not clear that by Church is meant onely the Elders of the Church nor that all the steps of such graduall proceeding as our Saviour doth prescribe were formerly commanded to the Jews And your self professing in your Epistle to the Gentlemen prefixed before your book that you like D. Moulins resolution rather to bring one Argument then ten Authors if accordingly you had confirmed this minor proposition with some further proof then onely the names of Authors it could have given better satisfaction But what ever become of the minor the consequence of the major may justly be denied For though it were granted that our Saviours words Tell the Church were spoken with reference to the Jewish Church-government in this sence that this graduall proceeding in all the steps of it was formerly commanded to the Jews yet this is nothing to prove the necessitie of the dependance of Congregations upon the government of Synods which is our question because there may be such graduall proceedings to the fulfilling of our Saviours rule without any use of a Synod at all If it were not so Synods had need to be more frequent then they are or ever were or are ever like to be for this rule of our Saviour is of very frequent use And though it were granted also that by Church our Saviour meant the Elders which is the other sense of your words of reference to the Jewish Church-government yet neither would this prove the dependence of Congregations upon the Government of Synods because there may be and ought to be Elders and an Eldership or Presbyterie in every particular Congregation and by telling those Elders that rule may be observed if our Saviours words were taken in that sence And indeed it seems your self do so understand them as appears in pag. 17. of your book and likewise in this place now in hand because one of those Authors whom you alledge for the meaning of our Saviours words is Mr. Johnson who in his latter times did so understand them of whom you say Even Mr. Johnson himself though a Pastor of Separatists in a peculiar Treatise reduceth himself from his former error in the contrary opinion to this judgement too Wherby it seems that for the meaning of this text you concurre in opinion or judgement with Mr. Johnson And if so then though you may by Church understand the Elders as he did yet then you must also acknowledge the Independency of particular Congregations and the Pastors thereof for it is certain and plain that Mr. Johnson was of that opinion and judgement too notwithstanding that his Exposition of Matth. 18. and did never reduce himself to this opinion that Congregations must be dependent upon the Government of Synods which is your plea For which purpose you may consider what is to be seen in his Christian Plea which was one of the last books that ever he wrote Now in pag. 250 251. of that book are these words viz. Seeing now every particular constituted Church hath right and power within it self to celebrate the Lords Supper which is answerable to the Passeover that was kept at Jerusalem this sheweth that now every particular Church is to be esteemed as Jerusalem and so to stand immediately under Jesus Christ the Arch-Pastor of his sheep and high Priest of our profession And again All particular Churches with their Pastors do stand immediately under Jesus Christ the Arch-Pastor without any strange Ecclesiasticall power and authoritie interposed between whether it be of the Prelates or of their unlawfull usurping Synods or any such like And in the words following speaking how all Churches and the Ministers of them should be readie and willing to help and advise one another he addeth thus viz. And so to this end and in this manner may be had a lawfull and profitable use of Synods Classes c. for mutuall help and advise so as alwaies it be provided that they do not challenge or usurp any unlawfull Jurisdiction or power over the particular Churches or their Pastors and Governours By which words it plainly appeareth that though Mr. Johnson by Church in Matth. 18. did understand the Elders yet he never held that particular Churches and the Elders thereof should depend upon the government of Synods but be immediately under the government and authoritie of Jesus Christ and depend no other way upon Synods but onely for their advise and counsell and therefore his Exposition of Matth. 18. will stand you in no stead to prove the dependance of particular Churches upon Synods Wherefore to wind up our Answer to this Argument Though it were granted that when our Saviour saith Tell the Church he means tell the Elders and though it were granted also that enjoying such a graduall proceeding he prescribeth no new rule but the same that had been given before unto the Jews yet neither of these do prove that Congregations must depend upon the Authoritie of Synods and the reason is because both these may be performed in a particular Congregation for therein a man may proceed by such steps and degrees as our Saviour enjoyneth and may also tell his matter to the Elders of that particular Church And so the consequence of your major proposition failing the whole Argument must fail also though the minor were never so strongly proved and how much more when the minor is left so weak neither of these particulars being sufficiently cleared and made good by you that by Church is meant the Elders nor that all that our Saviour in that place prescribeth was before commanded to the Jews But inasmuch as your words are that this of Matth. 