Lord, and not in the performance of this laying on of hands. And there|fore
it follows, that if laying on of hands were granted to be a mini&s;teriall act, yet &s;till
it may be meerly a benedictory &s;igne, and the &s;ub&s;tance or e&s;&s;ence of the Mini&s;ters
calling not con&s;i&s;t in it, but in &s;ome thing el&s;e.</P>
<P>A mini<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="2 letters">eriall calling &s;tandeth in an authoritative &s;ending, <HI>Rom.</HI> 10. 15. and I &s;ee not
well how the people do &s;end a Mini&s;ter to them&s;elves.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> But it is not ea&s;ie to &s;ee how they choo&s;e a man for a Mini&s;ter to them&s;elves,
being &s;ent unto them by God? And if God doe furni&s;h a man with gifts, and an holy
propen&s;ity of minde to the work in generall, and to &s;uch or &s;uch a people in particular,
and make way by his providence thereto, then who can deny, but &s;uch a man is &s;ent of
God unto that people? And then if that people ob&s;erving Gods &s;ending of him in
this &s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="2 letters">t, do hereupon elect and choo&s;e him, and promi&s;e to be obedient to him in the
Lord, what is there now wanting to the &s;ub&s;tance and offence of &s;uch a mans calling to
&s;uch a people? and yet the man is not &s;ent by them to them&s;elves, but &s;ent by God,
and received and cho&s;e by them: <HI>Parcus</HI> under&s;tands this &s;ending, <HI>Rom.</HI> 10. of Gods
&s;ending&punc; and &s;o doth <HI>Pi&s;cator,</HI> and who not? And to under&s;tand it otherwi&s;e would be
to condemne the Prophets and Apo&s;tles, who were not &s;ent by men at all, and yet did
truely an&s;wer this &s;cripture, in that they were &s;ent of God: True it is, ordinary Mi|ni&s;ters
are not &s;ent of God in &s;uch an extraordinary way as the Prophets and Apo&s;tles
were, but in an ordinary way, and by ordinary means; which way and means if they
doe ob&s;erve, they al&s;o may be truly &s;aid to be &s;ent of God unto the people.</P>
<P>But peradventure our brother means that the people may not lawfully choo&s;e a man
for mini&s;ter unto them&s;elves, except he be fir&s;t &s;ent unto them, in an authoritative way
by &s;ome other men, and that otherwi&s;e he is not &s;ent unto them of God; which if it were
true, then it would follow, that the Apo&s;tles and Prophets, as I &s;aid, were not &s;ent of
God: for plain it is, that men &s;ent them not. It would al&s;o hereupon be requi&s;ite to
be cleared, that &s;ome men be&s;ides the Church have authority to &s;end Mini&s;ters to the
Church, and who the&s;e men are that have &s;uch authority had need to be cleared al&s;o;
which I for my part think will not be done in ha&s;t. And till this be done, I know no rea|&s;on,
but I may &s;till retain this apprehen&s;ion, that men who are qualified according to
the rule of the word and duly elected and cho&s;en to &s;ome office of the Mini&s;tery by
Gods people, are truly &s;ent of God unto that people.</P>
<P>The people have not either formally or by grant of Chri&s;t virtually, the keyes committed to
them, how then can they give the keyes to Pa&s;tors?</P>
<P>An&s;w. <HI>Yet in p.</HI> 7. He tells us that he denyes not but there is a power virtuall, not formall
in the Church of beleevers, to &s;upply the want of ordination of Pa&s;tors, or &s;ome other acts of
the keyes &s;imply nece&s;&s;ary, <HI>hic &amp; nunc:</HI> and this power, &s;aith he, is virtuall not formall. <HI>Now
to &s;ay they have this power neither formally nor virtually, and yet to &s;ay they have this
power virtually though not formally, what is it but an apparent contradiction?</HI></P>
<P><HI>But &s;uppo&s;e it were true that the people had not this power either formally or virtual|ly,
<PB N="107" REF="66">
yet Mr.</HI> Ball <HI>and Mr.</HI> Bai<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">s <HI>afore him doe tell us, that mini&s;terially they may give
what they never had,</HI> viz. As mini&s;tring to him who hath power and virtue of deriving its
as a man not <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 word"> a peny of his own may give an 100 <HI>l.</HI> if the King make him his Almoner.
