A REPLY TO Mr. Rutherfurd, OR, A defence of the Answer to Reverend Mr. Herles Book against the Independency of Churches.  
Wherein 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 Book Entitled The Due Right of Presbyters, are examined and removed, and the Answer justified and cleared.  
By RICHARD MA●HER Teacher to the Church at Dorchester in New ENGLAND. 1646.  
LONDON, Printed for J. Rothwell, and H. Allen at the Sun and Fountain in Paul's Churchyard, and the Crown in Popes-head Alley, 1647,   

The Author's Preface to the Reader.  
Christian Reader,  
HAving published some years ago, a small Treatise, in way of a brotherly Answer to reverend Master Herle; I now present unto thy view a defence thereof against such objections and answers as have been returned to sundry passages therein, by reverend and learned Master Rutherfurd. In which undertaking it hath been far from my intention to increase or uphold the differences that have appeared of late years in England amongst the servants of the Lord, about matters of Church government. For I had much rather bring Prayers and tears for the quenching of such fires, than fuel or oil for the increasing thereof: neither shall the same I hope, be any thing at all increased by what here I present now thy view. At the least this I may say, that I intended no such thing but the contrary, even the promoting of truth and peace, if it were the will of God so to bless my desires and endeavours. True it is, I have taken the liberty to consider and try some things delivered by that reverend brother whom here I have to do withal, but this I trust cannot be justly offensive, in as much as the Spirit of the Prophets is Subject to the Prophets, 1 Cor. 14. 32. and the doctrine of the Apostle himself was examined by those noble Bereans, whom the holy Ghost commendeth for searching the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so Act. 17. 11. It is also true which our reverend brother saith in his Epistle to the Reader, before his Peaceable Plea, that there is great cause of sorrow that all the Lords people should not mind one thing, and sing one song, and join in one against the Children of Babel. Nevertheless, this may be some comfort against this sorrow, that by the providence of the Lord this diversity of opinions and disputes, if it be Christianly carried as it may, may occasion and produce in the issue the further clearing up of truth. For as our author well observeth, from the Collision of opinions resulteth truth: and disputes as stricken flints cast fire for light. Due Right of Presbyt. Epistle to the Reader. The desire and hope whereof, together with the advice of such brethren as I consulted withal, was that which chiefly prevailed with me for the publishing of this reply, wherein the reader will find sundry Scriptures and questions controverted in these times, discussed and considered so far as the nature of a Reply or defence did lead thereto; and I hope some or other through God's blessing may receive some profit thereby. And if the humble Christian who desires to know, and love and practise the truth, shall receive any benefit or help for attaining these ends by means of this labour of mine, it is that which I intended and aimed at, and for which I desire that God alone may have the praise and glory. If any shall still remain otherwise minded; yet in due time I hope God shall reveal even this unto them. In the mean time, diversity of apprehensions in these points ought not to bred any alienation of affection amongst those that are otherwise Orthodox, and sincere. It were a thousand pities, if it should. For my part, I cannot but approve what this reverend brother sometime professeth, that he doth both love and dispute, contradict and reverence at once: Peaceable Plea: Epist. Yea, he counts himself a debtor for love, charity, honour and all due respect in Christ Jesus, and a seat and lodging in his heart and highest esteem to all those that be godly, lovers of the truth, and sufferers for the truth against Prelacy, though possibly they like not well of Presbyterial government: ibid. In answer whereto (for I would be loath that such love should be lost upon us, without due return of the like) I would for my part profess the like dear and due respect to all those that are qualifyed as here he doth describe (of which sort I know there are many) though possibly they may like better of the way that is called Presbyterial, then of the congregational. For those that give apparent Testimonies that they are the Lord's, and so that they must live together in heavens, I know not why they should not love one another on earth, what ever differences of apprehensions may for the present be found amongst them in some things. As for bitterness of spirit and tartness of contests, I never thought that to be God's way of promoting truth amongst brethren, and therefore I have endeavoured in this discourse to avoid the same. For I believe there is more hope of doing good by solidity of argument with a spirit of meekness and love, then by sharp and tart language, the fruit of bitterness of spirit, wherein for the most part right of reason is wanting, the passions being there most vehement and stirring, where the intellectuals are most ●eeble and weak.  
Now if any ask why this defence hath been so long deferred, it being now two years and more since Master Rutherfurd his due right of Presbyt. came forth, such may be pleased to consider that New England being as 'tis counted 3000 miles distant from old; therefore many Books may be extant in England a long time afore we that are so remote can so much as hear any sound thereof: and those few that come to our knowledge, are commonly extant in England a matter of a years space afore, and sometimes longer. In which respect many things may be spoken and Printed against us, whereto it cannot be expected that we should return any speedy Answer. And though it be now twelve months ago or more since Master Rutherfurd his due right of Presbyt. came to my hands, yet at that time my few spare hours from my constant and ordinary employments were wholly taken up otherwise, so that I could not attend this business any sooner: which I desire may be accepted as a just apology for the late coming forth of this Reply; which as it may seem late, so it is more large then in some respect I could have desired, by reason that I do usually transcribe those words of Master Rutherfurd, whereto I d●e apply my Answer; which course I confess I did not unwillingly (in some respects) choose, partly to save the Reader a labour of turning to the place in Master Rutherfurd which I am speaking too; which else he must have done, or have taken things upon my report upon trust; and partly that my candid and fair dealing with the Author, whom I have to do withal might the better appear. For when a man's words are not kept, but forsaken, and others substituted in their place, his mind and meaning may soon be mistaken, and represented amiss unto the Reader. Which is a practice that I have often seen, but never approved; and therefore I have not used it. For I would be loath to wrong any man; specially a man of such worth as I take Master Rutherfurd to be, by imputing to him what he doth not teach nor deliver: and for this cause it is that I have usually transcribed and expressed his own words; and by this means my book is grown to the greater bulk.  
One thing more I would advertise the Reader of, and then I shall quickly have done: the figures from 185 and so forward, noting the number of the Pages in Master Rutherfurd his Treatise, are set down twice therein, once in their proper place, and again after the page 484. Wherefore if any of these pages be quoted in this Reply, as some of them are, if the thing that is alleged be not found in the page that is named, look for it in the other place of the book where are the same figures, and there you may find it.  
Courteous Reader, study the truth in a way of Piety and peace: Be zealous for it, but lose not love to the Saints: beware, when the world is filled with disputes about discipline, that thou be not drawn only to erroneous opinions in main matters of doctrine. Be sure to practise and express the power of Godliness in humility of mind, mortification of thy own corruption, faith in the Lord Jesus, and love to all his redeemed; and be not by any means drawn away from these things, which do so mainly conduce to thy salvation. Finally as the Holy Ghost saith, Phil. 4. 8, 9 whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are lovely, pure, and of good report, if there be any virtue, if there be any praise, think on these things, and do them; and the God of peace shall be with thee. Improve I pray such interest as thou hast in God through the mediator, by affording the help of thy Prayers for me, who am  
Truly desirous of thy 
 Salvation, 
 R. M. Decemb. 10. 1646.   

A Table of the Contents of the ensuing Treatise.  

Chap. 1. OF Appeals from particular Congregations, and the true cause of Appeals, and whether by Mr Rutherford his doctrine in this point there must not be appeals to General Counsels, whose power of jurisdiction he doth not yet deny. page. 2.  
Chap. 2. Of the power of Synods to give advite and Counsel, and whether from thence it doth follow that they have no power to command. page. 11.  
Chap. 3. Of the Assembly, Acts. 15. whether they did exercise any power of jurisdiction, against the obtruders of Circumcision, and whether their rebuking of them does argue the Affirmative. page. 15.  
Chap. 4. Of the Dogmatic power of Synods: And of the power of Congregations to determine matters amongst themselves, if ability serve thereto. page. 21.  
Chap. 5. Again of that Assembly Acts. 15. whether their rebuking the false teachers do prove a power of jurisdiction and excommunication in Synods: and whether preaching do prove the Assembly where it is, to be a Church. page. 24.  
Chap. 6. Whether the power of Synods be a power of jurisdiction; and of the dependence of the Synagogues upon the Synedrion at jerusalem. page. 30.  
Chap. 7. Whether the lawfulness or necessity of Appeals do prove a superiority of jurisdiction in Synods over Congregations, and of sundry sayings of our Author which seem to interfere. page. 39  
Chap. 8. Whether Antioch Acts. 15. had right to have ended the controversy amongst themselves, if they had been able, and whether their sending to Jerusalem for help, or their knowledge that other Churches were troubled with the like evil, or the party among themselves who were against the truth, do prove the contrary. And of Supremacy of power in Congregations. page. 49.  
Chap. 9 Whether the congregational way or the Presbyterial do make the Gospel more defective, than the Law of Excommunication by a Church that hath only three Elders, and of doing things suddenly. page. 66.  
Chap. 10. Whether the necessity of discipline be greater than of Sacraments: and whether a Congregation that hath neighbours may not exercise entireness of jurisdiction, as well as one that hath none; and whether a man may take on him the whole Minestry, having no outward calling thereto; and may not as well take on him one act of baptising or ministering the Lords Supper. page. 75.  
Chap. 11. Whether the power of jurisdiction flowing immediately from the essence of a Church, do not agree to a Church that hath neighbours, as well as to a Church that hath none; and whether otherwise neighbouring Churches be not a loss. And whether pretence of maladministration be a sufficient reason for neighbouring Churches to deprive a Congregation of its power. page. 93  
Chap. 12. Whether it be against the light of nature that the adverse party be judge, and whether Mr Rutherford can safely say that none of them do so teach; and whether this saying, that parties may not be judges, do make against entireness of power in a Congregation, any more than in a General or national Council. page. 104.  
Chap. 13. Whether the Churches at Thessalonica and Jerusalem, were each of them more than one Congregation, and of Mr. Baynes his judgement therein. Of the Assembly mentioned Luke. 12. and whether our Saviour did there speak to his Disciples only, or to all the people also. page. 112.  
Chap. 14. Whether the Church at Corinth was one Church meeting distributively in sundry Congregations, or whether it was only one Congregation. And whether 1 Cor. 14. 23. If the whole Church come together in some place, etc. do make for sundry Congregations or for one only. page. 123.  
Chap. 15. Whether the Church at Ephesus were more in number then Corinth and Jerusalem; and the judgement of Mr Baynes whether that Church was many Congregations or one only. page. 137.  
Chap. 16. Whether the Church at Antioch was only one Congregation: and whether Acts. 14. 27. and 15. 30. do not prove the affirmative. page. 140.  
Chap. 17. Whether or no liberties are given by Christ to the people, but women must exercise the same as well as men. And of the people's liberty about ordination, or the calling of Ministers. page. 146.  
Chap. 18. Of Mr rutherford's report of Synodical propositions in New-England. page. 151.  
Chap. 19 Of the Appeals of Luther and Cranmer, and of the power of jurisdiction in general Counsels denied by Mr. Rutherford; whether therein be do not contradict himself, and also overthrow the jurisdiction of Classical, Provincial, and national Assemblies. page. 153.  
Chap. 20. If it were granted that the light of nature teacheth all societies to end in Monarchies, whether would it not follow that the Government of Churches must so end, as well as that Congregations must depend on the Government of Synods, because the light of nature teacheth a communion in government to other societies. And whether the multitude of Grecians and Hebrews, who ch●se the seven Deacons Acts. 6. were two Congregations, or one only. page. 159.  
Chap. 21. Whether Congregations may be excommunicated by Classes and Synods, by virtue of those words▪ Mat. 18. Tell the Church, as containing a rule and remedy for all offences, or at the least a Church remedy for the offences of Churches and Church members. And if yea, whether it would not thereupon follow, that a national Church must have the benefit of this remedy as well as others; and so have no independency of jurisdiction within itself, but be subject to the jurisdiction of General Counsels, which yet Mr. Rutherford doth deny. page. 164.  
Chap. 22. When the supreme Magistrate is a professed enemy to Religion, whether then it be likely and usual, that the greater part of the people are sincerely religious, and whether when the greater part are enemies with their Magistrates, it be then the duty of a few that are sincere, to assemble in a national Synod, and there to enter into a national Covenant, and also to enjoin the same unto that greater part. page. 170.  
Chap. 23. Whether the word Church be not given to a single Congregation: and whether a Congregation be a company or Church-meeting only for word and Sacraments, and not for any other spiritual duties: and whether the divers duties, 1. of word and sacraments, 2. of discipline, etc. must needs argue divers Churches. page. 175.  
Chap. 24 Whether those children of Israel Numb. 8. 10. who laid hands on the Levites were Elders by office, and as so considered did lay on their hands. And whether this Scripture do not prove, that where there are no Elders to be had, there some principal members though no Elders by office, may impose hands on Church-Officers. page. 180  
Chap. 25. Whether a Ministers calling consist in election or imposition of hands, and whether of these is greater, and whether is prior or posterior. Whether 1 Tim. 4. 14. Acts. 6 2, 3, 4. Acts. 13. 1, 2, 3. do prove that the Ministers calling consists in imposition of hands by the Presbeterie, and that such imposition of hands is not a consummatory rite or benedictory sign. Also whether Rom. 10. 15. do prove that a man cannot be a Minister, except some Presbytery ordain him before the people choose him, and whether otherwise the people do send a Minister to themselves. And whether the people of God may not as well discern a man's fitness to be ordained, as his fitness to be elected. page. 196.  
Chap. 26. Whether the Epistles to Timothy and Titus wherein there are contained rules of direction in laying on of hands, do prove that this action may not in any case be performed by Non-officers, but must be performed only by Presbyteries; and whether the argument do not make as strongly for the appropriating of laying on of hands to the Prelates, as to the Presbyteries, and do not as well exclude the Presbyteries from meddling therein, as exclude the people. page. 206.    

To the Christian Reader.  
IN the year 1643. there came forth a Treatise against Independency, under the name of my Reverend and learned Brother Mr. Charles Herle, the Pastor of Winwick in Lancashire. This Treatise, because it seemed to be written with such a Candid and peaceable spirit as might witness for its Author that the thing he aimed at therein was merely the disquisition of the Truth; and because the Author thereof was many years ago of my Reverend brother Mr. Tompsons' acquaintance and mine; therefore we thought it might not be in vain if we should lovingly communicate to the learned Author such apprehensions of ours, whereby we were detained from concurring with his judgement in the principal Question disputed in the said Treatise. And therefore in the latter end of the same year, there came forth a small Script under our Name in way of a brotherly Answer to that his loving and learned Treatise. Against this Answer Mr. Samuel Rutherford a learned writer of the Church of Scotland, hath alleged and published many Objections. Exceptions, and Answers, in his Book entitled The due right of Presbyteries: I may call them many, because in that Treatise of his there are no less than 24 or 25 several places, wherein he bring up by name the said Answer, disputing against sundry passages therein as if they were not sound; which passages if they be indeed erroneous and unsound, are a great many to be contained and found in so small a Work the whole Book as it is now printed containing in it 30. leaves: So that the leaves in the Book are not much more than the places therein which this learned Writer doth object against; which being considered, I thought it therefore needful to peruse and weigh as the Lord should help, the several places of his forementioned Treatise, wherein he deals against the said Answer: And having so done, I here present my apprehensions to public view, leaving the Prudent and judicious Reader to consider and judge; whether this Reverend and learned Brother have sufficiently overthrown or weakened the said Answer, or whether the same do not still remain agreeable to the rule of Truth, notwithstanding his Objections against the same, or such Answers as he doth return to several passages therein.  

CHAP. I.  
Of Appeals from particular Congregations and the true cause of Appeals; and whether by Mr. Rutherford his doctrine in this point there may not be Appeals to general Councils, whose power of jurisdiction he doth yet deny.  
FIrst of all in his Page 315. (for that is the first place wherein I find him meddling with the Answer) speaking of doubts concerning Math. 18. 17. Tell the Church; In a 9. th' Objection about that Scripture, besides other particulars he hath these words, viz. There is no reason to appeal to a higher judicature because the inferior may err, because all above a Congregation are Courts which may err; Presbyteries Provincial, national, the universal Council of the Catholic Church may err: And then for author of this part of the Objection he subjoineth my Name, and Answer to Mr. Herle, Cap. 2. pag. 13, 14.  
Answ. When he is discoursing of doubts concerning that Scripture, Math 18. Tell the Church, I know no reason why he should bring those words of mine at such a time or for such a purpose. For though I do acknowledge that I wrote the words which he hath set down or such like, in the place by him alleged; yet that they were brought by me for such purpose as he doth report (viz. For the clearing of Doubts concerning the meaning of Math. 18 17.) that I do utterly deny. He that shall look upon the Chapter and Pages alleged, will find that I do not there meddle at all with that Scripture, either for one purpose or another; and therefore cannot be truly said to have used the words alleged, in way of clearing Doubts concerning the same. And albeit in another place, (cap. 3. pag. 22. et sequ.) I do purposely speak to that Scripture; yet in that place there is no mention at all of the words by him alleged 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 he hath spoken are taken and applied to such a purpose, for which he did never bring them nor intent them.  
But to let this pass, let us hear what our Reverend Author saith against the words alleged, in his Answer.  
The cause of Appeals, saith he, is not because inferior judicatures may err, for so we might appeal from all judicatures, even from a general Council, for it may err, Pag. 315. lin. ult.  
Answ. Is not this the very same that was said in the Answer, Pag. 13, 14. The pages which he here undertakes to answer, is it not there said; As for Classicaticall Provincial, and national 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 independent, but there may be Appeals from them, the Synods being subject to the like, there may be liberty of Appeals from them also—. For as the Congregations may be partial and err, so we suppose it will not be denied but the Classis may err, the Provincial Synod may err, the national may err, yea general Councils may err; and so by this reason not Synods nor general Councils may have entireness of Jurisdiction, but there may be liberty of Appeals 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 plain Confession or affirmation of his own, that the thing is even so as was affirmed by us before. Now why he should make a show of taking away or weakening that which we had said, and then in stead of accomplishing what he undertakes, to do no more but only to say the same thing again which we had said before, what reason I say he had for this I know not; but plain it is that for the particular in hand, the Answer which he pretends to weaken, is not yet weakened at all, but rather strengthened and confirmed by his apparent yielding the Cause, and affirming the same that was before affirmed by us.  
But saith he Pag. 316. The true cause (viz. of Appealing to higher Courts) is, 1. Because they do not so frequently err. 2. They are not so inclined and disposed to err; for many eyes see more than one, and do more seldom miscarry in taking up the right Object: 3. Because we conceive more equality and less partiality in higher Courts.  
Answ. These three Reasons seem much what the same, or to hang one upon another; for therefore they do more seldom err because they are not so disposed and inclined to err, and they are not so inclined because they are more in number, and because there is in them more equality and less partiality: So that upon the matter it is but one reason, viz. because though they may err, 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 entireness of jurisdiction 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 do more seldom err then the Presbyteries of Congregations: And the reason of the doubt is; because the Promise of the presence of Ch●●st is not made merely to multitude or greatness of number; but if they be but two or three gathered together in his Name, his Promise is that he 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 Presbytery being so gathered, though they be a lesser number than Synods and Counsels; yet be 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 Counsellors there is safety: nor do I doubt but Synods and Council● gathered together in the Name of Christ, may expect the per●●●●ance of this Promise of our Saviour's presence: But the thing I doubt of is this, whether a congregational Church of Saints, furnished with an able and faithful Presbytery (for of such only do I speak) may not by virtue of this Promise be as frequently preserved fro● Error as those greater Assemblies of Synods and Councils, Posito that the Synods and Councils did as frequently come together as the Congregation doth: For otherwise I grant, the Synods meeting more seldom may err more seldom: but let the Comparison be equal in respect of the time of Assembling and coming together, and then I doubt whether Synods 〈◊〉 preserved from Error any oftener than the forementioned lesser Assemblies.  
It is well known what N●zianzen said of Synods or Councils in his time, viz. That he had never seen good and happy end of any of them, and that evils were not so much redressed as increased thereby. Epist. ad Procop●um, Quae Est numere 42. Refer. 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 Emperor was averse from the Truth, Heretics much prevailed and Corruptions greatly increased; and this might make the good man something more to dislike all Councils then there was cause. Nevertheless his words do apparently witness, that in his time Synods and Councils did not seldom err but very often; so that he for his part had never seen good that had come by any of them. Then which saying I suppose one would not speak more hardly of a particular Congregation and its Presbytery; 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 do Rariùs erra●●, more seldom err then such a particular Congregation as here I am speaking of.  
But suppose it were so as he doth affirm (and I will not deny it, only as I said I doubt of it) yet I do not see what great matter he can gain thereby for the furthering of his purpose, that there must be liberty of Appeals from particular Congregations unto Classes and Synods, as unto higher Courts. For if this be the reason 〈◊〉 such Appeals, because such Assemblies do more seldom err, because many eyes do see more, and do more seldom miscarry in taking up the right object; Then it will follow that the greatest Assemblies, in as much as they have the most eyes, do of all others most seldom err, and so to them there must be the most Appeals. For the learned Author well knows, à quatenùs ad Omni● valet consequentia. And so by this means the true cause and reason of Appeals lying (according to Mr. Rutherford his apprehension) in the rareness and seldomness of erring in such Assemblies to whom appeals are made, and the cause of this seldomness of Erring lying in the multitude and great number of eyes in such Assemblies, it must needs thereupon follow, that Universal or general Councils as having in them the most eyes, are the Assemblies that do most seldom err, and so un●o them there must be most Appeals. Which if it be granted, the Classical, 〈◊〉, and national Synods, are all by this means deprived and stri●t of 〈◊〉 of ●●●●diction as well as the particular Congregations, the Synods by 〈◊〉 to general Councils, as to those that do ra●iùs c●rare, aswell as the 〈…〉 appeals unto the Synods: And so thera must be no entireness of 〈…〉 only in the general Councils, but from all other Synods there must 〈◊〉 liberty of Appeals, aswell as from the Congregation. This Consequence for aught I see doth unavoidably follow upon that which Mr. Rutherford lay undowne as the cause of Appealing from a particular Congregation: and so ou● Brethren by this means have spun a fine thread, drawing forth a Conclusion which is every what as prejudicial to their own Cause as to ours.  
If any ask why may not this Consequence be owned? Why may we not say, there must be liberty of Appeals from all Synods and Presbyteries, except only the general Council? The Answer is, th●t we may not so say; because then Causes would be too long depending a●ore they could come to issue, yea perhaps would never come to issue as long as this world shall endure: For by this Rule they may by Appeals upon appeals be protracted until they be brought to a general Council to be determined there. Now as there hath not been any such Council for many Ages bypast, so it is very uncertain when there will be one assembled, whether ever or never whilst this world stands. But we think Christ Jesus hath provided better for his Church then so, and hath not appointed such a necessity of Appeals upon appeals, but that Causes may be determined afore any general Council can be assembled.  
Besides, if such Assemblies might be frequently attained, yet it is not yet cleared, that when they are assembled they have any power of jurisdiction at all; but only a Doctrinal power to clear up the Rule, the power of jurisdiction remaining in some other Assembly. Sure it is, Mr. Rutherford thus teacheth expressly, for his words are these; Verily I profess I cannot see what power of Jurisdiction to Censure scandals can be in a general Council; there may be some merely Doctrinal power if such a Council could be had, and that is all. Due Right, etc. pag. 482. and in the end of the same Page and beginning of the next, speaking of those words, Math. 18. Tell the Church, he saith thus; Because ordinary Communion faileth when you go higher than a national Church, and Christ's way supposeth an ordinary Communion—; therefore I deny that this remedy is needful in any Church above a national Church. By which sayings it appeareth, that he counts Christ's remedy to Censure Scandals not needful in a general Council, yea and he seriously professeth, that he cannot see that such a Council if it could be had, hath any power of jurisdiction at all to censure Scandals. Which being so, it must needs follow, that Scandals must be censured, and Causes ended somewhere else, afore they can come 〈◊〉 such end to a general Council. And if this be so, then how can that stand which here he affirmeth, that the true cause of Appealing to Synods in this; because they do rariùs errare, more seldom Err, than the particular Congregation, and having many eyes do more seldom miscarry in taking up the right object: For this Cause is most properly appliable to the general Council, unto whom notwithstanding he denies any power of jurisdiction to censure Scandals; and if they h●ve no such Power, there can be no Appeals to them for such purpose and end.  
And how these things can stand together, That the true cause of Appeals to such or such Assemlies doth he in this, that they do more seldom err as having many eyes, and yet that to general Councils there should be no Appeals at all, as having no power of jurisdiction, though of all others this Cause be most properly ●ound in them, I for my part do confess I do not understand.  
If any shall say, that as Mr. Ruthe●ford doth make that which I have mentioned the true cause of Appeals, so he doth also hold a Power of jurisdiction even in general Councils; and shall therefore doubt whether I do truly report him 〈◊〉 touch the contrary, I would wish no more favour of such a one but to peruse the places which I have here above alleged, and then I hope he will ●nd the words to be no otherwise, but as I have set them down.  
I know indeed there are some places in him which do look another way; as that where he saith, It is by accident and not through want of inuat● and intrinsecall power, that the Court of a Catholic Council can not in an ordinary and constant way exercise that Power which now we are speaking of Due Right, page 308. And a little after he saith, He seeth nothing to prove that a general Council hath not power to Excommunicate a national Church. Yea and further, that if there were a general Council at this d●y, they might lawfully in a juridical way (so are his words) do that to the faction of Romish pretended Catholics; which he saith, is Excommunication in the essence and substance of th● Act. And in the Page next ensuing he saith, This of our Saviour, Tell the Church, is necessarily to be applied to all Churches and Courts of Christ, even to a Catholic Council. These Places I confess do seem to me not very well to agree with the either afore alleged: For in the one he plainly affirms, there is in general Councils power of jurisdiction to censure Scandals, and in the other he doth as plainly deny the same. But it is the former places and not these latter which I do stand upon; in which former as I conceive him to hold the truth, so for aught I see, that which he saith in this place we have in hand about the true cause of Appealing from Congregations to Synods is much infirmed thereby. For how can that be taken to be the true cause of Appeals, which is most properly found in such Assemblies (I me●ne in general Councils) unto whom as having no Power of jurisdiction, there must be no appeals at all?  
To conclude this Chapter: When we do inquire about Power of appealing, and unto what Courts appeals must be brought, our way is not to seek for such ●ourts as cannot Err, for such we shall never find; nor for such as we think will more seldom err, as Mr. Rutherford would have it; for that Rule is also subject to much uncertainty and exception, as hath been already declared. But the best way is to inquire where the Lord JESUS hath placed the Power of the last and final censuring and determining of Causes, and when that is found therewith to rest contented. And as for Synods and Councils, it is neither their not Erring, nor their seldom erring that can be a sufficient argument to place the Power of jurisdiction in them; unless the Lord jesus had so appointed and ordained, which yet doth not appear.  
And so much for this first place, wherein our Brother deals against the Answer.   

CHAP. II.  
Of the Power of Synods to give advice and Counsel, and whether from thence it doth follow, that they have no power to Command.  
THe next place wherein I find this learned Author dealing with the Answer, is in his Page 381. Where having in the Close of a 4. th' Objection in the precedent Page brought in these words, viz. A Synod in dogmatic Power ariseth no higher than this (viz. a man, or a single Congregation) as that a divine Institution doth fall upon it. Amongst other things in his Answer to the Objection he saith thus, viz. I would know if a Synods dogmatic Power be above the power of single Congregations; I think saith he, it is not by our brethren's tenants; for they say expressly that every particular Church hath right, jus, to decide Dogmatic points: This right the Church of Antioch had (Act. 15) an● laboured to end that Controversy within herself, which showeth that they had Right an● Power: but they had not Ability; and therefore in that case they seek for Counsel, light, and advise from other Churches—. And then amongst other places for Proof that this is our Tenent, he allegeth in his margin my Name and Mr. Tompson● in the Answer to Mr. Herle, Chap. 2. and after the words above rehearsed and some others to the like purpose, he inferreth thus: Hence saith he, the power of Synods is only by way of Counsel and advise.  
Answ. To omit (at least for this time) the other Places alleged in his margin, and not to examine how far his Answer reacheth to satisfy the Objection, as himself hath propounded it; I will only consider of such things as do directly Concern the answer, for that is the scope ●ayme at, and I endeavour to keep close thereto.  
First therefore I have this to say, That for the Dogmatic power of Synods above Congregations, for the Right and Power of the Church of Antioch in particular, and for the Power of Synods to be only by way of Counsel and advise, there is not in the Chapter alleged so much as one word about any one of those 〈◊〉 either one way or another; so that I cannot but marvel why this reverend Brother should allege that Chapter for such a purpose.  
2. Although in another place of the Answer, viz. Page 4●. there be words to the like purpose with those which our Author here sets down concerning Antioch, yet for the Conclusion and consequence which he would thence infer, viz. That the power of Synods is only by way of Counsel and advice, as there is nothing said ● the Chapter by him alleged that looks that way, so there is nothing in the Page or Chapter where A●tioch is spoken of, nor any where else in all th● Book 〈◊〉 as I do remember, that can any way serve for the proving of such a Conclusion and tenant to be ours. The Author allegeth no place that hath such a conclusion in it, either in direct words or by just consequence: and I profess that for my part I do not know of any such.  
3. But this I do know that the direct contrary to what here is expressed is plainly to be found in another place of the said answer, viz. Pag. 7. where there are these words, viz. If a Synod may b● 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, than they (viz. the Independants as they are called) do admit a Synod to be a governing Church, for the Power here mentioned they do allow unto Synods. Now the Power here mentioned being, as we see, not only a Power by disputation to clear up the Rule, but also a Power to Command obedience thereto, they allowing this power unto Synods as they do exprestly say that they do; I know not why our Brother should say, that they allow unto Synods only a Power of Counsel and advice. For power to Command Obedience, and power only by way of Counsel and advice, I suppose are not the same; and if they be not, I know not how this report in this particular can be made good. To me it seems apparent and undeniable, that they who have Power to Command Obedience, have more then only a Power to counsel and advise; and they who have only this latter have no Power of the ●orme● at all. Even interiours, as Naaman's servants, 2 King. 5. have power to counsel and advise their Master, and yet I hope they had no Power to Command their Master to yield Obedience.  
4 Suppose it be true (which I deny not) that the Answer in another place, (●hough not in the place by him alleged) doth say, that A●tioch had right to have ended the matter amongst themselves, if ability had served thereto, and that by reason of Distension and through want of Light they were forced to send out to ●●rusalem for help, must it needs follow thereupon that his assembly at jerusalem had no more Power but only by way of Counsel and advise? (which is the Conclusion which he endeavours to draw ●●om that which is said concerning Antioch) I ●●●ceive there is no necessity at all of such a consequence.  
For whence must the same 〈◊〉 I suppose from one of these two, either from this, that Antioch is supposed and said to have had Right within herself, or else from this that Jerusalem gives Counsel and advise. Any other colour for concluding such a Conseptionce as is in question, the Answer affords none that I know of. 〈◊〉 for these two Particulars here mentioned, they are both insufficient for such 〈◊〉 purpose.  
For what should hinder but there be more Power in the Synod of ●erusalem towards them of Antioch then only by way of counsel and advise, even power to command them to do what is their duty, though Antioch have right to end the matter themselves, if ability serves thereto? Doth right in one Person or Assembly to end their ma●●ers if they be able, extempt them from being under the command of others? Hoshoulders have right to govern and order their families, if so be that they be able: doth it follow therefore that Superiors in Church or civil state have no power to command householders to do their duty herein, but only to give counsel and advise? Or if housholdere have such right, doth it follow that therefore they are under no command, in Church and Commonwealth? I suppose it will not follow at all. Or shall we say, that Classes and Provincial Synods have no right to end their own matters within themselves, if a national Synod have power to command them? Or if they have such right, shall we therefore say they are not under the command of the national Synod, and that the national Synod hath no power over them but only by way of Counsel and advise? We suppose Master Rutherford will not say so: and yet he might as well say it, as say as he he doth, that because Antioch hath right to ●nd her own matter if they be able, therefore a Synod hath no power but only by way of Counsel and advise.  
And though the Synod is to give Counsel and advise (which was the other ground whereon the conclusier afore mentioned seems to be built) yet neither will Master Rutherford his conclus●on, that the power of Synods is only by way of Counsel and advise, follow from thence at all. For who knoweth not that. Counsel and advise may be administered and given by them, who have also power to command? Not every one indeed as may advise and Counsel, may forth with command and enjoin: Nevertheless, Counsel and Command are not so repugnant, but that they who may Command, may also advise. Paul had power to Command and enjoin Phyl●mon to do what was convenient, and yet for love's sake would rather beseech him, Philem. 8. 9 The Lord jesus to doubt hath absolute authority to Command, and yet we find him sometimes speaking to the Sons of men by way of Counsel or advise. Revel. 3. ●8. I Counsel thee to buy of me Gold, that thou mayest he rich, etc. shall we now infer from hence, that the power of the Lord jesus is only by way of Counsel and advise, and that his power cannot amount to the nature of a Command? I suppose we would be afraid and abhor to deduce such a consequence. And therefore, though a Synod may advise, yet their power to Command (which is more than mere Counsel and advise) is not from thence concluded to be Null. And so much for Master Rutherford his second place, wherein he deals against the answer.   