18. is spoken by our Saviour Christ in reference to the Jewish Church-government before urged therefore we may give a further Answer to this Argument out of that which before hath been answered when the Argument from the Jewish Church-government was urged For though it were granted that Christ speaks in reference to that government yea though it were granted which we suppose none will affirm that all that was used among the Jews is here prescribed by Christ yet all this were too short to prove that our Congregations must depend upon the government of Synods unlesse it could be proved that the Jewish Congregations did so depend which we have formerly shewed to be otherwise the great Synedrion at Jerusalem upon which their lesser Congregations did depend if they were dependent at all being not any Synod but an Assembly of another nature But you will improve this Text further and therefore after some speech of an Indefinite proposition in Logick and an Indefinite command in Divinitie and of five graduall Iffs in our Saviours words If he shall offend c. you come thus to argue viz. The remedie of complaint or Appeal must be as large as the malady offence otherwise Christs salve were not equall to the sore but offences may arise as well between divers Congregations in the same Church as between divers members in the same Congregation
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
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
in the last place must needs consist of seaven persons or more As for that speech of our Sauiour where he speaks of 2 or 3 gathered together in his Name Mat. 18. 20. He doth not thereby acknowledge such a small number to be a Church but fetcheth an argument from thence as from the lesser or lesse probable to prove the firm and inviolable authority of the Church and her Censures of which he had spoken before v. 18. As if he should say if two agreeing together upon earth shal be heard in whatsoever they shall aske and if I be present with two or three gathered in my name then much more shall the whole Church who is a greater number and a more solemne assembly be heard in their prayers and have Christs presence in the midst of them to bind and loose in heaven what they shall bind or loose in earth But the former is true vers. 19. 20 Therefore the latter is true also vers 18. And for excommunication ordination and censures there is nothing in Scripture nor proved in this discourse of yours that these matters belong onely to a Synod and not to a particular congreation yea wee conceive it will not bee easie for any man whatsoever to prove that Synods and they onely have power to ordain officers and to excommunicate offenders and till this be proved the Independants as you call them need not to relinquish their judgement and practice in these particulars Sure it is that Synod in Acts 15. did neither meddle with ordination nor excommunication but onely determined the controversie about circumcision and gave rules for practice to be observed of the beleeving Gentiles for avoiding of offence among the Jewes We acknowledge that where there is no consociation or neighbourhood of congregations or single Churches whereby they may with conveniency be aiding to each other and whereto the particulars may have recourse there a single congregation must not be denied entirenesse of jurisdiction If you acknowledge thus much which yet is no more then truth requires to be acknowledged and wherin we for our parts fully concurre with you then we suppose a man may improve this grant of yours to a confirmation of that independencie of Churches which you plead against and to a disproving of a good part of that authority of Synods which you would establish For if a Church that hath no neighbourhood of other Churches have power of jurisdiction entirely within it selfe as here you doe acknowledge then first let it be considered whence such a Church hath such power and see if that ground will not reach to prove the like power in other Churches also Now we suppose none will deny but such a Church hath this authority or power by the gift of Christ and the liberty which he hath granted to every Church as it is a Church which we had rather expresse in Doctor Ames his words then in our own The power it selfe namely in reproving scandals and purging out the wicked of right or in respect of the first act cannot be separated from a true Church Because it flows immediately and necessarily from its very essence For it is contained in that Covenant whereby beleevers are gathered into a Church Cas. Cons. lib. 4. cap. 24. Q. 4. Now if this be so that power of Jurisdiction doth