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
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
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
Pastors and other Officers were anciently and it is to be wished thoy still were chosen at least consented to by the members of each respective Congregation p. 3. By anciently we suppose you mean in the Primitive and Apostolick times And if in these times they were chosen by the Congregation what warrant can there be to take another course in these dayes sith the ancient pattern of Scripture in matters of this nature is a commandment that ought to be kept till the appearing of Jesus Christ 1 Tim. 6. 13 14. c. But they are to be ordoined in a Synod onely That a Synod hath the power we would gladly see it proved by the Word But if these things may be done by a Synod onely and not elsewhere then how will that stand which you granted in the page afore that in some case a single Congregation may have entirenesse of Jurisdiction within it self To be done by a Synod onely and to be done by a single Congregation entirely within it self are not easie for us to reconcile Further if Synods consist as you say of Presbyteries and other Commissioners then there must be Presbyters afore there can be Synods and thence it must follow that all Presbyters are not ordained by Synods but some by other men If it be said though the Presbyters whereof the particular Synod consisteth were not ordained by the Synod but were Presbyters before this Synod had any being yet they might be ordained by a former Synod The answer is that this doth not remove the difficultie For still it would be enquired how the Presbyters of that former Synod and so of the first Synod that ever was how they came to be Presbyters Sure if the first Synod consisted of Presbyters then there were Presbyters before there was any Synod and so Presbyters have been lawfully ordained and not by a Synod In a Synod where all the ultimate power of Decrees and Censures resides Answ. By power of Decrees we understand Power to clear up the truth dogmatically for the word translated decrees is dogmata in the originall Act. 16. 4. And this power we confesse is in a Synod though not all in the Synod alone but also in the Presbyterie of a single Congregation But for power of Censures this we do not see to be in the Synod at all much lesse that it doth all reside in the Synod and not elsewhere But when you say all the ultimate power of these things doth reside in a Synod though you do imply by the word ultimate that matters ought not to be perpetually depending but in some Judicatory or other be brought unto their ultimate or last period and conclusion wherein we concurre with you yet neverthelesse your meaning is not sufficiently expressed what Synod this should be that should have this ultimate power For you know there are divers sorts of Synods some particular which are called Classes some Provinciall some Nationall and some generall or Oecumenicall Synods And we should be glad to know which of all these it is in whom the ultimate power of these things doth reside and why it may not reside in any of the rest yea and why the ultimate power of censures may not reside in the Congregation as well as in any of them Whether it be necessarie to the well being of a single Church or Congregation that where it stands in neighbourhood with other Churches it be equally and mutually coordinated with the rest in a dependance on the ministeriall government of a Synod This they deny and we affirm pa. 4. Ans. By ministeriall government of a Synod you meane a Governing power of ordaining Pastors for Congregations and of excommunicating offendors for so you describe the power of Synods pag. 3. and pag. 2. where you say that Pastors are to be ordained deposed excommunicated by a Synod onely And that Synods have a larger power of the keyes to make Decrees ordain Pastors and excommunicate Members or Congregations So that the Question is Whether it be necessarie to the well-being of a single Congregation that hath neighbours so to depend on the government of Synods as that a Synod onely and not the Congregation must ordain their Pastors and excommunicate offendors Which being the state of the Question we are content to joyn issue with you upon the same And to hear your Arguments for the affirmative part CHAP. II. Containing an Answer to your first Argument taken from the manner of Government in the Jewish Church laid down Deut. 17. 8 9 10. 2 Chron. 19. 8. 10 11. Psal. 122. 4 5. THat the Government of the Jewish Church was by Gods institution nationall and dependent as it clearly appears by the above mentioned Texts so it is fully confessed by Mr. Aynsworth Mr. Davenport Mr. Canne Mr. Robinson and generally all Judgements pag. 4. Answ. In some of the places of these Authors which you direct us unto in your Margent which we have looked upon we can find no such Confession as here you do report of them It may be the pages are mis-printed But what they do confesse or not confesse we will not stand long to enquire such of them as are yet alive may answer for themselves if they see cause But it shall suffice us to consider the weight of the Argument it self which we suppose being put into form must run thus or to the like purpose As the Congregations in Israel were dependent so must congregations be in these dayes But Congregations in Israel were dependent on the Ministeriall government of a Synod Therefore Congregations in these dayes must be dependent on the Ministeriall government of a Synod Indeed in your prosecution of the Argument you do not expresly mention any Ministeriall government of a Synod in Israel upon which their congregations did depend Yet we conceive that must needs be your meaning because otherwise the Argument which you bring doth not reach to conclude the thing in question even as the question is stated by your selfe For in the words immediatly preceding this first Argument you thus summe up and conclude your stating the question viz. Whether it be necessary that a single Congregation where it stands in neighbourhood with other Churches should be co-ordinated with the rest in a dependency on the Ministeriall government of a Synod And having answered affirmatively you then bring in this for your first Argument taken from the manner of government in the Jewish Church laid down in the Texts above mentioned Now if that be the question as you lay it down and this the Argument for the affirmative part then sith the question is about dependance on the government of a Synod the Argument must needs be of the same or else nothing in question is concluded And if the Argument must conclude the question then it must be laid down to the like purpose as we have done and being so formed our answer is by denying both parts thereof For neither is it clear from those texts that the
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.
