Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	believe_v	church_n	err_v	1,967	5	9.6697	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A88948	A reply to Mr. Rutherfurd, or A defence of the answer to Reverend Mr. Herles booke against the independency of churches. VVherein such objections and answers, as are returned to sundry passages in the said answer by Mr. Samuel Rutherfurd, a godly and learned brother of the Church of Scotland, in his boke entituled The due right of Presbyters, are examined and removed, and the answer justified and cleared. / By Richard Macher [sic] teacher to the church at Dorchester in New England. 1646.	Mather, Richard, 1596-1669.	1647 (1647)	Wing M1275; Thomason E386_9; ESTC R201478	144,474	133

punishing theeves and such other malefactors only for this reason because to their knowledge other Corporations are troubled with the like lewd persons I suppose it is easie to see the insufficiency and invalidity of such Consequences And therefore if Antioch did know that other Churches were troubled with the like offenders as themselves were troubled withall this needs not to hinder but they may determine questions that arise amongst themselves and may censure such of their members as shall trouble the Church or Brethren therewith and obstinately persist in so doing This being considered withall that in thus doing they do not go beyond their line nor meddle with matters any farther but as they are within their Compasse For when divers Churches are troubled with the like corruptions in Doctrine or practise and some one of those Churches by using the Key of Doctrine or discipline or both doth endeavour the removall of these corruptions they do not hereby attempt and endeavour to remove them out of other Churches which might be an appearance of stretching their line beyond their compasse but out of their own Church and only so farre as concernes themselves and in so doing no man can justly say they meddle further then their Power doth reach But he gives another reason why Antioch had not right to determine the question And this is taken from the strong party that was in Antioch against the truth which was such as that they opposed Paul and Barnabas concerning which he saith that when the greatest part of a Church as Antioch is against the truth as is cleere Act. 15. 2. He beleeveth in that they loose their jus their right to determine eatenus in so farre for Christ hath given no Ecclesiasticall right and power to determine against the truth but onely for truth and therefore in this Appeales must be necessary Answ How is it cleere that the greatst part of the Church at Antioch was against the truth The text doth not say so much but only this that certain men which came from Iudea taught the Brethren and said except ye be Circumcised ye cannot be saved and that Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them about the matter and that in the issue they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certaine others should go up to Ierusalem about the question Thus much the Scripture witnesseth Act. 15. 1 2. But whether they that held that corrupt Doctrine at Antioch were the major or the minor part of the Church the text doth not expresse except we shall say that where a false Doctrine is taught by some and greatly opposed and disputed against by others there it must needs bee that the greatest part are tainted with that false Doctrine which wee thinke is no good Consequence And therefore whereas our Author saith the greatest part of this Church was against the Truth and that so much is cleere from verse 2. I answer first that I do not perceive this cleerenesse neither from verse 2 nor from any other place of the Chapter Nextly suppose this were cleere this may argue that they wanted ability and light to end the matter but must it needs argue that they wanted right though they had been able Or shall we say that they who want ability to doe things as they should be done do therefore want right to ●●al● in them at all I conceive it will not follow and the reason is because this right in Churches is Naturall or Connaturall to every Church and this want of ability is only accidentall and therefore this latter cannot totally hinder the former That light of government is Naturall or connaturall to every Church our Brother own words do testifie Page 341. Where he saith this viz. Supposing that Christ have a visible Church it is morall that she have power of government also in so farre as she is a Church yea power of government upon this supposition is Naturall or rather connaturall And in Page 307 he saith as was alledged before That the power of Iurisdiction ordinary intensive Is as perfect and compleat in one single Congregation as in a Provinciall or in a Nationall yea as in the Catholike visible body whereof Christ is the head And in Page 383. He saith That to a Congregation Christ hath given by an immediate flux from himselfe a politicall Church power intrinsci●ally in it derived from none but immediately from Iesus Christ And the like he saith of a Presbyteriall Church Now whether Antioch was a Congregationall Church as we hold or a Presbyteriall as is holden by this our Brother yet it is cleere by those words of his here alledged that being essentially a Church it had a politicall Church power intrinscically within it selfe yet a perfect and compleat power of Iurisdiction yea and such a power as was naturall or connaturall unto her as she was a Church But now the light of knowledge whereby they should be enabled well to use this power did not adde any power unto them which they had not before not did