immediately and necessarily flow from the very essence of a Church and so belongs to a Church as it is a Church then it will follow that this power must not be granted to be in such a Church as hath no neighbour Churches and be denied unto one that hath because a Church that hath neighbours is a Church and hath the essence of a Church as truly as that which hath none Power of Jurisdiction flowing immediately from the essence of a Church belongs indifferently to all Churches to one as much as to another without respect of what neighbours they have whether many or few whether any or none Secondly let it be considered also what is the end and use of the consociation and neighbourhood of Churches and the same truth will thence appeare also which neighbourhood where it is affoorded is from the benefit of Churches but not for their hindrance and losse And therefore it may be helpfull by casting in more light but cannot abridge them of any power which they had before When Doctor Ames Medul Theol. l. 1. c. 39. Sect. 27. had said that the combination of Churches into Classes and Synods doth neither constitute a new forme of the Church nor ought by any means to take away or impaire that libertie and power which Christ hath left unto his Churches sith it serveth onely for the directing and furthering of the same what saith Mr. Paget hereunto This saith he we willingly grant Paget Defence pa. 107. Now if this must be granted then that dependencie of Churches and that power of Synods which you plead for must not be granted For let a Church have entirenesse of Jurisdiction before she have any neighbouring Churches and be deprived of the power when God sends such neighbours and by this meanes she sustaines losse by having neighbours and comes to be in this respect in worse condition then when she had none which is against the true intent and use of the consociation of Churches Moreover if this grant of yours stand good then what shall become of that which is intimated pag. 6. and pa. 10. as a reason against the Independency of Congregations where you say that it is against the very light of nature that the adverse party be the sole Judge and party too in the cause and that it is against all equity that the offended party meaning the Congregation should be the sole and finall Judge of the offence Sure we cannot think that there can be such a case imagined wherein you would grant it lawfull for a single Congregation to do that which is against all equity and the very light of nature And yet you grant that the case may be such that a single Congregation may have entirenesse of jurisdiction within it self which seems to us plainly to prove that for a Congregation to be so independent as to be the finall Judge of offences within it self is not against all equity nor against the light of nature as is intimated by you in the pages afore-mentioned But sith in one place you grant that in some case a Congregation may have entirenesse of Jurisdiction within it self and in another place do seem to imply that it is against all equity and the light of nature that they should be granted we for our parts are not able to discern how these things do stand together But that too much may not be made of the grant of yours you do qualifie it in your subsequent words wherein you say that this is a case extraordinarie and falls not within the compasse of the Question which is about the ordinarie rule of Church-government Whereunto we answer two things 1 That
their sores but so many sinners must be left lawlesse and their offences remedilesse God forbid The Lord hath provided good store of help for all these but every salve is not for every sore Such persons as are in the Church all they are subject to the discipline of the Church and to the power of Christ administred therein so that if need so require they may be excommunicated and cast out Whole Churches are subject to the wholsome advice and counsell of other Churches and so farre as the same shall be according to God they ought to hearken thereunto And if they doe not they may lawfully be renounced by other Churches from all Church-communion with them And as for Indians or others that are no Churches nor members of Churches though our Saviours Rule of Telling the Church was not intended for them yet both they and Christian Churches likewise and the members of them are all of them to be subject to the Magistrates and the authority of the higher Powers whose duty it is to be keepers of both Tables of the Law of God and to do their endeavour that all the Subjects may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godlinesse and honestie Rom. 13. 1. 1 Tim. 2. 