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
be granted to Generall Councils but there must be liberty of appeals from them also Such consequences do inevitably follow upon that which you suggest as a ground of appealing from particular Congregations And by all this it appeareth that particular Congregations have no such superiour Judicatory above them but according to your grounds there may be liberty of appeals from the same And thence it followeth that there is not the like Reason against their Independency as against the Independency of the Synagogues in Israel because those Synagogues had a Judicatorie above them from which there was no appeal Those may be Dependent which have others above them which are supreame Whereas they which have no such above them may be supreame themselves and consequently be independent Obj. If any shall here ask whether we think it not possible for particular Congregations to erre in their judgement of causes We answer That we confesse they may But in our Judgement that needs not to hinder but they may have entirenesse of Jurisdiction within themselves and not be under the power of any other For that supreame Synedrion at Jerusalem did many times erre and gave corrupt Judgement in causes and yet was not under the power of any other Judicatory When we are enquiring in what Judicatory the supremum of Church-power doth lye it is not our best course to look for such an one as cannot erre for such an one we shall never find but to look out where God hath appointed it to lie and therewith to rest contented Now in the old Testament this supremum by Gods appointment was in that Synedrion at Jerusalem But in the new Testament we know of no appointment of God that the like supremum must be in a Synod but for ought we know a particular Congregation may be answerable to that Synedrion as well as any Classis or Synod and so much the rather because the power in a particular congregation is constant and alwayes ready to be had as it was in that Synedrion whereas Classes and Synods are more seldome and rare and cannot be gathered so often as there may be need of the use of Church power in regard of ordaining of Officers or censuring of offenders and the like Therefore briefly to wind up all sith Congregations in the New Testament are compleat Churches which the Jewish Synagogues were not and sith the Synagogues had a supreame judicatory above them from which there was no appeale which our congregations have not Therefore we conclude That the dependencie of the Synagogues upon that superiour Judicatory doth not prove that our congregations must depend upon the government of a Synod especially this being considered withall that the Judicatory upon which the Synagogues did depend was not any Synod but an Assembly of another nature And though the Supremacie must be some where even where God hath appointed it to be yet the particular congregations may shew as much for that appointment as the Synod And this shall suffice for answer to this first Argument Onely we will adde some observations upon some few passages in that which you write for removall of three exceptions which you say are given by some against this argument of yours 1. That that government was ccremoniall and typicall 2. That Papists alledge it against us for their Hierarchy and appeales to the Pope 3. That the Priests and Levites were then Judges in civill causes wherin it was that the government was then appealative and dependent pag. 5. If any doe make such exceptions we leave it to them that make them to undertake the defence of them or to cleare them as they shall see cause But for us the answer we have given to the Argument is that wherein we do rest That there ought to be one High-Priest in whom all appeales and judgements were to determine pag. 6. Though there was to be one High-Priest among the Jewes yet that all appeals and judgements were to determine in him we suppose is more then can be proved Sure Mr. Paget pag. 35 36. whom you seem in your discourse much to follow doth say that the judgement spoken of Deut. 17. was not given by the High-Priest alone but by a Colledge or Senate of Priests noted in the text and approveth the judgement of Doctor Reynolds and Doctor Whitaker giving this answer as a just refutation of the Papists arguing from this Text to prove there should bee one supreme Judge of Ecclesiasticall causes That there ought to be graduall Judicatories wherein the aggrieved party may appeale from the lesser to the higher There can be no ceremony or type in this This was taught by the light of nature to Jethro Appeals saith Doctor Whitaker are of divine and naturall right pag. 6. If this bee meant in civill causes where more is left to the light of nature and civill prudence according to the general rules of the Word the Word not determining all particulars so fully as it doth in Ecclesiasticall matters then we for our parts doe fully consent thereto And though it were extended to Ecclesiasticall causes also yet this we suppose is cleare likewise by the same light of nature that both for civill causes and Ecclesiasticall there must be some finall and supreame judgement that controversies may not by appeales after appeals be spun out in infinitum Now unlesse it be determined where that supremacie doth lie which is the very thing in question the usefulnesse and necessity of appeals may be granted and yet we shall be