the want of it being but accidentall deprive them of that Power which was intrinscicall essentiall and connaturall unto them as they were a Church of Christ Onely this want did hinder their ability to expresse their power well but their right as being a thing Connaturall did still remaine Our Brother hath a saying or two about the civill Power which by proportion may well illustrate this that I am speaking o●●bo it the Church-power In one place he saith thus There is a two-fold power in a King one in a King as a King and this is a like in all and ordinary regall coactive whether the King be an Heathen a Turke or a sound believing Christian there is another power in a King as such a King either as a Propheticall King as David and Solomon or as a Christian believing King And of this latter he saith that it is not a new regall power but potestas execuliba a power or gracious ability to execute the Kingly Power which he had before as a King Page 387. c. 388. ●ow why may it not be said in like sort there is in a Church two-fold Power one in a Church as it is a Church and this is a like in all true Churches of Christ whether the Church in this or that particular question have light to discerne and hold the truth or otherwise another in a Church as it is sound believing Church holding the truth in such or such question and this is but only a gracious ability to exercise the power which they had before not adding to them any new Power at all Againe in his Page 393. he hath these words Though the King were not a Christian Magistrate yet hath he a Kingly power to command men as Christians and it is by accident that he cannot in that state command Christian duties and service to Christ because he will not and cannot command those dutyes remaining ignorant of Christ

then that much people that beleeved might so assemble much more For if there be no impossibility but a company that is greater may so assemble I suppose the same cannot bee denyed of a company that is lesser Againe to say this whole Church was a greater number then the much people that beleeved is directly to gainsay himselfe who in Page 460 461. Makes the much people a greater number then the Congregation meeting for the Word Sacraments and Church censures because such a Congregation he saith could not conveniently exceed one thousand whereas the much people must bee much in comparison of thousands of Jewes who rejected Christ for that otherwise it would not have beene much for Pauls comfort for which end it is mentioned and brought If it be said the whole Church be lesse then the people that beleeved then it followes that some of those beleevers were not of the Church and so what himselfe hath written Page 125. 242. 251. will not stand For in Page 125 hee saith That the Seale of Baptisme and the profession of the truth is that which makes one member of the visible Church and by this are all the Citizens and domesticks in-Churched and received into a visible Church And Page 242. He saith any who blamelessely professe Christ is Ecclesiastically in foro Ecclesiae a true and valid member of the Church visible having Ecclesiasticall power valid for that effect and Page 251. he saith a visible profession of the truth and Doctrine of golinesse is that which essentially constituteth a visible Church and every member of the visible Church Now if these things be so then it followes that this whole people that beleeved were all of them members of the Church inasmuch as they were all partakers of Baptisme and profession which he saith do essentially constitute the visible Church and every member thereof And they were all members of the Church then the Church was not a lesser company then they Nor can hee say it was a greater company for the reasons mentioned before And if it was neither a greater company nor a lesser was it not then the same And if it was the same then how can this stand which he affirmeth in the place wee have in hand where hee saith the whole Church is not the whole much people that beleeved It seemes to me that which way soever he shall take his own pen will be witnesse against himselfe for in the place wee have in hand hee saith the whole Church is not the whole much people that beleeved and in another place hee tels us that the much people that beleeved was a greater number then the whole Church meeting for Word Sacraments c. And yet in a third place hee tels us that in effect it was not greater inasmuch as all Baptized professing beleevers hee saith are of the Church Further when the Text speakes of the whole Church comming together in some place let the wise judge whether it be a good Exposition to say by the whole is not meant the whole but only a part Which I conceive is Mr. Rutherfords Exposition who will not yeeld that the whole did come together in any one place but part in one place and part in another the whole being distributed into severall parts and those parts into severall places So that the whole Church comming together into some place must have this meaning the whole came not together in any place but part in one place and part in another which I feare is too much violence offered to the Sacred Text which should be handled with reverence But he brings a reason for this Exposition and that is this Because else we must say that at any one Assembly all the Prophets and teachers did Prophesy at Corinth for the Text saith he is convinced of all he is judged of all whereas the consequence should bee absurd it should bee a longsome and wearisome meeting Page 465. Answ And if they Prophesyed not all in one Assem●ly but divers how could the unbeleever bee convinced and