2. But say you an offence may be so generall as to defile and make guilty a whole Land and why not then the remedie as large as it Tell the Church pag. 11. Ans. In such case of generall and nationall defilements the remedie is generall and Nationall repentance whereto all the people must be provoked and exhorted by the Ministers of the Word in their severall Congregations And when the higher powers do give example thereof in their own persons and by some act of their Authoritie do call upon all the people for the same this is a notable remedie through the mercy of God against the defilement of Nationall sins and the danger that may come thereby Which as it was the practise of Asa Hezekiah Josiah and the States of Judah in their times so we have cause with all humble thankfulnesse to blesse the Lord that put the like care into the hearts of the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament in our deare native Countrey who by an Ordinance of both Houses thought it meet to exhort all the Subjects of England and Wales to the duty of Repentance both for personall and Nationall sins But suppose the Magistrate be an Enemy to Religion and the Land or whole Church therein have occasion to make a solemne renewall of their Covenant with God shall not this whole Church or number in their collective body have power to enjoyn it Ans. If the supreame Magistrate be an enemie to Religion it is not like but most or many of the people will be of the same mind Regis ad exemplum totus as it is at this day in France and Spaine and was in England in the dayes of Queen Mary and other Popish Princes and then the beleevers in the Land will not be so many as to bear the name of the Land or Nation but of a small part thereof and so at that time it will not be required of them to make any Nationall Covenant or to enjoyn the same Nor can it well be conceived how they should assemble in a Nationall Synod for that or any other purpose when the Magistrate is a professed enemie to their Religion At such times it is more like their meetings in small congregations will be full of danger rather then that they should have libertie safely and freely to meet in such great Assemblies as Nationall Synods And though for lack of such a Nationall Covenant the remedie be not equall to the offence or need yet at such time that remedie being not in the power of such beleevers as are in the Land it is not required at their hands If a whole Congregation great or small play the Foxes and spoil the vineyard why may it not be taken and restrained pa. 11. Ans. No doubt but it may but ever in the way and by the means which Christ hath appointed If those Foxes be particular members of the Church they may be restrained by doctrine by discipline and by the Magistrates Authoritie If they be whole Churches they may be restrained by Doctrine and by the advise and counsell of other Churches and also by the Magistrates But if they be not members of the Church they can not be restrained by Church discipline but onely by the Authoritie of the Magistrate and by the preaching of the Word To this Argument the Independent party reply or rather labour to obtain out of the Text three things First that our Saviour speaks here of a single Church or Congregation Secondly to this single Church and to all this Church entirely not distinguishing between Elders and Members he gives the keyes of Excommunication and Absolution Thirdly over this Church to assume a Church power of Judicature is a Lording it over Christs heritage To the first of these exceptions we answer that it no way appears that our Saviour in this place or that the Scripture elsewhere usually means a single congregation by the word Church but that the contrary rather is easily evincible First that he here spake in reference to the Jewish Church which way no single congregation hath above sufficiently appeared pag. 11. Ans. But how in reference If you mean in this sence that what ever was used in that Church must be used in the Christian or that as that Church was Nationall so Christian Churches must be the like then we may say no such things hath appeared at all nor hath been so much as undertaken to be proved If you mean onely thus that there were such graduall proceedings in that Church as Christ in this place requireth or that the word Church may signifie the Elders or Rulers then we may say neither of these have sufficiently appeared by any proof that you have brought and if they were both granted they are nothing to the matter now in question viz. that the word Church doth not signifie one single Congregation for both these particulars may be found and made use of in such a Church as is of no larger extent Next that he hath reference herein to that of Deut. 19. 15. appears by his citation of the very words of that text that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established Now there the witnesses and offenders were by way of further Appeal to stand before the Lord before the Priests for judgement vers. 17. pag. 12. Answ. The words are not as you cite them before the Priests for judgement but before the Priests and Judges which shall be in those dayes And it appeareth by the punishment which these Judges must inflict upon the guiltie person there spoken of life for life eye for eye tooth for tooth c. v. 21. that if our Saviour refer his Church to do like unto that Judicatory which you say he hath
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