still at uncertainty about the thing in question and as much to seek as before That there ought to be appeals till you come to the highest is one thing and that a Synod and not a particular congregation is the highest is another and they are so farre different that though the first were granted yet the latter is not thereby proved That renowned Martyr Cranmer the forme of his appeale to a Councell three times by him urged we have recorded by Mr Fox at large pag. 6. But how this example doth suit the present question we doe not understand for his appeal was not from a particular congregation but from the Pope nor was it to a Synod but to the next generall Councell which from that day to this hath not yet assembled nor been called If we must hold a necessity of appeales to such a Judicatory as Cranmer appealed unto then the supremacie of Synods Provinciall or Nationall is utterly taken away Generally all that write against appeals to the Pope acknowledge yet their necessary usefulnesse to a Synod So did that reverend Martyr Cranmer So besides the whole stream of Antiquity Ursin Zepperus and to come neerer Cartwright Fenner nay Barrow Ainsworth Johnson pag. 6. We doubt it is a speech a good deale too large to say That all these doe acknowledge the necessary usefulnesse of appeales to a Synod especially if you mean of such appeales as you must needs mean or else you speak not to
the question in hand viz. of appeals from a particular congregation We have looked upon some of the places and doe perswade our selves that if you doe look upon them also you will finde this speech of yours to be too excessive As for Mr. Paget who pag. 39. 40. alledgeth all these very places that you doe alledge he doth not say that those Authours doe all acknowledge such necessary usefulnesse of appeals to a Synod as you doe report them to acknowledge nor doth alledge them for that end but for another purpose viz. to shew that in these dayes we may alledge and argue from texts out of the Law of Moses and other places of the old Testament which if it be rightly done we for our parts see no reason to disallow But that all these Authors even Barrow and Ainsworth doe acknowledge the necessary usefulnesse of appeales from particular congregations to the government of Synods is so large an expression as wee know not upon what grounds to think it credible sith it is well knowne to them that have read their writings that they acknowledge no Ecclesiasticall Judicatory superiour to that of a particular congregation If the benefit of appeals and consociation of Churches to their mutuall help in government should not be as free to us as to the Jewes how much more defective and improvident were the Gospel then the Law pag. 7. Consociation of Churches for mutuall help we willingly acknowledge so that this consociation may neither constitute a new form of a Church nor take away or impair the liberty and power which Christ hath given to Churches but serve onely according to the true use thereof for the directing and guiding of the same which proviso as we said before Mr. Paget doth willingly grant And for appeals we do willingly acknowledge any benefit that may come thereby But for making the Gospel more defective then the Law we conceive if things be well considered it is not our way but yours that will be found justly culpable in this respect For first as the Jews had a supreame Judicatory for the finall ending of Causes so we hold the same in a particular Congregation Whereas according to your opinion and grounds we know not where or when to find such a Judicatory but there must be appeals upon appeals from the Congregation to the Classis from a Classis to a Provinciall Synod and from them to a Nationall and from that to an Oecumenicall and by this means causes may be so protracted as not to receive any determination for many generations yea it may be never while this world doth endure Secondly as with them there was a standing Judicatorie alwaies in readinesse for the hearing of causes so we hold the like in the particular Congregation Whereas Synods are not alwaies in readinesse but so seldome that if they had supreme power to determine yet causes maâ— be long depending before a Synod can be called for the determining of them Thirdly whereas the supreame Judicatorie at Jerusalem being but one in all the world was verie farre remote from all proselites that lived in other countreys as the Eunuch of Ethiopia Act. 8. yea farre remote from those Jews that dwelt in the furthest parts of the Holy Land God hath provided better for us in regard that Congregations wherein we place the supreame Church power being many in number a Christian may have the use of that power with much more conveniencie then was affoarded to most Jews and Proselites in those daies But as for Synods as they are for time more seldome then that Synedrion so they are to many persons no lesser remote in place By all which it doth appear that the doctrine of the Independents as you call them doth in some things make us equall to the Jews and in other things doth make our condition more excellent then theirs Whereas according to your way that are against Independencie in many things our condition is made more defective then theirs How were our Saviour King of peace and righteousnesse should he have ordained now under the Gospel such a government as were neither righteous nor peaceable pa. 7. That our