Thus the Church deriveth a<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter"> taking the per&s;on whom Chri&s;t de&s;cribeth, and out of power will
<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">ave placed in this or that office in his Church. The power of the imperiall dignity is not in the
electo<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter"> of the Emperours, nor the power of that office and authority, whereunto a Mini&s;ter is
elected, in the Church, who chu&s;eth him to that office. <HI>Ball Tryall of Separat. pag. 239,
240.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Pag.</HI> 494, 495. People may as the &s;heep of Chri&s;t di&s;cern his voice, <HI>Joh.</HI> 10. and &s;o have
a power of election of their own Pa&s;tors: nor doth this make good what our brethren &s;ay,
that therefore they may judge of a mini&s;ters fitnes?</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> That which we &s;ay in this An&s;w. pag. 51. <HI>There mu&s;t be &s;ome ability to di&s;|cerne
whether men be qualified according to the rule, afore they ought to be elected and cho&s;en
into office; and the people of God have &s;o much ability as is of nece&s;&s;ity required afore there be
preceeding unto ordination?</HI> Wherein it is plain that our arguing is from the peoples abi|lity
to di&s;cern of mens fitnes afore they be elected, to their like ability to di&s;cern of their
fitne&s;&s;e afore they be ordained. They who have &s;o much as to di&s;cern who are fit to be
ordained: but the people of God may have the former. <HI>Ergo,</HI> they may have the latter.
Now what &s;aith Mr. <HI>Rutherford</HI> hereunto? <HI>The a&s;&s;umption he denyes not, but in plain
words grants it, &s;aying, they may as Chri&s;ts &s;heep,</HI> Joh. 10. <HI>di&s;cern Chri&s;ts voyce, and &s;o
have a power of election of their own Pa&s;tors.</HI> It mu&s;t then be the con&s;equence that mu&s;t
be denyed, or the conclu&s;ion mu&s;t be yeelded: what then brings he to overthrow the
con&s;equence? <HI>Nothing but this, that there is a two fold knowledge, one of Chri&s;tians not
denyed to women and beleeving children, who cannot lay on hands, nor ordain Mi<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">i&s;ters, as
the Presbytery doth.</HI> But what the other knowledge is he doth not plainly tell, except any
thing may be gathered from the words following, where he &s;aith, <HI>But for trying of Mi|ni&s;ters
if they be the &s;onnes of the Prophets apt to teach, able to convince the &s;ubtill hereticks,
and gain&s;ayers, and to put them to &s;ilence, there mu&s;t be in a con&s;tituted Church a Colledge of
Pa&s;tors and Prophets to try the Prophets with a Presbyteriall cognizance.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> But if Mr. <HI>Rutherford</HI> would have &s;poken to the point, he &s;hould have given
&s;ome rea&s;on why the people may di&s;cern a mans fitnes for election, and yet not di&s;cern
his fitnes for ordination, for this is the con&s;equence of our argument which he denyes.
But in all that is here &s;aid about a two fold knowledge, one of Chri&s;tians, and the other
of &s;ome body el&s;e, what is there in all this, that hath &s;o much as the lea&s;t &s;hew of over|throwing
or weakning the con&s;eqence? &s;u<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">e nothing at all that I can finde: For as
for that which is intimated, that Chri&s;tians have not &s;o much knowledge as to try Mi|ni&s;ters
whether they be apt to teach, &amp;c. this makes nothing to the point in hand, that
they can di&s;cern whether a man be fit to be elected, but not di&s;cern whether he be fit to
be ordained; but if it have any &s;trength in it at all, it is as much again&s;t the ability of
the people, which he expre&s;&s;ely grants, as again&s;t that which he would deny; as much
again&s;t their ability of di&s;cerning his fitnes for ordination. And therefore how this
&s;hould overthrow the one and not the other, I do not know: for to any mans under|&s;tanding
it makes no more again&s;t the one then again&s;t the other; but either again&s;t
both, which he will not grant, or el&s;e again&s;t neither which I conceive is the very truth?