for a Christian Congregation to want neighbour Congregations to whom they may with convenience have recourse is not so unusuall as some may imagine specially if the state of things in times and places of generall persecution of generall prophanenesse and of new plantations in heathen Countreys be considered For at those times and in those places it is well if there be any such Congregations at all to be found as there was one in London in the dayes of Queen Mary but it is not like there should be so many of them that any one may have many neighbour ones to have recourse unto And your self do intimate in page 43 of your book that in the remoter part of Wales and of the North such Congregations even at this day would be so rare that in all probability scarce one could be made up in twentie or thirty miles compasse 2 Suppose the case were extraordinarie and rare would you say that therefore they may violate the ordinarie rules appointed by Christ for Church administrations and now lawfully exercise Jurisdiction entirely within themselves which if they had neighbours were unlawfull for them to do We suppose it is good to take heed how farre we yeeld it lawfull in such extraordinarie cases to transgresse and violate ordinarie rules left some body do thereupon inferre that though according to ordinarie rules Baptisme and the Lords Supper must be dispensed onely by men and by Ministers yet in the want of these the one may be dispensed by a woman suppose the Midwife or some other and both of them by such as are no Ministers For as you excuse the lawfulnesse of entirenesse of Jurisdiction in a single Congregation even so may they excuse these dispensations here mentioned by saying that the case is extraordinarie and fals not within the compasse of the Question which is what persons by ordinarie rule may dispense Sacraments Wherefore for ought we yet see it is more safe to hold that sith the dispensation of Baptisme and the Lords Supper by ordinarie rules belongs onely to Ministers therefore there can be no such extraordinarie case in these dayes wherein the dispensing of them may lawfully be performed by others whether women or men And sith entirenesse of Jurisdiction must not be denied to a Congregation that wants neighbours therefore the thing is agreeable unto ordinary rules and so may be allowed in other cases also Because the administration of Sacraments fore-mentioned is not allowable by ordinarie rules therefore the extraordinarinesse of the case will not make it lawfull And because the independent Jurisdiction of a Congregation is lawfull in the case afore-mentioned which you call extraordinarie Therefore the same is allowable by ordinarie rule There ought to be Synods or Assemblies with larger power of the keyes to make Decrees ordain Pastors excommunicate members or Congregations pag. 2. Answ. That there ought to be Synods when occasion requires we freely grant but the Question is not about their being but about their power Wherein that they have power to ordain and excommunicate any we do not yet see it proved But that they should excommunicate whole Congregations as here is affirmed seemeth to us to be altogether impossible For a Congregation being a Church it hath communion within it self out of which it cannot be cast no more then cast out it self Ames Cas. Consc. lib. 4. cap. 29. 11. Yet so as in every single Congregation there be left a power of publick reprehension and if need be of suspension of its own members from the Lords table And in case upon such appeal to the Synod there appear no difficulty in the matter or partialitie in the carriage of it it is if between Members of one Congregation rather to be remitted to the Congregation it self to be there censured and ended pa. 2. 3. This is not much lesse then a clear granting of the whole Cause for here is expresly left to the Congregation not onely power of publick reprehension but also power of suspension from the Lords table yea and in some case power of censuring and ending matters within themselves having first consulted and advised with the Synod which course in matters of difficulty and weight we for our parts acknowledge very meet to be taken when Synods can be had and when they cannot yet in such cases of weight it is fit to consult with neighbour Churches Church government ministeriall Independents say is equally and fully in every Congregation pa. 3. Answ. That it is equally in one as much as in another your self do often grant though not equally in one as much as in all And for fulnesse when a Church is furnished with a Presbytery within it self by whom the Church should be governed then we know no reason but yours may be owned also Above and besides which namely the single Congregation there is no ministerially governing Church by any means they say to be admitted pag. 3. Answ. If the Presbytery of a Congregation may be called a Church then sith they do admit the governing power of the Presbyterie they do admit a governing Church beside the Congregation if by Congregation you mean the whole multitude of the Members And