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
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
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
place for it is said that when the Apostles were dismissed from the Councill with threatnings they went unto their own company and reported what the chiefe Priests and Elders had said unto them vers. 23. And when they heard that they lifted up their voyce in prayer to God with one accord vers. 24. And when they had prayed the place was shaken where they were assembled together vers. 31. By which it is plain that all this company whether they were in all 5000. or if you will have it so 5000. besides the former number and so in all 8120. yet still they were all assembled in one place And when after this beleevers were more added to the Lord multitudes both of men and women Acts 5. 14. yet all that time they were all with one accord in Salomons Porch vers. 12. which shewes they were not yet so many but all did meet together in one Congregation Furthermore when after this the number of Disciples in Jerusalem was more multiplied Acts 6. 1. yet the Apostle called the multitude of them together to propose unto them the choyce of Deacons vers. 2. and the matter being commended to them by the Apostles it is said the saying pleased the whole multitude and they chose seven who are there named vers. 5. which shewes that the whole multitude was not so many but they might assemble and come together in one place to heare matters proposed and to make election of Officers After this indeed this Church at Jerusalem were all scattered by persecution except the Apostles Acts 8. 1. But when a Church was gathered again by the Apostles Ministery that Church even all the multitude of them as well as the Apostles and Elders did all assemble and meet together with one accord in one congregation about the businesse of the controversie that arose at Antioch so it is plainly said Acts 15. That Paul and Barnabas comming from Antioch were received of the Church at Jerusalem and of the Apostles and Elders vers. 4. And it pleased the Apostles and Elders with the whole Church to send messengers to Antioch vers. 22. and to that Church letters are written from the Apostles and Elders and Brethren vers. 23. being all assembled with one accord verse 25. which plainly shewes that the Church at Jerusalem at this time did not consist of Apostles and Elders alone as a representative Church but of others also who are expresly distinguished from those officers and yet all this Church did assemble with one accord in one place Lastly for that place 21. where you say It is plain that when the Church met collectively it was in the Presbyters and Elders And that in this Church at Jerusalem the collective meetings were representative in their Elders The answer is That wee deny not but Elders may meet apart from the multitude if there be occasion and so much may be proved from verse 18. where it is said Paul went in unto James and all the Elders were present but this is nothing to the point in hand That the Church at Jerusalem was so numerous that all the members could not meet in one but in severall congregations Nay that very place though it speak of many thousand Jewes that did beleeve verse 20. yet as it doth not say that all these were of that one Church at Jerusalem so there are good Divines that doe think they were not but if they were it nothing prejudiceth our cause in this matter for when James and the Elders speaking to Paul of the Jewes doe tell him the multitude must needs come together for they will heare that thou art come verse 22. It appeares thereby that their multitude was not such but they might all assemble and come together If any say How can these things be that so many thousands as were members of the Church at Jerusalem should all yet be but one Congregation besides what hath been said to shew that thus it was such an one may consider further that many thousands yea Miriads were gathered together Luke 12. 12. and Christ spake unto them all though unto his Disciples first verse 1 14 15 54. and that Parishes in England in or about London and else-where as Stepney Giles Sepulchres and others have many thousand inhabitants in them all members of one Parishionall Church and yet all but one Congregation And that of Chrysostome on Matth. 24. who as Mr. Bayn reports Dioe Triall pag. 16. did esteem the company that heard his voice in one congregation to be about 5000. persons and that by means of Scaffolds and Galleries a man lifting up his voyce may so speak as to be heard of thousands at a time All which being considered doe make it lesse incredible that the Church at Jerusalem consisting of such a great multitude yet for all that might bee no more but one ordinarie Congregation Next for the Church at Rome in the Apostles time stiled every where in that Epistle by the name of Church not Churches pag. 13. Answ. We suppose it is a plain mistake that the Church at Rome is every where in that Epistle stiled by the name of a Church For ought we remember in that Epistle it is never so stiled at all and yet we deny not but it was a Church and one Church But say you can it be thought that the faith and obedience of a Church in such a citie could be famous throughout all the world as the Apostle speaks Rom. 1. 8. 16. 19. and yet but one single independent congregation Answ. We know nothing to the contrary but it might be so For the Church at Thessalonica was but one congregation and yet from them sounded out the word of the Lord not only in Macedonia and Achaia but also in every place their faith to God-ward was spread abroad 1 Thess. 1. 8. And there might be other means to make their faith famous as well as plurality of congregations as the resort and confluence of people of all sorts and nations to the place where this Church dwelt Rome being the Seat of the Empire and the Lady of Kingdomes at that time Also the good will of the godly the malice of the wicked the newfanglednesse of most would open the mouthes of many to talke of the faith and profession of the Christian Romans though they were no more but one congregation Those very persons and families named in the Apostles salutations of that Church even those choycer families were able to fill severall congregations Answ. We dare not say so for there is not named above 30. in all Sure if 30. families fill severall congregations then those congregations must be very small ones Tertullian tells us that in his time the citie was at least halfe Christian And Cornelius tells us that besides himselfe there were in that Church 45. Presbyters Answ. But the question being whether many Congregations be frequently called in Scripture by the name of a Church these testimonies being not from Scripture doe not suit the
