therefore if it were granted that this ordination belongeth onely to a Synod yet the Question being not of one part but of the whole jurisdiction is not concluded thereby Neverthelesse we are willing to consider what is said about this particular and therefore our Answer is distinctly thus 1 That if a Congregation have Elders of it own then when other Officers are to be ordained in that Church such ordination is to be performed by the imposition of the hands of those Elders This we never denied and a good deale of your proofs do conclude no more For what if the Presbyterie at Ephesus did lay hands upon Timothy 1 Tim. 4. 14. and the Presbyterie at Antioch upon Paul and Barnabas Act. 13. 1 2. which are two of your proofs this may evince that in Churches furnished with a Presbyterie as Ephesus and Antioch were that that Presbyterie is to perform imposition of hands which is nothing against us neither do willingly acknowledge the same But it may be in this Argument you intend a further matter viz. that ordination cannot be performed lawfully by any but onely by Elders For where say you in all the Scripture do we read of any ordination of Pastors but by Presbyters Whereto we answer three things 1 That we do read of such a matter in the Scripture 2 That if we did not yet we read so much as bâ— good consequence doth infer the lawfulnesse of the practise 3 That which we do read that may seeme to make against this practise is not because the thing is in every case unlawfull but for other reasons 1 For the first of these we alledge Numb. 8. 10. which place sheweth that though the Levites were Church Officers and the Children of Israel were none yet the Children of Israel did lay their hands upon the Levites by which Scripture thus much is manifest that when a Church hath no Elders but the first Elders themselves are to be ordained and this at such times and in such places where Elders can not conveniently be borrowed from any other Church in such case imposition of hands may lawfully be performed by some principall men of the Congregation although they be not Elders by office for sith it was so in the Church of Israel as this text doth witnesse what should hinder but in the like case the like may be lawfully done in these dayes If any shall ask how was it possible that the Children of Israel being 600000 should all lay hands upon the Levites at once Answer It is not like that all did it but some instead of the rest and so when some do impose hands in stead of all the Congregation that may be sufficient If it shall be said these Children of Israel might be Elders and so their example will be no warrant for imposition of hands by non-elders The answer is it is like they were Elders as being the chief and principall members of the Congregation but yet their example proveth the point if two things be considered First that they did not this as a work peculiar to them as Elders Secondly that they did it not for themselves onely but for all the Congregation the former of which may be thus manifested If they did it as Elders then either as Elders and Governours Ecclesiasticall or as Civill governours but not the first for that charge was onely belonging to Aaron and his sons Levit. 8. and these Levites now ordained If the second be said then it will follow that Civill Magistrates though no Church officers may impose hands in ordination of Church officers and so the point is gained For if Magistrates may do it then it will follow that a Church wanting Magistrates may perform this action by other the fittest Instruments she hath For this is not a work properly tied to the Magistrates office because then the Church in the Apostles time wanting Magistrates could not have had Officers the contrary whereof is manifest in the Scripture Act. 14. 23. Tit. 1. 5. Secondly as these Children of Israel suppose they were the chief Fathers of families imposed hands on the Levites not as Elders and governours Ecclesiasticall or Civill but as principall members of the Church so what was herein performed by them was not done by themselves onely but for all the Congregation And this appears first because these Levites now to be ordained by imposition of hands were taken in stead of all the first-born of Israel and not in stead of the first born of Elders onely Numb. 3. 40 41. Secondly they were presented to the Lord as an offering of the Children of Israel Numb. 8. 11. and not of the Elders onely and inasmuch as all offerings were to be presented at the doore of the Tabernacle with the imposition of his hands whose the offering was Levit. 1. 3. 4. it is therfore evident that they that imposed hands on the Levites did it in the name of all the people whose offering these Levites were Thirdly it was usuall that when all the multitude brought an oblation the Elders put their hands on the head of the sacrifice Levit. 4. 14 15. viz. in stead of all the multitude whose the sacrifice was And thus you see we read in Scriptures of the imposition of hands performed by them that were no Elders by office and so this demand of yours where in Scripture do we read of such a practise is answered But if we did not read of any such thing yet it may suffice which was our second particular to be proved that we do read so much as by good consequence inferreth the lawfulnesse of the practise And for this purpose first we propound Act. 1. Act. 6. and Act. 14. where we read of the peoples electing and chusing officers of which places more may be spoken afterward Now if the people may elect Officers then in some cases they may ordain them also because ordination is lesse then election and depends upon it as a necessarie antecedent by vertue whereof it is justly administred Yea it is not onely lesse then election but lesse in the same kind being nothing else but the accomplishment of election or the admission of a person into the possession of that office whereto he had right before by election And hence it follows by good consequence that if a single congregation may elect officers which is the greater they may also in some case ordain them which is the lesser For your self do grant that to argue affirmatively from the greater to the lesser in the same kind is good consequence and such is this Which kind of arguing is also used by Doctor Whitaker concerning this very particular Besides we read Heb. 6. 2. that imposition of hands is amongst the principles of religion and joyned by the Apostle with baptisme resurrection and the eternall judgement and therefore an institution of ordinary and perpetuall use as all principles are and so not to be omitted in the ordination of Officers And if so it will