To argue in this &s;ort, they have not ability to convince <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 word"> Hereticks; <HI>Ergo,</HI> they
<PB N="108" REF="67">
may not chu&s;e their Mini&s;ters, this Mr. <HI>Rutherford</HI> will not own; for he plainly grants
they may chu&s;e: and therefore how can this arguing be good, they want ab<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">lity to con|vince
Hereticks; <HI>Ergo,</HI> they may not impo&s;e hands in ordination? How the one kinds
of rea&s;oning can be better then the other, I do not know, except we would &s;ay &s;ome may
be lawfully elected and cho&s;en to the mini&s;tery, who cannot lawfully be ordained, but
this I &s;uppo&s;e cannot be &s;aid with truth.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="26" TYPE="chapter">
<HEAD>CHAP. XXVI.</HEAD>
<HEAD TYPE="sub">Whether the Epi&s;tles to Timothy and Titus, wherein there are contained
rules of direction in laying on of hands, do prove that the action may not
in any ca&s;e be performed by non-officers, but mu&s;t be performed onely by
Presbyters; and whether the argument do not make as &s;trongly for the
appropriating of laying on of hands to the Prelates, as to the Pres|byters,
and do not as well exclude the Presbyters from
medling therein, as exclude the People.</HEAD>
<P><HI>_THere is onely one place more where I finde Mr.</HI> Rutherford <HI>excepting a|gain&s;t
the an&s;wer; and that is in his</HI> pag. 497. <HI>where alledging the an|&s;wer</HI>
pag. 59. <HI>which I conceive is mi&s;printed for</HI> pag. 49. He &s;ets down
the&s;e words as ours, <HI>viz.</HI> If people may not meddle with ordination, becau&s;e
it is proper to <HI>Timothy</HI> and <HI>Titus,</HI> this may prove that they were Bi&s;hops
who did ordaine Elders there alone, which Mini&s;ters may not doe there, for the&s;e Epi&s;tles
are not written to them as Bi&s;hops alone, nor as Elders alone, but as to a mixt &s;tate including
the People.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> The order of the di&s;pute is this: Reverend Mr. <HI>Herle</HI> arguing for ordina|tion
of officers by a con&s;ociated Elder&s;hip, and not by a &s;ingle Congregation with or
without a Pa&s;tor, brings this rea&s;on for his judgement, <HI>viz. Rules of direction how to
proceed in ordination, and the Epi&s;tles where tho&s;e rules are laid down, are not written to the
Churches or Congregations, but to</HI> Timothy <HI>and</HI> Titus. In an&s;wer whereunto we &s;poke to
this purpo&s;e, that 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 rea&s;on it will follow, that Ordination
belongs not to the Presbytery or Synod, but onely to one man, as the Prelates would
have it; the rea&s;on we give is, becau&s;e <HI>Timothy</HI> and <HI>Titus</HI> were each of them but onely
one man. And we there further &s;ay, that we doe approve the an&s;wer given to this
kinde of rea&s;oning by the refuter of Dr. <HI>Down<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="2 letters">s</HI> &s;ermon, at <HI>L<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="2 letters">beth,</HI> who &s;hews that
what was written in tho&s;e Epi&s;tles, was not onely written for <HI>Timothy</HI> and <HI>Titus,</HI> but for
other Mini&s;ters al&s;o, and al&s;o in &s;ome &s;ort for all the Saints, and that therefore there
is no more rea&s;on to appropriate tho&s;e rules, onely to the u&s;e of Presbyteries and Sy|nods,
then only to the u&s;e of Prelates.</P>
<P>Now what &s;aith Mr. <HI>Rutherford</HI> to this?</P>
<P>Some parcell of the&s;e <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 word"> are written, &s;aith he, to <HI>Timothy</HI> and <HI>Titus</HI> as Evange|li<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">ts.