CHAP. III.  
Of the Assembly, Act. 15. Whether they did exercise any power of jurisdiction against the obtruders of Circumcision, and whether their rebuking of them do argue the Affirmative.  
IN his page 388. He lays down this as a 2d. Object. viz. That there is no censuring of persons for Scandals, and that meeting, Act, 15. Because there is nothing there but a Doctrinal declaration of the falsehood of their opinion who taught the necessity of Circumcision: and that all is done by way of Doctrine and by power of the Keys of knowledge, not of jurisdiction, is clear from the end of the meeting, which was verse 2 & 6. To consider of that Question: Consideration of Questions being the end of the Synod, is a thing belonging to Doctrinal Power merely. And then he subjoineth my name, and in the Margin allegeth the answer, chap. 1. page 8.  
Ans. Whereto I first of all return this answer. First, that the thing here in Question being about the power of that meeting Acts 15. There is nothing in the place alleged by Master Rutherford that can warrant him to frame such an Objection under Master Tompsons' name and mine, as proceeding from us: And the reason is, because that meeting Acts 15, is not mentioned at all in the place by him alleged, neither for that purpose which he sets down, nor for any other; much loss is the Objection ours in Terminis. Now to frame an Objection, and to allege chapter and page for proof that the Objection is ours, when as neither page nor chapter aleadged do speak any thing at all of that matter, what reason can be given for this I know not.  
Nevertheless, because the matter contained in the Objection doth not much differ from my apprehension and judgement, and something in the answer elsewhere may possibly intimate such a thing, though but briefly touched, I will therefore consider of what he saith for removing the Objection as himself hath propounded the same.  
It is false, saith he, that there is no censuring of persons here, for— it is more than evident that the public Synodical censure of rebuke is put upon those who held and urged the necessity of Circumcision, and why not Excommunication also in case of obstinacy? For the Synodical censure of a public Synodical rebuke is only gradually different, not specifically from excommunication, & both must proceed from ou● & the same power. So then the sum is, the Synod had power of rebuking, and therefore of Excommunication also.  
Answ. The Consequence is not clear, for who knoweth not that there may be power to rebuke, where there is no power of Excommunication? Is it not the express Law of God, that every man shall plainly rebuke his Neighbour and not suffer sin upon him, Levit. 19 17? And are not our 〈◊〉 words as plain, if thy brother trespasle against thee rebuke him, and if he repent forgive him, Luke 17. 3? Whereby it is evident that one particular person hath power by the Law of God and Christ to put a rebuke upon another, if there be occasion for it. But will it follow hereupon that one particular Christian hath power to Excommunicate another in case of Obstinacy? I suppose Master Rutherford will not say so; and yet unless this be said, I know not how his Consequence can be made good, that if a Synod may rebuke, they may Excommunicate also. I know indeed he saith, the Synodical rebuke is only gradually different from Excommunication, and not specifically, and that both must proceed from one and the same Power. But this would require some proof, and should not nakedly be affirmed without any proof at all. For of itself it is not evident, that where ●ver there is power to rebuke, there is power of Excommunication also. The contrary I suppose is evident from that which hath already been said from Levit. 19 17. and Luke 17. 3. and from many other Scriptures, and reasons, which show that one man alone hath power to rebuke, who cannot for that be concluded to have any power of Excommunication. I know the learned m●n is copious in proving from the words of verse 24. Certain men went from us, and have troubled you with words, subverting your Souls, etc. That this Assembly doth not only in a Doctrinal way confute the false opinion and Doctrine of these teachers of Circumcision, but doth also rebuke them for another fault, to wit; their obtruding their false way upon the Souls and Consciences of others, and for their wilful and obstinate upholding that opinion and raising a Schism in the Church. But if all this were granted his purpose were not gained thereby, unless he would prove that which he doth but only affirm, to wit, That a Synodical rebuke is not specifically different but only gradually from Excommunication, and that both must proceed from the same power, which ye● he hath not proved at all.  
But saith he, I argue thus: If the Apostles do not only in a Doctrinal way refute a false Doctrine in this Synod, but also in Church way and by a Juridical power do rebuke and Synodically charge the Authors as subverters of Souls, and Liars, than they do not only use a mere Doctrinal power in this Synod, but also a Juridical power: but the former is true: Ergo, so is the latter.  
Answ. With favour of so learned a man, I think this kind of arguing is but a begging of the thing in question, and a proving of Idem per Idem. For if the Synod did not only in a Doctrinal way refute a false Doctrine, but also by a juridical power rebuke the Authors of it, than it must needs be true indeed that they did not only use a Doctrinal power, but also a juridical power; that is, If they did so, they did so: if they did use such power, they did use it. But there still lies the question, whether they did so or no: and whether they did use such power or not, and this kind of arguing doth not clear it all. If we on the contrary should argue thus, if this Assembly did not put forth any power of jurisdiction or Discipline, but only in a Doctrinal way con●ute a false Doctrine and rebuke the Authors of it, than they did only put forth a Doctrinal power, and not any power of jurisdiction, one of far less abilities than our learned Author, would soon espy the looseness of such reasoning: at least himself, we doubt not, would soon espy it, for sometimes we hear him say, friend your Logic is naught, page 177. And yet (be it spoke without offence) the Logic which himself doth here use is not so good, as to be altogether without fault, no not for the form of it; and therefore, we do not see how any thing can be concluded thereby.  
But to leave this mistake, and to consider of the matter itself. If it were granted that this Assembly doth not only in a Doctrinal way confute a false Doctrine, but also rebuke the Authors thereof, must it needs follow that this rebuking was done in a juridical way? Is there no rebuking of offenders for their faults, but only in a way of ●●●●ction and Discipline? I suppose much needs not to be said for the clearing the truth to be otherwise. For Master Rutherford himself confesses Page 394. That there is great odds to do one and the same action materially, and to do the same formally: and Page 393. That one Apostle might himself alone have rebuked these obtruders of Circumcision. Which being so, it followeth thereupon that though this Synod (to call it so) Act. 15. Had a Doctrinal power, yea and a power of rebuking these false teachers; yet the thing that he from thence would infer, viz. Their power of rebuking in a juridical way, and their power of Excommunication, these are neither of them proved thereby.  
For if it should be said, that though rebuking do not always imply juridical power, yet if it be a Synod that doth rebuke, than the power here spoken of may be concluded thence to be in a Synod. The Answer is, that this will not help at all, because this is nothing but the bringing in of another Efficient, viz. The Synod, for effecting or acting the same effect. Now Master Rutherford confesseth pag. 393. That he doth not fetch the specification of this rebuke and of those Decrees from the efficient causes; and gives that for his reason, which to me is unanswerable, to wit, because one Apostle might himself alone have rebuked these obtruders of Circumcision: And in the page next ensuing he confesseth also, that actions have not by good Logic their total specification from the efficient cause. Which being so, then though it were granted that any Synod may, and that this Synod did perform this action of rebuking, yet the thing in question, to wit, that the power of a Synod is a power of jurisdiction and of Excommunication is not at all gained thereby.  
At the least wise (to end this passage) this I may say, that if this Reverend Brother will be true to his own Principles, and not gainsay what himself hath already written, he for his part cannot conclude the Synods power to Excommunicate from this argument of their power to rebuke, nor yet from any other argument whatsoever: and the reason is, because he doth elsewhere confess that Synods are not to Excommunicate any, and not this Synod in particular to Excommunicate these false teachers, but to remit the censuring of them to other Churches, Commanding them to do it. His words as they are to be seen in his Page 413. are these, viz. I could easily yield that there is no necessity of the Elicit acts of many parts of government, such as Excommunication, Ordination, admitting of Heathens, professing the Faith to Church-membership, in Synods Provincicall, national or Ecumenical; but that Synods in the ease of neglect of Presbyterycall Churches, Command these particular Churches whom it concerneth to do their duty: and in this sense Act. 15. Is to remit the censure of Excommunication to the Presbytery of Antioch and jerusalem, in case of the obstinacy of these obtruders of Circumcision. In which words we have two things concerning Excommunication (to omit other particulars) first, that there is no necessity that Synods should Excommunicate any, but only command the Churches to do their duty therein. Secondly, in particular concerning that Synod Acts 15. That they were to remit the censure of Excommunication to the Presbyteries of Antioch and Jerusalem, in case of the obstinacy of these obtruders or Circumcision. Which particulars being most true (as I for my part so esteem of them) it follows thereupon, that what Master Rutherford saith in this place we have now in hand, is greatly weakened thereby. For how both these can stand together, that this Synod should have power not only to rebuke, but to Excommunicate these false teachers, and yet neither Provincial, national, nor Ecumenical Synods to Excommunicate any, nor this Synod in particular to Excommunicate these false teachers, but to remit the censure to other Churches to whom it concerned, commanding them to do it, how these things I say can stand together, I for my part am not able to understand.   

CHAP. FOUR  
Of the Dogmatic power of Synods, and of the power of Congregations to determine matters amongst themselves if ability serve thereto.  
IN his Page 396. alleging Mr. Tompsons' name and mine, and chap. 1. page 9 of the Answer. He saith we there teach that there is a power of clearing truth dogmatically, & that ultimately where the controversy is ended: but he saith, we will have this ultimate power not in a Synod only, but also in a Congregation; and then no answereth three things which there ensue.  
Answ. Our words are these, by power of Decrees we understand power to clear up the truth Dogmatically; for the word translated Decrees is Dogmata in the Original, Act. 16. 4. And this power we confess is in a Synod, though not all in a Synod alone, but also in the Presbytery of a single Congregation. Now these bring our words, if therefore this Reverend Brother would overthrow our Tenent in this particular, he should have proved that there is not any power as all in the Presbytery of a single Congregation to clear up the truth Dogmatically: this indeed had been directly contrary to what we teach: But this be neither proveth, nor once attempteth to prove; and therefore our Tenent herein doth yet stand good, for any thing he hath said to the contrary.  
And no marvel, si●h the express words of the text do witness that every Bishop hath power and is boand by his Office and duty, by sound Doctrine both to exhort and convince gainsayets, Tit. 1. 9 And accordingly the Presbytery of Antioch did labour to clear up the truth in that controversy about Circumcision; and had much disputation about it amongst themselves, afore there was any speech of sending to Jerusalem for help, Act. 15. 2. Which showeth that they had power or right to have cleared the matter amongst themselves, if ability had served, or else this endeavour had been sinful as being an attempting to do that whereto they had no right. So that for aught we yet so, the power that we speak of, and which we hold to be in the Presbytery of a Congregation is there indeed by the appointment of the Lord.  
But let us hear Master rutherford's Answer.  
First, saith he, they seem to make this Dogmatic power a Church power, and the exercise thereof formally an act of Church government; and so it must be Church power and Church government in the Synod, as well as in the Congregation.  
Answ. Whence doth it seem that we do so make it? Are there any such words as here he sets down? Or any words equivalent thereto? Or doth the place make any mention of Church-power, and Church government at all? Or is there so much as one word that looketh that way? If there be, let our Brother say that we seem to ●each as he doth report; but if there be not, we are sorry he should report us to teach o● seem to teach, that which to our remembrance we never said nor thought. And sure it is, we have expressly said the direct contrary in page 7, the Page next save one afore this which here he is dealing against, where we have these words, It seemeth to us (say we) that this power, viz. By disquisition and disputation to clear up the rule (and then to command Obedience thereto) 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. These are our words in the Page afore alleged; wherein we plainly express what the power of Synods seemeth unto us to be, even the direct contrary to that which he saith we seem to make it; we on the one side affirming and expressing, that it seems to us, the power of a Synod is no power of government and jurisdiction, but a power of Doctrine: And he on the other side reporting that we seem to make the exercise of Dogmatic power to be formally an act of Church-government, and so to place Church-government in the Synod. In which report we must needs say, we are plainly misreported.  
His second answer is this. The last period and Conclusion of the controversy cannot be both in the Congregation by right only, and in the Synod by right only: For two last powers cannot be properly in two Subordinate judicatures.  
Answ. This is very true, but it toucheth not us at all. For we never said the last period of the controversy is both in the Congregation only, and in the Synod only. If we have so said, let the place be produced where we have said it; for the place by him alleged doth afford us no such thing, nor any place else that we know of. All that the place affords concerning this point is only this, that there is a power of clearing the truth Dogmatically in a Synod, though not in a Synod only, but also in the Presbytery of a single Congregation. And this Doctrine I hope our Brother will not deny. But whether this power be last in the Synod, or in the congregational Presbytery, of this we do not speaks at all; much less do we say as he doth apprehend and report, that this power is both last in the Synod and last in the Congregation too. Wherefore our defence in this particular must needs be this; that what here he confuteth to be outs, is such a thing as never fell from our mouths or pens, nor for aught we know did never enter into our thoughts.  
Thirdly, he saith. If a controversy concern many Congregations as this doth Act. 15. I see not how a Congregation except they transgress their line, can finally determine it.  
Answ. Neither doth this touch us, except we had said that a Congregation may finally determine controversies which concern many Churches, which yet we have not said. As for that controversy Act. 15. It is plain from verse 2, that Antioch did endeavour to have ended it amongst themselves, so far as they were troubled therewith. For some teaching that corrupt Doctrine amongst them, they had much disputation about the point afore they determined to send out for help elsewhere. Now to what end was thus much disputation, if they had no right to determine the matter? might they not better have spared their pains? Or did they not transgress their line in attempting what they did attempt? Sure it seems they did, if they had not right to determine the matter. But for our part, sith we do not find them in the least reproved by the Holy Ghost for this attempt, therefore we cannot but think they did well therein. And thereupon it followeth, that if Antioch was a congregational Church (as it seems to us it was, from Act. 14. 27.) either this controversy did trouble no Church but Antioch only, or else when a controversy or corrupt opinion doth trouble many Churches, one of them may lawfully determine and end it, so far at it concerns themselves.   

CHAP. V.  
Again of that Assembly, Act. 15. Whether their rebuking the false teachers do prove a power of jurisdiction and Excommunication in Synods: and whether Preaching do prove the Assembly where it is, to be a Church.  
THe new place where I find him excepting against the Answer, it in his Pag. 410. Where he proposeth an Object. to this effect, to wit. Paul exercised the Keys of knowledge upon Barbarians, and might have Preached to Indians, and did to scoffing Athenians— yea Paul by this power Dogmatic rebuked the Athenians, Act. 17. 22. Yet Paul had no power to Excommunicate the Athenians. And then he subjoineth my name, and citys in the Margin the 43, and 44 pages of the Answer.  
Answ. This Objection being taken from Paul's rebuking the Athenians, our Brother had no reason to propose it under Mr. Tompsons' 〈◊〉 and mine, for as much as in all that discourse of ours, the Athenians to my remembrance are not so much as once mentioned: sure in the Pages by him alleged there is no mention of the Athenians at all. And therefore why this Objection should be proposed and reported by him as ours, we do not know. Which I do not say, 〈◊〉 though I thought the objection so weak, as though the Authors of it may not well own it. For from whosoever the Objection came, for aught that I yet perceive there is good weight therein. For which cause, and because in one of those Pages we have delivered something concerning a Minister's power to Preach to Pagans in general, (though nothing concerning the Athenians in particular, as he reporteth) therefore I am willing to consider what Mr. Rutherfor● saith, for the satisfying of the objection proposed, as not willing to pass by any thing without consideration, wherein ourselves may seem to be concerned or aimed at  
I deny not saith he, but there is a great odds betwixt a concional rebuking by way of Preaching, which may be and is always performed by one, and a juridical rebuking by a power Jurididicall of the Keys, which is performed only by a Church society.  
Answ. If all this were granted, you the Objection is not satisfied, nor his purpose gained thereby. For the clearing whereof it is good to consider the thing in Question, and how this Objection comes in, and whereto it tends, and then we may better discern how the objection is removed by Mr. rutherford's answer: The thing in question is, whether a Synod have power of jurisidiction and Excommunication. Mr. Rutherford his scope in that place is to prove the Affirmative; and therefore for a dozen or 14 Pages together, he hath these words in the top of every lease, The power of a Synod a power of Jurisdiction: and his medium to prove this Tenent is this; Because a Synod hath Power to rebuke. Whereupon ensueth the Objection, that Paul might rebuke the Athenians and yet might not Excommunicate them; and therefore enough a Synod may rebuke, it follows not that they may Excommunicate. This is the order of the Dispute, as is plainly to be seem by p●●●sing the place. And now comes in the Answer which Mr. Rutherford gives to the objection; to wit, That there is a great odds betwixt a concional rebuking and a Juridical, the one being performed by one, and the other by many; Which Answer I conceive is not sufficient, because this Difference may he granted and many more may be added if he please, and yet the thing in question not gained, nor the Objection removed at all. For what though a concional rebuking be performed by one, and a juridical by many? Yet still it remaineth clear, that there may be rebuking where there is no jurisdiction; and therefore, though a Synod may rebuke, it follows not that they may Excommunicate, nor have power of jurisdiction. If our Brother would have satisfied the Objection, he should not have satisfied himself with alleging the difference mentioned between a concional rebuking, and a juridical or Synodical; but should have proved that there cannot be any concional rebuking at all, at least wise not any rebuking of Athenians who are not subject to Excommunication, and if this had been proved, the Objection had been fully removed. But this he hath not proved at all, nor once attempted to prove it, but plainly yields the contrary; and therefore for aught I see the Objection remaineth in its strength, and so the strength of his argument removed thereby, who would prove the Synod, power of jurisdiction from their power of rebuking.  
But let as hear what he answereth in the words ensuing.  
It cannot be denied saith he, but the rebuking of men because they subverted Souls, verse 24. Is not a mere concional rebuking which may be performed by one. First, it is a rebuking verse 24. Second, it is a rebuking performed by many, by a whole Synod, 6. 22. Third, it is performed by a political Society.  
Answ, And what of all this? May it not nevertheless be denied that this rebuking was any other then in a Doctrinal way? Be it granted, that it was a rebuking, and a rebuking performed by many; and if were granted by a Political Society too; must it needs follow that therefore it was juridical, or in way of jurisdiction? I see no necessity of such Consequence. Nay, Master Rutherford himself doth confess (as we heard afore) in his Page 393. That the specification of this rebuke must not be fetched from the efficient causes, because one Apostle might himself alone have rebuked these obtruders of Circumcision. If therefore it were granted that many persons, a whole Synod, a Political Society, or what ever else he will call them, were the efficient causes of this rebuke, yet all this is too little to prove that the rebuke was juridical, unless the specification of it must be fetched from the efficient causes, which Master Rutherford himself disclaims.  
Moreover, I would put this Case: suppose a Pagan or a Christian of another Nation and Kingdom, shall come into a Church Assembly, whether the Assembly be a congregational Church, or a Synod; and in the Assembly shall openly and Scandalously misbehave himself in one kind or other, to the dishonour of God, and grieving of the godly, and the danger of corrupting others that shall behold such bad example. I would gladly know whether this Assembly be it Synod or other, may not lawfully rebuke this Scandalous practice and behaviour, and if they may, whether it would follow thereupon that they may also lawfully Excommunicate the man, if his sin and impenitency shall deserve the same. If it be said they may, I would know: quo jure? And who gave them such Authority to Excommunicate Pagans, or men of another Nation, being only there present at that time occasionally? And if they may not so proceed against such a person, than the answer to Master rutherford's alledgements in the Case we have in hand, is ready and plain: For as he allegeth, First, here is a rebuking. Second, a rebuking of many, even a whole Synod. Third, of a Political Society and Body; even so the same may be said in this Case in all the particulars; For first, here is a rebuking. Second, rebuking of many. Third, by a Political Society and body: and yet all this is too little to prove a power of jurisdiction and Excommunication in the case proposed; and therefore I see not how it can be sufficient to prove such a power in a Synod, for which purpose Master Rutherford brings it. Of necessity for aught that I see, one of these must be said, either that this Assembly have no power to rebuke the man, but must suffer his sin to be upon him, though God be dishonoured, and others endangered thereby; or else it must be said they have power to Excommunicate him as well as to rebuke him; (neither of which I conceive can safely be said) or if neither of these can be said, it must then follow that their may be power to rebuke, even in an Assembly of many persons, a Political Society; and yet the same Assembly have no power at all to Excommunicate the persons so rebuked, and so this learned Brothers arguing is answered.  
Likewise, I suppose it will not be denied, but one Congregation if need so require, may rebuke and reprove another Congregation, though neither of them be Superior to other, but both of them equal and Independent of each other in regard of subjection, Mr. Rutherf. confesseth, p. 294. That Congregations and Churches may admonish and rebuke each other, And sure it is, that Scripture, Cant. 8. 8. We have a little sister, what shall we do for her? Doth show that Churches ought to take care one for the good of another. And if they must take care and consult for one another, there is the like reason that they should reprove and admonish one another, as need shall require. Now when one Church doth so practise towards another, it cannot be denied, but here are the same things which Mr. Rutherford speaks of, First, a Rebuking Second, a rebuking performed by many. Third, a rebuking performed by a Political Society and Body. But can any man infer from hence, that the Church thus rebuking another Church hath power to Excommunicate that other Church? I suppose none will affirm it. And if this may not be affirmed, I do not see how rebuking performed by many even by a whole Synod, can be any sufficient ground to prove that the Synod hath power to Excommunicate.  
The Apostles and Elders (saith our Author) are not considered here as merely Preachers and teachers in the act of teaching; for why then should they not be formally a Church Assembly, if they be an Assembly meeting for Preaching the word? Pag. 411. 412.  
Answ. When the text Acts 15, doth mention sometimes the Multitude, verse 12. Sometimes the Brethren, verse 23. Sometimes the whole Church, verse 22. Besides the Apostles and Elders, we know no absurdity in it, if one should say, here was formally a Church and a Church Assembly; in which Church-assembly the Apostles and Elders were teachers and Preachers, though they alone were not the Church. Yet though we think here was a Church, and a Church-assembly; we do not think Mr. Rutherford reason doth prove them so to be. For Paul and S●las were Preachers of the word in the Prison at Philippi, Act 16. And at Mar●hill, and the Marketplace at Athens, Act. 17. And yet we think it hard to infer thence, that these Assemblies were formally Churches.  
Yea but saith our Author, the exercise of the Keys of knowledge in the hearing of a multitude, is essentially an act of Preaching of the Word, Page 412.  
Answ This is very true indeed, an act of Preaching the word it must needs be, the word Preaching being taken in its utmost Latitude. But is not avoidable and always a Church-act, or an act that infallibly proves the Assembly, where such an act is performed, to be formally a Church? This is the thing that should have been cleared, or else the thing is not cleared; But this our Reverend Author doth not clear at all; and the contrary is very plain from sundry instances in the Acts, where the Apostles did exercise the Key of knowledge in the hearing of multitudes in sundry places, where yet for all this there was not forthwith any Church; and therefore, whereas he saith, The Apostles and Elders are not considered in this Assembly as Preachers and teachers in the act of teaching, because then the Assembly should have been formally a Church, We rather think they that shall consider it will find that the Apostles did, and other Elders in these days may put forth the act of teaching and Preaching in some Assemblies (suppose Assemblies of Turks and Indians) and yet the Assemblies not thereby proved to be Churches.   

CHAP. VI  
Whether the power of Synods be a power of jurisdiction; and of the dependence of the Synagogues upon the Synedrion at Jerusalem.  
NExt of all, in his Page 414 in a 16. th' Objection in this and the former Page he saith thus, Therefore was the Synagogue of the Jews no complete Church, because all the Ordinances of God cannot be performed in the Synagogue: and therefore, were the Jews commanded only at jerusalem, and in no other place to keep the Passeover and to offer Offerings and Sacrifices which were ordinary worship: but there is not any worshipper Sacred Ordinance (saith that worthy Divine Dr. Ames) of Preaching, Praying, Sacraments, etc. prescribed, which is not to be observed in every Congregation of the new Testament,— and then he subjoineth Mr. Tompsons' Name and mine; and in his Margin citys the Answer, Page 12, 13. And further saith in the Objection, That others say because there was a representative worship of Sacrificing of all the twelve Tribes at jerusalem, therefore all the Synagogues were dependant Churches, and jerusalem the Supreme and highest Church.  
Answ. To leave what is alleged a● Objected by others, and to consider only of that which concerns ourselves. Because the Synagogues in Israel were dependant on the great Synedrion at jerusalem, therefore some would infer that Congregations in these days must be dependant on the jurisdiction of Synods. To this Argument we are endeavouring to give answer in the place alleged by Mr. Rutherford, where we show that the Synagogues might be dependant and not complete Churches, because the Sacred Ordinances of God which were of ordinary use, could not be performed in them; but Congregations in these days complete and entire as having liberty to enjoy the use of all the Ordinances within themselves: for both which particulars we allege the testimony and words of Dr. Ames. The sum is thus much: If the Synagogues could not enjoy all the Ordinances within themselves, and our Congregations may, then though the Synogogues were dependant on the Synedrion at Jerusalem, it will not follow that Congregations in these days must be dependant on Synods. This is the 〈◊〉 of that which is said in the answer: in the place which Mr. Rutherford alleges.  
Now what answer doth he return to this passage? Truly none at all that I can find. None will you say? How can that be? Doth he not propound it in his 16. th' Objection, as that which he undertakes to answer? I confess he doth so, but nevertheless all that he hath set down for answer is wholly taken up and spent in two other things, the Objection which he proposeth as ours, being wholly left untouched. Those two things are these; the one an answer to another passage of ours in another place of the answer, the other an answer to the last part of his Objection, which himself doth acknowledge to be the saying of others, and not ours; and therefore he brings it in thus viz. Others say, because there was a representative worship, etc. by those words, Others say, plainly declaring that what he thus expresseth, proceedeth not from us, but from others. And so though he return answer to this saying of others, and to another saying of ours which we have written elsewhore, yet for this of ours which he proposeth in this h●s Objection, I find no answer thereto at all. And therefore I think the thing remains as it was, unless we shall take his mere proposing of it for a satisfying answer, which we see no reason to do.  
Nevertheless, though he turns away from this passage of ours without returning any answer thereto, yet there is another which he applies himself more directly against, and therefore to this sixteenth Objection he begging his answer thus, Surely the aforesaid Reverend Brethren of New-England have these words, but it seemeth to us the power (of a Synod) 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: from whence (saith he) I infer, that our Brethren cannot deny a power of governing to a Synod, but it is not so proper governing as Excommunication and Ordination performed in their Congregations; but say I, it is more properly governing as to make Laws and rules of governing is a more Noble, Eminent and higher act of governing (as is evident in the King and his Parliament) than the execution of ●hese Laws and rules.  
Answ. So then, th●se former words of ours proposed in the Objection, are wholly forsaken and left, and instead of answering them, he falls as we set upon other words which we have written elsewhere, and applies himself to deal against those other. By which dealing the considerate Reader may judge whether the former words being thus handsomely forsaken and left, do not still remain in their strength: and whether it had not been as good never to have proposed them at all in his Objection, as having proposed them to turn away directly and immediately from them unto other matters, without returning one word of answer to the former. The wise in heart may consider what this doth import.  
But sich he is pleased to acquit the former and to apply himself to the other, let us therefore leave the former in its strength and unshaken, and consider of what he saith in this other.  
Wherein when he speaks of making Laws and rules of governing, either he me●nes this making Laws and rules properly so called, or else he means it only of a Ministerial power to clear up the Laws and rules of Christ, and in his name to command obedience thereto. And it seems by the instance which he gives of the King and his Parliament, that he intends the former sense. And if so, than the answer is that this Noble, Eminent, and high act of governing as he calls it, doth not belong to any Synods upon earth, but only to the Lord jesus Christ in Heaven, the Scriptures abundantly witnessing, that he only is the Lord and Law giver to his Church, L●●. 4. 12. Isa. 33. 22. For the clearing of which point, much needs not to be said, considering that this learned Brother himself doth elsewhere directly and in express terms co●fesse as much as we desire in this matter. For in one place speaking in one place of a Power to prescribe rules and Laws, he doth not only distinguish them from Laws properly so called by the word Directive, calling them directive Laws, but also for further explaining his Mind, annexeth these words. They are not properly Laws which the Church prescribeth: Christ is the only Lawgiver: Due Right, Page 395. And in the page following speaking of a Societies or a Synods power of making Laws, he addeth for explanation thus, I take not here Laws for Laws properly so called, but for Ministerial directories, having Ecclesiastical Authority. So then the Church or the Synod hath no power at all to make Laws properly so called, for Christ ●s the only Law giver: And if so, than the governing power of Synods which our brother would prove by this Noble and Eminent and high power of making Laws is not proved thereby at all, in as much as this Noble and eminent power of making Laws doth not belong to any Synods upon earth, but to Christ only. And this may be an Answer to what he saith or a Synods power to make Laws, it Laws be taken in their proper sense.  
But if he intent not this sense and meaning in the place we are speaking of, but only the latter, viz That Synods have power to clear up the Laws and rules of Christ, and to command obedience thereto, than I confess the answer in the 7. th' page thereof doth acknowledge such power to belong unto Synods, but how this can prove their Power of jurisdiction and government properly so called, which Mr. Rutherford would thence infer, we for our parts do not yet perceive. For the power here described is but a mere Doctrinal power, and we have given sundry instances in the Answer, Pag. 43. 44. To show that there may be a power by way of Doctrine to clear up the rules and Laws of Christ, and to command obedience thereto, where yet there is no power by way of jurisdiction and Discipline to punish the breach of those rules; which instance, this Reverend brother doth not satisfy at all. And therefore though Synods have power to clear up the rules and Laws of Christ, and to command obedience thereto (which power we deny them not) yet that which he from thence would infer, that they have also a power of government and jurisdiction, doth not follow from thence at all, unless we shall say, that Doctrine and Discipline, Doctrine and jurisdiction or government are the same.  
Briefly thus: a power of making Laws properly so called is a Noble and Eminent kind of government, but this power doth not belong unto Synods, but to Christ. A power of clearing up Christ's Laws, and commanding in his name obedience thereunto doth belong unto Synods, but this is no power of jurisdiction and government, but a Ministerial power of Doctrine, and so still our Tenent doth stand, that a Synod if it may be called a Church, is rather a teaching then a governing Church.  
Secondly, saith our Author, Our brethren incline to make a Synod a teaching Church.  
Answ. We never yet absolutely yielded that a Synod might be called a Church, 〈◊〉 on the contrary, We have said, that unless it could be proved that in Scripture the name of a Church is given to a Synod, we are not to be blamed though we give not a Synod that name. Answ. Pag. 1. The most that we have yielded in this point is this, that for the name we will not contend, and that if a Synod may be called a Church, then sith they have Power by disputation to clear up the rule, they are rather a Teaching then a governing Church. Answer Pag. 1. & 7. This is all we have said, and we desire our words may not be stretched beyond our intent and scope therein. But let us hear what our Brother would hence infer.  
I infer, saith he, that Synodical teaching by giving out Decrees, tying many Churches, as our brethren of New-England and the forenamed Authors teach, is an Ordinance of Christ, that can be performed in no single Congregation on earth, for a Doctrinal Cannon of one Congregation can lay any Ecclesiastical tye upon many Churches, Ergo by this reason our Congregations shall be dependant as were the Jewish Synagogues.  
Answ. When he saith the Brethren of New-England and the Authors of the Answer do teach a Synodical teaching by giving out Decrees tying many Churches, and aledgeth for proof in his Margin, Answ. 7. to 32. q. 9 14. page 43, 44. and Answer to Mr. Herle, Chap. 4. Pag. 40. 41 with favour of so learned a man, we must return this Answer, that neither of the palces alleged will make good his purpose, in as much as neither of them doth make any mention at all of the thing which he reports them to teach, viz. Such Synodical teaching as gives out Decrees tying many Churches. Let the places be viewed and the thing will be found as I say. And therefore how they can be said to teach that which they neither teach nor mention, doth surmount my ability to conceive. If the Reader would know what it is that is taught in the places, it is no more but this, that in some Cases it is requisite that Churches should seek for light and Counsel and advice from other Churches, as Antioch, did send unto jerusalem in a Question which they wanted ability to determine amongst themselves, and that there ought to be Synods, and that we think that meeting Act 15. might be such an one. The first of these is taught in the form●● of the places, and the other in the other. But for giving out Synodical Decrees tying many Churches, this same be it within the power of Synods or otherwise, is 〈◊〉 taught at all in either of the places, except we shall say (which we think were unreasonable) that there can be no Synods, nor consulting of other Churches for light and Counsel and advice, but there must be in those other Churches so consulted withal, a power to give out binding Decrees, yea Decrees that shall bind or tie many Churches. We think this latter doth no ways necessarily follow upon the former; and therefore though the places alleged do speak to the former, yet the latter which this Author reports them to teach, they do not teach at all.  
Secondly, I Answer further, that if such a Doctrine were indeed taught in the places by him alleged or any other, yet the inference which he would thence bring in, That then our Congregations shall be dependant as were the jewish Synagogues, Th●s same doth not follow at all: and the reason is, because the Synagogues were dependant on the Supreme Synedrion not only for light and Counsel, no nor only for Doctrinal Cannons or Decrees, but also for jurisdiction and Discipline, that Synodrion being their supreme Court, to whose sentence they were all bound under pain of Death to submit, as is clear, Deut. 17. 11, 12. And therefore if it were granted (which yet we do not see proved) that Synods may give out Decrees and Doctrinal Cannons, that shall tie many Churches, it doth not follow that our Congregations shall therefore be dependant as were the jewish Synagogues, except it were also proved that they must depend upon Synods in point of jurisdiction and Discipline, as well as in point of Doctrine, yea and so depend as that the sentence of those Synods must be obeyed under pain of death. Sure the Synagogues and every member of them were in this sort dependant upon the Supreme Synedrion: but we hope 〈◊〉 Reverend brother will not say that Congregations must in this sort be dependant upon Synods. At the least wise this we hope he will not deny, that every member of a Church is bound to depend upon the Pastor of that Church in point of Doctrine; and yet it will not follow that he must depend upon one Pastor alone in point of jurisdiction and Discipline. And the reason is, because Doctrine may be dispensed by one Pastor alone, but Discipline must be dispensed by a Church, which one Pastor alone cannot be. And therefore if Congregations were to be dependant upon Synods in point of Doctrine, it would not follow that they must be dependant in point of jurisdiction and Discipline.  
Thirdly, saith he, It is a begging of the question to make jerusalem the Supreme Church and the Synagogues dependant Churches; because it it was lawful only at jerusalem to Sacrifice; for I hold that jerusalem was a dependant Church no less than the smallest Synagogues in all their Trybes. And so he proceedeth largely, to show that sacrificing at jerusalem did not make jerusalem Supreme.  
Answ. It this were even so as is pleaded, yet that which we have said of the completeness of the Synagogues and of their dependency is not at all removed thereby: and the reason is, because we do not make the Synagogues dependant nor jerusalem supreme, merely upon this ground, because jerusalem alone was the place of Sacrificing, but this is the ground upon which chiefly we go, that at jerusalem was the Synedrion upon whom all Israel must depend for judgement, and from whose sentence there was no appeal, which ground we still think doth prove both the incomplearnesse of the Synagogues, and the supremacy of the Synedrion, and the contrary to this must be cleared if our Tenent in this matter be removed. True it is, we think it some argument of the Synagogues incompleteness and imperfection that they were not permitted to enjoy all the Ordinances which were of ordinary use: but the supremacy of jerusalem we do not place in this only, that there was the place for Sacrifice but in this withal that the supreme judicatory was there, upon which all Israel must depend, and from the which there must be no appeal. And yet this supremacy we do not place in jerusalem considered a part from the Synedrion, but in the Synedrion itself.  
And therefore, whereas he saith, Pag. 415. That we might as well conclude that all the Cities and Incorporations of England are dependant upon London, inasmuch as the Parliament useth there to sit, I conceive the comparison doth not suit, because as we do not place the supremacy in London or in Westminster, considered apart from the Parliament, but in the Parliament which useth there to sit, so we place not the supremacy amongst the jews in jerusalem considered apart from the Synedrion, but in the Synedrion itself, which was there seated. But because our Reverend brother in the latter end of this 16. th' Objection bringeth in this particular of jerusalem's supremacy by reason of the Sacrifices, with Others say, therefore I conceive he intends not us therein, but some body else, and therefore I will proceed to the next wherein ourselves are concerned.   