therefore follow that in some case it may be performed by such as are not in office because the case may so be that otherwise it cannot be performed at all so that either no Officers must be ordained nor any imposition of hands used at all or else imposition of hands in some case may be performed by them that are not in office Now that it cannot alwayes be performed by Officers three instances make it manifest First when there are no Officers of any other Church to be had as at the first rise of the first Christian Church in a Pagan Countrey far remote from all Churches as here in America by the English in the case which you put of a company of Christians by shipwrack cast upon an Iland where no Pastors were Secondly when those that may be had are so exceedingly corrupt and the Churches to whom they do belong that it could not be convenient to make use of them but very dangerous to fetch ordination onely from them as at the first reformation after the times of Popery when there were none to be had but from the Popish Bishops and Priests from whom to receive ordination were as much as to say either that the Ministers of Antichrist may ordain Ministers to the Church of Christ or else that Popish Bishops are true Ministers of Christ And sure if Christians might not have any Ministers unlesse ordained by the Popish Bishops the case were as pittifull as if sheep might have no Shepheards but such are appointed to them by the Wolves Thirdly when those that are more desireable have no sufficient calling to dispence ordination in another Church which is the case when they are not requested thereto For sith ordinary Elders are not like Apostles to feed all flocks but that flock of God which dependeth upon them 1 Pet. 5. 2. that flock over which the holy Ghost hath made them over-seers Acts 20. 28. Therefore wee doe not understand how they can assume authority and power unto themselves to ordain Elders to other Churches whereof themselves are neither Elders nor members unlesse they had a calling thereto by the request of that Church where the Elders are to be ordained So that by these instances it appeareth that sometimes officers of other Churches are not to be had sometimes those that may be had are as ill as none and not to be depended on or desired and sometimes those that are more desireable have no sufficient calling to ordain Ministers in any other Church and therefore in such cases as these sith Officers must not be admitted without imposition of hands imposition of hands must be performed by non-Officers But you will say we read in sundry places where imposition of hands was performed by Elders and not one place in all the new Testament where it was performed by others Whereto we answer That all this is true but nothing against what we have said because which was our third particular to be cleared the true reason of this that is here alledged was not as if ordination by non-Elders were in every case unlawfull But because in those times Elders were not wanting for there were the Apostles and Apostolicke men who were Elders in all Churches And we do willingly grant that where a Church is furnished with Elders imposition of hands is to be performed by the Elders and so much the examples in the New Testament doe evince But we have also shewed from Numb. 8. that if there be no Elders as at the first nor any that can conveniently be gotten from other Churches then imposition of hands may lawfully be performed by others But you will prove that it doth not belong to the congregation with or without a Pastor to ordain Elders because the rules of direction how to proceed in ordination and the Epistles wherein those rules are are not written or directed to the whole Churches of Ephesus or Creet but to Timothy and Titus only as their inscriptions speaks Answ. If this be a sufficient reason to prove that the people may not in any case meddle with ordination then by as good a reason a man may prove that ordination belongs not to the Presbytery nor to the Synods but onely to one man as the Prelats would have it for a man may turn the reason against your selfe and say The rules of direction how to proceed in ordination and the Epistles wherein those rules are are not directed to any Presbytery or Synod at Ephesus or Creet or anywhere else but onely to Timothy and Titus who were each of them but onely one man But look how you would answer this plea for Episcopall ordination the same answer may be given to yours And for us we cannot but approve the answer given to this kind of reasoning by the refuter of Doctor Downhams Sermon at Lambeth who in his Reply part 2. pag. 107. doth shew that the lawes of Church-government prescribed in the Epistles of Timothy and Titus were not provided for Bishops alone nor Elders alone but for a mixt state wherein many Presbyters under the guidance of one Pastor or President doe administer and execute all matters with the peoples consent and approbation In which affirmation he alledgeth the consent of most best Divines of later times instancing in Calvin Beza especially the Apostles own warrant in the close of thoses Epistles with these words Grace be with you or with you all 2 Tim. 4. 22. Tit. 3. 15. And by this saith he it appeareth that what was written specially by name to Timothy Titus was intended to be of common use not only for other ministers but also in some sort to all the Saints that then conversed in those places Now if what was written by name to Timothy and Titus was intended to be of common use to all the Saints then there is no reason that you should appropriate those rules onely to the use of Presbyteries and Synods no more then others only to the use of Prelats especially this being considered withall that if once the Saints be excluded from being at all concerned in those rules they that would appropriate them to one man have a fairer colour for their plea then they that would appropriate them to a Presbyterie or Synod consisting of many because Timothy or Titus to whom those Epistles are by name directed are not many persons but either of them one onely But it appeares say you that we read in Scripture that this part of Jurisdiction was dispensed by the Eldership onely and that a consociated Eldership pag. 27. Answ. That it was dispensed by the Eldership we willingly grant but that it was dispensed by the Eldership onely and that the Eldership by which it was dispensed was a consociated Eldership that is to say a Synod neither of these doe appeare at all Nay we suppose the contrary to both these may appeare For as for the former we have shewed the contrary already and for the latter we will onely