judged by them all It will not bee easie to conceive how it could be they Prophesying in such a way for the unbeleever sure could not be present in sundry Assemblyes at once but in one onely And therefore those words he is convinced of all he is judged of all will lay as much absurdity upon his Exposition of the words as upon ours or rather a great deale more For as for ours there is no absurdity therein at all for asmuch as by all the Prophets is meant all that Prophesied at the time when the unbeleever was present and not that all must Prophesy upon one day as Mr. Rutherford would have it But the Text doth not so say nor any Interpreter that I have met withall Sure I am Beza saith the expresse contrary for upon verse 31. Ye may all Prophesy one by one c. He hath this note Non eodem sane die sed ternis c. That is indeed not all upon one day which is Mr. Rutherfords Exposition but three at every moeing having their turne to speak till all had spoken by course Interpreters say they met in divers Assemblies Page 465. Answ Let those Interpreters be named and there words set down and then by Gods help we shall consider of what they say and of the grounds and reasons thereof in the meane time to say that interpreters say it and yet neither to tell us the reasons nor the words of those Interpreters nor so much as the names of any of them how should this prevaile with us to turne us away from our former apprehensions in the point True it is in another place c. Pag 461. Speaking of verse 31. Yea may all Prophesy one by one hee there tels us that Diodatus understands it that they might Prophecy by course and in divers or sundry Assemblies And Essius saith he saith the same to wit that these Prophets were to Prophesy in divers Assemblies Answ For Diodatus I have him not at hand and therefore I cannot peruse the place But for Estius this I may say that he neither saith what here is reported in his Commentary upon the verse alledged nor upon any verse else in all the Chapter as farre as I can observe and I have read and perused him on purpose to see what were to be found in him But though I cannot find him affirming that which Mr. Rutherford brings him for yet I find sundry places wherein he seemes to me to affirme the contrary for instance Commenting upon the verse alledged hee hath these words as the sence which he most preferres viz. Quod si non unus tantum Propheta sed plures c. That is If not only one Prophet but sundry yea all do speake in the Assembly in order it will come to passe that those all may also learne and receive exhortation there being never a one of them who is not also a hearer Wherein we see he speaks not

of Nice the first generall Councell of Constantinople with other Councels and Authors witnessing the same pag. 201 202. And in a third place he grants that all matters in the Church must be done with the peoples consent consentiente plebe alledging a matter of 18. or 19. Authors for the same tenet Peaceable Plea p. 49. and in another place he alledgeth and approveth the judgement of Mr. Calderwood and Mr. Cartwright affirming that this liberty is purchased by the blood of Christ Due Right Secondly pag. 464. All which do plainly shew that in his judgement the people have some 〈◊〉 or priviledge or right in Church matters yea as himself saith in this they have divinum jus Gods right And yet for all this the Apostles words do plainly forbid women to speak in the Church 1 Cor. 14. 34. 1 Tim. 2. 12. which very prohibition to women doth also secretly imply that men may have liberty to practise though women may not Now then if the people have liberty priviledge right to consent and act in Church matters yea to speak in the Church and yet women may not speak therein how can this stand which here M. Rutherford writes That if the people have any liberty this liberty must also be due to women If the Apostles words and our Brothers own doctrine in the places cited do stand his saying in the place we have now in hand cannot stand they being so contrary one to another Thirdly saith he What priviledge the people have in Ordination to conferre a ministery which they neither have formally nor virtually I know not Answ Neither formally nor virtually then hear your own words pag. 7. I deny not but there is a power virtuall not formall in the Church of beleevers to supply the want of ordination of Pastors hic nunc this power is virtuall not formall c. Whereas in the place we have in hand the virtuall power as well as the formall is denyed which things are not free from Interferring or strong appearance thereof Our words are not just the same which M. Rutherford sets downe a priviledge in ordination to conferre a Ministery but these are our words a liberty exercised about ordination c. And who knows not but there may be a liberty exercised about ordination or any other Ordinance by way of consent thereto or desire thereof c. without any authoritative acting therein And if this liberty about ordination be such a fault then how shall he be justified who doth give to the people a greater matter then this liberty doth amount unto even a power to do that which shall stand for ordination it selfe which to do I conceive is more then to exercise some liberty about ordination And when the reader shall have considered these ensuing words of M Rutherford then let him be judge whether M. Rutherford do not give this power unto the people in some cases As a rose saith he caused to grow in winter by art is of that same nature with a rose produced in summer by nature though the manner of production be different so are they both true Pastors those who have no call