CHAP. VII.  
Whether the lawfulness or necessity of Appeals do prove a superiority of jurisdiction in Synods over Congregations, and of sundry sayings of our Author which seem to interfere.  
IN his page 422. he propounds a 19. th' Objection to this effect, If the Government of consociated Churches be warranted by the light of Nature, than this light of Nature being common to us in civil as in Ecclesiastical causes, it will follow that every City governed with rulers within itself▪ must be subordinate to a Class of many Cities, and that Class to a national meeting of all the Cities: and the national government to be a Catholic or Oecumenicke civil Court—. And because by the same light of Nature there must be some final and supreme judgement of controversies, lest Appeals should be spun out in infinitum, it must be proved that this supremacy lieth not in a Congregation. And in the Margin he citeth Mr. Tompson and myself in page 16 and page 10, of the Answer, as Authors of this last bassis in the O●ectjection.  
Answ. It is true that in one of those pages alleged we speak to the like purpose as here is reported. For we there suppose it to be clear by the light of Nature, that there must be some final and supreme judgement of Causes, and that unless it be determined where that supremacy doth lie, (which we account the very thing in question) we say the usefulness 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, because that there ought to be appeals till you come to the highest is one thing, and that a Synod and not a Congregation is the highest is another. To this purpose we have written in one of those Pages, the sum whereof is this much; that though the usefulness of Appeals till you come to the highest be granted, yet the supremacy of Synods over Congregations in matter of judicature is not concluded thereby.  
Now what doth our Reverend Brother return in his Answer? Doth he prove the contrary to what is here affirmed by us? Doth he clear it sufficiently, that if it be once granted that there must be Appeals till you come to the highest, than the supremacy of Synods over Congregations must inevitably follow? I conceive the necessity of this consequence had need to be cleared, if that which we have said be sufficiently answered. But doth our Brother clear this? Or doth he so much as once attempt the clearing thereof? Surely to speak freely what I find, I find nothing that looketh that way, and therefore cannot but wonder why our opinion should be alleged in this Objection, and so his Reader be led into expectation of some sufficient Answer thereto, and then the answer which he returns to be taken up in other matters, our opinion proposed in the Objection, being wholly in his Answer left untouched. If that saying of ours be not sound, why doth he not return some answer? If it be sound and good, why doth he make an Objection of it, and so breed an apprehension in weak Readers of its unsoundness, and put them in hope of a confutation, when no such thing is performed? I leave it to the wise in heart to consider what this doth argue.  
Nevertheless, let us consider of what he doth return for Answer, Page 423. First he saith, Appeals being warranted by the Counsel which jethro gave to Moses— cannot but be natural?  
Answ. Suppose this be so, what can there be concluded hence, that makes against us? cannot appeals be Natural, but the supremacy of Synods over Congregations must needs follow? If there must be an highest, must it needs be yielded that the Synod and not the Congregation is that highest? I conceive this needs not to be yielded at all, and therefore though Appeals be Natural, I see not what is gained thereby.  
Again, he saith, God hath appointed that the supremacy should lie within the bounds of every free Monarchy or State, so that there can be no Appeal to any Ecumenical or Catholic civil Church, for that is against the independent power that God hath given to States.  
Answ. Let this be granted also, and are we not still where we were before? Is there in this any thing at all that doth make for the removal of our opinion, as himself hath see it down in his Objection? We may truly say we see it not.  
No, nor in that which doth follow, viz. But in the Church it is far otherwise, for God hath apppointed no vissible Monarchy in his Church, nor no such independency of policy within a Congregation, Classical Provincial or national Church.  
Answ. For that which is said of a visible Monarchy in the Church, I confess it is true, God hath appointed none such. But for the rest, of these words, sith they contain an express denial of the supremacy of all Ecclesiastical judicatures, except it be the general Council, I would gladly know how our Tenent afore expressed is disproved, or how the necessity of that Consequence afore mentioned is at all cleared hereby. If there be no independency of policy in Congregations, nor yet in any Synods except it be the Ecumenical, doth this prove that the supremacy doth lie in Synods and not in the Congregation? Nothing less: for how can our Brother prove that it lies in the one and not in the other, by saying as here he doth, that indeed it lies in neither? Or how is that Consequence made good, that if there must be appeals till we come to the highest, than the Synod is the highest? How is this I say made good by affirming, that neither the Congregation nor the Synod is the highest? For my part I must confess it passeth my understanding to conceive, how the denying of a thing should be the proving and clearing thereof. And yet except this be admitted, I know not how our apprehension in the matter we have in hand is at all disproved. For whereas we say, Appeals may be granted and yet the supremacy of Synods over Congregations will not follow, Mr. Rutherford for the disproving of what we apprehend herein, doth bring nothing in the place we have in hand but only this, that the Supremacy doth neither lie in the Congregation nor in the Synod. Which is no disproving of us all, except as I said, that the denying of a thing may suffice for the confirming and clearing thereof. For I conceive if we be disproved the supremacy of Synods must be proved and cleared, which here our Brother doth not, but on the contrary denies the same.  
Furthermore, if there be no independency of policy within a Congregation, a Classical, Provincial or national Church, As here our Brother affirmeth, then what shall become of that which he tells us elsewhere, viz. Page 483. That that remedy of our Saviour, Tell the Church, is not needful in any Church above a national? For sure if there be no independency of policy in any of the lesser Churches, nor yet in the national Church, one would think that of our Saviour should be needful in some Church above the national. Or if it be nor needful in any Church above national, than one would think there should be some indepencie of policy in the national Church, or in some of the former. For my part I know not how this difficulty will be expedited, I mean how both these sayings of our Brother can stand good, except we shall say that which I suppose he will not say, viz. That independency of policy is no where. And yet I cannot see but this must be said, if both the other sayings stand good? For if independency of policy be neither in the national Church nor in any Church above it, nor in any Church below it, I know not where we shall have it.  
Again, if there be no independency of policy in any of the Churches afore named, what shall we say to that passage where our Brother doth verily profess, That he cannot see what power of Jurisdiction to censure Scandals can be in a general Council, affirming further, that there might be some merely Doctrinal power if such a Council could be had, and that is all, Pag 482. For if there be no Independency of policy in any Church below a general Council, one would think there should be in the general Council some power of jurisdiction to censure Scandals, yea and an independent power too▪ Or if there be not such power in the general Council, nor yet in the national Church, nor in any Church below the national, we must then say there is no independent Power of jurisdiction to censure Scandals in any Church upon earth. Which latter if it be not owned, as I conceive our Brother will no●, I know not how the other two can both stand.  
Though appeals be warranted both in Church and State by the light of Nature, yet appeals to Exotique and foreign Judicatures is not warranted by any such light, but rather the contrary.  
Answ. Let this be granted also, and are we ever a whit nearer to the point, than before? Is this good arguing, appeals to exotique Indicatures are not warrantable, Ergo a Synod and not the Congregation is the supreme judicature? Is this Consequence strong and clear? If it be not, how is our Tenent removed? If our Brother intent it not for a removal thereof, why is it brought in for answer to an Objection proposed by himself as ours?  
Further, let this sentence be compared with the former immediately preceding, and more difficulties still arise. For in this he tells us we see, That appeals to foreign Judicatures are not warrantable; And in the other he tells us as we heard afore, That there is no independency of policy within a Congregation, a Classical, Provincial, or national Church. Now to find how these things do agree, I am at a loss, for if there be no independency of policy in the Congregation, nor the other Churches mentioned, I should have thought, it might have been lawful to have appealed from them to others. For why may there not be appeals from them in whom no independency of Policy is seated? Yet now we are restrained from such appeals, for that all other judicatures are accounted foreign and Exotique. So that of two sentences the one immediately following upon the other, the former tells us there is no independency of policy in any of the Churches mentioned, which are Domesticque and near, and the other tells us that other Churches are so Exotique and foreign, that appeals to them are unwarrantable: and what to say for the reconciling of these things, I must confess I find not.  
I grant it is true, Appeals to Exotique and foreign judicatures are not warrantable. But why are we not certified what judicatures are to be accounted Exotique and Foreign? For here I conceive lies the pinch of the question; and unless this be determined, the thing in question is still left at uncertainty. For as in civil states there are many Cities and Towns which have independent power within themselves, as Geneva, Strasburgh, Zuricke, Basill, and many others, and Appeals from any of these, though to the City or Town next adjoining, would be to a judicature Exotique or foreign, so some are apt to conceive the like of congregational Churches. And therefore it had need to be cleared that Appeals from such Churches is not to Exotique and foreign judicatures; for if this be not cleared, the unlawfulness of Appeals to foreign and exotique Powers may be granted, and the question will remain uncleered.  
Church Appeals though warranted by the light of Nature, yet it is supposed they be rational, and grounded on good reason, as that either the matter belong not to the Congregation, or then it be certain or morally presumed the Congregation will be partial or unjust, or the business be difficile and intricate; and if appeals be groundless and unjust, neither Christ nor Nature's light doth warrant them. Yea in such case the supremacy from which no man can lawfully appeal, lieth sometime in the Congregation sometime in the Classical Presbytery, so as it is unlawful to appeal for Illud tantum possumus quod jure possumus.  
Answ. The short sum is thus much, that appeals are then lawful when there is just ground and reason for them, otherwise they are unlawful. Now first of all how doth this prove (for we would still keep to the point) the necessity of that Consequence whereof we speak afore, viz. That if appeals be lawful, then there is a supremacy of Synods over Congregations. I conceive it is not proved hereby all; but contrarily appeals may be granted lawful, when there is just reason and ground for them, and yet the supremacy of Synods over Congregations is still uncleared. Nextly, it still remains a question, who must be judge of the reasonableness of the Appeal and of those cases that are put to show when they are reasonable, viz. That the matter belongs not to the Congregation and the rest that are named: and unless it be cleared to whom it belongs to judge these things, we are still left at uncertainty, in the main matter, viz. In whom the supremacy doth lie, from whom we may not appeal. For to say as our Reverend Author doth, That in some case the supremacy from which no man can lawfully appeal, lieth in the Congregation, and sometimes it doth not: Appeals when they are grounded upon good reason are warrantable, else they are not: when the matter belongs not to the Congregation or the Congregation will be partial and unjust, or when the business is difficile and intricate, than we may appeal from the Congregation, else we may not, These things I say do not clear the matter at all, because still the question remains who must be judge of these things, whether the party appealing, or the Congregation from whom, or the Synod to whom the appeal is made: and unless this be determined, the things mentioned alleged by our Brother do afford us small help in the matter for the clearing of it. And therefore, what we said in the Answer doth still for aught I see remain sound, viz. That there must be some final and supreme judgement that controversies may not by appeals after appeals be spun out in infinitum, and to determine where that supremacy doth lie, is the main question, which unless it be determined, the usefulness 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, because that there ought to be appeals till you come to the highest is one thing, and that a Synod and n●t the Congregation is the highest is another. Now whether our Brother in that which we have hitherto heard have sufficiently cleared it unto us, that we may know where this supremacy doth lie, I leave it to the judicious to consider.   

CHAP. VIII.  
Whether Antioch, Act. 15. Had right to have ended the controversy amongst themselves, if they had been able; and whether their sending to Jerusalem for help, or their knowledge that other Churches were troubled with the like evil, or the party among themselves who were against the truth, do prove the contrary. And of supremacy of power in Congregations.  
But though our Author do not clear it to us where the supremacy doth lie yet in this pag 423, and 424. He useth an argument from the practice of the Church of Antioch, Act. 15. And our own Doctrine concerning the same to prove that it doth not lie in the Congregation, which argument we are willing to consider. His words are those. That supremacy of power should be in a Congregation without any power of appealing, I think our Brethren cannot teach. For when the Church of Antioch cannot judge a matter concerning the necessity of keeping Moses Law, they by Nature's direction, Act. 15. 2. Decree to send Paul and Barnabas and others to Jerusalem, to the Apostles and Elders, as to an higher Judicature, that there truth may be determined: and then he addeth that Mr. Tompson and myself do teach that the Church of Antioch had jus, power to judge and determine the controversy, but because of the difficulty, had not light to judge thereof (alleging for this in the Margin the answer, Chap. 4. Page 42.) Ergo saith he, they must acknowledge Appeals by Nature's light warrantable, as well as we.  
Answ. That appeals are warrantable, and warrantable by Nature's light till we come to the supreme judicatory, this we deny not, but have formerly yielded no less. But for that our Brother here aims at, viz. Appeals from a congregational Church (as not being supreme) to another judicatory, this we conceive is not proved by the example of the Church of Antioch, nor by any thing that we have written concerning the same And the reason it because Antioch had right and Authority to have ended the matter amongst themselves if ability had served thereto: and their sending to jerusalem for help may argue want of agreement, or imperfection of light, but argues no want of Authority or right within themselves. For it is plain verse 2, that Antioch did endeavour to have ended the matter amongst themselves, and had much disputation about it for that end, afore there was any speech of sending to jerusalem. Now this endeavour doth argue their right; for otherwise it had been sinful, as being a presuming to do that which did not belong to them. This reason we have rendered afore in the place which our Author allegeth, and he doth not at all remove it; and therefore we are still of the same mind as before, that Antioch was not dependant upon the jurisdiction of other Churches, but had independent power within themselves, as many may have who yet need the help of light from others, for their direction in using their power. Great Kings and Monarches have received light from their Counsellors without any impeachment of their independent power, which they have in themselves, and without any ascribing of that power to those their Counselors. As we said in the place alleged, Antioch may send to jerusalem for help, and yet this sending neither prove right of jurisdiction in them who are sent unto, nor want of jurisdiction in them who do send.  
And therefore whereas our Brother saith, Antioch because of the difficulty of the controversy, had not light to judge thereof, Ergo we must acknowledge Appeals to be warrantable, We would rather argue thus, Antioch wanted light, Ergo Counsel and light is to be sought elsewhere; and thus we conceive the inference will hold: but to say, Ergo there must be Appeals from the Congregation to others in matter of jurisdiction, this we conceive will not follow at all. No more than it will follow, Kings or other supreme civil Rulers must seek light and direction from their Counselors, Ergo there lies an appeal from them to those Counselors, which Consequence none will maintain nor affirm.  
If the Scriptures had said that Antioch did never attempt to ●nd that controversy, as knowing that the ending thereof belonged not to them but to others: or if it had said, that the censuring of these obtruders of Circumcision had been performed by them of Jerusalem, and not by them of Antioch as not belonging to Antioch but to them of Jerusalem, than our Brother might have had some ground from Antioch to prove the necessity or warrantableness of appeals from congregational Churches to other judicatories: but such no such thing is said, we see not how this example can be any ground for the establishing of such appeals, or the taking away from congregational Churches their power of jurisdiction within themselves.  
Especially, we see not how this our Brother can allege the same for such a purpose, considering what himself hath written elsewhere in this learned Treatise of his wherein he examines that answer of ours. Two passages in his treatise I propound to consideration, which seem to me to make for that independent or supreme power in Congregations, which here he is disputing against, the one is that which we touched before in his Page 413. Where he saith that Synods in case of neglect of Presbyterial Churches are to command the particular Churches whom it concerneth, to do their duty, as in other particulars there named, so in excommunication of offenders; and further that the Synod, Act. 15. Is to remit the censure of Excommunication to the Presbytery of Antioch and jerusalem, in case of the obstinacy of these obtruders of Circumcision. Which I conceive is very truly spoken, and thereupon it follows that there was a supremacy of jurisdiction in that Church of Antioch, and no necessity of appealing from them to the jurisdiction of others. For ●ith the Synods are only to command the Churches to do their duty, and to remit the censure of offenders to the Churches themselves to whom the offenders belong, it plainly appeareth thereby where the supremacy of jurisdiction doth lie.  
The other place is in his Page 307. Where we have these words, viz. The power of Jurisdiction ordinary intensive and quo ad essentiam Ecclesiae Ministerialis, according to the entire essence of a Ministerial Church, is as perfect and complete in one single Congregation as in a Provincial, as in a national. Yea as in the Catholic visible body whereof Christ is the head. Now if there be such perfect & complete power of jurisdiction in a single Congregation, I know not how there can be such necessity of Appeals from them to the jurisdiction of others as he is pleading for, nor how that supreme and independent power in Congregations can be denied, which here he disputeth against. For let this complete and perfect Power of jurisdiction be acknowledged as due to such Churches, and appeals from them to other jurisdictions will be of small necessity or use.  
I know indeed this Reverend Author sayeth in the Page last mentioned, and within a few lines of the words which I have here alleged, That a Congregation is so a part of the Presbytery that it hath not a whole entire complete intensive power over its own members to Excommunicate them—. And therefore the consociated Churches must have a power over the members of a Congregation. Which words I confess seem not well to agree with the former, because in the one entire complete intensive Power is denied to a Congregation, and in the other the Power of jurisdiction, ordinary intensive, is said to be as complete and perfect in the Congregation as in the great Churches. But it is not the latter words but the former which I do stand upon; and by them (as I conceive) the supremacy of Congregations is established, and the necessity of appeals from them to other jurisdictions is clearly takes away. For if the Power of jurisdiction be as entire perfect and complete in the Congregation as in the greater Churches, as our Brother expressly affirms it to be, I know not the reason why there must be appeals from the jurisdiction of the Congregation unto the jurisdiction of those other Churches. If the Power spoken of were more imperfect and incomplete in the Congregation, than it is in the other Churches, than there might be more reason or fairer pretence for those appeals: but sith our Author confesseth it is no more entire complete and perfect in these then in the Congregation, but as complete and perfect in the Congregation as it is in the other, I am yet to seek of a sufficient ground for the necessity of appeals from the jurisdiction in a Congregation. For is it reasonable to appeal from one judicatory to another, and yet the power of jurisdiction be as entire complete and perfect in the former from which the appeal is made, as in the latter to which the cause is brought by such appeal? It seems by such appeals we are not like to be much helper, nor much to mend the matter above what it was before, and therefore the usefulness and necessity thereof is still uncl●●●●.  
I think the Brethren err in this to teach that Antioch had power to determine the controversy, Act. 15. When the Churches of Syria and Cicilia, to their knowledge were troubled with the like question as verse 24. may clear,— I doubt much if they had power to determine a question that so much concerned all the Churches.  
Answ. It is not clear from verse 24. nor from any part of the Chapter as far as I can find, that Antioch did know that other Churches were troubled with this question; and if they had known it, I see nothing therein but they might notwithstanding lawfully end the matter so far as concerned themselves. For when this question was started amongst them by such as came from Judea and taught this corrupt Doctrine at Antioch, the text is very clear verse 2, that they had much disputation amongst themselves to have ended the matter, afore there was any speech of sending to jerusalem: which disputation is an argument that they had right to have ended it, if ability had no● been wanting.  
And as for our Brother's reason for the contrary taken from their knowledge that the other Churches of Syria and Cicilia were troubled with the like question, there is not one word in the verse alleged to show that Antioch had knowledge of any such matter, nor is Syria and Cicilia once mentioned therein: And though they be mentioned verse 23. Yet neither doth this verse declare that Antioch had any knowledge that this question had ever troubled those other Churches. Say it be true that indeed they had been troubled therewith, and that the Epistle from the Synod doth intimate no less, this may prove that when the Epistle came to be read at Antioch, than Antioch by this means might come to the knowledge thereof; but all this doth not prove that Antioch knew so much afore. And therefore they might endeavour to end the matter amongst themselves, as not knowing for any thing our Author hath yet brought to the contrary, that any other Churches besides themselves were troubled therewith. But suppose they had known so much, I see nothing in this to hinder but Antioch might lawfully clear up the truth in the question, and censure such of their Church as should obstinately hold and teach that false Doctrine, notwithstanding their knowledge that others had been troubled with the like Doctrine and teachers. Suppose a Christian family be troubled with lying Children, or servants, or such as are disobedient and undutiful in one kind or in another; suppose they also knew that their neighbour families are troubled with the like, shall this knowledge of theirs hinder the Parents or Masters in such a family from censuring or correcting these that are under their government, according to their demerits? If not, why shall Antioch be hindered from censuring offending members of their Church, only upon this ground because to their knowledge other Churches are troubled with the like offenders? A City or Corporation is troubled with Drunkards, with thiefs, or other vicious and lewd persons, and knoweth that other Cities or Corporations are troubled with the like: A national Church, as Scotland for example, is troubled with obtruders of Ceremonies, Service book, Episcopacy or other corruptions, and knoweth that England or other Churches are troubled with the like, shall Scotland now be hindered from removing these corruptions, and the obtruders of them from amongst themselves, only upon this ground, because England to their knowledge is troubled with the like? Or shall the Corporation ●ee hindered from punishing thiefs 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 easy 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 withal, 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 withal, that in thus doing they do not go beyond their line, nor meddle with matters any farther but as they are within their Compass. For when divers Churches are troubled with the like corruptions in Doctrine or practice, and some one of those Churches by using the Key of Doctrine or discipline or both, doth endeavour the removal 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 compass) but out of their own Church, and only so far as concerns themselves, and in so doing no man can justly say they meddle further than 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 clear, Act. 15. 2. He believeth in that they lose their jus, their right to determine eatenus in so far; for Christ hath given no Ecclesiastical right and power to determine against the truth, but only for truth; and therefore in this, Appeals must be necessary.  
Answ. How is it clear that the greatest 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 judea, 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 certain others should go up to jerusalem 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 express, 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 be that the greatest part are tainted with that false Doctrine, which we think 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 clear from verse 2. I answer, first that I do not perceive this clearness, neither from verse 2, nor from any other place of the Chapter.  
Nextly, suppose this were clear, 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 do 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 Natural, or connatural to every Church, and this want of ability is only accidental, and therefore this latter cannot totally hinder the former.  
That light of government is Natural or connatural to every Church, our Brother own words do testify Page 341. Where he saith this, viz. Supposing that Christ have a visible Church it is moral that she have power of government also, in so far as she is a Church; yea, power of government upon this supposition is Natural or rather connatural. And in Page 307, he saith as was alleged before, That the power of jurisdiction ordinary intensive—. Is as perfect and complete in one single Congregation as in a Provincial, or in a national; yea, as in the Catholic 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 himself a political Church power intrinsci●ally in it, derived from none but immediately from jesus Christ: And the like he saith of a Presbyterial Church. Now whether Antioch was a congregational Church as we hold, or a Presbyterial as is holden by this our Brother, yet it is clear by those words of his here alleged, that being essentially a Church; it had a political Church power intrinscically within itself, yet a perfect and complete power of jurisdiction, yea and such a power as was natural or connatural 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 add any power unto them which they had not before, not did the want of it, being but accidental, deprive them of that Power, which was intrinscicall, essential and connatural unto them as they were a Church of Christ. Only this want did hinder their ability to express their power well, but their right as being a thing connatural did still remain.  
Our Brother hath a saying or two about the civil Power, which by proportion may well illustrate this that I am speaking okubo it the Church-power. In one place he saith thus, There is a twofold power in a King, one in a King as a King, and this is a like in all, and ordinary regal, coactive: whether the King be an Heathen, a Turk, or a sound believing Christian: there is another power in a King as such a King, either as a Prophetical King as David and Solomon or as a Christian believing King. And of this latter he saith, that it is not a new regal power, but potestas execuliba, a power or gracious ability to execute the Kingly Power, which he had before as a King; Page 387. etc. 388. ●ow why may it not be said in like sort, there is in a Church twofold 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 discern, 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? Again, 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 duties remaining ignorant of Christ; even as a King ignorant of necessary civil duties cannot command them, not because he wanteth Kingly power to command these civil things, for undeniably he is a judge in civil things, but because he hath not knowledge of them. And may we not say in like sort, though a Church want the knowledge of the truth, in some particular question, yet they have a Church power to determine such questions, & to command obedience therein, and it is by accident they cannot in that state determine rightly, because they will not, being ignorant of the truth therein, not because they want Church-power to determine such matters, but because they have not the knowledge of them. Again a little after in the same P. he tells us, That Christianity addeth no new fatherly power to a Father over his Children, nor giveth a new husband right to the husband, once an Heathen over his wife; for an heathen Father is as essentially a Father over his Children as a Christian Father, and an heathen husband an heathen master etc. are all as essentially Husband, Masters, etc. as are the Christian husbands, masters, etc. And may we not as well say, soundness of knowledge in such or such a particular question addeth no new Church power to a Christian Church over their own members, nor giveth a new Church right over them which they had not before; for a Church that wanteth such knowledge is as essentially a Church, invested with Church power over her members as is another Church? For aught I perceive the cases are alike; and if soundness of knowledge do not give to a Church their Church-right in this or that question, how can want of that knowledge deprive them of that right? Sure one would think the whole substance of Christianity might do as much for the adding of Kingly right, Fatherly right, Husband right, etc. As soundness of knowledge in some one particular question, for the adding of Church right; & that the want of all Christianity should be as available for taking away the Kingly right, the Fatherly right, etc. As the want of knowledge in one particular point for the taking away of Church-right; and sith we have our Brothers own testimony clear and full for the one, it seems to me the cases are so parallel and proportionable, that the other is unavoidable: I mean thus, sith in the one case the whole substance of Christianity doth not give power, nor the want thereof take away the same by our Brothers own teaching, I know not how in the other case soundness of knowledge in one particular question should give power or right, & want of such knowledge take away the same. And so for Antioch in particular, if it were as our Brother supposeth that the greater part of them did hold against the truth in that question about Circumcision, I see not how this could deprive them of their Church right which they had before.  
As for our Brother's reason that Christ hath given no Ecclesiastical right and power to determine against the truth, but only for the truth, This saying I confess is very true, but doth not suffice for the purpose for which he brings it, viz. To prove that Antioch being ignorant of the truth in that question about Circumcision, or holding against the truth therein did thereby lose their Church right to determine. For if this reason be good, than a man may conclude against that power in heathen Kings, Parents, and Husbands, to govern their Subjects, children and Wives; which our Brother, as we heard afore, hath granted and taught: For suppose that Antioch were ignorant of the truth in that particular is it not clear that the Kings, Parents, and Husbands mentioned are ignorant of the truth in many more matters? And it Antioch do hereupon lose their right, because Christ hath given no power to determine against the truth but for the truth, how will it be avoided but by the same reason, ●he Kings and the others mentioned must likewise lose their right to govern their own subjects and families? For the Lord gives no right, I hope, to Pagans against the truth, no more than he doth unto Churches. And therefore if the reason be valid and strong in the one case, and for the purpose, for which our Brother brings it, it seems to be as strong in the other case also, which shall be contrary to what our Brother himself doth teach.  
In a word▪ Churches and Antioch in particular have right to determine questions, and they ought to determine only according to the truth: They have formally a right to determine, and when their determinations are according to truth, than they will ●ind Vi mat●●i● which else they will not. They have right to determine in fore Humano, and if their determinations be for matter agreeable to truth, they will be ratifyed in foro Div●●o, but not else. Now our Brothers arguing doth seem to confound these two; and because of the latter which is freely granted, he would conclude against the former, which we think is not good reasoning; but on the contrary do still think, that though Churches ought to give out no determinations but such as are agreeable to truth, and that otherwise their determinations, in respect of the matter of them will not bind before God, yet for all this they may have right formally and in Foro humano to judge, and to determine of such things.  
Moreover, if this were granted for true, that Antioch when they are against the truth do lose their right to determine Controversies, yet we are not hereby much nearer to an issue, unless it be determined withal who must be judge whether they be against the truth or no, and the reason is because if they be not against the truth but for it, than I hope, it will be granted that they do not lose their right at all. The question therefore still remains, who hath this Ministerial Power to judge whether this or that Church, Antioch or any other be against the truth or for it; and unless this be cleared we are but where we were before.  
But to draw towards an end of this passage about the Church of Antioch: whether they had right to determine Controversies when ability failed, or whether they did when lose that right, I will here transcribe a few words of our Brother as I find them in his second, 331. Page. Wherein he either clearly yieldeth the cause, and saith the same that we do or I am much mistaken. The words are these, There is a difference between ability to judge, and right or power to judge. A presbyterial Church, (and he disputeth in six Pages together to prove Antioch such a one, Page 470. 471. etc. sequ.) may have right, jus, and Ecclesiastical law to judge of a point, to the judging whereof they want ability: therefore de facto, it belongeth to an higher Synod where more learned men are, though de jure the Presbytery may judge it. These words I wish to be well considered. For 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 we have heard, he gives this reason, because Christ hath given no right and power to determine against the truth but for it, yet now we see he grants distinction between ability and right, and saith, a Presbyterial Church may still retain 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 leave it to the wise in heart, and especially to himself to consider. For, for my part I must confess that these two sayings, A Presbyterial Church as Antioch may have right, jus to judge a point, to the judging whereof they may want ability; and, Antioch a Presbyterial Church wanting ability did thereby lose their right, or jus to determine the point, these two I say, are such sayings as are not easy 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 far: 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 controversy, 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 think the Brethren err in this, to teach, that Antioch had power to determine the Controversy, Act. 15. And then he 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 allegeth, viz. Page 42. And I am sure no such gross 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 spoke 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 than 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 withal be culpable of manifest mistaking and misreporting 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 opposite as ours, and therefore it is that in this sense and meaning I have here applied my answer.  
The 〈…〉 thus much; That Antioch had right to determine against the 〈…〉 that may soon be confuted, but the Tenent is none of ours: That 〈…〉 to determine, is indeed our Tenent, and whether this be confuted 〈…〉, let the wise and judicious consider.   