instance in that Eldership at Antioch Acts 13. that laid hands on Paul and Barnabas which Eldership was not any Synod but an Eldership of one Congregation for it is plain out of Acts 14. 27. that the Church of Antioch was no more then might be gathered together in one place yea the whole multitude of them were gathered together at the return of Paul and Barnabas from the Synod at Jerusalem to heare the Epistle read which was sent from that Synod Acts 15. 30. 31. And therefore this Church being but one Congregation that Eldership therein by whom Paul and Barnabas were ordained could not be any Synod But say you there must be triall of parties to be ordained and hands must not be laid on suddenly on any and 't is laid down what kind of men they ought to be before they be ordained And that this triall and approbation of the parties to be ordained is in the hands of the Presbyterie and consociated Eldership not the whole pa. 27. Answ. That they ought to be tried before they be ordained yea and afore they be chosen we freely grant but that this triall is in the Synod alone hath not appeared by the former texts nor by any of them We cannot perceive how any of them do in any sort look towards such a thing And as for this which is here alledged of the impossibilitie of discharging it by a single congregation with or without a Pastor We answer thereto First that if a Congregation that is without a Pastor could not discharge it yet if they be furnished with an able and faithfull Pastor we know not what should hinder but they might be able thereto An able and faithfull Pastor one would think should be able to try others that are to be ordained Pastors And therefore we marvell that you should denie this abilitie to this Congregation as well as to the other Secondly suppose they be without a Pastor yet if they be beleevers they are not altogether without abilitie of spirituall discerning to discern whether that which is taught be wholsome doctrine or otherwise Witnesse the words of our Saviour who saith that his sheep know his voice but a stranger they will not follow but will flee from him for they know not the voice of strangers and though there had been many theeves and robbers yet the sheep did not hear them Joh. 10. Which plainly shews that the sheep of Christ have some abilitie to trie and discern whether the doctrine that men teach be the wholsome Doctrine of truth or otherwise Which may be the more confirmed by the promise they shall be all taught of God Isa. 54. 13. and by that of Joh. 7. that if any man will do Gods will he shall know the doctrine whether it be of God or men speak it of themselves There must be some abilitie to discern whether men be qualified according to the rule afore they ought to be elected and chosen into office and the people of God have so much abilitie to discerne this fitnesse as that they may lawfully make this election and what then should hinder but they may have so much abilitie as is of necessitie required afore there be proceedings unto Ordination As for that instance which you give about the union of the two natures in the person of Christ whether the nature assumed the nature or the person the person or the nature the person or the person the nature And again whether this assumption was by way of composition or conjunction or conversion or vision we suppose it should be union wherein you think it would be hard for these examiners in a congregation to hit upon the right judgement and of four Preachers to ordain him that were orthodox in this matter We say no more to this instance but onely thus much That as he is the best Preacher who most teacheth the people knowledge Eccles. 12. and who had rather speake five words to the understanding so as he may teach others and the hearers be edisied rather then ten thousand words in a strange tongue and uncoth termes that himselfe might be admired 1 Cor. 14. 19. So we know nothing but the people of God in a Congregation these terms being explained unto them might be able to discern which were the orthodox tenent of the four particulars and accordingly pitch upon him that holds it Lastly you speak pag. 29. of four things that are opposed about this matter of Ordination Where though we will not take upon us to justifie all those reasons but leave them to the authors of them to undertake the defence of them if so be there be any that doe so argue yet we may speak a word or two to some passages in your answer to these four particulars First of all to the case of a Company of Beleevers cast by ship-wrack upon an Island where are no Pastors your answer is that the question is about the ordinary way of Scripture-institution in this matter of ordination not what may be done in extraordinary cases Whereby it seems that in the case proposed you grant ordination may be performed by non-Elders And if so what then becomes of all you have said before of Timothy and Titus and of the rules about Ordination in the Epistles to these two Evangelists of the Presbytery at Antioch that laid hands upon Paul and Barnabas of the inability of people to examine and try who were fit for office and the rest For granting what here you doe you plainly declare that all your former reasoning amounts but to this much That when Pastors can be had then imposition of hands is best performed by those Pastors otherwise it may be done without them wherein we for our parts consent with you But by this means the necessary dependance upon Synods for ordination of officers is utterly overthrowne But say you Indepencie of every single congregation to bee the ordinary way herein is the claime of the independent party Answ. What others claim they may declare their grounds for the same as they see cause for our selves that which we hold with the grounds thereof is briefly this in four Propositions two of them concerning what is to be done in case a Chhurch have Elders of its own and two concerning what is to be done in case it have not In respect of the former Proposition 1. If a Church have Elders of its own imposition of hands in ordination is to be performed by those Elders and not by the people Proposition 2. A Church that hath Elders of its own needs not to depend upon a Synod or the Presbyteries of other Churches consociat or single for the the ordaining of its Officers but the same may be performed lawfully and sufficiently by its owne Elders In respect of the latter 1. In a Church that hath no Elders imposition of hands in ordaining of officers may lawfully be performed by some principall members in the congregation 2. If the Church have Elders of its