but the peoples election and those who have ordination by Pastors p. 186. And in the page following he gives two reasons to prove that in some cases election by the people onely may stand for ordination 1. Because God is not necessarily tyed to succession of Pastors 2. Because where men are gifted for the work of the Ministery and there be no Pastors to be had the giving of the Holy Ghost is a signe of a calling of God who is not wanting to his own gracious intention though ordinary means faile Now if the people without Pastors may do that which shall stand for ordination and if their election do make a Minister in some cases this seems to be more then onely to exercise some liberty about ordination for as much as they may doe this latter and possibly no Minister be made thereby whereas in the other case a man is made a true Pastor and Minister as well as by ordination it selfe Marvell it is therefore that the greater is allowed as lawfull and not the lesser that some liberty about ordination may not be allowed and yet that can be allowed which may stand for ordination it self and which makes a Minister● as truly as ordination doth CHAP. XVIII Of Mr. Rutherfords report of Synodicall propositions in new-England NExt after this our reverend Author falls to scanning as he saith pag. 476. some Synodicall propositions of the Churches of New England as he calls them together with a Table of Church power which he calls the Table of New England But with favour of soworthy a man he doth greatly mistake the matter for neither was there any such Synod nor Synodicall propositions as he speaks of nor any such Table of New England as hee mentioneth There was indeed at Cambridge in the year 1643. a printed conference of some of the Elders of that Country where sundry points of Church judgement were privatly discoursed of and this was all But as the meeting was not any Synod as Synods are usually understood so neither were there any Synodicall propositions there agreed upon nor any table of propositions agreed upon to be given forth as the Doctrine of New England This I am able to testifie having been present at that meeting from the beginning thereof unto the end and sundry others of the Elders of these Churches can testifie the same upon the same ground And knowing full well the truth of what I heare relate I will not spend time in replying to what he hath written upon so manifest misinformation and mistake What information he goeth upon I know not per adventure some notes may have come to his view which one or other might gather at that conference for his own private use Peradventure some in their simplicity meaning no hurt many have called that private conference by the name and tearme of a Syno● and M. Rutherford might thereupon adventure to publish in print as here we see But however they mistake a Rose sure I am Synodicall propositions there were none 〈◊〉 any Synod at all not New England Table And therefore I think himselfe and others may do well and wisely hereafter to be informed by good and sufficient intelligence of such things as they publish to the world concer●ing the Churches in New England or else not to beleeve the same much lesse to divulge the same in print For what comfort can it be to any Christian to receive and publish to the world against a mans neighb●u● specially against whole Churches of Christ such reports as for the matter contained in them do not agree with truth CHAP. XIX Of the Appeales of Luther and Cranmer and of the power and jurisdiction in generall Councells denyed by Mr. Rutherford whether therein he do not contradict himselfe and also overthrow the jurisdiction of Classicall Provinciall and Nationall Assemblies IN

with that Scripture either for one purpose or another and therefore cannot be truly said to have used the words alledged in way of cleering Doubts concerning the same And albeit in another place cap. 3. pag. 22. et sequ I doe purposely speake to that Scripture yet in that place there is no mention at all of the words by him alledged nor of any such like and where such words are to be found there that Scripture is not mentioned at all Now who knoweth not that a man may be much wronged when the words which hee hath spoken are taken and applyed to such a purpose for which he did never bring them nor intend them But to let this passe let us heare what our Reverend Author saith against the words alledged in his Answer The cause of Appeales saith he is not because inferiour Iudicatures may erre for so wee might appeale from all Iudicatures even from a generall Councill for it may erre Pag. 315. lin ult Answ Is not this the very same that was said in the Answer Pag. 13 14. The pages which hee here undertakes to answer is it not there said As for Classicaticall Provinciall and Nationall Synods there is none of these but those Cases of deficiency and possibility of Partiality may befall the best of them and therefore if for these causes the single Congregations may not be indep●ndant but there may be Appeales from them the Synods being subject to the like there may bee liberty of Appeales from them also For as the Congregations may be partiall and erre so we suppose it will not be denyed but the Classis may erre the Provinciall Synod may erre the Nationall may erre yea generall Councils may erre and so by this reason not Synods nor generall Councils may have entirenesse of Jurisdiction but there may be liberty of Appeales from them also These are our words in those very Pages which here Mr. Rutherford pretends to Answer and disprove or confute But in stead of a Confutation we see we have nothing but a plaine