the government of Synods nor that many Congregations are in Scripture usually called by the name of a Church and this being alreadie performed in that which we have answered we therefore now proceed to consider of your third Argument CHAP. IIII. Containing an Answer to your third Argument from Acts 15. IF that all ancient and modern Writers of all sorts excepting onely some few of these last fiftie yeers engaged by their own tenet of independency have with one voice concluded this Chapter a formall president for Synods would weigh any thing herein the matter would soon be at an end but however the â—ext it self is so pregnant of this truth that it hath of it self strength enough to deliver it self of it Here 's all that goes to the making up of a compleat Synod First here 's the occasion Secondly here 's a designation both of the Commissioners and place Thirdly here 's the matter of a Synod Fourthly here 's the form of a Synod Fifthly here 's the end of a Synod Lastly here 's the proper effect of a Synod pag. 19. If all this were granted yet the thing in difference as your self have stated the Question in pa. 2 3 4. of your book is not concluded thereby For all this that is here said goeth no further but onely to shew that there ought to be Synods whereas the question is about the power of Synods and how far the same doth reach whether so far as that a Synod onely and not a particular congregation ought to ordain officers and excommunicate offenders and between these two is a wide difference so that many a man may acknowledge the former which is all that is here concluded and yet not acknowledge the latter which is the maine point which should have been cleared For our parts we deny not but there ought to be Synods and your Argument concludes no more yea your self do testifie pag. 2. that those whom you deal against do acknowledge as much in effect as here by you is concluded for there you say that they acknowledge that neighbour Churches may meet consult and advise c. and if they acknowledge all this then they acknowledge a use of Synods because these things we suppose cannot be done by many Churches at once unlesse it be by their messengers and Deputies assembled together which Assembly is no other then a Synod Wherefore sith no more is here concluded then is by the Independents parties as you call them acknowledged we need not insist long in giving answer to this Argument We will therefore onely briefly mention some grounds that incline us to think that this Assembly in Act. 15. was a Synod and then give some annotations upon some few passages in your Discourse about this place and so proceed to the next Argument Touching the former when we say this meeting in Act. 15. was a Synod we mean at least such an one as Mr. Parker Pol. Eccl. lib. 2. c. 23. Sect. 1. understands it to be viz. a consociation or combination of more Churches then one even of two at least Or as Doctor Whitakar who counts it neither a generall Councill nor yet a Nationall or Provinciall but a particular Councill as he cals it lesse then either of the other de Concil. Q. 1. c. 2. And that matters were carried in it in way of an ordinarie Synod may appear by two things 1 The persons imployed in it which were not onely the Apostles those extraordinarie Officers but also the ordinarie Elders and brethren of Jerusalem Ver. 6 22 23. And besides Paul and Barnabas certain others that were sent with them from Antioch v. 2. Secondly the meanes used for clearing the controversie then in hand was not the Apostolicall Authoritie nor any extra ordinarie revelation vouchsafed to the Apostles and such extra ordinarie persons there is not a word mentioned of any such thing but the means they used was the same that is common to ordinarie Synods viz. much disputation v. 7. Peter's experience of Gods blessing upon his Ministerie to Cornelius and his companie v. 7. And the like is done by Paul and Barnabas for their part ver. 12. And as for James he alledgeth the testimonie of the Prophet Amos v. 15 16. and the Law of Moses read and preached in the Synagogues everie Sabbath day v. 21. Now all these means being no other but such as may be used in ordinarie Synods therefore we see no other but this meeting might be such an one Here is a designation say you of the Commissioners and place p. 19. Answ. But these Commissioners and this place were designed onely by them of Antioch v. 2. which shews that this meeting was not of any more but two Churches Antioch and Jerusalem For if there had been more how came it to passe that onely they of Antioch determine the place Reason would have required that if there had been others they also should have had a voice in determining the place of meeting Here is the matter of a Synod not onely Apostles but Elders and of severall Churches pag. 20. Answ. True but these Churches are not mentioned to be any other but onely Antioch and Jerusalem Both thus meeting to determine so great a matter consequently all matter of jurisdiction is not confined to one single Congregation pag. 20. Answ. The matter determined was a matter of doctrine viz. whether Circumcision was necessarie to salvation v. 1. and there fore no matter of jurisdiction unlesse jurisdiction and Doctrine be the same And though they that taught this Doctrine if they perfisted pertinaciously therein deserved to be censured as you do truly alledge from Tit. 3. 10. Reject an heretick the dispencing of which censure is a matter of jurisdiction Yet for ought that doth appear to the contrary both these Churches might concur to clear up the doctrine and yet one onely even that congregation whereof the offenders were properly members might dispence the censure that was due for their pertinacious defence of such Doctrine The concurrence of both to clear up the Doctrine doth argue want of light in the one but neverthelesse there might be entirenesse of jurisdiction in each But if Churches had then been independent Antioch had undertaken and been able her selfe sufficiently and finally to have judged the cause and prevented the danger Answ. Antioch did undertake to have ended the matter among themselves and spent much time about it before there was any speech of seeking out for help elsewhere as appears vers. 2. and this doth sufficiently declare it that they were not necessarily dependant upon any other Church or Churches but had right to have ended the matter within themselves if ability had served thereto or else this undertaking of theirs had been sinfull as being an attempting to doe that whereto they had no right And though by reason of much dissention among themselves they were forced to seek for help for ending the cause this may argue want of ability and light but