own it may doe well to crave the approbation of the Ministers of neighbouring congregations if there be any such The grounds of the first and third of these Propositions hath been declared already and for the second we thus argue Arg. 1. If such a Church may elect and chuse Officers to it self without any necessary dependance upon Synods then they may ordain them also having so fit instruments as Elders of their own to doe it by But the first is true as we have elsewhere shewed in this Answer of ours Therfore the second is true also The consequence of the Major is cleare by this reason That they which can doe the greater can doe the lesser also if it be of the same kind Arg. 2. If such a Church as we here speak of may not ordaine their Officers without dependance on a Synod or a Classis then neither may they administer Seals without such dependance For the word makes such dependance no more requisite in the one case then in the other Arg. 3. If it were not thus it were not possible there should be any Synod or Classis upon the face of the earth for what is a Classis or a Synod but a companie of Ministers or Elders of severall Congregations assembled together to consider of things concerning themselves and the Churches of Christ specially such Churches whereto they do peculiarly belong Now this assembling of Elders into a Classis or Synod doth imply that there were Elders before there was any Classis or Synod and if so then certainly there was no concurrence of the Classis or Synod in the ordination of those Elders sith they were Elders before that Synod had any being Which doth sufficiently shew that the concurrence of a Synod is not alwaies required in the ordaining of Elders Obj. If it be said the Synod did ordain Timothy an Evangelist an Officer of many Churches 1 Tim. 4. 14. and therefore much more must ordain Officers of one particular Church The Answer is first that the consequence is not strong because a particular Church might have authoritie sufficient to ordain by their Eldership the Officers of their particular Church onely and not sufficient to ordain such as must be Officers in all Churches whatsoever The help of a Classis or Synod where is a combination or consociation of Elders of many Churches might be requisite for ordaining an Officer of many Churches and yet the eldership of our particular Church might be sufficient for ordaining such a one as is to be officer to no more but onely to that particular Church Secondly the ground hence is not certain For though Timothy was an Evangelist and so to travell from one Church to another yet the Presbyterie 1 Tim. 4. 14. that laid hands on him might be the Presbyterie of one particular Church and not any Synod or Classis For Paul and Barnabas were Apostles Act. 14. 4. and 14. Gal. 2. 9. and yet they were ordained not by any Classis or Presbyterie of many Churches but by the Presbyterie of one Church the Church at Antioch Act. 13. 1 2 3. Those say they that can do the greater that is to say make a Church can do the lesse make Pastors of that Church Ans. We would rather argue thus those that have power of electing Officers they have power of ordaining Officers But the people that have no Officers have the former Therefore they have power to do the latter The consequence is proved because electing is greater then ordaining and greater not in another kind but in the same viz. about the placing of a Minister or the designing of a person to the office of Ministerie Now an Argument from the greater to the lesse in the same kind you confesse will hold Which visible Ministery where it is this propertie or proper power of ordaining Officers is a necessarie and immediate ordinarie concomitant thereof pag. 31. Answ. If this be so then there may be Officers ordained and not by a Synod even in a particular congregation because in such a one there may be a visible Ministerie Although that which you have said in this Argument be not expresly against the Congregations electing their Officers but onely against their ordaining of them by imposition of hands yet in asmuch as sundrie passages in your book and in this Argument especially do seem to make as much against the one as the other Therefore as we have alreadie spoken to the point of ordination so we will also for the Readers further direction give some grounds for confirmation of this position about election viz. Election of ordinarie officers belongeth to the Church whereof the partie is to be an officer so that they proceed in this election according to the rules of the Word both chusing a man fitted by God for the office unto which they chuse him and carrying their choice in an orderly manner Reason 1 It was thus in the Apostles times and therefore it ought to be so now The antecedent is clear from Act. 1. where in the very choice of an Apostle the Church are not wholly excluded for though the office of an Apostle being extraordinarie the expresse designing of the particular person is determined by God by lot yet the Church appoints two that one of them may be singled out v. 23. and when the lot had fallen upon Matthias it is said he was numbred with the eleven Apostles v. 26. that is he was by common suffrage of the Churchchosen to be of that number for so doth the word signifie that is used {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and therefore it is translated by Scapula Omnium calculis allectus And it is observable that though the office was extraordinarie and though the Apostles who were extraordinarie officers and had received their calling and extraordinarie authoritie from Christ himself immediately were now present yet for all this the Church hath a stroke in this matter both first appointing two and then approving by their common suffrage or consent him of the two on whom the lot had fallen to be for instruction unto us in after times that in the choice of ordinarie officers it should be farre from any of the sons of men to exclude the people of God from their right and interest therein For if they had a stroke in the choice of an Apostle how much more should they have the like in the choice of ordinarie officers And if the Apostles themselves being present would not abridge the people of this libertie much lesse may others do it doubtlesse they that engrosse the authoritie of chusing Ministers into their own hands excluding the people they arrogate more unto themselves then the Apostles ever did So likewise in Act. 6. when Deacons were to be appointed the Apostles do not take all the businesse into their own hands as if election of such officers appertained onely to themselves and not at all unto the people but they call the whole multitude unto them ver.