CHAP. IX.  
Whether the congregational way or the Presbyterial do make the Gospel more difficultive than the Law. Of Excommunication by a Church that hath only three Elders, and of doing things suddenly.  
IN the latter end of his Page 424 meaning Mr T●mpson and me, and alleging Page 17, 18. of the Answer. He writes that we say our opposites do much Judaize in that they multiply appeals upon appeals, from a Congregation to a Classis, then to a Synod, then to a national Assembly, then to an Oec●●●●nicke Council; and this way while the world endureth causes are never determined, and Synods cannot always be had; even as in jerusalem the supreme judicature was far remote from all Proselytes, as from the Eunuch of Ethiopia, Act. 8. And from the remotely 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 Controversy: And then, Page 425. He subjoineth his Answer.  
Answ. Though I deny not but some of the things here alleged are written by us in the Pa●●● named, yet that they are written for the purpose which our Brother expresseth, viz. To show that our Brethren of the opposite judgement do much judaize, that I do utterly deny. For the places being viewed will plainly witness that we bring the things alleged for another end, viz. To show whether the way that is called Independency, do make the people (as some have thought of it) more defective and improvident than their Law. For this being objected against that way, we in answer thereto do show 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 judgement; one way on the one side making the state of Christians in these days in some things equal to the jews, and in other things more excellent; and on the other side the way of our Brethren making our condition in many things more defective than was the condition of the jews. So that (not judayzing but) making our condition more defective than the jews, 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 reports us to use, viz. That by appeals upon appeals causes according to our brethren's 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 jews had a supreme judicatory for the final ending of causes among them. And therefore to say that our Brethren do judaize, and then to give that for a reason which doth show that the jews and they are very unlike, the jews having a supreme judicatory for the final ending of Cruses, and they having none, were to show ourselves very irrational or worse: end why our Brother should put such a thing upon us, we being no ways guilty thereof, we do not know. But we desire that our reason may be applied to our own conclusion, to which we did and do apply it, and not to this other expressed by our Brother, which indeed is none of ours, and then we are content that rational and judicious Readers may judge whether or no there be any sufficient weight therein. Which that they may more readily do, I have here recollected the same into this short sum, that they may briefly behold it with one view, viz If the jews had a supreme judicatory for the final ending of causes, and the congregational way hath the like: If the jews had a standing judicatory always in readiness for the hearing of causes, and the congregational way hath the like: and if the supreme judicatory among the jews was very far remote from many of them, and in the congregational way be more convenient and near at hand, than the congregational way is in some things equal to the jews and in other things more excellent.  
But the first is true in all the particulars, and therefore the second is true also. Again, If the jews had a supreme judicatory for the final ending of causes, and the way of our Brethren hath not: If the jews had a standing judicatory always in readiness for the hearing of causes and the way of our Brethren hath not: and if the supreme judicatory among the jews was very remote from many of them, and Synods among our Brethren are the same, than the way of our Brethren is in some things as defective as the jews, and in other things more defective than theirs.  
But the first is true in all the particulars of it, and therefore the second is true also.  
Both the Assumptions in all the branches thereof, I conceive are clearly proved in the Answer in the Pages which our Brother doth allege, and whether the Consequence be good let the wise judge.  
Having thus reduced our Argumentation to its own proper and genuine shape, let us now consider of Mr. rutherford's answer thereto.  
First, saith he, The speediness of ending controversies in a Congregation is badly comprised with the suddenness and temerity of delivering men to Satan upon the decision of three Elders, without so much as ask advise of any Classes of Elders, and with deciding questions deep and grave which concerneth many Churches, which is a putting of a private sickle in a common and public harvest.  
Answ. If advise from other Churches may be had, we never spoke word for doing weighty matters without the same, but in such cases it is both our practice and advise to make use thereof, And therefore this delivering men to Satan in way of temerity or rashness toucheth not us whose opinion and practice is other wise.  
As for suddenness, I conceive if the same be sometimes accompanied with temerity and rashness, and so worthy to be blamed, yet not always: for in the Reformation of the House of God in the days of Hezekiah, it is said, that the thing was done suddenly. 2 Chron. 29. 36. Where suddenness doth not signify any sinful temerity or r●shnesle. But contrarily doth testify God's great goodnesle that had so prepared the people to so good a work: for this cause this suddenness was to Hezekiah, and God's people an occasion and ground of great joy and gladness, which temerity could not have been. And therefore suddenness and temerity must not always be confounded and coupled together, as if they were the same.  
Though hasty delivering of men to Satan without due consideration be not good, yet overlong delay of due proceeding against Delinquents is bad also, for the Holy Ghost tells us because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set to do evil, Eccl. 8. 11. For which cause execute judgement in the morning, that is to say speedily is sometimes expressly required, Jer. 21. 12. Which being spoken of justice to be executed by civil Authority doth hold by proportion and like reason in Ecclesiastical censures, for as much as speedinesle is a duty, and delays are daangerous in the one case as well as in the other.  
Whereas our Author thinks much that Excommunication should proceed upon the decision of three Elders, as we know nothing but a Congregation may have more Elders than the three, if God provide them fit men and the numerousness of the Congregation so require, in which case our Author saith nothing to the contrary, but they may have power to Excommunicate, so if they have but three, we know nothing in this, but they may have power to Excommunicate notwithstanding, since himself teacheth, Due Right. Page 61. That the jews had their congregational Churches as we have, and had their meeting in their Synagogues, not only for Doctrine, but also for Discipline and Excommunication; Which if it be so, it seems there might be Excommunication by as small a number as three, unless it could appear that in every Synagogue the Elders and Rulers in it were a greater number than is here mentioned, which is more than I do remember to be expressed in Scripture. Yea and further he tells us, That the inferior judicatures in Israel had power of life and death, Page 315. Now the judges in these inferior judicatures though they must never be under that number of three, yet they did not always exceed the same, for aught that doth appear. And if three judges had power of life and death, why may not a Congregation with three Elders have power of Excommunication? Moreover, in his Page 454. He gives us these words for a Proposition, That it floweth connaturally from a Church to which agreeth the essence of Church to exercise Jurisdiction over all its own members; to which those words do also agree, Page 287. viz. The power and right to Discipline is a propriety essential to a Church and is not removed from it till God remove the Candlestick, and the Church cease to be a visible Church: And in Page 302. He affords us these words for an Assumption, that a Congregation is a Church, wanting nothing of the being and essence of a Church: And hence the conclusion is obvious, that a Congregation may exercise jurisdiction over all it own members: and in as much as a Congregation in which are but three Elders, is a Congregation, it followeth that a Congregation in which are but three Elders may exercise such jurisdiction. This conclusion our Author cannot deny in as much as it necessarily and directly followeth from Premises which are both his own. Yea in his Page 302. H● saith, That this is a principle of Church policy, that every politic body of Christ hath power of Church government within itself. Either therefore a Congregation with only three Elders is no politic body of Christ, or else it must have power of Church government within itself. Besides, if the power of jurisdiction ordinary intensive be according to the entire essence of a Ministerial Church be as complete and perfect in one single Congregation, as in a Provincial, national, or Catholic Church as our Author saith it is P. 307. It is then a marvel why such a Congregation having only three Elders, may not have power to Excommunicate. Lastly, his words are express, Page 338. Where there are not many Churches consociated, than Ordination and Excommunication may be done by one single Congregation. If therefore a Congregation have not above three Elders, yet being not consociated with other Churches, it may lawfully Excommunicate, by his own grant.  
For deciding questions that concern many Churches, if they decide them no further but only as they concern themselves, this is no putting a private sickle in a common and public Harvest, but a meddling with matters only so far as they do concern themselves.  
Secondly, he saith, All appeals without warrant from Christ's will we condemn, as the abuse of Appeals to a Court which is known shall never be, Page 425.  
Answ. If appeals without warrant from Christ will be condemned, why are we not told what appeals they are, that have the warrant of Christ's will, and what Appeals have not? For such a general word a● this, of the warrant of Christ's will, without some further and more particular explication doth leave the matter as dark as it was before. If the meaning be, that only such Appeals are unwarrantable as are made to a Court which is known shall never be, and that all others are warrantable, than it will follow that appeals to general Counsels and all other Courts, except only from a general Council are warrantable, for who doth certainly know that a general Council will never be? And so by this means the Classes, 〈◊〉 Synod, and the national Church are all deprived of supremacy, and independency of jurisdiction as well as the Congregation.  
Thirdly, he saith, Antioches appeal to a Synod 200 miles distant as our Brethren say, was no Judaizing but that which Paul and the Apostles were guilty of as well as we.  
Answ. Whether Antioch and Jerusalem were 200 miles distant or no as we have never affirmed so much, so I will not stand now to inquire. But this I stand upon, that no Scripture doth witness that Antioch did appeal to Jerusalem in the point of jurisdiction, about which our question doth lie, if they did appeal to them for a Doctrinal decision or determination of the question, that nothing hindereth our cause who do not deny such a Doctrinal power in Synods. But their power of jurisdiction is the thing that should be proved. Lastly, if this example of Antioch do prove that there may be and aught to be appeals from Congregations to Synods, though those Synods be 200 miles distant, then that which we said in the Answer is here confessed to be true: viz. That according to our brethren's judgement the state of the Church in point of Discipline is as defective and burdensome in the time of the Gospel, as it was in the days of the old Testament. For as then the supreme judicatory at Jerusalem was many miles distant from such as dwelled in the furthest parts of the Holy Land, and specially from the Proselytes that dwelled in other Countries, so here our Author seems to yield that in these days of the new Testament there must or may be appeals to Synods, though they be 200 miles distant. I hope then if others blame our way for making the Gospel as defective and improvident as the Law, or more defective than it, yet this our Brother will not do so, but on the contrary will acknowledge for us and with us, that the way which himself pleads for, is more justly culpable in this respect.  
Fourthly, he saith, Matters concerning many Churches must be handled by many.  
Answ. This may be granted in a safe sense without any prejudice at all unto our cause, for we are well content that so far as they concern many they may be handled by many, so that each Congregation may have liberty to deal in them so far as they concern themselves.  
And thus you have all which Mr. Rutherford hath brought against that passage of ours wherein we say it is not our way but theirs, that doth make the Gospel more defective than the Law, instead whereof he is pleased to make us say that they do judaize; But for eleering their way from that which we object against the same, or for convincing out way to be guilty thereof as by some hath been objected, which is the thing in question in the place by him alleged, for aught I perceive there is nothing in the four particulars of his answer, that doth any thing avail to either of these: for if a rash delivering of men to Satan have more evil in it then speedy ending of controversies hath good▪ If appeals without warrant from Christ's will, be unlawful: If Antioch did appeal to a Synod 200 miles distant, and if matters concerning many Churches must be ended by many, which four particulars are the whole substance of his answer, what is there in all this (for I would gladly apply his Answers to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the thing in question, what is there I say in all this that 〈◊〉 convince our way to be more defective than the way under the old Testament? Or that doth clear the way of our Brethren from being truly culpable thereof▪ Let all the evil that can be found in rash delivering men to Satan be extended to the utmost, and let the rest of the four particulars be granted, doth all this sufficiently clear it that the way which we plead for is more defective, or the way of our Brethren more perfect and excellent, than the way that was used under the Law? If they do not amount to the clearing of this, they do not come up to clear the thing in question, which for aught I perceive doth still remain as it was notwithstanding all that our Brother here brings.   

CHAP. X.  
Whether the necessity of Discipline be greater than of Sacraments: and whether a Congregation that hath neighbours may not exercise entireness of jurisdiction as well as one that hath none: and whether a man may take on him the whole Ministry having no outward calling thereto; and may not as well take on him one act of Baptising or Ministering the Lords Supper.  
THe next place where I find our Reverend Brother dealing with the Answer, is in Page 453, 454. Where disputing that there was a Presbyterial Church at jerusalem, he saith it is Objected by us (alleging the Answer, Page 6.) That if a Church in an Island by Divine institution and so the first Congregation as jerusalem which did meet in Solomon's Porch had once an entire power of jurisdiction, though in an extraordinary case, the case is ordinary, as in the Dominion of Wales there is scarce a Congregation to be found within 20, or 30 miles. 2. Suppose the case were extraordinary and rare, may they violate the ordinary rules of Christ? For so some may think and say that though according to ordinary rules, Baptism and the Lords Supper must be dispensed only by men and by Ministers, yet in the want of these the one may be dispensed by a woman or midwife, and both of them by such as are no Ministers. And then he subjoineth his Answer.  
Answ. Our Author's scope and intention being to prove a Presbyterial Church at jerusalem, I cannot apprehend a good reason, why now he should fall upon the place of the Answer alleged, in as much at the place makes not any mention of jerusalem at all, nor of any Presbyterial Church there, either one way or other. But it seems he was willing to go something out of his way that so he might have a saying to the Answer, yet if it must needs be so, I could have desired that the words of the Answer might have been kept, without making alteration by leaving some things out, and putting others in of his own accord, and by mentioning others with another face than was ever intended by us. For though he is pleased to mention a Church in an Island and the first founded Congregation at jerusalem, in his Objection which he● brings in under Mr. Tompsons' name and mine, yet he that shall peruse the place will find that neither of these are once mentioned by us at all, and why then they should be brought in as ours I do not know. And for the former part of our Answer, wherein we show that for a Christian Congregation to want neighbour Congregations to whom they may with conveniency have recourse, and not so unusual as some may imagine, we do not only allege for that end the Dominion of Wales as our Brother doth report, but also the remoter parts of the North, and specially the state of things in times and places of general Persecution and general profaneness, and new Plantations in Heathen Countries; all which our Brother doth omit, as if we had not mentioned any of them. And whereas we mention the scarcity of Congregations in the remoter parts of Wales and of the North, as intimated by our Reverend Brother Mr. Herle in that learned and loving discourse of his, whereto we do apply our Answer, Mr. Rutherford concealeth that we do mention this, as the apprehension or intimation of another, and instead thereof makes bold to set it down under our name, as if we had delivered it as our own. All which alterations, omissions and additions are such as we for our parts would not willingly have made the like in any work of his nor of any other man. For let such liberty as this be taken in repeating what men do speak or write, and misapprehension of their true ●ntent and meaning must needs be bred hereby in the minds of all those that shall read or hear such reports and believe the same. Nevertheless, let us consider what our Brother doth return in his Answer.  
We think saith he, a Ministry and Discipline more necessary to a Congregation in a remote Island, or to the Church of jerusalem before they increase to such a number as cannot meet for their numerous multitude in one Congregation, than the Sacraments when there be no Ministers to dispense them.  
Answ. Would not one think by th●se words, and the other laid down in the Objection, that we had spoken something of a Church in an Island, and of the Church in Jerusalem? Else why should these be objected, and answered as ours? But th' truth is we have not spoken one word either of the one or the other of these particulars: which will plainly appear to him that shall view the place. Something we have spoken in the general of a Congregation that wants neighbours, which we did being thereunto led by our Reverend Brother Mr. Herle, but of a Church in an Island, and of the Church at jerusalem in particular, of which Mr. Rutherford here speaks, of these we have said nothing.  
Second, the former part of our answer, that for a Congregation to want neighbours is not so unusual as some may imagine, this Mr. Rutherford wholly passeth over in silence, only he propounds it in his Objection in such sort as we have heard, and so leaves it, whereby it seems he yields the thing. And thereupon it follows, that entireness of jurisdiction in a Congregation must be yielded frequently lawful, it being frequently seen, that Congregations want neighbours in which case their entireness of jurisdiction is not denied.  
Third, for the second part of our answer, we thus express ourselves therein. viz. That we suppose it is good to take heed how far we yield it lawful in extraordinary cases to transgress and violate ordinary rules, whereof we render the reason, lest some body do thence infer the lawfulness of ministering Sacraments by non-Ministers, in case Ministers be wanting. This is that which we have said in this matter. If therefore Mr. Rutherford would take away what we have said herein, he must say it is not good nor needful to take such heed, but men may yield it lawful in such cases to transgress and violate ordinary rules, and never need to take heed how far they yield therein. This indeed were contradictory to what we have said, and if this be once cleared for truth, than I must confess our saying is clearly disproved. But the clearing of this we hope our Brother will never attempt: Sure yet he hath not done it, and so our saying yet remains as it was.  
Fourth, Whereas he saith he thinks a Ministry and Discipline more necessary in the cases he speaks of, than Sacraments and there be no Ministers, though this be not directly opposite to what we have said, yet because I would consider of every thing wherein he seems to aim at us, therefore I am willing to consider of this also. Our Reverend Brother thinks Discipline in the cases mentioned more necessary than Sacraments: and yet in his Page 287, 288. handling that question, whether Discipline be a mark of the visible Church, and laying down sundry distinctions about the same, he gives us these several Propositions in terms: First, care to exercise Discipline may be wanting in a true Church. Second, right Discipline is not necessary to the essence of a visible Church as a City may be without Walls, a Garden without a hedge. Third, the exercise of Discipline may be wanting, and the Church a true visible Church. Fourth, the Church may retain the essence and being of a visible Church, and yet have no Discipline in actual use or little, in which place he citys and approves the judgement of Parker, Cartwright and others; who make Discipline necessary only to the well-being of the Church, as being not indifferent but commanded in the word and necessary in respect of its end. Now if this be all the necessity that is in Discipline, how is Discipline more necessary than Sacraments? For may not as much be said of them as here is said of Discipline? Are not Sacraments necessary to the well-being of the Church, as being commanded in the word, as well as Discipline is? And serving for excellent ends, as well as Discipline doth? I suppose it will n●● be denied, and therefore the necessity of Discipline above Sacraments doth not yet appear. Especially if that be considered withal which our Brother teacheth elsewhere. viz. In his second P. 211. & sequ. Where he tells us, That Sacraments are not only declarative signs, but also real exhibitive seals of Grace, having a causality in them to make a thing that was not, and so excelling all civil Seals which do add no new Lands to the owner of the Charter sealed therewith. Now if Sacraments be thus excellent and effectual, how is it that in the place we have in hand, Discipline is made more necessary than they? For a greater Elegy than here he gives to Sacraments, I suppose himself would not give unto Discipline. Yea in P. 302 he expressly affirms, That Preaching of the word and administration of the Sacraments are essential notes of the visible Church. But of Discipline I conceive he will not say the same, sure it is in the Page following distinguishing betwixt notes of the Church which are necessary ad●sse, To the very being of a visible Church, and such as are necessary only ad bene esse, to the well-being thereof, he expressly makes Discipline a work or note of this second sort, and as we heard erewhile, he in Page 287 expressly affirms it is not necessary to the essence of a Church. And therefore it is some marvel why now 〈◊〉 makes Discipline more necessary than Sacraments.  
But he gives us two reasons of this greater necessity of Discipline then of Sacraments. First, that entire power of Discipline in a Congregation that wants neighbours is not extraordinary Second, that there is no such moral necessity of Sacraments, as there is of Discipline, Page 455.  
Concerning the former his words are these, viz. That the Church be in an Island itself alone may possibly be extraordinary, but that in such a case they have entire power of discipline whole and entire within themselves to Excommunicate Scandalous persons is not extraordinary. Wherein first of all I observe a difference between him and our Reverend Brother Mr. Herle, who having granted that where there is no consociation or neighbourhood of Congregations, there a single Congregation must not be denied entireness of jurisdiction, doth presently add that the case is extraordinary, and so falls not within the compass of the question of the ordinary rule of Church-government: Independency of Churches, P. 2. plainly confessing that the case is extraordinary, whereas Mr. Rutherford here saith it is not.  
Second, as he expressly differs from Mr. Herle, so it is considerable whether his words do well agree with themselves. For saith he, That the Church be in an Island itself alone may be extraordinary, but that in such case they have entire power of jurisdiction of Discipline within themselves, to Excommunicate Scandalous persons, is not extraordinary. Which saying needs good explication. For it seems hard to conceive how the power and actions of any subject or efficient should be more usual and ordinary then it's very being and subsistence: Which yet must needs be, if this stand good that the being of a Church in an Island is extraordinary, and yet the power of such a Church to Excommunicate is usual and ordinary  
Third, If their power of Discipline, yea entire Power be in the case expressed or●●●ary, shall we then say that if the case ●e otherwise so that a Church be not alone but have neighbours, entireness of power in such a case is extraordinary? It seems a● must ●ay 〈◊〉, or else we must say that entireness of power in both cases is ordinary. If this latter be said, it is as much as we desire: for than I hope it must not be a small 〈◊〉 ordinary matter, that must hinder a Church that hath neighbours from exercising 〈…〉 ●●●●diction within themselves, no more than a Church that lives alone, 〈…〉 power being ordinary in them both. For if it be so in them both, in the one as well as in the other, I know not why any small or ordinary matter should hinder the one Church any more than the other from the use and exercise of such entire power. If we say that entireness of power in a Church that hath neighbours is extraordinary, though in a Church that is alone it be ordinary, besides that such a saying sounds harshly and seems very improbable, we shall by this means make cases extraordinary to be very frequent & usual, in as much as all men know it is very usual for congregational Churches to have neighbours: and so if entireness of power in a Church that hath neighbours be extraordinary, it will follow that extraorninary power is very usual and frequent; so that inconveniences on each side do seem inevitably to follow against our Brother's cause, upon this which here he affirmeth, that entireness of power in a Church that is alone is not extraordinary.  
But let us here his reason in the subsequent words, why this entireness of power in a Church that is alone is not extraordinary. For it floweth saith he, continually from a Church, to which agreeth the essence of a Church, to exercise jurisdiction over all its own members. And I suppose he must mean this of jurisdiction entire and complete, for of this is the question, and a few lines afore, He expressly calls it entire power of Discipline, whole and entire within themselves. Now if this be true which here is said, as for my part I conceive no other of it, that it floweth connaturally from a Church, to which agreeth the essence of a Church to exercise entire jurisdiction over all its own members, than it will follow that a Church that hath neighbours as well as a Church that hath none must have this entireness of jurisdiction, sith the essence of a Church doth agree to the one as well as to the other, to a Church that hath neighbours as well as to a Church that is alone. Our Author tells us Page 302. That a Congregation in an Island is a Church properly so called, and hath the essential notes of a visible Church agreeing to it, and wants nothing of the being and essence of a Church. And if this be true of a Church that is alone, shall we think it is not true of a Church that hath neighbours? Doth the accession of neighbours to a Congregation take away from such a Congregation the essence of a Church which it had before? I conceive none will so say. And if every Church to which agreeth the essence of a Church may exercise entire jurisdiction over all its own members, as our Brother doth acknowledge, it followeth unavoidably thereupon that all congregational Churches, such as have neighbours and such as have none may exercise such entireness of jurisdiction, sith the essence of a Church doth agree unto them all. Unless he will deny the essence of a Church to a Congregation which hath neighbours, which he freely yieldeth to a Congregation which is alone, he must grant entireness of jurisdiction unto them both, because he grants it to the one upon this reason, that the essence of a Church doth agree thereunto, which reason if it agree to both, how can i● be avoided but entireness of jurisdiction must be in both? And how can it be affirmed or imagined that a Congregation having the essence of a Church afore and have neighbours, should lose this essence of a Church when neighbours are added to it? A family having the essence of a family now it is alone, doth not lose this essence by means of other families added. Nor doth a City that is such, as it is alone lose the essence of a City by the access of other Cities: and the same might be said of a Corporation, a Province, a Kingdom, or any other society whatsoever. And that it should be otherwise with a congregational Church, that it should lose the essence of a Church as other neighbour's Churches do arise, doth seem very strange and unreasonable. And let the essence of a Church be still retained by such a Congregation, as I conceive it must, and then entireness of jurisdiction must not be denied to such a Congregation, sith it doth flow connaturally from every Church to which the essence of a Church doth agree.  
If there be no more consociated with that Church that is by accident, and an extraordinary exigence of God's Providence. As a Master of a family is to educate his children in the fear of God, but if God take all his children from him by death, he doth not transgress the ordinary rule of educating his children in the fear of God, as he hath none.  
Answ. If this comparison do suit the present purpose and case in hand, than this Master of a family is a Congregation, and these his children are the members of other Congregations: And so as a Master of a family needs not to educate his children in God's fear, when they are all taken from him by death, so a Congregation needs not to govern the members of other Congregation as there are no other Congregation extant, but itself is left alone in an Island. In which kind of arguing sundry things may be excepted against. As fir●● of all that there should be such power in a Congregation as in a Master of a family over his own children, which needs a good deal of proof afore it may be yielded, in as much as the power of the one is plainly and plentifully taught in the Scripture, as Eph. 4. 6. Col. 3. Deut. 6. 7. Deut. 21. And many other places. But I desire one clear place of Scripture, in all the Book of God either old Testament or new, to show the like power in a congregational Church, over the members of other Churches. Again, when a Master of a family hath all his children taken from him by death, he hath then no children of his own to govern, but wants a congregational Church & is left alone in an Island, the Presbytery of that Congregation is left alone, but have still the members of that Congregation whom they may and aught to guide and govern in the fear of God, which is another particular wherein the comparison fails.  
But though the similitude as Mr. Rutherford hath laid it down, doth not confirm his purpose, yet I conceive it may be▪ so framed and applied as that it may well serve for the weekning thereof, thus; A Master of a family having (when that family is alone) entire power to govern his family in the fear of God, when other families do arise that become neighbours near adjoining, he is not by this means deprived of the power which he had before, but still retains the same entire and complete as formerly it was: even so the Presbytery of a congregational Church having (when that Congregation is alone,) entire power of jurisdiction over its own members, is not when neighbour Congregation do arise, deprived by this means of the power which it had before, but still retains the same entire as formerly it was. Again, though when God takes away a man's children by death, he is no longer bound to educate and govern those children in the fear of God, yet as long as his children live with him in his family, it is not the sitting down of other families near by him that can take away this power from him, or discharge him of this duty: even so, though when members of a Congregation be taken away by death or otherwise, the Congregation or its Presbytery doth no longer stand charged or bound with the oversight and government of such members yet as long as they live in the Congregation, it is not the arising of other Congregations near to them that can free them from the power wherewith they were invested, nor from the duty wherewith they were formerly charged towards such members, Thus the comparison runs even, and we see our Brother's cause is not a little disadvantaged thereby. But as he hath laid it down, it doth so apparently fail that I do not perceive how it can afford him any help at all.  
This argument supposeth that the Congregation hath no power of Excommunication at all, either complete or incompleate, as the Midwife hath no power to Baptise, either complete or incompleate.  
Answ. Suppose a Congregation have an incompleate power when they have neighbours, how shall it appear that when they are alone their power is now complete? Or how will it be avoided but by the like reason, one Elder alone may Excommunicate in case there be no other Elders to join with him? For plain it is, that one Elder when their is a full Presbytery or Classis hath an incompleate power, though not a complete. And yet I hope this incomplete power in one Elder when there are other Elders joined with him, will not warrant him to exercise a power complete when he is alone, because such a power must be exercised by a Church, with one Elder alone cannot be. And if one Elder having an incomplete power when he is joined with others, may not exercise a complete power when he is alone, how will the incomplete power of a Congregation when they have neighbours (suppose that in such case their power were indeed incompleate) how will this I say warrant that Congregation when they are alone to exercise a complete power? For aught I see, the complete power of the Congregation is no more warranted upon this ground, than the like power of one Elder upon the same ground, the cases being alike in both.  
Neither doth a Congregation transgress any rule of Christ at all when it exerciseth entire power of censures within itself, whereas there be no consociated church's to share with it in that power.  
Answ. This I grant is very true; and I desire it may not be recalled, but may still stand as here it is expressly given to us; and then I desire to know what rule of Christ is transgressed, if an other Congregation, I mean a Congregation that hath neighbours, do exercise the like power. For my part I know no such rule, nor any good reason but if that the one Congregation may so practise, the other Congregation may do the like, and that the grounds (at least some of them) which will warrant the one, will also suffice to warrant the other. Nevertheless when any rule of Christ shall be produced that doth restrain a Congregation that hath neighbours of this entire power, which is so freely and plainly granted to the Congregation that is alone, I shall then grant that the former must have less liberty to exercise this power, then is here granted to the latter. In the mean time, that which here is yielded to the one doth amongst other things induce me to think that the same aught to be granted to the other, and so that entireness of power is in them both.  
A Congregation (viz. which is alone) is capable of entire Jurisdiction because it is a Church.  
Answ. How will it then be avoided but a Congregation which hath neighbours, or a Congregation which was alone and now hath neighbours added to it, how will it be avoided I say, but such a Congregation as this is also capable of entire jurisdiction? For can it be denied but such a Congregation is a Church, as well as the other? Sure if Mr. Rutherford his Doctrine elsewhere delivered do stand good, this cannot be denied at all. For in his Page 301 he saith, That is a Church, and hath the essence of a Church, to which agree the essential notes of a visible Church, and Preaching of the word and administration of the Sacraments saith he are essential notes of a visible Church. Which if it be so, than a Congregation that hath neighbours is a visible Church, and hath the essence of a Church, because Preaching of the word and administration of the Sacraments are clearly found in such a Congregation. And if such a Congregation be a Church, then by his own Doctrine in this place which we have in hand, such a Congregation is capable of entire jurisdiction. For thus I argue from his own words  
Every Congregation which is a Church is capable of entire jurisdiction.  
But a Congregation which hath neighbours is a Church.  
Therefore a Congregation which hath neighbours is capable of entire jurisdiction.  
The conclusion is that which we stand for, and it makes directly against our Brother, and yet I see not how he can avoid it, because both the premises are his own. For the Proposition is plain from the words we have in hand, v●z. A Congregation is capable of entire Jurisdiction because it is a Church. Now if this be the reason why it is capable thereof, then look to what Congregation this reason doth agree, every such Congregation must be so capable. For our Author well knoweth that à quatenus ad omnia consequentia. And for the Assumption, the same is confirmed by his words, Page 302, Where he makes that to be a Church, and to have the essence of a Church, to which the Preaching of the word, and administration of the Sacraments do agree. And these agreeing to a Congregation that hath neighbours, it followeth that a Congregation that hath neighbours is a Church. Unless he will deny to a Congregation that hath neighbour's power of Preaching the word and administering the Sacraments (which I am persuaded he will not deny at all) it will unavoidably follow from his own ground that such a Congregation is a visible Church. And if such a Congregation be a visible Church, then by his own ground also, such a Congregation must be capable of entire jurisdiction: which conclusion if it be granted we desire no more, for it is the thing that we hold.  
A woman in no case is capable of administering Baptism or the Lord's Supper, except she were extraordinarily and immediately inspired to be a Prophetess, but for the exercise of entire power of Jurisdiction by a Congregation in a remote Island, I hope it hath no such need of immediate inspiration.  
Answ. Nor do we think otherwise; but (that we may keep to the points and bring up the dispute to the thing in questio) if such a Congregation having no such inspiration may notwithstanding lawfully exercise entire power of jurisdiction within themselves, and that upon this reason, because they now are alone, which if they had neighbours were not lawful for them to do, then let it be well considered, whether by the like reason in the like extraordinary case, Baptism and the Lords Supper may not be administered the one of them by a woman, and both of them by such as are no Ministers. For as in one case the plea, to make it lawful is this, because such a Congregation hath no neighbours, so in the other the plea is because the Congregation hath no Ministers, nor perhaps there are no men at hand. And if the one which at other times were unlawful, yet in such an extraordinary exigence of God's Providence may be lawfully done, though there be no immediate inspiration to warrant the same, why doth there need such immediate inspiration to warrant the other, the extraordinary exigence of God's Providence being alike in both. I desire I may not be mistaken in this passage, for I do not affirm (nor ever did) that the dispensation of Discipline and of Sacraments in the cases mentioned are both alike unlawful, or else both alike lawful. The Answer will not witness that I have so affirmed, neither yet this present discourse t● much less do I hold that Sacraments may be dispensed by women or by men that are not Ministers. All that I have said in this matter is thus much, that it is good to take heed how far we yield it lawful in such extraordinary cases, as want of neighbours, to transgress and violate ordinary rules, lest some body do thence infer that Sacraments may be dispensed by women or men that are no Ministers, in case that Ministers or men be wanting. This I have said indeed, as being tender and afraid to open a door too far for liberty of transgressing ordinary rules, and conceiving that keeping close to those rules is the safest way. If any man be more bold and dare open the door further than I dare adventure to do, and think he can easily shut the same again, to stop the inconveniencies and ill consequents which I fear may thence ensue. I shall leave him to his discretion, and the guidance of God therein, only craving thus much for myself that no more may be imputed to me, nor reported of me in this or other matters, than indeed I have affirmed or expressed.  
Concerning his second reason of the greater necessity of Discipline then of Sacraments, his words are these. There is no such moral necessity of Sacraments as there is of the Ministry of the word and consequently of the use of the Keys, where a Scandalous person may infect the Lords flock: for where vision ceaseth the people perish. But it is never said where Baptism ceaseth the people perish, Pag. 455.  
Answ. How shall we be sure that by vision, Prov. 26. 18. Is meant Discipline? Yea Discipline not in a large sense as comprehending generally all order and behaviour concerning a Church and outward duties therein, but Discipline strictly taken for administration of censures (for of this is one question) how I say shall we be sure that by vision is meant this Discipline? The usual Expositors Tremeli●● and Junius, 〈…〉, and others do expound the same of the Preaching and dispensing of the word, making no mention at all of Discipline as meant thereby. And the 〈◊〉 branch of the verse, He ●hat keepeth the Law is blessed, doth ●hew that by vision in the former branch is mean the Law, or Doctrine or word of God. And if the Scripture do not s●y, where Baptism ceaseth the people perish, yet neither doth it say, where administration of Censures ceaseth the people perish; and therefore no necessity of censures above Sacraments can be concluded hence.  
Uncalled Ministers in case of necessity without Ordination or calling from a Presbytery may Preach and take on them the holy Ministry and exercise power of Jurisdiction, because of the necessity of the Souls of a Congregation in a remote Island requireth so.  
Answ If they may do these things without Ordination (as for my part I deny it not, so that the election or consent of the Congregation be not wan●ing, for that I suppose might be a good part of an outward calling) than I demand whether one Minister alone may not thus do, I mean whether one alone may not in the case proposed take on him the holy Ministry and Preach the word as a Minister. If many may do it, than I suppose there is no question but one may do it much rather. And if so, than I demand further whether such a single Minister may not also administer the Sacraments to such a Congregation: I suppose it cannot be denied, for if he lawfully take on him the Ministry and Preach as a Minister, what should hinder, but he may also Baptise, and minister the Lords Supper? And if he may thus do, than I demand lastly, whether this single Minister may also administer Discipline and censures in that Congregation. If he may, then either the power of those censures must be in himself alone, or in the Congregation also, in himself alone it cannot be, because censures must be dispensed by a Church, and one man alone cannot be a Church, If it be in the Congregation also, then here is a power of Excommunication or other censures even in the people which is against our Brother's judgement. If it be said that this single Minister as long as he wan●s other Ministers joined with him may not administer censures or Discipline, than it will follow that power of censures is not always annexed to the Ministry as an inseparable adjunct thereof, nor are Censures to be preferred before Sacraments as more necessary, as our Brother would have it, for as much as here is a Ministry and the administering of Sacraments, the necessity of the souls of the Congregation requiring so, and yet for all this not any power of censures at all. Our Brother therefore may make his choice, whether he will grant the power of the Keys of Discipline to be in the people, or whether he will say the necessity of the souls in a Congregation doth require Sacraments more than Discipline; For though these be both against himself, yet upon the ground which himself doth here lay, the one of the two is unavoidable.  
But I hope no necessity in any of the most extraordinary case requireth that a Midwife may Baptise, or that a private man remaining a private man may celebrate the Lords Supper to the Church, without any calling from the Church.  
Answ. Concerning the Midwife I think the same that he doth. And concerning the private man, I also therein ●●curre that without calling from the Church he may not perform what here is spoken of. But here I would make this Quare whether 〈◊〉 man that never was a Minister may not as well in an extraordinary case perform 〈◊〉 act of administering of Baptism or the Lord's Supper, without any calling from the 〈◊〉 bytery or the Church unto whom the office of Ministry, as take on him without any such calling the whole Ministry, and so Preach and exercise the power of jurisdiction as a Minister For as for the one of these, our Brother expressly grants a man m●y lawfully take it on him without any such calling, the necessity of the Souls of a Congregation in an Island requiring so; and if this necessity will warrant the one which is the whole and so the greater, why will it not warrant the other which is but one act and so the lesser? One would think one act of dispensing Baptism or the Supper were a lesser matter than the whole Ministry, and all the actions thereof. And marvel it is, that the necessity of the Souls of a Congregation should warrant this which is the greater, and yet the same necessity should not be sufficient warrant for the lesser, a man's calling being otherwise alike unto both, that is, having an outward calling to neither Himself doth sometimes reason thus, If we give to believers that are not in office one pastoral act, we may with the like weight of reason give them all: Peaceable plea, Page 272. Now if this reasoning be good from one Act to all, why is no this as good, from all to any one or to some one? And why may we not in like manner argue thus, If persons uncalled may without Ordination or calling take on them the whole Ministry, why may not persons uncalled without Ordination or calling take on them to Baptise or Minister the Supper? Not that I think such a practice to be lawful, but only I intent to make quaere about the validity of our Brother's kind of arguing. Yea, it is elsewhere his arguing, that it persons not in office of Ministry may execute censures and Discipline, they may then administer the Sacraments. For saith he, What hinders by this reason but they may also without Ministers Preach and administer the Sacraments: Peaceable Plea, Page 196. Yea saith he, I s●e not but with a like warrant private men may administer the Sacraments: Vbi Supra, Page 196. This we see is his arguing elsewhere: And yet in the place we have in hand he grants that persons uncalled may in case of necessity without Ordination or calling take on them the Ministry in general, and in particular may exercise the power of jurisdiction, and yet for all this he says, that no necessity will warrant a man to celebrate the Lords Supper without a calling from the Church. Which two sayings for aught I perceive do not agree. For in the one it is affirmed that if they may exercise Discipline and censures, they may by the like reason administer Sacraments: and the other saith they may exercise Discipline and censures and yet may not administer Sacraments; and yet both the sayings are expressed by the same Authors Pen.   