if a Synod may be called a Church and if power by disputation and disquisition to clear up the rule and then to command obedience thereto may be called government then they also admit a Synod to be a governing Church For the power here mentioned they do allow unto Synods But it seems to us that the power is not properly a power and exercise of government and Jurisdiction but a power of Doctrine and so a Synod is rather a teaching then a governing Church But that any other Church be it Synod or any other besides the Congregation and its Presbyterie should have such a governing power above the Congregation and the Presbyterie thereof as that neither the Congregation nor its Presbyterie may ordain their own Officers nor excommunicate their own offendors but both must be done by that other governing Church This we do not admit indeed because hitherto we have seen no convincing proofs for the same All and every member hath say they a governing power as of ordaining their Pastors and Officers so of deposing and excommunicating pa. 3. Governing properly so called we acknowledge not in any but in the Elders alone 1 Cor. 12. 28. Rom. 12. 8. Hebr. 13. 17. If that word be ascribed to the people it must be understood in a more improper sence for that which in propriety of speech were more fitly called Liberty or Priviledge And yet the liberty when it is exercised about Ordination Deposition Excommunication is of the whole body Communiter or in generall but not of all and everie member in particular as you conceive us to hold for women and children are members and yet are not to act in such matters the one being debarred by their sex and the other for want of understanding and discretion We acknowledge that
congregations in Israel did depend on the ministeriall government of a Synod nor will it follow that ours must be dependant as theirs were Touching the former of these to speak first of the minor proposition suppose it were true that the Congregations in Israel did depend upon the government of the Judicatories or Assemblies mentioned in those texts yet that doth not prove they depended upon a Synod And the reason is because the Judicatories there mentioned were not any Synods at all but Assemblies of another nature For first Synods as your selves describe them pag 2. are Assemblies consisting of the severall Pastors whom together with such other members as should be thought fit the several congregations are respectively to chuse send therto But those Judicatories in Deut. 17. and the other Scriptures did not consist of any Pastors or members whom the severall congregations did chuse and send thereto but of the Priests and Levites of the Judges and chiefe of the Fathers of Israel which were constantly resident at Jerusalem the place which the Lord had chosen And the severall congregations had nothing to do either to chuse them or send them Secondly these Jndicatories at Jerusalem were standing Courts and were constantly to continue and therefore they were not Synods for Synods are not wont to stand and continue but onely till they have ended the businesse which was the occasion of calling them and then to be dissolved and ended Thirdly Mr. Page out of whom it seems this argument and much of the discourse about it is taken doth confesse pag. 3. that the authority of Classes and Synods is not civill neither have they power to inflict civill pnnishments they onely judge of Ecclesiasticall causes and that in Ecclesiasticall manner using no other then spirituall censures in pag. 29. of his Defence But the Judicatories in these texts as Mr. Paget also confesseth pag. 34. 35. were for civill causes as well as Ecclesiasticall and so it is said Deut. 21. 5. that by the word of the Priests and Levites every controversie and every stroke mast be tried even in civill causes as that of trying out an uncertain murther which is the cause spoken of in that place By all which it plainly appeares that those superior Judicatories in Israel were not Synods and then suppose their congregations did depend upou those Judicatories and that ours must depend as theirs did yet it will not follow that ours must depend upon Synods And thus your Minor failing this might be enough to take away the whole strength of your Argument Neverthelesse for further answer we may also deny the consequence of your Major proposition For though it were yeelded that the congregations in Israel did depend upon a superiour Judicatory it will not follow that it must be so in these dayes And our reason is because the particular congregations in Israel viz. their Synagogues were not compleat Churches as the Congregations in the New Testament are That they were not entire and compleat Churches may appear by this because the people could not lawfully in them have the use of the most solemne ordinances of God and parâ—s of his worship though such as were of ordinary and continuall use but they must goe upto Jerusalem for the performing and enjoyment thereof and therefore they wete strightly commanded as not to keep the Passover so not to offer any Offerings or Sacrifices which yet were of very frequent use in any place within any of their gates but onely in Jerusalem the place which God did chuse to put his name there as we read at large Deut. 12. and 16. 