blessed Saviour is King of righteousnesse and peace and the Church government which he hath ordained both righteous and peaceable is such a certain and divine truth that it were blasphemous wickednesse to doubt of it But when the Question is what government Christ hath ordained it is better arguing to say This government the Scripture doth witnesse to be ordained of Christ and therefore it is righteous and peaceable then to say this government is not righteous nor peaceable and therefore not ordained of Christ We meane plainly thus that it is more agreeable to religious sobrietie and humilitie to search out by Scripture-grounds what government Christ hath ordained and when that is once found then to conclude from thence the righteousnesse and peaceablenesse of the same rather then on the other side to think with our selves what government to naturall reason seems righteous and peaceable and thence to gather what is ordained or not ordained of Christ your self have a saying p. 9. that laws meerly positive are therefore Laws because commanded And why may not we say in like sort this or that form of Church government is therefore peaceable and righteous because ordained sith this or that form is by the positive law of Christ But say you how can that government be peaceable and righteous where parties are made sole Judges Suppose the greater number of members in a Congregation be against the Pastor and Elders pag. 7. Answ. It is not unrighteous nor unpeaceable in it self that they should be Judges whom the God of all righteousnesse and peace hath appointed so to be Nor is it reasonable that they should be thrust out of the office whereto God hath appointed them under this pretence that they are parties For if good care be not taken how farre we give way to such alledgements we may lay a foundation for weakning if not utterly evacuating the authoritie of all supreame Judicatories whatsoever For as you alledge against the Congregation that they may be divided amongst themselves and then if matters be ended there parties are made Judges viz. the major part against the minor so the very same may be said of a Synod where controversies may arise as well as in a Congregation And if Congregations must not determine matters arising within themselves because parties must not be Judges then by the same reason matters arising in a Synod must not be determined by a Synod and so the Synod unto whom you would have matters carried from the Congregation must be no more Independent then the Congregation it self from whom they are carried Yea by this Reason that supreame Synedrion among the Jews must have been dependent also For it is plain that sometimes that Synedrion was divided into parts among themselves as in that famous instance Act. 23. where the division of the Councill
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
and therefore particular Congregations as well as members have hereby liberty to complain and appeal to a more generall Judgement for redresse And a little after That such offences may arise between Churches as well as members appears by that between the Graecians and Hebrews about the neglect of their widows Act. 6. 1. and that in such cases they may complain and implead each other appears by that of the Prophet Hosea 2. 2. even the daughter Church with the mother pag. 10. To all which we thus answer First though we deny not but offences may arise betweene Churches as well as members yet we do not see that those instances alledged by you from Act. 6. and Hos. 2. do sufficiently prove the same because those Graecians and Hebrews Act. 6. might be all of one and the same Church and Congregation which was at Jerusalem and not two Congregations or Churches the Graecians one and the Hebrews another as it seems you do conceive of them For when the Apostles upon occasion of this murmuring of the Graecians for the neglect of their widows did take course for the appointing of Deacons for the remedying thereof the whole managing of the businesse was transacted and done in one Congregation alone for so it is said they called the multitude of Disciples together vers. 2. they appointed them to look out seven men duely qualified whom they might appoint over that businesse v. 3. and the saying pleased the whole multitude who thereupon did chuse seven whom they presented unto the Apostles ver. 5 6. and the Apostles imposed hands on them ver. 6. In all this there is no hint of two congregations one of Graecians and another of Hebrews but the Text seemeth plain enough that the whole multitude of Disciples whether Graecians or Hebrews were all gathered together into one Congregation about the choice and ordaining of these Deacons And as for Hos. 2. 