CHAP. XI.  
Whether the power of jurisdiction flowing immediately from the essence of a Church do not agree to a Church that hath neighbours as well as to a Church that hath none: And whether otherwise neighbouring Churches be not a loss. And whether pretence of maladministration be a sufficient reason for neighbouring Churches to deprive a Congregation of its power.  
THe next place where I find Mr. Rutherford dealing with the Answer, is in his Page 455. Where he brings in these words under Mr. Tompsons' name and mine, viz. If the power of Jurisdiction flow immediately and necessarily from the essence of a Church, and a Congregation be essentially a Church, than this power agreeth to all Churches whether consociated, or not consociated, and without respect of what neighbours they have, whether many or few, whether any or none. Second, a Congregation itself alone cannot have sole power of jurisdiction and then be deprived of it, when God sendeth neighbours, for then neighbouring Churches which are given for help should be given for loss, the contrary whereof Ames saith no. Do Synods saith he, Constitute a new form of a Church.  
Thus far Mr. Rutherford who in his Margin allegeth Mr. Tompson and me, 16. Pag. 4, 5.  
Answ. In one of these Pages of the Answer, viz. P. 5. there is nothing at all to be found that looks toward such a purpose as our Brother hath in hand, and therefore this Page should not have been here alleged. The words of Dr. Ames are more imperfectly cited by our Brother, than they were alleged in the Answer, For the Answer allegeth them thus out of Medulla. Theol. Lib. 1. Chapter 3. Sect 27. That the combination of Churches into Classes, and Synods doth neither constitute a new form of a Church, nor ought by any means to take away or impayer that liberty and power which Christ hath given to his Churches, sith it serveth only for the directing and furthering of the same. Whereas our Brother expresseth only those first words that Synods do not constitute a new form of a Church, but all the rest wherein the chief strength of Dr. Ames his testimony doth lie, them he doth wholly omit and leave out. He also leaves out the assent which is given by Mr. Paget, to this testimony of Dr. Ames, which assent as it is expressed in his defence P. 107. in these words, This we do willingly grant, is also in the ●ame words alleged by the Answer in P. 4. But this is wholly passed over by Mr. Rutherford in silence. Now two such men as these being alleged in the Answer, as plainly affirming that the combination of Churches into Classes and Synods must neither tollere nor minuere, take away not impair or diminish the liberty or power of Churches, but only serve for the directing and furthering of the same, And the one of them being the chief Patron of the power of Classes and Synods, It is some marvel to me that no word of Answer is vouchsafed to them by Mr. Rutherford, but that their words are thus passed by with silence, and the name of one of them not so much as mentioned. How ever this is clear, that he that gainsays the Answer in this passage, hath not only the Answer, but also the Reverend Author here mentioned to be against him. But let us come to consider of Mr. Rutherford his Answer which he subjoineth in these words, viz.  
Power of jurisdiction floweth from the essence of a Congregation in an Island, ergo a total and complete power of jurisdiction floweth from the essence of a Church or Congregation consociated, it followeth no ways.  
Answ I desire the reason may be laid down according to our true meaning therein, and in its full strength; and then the former part thereof must not only speak of power of jurisdiction flowing from the essence of a Church that want neighbours, but of entire power, for thereof is the question; and in the latter part the terms must no: be a Church consociated but a Church that hath neighbours; Now if entire power and jurisdiction do flow from the essence of a Church, and therefore this essence of a Church being found in a Congregation that wants neighbours, this entireness of power mu●t thereupon be granted to such a Congregation; I then demand why the like entireness of power must not be granted as well to a Congregation that hath neighbours, sith the essence of a Church is found in this Congregation, as well as in the other. For aught I see either the essence of a Church must be denied to a Congregation that hath neighbours or else it will follow that entireness of power must be granted to such a Congregation, Risibility and power of reason flowing immediately and necessarily from the essence of a man, and power to defend itself and purge out excrements flowing in like sort from the essence of a humane body, and power to govern itself with family government flowing in like sort from the essence of a family; therefore we must not grant these powers to be entire in such a man, such a body, or such a family as is alone, and deny the same to one that hath neighbours, but must grant them alike unto all, because this power flows from their very essence, which is as truly found in such as have neighbours, as it is in those that are alone. And the like may be said in other cases. And why it should be otherwise in a congregational Church, that the power of the jurisdiction flowing from the essence of such a Church should therefore be entire in such a Congregation as is alone in an Island, and yet not entire in a Congregation that hath neighbours, though this Congregation hath the essence of a Church as well as the other, why these Congregations I say should thus greatly differ in their power, and yet be alike in their essence from whence their power doth flow, for my part I yet do not understand the reason.  
Nor doth that satisfy which Mr. Rutherford here allegeth, That one Pastor in a Congregation hath as a Pastor power to rebuke sin and to administer the Sacraments, and yet when three Pastors are added to help him he hath not the sole power of rebuking sin, and the sole and entire power to administer the Sacraments, but these three Pastors have power with him: This I conceive doth not help the matter at all: For though it be true that these three Pastors being added to the first have each of them the like power as the first had, yet the power of the first for the performance of these things mentioned, is as comple●t in him notwithstanding this addition, as it was before, and not any whit abated nor impaired thereby: And the reason is, because matters of order flowing from the essence of a Pastor may be sufficiently and completely performed by one Pastor singly, which acts of jurisdiction cannot. Mr. Rutherford his own words in this case are these, viz. A single Pastor may Ministerially give out Commandments in the authority of Christ, but he cannot himself censure or Excommunicate the contraveners of those Commandments: Due Right, Page 387. And again, Page 387, 388 It is proper is acts of jurisdiction Ecclesiastical that they cannot be exercised by one alone, but must be exercised by a society: but a Pastor as a Pastor himself alone without any collaterally joined with him exerciseth his Pastoral acts of Preaching and administering the Sacraments. Now if a Pastor as a Pastor himself alone without any collatterally joined with him, may thus exercise his Pastoral acts, than indeed the access or addition of other Pastors is not at all destructive of his Pastoral power, but he still retaineth the same as complete and perfect as before, because he doth these acts as a Pastor and remaineth a Pastor still. But how this example and instance can any thing further Mr. Ruth●rford his purpose, I do not understand. For his intention is to make good that a Congregation may have entire power when it is alone, a●d yet not so when other Congregations do arise; and for the consuming of this he brings this instance and example from a Pastor that hath a Pastoral power afore other Pastors are added; who by the addition of others hath no less power than afore; which example I conceive rather makes against him then for him. For saith he, Page 456. Their Pastoral power added to him is Cumulative and auxiliary, but not privative or destructive of his Pastoral power, and therefore that the first Pastor suffereth loss by the addition of these three to him, who, saith he, will say this?  
Answ. I know none that will say it; but if their power be Cumulative and auxiliary to his Pastoral power, and no ways privative or destructive thereof, then what power he had afore they were added, the same he hath still in as great measure as formerly, and so his Pastoral acts are as perfect and valid as they were before. Now let the same be granted to a Congregation that hath neighbour Congregations added, and we have what we demand: And if this be not granted, then though the power of those other Pastors be Cumulative and auxiliary to the other Pastor, yet the power of those other Congregations seems not so to the former Congregation, but rather privative or destructive of its power, and then how can this example confirm our Brother's purpose, or how can it be avoided but the example which he produceth doth make against himself? Sure if the power of these other Pastors be not destructive to the former Pastor's power, but auxiliary thereto, so that what power he had before, the same he retaineth still, and in the same measure, than it must be so likewise in a Congregation when neighbour Congregations are added, or else this example will not suit: But make the examples to agree and our cause is advantaged thereby.  
Our Brethren do conceive the power of Congregations in its kind and essence to be Monarchical, so as if any power from consociated Congregations be added thereunto, the Congregations power Monarchical is diminished and the essence of it changed.  
Answ. The power of Congregations we ●old to be Ministerial, as being delegated from Christ jesus, and to be exercised according to his appointment; and in him alone and in no other do we place this Monarchical power; according to what the Holy Ghost witnesseth, that there are differences of administrations but the same Lord, 1 Cor. 12. 5. And though our Brother is pleased to put this upon us, that we conceive the power of Congregations to be Monarchical, yet in truth the same is far from us: Nor do I think that so much as one of us can be named, that at any time hath so spoken: Nor doth such a thing follow from any thing delivered by us concerning the power of Congregations. For as for that which here he intimateth and elsewhere expresseth more plainly, so that the power of jurisdiction in Congregations is closely made void or destroyed by that power which some ascribe unto Classes, if this be holden by us, doth it thence follow that we hold the power of Congregations to be Monarchical●● It follows not at all. For then by the like reason I could prove that himself d●th hold a power Monarchical in the universal or Provincial Churches: For he expressly affirmeth, Page 337. That the Pope's power destroyeth the power of the Church universal, and the Prelate's power destroyeth the power of the Church whereof he is pretended Pastor. And yet I hope he doth not hold a Monarchical power in the one Church nor in the other, nor in any Church or Churches but in Christ alone; nor can the same be truly concluded upon that which he affirmeth of destroying the power of Churches by the power of the Pope and Prelate. And if not, how then can any man conclude against us that we hold a Monarchical power in Congregations, though we should hold that the power of Congregations is destroyed or diminished by that power which some would give unto Classes● If our pr●mises will warrant him to fasten such a Tenent upon us, his own will give a warrant for the like against himself. And if the ground be insufficient to bear such a conclusion against him, as I confess it is, I know no sufficient ground why the same should be imputed unto us.  
Complete and en●ire power to rule both the Congregation and members of consociated Churches in so far as they do keep communion with that Congregation, and may either edify or Scandalise them, floweth not immeaiately and necessarily from the essence of every Congregation even in remote Lands not consociated with others, that we never said.  
Answer. Indeed it were an absurd and gross saying for any man to say, that a Congregation in a remote Island not consociated with others should have power, yea complete and entire power to rule the Congregation and members of Churches consociated and that this should flow immediately and necessarily from the essence of such a Congregation. But there is no need that our Brother should clear himself from this saying, for I know none that imputes it to him. Nevertheless, the saying here ●●joyned cannot be denied, for they are his own verb●ti●●.  
First, the ordinary power of jurisdiction because of nearest vicinity and contiguity of members is given by jesus Christ to one Congregation in an Isle, because that Church is a Church properly so called: It is a little City, and a little Kingdom of jesus Christ, having within itself power of the ●ord and Sacraments and that is a Church and hath the essence of a Church to which agree the essential notes of a Church: now Preaching of the word and administration of the Sacraments are essential notes of a visible Church: Page 302.  
Second, a Congregation is a Church wanting nothing of the being and essence of a Church, Page 302.  
Third, where consociation is not, Ordination and Excommunication may be done by one single Congregation, Page 338.  
Fourth, that in such cases (viz. When a Church is in an Island itself alone) they have the word Preached and entire power of Discipline whole and entire within themselves to Excommunicate Scandalous persons, is not extraordinary, Page 454.  
fifth, it floweth connaturally from a Church to which agreeth the essence of a Church, to exercise jurisdiction over all its own members, ibid.  
sixth, neither doth a Congregation transgress any rules of Christ at all, when it exerciseth entire Power of censures within itself, whereas there be no consociated Churches to share with it in that power, ibid.  
Seaventh, a Congregation is capable of entire jurisdiction, because it is a Church, Ibid.  
Such sayings as these himself hath delivered in the pages and places here cited, and in the words and terms here expressed; and therefore from these he cannot clear himself And if from these the entireness of jurisdiction in a Church that hath neighbours may justly be deduced, as I conceive it may, and have above manifested, it will then but little avail him to wash his hands from the stain of that other absurd saying afore mentioned, which no man that I know do charge him withal. For as long as these other sayings do stand unrecalled, so long we have clear grounds from himself and his own words, for entireness of jurisdiction in every congregational Church, and so for the weakening of his cause, and for the strengthening of our own.  
A power to govern well and according to the rule of the Word added to an other power to govern well and according to the Word, is an auxiliary power and no way destructive to that power to which it is added. Indeed a power to govern well added to a power of maladministration in a Congregation is destructive of that power, and reason it should be so, because Christ never gave any such power of maladministration to a Congregation.  
Answ. Here our Brother speaks of two cases, first of a Power of governing well added to a power of governing well. Second, of a power of governing well added to a power of governing ill; but besides these, there is a third case which had need to be considered also, viz. A power of governing ill added to a power of governing well, which may be the case when the power of Classis is added to a Congregation; for it is not impossible but the Congregation may be in the right and the Classis in the wrong. Now what shall be said or done in this ●ase? Shall the Congregation now have the free exercise of its power, or shall it not? To say yea, would satisfy the minds of many, if the Congregation themselves may be judge that they are in the right, or if it were determined who must judge thereof. And to say no, and that the power must still be in this erring Classis, were to subject righteousness to wickedness, and truth to falsehood, and I conceive our Brother will not maintain such power in a compound or Presbytery or Classis. For in Page 335. speaking of this very case, and the greater Presbytery is wrong in their voicing, and the Elders of a congregational Church are right, and have the best in judging of a case before them, he plainly affirmeth, That the power which in this case the Presbytery exerciseth is not of Christ, and that de jure the power of the greater Presbytery in this case ought to be swallowed up of the voices of the Elders of a Congregation, though they be fewer in number. Now if this be so, than the thing in question is still as uncertain as before, and still we are to seek where the power of censures or jurisdiction doth finally reside. For in the one place our Brother tells us, Christ never gave power of maladministration to a Congregation, and in the other he tells us the like of a Classis or great Presbytery, and that Christ hath given no power to any Church to err. By which sayings we are left at great uncertainty: for still the question will be whether the Congregation doth err or no, and so whether the Classis do err or no, and unless it be determined who must judge of this, we are still but where we were, and no nearer an issue then before.  
This indeed is most true and must be so acknowledged, that though the Lord Almighty have given a power unto Societies, whether they be families, Commonwealths, or Churches, and have made sundry of them subordinate to none other the like Societies in the exercise of their power, but to have supremacy of power within themselves, yet he hath also given them just and holy rules in his word for the directing of them in the use of this Power, from which rules it is not lawful for them to swerve or go astray; but if they do, it will be sin unto them, and he will surely require it of them: But now between these two the power itself and the abuse or right use of the power, we must carefully distinguish, for though abuse of their power be not given of God, from whom comes nothing but good, yet the power itself being good is given of him, and is so to be acknowledged. And though abuse of their power do justly deserve at his hands that they should be deprived of the power itself, ye● God doth not always forthwith deal with men according to their deserts herein, but many times continues still to them their power, though they have abused the same, much less doth he allow others to deprive them of this power because of every abuse thereon: witness among others the examples of the Pagan Princes in the Apostles times, who through their ignorance, infidelity, pride and other sins, could not but in great measure abuse their authority, and yet the Holy Ghost commands the Christians to be subject and obedient thereunto, Rom. 13. 1, 2. etc. 'tis 3. 1. Not to obey them indeed, in doing evil at their commands, for in such case they must obey God rather than man, as Act 5. 29. Yet still they must be subject to the powers either actively or passively, even then when the powers were sinfully abused. Even so, if a family shall abuse their power, it doth not follow that other families, may lawfully for this cause take away their power from them: Or if a Corporation shall so offend, it will not follow that other Corporations may deprive them of their power. And if it be so in Commonwealths, and families, why may we not say the same of Churches? Or how will it follow, if a Church shall abuse their power, that other Churches in such eases may take away the power from such a Church? For aught I see, this will not follow at all, no more than the other. For though Christ have not given to any Church a power of male administration as Mr. Rutherford speaks, yet hath he given to every Church a power of administration, which if they manage not aright but do abuse the same, the Lord jesus will be displeased with them for this abuse, and other Churches may and aught to advise them and admonish them and testify against them for the same; but for the power itself, as Christ himself doth not forthwith deprive them thereof, so much less may other Churches take it from them, for who gave them this authority? Per in parem non habet potestatem: and Churches are all of equal authority, and not one superior or inferior to another, as therefore when children or servants in a family are not governed as they ought to be, yet neighbour families have not warrant because of this male administration to invade the rights and destroy the power of such a family, even so it is in this case of Churches▪ this maladministration in a Church is not forthwith a sufficient warrant for neighbour Churches to invade the rights of such a Church, and to take away its power from it. Especially if we do consider that this maladministration in a Congregation may possibly be but pretended and not real, and that the administration of the Classes may paradventure be really such; in which case Mr. Rutherford saith the power of the Classis is not of Christ, but their voices ought the jure to be swallowed up by the Congregation and the Elders thereof. This argument therefore from maladministration of the power of a Congregation, which Mr Rutherford saith, it is reason should be destroyed by another power added to it, meaning the power of a Classis is of no sufficient force to take away the power of a Congregation at all, not to establish the power of the Classis over the same, being as justly appliable against the Classis itself: Therefore for aught that doth yet appear, supreme Ministerial Church power which I conceive must needs be somewhere, may as well be in the Congregation as in the Classis, and can neither by this argument of maladministration nor by any other that we have yet seen, be placed in the Classis any more then in the Congregation.   

CHAP. XII.  
Whether it be against the light of Nature that the adverse party be judge; and whether Mr. Rutherford can safely say that none of them do so teach, and whether this saying that parties may not be judges do make against entireness of power in a Congation, any more than in a general or national Council.  
THe next place where Mr. Rutherford deals with the Answer, is in his P. 456. Where alleging Mr. Tompson and me, Page 5. he hath these words as ours, viz. If it be against the light of Nature that the adverse party be the sole judge, which must be if the sole power of jurisdiction be in the Congregation (as we grant in an extraordinary case and the Congregation is in an Island itself alone) and so it shall be lawful for a single Congregation to do that which is against all equity, and the very light of Nature, it must then follow, that it is not against the light of Nature that a Congregation though consociated with other Congregations have entire Jurisdiction within itself.  
Answ. Our words in the Page alleged are more prospicuous and clear, than these which are here set down for ours: neither do we make any mention of a Congregation in an Island, nor yet of a Congregation consociated with other Churches, lest of all do we say (or report others to say) that it is lawful for a single Congregation to do that which is against all equity and the very light of Nature; none of these things are ours. And therefore, that our true meaning may plainly appear as it is, I will transcribe a few of our words, which are these, viz. Sure we cannot think that there can be such a case imagined, wherein you would grant it lawful 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 entireness of Jurisdiction within itself; which seems to us plainly to prove that for a Congregation to be so independent as to be the final Judge of offences within itself, is not against all equity nor against the light of Nature, as is intimated by you. These are our words, much differing from those which Mr. Rutherford sets down as ours, which I thought meet to relate out of the Answer, that our meaning might appear as it is, and no otherwise. And now let us hear what our Brother subjoineth for answer.  
None of us, saith he, Do teach that it is against the light of Nature that the adverse party be the judge: it might fall out in a general Council lawfully convened from which their is no Provocation: Yea and in a national Council (for all Counsels may err) the adverse party may Judge; as it was a lawful Council according to a Church constitution that condemned Christ of Blasphemy and they were also his enemies.  
Answ. And may it not also fall out in a Provincial Synod, and in a Classis or Presbtytery of many Churches? I suppose it cannot be denied, but the judges in all these may be the adverse parties; and so if the adverse party may not be judge, than neither general nor national Counsels, nor Provincial Synods, nor Classes, nor Presbyteries may be judges; because there is none of these but possibly they may be parties. And so this argument, parties may not be judges, doth make no more against the Congregations power of judging, then against all Ecclesiastical Assemblies whatsoever. Unless therefore men would overthrow the power of all Ecclesiastical judicatories whatsoever without exception of any, they can have no help from this Argument to overthrow the power of jurisdiction in Congregations. Not to insist upon that which might also be truly alleged, that the Objection hath the like force, (if any at all) against civil judicatories.  
But is it so indeed as our Brother affirmeth, that none of them do teach that it is against the light of Nature that the adverse party be the judge? I think he should not thus have spoken, for I am much mistaken if the contrary hereunto be not certainly true. For first of all, I allege the words of Reverend Mr, Herle, in his Book of Independency Page 5. alleged in the Answer: Page 6, the very Pag. which here Mr Rutherford is dealing against. In which place of Mr. Herle there are these words, viz. That there ought to be gradual Judicatories, wherein the aggrieved party may appeal from the lesser to the higher, that against the very light of Nature the adverse party be not the sole judge and party too in the cause, there can be no Ceremony or Type in this, Next of all I allege the words of the same Reverend Author in his Page 10▪ (Which is also alleged in the forementioned place of the Answer) Where the words are these, 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 Saviour's remed or complaint or Appeal here? That the offended party be not against all equity the sole and final Judge of the offence. In which places we see it is plain, yet this Reverend Author counts it against the very light of Nature; that the adverse party should be judge and party too in the cause, and that it is against all equity that the party offended should be sole and final judge of the offence. And therefore it is marvellous that Mr. Rutherford should say that none of them do so teach: Yea, it is the more marvellous inasmuch as both these places of Mr. Herle are expressly mentioned in that very page of the Answer which here Mr. Rutherford is disputing against. And therefore it he had not remembered that himself had read the same in Mr Herle, as like enough he had, yet finding the same alleged by us in that Scripture of ou●s, it is marvel he would not turn to the places alleged to search and see whether the thing were so or no, afore he had denied the same. Whereas on the contrary, whether he searched or searched not, this we see that he roundly affirms, that none of them do so teach; to which saying I know not how to assent, our eyes having so plainly seen and read the direct contrary,  
Yea and further, it is yet more marvellous that Mr. Rutherford should thus write, considering not only what hath been already said, but also what himself hath written elsewhere: I will mention a few of his own sayings, and then himself shall be ●udge, whether the thing we have now in hand was by him advisedly and well spoken. In his Peaceable Plea, Page 218 he hath these words, When the Grecian Church offendeth the Hebrew Church, the Hebrew Church cannot complain to the Grecian Church, for the Law forbiddeth the party to be Judge. And what Law he means may be perceived by his words in Page 208. of the same Treatise, where he saith, If one man be wronged and see truth suffer by partiality, the Law of Nature will warrant him to appeal to an Assembly, where there is more light and greater Authority, as the weaker may fly to the stronger. Now let himself be judge whether in these testimonies compared, he do not teach, that it is against the Law of Nature that parties should be Iudge●, and that therefore men may appeal from them. Again, those words Page 27 of the same Book are so plain as that nothing can be more, These words saith he what soever ye bind on earth, etc. Must be meant only of the Apostles, and of the Church, verse 18. Yea, and it must exclude Peter and his offending Brother, suppose they were both believers; because parties by the Law of Nature and Nations cannot be judges. Las●ly, those words are express in his Due Right of Presbytery, in his see ●nd P. 338, 339. Where he writes thus, If according to the Law of Nature and Nations, no man can be judge in his own cause, then are appeals from the Eldership of one Congregation, when they are a party to the caused person, Natural— but the former is reason, Nature, Law of Nations. Ergo so is the latter. In the Assumption of which Syllogism he plainly affirms that it is reason, Nature, and the Law of Nations, that no man may be judge in his own cause, and by all this I suppose t● is manifest that the thing which he saith none of them do teach is expressly and plainly taught by some of them, and among others even by himself, who therefore ought not to have denied the same, nor can be cleared from much forgetfulness in so doing.  
And if so great an oversight be found in him, I hope himself may thereby be entreated to be tender of agravating matters against us or others, at leastwise not so far to aggravate them, as to impute unto us matters which we do not hold: for a man's own infirmities should make him more equitable and favourable towards others. And Christian Readers may be warned hereby not hastily to receive all that Mr. Rutherford hath written, afore they have duly examined and tried the same, whether the things be so or not, for we see through forgetfulness or otherwise he may greatly mistake himself, and miss of the truth, and give forth such sayings and expressions for truth, as are in no sort to be maintained but recalled, though nevertheless he is otherwise a man of great worth, and so ever to be acknowledged.  
We teach that it is not Congruous to the wisdom of Christ, nor to the light of Nature, that Christ should have appointed all the ordinary Church Courts, so many thousand Congregations, who may rather cry then extraordinary and higher Synods to be the only ordinary judges in their own cause.  
Answ. These qualifications and limitations of the matter of parties being judges are such as to my remembrance I never heard given afore now. Now indeed it is said 1. That all Congregations being so many thousand. 2. May not be the only ordinary judges in their own cause, but it would be against the wisdom of Christ and light of Nature if it should so be; Yet formerly it was delivered absolutely and simply, that it is against the light of Nature for parties to be judges, without any such modifications and qualifications as now Mr. Rutherf. gives to help the matter withal. Nevertheless by qualifying the thing in this sort, it seems thereby to be still granted that though so many thousand Congregations may not ordinarily be judge in their own cause, but the light of Nature will be against it, yet for some Congregations and at some times the thing may be allowed well enough: else why is the thing denied only to so many Congregations, and ordinarily, if it be not thereby employed that some Congregations and at some times may thus practise? Now hereupon the question groweth, whether some at some times may be allowed to do contrary to the light of Nature, though all may not: or whether the light of Nature be changed when there comes to be many Congregations, and be not the same that it was before, when there was no more Congregations but one, whether I say some new light of Nature do arise with the rise of new Congregations, so that when they are many it would be against this light for them thus to be judges, though it was not so when there was but one: or whether we must say the light of Nature remaining in the same, one Congregation remaining alone may be allowed to do contrary thereto, but many may not. It seems to be inconvenient and ha●d to affirm either of these; and yet the one or the other seems unavoidable by this that Mr. Rutherford here teacheth. For let it be granted that a Congregation that is alone, yea a general Council, yea a national Council also may be judges in their own cause, and that no light of Nature is against the same, and yet many Congregations may not be so, but then the light of Nature will be against it, let these things I say be granted, which are all of them granted and taught by Mr. Rutherford, and then I desire to know how the inconveniences mentioned can be avoided; I mean how it can be avoided, but either some men or Church Assemblies may lawfully do that which is against the very light of Nature, or else that the light of Nature is changed when many Congregations do arise, from that which it was when there was but one. Yea the difficulty and intricacy in this way is yet more, if it be well considered. For first of all when a Congregation is alone, it is yielded that it is not against Nature's light for them to be judges in their own cause. Secondly, when many Congregations do arise, now it is said it is against such light, that they should so be judges: Yet thirdly, when these Congregations do gather into a national Council, than this light of Nature will allow them to be judges, as in the first case of a single Congregation that is alone: And the same is also said of the general Council: so that here is strange varying and changing of the light of Nature, and of that which is against it, lawful or unlawful thereby. And when good reason and ground is given for the clearing of these things, we shall then consider further thereof, and see more than yet we do. In the mean time taking what is granted, that no light of Nature forbids a Congregation when it is alone, to have entireness of jurisdiction within itself, nor forbids the same to the general or national Counsels, I think it may thence be inferred, that the like must be allowed to congregational Churches that have neighbours, and that entireness of jurisdiction in these is no more against the light of Nature, then in the other. For to say that one Congregation may have this entireness of jurisdiction and the light of Nature allowe● it, and others may not but the light of Nature forbids it; yea to say first the light of Nature allows it, and then it forbids it, and then it allows it again, these are such abstruse and intricate things, yea so apparently incongruous and inconsistent, that it passeth my understanding to perceive how they can stand together.   

CHAP. XIII.  
Whether the Churches at Thessalonica and jerusalem, were each of them more than one Congregation; and of Mr. Baynes his judgement therein. Of the Assembly mentioned Luke 12. And whether our Saviour did there speak to his Disciples only, or to all the people also.  
IT is a wonder to me saith our Author Page 457. That Thessalonica was but one Congregation— yet the Apostle ascribeth to them that which is a note to worthy Baynes of the unmerous multitude of the Church of Jerusalem, from whence went the word of Ged to all the World. 1 Thes. 1. 8. For from you sounded out the word of the Lord not only in Macedonia, and Achaia, but in every place your Faith to God-ward is spread abroad.  
Answ. All this doth not hinder but Thessalonica might be one Congregation, though perhaps a great one. For that the word did sound out from them to others, and their Faith to Godward was spread abroad, what is there in all this to prove they were many Congregations in one Church? And for Mr. Baynes whom our Author worthily counts a worthy man, there is nothing in him that will serve Mr. Rutherford his purpose, but much that makes for the contrary. For it is well known in his Diocesans Trial he maintains at large, that Churches by the appointment of Chr●st are congregational, and denies that one Congregation may be one Church: and in the particular instances of the Church, at Jerusalem, at Co●i●th, at Ephesus, at Antioch and others, he holds the very same that we do, and the direct contrary to that which Mr. Rutherford stands for. And therefore whereas he wonders that Thessalonica should be one Congregation, considering what the Apostle saith of them, and what Mr. Baynes hath said of Jerusalem, I may more justly wonder that he should once mention Mr. Baynes in this cause. For if ever there was man in this world that deny●d many Congregations to be one Church, and allowed only such Churches to be instituted of Christ as may meet ordinarily in one Congregation, this Mr. Baynes was one of them; and therefore a wonder it is to me that Mr. Rutherford should think to have help from him in this question. But let us consider what it is that Mr Baynes doth say of the Church at jerusalem: Why, this which the Apostle affirmeth of the Thessalonians Mr. Baynes doth make a note of the numerous multitude of the Church at jerusalem. But doth he make it a note of many Congregations in one Church at jerusalem? If he do, this were something to the purpose, I grant. But I hope Mr. Rutherford will not so report of Mr. Baynes; For it is plain Mr. Bayne● doth not so speak, but expressly saith the direct contrary; and therefore what ever numerous multitude might be in that Church, and what ever might be a note of such multitude, except Mr. Baynes had said that the multitude was such as made many Congregations and yet all but one Church (which he never said but the contrary) there is no help to be had from Mr. Baynes in this business. For who knoweth not that there might be a numerous multitude, and yet but one Congregation? Sure in Mr. Baynes his judgement it might be so, and therefore though he grant a numerous multitude in this Church at Jerusalem, yet Mr. Rutherford purpose for many Congregations in Thessal●nica and yet all but one Church, is not gained, nor at all holpen thereby.  
Which will better appear if Mr. Baynes his Argumentation in the place which I conceive Mr. Rutherford aims at, be considered in Page 3. of his Diocesans Trial, he propounds an Argument of theirs who would have many Congregations to be one Church, taken from the example of the ancient Churches of Rome and Alexandria, laid down in these words: If the multitude of Christians did in jerusalem so increase within a little time, that they exceeded the proportion of one Congregation, how much more likely is it that Christians in Rome and Alexandria did so increase in 200 years, that they could not keep in one particular Assembly: But the first is true, Ergo also the latter. Now when he cames to answer this Argument, Pag. 18, 19 What doth he then say. First of all he saith, The Proposition is not of necessary consequence, for there were saith he very extraordinary reasons of that which was effected in jerusalem: And so he proceeds to mention 5, or 6. reasons in particular, of which one is this which it may be Mr. Rutherford hath an eye unto, that the state of this Church was such as that it was to send out light to all others, a common aursery to the World. And therefore if the thing were granted that in Jerusalem there was a numerous multitude, yea such a multitude as could not be contained in one Congregation, yet saith he, It doth not follow from this particular to the so great increasing of these Churches, to wit, of Rome and Alexandria in tract of time. And even so may I say, it doth not follow to the so great increasing of the Church of the Thessalonians, there being such extraordinary reasons for that which was effected in jerusalem, as neither Rome nor Alexandria, nor yet Thessalonica could allege the same. And this is his Answer to the Proposition. But for the Assumption, where Mr. Rutherford his help must chiefly lie, to wit, that the multitude of Christians in jerusalem did exceed the proportion of one Congregation, this Mr. Baynes doth expressly deny: not to mention, saith he, That we do deny the Assumption. Therefore, the Proposition being by Mr. Baynes not yielded, and the Assumption expressly denied, I see not how Master Rutherford can have any help to his cause from either of both.  
He denies not, he saith, What Mr. Tompson and I do say, that 5000 may meet to hear the word, many thousands were gathered together, Luke 12 to hear Christ.  
Answ. If this be not denied, then suppose there were 5000 or more in the Church at jerusalem, it doth not follow therefore that that Church was many Congregations, and so our purpose is gained.  
But we, he saith, Leave out the inconveniences of thronging so all at once, for they trod one upon another. Second, Christ Preached not to all those thousands at once, for it is expressly said verse 1. He began to say to his Disciples; so, Christ refusing to Preach to such a disorderly confluence of people, who could not hear, and his Doctrine being all for his Disciples, the very Sermon being Preached to his Disciples only— evidenceth to me that Christ condemneth a numerous multitude to hear at once.  
Answ. The Question is not about the conveniency or inconveniency of such excessively great Assemblies; but whether there be an impossibility in Nature, and reason, that so many as are said to be in the Church at jerusalem should assemble and come together in one Congregation; for this is sometimes said for the proving of sundry Congregations in that one Church. Now if this be not impossible, than the plurality of Congregations in that one Church cannot be concluded by those great multitudes that were therein. And that it is not impossible for such great multitudes to come together in one Congregation, the Scripture alleged Luke 12, doth witness. If they trod one upon another, that might argue the Assembly was very great, and that they were very desirous to be near unto our Saviour for their better hearing, but doth not at all prove that such multitudes are so great as that they cannot possibly be spoke unto and hear in one Congregation. And therefore, whereas our Brother saith, Christ preached not to all those thousands at once, and that he refused to Preach to such a disorderly confluence of People, With favour of so worthy a man, I think the truth is otherwise. For though he began to speak to his Disciples, verse 1. And exhorted them against worldly carefulness, verse 22. Yet others who were not Disciples were present, and did also hear his Sermon: Witness that in verse 13. Where it is said that one of the company (interrupting our Saviour as it seems) demands of him that he would speak to his Brother about dividing the Inheritance; to whom our Saviour makes answer, verse 14. Which plainly ●hewes that all the present company were not Disciples. Yea whereas it is said, that hereupon our Saviour spoke to them of bewaring and taking heed of covetousness, verse 15. And sp●ke a Parable to them of a certain rich man, verse 16. And after this said to his Disciples, verse 22. Take ●o thought for your life what you shall eat, etc. It appeareth hereby that these persons spoken to afterward verse 15, 16, etc. Were not the Disciples, who were spoken to afterward, verse 22. But were some other people besides. And what can be more plain than that in verse 54. where it is expressly said, that Christ spoke unto the people, rebuking them for their hypocrisy, that could discern the face of the Sky, and of the Earth, but could not discern that time? And he said also to the people, saith the Text; doth it not plainly appear hereby that as Myriad of people were gathered together, ver. 1 So our Saviour spoke the word unto those people? I suppose the thing is manifest, and that therefore our Brother's words cannot stand, when he saith, That Christ Preached not to that confluence of people, but refused so to do, his Doctrine being all for his Disciples, For we see the Holy Ghost witnesseth that he spoke not only to his Disciples, but to the people also: Chemniti●s hath these words, Neg●ri non potest ●n hac satis prolixi concione, etc. It cannot be denied that Christ in this long Sermon of his, directed his speech first to his Disciples, second to his friends, Third to one of the company. Fourth to Peter demanding a question. fifth to all the multitude, and it seems the Evangelist was willing as it were to reckon up these several parts or members of the Sermon, Harmon. chap. 110. And the Refuter of Dr. Downams' Sermon saith, The mention of many thousands in Jerusalem doth not make the number such as by no means could meet together in the public worship of God, seeing it is apparent, Luke 12. 1. that the people which assembled unto Christ and partake his ' Doctrine were also many Myriads: and albeit he began at the first to speak to his Disciples verse 1. Yet afterward he spoke to all the people assembled, ver. 13. 15. 54. Reply P. 2. P. 90. Wherefore though our Brother say Christ spoke not to these multitudes of people but to his Disciples only, yet sith we have the ●ext itself, and the judgement of two Divines of chief note, expressly witnessing the contrary, therefore we cannot assent to him herein. Whereas chrysostom saith 5000 did hear his voice at once in one Congregation by means of Scaffolds and Galleries, and Mr. Mather is willing to yield 8120 were all assembled in one place to hear the word, and that all the multitude of Converts at jerusalem were together in Solomon's Porch Acts 5 12. I grant 3000 could hear at once, but alas &c Page 458. Answ. If Chrysostom's testimony be of any weight, or Mr. Baynes his testimony by whom chrysostom is alleged Diocesans Trial, Page 16. Then a must be granted that not only 3000, but a greater number, even 50●0 at least may hear the word at once. And if so, then 5000 members in the Church at jerusalem will not prove plurality of Congregations in one Church, forasmuch as here are 5000 people and yet no more Congregations but one.  
But alas this is a great uncertainty for independent Congregations, but this is to be proved, first that 8000 (Mr. Mather hath not added many other multitudes mentioned, Acts 5. 14. & 6. 17.) did meet daily in the Temple. Second, daily or ordinarily from house to house. Third, to celebrate the Lords Supper daily in the Temple and in every private house, and there were need of many Scaffolds and Galleries, to sit at one Table. Fourth, to make one Judicature, etc.  
Answ. He that shall look upon the Answer Page 34 will plainly see that I have here spoken to both those places of Acts 5. 14. & 6 1. Showing that neither of them do prove a plurality of Congregations in this Church at jerusalem, but rather the contrary. And therefore this Parenthesis which doth intimate that I have omitted to speak to these places, must not be assented to, but denied.  
But why must these four particulars be proved? I suppose he means because of that which is said Act. 2 46. They continued daily with one accord in the Temple, etc. But this doth not clear it, that these four particulars must needs be proved, and the reason is; First, because judicature which is one of the particulars, is not mentioned at all in that Scripture; nor is it said by us, that a daily exercise thereof is necessary in every Church or in any. Second, the Lord Supper, which is another of the particulars, is not mentioned at all in that Text, at leastwise not in those words or terms which Mr. Rutherford sets down; much less is it said as he expresseth it, that they did daily celebrate the same both in the Temple and in every private house: nor can the same for aught I know be proved by this or by any other Scripture, nor was such a thing ever affirmed by us, so far as I know. I suppose if they had celebrated it in the Temple alone, or in some private house or houses alone, that might have been sufficient, without any necessity of celebrating the same in both places upon one day, both in the Temple and in the houses too. Nay it is a question whether the Lords Supper be at all intended in this place; though I doubt not but they observed that Ordinance, and verse 42. may possibly teach so much. But for the verse we are speaking of, viz, Verse 46▪ there is no necessity that the breaking of Bread there spoken of, must needs be meant of that Ordinance. Sure he was a judicious expositor who understands it otherwise, Quod hic fractionem panis etc. That is, whereas some expound breaking of Bread in this place of the Lords Supper, it seems to me to be far from Luke's intention: Calvin in Act. 2. 46. So then, of Mr rutherford's four particulars which he saith we must prove, there is not past the half of them that needs to be proved at all, the two last being already removed. And for a third which is of breaking of Bread daily and ordinarily from house to house, understand this breaking of Bread as Calvin doth, of their civil repast, and then it hurts not our cause at all, though it be yielded that they did daily meet for such purpose in several companies, in their private houses; for this they might do and be no more but one Congregation. There remains therefore only one that needs to be proved, namely the first, that they did daily meet in the Temple; and this may be proved with case, because the plain words of the Text do affirm it, They continued daily with one accord in the Temple; so that yet we have found nothing that proves jerusalem to be many Congregations in one Church.  
Nay I conceive, that one of these four particulars, viz. The first, of their daily meeting in the Temple, doth apparently show that how great soever the number was, yet it was not exceeding the proportion of one Congregation, which might come together in one place; For the Temple was but one in all the City, I mean there was but only one individual Temple, and not many Temples, which if there had been then our Brethren might possibly have said, that they met distributively in sundry lesser companies, but were to many too meet all in one Congregation; for so they were wont to expound sundry other phrases used by the Holy Ghost, to declare their coming together. True say they, they come together, but how? Not collectively all of them together in one place, they were too many for that; but they came together distributively, some of them in one place, and some in another, and so they think they have answered sufficiently. But now to this of their meeting together in the Temple, they cannot answer so; for then there should have been sundry Temples, in which they might have met, distributed into sundry companies; but there being no more Temples but one, and the Text affirming plainly that they all met with one accord, in the Temple, it must needs be, that they met collectively, all of them together in one and the same place; and hence it followeth, that they were not so many but still they might be one Congregation as well as one Church.  
So that of the four particulars, which he saith we must prove, some we see need not to be proved at all, and the first of them which we can prove with case doth make much for the weakening of his cause, and for the strengthening of ours.  
Yea Mr. Mather will have the whole containing as one independent Congregation, Act. 6. 1, 2, 3, 4. And the many Myriad or thousands of believing Jews, Acts 21. 21, 22, 23. To meet as one Congregation.  
Answ. When in the Answer I speak of these places, the word Independent was not there used by me at all, but only is here added by himself, for what cause himself can best tell. But for the matter, I conceive the thing which I there delivered is clear from the Texts themselves, that the multitude of those jews did assemble and come together, in one place; for as for one of the places Act. 6. It is expressly there said that the Apostles called the multitude together to propose unto them the choice of Deacons, verse 2▪ and bade them look out from amongst themselves seven Men, qualifyed as the Apostles do there describe, verse 3. whereupon it is said that the saying pleased the whole multitude and they chose seven who are there named verse 5. and presented them unto the Apostles that they might lay their hands on them, verse 6. Which plainly shows that the whose multitude how many soever they were, yet were not so many, but they might all assemble in one place, to hear matters proposed to them, to consider thereof, and upon liking to put them in execution, as in other things so in this particular, of making election of Officers, as there they are Recorded to have done. And as for the other place Act. 21. though it be a Question, whether those many thousand jews, that believed were all members, of that one Church at Jerusalem, yet it cannot be any question, whether they might come together in one place, sith james and the Elders do expressly there say unto Paul, the multitude must needs come together, for they will hear that thou art come. Nor can we say they might come together only distributively, in sundry companies, but not all in one place, for the end of their coming together will not bear that exposition, which end was, that they might see, and hear Paul, and try what satisfaction he would give them, in the matter whereof they were informed of him, that he taught the jews, to forsake Moses, and to omit Circumcision and other jewish customs. These things they were informed to have been taught by him amongst the Gentiles, and hearing that he was come to the City, they must needs come together to hear what he would say to the matter, and how he would clear himself. Now if this was the end of their coming together it must needs be that their coming was altogether unto one place, and not in several companies; for this could not answer their end, inasmuch as Paul being but one person, it was not possible they could see him, nor hear him in sundry places at once; and therefore they might as well have stayed at home, and not have come together at all, as come together in such sort.  
Plain it is therefore, that the multitude spoken of in these two Scriptures were not so many but they might meet in one Congregation.  
Which point as something hath been said in the Answer P. 34, 35. For the clearing of it, so I am the more confirmed in it by Mr. Rutherford his dealing concerning these Scriptures. For though he make mention of them in this place, as we see, and of that apprehension of mine concerning those Scriptures, yet he doth not at all remove the grounds, which were given for that apprehension in the Answer, but doth wholly pass them by in silence. Now taking occasion to speak of the Scriptures, and relating what my apprehension was concerning the same, and yet saying nothing at all to the gronnds, whereon that apprehension was built, it seems hereby to be employed that indeed he had nothing in readiness to object against the same. So that I may still conceive of those Scriptures as I did before, for any thing yet brought to induce me to be of another mind.  
As for that which next follows, certainly the Apostles practice must be our rule, and then 500 or 1000 being so far beneath 10 or 8000, may well seem a number for fewness not competent, and what shall we then think of 7 only, or 10.  
Answ. The answer is, that the Apostles practice doth not at all condemn ours, though our Congregations have not in them the like numbers, but sometimes more and sometimes less; for was it not so in that Primative Apostolic Church? Is it not plain, that that Church was for number far lesser at the first, than afterward, when they grew to 4000 or more; and yet after this they grew to be fewer again, when Persecution scattered them all abroad except the Apostles, Act. 8. 1. And therefore if 10 or 8000, being once the number in that Church, be a rule condemning out Churches, as being for fewness not competent, when they are beneath that number, how will it be avoided but by the same reason the practice of that Church at one time, shall be a rule, for the condemning of itself at another time? For sure it is, their number was not at all times alike, but sometimes more, and sometimes less; as in the Sea it is not always full tide, but sometimes low ebb, nor is the Moon always at full, but sometimes at the Change; Nay if the Apostles practice must be our rule, than inasmuch as their Churches, had not always the like numbers of members in them, but sometimes the number was greater, and sometimes lesser, it will follow therefore that the number of members in our Churches needs not always to be the same, but though greater numbers be lawful, yet the lawfulness of lesser numbers may not be denied.   