A Modest Brotherly ANSVVER To Mr. CHARLES HERLE his Book against the Independency of Churches Wherein his foure Arguments for the Government of Synods over particular Congregations are friendly Examined and clearly Answered Together with Christian and Loving Animadversions upon sundry other observable passages in the said BOOKE All tending to declare the true use of Synods and the power of Congregationall Churches in the points of electing and ordaining their owne Officers and censuring their Offendors By RICHARD MATHER Teacher of the Church at Dorchester And WILLIAM TOMPSON Pastor of the Church at Braintree in NEW-ENGLAND Sent from thence after the Assembly of Elders were dissolved that last met at Cambridg to debate matters about Church-government London Printed for Henry Overton in Popes-head alley 1644. Reverend and Deare Sir THe right forme of Church Government being more searched into of late time then formerly and your self amongst others having written for the governing power or jurisdiction of Synods over particular Churches We therfore knowing our selves bound as well as others to try all things and hold fast that which is good have considered as the Lord hath holpen us those Arguments of yours which are contained in your Book against the Indepency of Churches and not being satisfied therewith your Book being published in Print we have therfore thought meet in like fort to publish our Answer and in that way to shew unto your self and others what yet hinders us that we do not think your Arguments to be convincing In which attempt we have bin the more encouraged by your profession which we dare not but believe that in what you have written you have aimed at verity and not at victory wherof we are the rather perswaded because we do perceive your whole discourse to be carried along without passion and bitternesse in a spirit of meeknesse and love which also we are willing to acknowledge before all men to your just commendation and the glory of that grace of God that gives you such an heart And it is our hope that sith you professe to aim at the truth and do dispute with such a spirit as if you meant so indeed that therfore it will not be unacceptable to you if any weaknesse be discovered in those grounds wheron you build this perswasion that in the present Question the truth doth stand on your side And as your Book doth breathe forth a spirit of meeknesse ingenuity and love so we hope you will find that we have aimed at the like in our Answer which as we have written and now published it for the truths sake and for the help of those that cannot attaine unto larger and more learned Treatises about this Subject So in speciall manner in love to your self and our deare Country men friends as in other places of Lancashire so in your Parish of Winwick wherin one of us was born and the other was for sundry Years together an unworthy Minister of the Gospel of Christ Accept therfore we doe beseech you this brotherly labour of ours which here we send you divided into these few Chapters We are also willing upon this occasion to testifie our thankfullnes for that loving respect which we found from you when we lived together in that Country when you were pleased to own us in our sad times The Father of mercies be with you and with all those that love the truth in sincerity and blesse that Reverend and Grave Assembly wherof we hear your self are a Member that by their wise and holy indeavours the truth may be cleared and all corruptions removed in the Doctrine Worship and Church Government in ENGLAND to his praise and glory and the comfort of all those who unfainedly desire that the Crowne of Christ Iesus and the Scepter of the Son of God may be gloriously advanced over all which is the prayer of Your Loving Brethren RICHARD MATHER and WILLIAM TOMPSON A Modest and Brotherly ANSWER TO Mr. CHARLES HERLE His BOOKE against the Independency of CHURCHES CHAPT. I. Containing Observations upon sundry passages in your stating the Question THE Independants say you deny to a Synod as the name of a Church so all manner of power of jurisdiction either to determine or any way oblige such as they shall any way represent pag. 2. Unlesse it could be proved that in Scripture the name of a Church is given to a Synod we are not to blamed though we give not a Synod that name sith we are commanded to hold fast the paterne of the wholsome words of Scripture as sufficient 2 Tim. 1. 13. though for this we will not contend But for power to determine viz. dogmatically or by way of doctrine this we deny not to a Synod For that Synod Act. 15. did put forth such power and we acknowledge other Synods may doe the like upon like occasion and their determinations being according to the Scripture ought to bind all those whom they represent They acknowledge that neighbour Churches may meet and consult and advise each other and withdraw all fellowship from any one that shall grow pertinaciously scandalous pag. 2. And you may adde further that by their messengers being met in a Synod they may determine by the Scriptures any matter of controversie that may arise But for matter of jurisdiction or power of the Keyes in excommunication ordination or whatever Censure they hold it is entirely and onely in every single Congregation though but of 2 or 3 beleevers p. 2. If any hold so small a number as 2 or 3 to be a Church so compleat as to have power of excommunication ordination and whatever Censure they may if they see cause declare their grounds for so holding But for our parts for ought we yet see a Church that hath such power as is here spoken of had need to be a greater number then two or three even so many as shall be necessary and requisite for the carrying on of Church-worke in admonition and reprehension of one another as there shall be cause and therfore they had need to be seaven or more For a Brother that sinneth must so be dealt withall for his recovery that if he remain impenitent the proceeding against him is still to goe on by degrees till at last the matter be brought unto the Church Mat. 18. 15 16 17. But in all the degrees of proceeding against him the persons before whom he is called are in every latter step and degree more in number then they were in the former and so the Church being the last is the greatest number of all And yet there are three at the least that must be acquainted with the matter before it must be brought unto the Church viz. the brother offending the brother offended and one witnesse at the least so that the Church consisting of those three or foure that deal in the matter before it come into the Church and of another number greater then they and distinct from them to whom the matter is brought