5 6. Neither was it lawfull for the chiefe Ministers of the Church to execute the chiefe parts of their office in those synagogues but only at Jerusalem But now with congregations in these dayes it is farre otherwise there is none of the solemne Ordinances of God which are of ordinarie and continuall use but in these Congregations they may be enjoyed nor any ordinarie duties of the Ministery but in them they may be performed as preaching prayer Sacraments Discipline c. which shews they are entire Churches within themselves Dr. Ames hath the saying The Synagogues were not compleat Churches because the whole worship of God and all the sacred communion prescribed at that time could not be exercised in them Med. Theol. lib. 1. ca. 38. Thes. 37. And again There is nothing read in all the New Testament of the institution of any greater Church on which the lesser should depend Nor any worship or sacred ordinance prescribed which is not to be observed in every Congregation Nor any ordinary Minister appointed who is not given to some one Assembly of this kind Lib. 1. cap. 39. Thes. 26. Now if their Congregations could not enjoy all the Ordinances as not being compleat Churches there might be reason why they should be dependent upon Jerusalem and the Synedrion and Temple there where the Ordinances might be enjoyed and yet ours being compleat and enjoying al the Ordinances within themselves need not to be so dependent And another reason why their Congregations might be dependent and ours not so may be this They had a superiour Judicatory to appeal unto which had the supremum of Church power within it self and from whose sentence there was no appeal to any further Judge upon earth for so it is said of that Synedrion at Jerusalem Deut. 17. And Reason requires that some such supream Judicatory there should be for controversies cases of doubt must not be drawn out in Infinitum but of necessity standum est in aliquo supremo we must rest in some supreame and proceed no further But now in the New Testament if we once depart from a particular Congregation or Church where or when shall we find such a Supremum Surely not before we come to an Oecumenicall or Generall Councell For as for Classicall Provinciall and Nationall Synods there is none of these but those Cases which you put of deficiency and possibility of partiality may befall the best of them and therefore if for these causes the single Congregations must not be Independent but there must be appeals from them the Synods being subject to the like there must be liberty of appeals from them also For like as you do alledge that Congregations may be partiall and erre so we suppose it will not be denied but the Classis may erre the Provinciall Synod may erre the Nationall may erre And therefore by this Reason entirenesse of Jurisdiction must be granted to none of these And then whither shall we go but to a Generall Councill which as it hath not been seen for many by past generations so God knows whether ever there shall be any so long as this world shall endure But how if the Generall Councill do erre also Sure learned Doctor Reynolds doth abundantly clear it that such a thing is not impossible Thes. 2. Sect. 15. And so by this reason entirenesse of Jurisdiction must not
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
argues not any want at all of authority or right In which respect they might be independent notwithstanding their imperfection in the other regard Suppose a father of children or master of a family through want of wisdome or courage be not able to rule his own children and houshold as Eli or suppose a King that is a child as Salomon speaks Eccles. 10. or Princes that are babes as the Prophet termeth them Isai. 3. be not able to govern their own subjects as Rehoboam 2 King 12. would you think this want of sufficient ability a sufficient argument to prove that such a Father or Master had no authority or right to rule his own children or houshold nor such a Prince any right to rule his subjects but that the families of the one must depend upon other families and the common-wealth of the other upon other common-wealths We suppose you would not say so And yet you may as well say it as say as here you doe that if Churches had been independent Antioch had been able her selfe sufficiently to have ended the cause Antioch finding her selfe not able may send to Jerulem for help and yet this sending neither proves right of jurisdiction in them of Jerusalem who are sent unto nor want of jurisdiction in them of Antioch who so doe send Yes say you An obliging the Churches by decrees laid on them as a burden is a use of the keyes in which use of them Ephesus is commended Pergamus and Thyatyra reproved pag. 25. Answ. But if this be a use of the Keyes may it not be of the Key of Doctrine as well as the Key of Discipline sith the