CHAP. XIV.  
Whether the Church at Corinth was one Church, meeting distributively in sundry Congregations, or whether it was only one Congregation. And whether 1 Cor. 14. 23. If the whole Church came together in some place etc. Do make for sundry Congregations or for one only.  
PAge 464. I cannot but think that weak which Mr. Mather and Mr. Tompson say (Answer Page 37.) the place 1 Cor. 14. 23. That speaketh of the whole Church coming together to one place doth unavoidably prove, that Corinth had their meetings and not by way of distribution into several Congregations, but altogether in one Congregation: and it is plain, that though they had variety of teachers and Prophets, yet they all used to come together to one place.  
Answ. If that which we say be weak, it is more easy for one of such ability and strength as Mr. Rutherford to overthrow the same. Yet it is not words that will suffice, but weight of reason that must avail thereto. Let us hear therefore his Answer to this passage which he thinks and censures to be so weak.  
The place saith he, 1 Cor. 14. 23. If the whole Church come together etc. Death evince the contrary. For the Apostle doth there reason ab absurdo, from a great incongruity: it were incongruous saith he, and ridiculous that the whole Church of Corinth and all their guifted men speaking with Tongues (so that they could not be understood by Infidels) should all Convene in one place, and speak with divers Tongues: For the unlearned and unbelievers would say they were mad; therefore he presupposeth that the whole Church should not all come to one place, but that they should so come to one place, in divers Assemblies.—  
Answ. And is it true indeed, that this place doth evince the contrary? viz. That the Church at Corinth did not all meet in one Congregation: How shall we be assured that such a thing is evinced by the place? For as for the reason given, etc. That the Apostle d●th there reason ab absurdo, or from great incongruity, this doth not prove the thing at all, partly because they might practise something that were not meet but had incongruity in it, and partly (and more especially) because the Apostle doth not lay the absurdity where Mr. Rutherford lays it, viz. In the convening of the whole Church in one place, but in their speaking with strange Tongues when they were convened and come together.  
Touching the former of these, Mr. Rutherford reasoneth to this effect. If it were an incongruous or un●it thing that the whole Church at Corinth should come together in one place, than they did not so come together: but the first is true, Ergo the second is true also. In which kind of reasoning (such is our weakness) we think neither part of the argument to be free from just exception. For as we wholly deny the Assumption, so we also think there is no sufficient strength of consequence in the main Proposition, forasmuch as sundry things were practised in that Church which were no ways fit not meet to be practised, and which the Apostle doth therefore reprove, and seeks the redress of the same: witness their Factions and divisions: Chap. 1. & 3. Their neglecting Church censures against the incestuous person, and on the contrary being puffed up, Chap. 5. their going to Law one with another before the Infidels, Chap. 6. their abuses in Prayer and Prophesying, their women uncovered and their men covered, Chap. 11. their abuses in the Lord's Supper, when they so came unto it that one was hungry and another drunken, Chap. 11. Now as it were an unsufficient kind of arguing to say, these things were unfit and unmeet, and therefore that Church did not so practise, even so Mr. Rutherford his arguing seems to be no better, who would prove they did come together in one place, because the Apostle, as he thinks, did count such coming together unmeet. For if it were granted that such a coming had been unmeet, yet it doth not follow, but such might be their practice notwithstanding: and therefore as he counts our apprehension in this matter to be weak, so I leave it to himself and others to consider, whether in this consequence, It was not meet they should all come together in one place, Ergo they did it not, be very strong.  
I desire here not to be mistaken: for I do not grant that their coming together in one place was unmeet, nor that the Apostle doth reprove them for the same; I have already said the contrary, in denying the Assumption afore mentioned, which I do still deny. But the thing I intent, is to consider the strength of Mr. Rutherford his reasoning, and for that cause to apply it to the thing in question, which I still desire to keep close unto, if it may be. Now the thing in question, being this, whether the Church at Corinth, were so many at that they could nor meet together in one Assembly, but had many Congregations, and all but one Church, and Mr Rutherford maintaining the affirmative, and bringing this reason for it, taken from the Congruity of meeting all together, I therefore thought meet, to weigh the strength of this reason, which I do not perceive to be in any wise convincing: but supposing the Apostle had counted such meetings, inconvenient and unmeet, yet this reason as I conceive, is too weak to prove Mr. Rutherford his purpose, that their number was such as that they could not all possibly meet in one place; for they might possibly do that which were unmeet to be done, in this particular as well as they did in many other things.  
But in this particular I do not think, they did any thing absurd, or unmeet at all; and therefore for further answer to this reason I would say: that the Apostle doth not say the absurdity, where Mr. Rutherford lays it, to wit, in that the whole Church did convene, and come together, but in speaking with strange Tongues when they were convened, this latter being incongruous: and absurd indeed; for the Infidels coming into the Church Assembly, and hearing them so speak, might think them mad, as the Apostle says; but for assembling all in one place, I know no madness that was in that; nor show thereof; nor do I yet believe that the Apostle doth place the absurdity there. For though Mr. Rutherford be a worthy man and learned, yet such a thing as this had need of some further proof than his bare word. If a Church should meet distributively in divers Assemblies, and being so met should speak with strange Tongues, I demand whether this manner of speaking, do prove such a way of meeting absurd; I suppose he will say no, because it is the way of meeting which he holds the Apostolic Churches did use; And if so, then suppose they should so speak with strange Tongues, when they meet collectively all in one Assembly, how can this manner of speaking conclude the absurdity of such kind of meeting any more than it did in the other? For my part, though such kind of speaking have incongruity and inconveniency in it, yet I conceive assembling collectively and in one Congregation is no more prejudiced thereby, then assembling distributively in many.  
He (that is the Apostle) presupposeth that the whole Church should come to one place, in divers Assemblies, and all Prophecy in a Tongue known to the Infidels, as the unbeliever being convinced and judged of all the Prophets might fall down in his face, etc.  
Answ. If the Prophets were met in divers Assemblies at once, I marvel how the unbeliever should be convinced and judged of them all; for I hope one singular and individual unbeliever was not present in divers Assemblies at once, nor convinced and judged (as here he is said to be) by those Prophets, from whose Assembly he was absent. Either therefore the Prophets were all met in one Assembly and not in divers, or else it is yet a Quaere how he could be convinced by them all. For sure the unbeliever could not be present in sundry Assemblies at once.  
Page 465. The whole Church is not the whole much people of Corinth that believed, that did ordinarily meet in one place, the Text saith no such thing, and that is to be proved and not taken as granted.  
Answ. Suppose it were true, that the whole Church was not the whole much people of Corinth that believed, this doth nothing prejudice our cause, for as much as our Question is not about the whole much people that believed, but about the whole Church. If therefore it be granted that the whole Church collectively did come together in one place, we have what we desire, and require no more. As for the whole much people that believed, whether this be the same with the former or no, we shall have no need to prove or take for granted that these did in like manner come together, for as much as our question in the terms of it is not about these, but about the other.  
But why is not the whole Church the whole much people that believed? Shall we say the whole Church is more than the people that believed? Or shall we say it is not so much? I conceive it must be one of these, or else it must be the same. If it be said it is more, than still we have our desire, if not more than we demand. For if a company that is greater than all the much people that believed, were nevertheless not so great, but they might and did assemble in one Congregation, then that much people that believed 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 be denied of a company that is lesser. Again, to say this whole Church was a greater number than the much people that believed, is directly to gainsay himself, who in Page 460, 461. Makes the much people a greater number than 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 be much in comparison of thousands of Jews who rejected Christ, for that otherwise it would not have been much for Paul's comfort, for which end it is mentioned and brought.  
If it be said the whole Church be less than the people that believed, than it follows that some of those believers were not of the Church, and so what himself hath written, Page 125. 242. 251. will not stand. For in Page 125, he saith, That the Seal of Baptism and the profession of the truth is that which makes one member of the visible Church— and by this are all the Citizens and domestics inchurched, and received into a visible Church. And Page 242. He saith any who blamelessely profess Christ is Ecclesiastically— in foro Ecclesiae, a true and valid member of the Church visible, having Ecclesiastical 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, than it follows that this whole people that believed were all of them members of the Church, inasmuch as they were all partakers of Baptism and profession, which he saith do essentially constitute the visible Church and every member thereof. And they were all members of the Church, than the Church was not a lesser company than they.  
Nor can he 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 we have in hand, where he saith the whole Church is not the whole much people that believed? It seems to me, that which way soever he shall take, his own pen will be witness against himself; for in the place we have in hand, he saith the whole Church is not the whole much people that believed: and in another place he tells us, that the much people that believed was a greater number than the whole Church meeting for Word, Sacraments, etc. And yet in a third place he tells us, that in effect it was not greater, inasmuch as all Baptised professing believers, he saith, are of the Church.  
Further, when the Text speaks of the whole Church coming 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. rutherford's Exposition, who will not yield that the whole did come together in any one place, but part in one place, and part in another, the whole being distributed into several parts, and those parts into several places. So that the whole Church coming 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 fear 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 Prophecy at Corinth; for the Text saith, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all, whereas the consequence should be absurd, it should be a longsome and wearisome meeting, Page 465.  
Answ. And if they Prophesied not all in one Assembly but divers, how could the unbeliever be convinced and judged by them all? It will not be easy to conceive how it could be, they Prophesying in such a way: for the unbeliever sure could not be present in sundry Assemblies at once, but in one only. 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 deal more. For as for ours, there is no absurdity therein at all, for as much as by all the Prophets is meant all that Prophesied at the time, when the unbeliever was present, and not that all must Prophecy upon one day as Mr. Rutherford would have it. But the Text doth not so say, nor any Interpreter that I have met withal. Sure I am Beza saith, the express contrary, for upon verse 31. Ye may all Prophecy one by one, etc. He hath this note, Non eodem sane die, sed ternis etc. That is indeed not all upon one day (which is Mr. rutherford's Exposition) but three at every moeing, having their turn 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 God's help we shall consider of what they say, and of the grounds and reasons thereof▪ in the mean 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 prevail with us to turn us away from our former apprehensions in the point?  
True it is in another place, etc. Pag 461. Speaking of verse 31. Yea may all Prophecy one by one, he there tells 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 Prophecy 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 alleged, nor upon any verse else in all the Chapter, as far 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 seems to me to affirm the contrary; for instance, Commenting upon the verse alleged, he hath these words as the sense which he most prefers, viz. Quod si non unus tantum Propheta sed plures etc. That is, If not only one Prophet but sundry, yea all do speak in the Assembly in order, it will come to pass that those all may also learn, and receive exhortation, there being never a one of them, who is not also a hearer. Wherein we see he speaks not one word of Prophesying in divers Assemblies at the same time, but that they were so to Prophecy that all of them were to be hearers, and learners, as well as speakers. Which doth plainly imply, that there must be many Prophets in one Assembly at once. Again, upon verse ●9, he hath these words as the sense of the place, Quamvis forte multi suit in Ecclesiae— vestra Prophetae etc. That is, Although perhaps there be many Prophets in your Church, yet it will be sufficient if two or three do speak at one meeting, and for others it shall be their duty to judge, that is to say, to examine and try whether these things be true and sound which are spoken by them that speak. Wherein he plainly shows his judgement to be that at one meeting they were to have many Prophet's present, of whom two or three only were to speak, and the rest to try and examine what was spoken. And to the same purpose he speaks upon verse 32. Which he counts to be the same with that of judging, verse 29. Further these words verse 23. Of the whole Church coming together into one place, he expounds thus, Alicujus loci totus populus fidelis, That is, all the faithful or believing people of a place; which is contrary to Mr. Rutherford who will not have the whole Church, to be the whole much people that believed. Finally, speaking of those words verse 24. if all Prophecy, he hath these words, Nec omnes inteligit absoluté, etc. That is, the Apostle understands not all absolutely but to this sense, to wit, if all that speak in the Assembly of the Church do Prophecy, that is, if Prophets only do speak, and they that have the gift of Tongues do hold their peace. Which is contrary to Mr. Rutherford who understands the Text so, that they were all to Prophesy at one time; and because at one meeting there were but two or three to Prophecy, which two or three he thinks could not be all, he will therefore have it that they were distributed into several Assemblies, and so did Prophesy all at once, though only two or three at one meeting. For which interpretation, though he allegeth Estius, yet Estius we see affords him no help at all. Whereupon I have marvelled why Estius should be alleged, sometimes thinking with myself whether his name might not be misprinted by the Printer, instead of some other man; sometimes thinking whether Mr. Rutherford his memory might not fail him in this particular, having read the thing in some other Author, and supposing it had been in Estius. But what ever might be the reason of this mistake, he that shall examine Estius will not find in him any help at all for Mr. rutherford's cause in this particular, but the contrary.  
The Text saith expressly, verse 29, that at one time they Prophesied but two or three.  
Answer. This is a mistake also: for the words are, let the Prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. Now let them do so, doth not show their practice, but their duty: not what they did, but what they should have done. The Text saith, if there be no interpreter let him that hath an unknown Tongue keep silence in the Church, verse 20. And let your Women keep silence in the Churches, verse 34. Now shall any man say, that these Texts do expressly prove that it was the manner of their Women and of their men that had unknown Tongues to keep silence. I suppose no man can say it, the words being not a report of what their practice was, but a rule of direction to show them how they ought to practise. And so we say of the case in hand. But let it be supposed that it was not only their duty, but also their practice to Prophesy at one meeting but only two or three, what can Master Rutherford gain hereby? His words following do tell us, where he saith, If two only Prophesied at one Assembly, as this Text will warrant clearly.  
Answ. Not so, the Text allows three, which is more than two only. But go on, and let us hear the consequence.  
Then how doth this whole Church consisting of all the believers at Corinth, as is supposed by our Brethren, convince the Infidel, so as it may bear this sense, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all▪ Can two Prophets be all Prophets?  
Answ. Though we suppose the whole Church consisted of all the Believers at Corinth, yet that the whole Church did convince the the Infidel, this we never said nor supposed at all: For we supposed and so do still, that he was to be convinced only by the Prophets, besides whom there were many others that were of the Church.  
But for his demand, Whether two Prophets can be all Prophets, The answer is, that though two be not all where there are more than two, yet if there be no more, there it is otherwise; and so where there are but two or three that do Prophecy at one meeting, there he that is convinced by those two or three, may be said to be convinced of all, that is of all that do Prophesy. This sense of the place must needs be received, else how shall the Apostles words be reconciled and stand together? For as in one verse he requireth, that the Prophets speak two or three at one meeting, and the rest to judge, verse 29. And in another verse affirmeth that the Infidel in the case there proposed, is judged of all, verse 24. So he doth not only suppose in the very same verse, that they did all Prophecy, if all, Prophecy saith he, and there come in one that believeth not, etc. But moreover in verse 31. He expressly and plainly allows them thus to Prophesy; Ye may all Prophecy, saith he, one by one, that all may learn and all may be comforted. Which places compared do evince the sense of the words here given, and do plainly show that what he saith verse 24. Of the Infidel being convinced of all and judged of all, may be truly made good, if he be convinced of all and judged of all that Prophesied at that meeting, though their number that so Prophesied were no more but two or three.  
And therefore whereas he concludes, Surely for my part I think it must unavoidably be said, that they Prophesied distributively and in several Congregations, The Answer is, that this needs not to be said at all, but may be avoided with ●ase; and the contrary may be safely held; to wit, that they Pro●●●cied collectively and in one Congregation.  
For first, they did so Prophecy, that one that believed not, and one unlearned might come in amongst them when they were Prophesying, and by that means might be convinced of all and judged of all, verse 24. Which might well be done, if they Prophesied all in one Congregation, but otherwise it could not, for as much as one unbeliever could not be present in several Congregations at once.  
Secondly, they were so to Prophesy, that the Prophets when they Prophesied were to have the rest of the Prophets to be 〈◊〉, to hear and judge of that which was delivered, let the Prophets speak two or three, and the rest judge, verse 29. and the spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets, verse 32. The former of which sayings Mr. Rutherford himself doth understand of a College Prophets, having a power Dogmatic of judging, and censuring the Doctrine of the Prophets delivered. What they speak, saith he, Page 467. Is to be judged and put under censure; for the whole College must judge; for which he allegeth verse 29. And a little after, this is not a Power of judging which every Christian hath, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Piscator doth relate to the Prophets, who are to judge; but as ● take it a Prophetical judging, which may warrant the juridical power of a Presbytery, etc. By all which it plainly appeareth that when the Prophets did Prophecy, the other Prophets were to be present, to hear and judge of the Doctrines delivered; and if so, how can it be that they Prophesied in several Congregations at the same time? For had it been so, they could not have judged of one another's Doctrine, which they could not hear, being themselves at that time employed in speaking in some other place.  
And therefore it seems more likely, that they met in one Congregation, where they might all Prophecy, first one and then another, some at one time and some at another, and so all of them might also hear and learn, and judge of the Doctrine delivered by others.   

CHAP. XV.  
Whether the Church at Ephesus were more in number then Corinth and Jerusalem, and the judgement of Mr. Baynes; Whether that Church was many Congregations, or one only?  
PAg. 470. Having suggested sundry things, to prove that Ephesus was many Congregations, and yet but one Church; he concludes this, viz. upon these considerations, I leave to our reverend Brethren their judgement; if Mr. Mather and Mr. Thompson say right, we do not think they were more in number at Ephesus then in Corinth and Jerusalem, where the Christians met all in one place.  
Answ. The exception then which in this place is taken against Mr. Thompson and me, is for this, that we do not think the Christians at Ephesus, to be more in number then at Jerusalem and Corinth. Concerning which, I will not say much, but only this, that as we have only delivered what we think in this matter, without determining or asserting any thing peremptorily; so we shall readily embrace the contrary, when good grounds shall be showed for the same: which though we do not yet perceive to be performed in all that Mr. Rutherford hath said; yet I will not here spend time in examining the same, because I do not count this point of so much importance concerning the principal thing in question. For whether the Church at Ephesus were more in number then Corinth and Jerusalem, or whether it were otherwise; there is no great matter in this as touching the main question. For if all of them were such Churches, as might usually meet together in one Congregation, as I conceive they were▪ it matters not much which of them was most in number.  
But doth not M. Rutherford prove that the one Church at Ephesus was more than one Congregation? I confess, he hath sundry things in the precedent pages, which he intendeth that way. But in as much as they do not concern M. Tompson and me in particular, nor are by him applied against any passage in the answer; I will therefore pass them over more briefly, my purpose being chiefly, to consider of such particulars, wherein he takes exception against the Answer. Only, thus much I would advertise the Reader, that a good part of that which Mr. Rutherf. brings to prove many Congregations in one Church at Ephesus, hath been answered long ago by Mr. Baynes in his Diocesans trial, pag. 5. which I the rather Commend to Mr. rutherford's consideration, because, he counts him a man of worth, calling him worthy Baynes: And for the help of such Readers, as cannot readily come to the book itself, I will here transcribe a few lines out of the same worthy Baynes, as they are to be found in his Diocese. trial. p. 5, 6. viz.  
The Church of Ephesus was but one flock; First, it is likely that it was of no other form then the other. (Sir, jerusalem, Antioch and Corinth, which he had before showed to be each of them one Congregation.) Secondly, it was but one flock, that which Presbyters might jointly feed: they had no Diocesan Paster: If Presbyters only, than none but Parishonall Churches in and about Ephesus: theremay be many flocks, but God ordained none but such as may wholly meet with those who have the care of feeding and governing of them: Peter indeed 1 Pet. 5. 2. calleth all those he writeth unto one flock, but that is in regard either of the mystical estate of the faithful, or in respect of the common nature, which is in all Churches one and the same: but properly and in external adunation, one flock is but one Congregation. Thirdly, Parishes according to the adverse opinion were not then divided: Neither doth the long and fruitful labours of the Apostle argue that there should be Parish Churches in Diocesan wise added, but a great number of Sister Churches. But when it is said, that all Asia did hear, the meaning is that from hand to hand, it did run through Asia; so as Churches were planted every where, even where Paul came not, as at Colosse: there might be many Churches in Asia, and many converted by Peter, and others fruitful labours, without subordination of Churches.   

CHAP. XVI.  
Whether the Church at Antioch was only one Congregation, and whether Acts 14. 27. and 15. 30. do not prove the Affirmative.  
THE Answer, having in pag. 5. alleged Acts. 14. 27. and 15. 30, 31. to prove that the Church at Antioch was no more than might be gathered together into one place, Mr. Rutherford in Answer hereto saith, p. 472, 473. That the place Acts 14. 27. is the representative Church, and that he believeth the Assembling of the multitude, Acts 15. vers. 30. must be taken distributively.  
Answ. This answer of Mr. rutherford's, to the former place, was removed long ago by worthy Mr. Baynes, who also understands the latter place as we do, and not as Mr. Rutherford: For in his Diocese. trial, maintaining this position, that the Churches instituted by the Apostles, were only such as might meet in one Congregation ordinarily, and giving this very place and instance of the Church of Antioch, for one of his grounds, for confirming the said position, p. 5. He comes immediately thereupon to answer an objection, which is the very same that here Mr. Rutherford brings to the former place, viz. that the Church mentioned in that place, was the Ministers or representative Church: for the removing whereof Mr. Baynes returneth 4. things, 1. that the word Church, is never so used: 2. He argues by analogy from that Acts 11. where Peter gives account before the whole Church, even the Church of the faithful, and therefore in like sort, Paul and Barnabas might report before the whole Church of the faithful, what things God had done by them. 3. Saith he, they made relation to that Church which had sent them forth, with Prayer and Imposition of Hands; and this Church stood of all those who assembled to the public service and worship of God, (which is clear, Acts 13. 2.) 4. His fourth particular is this other place of Acts 15. vers. 30. where, saith he, the people of the Church of Antioch were gathered together, to consider of Decrees sent them by the Apostles from jerusalem, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In all which, we clearly perceive the judgement of this worthy man to be the same with us, and as clearly against Mr. Rutherford, as can be expressed, which being so, and his judgement being delivered upon such reasons, as seem to me weighty, and which Mr. Rutherford doth not remove; I therefore see no sufficient reason to think otherwise of the Church of Antioch then formerly.  
For as for M. Rutherford his reason to prove the place, Acts 14. 27. to be meant of a representative Church, viz. That they met for a matter of Discipline, at least for a matter that concerned all the Churches, to wit, to know how God had opened the door of saith unto the Gentiles: The answer is, that this doth not evince the thing: 1. Because rehearsing, how God had opened the door of Faith unto the Gentiles, being neither admission of Members, nor of Officers, nor any matter of censure, nor any thing else; but only a mere declaration of the gracious workings of the Lord, cannot be any matter of Discipline, as I conceive.  
2. Suppose it were a meeting for matter of Discipline, must it needs be a meeting for Elders alone, without the presence of the faithful? Will Mr. Rutherford deny it to be lawful for any to be present at matters of Discipline, but only the Elders? I suppose he will not deny it at all, sure I am he hath heretofore written otherways; Peaceable Plea p. 49. Where he granteth that all matters of Discipline must be done with the people's consent, and allegeth about 19 or 20. Divines old and new for the same Tenet. Now if matters of Discipline must be done with the people's consent, than the people must be present thereat; For else they give their consent blindefold. And if they must be present at such matters; then suppose the matter mentioned in the Scripture we have in hand, had been of that nature, yet the Church that was gathered together about the same, needed not to be a representative Church of Elders alone, as Mr. Rutherford would have it, but might consist of the people also, who by his own grant may be lawfully present at such matters.  
3. Be it a matter of Discipline, or a matter that concerned all the Churches, or what else Mr. Rutherford will have it? It is plain that Paul and Barnabas when they were at jerusalem, did declare such matters as here they do declare at Antioch, not only to the Apostles and Elders, whom he perhaps would make a representative Church, but also to a Church besides them, I mean besides the Apostles and Elders; for so it is said, Acts 15. 4. That at Ierus●lem they were received of the Church, and of the Apostles and Elders, and declared all things that God had done with them: and vers. 12. they declared to the multitude what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. Now if they declared these things at jerusalem not only to the Apostles and Elders, as to a representative Church, but to the Church of the Faithful also, as the Text saith, they did, what reason can be rendered that the Church, which was gathered together at Antioch, should be only a representative Church? And that the people there were not present? For my part, I see no reason for it, but that they might declare these things to the Brethren a● Antioch, as well as to the Brethren at jerusalem; and as well to a representative Church at jerusalem, as to a representative Church at Antioch. And therefore sith it is apparent that at jerusalem they declared these things to a Church, which consisted of others besides Apostles and Elders; the Church at Antioch to whom they declared the same things, might be also a Church of the like kind, and not a representative Church, as our Brother conceives it to be.  
4. The nature of the thing, which they do declare to this Church was such, as that it was fit enough for the people to be acquainted therewith; which the text mentions in two clauses; first, more generally, all that God had done with them: Secondly, more specially, how he had opened the door of Faith to the Gentiles. Now suppose the people had nothing to do in matters of Judicature by way of power therein, yet to be informed of other people's conversion, and how God blessed the labours of the Apostles to that end, which are the things they declared to this Church, these are no such matters, but the people may be acquainted therewith for their comfort, and that God might have praises from them all; and therefore the Church to whom Paul and Barnabas declared these things, needs not to be understood of the Elders alone, but may well enough be a Church consisting also of ordinary Christians.  
5. Paul thought it not unmeet to make known to all the Corinthians the grace of God bestowed on the Churches of Macedonia, 2 Cor. 9 1, 2. and declareth to them of Macedonia, the forwardness of the Corinthians in the grace of liberality, 2 Cor. 9 2. showing the good that came hereby, in that the example of God's grace, in some provoked many others to the like, 2 Cor. 9 2. your zeal, saith he, hath provoked very many; and likewise in that, by this means, there redounded many thanksgivings unto God, vers. 12, 13. And if upon these and other good causes he did thus practice towards the Christians of Macedonia and Achaia, I know no good reason why he and Barnabas should deal otherwise with the Christians at Antioch, and conceal from them the gracious workings of God by their Ministry amongst the Gentiles; and make known the same only to a representative Church of Elders.  
As for our Brother's answer to the other Scripture, Act. 15. 30. That the assembling of the multitude, there spoken of, must be taken distributively, I conceive the text will not bear that exposition: for the words are that they gathered the multitude together, then delivered the Epistle. Now if this multitude was gathered together not in one assembly but divers, how could the Epistle being but one, be delivered to them all? Can one Epistle be delivered to sundry or several assemblies at one time? I suppose it is not possible, except we shall imagine there be sundry Copies, one to be read in one assembly, and another in another; whereof in the present case, there is not so much as the least hint. And if we would imagine such a matter, for which there is small reason; yet since it is, judas and Silas, by whom this Epistle was sent, and who were to tell the same things by mouth, and who also upon the delivering of the Epistle exhorted the brothers of Antioch, with many words, as is clear, vers. 22, 23, 27, 32. judas and Sila●, I say, being but two men could not be present, and speak, and act these things in many assemblies at once, but must of necessity be both in one assembly, or at the most in two: but the text makes no mention of their being in two, but plainly enough intimates the contrary, that they were both together: and yet where they were present, there was the multitude gathered together, to receive the Epistle by their hands, and to hear the report and word of exhortation at their mouth. Unless therefore we will imagine that judas and Silas could be present, and act in many assemblies at once, there is no reason to think this multitude among whom they were present and acted, to be many Congregations or assemblies.  
And therefore for his conclusion, pag. 475, 476. That the mentioning of one multitude in the singular number, Acts 15. 30. can never prove that there was but one single Congregation at Antioch. The answer is, that we do not lay the force of our reason in the mentioning of the multitude in the singular number, and therefore it can not thus be satisfied, or put off: for our words are these: The whole multitude of them were gathered together at the return of Paul and Barnabas from the Synod at Jerusalem, to hear the Epistle read, which was sent from that Synod: Answer p. 50. wherein it is easy to perceive, that we lay the force of our reason not in this, that the Church is called a multitude in the singular number; but in this, that the whole multitude were gathered together, for such an end, as there is expressed: and this we still conceive may prove the point: For a Church, which is such a multitude, as is gathered together, for the receiving of one Epistle, which was sent unto them all, and which is gathered together to hear the Epistle read, and also to hear the same things by mouth, the men from whose mouth they must so hear, and from whose hands they must so receive, being no more but two; such a Church as this can be no more, but one Congregation, or Assembly. Now Antioch was such a Church: and therefore was no more but one Congregation. If this conclusion be not granted, some way must be devised how many several assemblies might all be receivers and hearers of one and the same Epistle at the same time, there being but one copy of the Epistle, as also how they might at one time hear the same things declared to them by mouth, when there was but two men to declare the same. And when such a way is found out, we may then further consider thereof. But in the mean time, the grounds and reasons alleged doth induce me to think, that Antioch, where those things were thus done, was indeed, but one Congregation.   