place for it is said that when the Apostles were dismissed from the Councill with threatnings they went unto their own company and reported what the chiefe Priests and Elders had said unto them vers. 23. And when they heard that they lifted up their voyce in prayer to God with one accord vers. 24. And when they had prayed the place was shaken where they were assembled together vers. 31. By which it is plain that all this company whether they were in all 5000. or if you will have it so 5000. besides the former number and so in all 8120. yet still they were all assembled in one place And when after this beleevers were more added to the Lord multitudes both of men and women Acts 5. 14. yet all that time they were all with one accord in Salomons Porch vers. 12. which shewes they were not yet so many but all did meet together in one Congregation Furthermore when after this the number of Disciples in Jerusalem was more multiplied Acts 6. 1. yet the Apostle called the multitude of them together to propose unto them the choyce of Deacons vers. 2. and the matter being commended to them by the Apostles it is said the saying pleased the whole multitude and they chose seven who are there named vers. 5. which shewes that the whole multitude was not so many but they might assemble and come together in one place to heare matters proposed and to make election of Officers After this indeed this Church at Jerusalem were all scattered by persecution except the Apostles Acts 8. 1. But when a Church was gathered again by the Apostles Ministery that Church even all the multitude of them as well as the Apostles and Elders did all assemble and meet together with one accord in one congregation about the businesse of the controversie that arose at Antioch so it is plainly said Acts 15. That Paul and Barnabas comming from Antioch were received of the Church at Jerusalem and of the Apostles and Elders vers. 4. And it pleased the Apostles and Elders with the whole Church to send messengers to Antioch vers. 22. and to that Church letters are written from the Apostles and Elders and Brethren vers. 23. being all assembled with one accord verse 25. which plainly shewes that the Church at Jerusalem at this time did not consist of Apostles and Elders alone as a representative Church but of others also who are expresly distinguished from those officers and yet all this Church did assemble with one accord in one place Lastly for that place 21. where you say It is plain that when the Church met collectively it was in the Presbyters and Elders And that in this Church at Jerusalem the collective meetings were representative in their Elders The answer is That wee deny not but Elders may meet apart from the multitude if there be occasion and so much may be proved from verse 18. where it is said Paul went in unto James and all the Elders were present but this is nothing to the point in hand That the Church at Jerusalem was so numerous that all the members could not meet in one but in severall congregations Nay that very place though it speak of many thousand Jewes that did beleeve verse 20. yet as it doth not say that all these were of that one Church at Jerusalem so there are good Divines that doe think they were not but if they were it nothing prejudiceth our cause in this matter for when James and the Elders speaking to Paul of the Jewes doe tell him the multitude must needs come together for they will heare that thou art come verse 22. It appeares thereby that their multitude was not such but they might all assemble and come together If any say How can these things be that so many thousands as were members of the Church at Jerusalem should all yet be but one Congregation besides what hath been said to shew that thus it was such an one may consider further that many thousands yea Miriads were gathered together Luke 12. 12. and Christ spake unto them all though unto his Disciples first verse 1 14 15 54. and that Parishes in England in or about London and else-where as Stepney Giles Sepulchres and others have many thousand inhabitants in them all members of one Parishionall Church and yet all but one Congregation And that of Chrysostome on Matth. 24. who as Mr. Bayn reports Dioe Triall pag. 16. did esteem the company that heard his voice in one congregation to be about 5000. persons and that by means of Scaffolds and Galleries a man lifting up his voyce may so speak as to be heard of thousands at a time All which being considered doe make it lesse incredible that the Church at Jerusalem consisting of such a great multitude yet for all that might bee no more but one ordinarie Congregation Next for the Church at Rome in the Apostles time stiled every where in that Epistle by the name of Church not Churches pag. 13. Answ. We suppose it is a plain mistake that the Church at Rome is every where in that Epistle stiled by the name of a Church For ought we remember in that Epistle it is never so stiled at all and yet we deny not but it was a Church and one Church But say you can it be thought that the faith and obedience of a Church in such a citie could be famous throughout all the world as the Apostle speaks Rom. 1. 8. 16. 19. and yet but one single independent congregation Answ. We know nothing to the contrary but it might be so For the Church at Thessalonica was but one congregation and yet from them sounded out the word of the Lord not only in Macedonia and Achaia but also in every place their faith to God-ward was spread abroad 1 Thess. 1. 8. And there might be other means to make their faith famous as well as plurality of congregations as the resort and confluence of people of all sorts and nations to the place where this Church dwelt Rome being the Seat of the Empire and the Lady of Kingdomes at that time Also the good will of the godly the malice of the wicked the newfanglednesse of most would open the mouthes of many to talke of the faith and profession of the Christian Romans though they were no more but one congregation Those very persons and families named in the Apostles salutations of that Church even those choycer families were able to fill severall congregations Answ. We dare not say so for there is not named above 30. in all Sure if 30. families fill severall congregations then those congregations must be very small ones Tertullian tells us that in his time the citie was at least halfe Christian And Cornelius tells us that besides himselfe there were in that Church 45. Presbyters Answ. But the question being whether many Congregations be frequently called in Scripture by the name of a Church these testimonies being not from Scripture doe not suit the