Confession or affirmation of his owne that the thing is even so as was affirmed by us before Now why hee should make a show of taking away or weak'ning that which we had said and then in stead of accomplishing what he undertakes to doe no more but onely to say the same thing againe which wee had said before what reason I say he had for this I know not but plaine it is that for the particular in hand the Answer which he pretends to weaken is not yet weakned at all but rather strengthned and confirmed by his apparent yeelding the Cause and affirming the same that was before affirmed by us But saith hee Pag. 316. The true cause viz. of Appealing to higher Courts is 1. Because they doe not so frequently erre 2. They are not so inclined and disposed to erre for many eyes see more then one and doe more seldome miscarry in taking up the right Object 3. Because wee conceive more equality and lesse partiality in higher Courts Answ These three Reasons seeme much what the same or to hang one upon another for therefore they doe more seldome erre because they are not so disposed and inclined to erre and they are not so inclined because they are more in number and because there is in them more equality and lesse partiality So that upon the matter it is but one reason viz. because though they may erre yet not so frequently and likely as the Congregation Yet be they three Reasons or be they but one let us consider what force there is in this sa●ing to take away entirenesse of Iurisdiction from a Congregation and to establish the necessity of appealing from the same unto a Synod for this is the thing that should be cleared First of all it may be a question whether Synods doe more seldome erre then the Presbyteries of Congregations And the reason of the doubt is because the Promise of the presence of Ch●●st is not made meerly to multitude or greatnesse of number but if they bee but two or three gathered together in his Name his Promise is that hee will be present in the midst of them Math. 18. 20. Now the Promise of his presence being to so small a number gathered together in his Name why may not a Congregation and its Presbyterie being so gathered though they be a lesser number then Synods and Councels yet bee partakers of the benefit of this Promise for the preserving of them from Error as well as those greater Assemblies 〈…〉 not but in multitude of Counsellers there is safety nor doe I doubt but Synods and Council● gathered together in the Name of Christ may expect the per●●●●ance of this Promise of our Saviours presence But the thing I doubt of is this whether a Congregationall Church of Saints furnished with an able and ●aithfull Presbyterie for of such onely doe I speake may not by vertue of this Promise bee as frequently preserved fro● Error as those greater Assemblies of Synods and Councils Posito that the Synods and Counci●ls did as frequently come together as the Congregation doth For otherwise I grant the Synods meeting more seldome may erre more seldome but let the Comparison be equall in respect of the time of Assembling and comming together and then I doubt whether Synods 〈◊〉 preserved from Error any oftener then the fore-mentioned lesser Assemblies It is well knowne what N●zianzen said of Synods or Councils in his time viz. That hee had never seene good and happie end of any of them and that evils were not so much redressed as increased thereby Epist ad Procop●um Quae Est numere 42. Referr Whitak De Concill Q. 1. cap. 3. True it is Nazianzen lived as Dr. Whi●●● observeth Pessimis turbulentissimia Ecclesiae Temporibus in very corrupt and troublesome Titues when by reason that Valens the Emperour was averse from the Truth H●retickes much prevailed and Corruptions greatly increased and this might make the good man something more to dislike all Councils then there was cause Neverthelesse his words doe apparently witnesse that in his time Synods and Councils did not seldome erre but very often so that hee for his part had never seene good that had come by any of them Then which saying I suppose one would not speake more hardly of a particular Congregation and its Presbyterie and therefore by this testimony of his my doubt is increased whether the matter be in 〈…〉 Mr. Rutherford doth say viz. That Synods and Councils doe Rariùs erra●● more seldome erre then such a particular Congregation as here I am speaking of But suppose it were so as hee doth affirme and I will not deny it onely as I said I doubt of it yet I doe not see what great matter hee can gaine thereby for the furthering of his purpose that there must be liberty of Appeales from particular Congregations unto Classes and Synods as unto higher Courts For if this be the reason 〈◊〉

whereas in the place we have been speaking of he saith Antioch the greater part of them being against the truth did lose their jus their right to determine for which as wee have heard he gives this reason because Christ hath given no right and power to determine against the truth but for it yet now wee see he grants distinction between ability and right and saith a Presbyteriall Church may still retaine this latter of their right even then when they want the other of ability Which two sayings whether they do perfectly agree and whether in the latter of them he do not plainly come up to us against whom he hath been disputing in the former I leaue it to the wise in heart and especially to himselfe to consider For for my part I must confesse that these two sayings A Presbyteriall Church as Antioch may have right jus to judge a point to the judging whereof they may want ability and Antioch a Presbyteriall Church wanting