2. Plead with your mother plead sith there is no mention in that Scripture of any daughter Church nor of any two Churches at all and sith at that time there was only one Church upon the face of the earth even the Nationall Church of the Jewes therefore we cannot see how this Text can be any proofe of Churches complaining and impleading one another If any man think otherwise and that the daughter-Churches did plead against the mother-Church of Israel that is here spoken of then we would demand what or where was that superiour Judicatory be it Synod or any other before which they did plead and before whom the mother-Church of Israel must answer for herselfe when the daughter-Churches did complain against her We suppose none will affirme there was any such and therefore this text can be no ground for Churches impleading one another But the true meaning of the place is thus much not that one Church must plead against another but that the godly members of the Church of Israel must plead against the corruptions of that very Church though in respect of them she were as a mother and they as children And before whom must they plead Not before any other Judge upon earth but before the Lord of heaven and unto her own face laying open her abominations and shewing unto her her sins And we acknowledge the members of any other Church may doe the like if there be the like occasion so that they keep themselves within the bounds of sobriety and their owne calling But if it were granted though these allegations doe not prove it that offences may arise between Congregations how doth this prove the thing in question viz. That Congregations must depend upon the government of Synods Yes say you Because the remedy must be as large as the malady and otherwise Christs salve were not equall to the sore But if this reason be sufficient against the Independency of Churches then by the like reason a man may prove that the Church of a Nation must not be Independent neither For as you alledge that offences may arise as well between divers congregations as between divers members in the same congregation so a man may alledge that offences may arise between divers Nationall Churches And as you demand What if a brother offend not a particular brother but the whole Congregation What if ten brethren offend the whole or part shall we think the offence falls not within our Saviours remedy So in like sort a man may demand What if the Congregation offend not a particular Congregation but the whole Church of a Nation What if ten twenty fourty congregations offend the whole Nation or part Yea we may adde What if the Nationall Church offend the Church of another Nation Would you now say that all these offences must fal within our Saviours rule of telling the Church and that this were a sufficient reason against the independencie of Nationall Churches and Nationall Synods We suppose you would not say so And yet we doe not see how it can be avoided by your reason and ground sith that ground is appliable to the one case as well as to the other If the reason doe overthrow the Independencie of particular Congregations then of a Nationall Church also If not of a Nationall Church then how doth it make any more against the other Of necessity for ought wee can discern you must owne the reason as strong in both cases or else refuse it as weak in both Yea and further by the like reason a man might prove that Indians and Turkes must be complained of unto the Church and that the offences of them or of other Heathen must fall within the compasse of our Saviours remedy For as offences may arise between members and members between Churches and Churches so it is apparent that offences may arise between Christians and Pagans and if this ground that you lay be sound that the remedy complaint or oppeale must be as large as the malady offence and consequently there must be a Church above Congregations then if an Indian or other Pagan shall commit an offence the remedy must be to complain of the Indian to the Church And sith as you say pag. 11. There must be power of judgement to redresse there where the complaint is to be made would it not thence follow that there must be power of judgement in the Church to redresse the offences of Indians Which were directly contrary to the plain words of the Apostle 1 Cor. 5. 12. What have I to doe to judge them that are without But this inconvenience of the Churches judging them that are without doth unavoidably follow upon this which you lay as a ground against the independencie of Congregations viz. that where an offence may be committed there Christs rule Tell the Church may be applied for redresse thereof But what shall we say then If Indians and other Heathens if Congregationall and Nationall Churches of Christians be not under the power of that rule of Christ shall we say then there is no salve for all
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
reference unto then the Church must have power to inflict corporall punishment even to the taking away of life it self because that Judicatory had such power Lastly no other place can be shewed where our Saviour used the word Church for a single congregation Ans. Nor can any other place be shewed where he used the word Church for a Synod nor that he ever used the word at all but onely here and in Matth. 