CHAP. XVII.  
Whether no liberties are given by Christ to the People, but women must exercise the same, as well as men: and of the people's liberty about Ordination, or the Calling of Ministers.  
IN the answer, p. 8. we have these words, viz. Governing properly so called we acknowledge not in any, but in the Elders alone, 1 Cor. 12. vers. 28. Rom. 12. 8. Heb. 13. 17. If that word be ascribed to the people, it must be understood in a more improper sense; for that which impropriety of speech were more fitly called liberty or privilege: and yet this liberty when it is exercised about Ordination, Deposition, Excommunication, etc. is of the whole body communiter, or in general, but not of all and every 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. This passage Mr. Rutherford having related (though with some variation) in his pag. 476: in answer thereto, he saith thus, p. 477. If there be no governing power in women, nor any act at all in Excommunication, you lose many arguments, that you bring 1 Cor. 5. to prove that all have hand in Excommunication, 1. Because Paul writeth to all. 2. All were to mourn. 3. All were to forbear the company of the Excommunicated: then belike Paul writeth not to all Saints at Corinth, not to women, and women were not to mourn for the scandal, nor to forbear his company.  
Answ. If Mr. Tompson and I do being such arguments from 1 Cor. 5. why is not the place quoted, where we do bring them? I suppose there is no such place at all that can be produced; and therefore I desire so much favour, that what we never said, may not be imputed to us, nor divulged abroad, as ours. If others do bring such arguments from 1 Cor. 5. they that bring them are able to speak for themselves, and to give account of their own arguments; but I know no reason that doth require, that we should be drawn to defend such arguments as we never used; nor that doth allow our Reverend Brother to report such arguments as ours; which having never been used by us, I counted it therefore an impertinent digression, to spend time in the defence of them.  
The privilege, saith he, being a part of liberty purchased by Christ's body, it must be due to 〈…〉 for the liberty wherewith Christ hath made women free, cannot be taken away 〈…〉 of God from their sex, except in Christ jesus there be a difference between jew and Gentile, male and female.  
Answ. That which is in the people, we say, in propriety of speech, is more ●itly called liberty or privilege: but of liberty purchased by Christ's body or blood, we make no mention at all: and therefore our Brother might have spared speech thereof. But it is true indeed, that the people can have no liberty, but women also may exercise the 〈…〉 else their liberty purchased for them by Christ is taken away? It seems, he so conceives: but then I desire to know how his own doctrine elsewhere, and the Apostles w●●ds can stand together: for in one place, he saith, that Acts 14. 23. Proveth that Elders ordain Elder, with lifting up of the hands of the people, and this, saith he, is 〈…〉 doctrine, Due Right p. 190. and in another place, he saith, The people have Gods right to choose Ministers, for so the word prescribeth; for which in his margin he allegeth 〈◊〉 several texts of Scripture, Acts 15. 22. 1 Cor. 16. 3. 2. Cor. 8. 19 Acts 6. 4. Acts 14. 23. and in his text allegeth Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, Origen, chrysostom, the Council of Nice, the first general Council of Constantinople, with other Counsels 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 people's consent, consentiente plebe, alleging a matter of 18. or 19 Authors for the same tenet. Peaceable Plea, p. 49. and in another place he allegeth 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 show that in his judgement, the people have some 〈◊〉, or privilege, or right in Church matters; yea, as himself saith in this, they have divinum jus, God's 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, privilege, 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 privilege the people have in Ordination to confer a ministry, 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 virtual, not formal in the Church of believers, to supply the want of ordination of Pastors, hic & nunc; this power is virtual, not formal, etc. Whereas in the place we have in hand, the virtual power as well as the formal is denied; which things are not free from Interferring, or strong appearance thereof.  
Our words are not just the same which M. Rutherford sets down, a privilege in ordination to confer a Ministry; but these are our words, a liberty exercised about ordination, etc. 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, etc. 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 than this liberty doth amount unto, even a power to do that which shall stand for ordination itself? which to do I conceive is more than 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 people's 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 only may stand for ordination: 1. Because God is not necessarily tied to succession of Pastors: 2. Because where men are gifted for the work of the Ministry, and there be no Pastors to be had, the giving of the Holy Ghost is a sign of a calling of God, who is not wanting to his own gracious intention, though ordinary means fail. 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 only to exercise some liberty about ordination, for as much as they may do 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 itself. Marvel it is therefore that the greater is allowed as lawful, and not the lesser: that some liberty about ordination may not be allowed, and yet that can be allowed which may stand for ordination itself, and which makes a Minister● as truly as ordination doth.   

CHAP. XVIII.  
Of Mr. rutherford's report of Synodical propositions in new-England.  
NExt after this, our reverend Author falls to scanning, as he saith, pag. 476. some Synodical 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 Synodical propositions as he speaks of, nor any such Table of New England, as he 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 privately discoursed of, and this was all. But as the meeting was not any Synod, as Synods are usually understood, so neither were there any Synodical 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 testify, having been present at that meeting from the beginning thereof unto the end: and sundry others of the Elders of these Churches can testify the same, upon the same ground: And knowing full well the truth of what I hear 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 term 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, Synodical propositions there were none; 〈◊〉 any Synod at all, not New England Table. And therefore I think himself 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 believe the same, much less to divulge the same in print. For what comfort can it be to any Christian to receive, and publish to the world against a man's neighbour, specially against whole Churches of Christ, such reports as for the matter contained in them do not agree with truth?   

CHAP. XIX.  
Of the Appeals of Luther and Cranmer: and of the power and jurisdiction in general Counsels denied by Mr. Rutherford; whether therein he do not contradict himself, and also overthrow the jurisdiction of Classical, Provincial, and national Assemblies.  
IN his page 482. alleging Mr. Tompson and me, pag. 16, 17. He reports us to say, that though some have appealed, as Luther and Cranmer from the Pope to a general Council, yet not from a Congregation to a general Council.  
Answ. As he one of these pages hath nothing at all concerning this matter, and therefore might well have been spared, so neither of them both doth make any mention of Luther, either of one purpose or other: and therefore it is some marvel, why he should be mentioned as thus spoken of by us, who do not speak of him at all so much as one word, for any purpose whatsoever. Nor do the rest of the words of appealing from a Congregation to a general Council agree with ours, as we have set them down in the 16. page alleged; and therefore that our mind and meaning may appear, let me relate our own words which are these, How this example (sc. of Cramners' appealing to Council, related by Mr. Fox) doth suit the present question, we do not understand; for his appeal was not from a particular Congregation, but from the Pope: nor was it from a Synod, but to the next general Council, which from that day to this hath not yet been assembled nor called. If we must hold a necessity of appeals to such a judicatory as Cranmer appealed unto, than the supremacy of Synods provincial, and national is utterly taken away. These are our words in the place alleged by Mr. Rutherford: now what doth he answer thereto?  
In matters doctrinal, saith he, some as Luther, and others have justly appealed from Congregation to a general Council, though Luther and Cranmer did it not.  
Answ. Say it be true, that Cranmer did it not, yet for Luther how can it be that he should be an instance, both of such as did it not, and of such as did it? for Luther and others have justly done it, and yet Luther and Cranmer are two of them that did it not, these are sayings which seem not to agree. Again, if Luther did so appeal, why is no proof alleged for Confirmation of what here is affirmed? which if there had been, we might have considered thereof. But sith there is not, we may be allowed to forbear assent, till that which is here nakedly affirmed, be further strengthened by some proof or other, to make it good. Lastly, if Luther or others have justly appealed from a Congregation to a general Council, then why will it not be lawful for others upon like occasion to do the like? And if so, then (as we argued in the answer) the supremacy of Classical, Provincial, and national Presbyteries is utterly taken away: and so, by this means causes and controversies may still be depending, and never come to be determined so long as this world shall endure; which whether it be agreeable to the wisdom of Christ, and good of his people let the wise judge.  
Though verily, I profess, I cannot see what power of Jurisdiction to censure scandals, can be in a general Council; there may be some merely doctrinal power, if such a Council could be had, and that is all.  
Answ. For my part, I am altogether of the same mind. But here I have a quere or two to propose to our reverend Brothers serious consideration; first of all, how this passage doth agree with that which himself hath written, pag. 387. where he saith, It may be made good that a power Dogmatic is not different in nature from a power of Jurisdiction, and that we read not of any society, which hath power to meet to make laws and decrees, which have not power also to back their decrees with punishment. Yea, he saith further that if the Jewish Synodry might meet to declare judicially what was God's law in point of conscience, and what not, far more may they punish contraveners of the law: For Anomothetick power in a society, which is the greater power, and is in the fountain, must presuppose in the society 〈◊〉 lesser power, which is to punish. Anomothetick power ministerial cannot want a power of censuring. So that whereto in the place we have in hand, he saith, there may be in a general Council, some 〈◊〉 doctrinal power without any power of jurisdiction to censure, in this other place, he saith, these powers do not differ in nature, nor can the former be without the latter; but doth always presuppose the same, as that which is lesser, and which it cannot want. Now how these things do agree I am not able to understand: next of all how doth this passage we have in hand agree, with that which is written p. 308, 309. Where he saith, it is by accident, and not through want of inate and intrinsecall power, that the court of a Catholic Council can not in an ordinary and constant way exercise the power which Christ hath given to her; and what that power is he expresseth in two or three lines proceeding, viz. A power of jurisdiction to Excommunicate and relax from Excommunication even national Churches. If the Lord should be pleased to give the Christian Churches a general Council this day, might lawfully in a jurisdictiall way declare the faction of the Romish pretended Catholics to be mystical Babylon— which in Excommunication in the essence and substance of the act. And again, This of our Saviour, Tell the Church, is necessarily to be applied to all Churches and Courts of Christ, even to a general Council. And in page 304. He tells in that a power of jurisdiction (though he call it extraordinary and remote, and which is but rarely to be put forth in acts) is given to the Catholic visible Presbytery, of the whole Catholic visible Church. In all which places he plainly affirmeth there is a power of jurisdiction to censure scandals in a general Council, which in the place we have in hand he doth as plainly deny.  
Thirdly, if there be no power of jurisdiction to censure scandals in a general Council, then how shall it appear that there is such power of Jurisdiction in the Classical, Provincial and national Presbyteries, which are far less? Yea, and that there is in these Presbyteries a power Independent and Supreme, without appeal to any other. For such power there must be in some of them, if there be any power of jurisdiction in them at all, sith we are told there is no power of jurisdiction in the general Council to appeal unto. Now how shall it appear that any such Independent supreme power of jurisdiction is given to any of those Presbyteries? where are the texts of Scripture that speak of such power? For our parts we know of none, but do still think that this power is placed by Christ in a single Congregation and its Presbytery, and are the rather strengthened in this apprehension, for that the reason which is wont to be given against the Congregations power, and wherein our Brethren are wont to place their greatest strength, sc. that appeals are juris naturalis, and that defects, in the parts are to be supplied and holden by the whole, this reason we see is now removed and utterly taken away, forasmuch as all power of jurisdiction is denied to the general Council which is the inevitable. Now if there be no power of jurisdiction within the general Council, than there can be no appeals to such a Council for such an end: and if no appeals to that Council, than the rule doth not always hold, that there must be appeals from the lesser assemblies to the greater: and if this do not always hold, then there may be independent power of jurisdiction in a Congregation without appeals from the same, though it be a lesser assembly than the Classical, Provincial and national Presbyteries, and thus our purpose is gained. For how can it be avoided, except this power of jurisdiction (yea supreme or independent power) which is denied to the general Council, could be proved to be in the Classes, Synods, or national Presbyteries, which we think cannot be done. Indeed to say on the one side, that 〈◊〉 is no independent power in the Congregation, and to say on the other side, that there is no power at all of jurisdiction in general Counsels, this doth inevitably lay a necessity of such Independent power in these intermediat assemblies of the Classical, Provincial and national Presbyteries; except we shall say there is no such power at all appointed by Christ in any Church assemblies on earth. Now if such independent power be given to the Presbyteries mentioned, (as it needs must if it be neither in the general Council, nor in the single Congregations) than I desire to know upon what scripture or scriptures, such power in the said Presbyteries is grounded and built; and whether the said power belong unto them all, or only unto some of them, and which they be, and why not to the rest as well: yea, why not to the single Congregation, nor yet to the general Council, as well as to any of them. When this quaere is answered, and the answer sufficiently proved by scripture, than we shall see more reason for the jurisdiction of such assemblies over the particular Congregations then yet we have seen. In the mean, time this quaere with the rest I leave to our brethren's consideration.   

CHAP. XX.  
If it were granted that the light of nature teacheth all societies to end in Monarchies, whether it would not thence follow, that the government of Churches must so end, as well as that Congregations must depend on the government of Synods, because the light of nature teacheth a Communion in government to other societies. And whether the multitude of Grecians and Hebrews, who chose the seven Deacons, Act. 6. were two Congregations or one only.  
PAG. 482. If Churches must be dependent on Synods, because the light of nature teacheth a communion and assistance in government, by the same reason Churches must end in a Monarchy on earth; for which he allegeth the answ. pag. 20. and then subjoineth his answer, thus: I see this said without any approbation: Churches depend on many above them for unity; but what consquence in this, Erg● they depend upon one visible Monarch? It is an unjust consequence.  
Answ. With favour of so worthy a man, he greatly wrongs our words (and thereby wrongs the reader) by leaving out those words wherein the plainness and strength of our argumentation lies. Therefore I am forced here to relate the order and progress of the dispute in that script of ours, and to set down our words there used, because as Mr. Rutherford hath set them down, the strength of consequence is suppressed from the Readers knowledge, and so indeed his answer is made easy: but the naked truth lies thus. Our reverend Brother to whose Treatise we return answer in that small piece of ours, having said, that communion and assistance in government is taught by the very light of nature to all societies whatsoever, whether Commonwealths, or Armies, Universities, or Navies; he presently addeth by way of prevention. Not that therefore this government of Churches should (as those) end in a Monarchy upon earth. In answer whereto, besides other things, we have these words, pag. 21. If Churches must be dependent on the government of Synods, because the light of nature teacheth a communion and assistance in government to all societies whatsoever, than we see not how it will be avoided, but by the same reason, Churches must end in a Monarchy on earth, if it were once cleared, that the light of nature doth teach all societies whatever so to end; so there is as good reason for this as for the other. Which last words, if it were once proved etc. Mr. Rutherford wholly leaves out and suppresseth, and so makes his own answer more easy. But I desire so much favour, which I think is but reasonable, that he that will undertake to answer our writing, would represent our words and arguing as it is, and no otherwise, and then I am content that the same may come under trial. Now our arguing is this; If Churches must be dependent upon the government of Synods upon this reason; because the light of nature teacheth a communion and assistance in government to all societies whatsoever; then by the like reason let it be once proved (which is by Mr. Herle affirmed) that the light of nature teacheth all societies to end in a Monarchy, and it will thereupon follow that Churches must likewise end in the same manner. If we yield thus much that what the light of nature teacheth other societies, the same must be observed in the government of Churches: I think it will then follow, that if the light of nature teach other societies to end in a Monarchy on earth, the government of Churches must do so also. This is our manner of arguing, in which the consequence is the same with that which our Brethren think so strong, viz. that because the light of nature teacheth a communion and assistance in government, therefore there must be in the Churches a government of Synods.  
If any say the consequence is not alike necessary in both cases, because the ground doth not hold alike in both, for the light of nature doth not teach all societies on earth to end in a Monarchy, as it doth teach a communion and assistance in government The answer in that we have plainly said the same, in the place of the Answerer allegeth, viz. p. 20, 21. But the main question lies not there, whether other societies do end in Monarchies, (for though the reverend author whom we there do answer, do seem so to judge; yet we have there plainly declared, that we conceive of that matter otherwise:) but here doth lie the main question, viz. Suppose it were granted, that light of nature doth teach all societies to end in a Monarchy on earth, whether would it not then follow that Churches must also so end: And that this is the thing in question will plainly appear to any that shall peruse the place. And to this question, our answer is that the consequence for the affirmative is as good as in that other case, in which our Brethren do think it so strong: viz. for the government of Synods over congregations, from the communion and assistance— government taught by the light of nature to other societies: and our reverend brother granting that the light of nature doth teach the one as well as the other unto other societies, that is, that they should end in Monarchies, as well as have communion in government, our answer is that thereupon the consequence will be as strong for the one as for the other in Churches. In which arguing it is easy to perceive that we go upon the ground which was laid and given us by our author: and therefore for M. Rutherford to suppress this ground which we have there so plainly expressed, and to represent and set down our arguing as if there had been no such matter; this indeed may make way for himself to give answer to us with ease, but whether it be candid and fair thus to deal, I leave it to himself, and the godly wise to consider.  
In the same pag. 482. he allegeth the answer pag. 26. and sets down these words as ours, viz. The Grecians and Hebrews made not two Churches, but one Congregation; they called the multitude of the Disciples together, vers. 2.  
Answ. Here again our words are set down unperfectly: for the question being, whether those Grecians and Hebrews, Act. 6. were two several Congregation in one Church, or both but one Congregation, we for this latter do not only allege that one particular which Mr. Rutherford mentioneth, that the Apostles called the multitude of the disciples together, vers. 2. but moreover that this multitude must look out seven men duly qualified, whom they might appoint over that business, v. 3. and that the saying pleased this whole multitude, and that they thereupon chose seven who are there named v. 5. and set them before the Apostles, v. 6. who laid their hands on them: ibid. In all which, say we, there is no hint of two Congregations, one of Grecians and another of Hebrews, but all the business of choosing and ordaining these Deacons, seems to be transacted and done in one Congregation. For when the text saith that the Apostles called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and made a speech to this multitude being assembled, and the whole multitude did hear what the Apostles spoke, and well liked the same, and thereupon jointly concurred in one act of choosing seven, and presenting them being chosen before the Apostles, it seems to me more rational to look at these things as done in one Congregation, then to imagine there were two, one of Grecians another of Hebrews: for of two Congregations wherein this choice of Deacons should be made, the text for aught I perceive doth not afford the least hint.  
But let us hear Mr. Rutherford his answer. That the chief, saith he, of both Grecians and Hebrews were contained in one, to give their consent to the admission of the Deacons, I conceive.  
Answ. The chief are not so much as once mentioned in the story: but contrarily the text expressly mentioneth the multitude, vers. 2. and the whole multitude, vers. 5. Now to exclude the multitude, whom the text doth expressly mention, and to attribute the assembling and acting only to the chief, of whom the holy Ghost speaks not one word, this (to say no more) seems a violent forcing of the text.  
And if something had not forced him to it, I think he would not have used it; for elsewhere (viz. p. 495, 496.) he allegeth this very scripture, and that three several times, within the space of a dozen or sixteen lines, to prove that the people, yea the multitude are to have the choice of Officers; and saith he, If it please not the whole multitude, Act. 6. vers. 5. it is not a choice. And in pag. 190. He tells us, that the multitude Act. 6. are directed to choose out seven men, as being best acquainted with them; and that accordingly they did look out seven men and chose them. In which places we see he can attribute this choice to the whole multitude, without any mention of the chief, or so much as the least intimation of the action to be performed by them, the multitude being excluded or absent; yea, he gives a reason of this choice, which will reach the multitude, and not the chief only, except we shall say, that the chief only were acquainted with these seven: whereas in the place we have in hand, he would exclude the multitude, and ascribe the action to the chief only.  
But that all the thousands of the Church of Jerusalem were here as in one ordinary Congregation, I judge impossible.  
Answ. For as much as the text tells us that the whole multitude of the disciples were gathered together to act as here is recorded about the election of Deacons, therefore we judge that it was not impossible for them so to do; for how should we judge the thing impossible, except we would judge the words of God to be impossible to be true? Besides, how many soever they were the text tells us Act. 2. 46. that they continued daily with one accord in the Temple: Now Temples we know there were none but one; and therefore that they should all assemble in one Congregation, we dare not judge a matter impossible, least in so judging we should seem to question the truth of God's Testimony.   

CHAP. XXI.  
Whether Congregations may be excommunicated by Classes and Synods, by virtue of those words, Matt. 18. tell the Church, as containing a rule and remedy for all offences, or at the least a Church remedy, for the officers of Churches, and Churchmembers? And if yea, whether it would not follow, that a national Church must have the benefit of this remedy as well as others, and so have no independency of jurisdiction within itself, but be subject to the jurisdiction of general Counsels, which yet Mr. Rutherford doth deny?  
IN the same p. 482. He excepteth against another passage in the answer p. 27, 28. where he sets down these as our words, viz. If our argument be good, If thy Brother offend and refuse to submit, tell the Church, because Christ's remedy must be as large as the disease; then if a national Church offend, you are to complain to an higher Church above a national Church; and because offences may arise between Christians and Indians, you may complain of an Indian to the Church: and then he subjoineth his answer.  
Answ. Yet again our words are so imperfectly related, as that our scope and intent doth not sufficiently appear to his reader. I must therefore for the reader's understanding, relate the passage according to the true and plain meaning thereof. The question between reverend Mr. Herle and us being this, whether Congregations must depend on the government of Synods, and this reason being brought for the affirmative, that Christ's remedy, Matth. 18. Tell the Church, must be as large as the malady, offence; if therefore there arise offences between Congregations, there must be a Church of Synods above Congregations, and those Synods must judge and redress those offences: to this we there answer that all offences do not fall within the compass of this rule and remedy, tell the Church; and so no dependency of Congregation upon the jurisdiction of Synods can be sufficiently proved by this text. First of all, we instance in the offences of national Churches, of which we suppose our Brother will not say that they fall within the compass of our Saviour's rule, Tell the Church, for then the independency of national Churches and national Synods is overthrown, as well as the Congregations; which we suppose he will not grant; and yet it cannot be avoided if his reason for the dependency of Congregations upon Synods do stand firm. And next of all we instance in the offences of Turks and Indians and other heathens, who may offend Christians and yet are not to be complained of to the Church, the Apostle expressly teaching the contrary, 1 Col. 5. This being the scope of that passage in the answer, which here Mr. Rutherford, excepteth against, let us now hear what it is, which he saith thereto.  
Because, saith he, ordinary communion faileth when you go higher than a national Church, and Christ's way supposeth art ordinary communion, as is clear, If thy brother offend, &c therefore I deny that this remedy is needful in any Church above a national Church.  
Answ. 1. If this remedy be not needful in any Church above a national, than the rule doth not universally hold true, that the remedy, complaint to the Church, must be as large as the malady, offence: and so our purpose is gained; For our purpose in that place is to prove this very thing, by this same instance of the offence of a national Church; wherein Mr. Rutherford we see doth come over to us, and affirms the same that we do. To what end therefore was it to make show of removing or weakening what he had said, sith when it comes to the issue, he plainly concurs with us? For by this means our tenant is not confuted, but confirmed with his attest thereto.  
2. Though here he saith, this remedy is not needful in any Church above a national, yet I am mistaken, if elsewhere he speak not otherwise. For in pag. 311. prepounding this objection, viz. Christ here speaks of a present and constant removal of scandals— A Catholic council of the whole visible Church is far of, and cannot be had, he returneth this for answer thereto: That Christ, saith he, speaketh of a present and constant remedy only, and of no remedy against the scandal of whole Churches, is denied. He speaketh of all remedies to gain any offenders, persons or Churches. And in pag. 322. he saith, Christ giveth an instance only in an offending brother; but the doctrine is for the curing of an offending Church also, and for all persons to be gained, Thou hast gained thy Brother: and saith he, we are to gain Churches, as we are not to offend Churches: 1 Cor. 10. 32. Again in his second pag. 332. speaking of five sorts of Synods, of which he calls the fifth the general and Oecuminick Council, he saith, that all these differ not in essence but in degrees, and what word of God, as Matth 18. 16, 17. proves the lawfulness of one, is for the lawfulness of all the five sorts of Synods. Lastly, nothing can be more plain than those words pag. 39 This of our Saviour, Tell the Church, is necessarily to be applied to all Churches and Courts of Christ, even to a Catholic Council: (The same is also to be seen in the Peaceable Plea p. 86.) In all which sayings, he plainly understands the text we have in hand, to speak of a remedy, for all that are to be gained, yea a remedy for the offences of all persons and Churches that may give offence; which Churches he saith may do, and expressly affirms that it is to be applied to general Counsels, and that necessarily: and how these things do agree, with the place in hind, where he saith, he denies the remedy is needful in any Church above a national, let the wise and himself judge. For, for my part, except there be some difference between necessary and needful, the sayings to me do seem inconsistent, one affirming the place is necessarily to be applied to all Churches and Courts of Christ, even to general Counsels; and the other denying that the remedy there mentioned is needful in any Church above a national  
2. Christ's remedy, saith he, is a Church remedy for offences among the brethren, and members of the visible Church. And Indians are nomembers of the visible Church, and so being without they cannot be judged, 1 Cor. 5. 12.  
Answ. That Indians cannot be judged by the Church is very true, but nothing against us: for the very same that here is said by Mr. Rutherford, was said by us before, in the place which himself doth allege, where we also brought the very same text of Scripture which himself doth bring. Now why should these things be brought as a confutation of us, which are nothing but a reception of that which we had delivered afore as our own judgement? May not his reader be induced hereby to think that we had spoken otherwise? But to let this pass. If Indians cannot be judged by the Church, than still our purpose is gained; for by this it appeareth that an offence may be committed, where Christ's remedy, Tell the Church, may not be applied for the redress thereof; and so that universal proposition, Christ's remedy is as large as the malady, and where an offence may be committed, there to tell the Church, is the remedy for the redress of the same, which our brethren do lay as the foundation on which to build the jurisdiction of Classes and Synods, the universality, I say, of this proposition is utterly overthrown by this instance of Indians; and so that scripture, Matth. 18. appears to be too weak a bottom, to bear the building which our brethren would erect upon it.  
Nor is the matter much amended by that which our brother here brings for the helping and clearing of it, That Christ's remedy is a Church remedy for offences among brethren members of the visible Church. For let this be granted, as I know none that denies it, yet still the question remains, what is that Church to which our Saviour here gives power to remove and redress scandals by excommunicating the offenders? we conceive this Church is only the particular Congregation, and its Presbytery; and our brethren think it is also the Classes and Synods: but this apprehension of theirs is not confirmed by saying our Saviour's remedy is a Church remedy for offences amongst members of the Church, inasmuch as the members of a national Church, as such are members of the visible Church in our brethren's judgement, and yet our brother holds here is nor remedy prescribed for a delinquent national Church.  
And if he can so understand this Church remedy, as that for all this, the national Church must not partake thereof, so as to be censured and excommunicated by any Church above it, why may not others understand it so, as that Synods and Classes, yea and Congregations too be exempted from the jurisdiction of Churches? For my part, I know no reason, but if the Congregation be liable to the censure of Classes and Synods by this Scripture; because our Saviour's remedy is a Church remedy, by the same reason the Classes and Synods must be liable to censure also; yea, and the national Church likewise, because this reason is appliable to all these as well as to the Congregation. So that this notion of a Church remedy doth not help his cause at all, nor hurt ours, any more than it hurts himself. If this reasoning be good, it is a Church remedy, therefore the congregational Church must be liable to censure for their offences, than this reasoning is as good, it is a Church remedy, therefore the Classes, Synods, yea and the national Church must be liable to censure for their offences: but this latter at least, for the national Church, our brother speaks against, and therefore he may not press nor urge the former.  
If he or other shall say, that this Scripture contains a remedy even for a national Church, than it will follow that the jurisdiction of a national Church is not independent, but depends upon the Ecumenical: but this our brother cannot say, unless he will gainsay himself, because he hath already said the contrary, and seriously protested it w●●h a verily, that verily be cannot see what power of jurisdiction to censure scandals can be in a general Council: only a mere doctrinal power in all the power that he can see in such a Council, pag. 482. So that let him hold to what he hath thus seriously protested, and this rule of Christ affords no remedy by way of censure for the scandals of a national Church. Besides, if the jurisdiction of a general Council be established by our Saviour in this or other Scriptures, than it will not only follow that the independent jurisdiction of national Churches; yea, and much more of Classes and Synods is overthrown, which I suppose our brethren will not grant, but moreover it will follow that Christ hath not sufficiently provided Church remedies for redressing scandaliss of Church members: the reason of the consequence is, because all other jurisdictions being subordinate one to an●ther, and all of them under the jurisdiction of the general Council, which alone is supreme, there may therefore in all of them be appeals from the inferior to the higher judicatories, till at the last ●atters and causes be transmitted from them all to the general Council; and so by this means matters shall or may never be ended, nor scandals remedied, till a general Council shall effect the same; which general Counsels all know are rare, and difficult to be attain● 〈◊〉 and therefore there were small sufficiency in our Saviour's remedy, if matters may or must depend till general Counsels shall be assembled for the hearing and determining thereof, and may not be ended sconer.  
Therefore we cannot see that this rule, nor any other, establisheth the jurisdiction of general Cou●cels; and then national Churches can have no benefit of our Saviour's remedy of, Telling the Church; no more than the Churches, which are congregational; and so whether is the saying universally true, that where there may be offence committed, there our Saviour's remedy of Telling the Church, may be applied for the redress thereof, nor doth this saying hold, being narrowed according to Mr. rutherford's mind, who would have it understood only of a Church remedy, for the offences of Church members. For we see there may be offences in Churches, according to our brethren's judgement, which cannot be redressed by the help and remedy of this rule.   

CHAP. XXII.  
When the supreme magistrate is a professed curing to Religion, whether then it be likely and usual that the greater part of the people are sincerely religious: and whether when the greater part are enemies with their magistrates, it be then the duty of a few that are sincere, to assemble in a national Synod, and there to enter into a national Covenant, and also to enjoin the same unto that greater part.  
PAG. 483. We say, that if the magistrate be an enemy to Religion, may not the Church without him conveen and renew a Covenant with God? Mr. Mather and Mr. Tompsons' answer p. 29. that if the supreme magistrate be an enemy to Religion, it is not like, but most or many of the people will be of the same mind: Regis ad exemplum totus— and then the 〈◊〉 in the land with not be able to bear the name of the land or nation, but of a small part thereof, not can it be well contained how they should assemble in a national Synod, for that or any other purpose, when the magistrate is a professed enemy, nor doth God require it at their hands.  
Answ. The question between Mr. Hefle and us, as it is spoken to, by us, in this passage, is still about the meaning of our Saviour's words, Tell the Church: which will plainly appear to him that shall look upon Mr. Herles Treatise and our Answer, and compare them together. And though we speak something of the Churches renewing a a Covenant with God, when the magistrate is an enemy to Religion, yet the question lies not merely so and no further; but first, this Church is called the Land or the whole Church therein, or the whole number of Believers. Secondly, The thing inquired into concerning this Church, is whether they have not power to enjoin a solemn renewal of the Covenant. In answer whereto we first of all say, that in case the magistrate be an enemy to Religion, the believers in the land are not like to be so many, as that they should bear the name of the land or nation, but of a small part therein. Second, that in such case, it is not like they can have such liberty as safely to meet in such great assemblies as national Synods: and hereupon we conclude that renewing of Covenant and enjoining the same in national Synods, being not in the power of some few believers in a land, is not then required at their hands. This being said for clearing the scope and sum of that passage in the answer, let us now hear what Mr. Rutherford saith thereto.  
This saith he, is a weak answer.  
Answ. Sat magistrabiter: would it not do well first to disprove and confute, and then to censure, rather than to censure first? But if it be so weak, it will be more easy to overthrow it: let us hear therefore why it is so weak.  
The Christians under Nero were not like their Prince: and it's not like, but sincere Christians will be sincere Christians and profess truth, even when the magistrate is an enemy.  
Answ. And what of this? doth this strongly overthrow that saying, which was censured for so weak? If sincere Christians be sincere Christians, when the magistrate is an enemy, suppose as bad as Nero, doth it follow thereupon, that in such times the sincere Christians will be so many in number as to bear the names of the land or nation, where they are, (for there lies the question) and that it is not like to be otherwise? I suppose no man can justly affirm it. For were they so many in England in the days of Queen Mary? were they so many in Scotland in the days of popish Princes, afore the reformation? Are they so many in Spain, in Italy, in Turkey at this day? doth not the Scripture say, that when Rehoboam, forsook the Lord, all Israel did the same with him? 2 Chron. 12. 1. And that jeroboam did not only sin, but made Israel to sin? and that when a ruler hearkeneth to lies, all his servants are wicked, Prov. 29. vers. 12. which sayings and many more that might be alleged, besides common experience do abundantly witness, that when the supreme magistrate is an enemy to religion, often times (if not always▪) sincere believers in those days are the smaller part of that land. If M. Rutherford can prove this apprehension weak, he must then prove the contradictory to be true, viz. that when the supreme magistrate is an enemy to religion, it is not like that many of the people will be of the magistrates mind, but contrarily the greatest part of the land will be sincere believers, though the magistrate be an enemy. And when he hath confirmed this position which strong and convincing proofs; he may then more freely take his liberty to condemn the other for weak: In the mean time, I think it were weakness in us to depart from this apprehension without some better grounds than yet are given to discover the weakness of it.  
2. Saith he, If your meaning be, it cannot be conceived how they should assemble in a national assembly, when the magistrate is an enemy, because it is not safe for fear of persecution, than you say nothing to the argument, because the argument is drawn from a duty.  
Answ. Are those things duties, which are in nature impossible? If not, how is it a duty of a few believers in a land (for when the magistrate is a professed enemy, I do still conceive the believers in that land to be but few, a small part of the land) how is it a duty, I say, for these few believers, in a land to assemble in a national Synod, and there to enjoin a national Covenant, to be entered into, not only by themselves, which are but a few in comparison, but also by the rest of the land which are far the greater number? If this be a duty, it is more than I yet understand? Suppose it be their duty to enter into covenant with God for their own part; Suppose also it were the duty of others to do the like, yet when the greater part will not so do, but are enemies to the truth of God like their magistrates, is it nevertheless a duty of this smaller number to assemble in a national Synod, and there to enjoin a solemn Covenant to be taken by the land? I mean not only by themselves; but also by others, who are far more in number than they? do they fall short of their duty, if they do not thus assemble, and impose the Covenant? In the days of jeroboam, when the generality of the land walked after his wicked commandment, Hos. 5. 11. who made Israel to sin, yet then there were some in Israel who retained their integrity, and set their hearts to seek the Lord, who also for that end came to jerusalem, to sacrifice to the Lord God of their Fathers, 2 Chron. 11. v. 16. But I do not remember that these few that were sincere in worship, did ever come together in a national assembly in Israel, to renew the Covenant with God, and to enjoin the same to that great multitude of the backsliding Israelites, nor that such a duty was required of them, nor that they are blamed by 〈◊〉 Lord, nor any of his Prophets for the neglect thereof. And the case we have in stand is the same.  
If you mean that because the Prince's power is against the Synodical meeting, this is nothing against the power of the Synods that Christ hath given to his Church.  
Answ. We mean as we have said, that those few believers in a land, being overpowered with the Prince and People that are enemies, therefore this assembling of those few in a national Synod, and there enjoining a national Covenant is now not in their power, and so not required at their hands.  
If your meaning be that, it is not lawful to them to conveen in a national Synod to renew a Covenant with God, against the supreme magistrates will; I hope you mind no such thing.  
Answ. If it be our meaning, how can it be hoped that we do not mind it? Can our ●●●●ing be one thing, and our mind another? But for his satisfaction and resolution, 〈◊〉 plain answer is this, that we neither had mind nor meaning to meddle at all with that question; whether Churches may assemble in national Synods against the supreme magistrates will. For we did not think that Mr. Herles treatise did lead us thereunto: 〈…〉 such a matter. Nor am I willing at this time to turn aside to the same, but to keep close to my scope and aim, which is to consider of Mr. Rutherford his exceptions against the answer. And therefore for his discourse, which here he falls upon, maintaining at large against malignants, and namely against Tho: Fuller, that the reformation begun in Scotland and prosecuted in England, against the Kings will is lawful and warrantable by the word● this discourse, I say, being altogether concerning others, and not us; I will therefore pass it over, and come to that wherein ourselves are concerned.   