ability did thereby lose their right or jus to determine the point these two I say are such sayings as are not easie for me to reconcile Lastly if it be said our Brother doth not deny unto Antioch or a Church in error all power simply to determine but only to determine tali mode that is to determine against the truth for his words are they lose their jus their right eatenus in so far I answer he hath such a word indeed as eatenus in so farre but if any shall say he meant no more in this dispute but only that such a Church hath no right to determine against the truth I conceive that he that shall so say shall therein impute some fault unto our Brother even the fault of wresting Mr. Tompsons Tenent and mine and suggesting against us unto his Reader as if we had held such a thing as we never wrote nor thought For it is plain that our Brother in his Pag. 424. is disputing against us For he saith that we teach the Church of Antioch had jus power to judge and determine the controversie but because of the difficulty had not light to judge thereof And sets down Master Tompsons name and mine as the men that so teach in Answer Page 42. And a few lines after he saith I thinke the Brethren erre in this to teach that Antioch had power to determine the Controversie Act. 15. And then hee gives two reasons for the contrary So that it is manifest that he intends this dispute against us Now what have we said in this matter Have we delivered any such thing that Antioch had right to determine against the truth Let the Answer be viewed in the place which he alledgeth viz. Page 42. And I am sure no such grosse Tenent will be there found no nor any where else in our writing That which we have said is this that Antioch had right to have determined the matter if ability had served thereto but for right to determine against the truth we never spake one word that soundeth that way Our Brother therefore intending this dispute against us and plainly expressing so much and our Tenent being no other then as I have said it must therefore needs follow that his intendment is that Antioch had no right to determine that matter But for right to determine against the truth he cannot confute such a Tenent as ours we never having delivered any such thing but he must withall be culpable of manifest mistaking and mis-reporting of us to the World and we are and must be slow to believe that a man of such worth would willingly do us such wrong It remains therefore that right to determine and not right to determine against the truth is the thing which he oppos●t● as ours and therefore it is that in this sence and meaning I have here applyed my answer The 〈…〉 thus much That Antioch had right to determine against the 〈…〉 that may soone be con●uted but the Tenent is none of ours That 〈…〉 to determine is indeed our Tenent and whether this be con●uted 〈…〉 let the wise and Iudicious consider CHAP. IX Whether the Congregationall way or the Presbyteriall doe make the Gospell more difficultive then the Law Of Excommunication by a Church that hath only three Elders and of doing things sudainly IN the latter end of his Page 424 meaning Mr T●mpson and me and alledging Page 17 18. of the Answer He writes that we say our opposites do much Judaize in that they multiply appeales upon appeales from a Congregation to a Classis then to a Synod then to a Nationall Assembly then to an Oec●●●●nicke Councell and this way while the world endureth causes are never determined and Synods cannot alwayes be had even as in Ierusalem the supreame Iudicature was farre remote from all Proselites as from the Eunuch of Ethiopia Act. 8. And from the remote●● parts of the Holy Land but God hath provided better for us in the new Testament where every Congregation which is at hand may decide the Controversie And then Page 425. He subjoyneth his Answer Answ Though I deny not but some of the things here alledged are written by us in the Pa●●● nam●d yet that they are written for the purpose which our Brother expresseth viz. To shew that our Brethren of the opposite judgement do much Iudaize that I do utterly deny For the places being viewed will plainly witnesse that wee bring the things alledged for another end viz. To shew whether the way that is called Independencie do make the people as some have thought of it more defective and improvident then their Law For this being objected against that way wee in answer thereto do shew by sundry particulars that it is not that way that is justly culpable in this respect but the way of our Brethren of the other Iudgement one way on the one side making the state of Christians in these dayes in some things equall to the Iewes and in other things more excellent and on the other side the way of our Brethren making our condition in many things more defective then was the condition of the Iewes So that not Iudayzing but making our condition more defective then the Iewes is the thing which we here note in the Doctrine of our Brethren Nor do I see how our Brother in his Answer doth free their Doctrine and way from being justly culpable in this respect If we had intended the thing which he reporteth we would never have used such a reason as he truly report● us to use viz. That by appeales upon appeales causes according to our Brethrens way may be so protracted as never to be determined nor ended For this reason hath neither strength nor colour of strength for such a purpose as he saith we bring it for inasmuch as it is well known that the Iewes had a supreame Iudicatory for the finall ending of causes among them And therefore to say that our Brethren do Iudaize and then to give that for a