16. Vpon this rock will I build my Church in which place he means a Synod no more then a single congregation But for the Scripture language nothing is more manifest then as it never anywhere useth the word Church for a single congregation unlesse happily in 1 Cor. 14. so nothing is more frequent therein then to call many congregations in a Province or City by the name of a Church pag. 12. Ans. We are willing to consider of both these particulars and first of the former wherein you do acknowledge though a perhaps or happily that in 1 Cor. 14. the word Church is taken for a single congregation but you may acknowledge it undoubtedly and without any perhaps at all because it is said ver. 23. of that Chapter that the whole Church cometh together in one place And in other verses of the same Chapter he speaks how he that prophecieth edifieth the Church how interpreting is that the Church may receive edifying how it is a shame for women to speak in the Church ver. 4 5 35. Yea in ver. 26 27 28. he gives them this direction that when they come together and every one hath a Psalme a Doctrine c. that he that speaks in a strange tongue if there be no Interpreter must keep silence in the Church By all which he plainly sheweth that the name Church is given to the company that did assemble and come together for performance of spirituall duties and for the exercise of spirituall gifts Now a company coming together is a congregation and therefore the name of Church is here given to a congregation But besides this Chapter there are many other places where the word Church is also used in the same sence for instance take these amongst many Act. 14. 27. and 11. 26. and 15. 4 22 30. 1 Cor. 11. 18 20 22 33. 3 Joh. 6. in which places there is mention of assembling with the Church of gathering the Church together of being received by the Church of bearing witnesse before the Church of coming together in the Church of coming together into one place of gathering the multitude together and the like Which places do abundantly shew that a company that are gathered together into one place which is nothing else but a congregation are called by the name of a Church And the Christians of Cenchrea which was but a little village and therefore not like to be many congregations yet they are stiled by the name of a Church Rom. 16. 1. And though Cenchrea were but the port of Corinth and not farre from it like Radcliffe or Lymehouse to London as some have observed yet being a congregation of it self it is a distinct Church of it self as well as Corinth was Much more might be said to make it manifest that a single congregation is called by the name of a Church in many places of Scripture and how then can that stand which is here affirmed by you that the word is never so used unlesse happily in 1 Cor. 14. and that nothing is more manifest But whereas you say That nothing is more frequent then to call many congregations in a Province or Citie by the name of a Church we may rather say that this is so far from being so frequent as nothing more that on the contrary it is very questionable whether it be ever so used at all in all the New Testament Sure it is more frequent to call many Congregations in a Province or Nation by the name of Churches in the plural number and not by the name of Church in the singular which doth strongly imply that if they be many congregations then they are not one Church but many For this purpose it is to be considered how the Scripture mentions not the Church but the Churches of Galatia Gal. 1. 1. 1 Cor. 16. 1. of Macedonia 2 Cor. 8. 1. of Judea 1 Thess. 2. 14. Gal. 1. 21. of Galilee and of Samaria Acts 9. 31. of Syria and Cilitia Acts 15. 41. and of Asia 1 Cor. 16. 19. In which one Province there were seven famous Churches at once mentioned Revel. 1. 4. besides others that are mentioned else-where Now as all these instances doe sufficiently shew that something is more frequent in Scripture then to call many Congregations by the name of a Church so it is worth our consideration what should be the reason of this diffrent speech in Scripture that when it speaks of the Christians of one Congregation it should frequently give them the name of a Church as we heard before and when it speakes of the Christians in a Province or Countrey where were many congregations it should call them so usually by the name of Churches in the plurall number Sure it seemes to us to be strongly implyed thereby that one Congregation of Christians may be a Church but if they be many Congregations then they are many Churches and not one onely But you will give foure instances where the name of a Church is given to many congregations Jerusalem Rome Corinth and Ephesus And concerning Jerusalem the number of Disciples that were there being 8120 Acts 1. 15. with 2. 41. and 4. 4. and afterward abundantly larger it was impossible all the members should meet but by way of distribution into severall congregations pag. 12. Answ. How large soever that Church was in those places you alledge yet if the Scripture say they did meet together in one place then we must beleeve it was possible for them so to doe and that as they were but one Church so they were but one Congregation Now the text is plain first of all that when they were but 120. they all met together in one place for otherwise how could Peter stand up in the midst of them and make a speech to them all about the election of another Apostle in the room of Iudas as he is recorded to have done Acts 115. Next of all when 3000 were added to them Acts 2. yet all that multitude before they were converted did all come together in one place vers. 6. and Peter standing up lift up his voyce and spake unto them all vers. 14. And when they were converted both they and the rest of the beleevers were not yet so many but the multitude of them were all together vers. 44. and continued daily with one accord in the Temple vers. 46. And when after this the Lord adding daily to the Church such as should be saved the number of the men was about 5000. Acts 4. 4. yet all this company did stil meet together in one
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
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