question therefore we will not insist upon them but onely say this much that as they are both alledged by Doctor Downam and them of the Hierarchy that plead for Diocesan Churches against Congregational so they are both sufficiently answered by Mr. Bain in his Diocesan triall p. 19 20. and by the refuter of D. Downams Sermon at Lambeth p. 65. Next the Church at Corinth every where stiled a Church not Churches Answ. This we grant But why might it not be one Congregation as well as one Church The onely reason you bring to the contrary is because They had so many Instructers 1 Cor. 4. 15. and Builders 1 Cor. 3. 12. So many Prophets say you and Teachers speakers with Tongues could not questionlesse have their ordinary locall meetings but by way of distribution into severall congregations Answ. This arguing about the Church of Corinth doth not very well agree with that which went before p. 12. where you seemed to grant that though no other place in Scripture yet that place 1 Corinth 14. doth give the name of Church to one single Congregation whereas now you give Corinth also as one instance where many congregations are called a Church It is strange to us how Corinth should be an example of both these viz. of the name of Church given to one single congregation as you doe acknowledge pag. 12. and of many congregations called by the name of one Church as now you would have it But the place 1. Cor. 14. 23. that speakes of the whole Church commiug together into one place doth unavoidably prove for ought we can discern that Corinth had their meetings and not by way of distribution into severall Congregations but altogether in one congregation and doth also answer your reason drawn from the variety of Teachers and Prophets in that Church For it is plain from that very Chapter that the Church of Corinth had many Prophets Let the Prophets speake two or three and let the rest judge vers. 39. and many that spake with Tongues who must speake by course two or three and one interpret verse 27. yea every one generally had a Psalme or a Doctrine or a Revelation or an Interpretation verse 26. as indeed they came behind in no gift 1 Cor. 1. yet for all their variety of gifts and gifted men Prophets Interpreters speakers with Tongues and the like both they and the whole Church also even women and all used to come together into one place But it is with much instance urged generally by all the Separatists that those among whom the Corinthian fornicatouâ— was they were all to be gathered together and all to deliver him to Satan therefore the power of the keye is alike in all the members and not in the Elders alone pag. 14. Answ. This and all that follows for two whole pages may be something pertaining to the second of your three exceptions forementioned but nothing concerns the Question now in hand For whether the Church of Corinth that must excommunicate the incestuous man were the Elders alone as you hold or all the people also as others This is nothing to the present point of the sence of the word Church which is whether is be taken in Scripture for many Congregations or one onely and therefore we marvell why you would here bring it in Neither indeed is it any thing to the maine Question of the Dependencie of Congregations upon the government of Synods For if all were granted that here is argued for viz. that the Church that must excommunicate the delinquent Corinthian was not the common people but the Elders alone yet the authoritie of Synods is not a whit holpen thereby unlesse it could be proved that the Church of Corinth had no Elders of their own which we are perswaded you will not affirm because you grant pag. 13. that they had many Instructors many builders many leaders many Prophets and Teachers Wherefore this Dispute being besides the Question we will not spend time in answering of it because we would hasten to go forward with the rest that pertains to the Question as you have stated it Your last instance of many Congregations called by the name of Church is Ephesus where you argue There must needs be many congregations because there was a great doore and effectuall opened unto Paul so mightily there grew the Word of God and prevailed the greatnesse of the price of the conjuring books burnt publickly and God himself testifies he had many people in that Citie Answ. When the Lord saith to Paul I have much people in the City it is a plain mistake to understand this of Ephesus for it was spoken of Corinth and not of Ephesus Act. 18. 10. But if it had been spoken of Ephesus as we deny not but that there were many Christians there how doth this prove the point that they were not one Congregation but many We do not think they were more in number then in Corinth and Jerusalem where the Christians as we have shewed did usually meet in one place and therefore at Ephesus they might do the like though there were a great number of Christians there As for that which you say that as this Church could not possibly ordinarily in all its members meet but distributively so that it did meet collectively in its Presbytery and Eldership that which ordained Timothy there by the Apostles own testimony appears in the 17. 28. and 26. verses of the 20. Chapter beyond all exception We answer thereto it is not beyond all exception that at Ephesus was one Church consisting of many Congregations which is our Question It may be granted that the Elders of that Church upon Paul's sending for them did meet at Miletum apart from the people as was noted before out of Act. 21. Of the Elders of Jerusalem but this is nothing to our Question whether a Church be many Congregations or one onely As much might he said of the other of the seven Churches of Asia with that at Antioch Philippi and Thessalonica Ans. And if as much were said of these as of the other as much might also be answered And though Philippi and Thessalonica had many Bishops Deacons Overseers yet all this is too short to prove they were many Congregations for what should hinder but one Congregation may have many Officers That which followeth in this sixteenth page and so forward to the middle of pag. 19. is spent in answering the other two exceptions which you formerly proposed pag. 11. Concerning which we need not to spend much time the one of them as we said before is altogether besides the purpose and on which side soever the truth doth lie in that matter the present Question is nothing at all cleared thereby and for the other we leave it to them that make it to undertake the defence of it For us it is sufficient to have shewed that all that you have said from Matth. 18. Tell the Church doth not prove that Congregations must depend upon