Somethings are written to them as Chri&s;tians; and <HI>finaditer &amp; objective</HI> all is writ|ten
<PB N="109" REF="67">
for the Churches good, but the bulk of the Epi&s;tles is written to them as Elders, and e&s;pe|cially.
1 <HI>Tim. 5. 22. 2 Tim.</HI> 2. 2. for the&s;e and the like they were to doe with the Pres|bytery
as is cleare, 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 4. 14.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> This Scripture 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 4. doth &s;hew that <HI>Timothy</HI> had a gift given him by
Prophe&s;ie with the laying on the hands of the Presbytery; but how doth it hence appear,
that not only <HI>Timothy</HI> but <HI>Titus</HI> al&s;o was to dothings with the Presbytery? <HI>Titus</HI> is not
at all mentioned in that Scripture. And as for <HI>Timothy,</HI> Scripture tells what the Presby|tery
did to him, but what he mu&s;t doe with the Presbytery it tells us nothing at all. A|gain,
if the bulk of the Epi&s;tles be written to them as Elders, and the Churches be no
otherwi&s;e concerned therein, but only finaliter and objectively, the Epi&s;tles being
written for their good, then what &s;hall be the meaning and rea&s;on of the&s;e words in the
conclu&s;ion of the Epi&s;tle to <HI>Titus,</HI> and of the latter to <HI>Timothy,</HI> where it is &s;aid, grace be
with you, and grace be with you all? doth it not plainly appear hereby, that more then
Elders, even all the Saints in tho&s;e places are written unto in tho&s;e Epi&s;tles? Thirdly
if there be rules in the Epi&s;tles that doe belong to Elders alone, yet &s;ith it is confe&s;&s;ed,
and may not be denyed, that other things therein doe concern all Chri&s;tians, how &s;hall
we be a&s;&s;ured that &s;uch pa&s;&s;ages, as concern <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="tech" EXTENT="1 letter">aying on of hands are of the former &s;ort,
and not of the latter? For to &s;ay it is &s;o, and it is clear, we think doth not clear it at all,
unle&s;&s;e &s;ome further proofe be added. La&s;tly, if all this were granted, which here is
&s;aid by Mr. <HI>Rutherford,</HI> yet for ought I &s;ee, our an&s;wer is not removed thereby, but
&s;till &s;tands fair and good: For in that place of the an&s;wer alledged, we &s;ay two things,
1. That the&s;e rules about ordination in <HI>Timothy</HI> and <HI>Titus</HI> may with as fair a colour be
appropriated to one man, as to Presbyteries and Synods. 2. That the Epi&s;tles and
the rules therein are not to be appropriated to Bi&s;hops alone or Mini&s;ters alone, but are
indeed of generall concernment for all the Chri&s;tians. Now neither of the&s;e two is
di&s;covered by Mr. <HI>Rutherford.</HI> For as for the former of them, he &s;aith nothing thereto
at all; and the latter he doth in a manner grant, not only by &s;aying that all here is writ|ten
for the Churches good, but al&s;o by &s;aying that &s;omethings are written to <HI>Ti|mothy</HI>
and <HI>Titus</HI> as Chri&s;tians which is in effect the &s;ame that we had &s;aid before. And
how our an&s;wer can be di&s;proved or &s;atisfied, either by &s;aying nothing at all thereto, or
by &s;aying the &s;ame that we had &s;aid before, I leave it to the Judicious reader to con|&s;ider.</P>
<TRAILER>FINIS.</TRAILER>
</DIV2>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT>
</EEBO>
</ETS>