burdens laid on them were not burdens of penalty but burdens of duty not punishments to be suffered for offence given but rules of practice to be observed lest offence should be taken as is plaine if the particulars be considered pag. 29. And therefore it seems the imposing these burdens was not so properly an act of jurisdiction and discipline as an act of Doctrine As for Ephesus the use of the Keyes for which they are commended is not as you affirme for imposing decrees as burdens upon one another nor is Pergamus or Thyatyra reproved for neglect of so doing but trying and detecting counterfeit Apostles which was a matter of doctrine and not bearing with them that were evil which was matter of discipline are the things for which Ephesus is commended and suffring them which were evill which was a neglect of Discipline is that for which the other are reproved Rev. 2. 2. 14. 20. But neither is the one commended for imposing decrees nor the other reproved for neglecting so to doe But you will prove that the Synod had jurisdiction and power of the Keyes of discipline because say you This Decree is it self a Rule given wherein and whereby to use the keyes upon such as shall prove stubborn in defending the contrary of what is here decreed and that authority which can give the rule can a fortiori back and punish its breach p. 25. Ans. But is this certain and clear that whoever hath authority by way of doctrine to impose a rule hath also authoritie by way of discipline to punish its breach we propose to consideration these instances for the contrarie First of all the Prophets in Israel Isaiah Joel Amos and the rest had authoritie by way of doctrine as being sent of God for that purpose to deliver the wil of God as a rule to be observed not onely by all the Princes and people but even by the Priests and Levits also for so we read they many times did and yet not being Priests themselves nor Levites they had not authority to punish by way of Discipline such as disobeyed their doctrine and those holy rules which they delivered from the Lord Nextly any one Minister who is truely sent of God may in his doctrine deliver the rules of Gods word to the people he is sent unto and impose those rules as burthens and necessary things to be observed and yet one Minister alone cannot punish the breach of those rules in a way of discipline because Church-discipline is to be dispenced by a Church Matth. 18. 17. and one man alone we are perswaded you will not say can be a Church Further any Minister or Ministers of one Church be it Congregationall or Nationall may upon occasion being desired thereto preach the word of God in another the like Church and so impose burdens of Christian duties to be observed by them that they thus occasionally preach unto yet it would not follow they might by discipline punish such as should walke contrary to those rules because the power of jurisdiction which they have when they are at home in their owne Church doth not reach so farre as unto that other Church where now they are called to preach the doctrine of the word Lastly there is no doubt but any Minister or Ministers of the Gospel if occasion served thereunto might by way of Doctrine deliver rules of faith and obedience unto Pagans and such as are no members of any Christian Church at all and might command them in the name of the Lord to observe those rules and yet it would not therefore follow that they might punish those Pagans in a way of discipline for the breach of those rules because the Apostle saith plainly What have I to doe to judge them that are without 1 Cor. 5. 12. Yea there are sundry good Writers in reformed Churches who do hold that Doctors in the Church have authority by their office to deliver sound wholsome doctrine from the Scriptures and yet may not meddle with dispensation of Sacraments nor Discipline See among others for this Calvines Instit. lib. 4. Ch. 3. Sect. 4. And if this be so this may be another instance for the same purpose as the rest and by all this we suppose it is clear that some men may have authoritie by way of doctrine to impose rules that must be observed as necessary things and yet not have authoritie by way of discipline to punish those that shall disobey those rules And therefore though the first of these were granted to be within the power of a Synod yet that they have power to do the other also is not proved thereby CHAP. V. Containing an Answer to your fourth Argument taken from 1 Tim. 4. 14. laying on of the hands of the Presbytery HEnce I argue thus Such as are for independency admit of no other rule in Church-government but the Scripture practise or institution but where in all the Scripture read we of any ordination of Pastors but by Presbyters Timothy was ordained by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery Titus was for this very cause left at Creet that he should ordain Elders in every City pag. 26 27. Answ. All that is here said is onely about ordination of Officers which at the most is but one part of the Ecclesiasticall government or jurisdiction And