2. and bid them chuse out seven men fitly qualified for the office ver. 3. and accordingly the saying pleased the whole multitude and they chose seven that are there named ver. 5. and having so done they set them before the Apostles that they might ordain them by laying their hands on them ver. 6. And in Act. 14. 23. it is said that the Apostles ordained Elders by election or lifting up of hands for so doth {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} signifie in every Church Obj. The word signifieth nothing else but laying on of hands which was the act of the Apostles alone and not of the people Ans. The word is never used for laying on of hands in all the Scripture but the word used for that is {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} betwixt which and this word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} there is as much difference as betweene holding up and laying down If Luke the writer of the Acts had intended the laying on of hands it had been easie for him to have used the other word which is proper to expresse such an action and frequently used by himself in that sence in this book Act. 6. 6. and 8. 17. and 9. 17. Object But be it laying on or lifting up that was not the act of the people but of the Apostle alone Answ. Of the Apostles it is confessed For who doubts but as they moderated the whole action and laid on their hands in ordination so they might also concurre in the election by lifting up their hands But it will not follow that therefore that lifting up of hands was performed by the Apostles onely for elsewhere the word is used to expresse the act of the whole Church and is translated was chosen 2 Cor. 8. 19. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} was chosen of the Churches Even as one place mentioneth a gift that was in Timothy by the laying on of Pauls hands 2 Tim. 1. 6. which must not be understood of Pauls hands alone because another Scripture mentioneth the hands of the Presbytery 1. Tim. 4. 14. By all which it appeareth that in the Apostles times the people had one hand in the election of their Officers And if so then it ought to be so also in these dayes for the practice of the Apostles recorded in the Acts is presidentiall for all Churches in all ages in those things that were not of particular reason and respect which for the peoples chusing their Ministers cannot be said Besides when the Apostles were alive the Churches were in the greatest purity and therefore we may more safely tread in their steps And further if this practice had not been according to the mind of Christ we may be sure the Apostles would not have countenanced it nor have directed the Churches to have used it but would have left and prescribed some other course to be observed in the choyce of Ministers which we see they have not done Secondly if Ministers must not be chosen by the Church then either they must be called of God immediatly or Ministers without any calling at all or be chosen and appointed by some other men But not the first because such immediate calling is now ceased as being peculiar to the extraordinary function of Apostles Prophets c. which in these times are not to be expected Nor the second because that is expresly against the Scripture which saith No man must take this honour to himselfe but he that is called of God as was Aaron Heb. 5. 4. And therefore they that ran when God sent them not are many times and very sharply reproved in the Prophets Jer. 23. 21. Nor the third For 1. God hath not given any such authority to other men that are not of the Church to appoint Officers to the Church Nor 2. may some of the Church arrogate this power onely to themselves excluding the rest because that which concerneth all as this matter doth ought to have approbation of all unlesse it might appeare that God had committed the thing only to some which for the chusing of Officers cannot be said 3. It is sutable to right reason that it should be thus For 1. by this means the liberty of the Church is not infringed by thrusting officers uppon them without their consent and whom they never chose Also 2. this is a strong engagement to the people to yeeld due reverence subjection and obedience to their Ministers because they are the men whom themselves have chosen whereas one thrust upon them against their wills is not like to be much beloved but rather contemned and hated and how then shall they profit by his doctrine Finally the people have a right originally to chuse their civil officers as is also practised at this day in many places And when the Lord brings a sword upon a land the Scripture saith expresly that the people of the land may take a man of their coasts and set him for their watchman Ezek. 33. 2. And if so then they may well have liberty to chuse such as must be watchmen for their souls for it is much more unreasonable that there should be thrust upon them such watchmen and officers upon whom the salvation or damnation of their souls doth depend then such as upon whom dependeth no more but their wealth or commodity of this life And this shall suffice for answer to your fourth and last Argument There are in your book two other general heads which are somthing insisted on the one about clearing such objections as are not reducible to your former arguments the other of appealing to the judgement of the adverse party In both which thopugh we might observe sundry things which were worth your second review yet in as much as our intentions were chiefly to consider the weight of your arguments but not to undertake the defence of every objection which you propose and considering withall that those considerations from the order unity peace and strength of government with the rest are not intended by you as we suppose as convincing but onely as probable grounds against that way which you deale against therfore for these and some other reasons having spoken to that which we conceive to be the main substance of your book we will here for this time surcease praying the Father of mercies for Christ Jesus his sake to poure out his rich blessings of truth peace upon our deare native countrey and to guide all his servants there here by a Spirit of truth into all truth And to give us such hearts and grace that we may follow the truth in love till Antichristianisme be utterly rooted out and Sion be restored especially in England to her former beiuty and new Jerusalem come down from heaven as a Bride adorned for her Husband the Lord Jesus Christ To whom be all glory and praise for ever and ever Amen FINIS