CHAP. XXIII.  
Whether the word Church be not given to a single Congregation, and whether a Congregation be a Company or Church, meeting only for Word and Sacraments, and not for any other spiritual duties: and whether the divers duties, 1. of Word and Sacraments. 2. Of Discipline, etc. must needs argue divers Churches.  
PAG. 489. The name Church, 1 Cor. 14. 4, 5, 35. 27, 28. is plainly given to that company that did assemble and come together for performance of spiritual duties, and for the exercise of spiritual gifts, as Act. 14. 27. and 11. 26. and 15. 4. 22. 30. and 1 Cor. 11. 18, 20, 22, 23, 3 John 6. which places do abundantly show, that a company gathered together in one place, is called by the name of a Church, as Centhera, Rom. 16. 1. which could not contain many Congregations, being but the part of Corinth. And for this passage he allegeth the answer. pag. 32.  
Answ. Mr. Herle having said, that the Scripture never useth the word Church for a single Congregation, unless happily, 1 Cor. 14. and that many Congregations in one Province or City are frequently called by the name of a Church, we in answer to the former of these do give many instances, p. 31, 32. where a single Congregation Is called by the name of a Church, not only in 1 Cor. 14. which Mr. Herle acknowledgeth (though with a perhaps) but also in sundry other scriptures, which here Mr. Rutherford quoteth. Now let us hear his answer to this passage.  
We seek no more, saith he.  
Answ. Are we then agreed, that in scripture language the word Church is sundry times given to a single Congregation? If so, then for this point the answer is not confuted but confirmed.  
If it be called a Church which conveeneth for performance of spiritual duties, as some of your places do well prove, ergo, no assembly should have the name of Church, but such as assemble for Word and Sacraments, this now you cann●t affirm and it followeth not.  
Answ. If this follow not, what needs it? we never affirmed it, and our purpose that the word Church is given in scripture to a single Congregation, is sufficiently gained without it.  
The Church spoken of Matth. 18. is not assembled to Word and Sacraments, but to bind and lose: the meeting 1 Cor. 5. is not for Word and Sacraments, but to deliver to Satan; the word Church Act. 14. 27. is not an assembly for Word and Sacraments, but to hear how God hath opened the door of Faith unto the Gentiles.— If to be received of the Church, Act. 15. 4. be matter of Word and Sacraments, let all judge: If to send a decree of a Synod, Act. 15. 22. be the act of a Church assembled for Word and Sacraments, let the world judge.  
Answ. Reverend Sir, keep to the point, we never said that discipline, and all other acts, whether performed by a Church, are Word and Sacraments: and therefore there was no need to prove they are not, and then to triumph as in a great victory: The thing in question is this, whether the name or word Church, be given in scripture to a single Congregation: and if this be proved (as the instances given, I hope, do prove it sufficiently) than it matters not what that particular spiritual Church action is, for which they do meet: For whether it be that they meet for Word and Sacraments alone; or whether it be for the Word and Prayer alone, and not at that time for Sacraments at all, or whether it be for discipline, or for any other Church duty, yet still if they come together into one place, be it for all or for any of these ends, they are then a Congregation, (for what is a Congregation but a company so assembled in one place) and so our tenet stands good, and our purpose is gained: For if they that come together into one place for Church actions and ends, be called in scripture by the name of a Church, than the word Church is given to a company that so came together; and such a company being a Congregation, it follows that the word Church is used for a Congregation. What this Congregation doth when they are come together, is not the question: but if a Congregation coming together for Church duties be in Scripture called a Church, we have our intent.  
If the word Church, be a meeting of persons assembled to one place for Spiritual duties, sometimes for Word and Sacraments only, sometimes for acts of jurisdiction only, then is the word Church by our brethren's argument taken both for the Congregation, and for the Elders of one, or of divers Churches, and so we have our intent.  
Answ. Let the antecedent be granted, yet the consequence is denied: For the word Church may be a meeting assembled, sometimes for Word and Sacraments only, and sometimes for acts of jurisdiction only, and I add, sometimes for the Word and Prayer only, without exercise of jurisdiction or Sacrament, and sometimes for some other act or acts, than any of these that are named, and yet for all this, it may not be taken for the Elders alone of one Church, and much less for the Elders of divers Churches; the reason is, because all these acts may be performed by the Congregation assembling sometimes for one of them, and sometimes for another. And therefore your intent is not yet attained; who would have the word Church to be taken sometimes for the Congregation, and sometimes for the Presbyters or Elders alone?  
We desire our brethren to prove (which they must if they oppose our principles) that the word Church is never taken for the Eldership alore, in all the word of God.  
Answ. Must we prove a negative: and is that saying, Affirmanti incumbit ●●us probandi, now become unreasonable, unnecessary, or of no force? For my part I am still of the mind, that he that affirms, must in equity and reason prove what he affirms. Besides for ourselves we have this to say further, that If we prove what we undertook, we have done as much as can in reason be required of us, though we do not prove this that Mr. Rutherford would impose upon us: And what was that which we undertook to prove? nothing in this place, but only this, that the word Church is taken for a Congregation, in other Scriptures besides, 1 Cor. 14. and this we have performed and proved already. Mr. Rutherford himself allowing some of our proofs for good: And therefore having performed this point, it is more than needs to be required of us, to prove another also, which we never undertook to prove, as being quite besides our question, which we were and still are desirous to keep close unto, and not to wonder or be diverted from it by any means.  
Whereas our brethren say, a company gathered into one place (which is nothing else but a Congregation) are called by the name of a Church, I answer such a company is only (I suppose this is misprinted, for is not only) called by the name of a Church, for a company meeting for discipline only, is a Church also.  
Answ. If a company gathered into one place, which is a Congregation, be called by the name of a Church, this is as much as we desire: for our tenant is herein expressly granted to be true: If a company meeting for discipline only be a Church also, yet as long as the former is not denied, the adding of this other doth no hurt to us at all.  
It is false that a company gathered into one place, are nothing else but a Congregation.  
Answ. Bona verba quaso: we had thought that as a company assembled, is an assembly, a company met, is a meeting, a company convocated, a convocation; so a company gathered together or congregated, had been a Congregation: But this is peremptorily now condemned as false: yet let us hear why.  
As you take the word Congregation: for so your Congregation is an assembly of men and women meeting for Word and Sacraments, with the Elders of the Church.  
Answ. And what if they meet for prayer also, what if for the Word and Prayer without Sacraments, for this or that time? what if they meet for the admission of members also, or for censuring delinquents? Can Mr. Rutherford prove that either of us, I mean either Mr. Tompson or myself, or indeed any man else of that judgement, which he opposeth, have denied an assembly meeting for such ends, as these to be a Congregation? I suppose he cannot: And therefore it was not well done to impute unto us such a sense of the word Congregation, as we never spoke nor thought of, and then to say, It is false that a company gathered into one place is a Congregation, as that word is taken by us.  
I appeal to the judgement of our reverend brethren, if the Church, Matth. 18. assembled to to bind and lose, if the Church assembled, 1 Corin. 5. to deliver to Satan, (and sundry others are there named to the like purpose) be a congregational Church assembled for Word and Sacraments.  
Answ. If the Word and Sacraments be not mentioned in the places alleged, but other actions and duties, must it needs follow that the Churches spoken of in these places did assemble for Word and Sacraments? may not one and the same Church assemble for divers ends and actions? yea, possibly for divers upon one day? At the least wise it cannot be denied, but at several times of assembling a Church may attend to divers duties and actions, and yet still be one and the same Congregation or Church, at one time which they were at another. Or otherwise we must say (which were a very unwise saying) that a Church meeting for divers actions to be performed upon one day, as the Word, Prayer, Psalms, Sacraments, etc. is not the same Church is one of these actions, that it was in another, but is one Church when they are at Prayer, another when they are singing Psalms, another when they are in exercise of the Word or Sacraments, etc. Or if they meet one day, for Word and Sacraments, and another day for Word and Prayer without Sacraments, that n●w they are divers Churches, and not the same upon one of these days, that they were upon another, the nature and kind of their Church being altered according to the several duties wherein they are exercised. This arguing I suppose Mr. Rutherford, would not own for good, and yet for aught I see, it is no worse, but the very same with that which himself doth here use, who because the Church mentioned Matth. 18. 1 Corinth. 5. and other places by him named, is said to meet for discipline or other duties, would thereupon have it thought, that the Church mentioned in those places was not a Church that did ever meet for Word and Sacraments, but was some other Church of another kind: which arguing may be good, if these which I have here above expressed be good, but otherwise I conceive it cannot stand.   

CHAP. XXIV.  
Whether those children of Israel, Numb. 8. 10. who laid hands on the Levites, were Elders by Office, and as so considered, did lay on their hands. And whether this Scripture do not prove that where there are no Elders to be had, there some principal members, though not Elders by Office, may impose hands on Church Officers.  
THe children of Israel which were not the Church officers laid hands on the Levites, Numb. 8. 10. therefore when a Church hath no Elders, the people may confer Ordination, and it is not to be tied to the Presbyters only: And for this be allegeth the answer. pag. 46. And then he addeth, that other of our brethren say, Ordination is but accidental to a Ministers calling, and may be wanting if the people shall choose, in defect of Elders, pag. 491.  
Answ. This latter clause should not have been added, as deserving a confutation, except our brother would confute himself: for as we heard afore, himself doth plainly affirm pag. 186, 187. That both are true Pastors, those who have no call, but the people's election, and those who have Ordination by Pastors; and that election by the people only may stand for Ordination, where there be no Pastors at all: which if it be so; why should the same thing in effect when it is holden by others, be here inserted in an objection as worthy to be spoken against, when himself doth cast the very same?  
It is marvel that our reverend brother should thus go on in representing our words and mind amiss: for as here he sets down the objection under our name, some of our words are changed and altered, others being substituted in their place, some are wholly suppressed as if there had been none such, and others are added as 〈◊〉 which never came from us: Of the first sort, are those of the people's conferring Ordination; whereas our words are not so, but that the people may impose or lay on hands. Now between these two himself pag. 492. doth make a great difference, even as much as between the authoritative calling of a Minister, and a rite annexed to that calling: and further saith, that though he think imposition of hand● not so essential perhaps, at that a Minister can be no Minister without it, yet of Ordination he thinks otherwise, And if he make so great a difference between Imposition of hand● and Ordination, why should our words be forsaken which import the lesser matter in his judgement, and those other which he accounts do import much more, be substituted in the room? was this to burden our opinion or apprehension with a greater odium then our words in his own judgement will bear? or was it to make his confutation of us more easy, than it would have been, if our own words had been retained and kept? what ever was the cause hereof, we cannot but think it had been better if it had been otherwise.  
For omitting and suppressing some words of ours (which was the second particular) I allege those of the time and places where Elders cannot conveniently be borrowed from any other Church: the whole passage is this: viz. by which, scripture, (to wit Num. 8. 10.) thus much is manifest, that when a Ch●rch hath no Elders, But the first Elders themselves are to be ordained, and this at such times and in such places, where Elders cannot conveniently be borrowed from any other Churches, in such case Imposition of hands may lawfully be performed by some principal men of the Congregation, although they be not Elders by Office: In which place, these words, at such times ●nd in such places, etc. though they contain a great part of the case, wherein we think Imposition of hands may be performed by non-Elders, yet they are wholly concealed by Mr. Rutherford, as if there had been none such; for what purpose, himself best knows. But this is apparent, that by his concealment or omission, the way is made more easy and the ground more rational for that passage of his in the following page, where he saith, What if there be no Elders in a single Congregation? it will not follow therefore the people are to lay on hands, except saith he, there were no Elders in the land, or national Church to lay on hands. Now had our words been delivered and set down by him as they came from us, this speech and passage of his would have been useless, and apparently brought in without cause: For to what purpose should he bring in this exception, saying, Except there be no Elders in the land etc. when ourselves had prevented him in this, by putting such an exception expressly into the prohibition, which we deduce and gather from that scripture of Numb. 8. 10. Sure this had not needed, but might have been spared, if our words had been fully related: But by this omission and concealment, his own speech hath more appearance of ground and reason in it, than otherwise it would have had, and our apprehension doth not appear to his reader as indeed it is, nor as himself received it from us in that our answer. Which we have reason to take somewhat unkindly from him, and the rather because it is not only once, but twice at the least, that we have thus expressed ourselves in that answer: once in the words which I have here above repeated and transcribed, and again in pag. 49. where speaking again of this same scripture, Numb. 8. v. 10. We say thus, that we have showed from that scripture, that if there be no Elders as at the first, nor any that can conveniently be gotten from other Churches, than imposition of hands may lawfully be performed by others: Nevertheless though we have thus expressed ourselves, once and a second time, yet M. Rutherford doth not once give notice hereof unto his reader, for aught that I can find; but still passing by these words of borrowing Elders from other Churches, doth take advantage of the want thereof, which indeed are not wanting in our Churches, which he deals against, but twice at the least are plainly expressed therein, and would not have been wanting in this passage, which here he sets down as ours, if himself had not concealed and suppressed the same. Now to leave out those words of ours, which we have plainly expressed two several times at the least, and then to make advantage for himself against us for want thereof, whether this be not such measure as we have cause to take unkindly, let himself and others consider. The third particular of adding words which never came from us, I will briefly pass over, because it is of less moment, as not so much misrepresenting our meaning; yet I conceive those words, it (by Ordination) is not to be tied to the Presbytery alone, which here are presented to the Reader as ours, are not at all to be found in our writing: but I will not insist on this, but come to consider of his answer.  
There is not, saith he, a place in all the word of God, where people conserve Ordination to the Pastors of the New Testament, therefore our brethren flee to the Old Testament to prove it from the Levites, who received Imposition of bands from the Children of Israel.  
Answ. We have given a reason, why no such scripture can be expected in the New Testament, viz. because in those times Elders were not wanting; for there were the Apostles and Apostolic men, who were Elders in all Churches: and say we, we do willingly grant, that where Elders are not wanting, Imposition of hands is to be performed by the Elders: Ans. p. 49. Now for our brethren to require of us an example of Imposition of hands performed without Elders in the Apostles times, in which times there were Elders to be had, this we think to be unreasonable, first it is our opinion, that when Elders are to be had, Imposition of hands is not to be performed without those Elders, but by them.  
Moreover, if it be such a disparagement to our cause, that the scripture of the New Testament affords no example of Imposition of hands by the people, how will Mr. Rutherford free his own way from another objection, which we think as sore and weighty against the same, as this which they think of so much weight against us? The objection I mean is this, that there is not any place in all the scripture of the New Testament, where ordinary Pastors or Elders Imposed hands on ordinary Pastors or Elders; but all the examples in scripture concerning this matter are such, where either the persons Imposing, or the persons on whom hands were Imposed, or both, were officers of extraordinary note and degree, such as now are not extant in the Church, but are ceased long again: Not that I deny, but an argument may be taken from those examples for Imposition of hands in these days: but the thing I stand upon is this, that no example can be given from scripture directly parallel, to the way which our brethren in these days do practise and allow, but some dissonancy will be found therein: from their way as well (and perhaps as much) as from the way of Imposition of hands performed by the people in some cases: let them tell us of Act. 6. v. 6. and 14. 23. and 1. Tim. 5. 22. and we answer the persons imposing hands in those places were Apostles and Evangelists, such as our brethren are not, nor do so account themselves. Let them name Act. 13. 3. and 1 Tim. 4. 14. and we answer, the persons on whom hands were there laid were the like, even Apostles and Evangelists, whatever the imposers were, and therefore neither will these places perfectly suit the case▪ So that if we could give no example in the New Testament of Imposition of hands performed in some cases by the people, we think Mr. Rutherford and out brethren of his way might be favourable to us for their own sake.  
Yet for the justification of our way, and for further answer to this passage of Mr. Rutherford, we have this to say further, that an example in the Old Testament of a practice not abolished in the New as ceremonial, typical, or of some peculiar reason specially concerning those times and peoples, but of moral equity and reason; such an example we think a sufficient warrant unto us, for the like practice upon the like occasion in these days: This I think Mr Rutherford must acknowledge, for else he shall lose many arguments which he frequently useth in this Treatise, from the example of Asa, Hezekiah, Josiah, and others in the Old Testament, for the proving of things to be practised in the New: And else himself and we all shall lose the argument for Pedobaptisme which is taken from Circumcision. Yea, and which is more, if it were not thus, the Apostles arguing would not be strong, who do frequently argue from the examples of the Old Testament to confirm and prove truth and virtue, and to reprove and to condemn the contra●y in the New: to instance in no more but 1 Cor. 9 10. 2. Heb. 3. 24. which examples, together with that saying, Rom. 15. 4. Whatsoever was written in former time, was written for our learning; and many more that might be alleged, do abundantly and plainly prove the point in hand: And therefore Mr. Rutherford should bear with us, if we sometimes argue from examples of the Old Testament.  
As for that which followeth, where he saith, But our brethren hold that the calling of the Levites and of the Pastors of the New Testament are different, as the officers and Churches of the Jewish and Christian Churches are different; the answer is, that I do not remember that we have spoken one word of this matter, either one way or other; nor doth he mention any place where we have spoken aught of these things. And for the thing itself, though many differences may be assigned between the Levites and Pastors of the New Testament, and between the Jewish and Christian Churches, yet I know no such difference between them, but that in things which are of general and common nature concerning them both, in those we may lawfully argue from them and their times, unto ourselves and our times. If Mr. Rutherford know we have given any such difference as will not suffer us thus to argue, when he shall express the same, we may consider further thereof.  
Our brethren grant pag. 49. that it wanteth all example in the New Testament that the people lay on hands.  
Answ. And we have also in the same pag. 49. rendered the reason hereof, viz. because Elders then were not wanting: Why then did not our brother's ingenuity so far prevail with him as to mention this, when he mentioned the other? however yet this he may be pleased to observe, that as we grant the thing he speaks of, so themselves, I think must grant also, that it wanteth all example in the New Testament, where ordinary Elders do Impose hands on ordinary Elders: for my part I remember none, nor do I remember that themselves have yet produced any.  
These who laid on hands on the Levites Numb. 8. were Elders, and our brethren say it is like they were; but 1. They did not as Elders: 2. But as representing the people; not as Elders Civil, for that belonged to Aaron and his Sons, Levit. 8. else it will follow that where a Church hath no magistrates to lay on hands, there the Church may do it: Nor did they lay on hands as Ecclesiastical Elders, because what these which laid on hands did, they did as from the Congregation: For 1. these Levites were taken in stead of the first born of Israel, and not instead of the first born of the Elders only, Numb. 3. 40, 41. 2 They were presented to the Lord as an offering of the Children of Israel, not of the Elders only. 3. When the multitude brought an oblation, the Elders put their hands on the heads of the sacrifice, Levit. 4. 15. instead of all the multitude.  
Answ. In relating this passage, our meaning is exceedingly mistaken, and both our meaning and our words represented far amiss unto the reader: the particulars which in this respect may be excepted against, are such as these.  
1. That reporting us to say, it is like they who laid on hands were Elders, he there breaks off the speech; and so suppresseth that which follows; wherein we first of all do give an explication in what respect they might be said to be Elders, viz. as being the chief and principal members of the Congregation; and next of all we do add, that nevertheless therein example doth prove the point, if two things be considered which there we do express. But both these particulars, I mean, both the explication and the addition or exception, are wholly suppressed by Mr. Rutherford, and so the concession; It is like they were Elders, is left standing alone by itself.  
2. He reports us to say, they did it not as Elders civil: for that belonged to Aaron and his Sons; wherein he fathers on us a palpable error, of accounting Aaron, and his sons to be Elders civil, or magistrates, which never came into our thoughts: nay it was so far from us that we plainly said the contrary, in that very place, to wit, that they were Elders Ecclesiastical. Our words are these, If they, (that is, the children of Israel) did it as Elders, then either as Elders and governor's ecclesiastical, or as civil governor's: but not the first, for that charge belonged to Aaron and his sons: Levit. 8. and these Levites now ordained. In which words we plainly ascribe to Aaron and his sons the charge of Elders and Governors Ecclesiastical, but not of civil governor's, as Mr. Rutherford, is pleased to report.  
3. In these words, Else it will follow, that where a Church hath no magistrates to lay on hands, there the Church may do it; our words are so miserably mangled, that no tolerable sense can appear: for here is expressed an inference or consequence, that must follow, and yet no ground or antecedent at all from which it should follow, which is to represent us to the world as men that were loesi cerebro. For men that were in their right wits, I conceive, would scarcely ever argue in this fashion, as here we are reported to do: But our words are these, If the second be said, viz. that the children of Israel did lay on hands as civil governor's, than it will follow that civil magistrates, though no Church-officers may Impose hands in Ordination of Church-officers, and so the point is gained: (viz. that Church-officers may be ordained by those that are no Church-officers) which we do further manifest in the following words in this manner: If the magistrate may do it, than it will follow that a Church that hath no magistrate may perform this action by other the fittest instruments she hath; For which we there give this ground, for that this is not a work properly tied to the magistrates office, because then the Church in the Apostles times wanting magistrates, could not have had officers; the contrary whereof we say is manifest in the Scriptures, Act. 14. 13. Tit. 1. 5. This is our manner of arguing in the place alleged, which is far different from that which Mr. Rutherford reporteth as ours.  
4. Whereas he reports us to say, Nor did they lay on hands as Ecclesiastical Elders, because what these which lay on hands did, they did as from the Congregation; in this he also reports us to speak quite besides our plain meaning and express words. For whereas, he so sets down this sentence, as that the latter clause or branch therein is made the reason of the former; the truth is this, that these clauses in the answer, have no dependence the one upon the other at all; but the former hath another reason given for it, which here is not mentioned, and the latter which is here mentioned as the reason of the former is not so mentioned by us, but for another end and purpose.  
Touching the former of these two, when we said that the children of Israel, did not impose hands on the Levites as ecclesiastical Elders, the reason we give for this saying is this, because that charge was only belonging to Aaron and his sons, and those Levites now ordained: which reason Mr. Rutherford never mentions, but mentions another speech, as our reason, which was delivered by us for another purpose. The like measure doth he afford to us in the second branch of the sentence by him expressed: For whereas we give two reasons of the main thing in question, that this example of the children of Israel, imposing hands on the Levites doth prove that in some cases, non-officers may impose hands upon Church officers, the one because what these children of Israel did, they did it not as Elders; the other that what they did, they did it not for themselves alone, but for all the Congregation, Mr. Rutherford applies not these two reasons to the thing in question as they were applied by us, but instead thereof makes one of them to be a reason of the other, which was no part of our meaning, nor could justly be gathered from our words.  
This being said for clearing this passage of ours from his manifold mistakes, let us now hear his answer.  
Pag. 49●. These who laid on hands did it as a work peculiar to the Elders, because the Elders were a part of the first borne, who by office were Elders, and in whose stead the Levites were assumed, Numb. 3. 40, 41.  
Answ. If the Elders were but a part of the first born, then how could all the first born be Elders by office? or if all the first born were by office Elders, then how could the Elders be but a part of the first born? These things seem not to be here. But be it so, that the Elders were a part of the first born as here is affirmed, how doth this prove that they who laid on hands did it as a work peculiar to the Elders? Is there any necessary or clear consequence in such a proposition? For my part, I see it not: but on the contrary, I suppose it is certain, that the Elders might be part or all of the first born, and yet they who did the work of imposing hands might neither impose as Elders, nor of necessity be Elders. Though in the sense expressed in the answer, I will not deny but there might be Elders, that is chief and principal members of the Congregation. But if this were granted in the sense expressed, must it needs follow that they imposed hands as Elders, and as Elders by office too? Can a man sustain no relation, but all his actions must be actions of that relation? Cannot a man be an husband, or a parent, etc. but his actions of ploughing sowing, etc. must needs be performed by him, as he is a husband, or parent? Cannot a minister pray in his family, instruct his children, or receive the bread and wine in the Lord's supper in the Congregation, but all these things must be performed by him as a Minister? I suppose that none will say that this doth follow: and if not, then suppose that these who imposed hands were Elders, how doth it follow, that when they imposed hands, they did impose as Elders?  
Else the Church of Israel being a constituted Church before this time wanted officers, which is against all truth.  
Answ. Else, else what? let the antecedent or ground of this inference be taken from the words preceding, or from any of them (and whence else to take it I cannot tell) and no necessity of consequence I think will appear. The words preceding are no more but these, These who laid on hands, did it as a work peculiar to the Elders, because the Elders were a part of the first born, who by office were Elders, and in whose steed the Levites were assumed, and then comes in this inference, else the Church of Israel wanted officers. Now how this must needs follow upon any or all of those preceding, I see not. Not that I deny the truth of all those preceding words, for of some of them I think otherwise, but supposing that were all true, which is more than doth yet appear, yet here is that which I am doubtful in, whether this inference must needs follow upon the same? For aught I see, the Church of Israel might have officers, and yet the particulars here mentioned not be all true, but some of them false notwithstanding. At least wise if they were true, yet the reason here used would not infer so much. For, to consider a little of the particulars: The Church of Israel had officers, ergo, the Elders were a part of the first born (which is one of the particulars) The Church of Israel had officers; ergo the first born were Elders by office; (which is another) The Church of Israel had officers: Ergo, the Levites were assumed instead of the first born (which is another of them) is there any necessity of consequence in any of these? For my part I see it not: but suppose they were in themselves true, yet, the medium here used doth not prove them so to be. And for that which is the first, and as I conceive the chief, to wit, that these who imposed hands did it as a work peculiar to Elders, must this needs be granted, if it be granted, that the Church of Israel was not without officers? I see no necessity of granting this neither, but the contrary to me seems possible enough, that thee might be officers afore this time in that Church; and yet what was now done by them who imposed hands, not be done by them, as Elders by office, but as prime and principal members of the Congregation.  
For the clearing whereof a little further, we may observe that they who imposed hands on the Levites are not here called Elders, nor rulers, nor officers, nor first born, nor any such like, but the term whereby they are expressed is this, the children of Israel; The children of Israel, saith the Lord, shall put their hands upon the Levites, Numb. 8. 10. Now this term being used in the 9 verse immediately preceding, and in the 11. vers. immediately following, yet in neither of both can it be meant of Elders and officers alone, but in both verses is undoubtedly meant of all the body of the Congregation: and therefore if the context and circumstances of the place be regarded, these children of Israel, who imposed hands on the Levites, v. 10. cannot in that act be considered under the not●on of officers. Sure it is when the verse before tells us that the whole assembly of the children of Israel must be gathered together, and the verse following tells us that Aaron must offer the Levites for an offering of the children of Israel; in neither of these can the children of Israel be understand of the officers alone, but the whole Congregation is meant hereby in both verses: reason therefore requires that this tenth verse standing in the midst between the other two, the word children of Israel, being used therein should be taken in the same sense in this verse, in which it is taken in the verse before, and in the verse that comes after.  
Nay and further, he that shall peruse this chapter Numb. 8. may easily find that this word, the children of Israel is used therein no less than fifteen or sixteen several times; and sometimes four or five times in one verse; and yet of all these, I think here is not so much as one, where it can be understood of the Elders and Officers as such, but is used to signify all the Congregation. And therefore to give such a singular interpretation of this word, in v. 10. so far different from the sense of the same word, in all the rest of the verses both before and after, and those being not only one or two, but so very many; this kind of practice and interpretation had need to be builded upon very plain and pregnant, very clear and cogent reason and demonstration, or else our brethren may excuse us if we be not over hasty and forward to receive it.  
Again, the ninth and eleventh verses tell us plainly, that these Levites were to be offered to the Lord for an offering, not of the Elders alone, but of the children of Israel, even of all the assembly of the children of Israel, and other scriptures tell us as plainly that all offerings were to be presented with the imposition of his hands, whose the offering was, Levit. 1. 3, 4, and 4. 24, 29, 33. whereby it seems evident, that these children of Israel, who imposed hands on these Levites, at this time when they were offered for an offering, were the whole Congregation or some in your name and stead, sith these Levites were an offering of the whole Congregation.  
We grant the magistrates laid not on hands, but they who laid on hands, did it as Ecclesiastical Elders.  
Reconcile this with that pag. 188 l. 1. where 'tis said, the Princes and heads of tribes laid hands on them: now what were these Princes and heads of tribes, but magistrates? and if they were Princes and Magistrates how could they be considered in this act as Ecclesiastical Elders?  
The reasons against this conclude not. The first reason concludeth not.  
Ans. Here again our meaning is presented amiss to the reader; for those three reasons of ours were given by us to prove another point, and not this to which Mr. Rutherford, applies therein, as is plainly to be seen in answer, pag. 46, 47. where the reader may perceive that those reasons were brought to show, that when the children of Israel imposed hands, if these children of Israel were not all the Congregation, yet what they performed herein was for the Congregation, and not for themselves only: And if those reasons prove this, as I hope they do; it is no great disparagement to them not us, if they prove not another point for which they were never intended. But let us hear the answer.  
The first reason concludeth not, because those who laid on hands were the first born, who by office were Churchmen.  
Answ. How shall we be sure that those who laid on hands were the first born? though I deny it not, yet a bare affirmation proves not.  
Again, suppose what here is affirmed were also sufficiently confirmed, how is the point in question proved hereby? for, say they were the first born, they might notwithstanding do what they did for all the people, and not for themselves above.  
The other two reasons proves nothing.  
Answ. Let them be applied to the thing, whereto they were intended and applied by us, and then let the reader judge. The position was, that those who imposed hands on the Levites, did it for the Congregation or in their stead. The first of the two reasons is, that the Levites were the Congregations offerings, and all offerings were to be presented with the imposition of his hands, whose the offering was: The other is this, that it was an usual thing when the Congregation were to present an offering, that the Elders should impose hands on the Congregations offering, in the Congregations stead, Levit. 4. vers. 14, 15. Now let the Prophet's judge, whether these reasons prove what they were brought to prove, to wit, that they who imposed hands on the Levites did it for, or in stead of the Congregation: or whether it be as our reverend brother affirms, that these two reasons proves nothing: yet let us hear why they prove nothing.  
Because these who laid on hands, did lay on hands as representing the whole Congregation. Alas it doth no ways conclude that they laid not on hands, as it is a work peculiar to them 〈◊〉 Elders.  
Ans. If it do not, yet if our reasons do conclude that they did it instead of the Congregation, we have our intent: But to follow Mr. Rutherford a little in digressing from the point; why, do not our reasons conclude this other?  
The Highpriest offered sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the peoples; Heb. 7. v. 27. and so did represent the people; but I hope it followeth not that therefore the Priest did not sacrifice as a Priest, and by virtue of a peculiar office, but only as a principal member of the Congregation.  
Answ. Mr. Rutherford himself gives us a distinction which may be sufficient for answer to this passage. A representer, saith he, standeth for another either objectively or subjectively. The former of these is he that doth a business for another, or in rem ejus, for his behalf and good, as the eye seeth and the ear heareth for the whole body; and thus objectively the Presbytery doth represent the people, that is, for your good and salvation of the people. The other representing another subjectively is when the representer hath its power from that which it representeth, as he who carrieth the room and person of a King as an Ambassador: but thus, saith he, the Presbytery or Eldership doth not represent the People. Due right of Presbyt. p. 316, 317. Now as the Presbytery represents the people, so may it be said of the Priest, viz. that he represented the people only objectively, for their good, but not subjectively in their room and stead, and therefore the cases are not alike; for we think that what was done by those who imposed hands, Numb. 8. was not only done for the good of the children of Israel, but also in their room and stead, which he will not say of the Priest sacrificing for the people, having already said the contrary of the Presbytery.  
Pag. 493. You will say, in a Church, in an Island, one may be a Pastor without any ordination if the people elect him, and there be no Elders to ordain; I answer it is true.  
Answ. If this be true, then what becomnes of that which was said in the precedent page, That though imposition of hands be not so essential, as that a Minister can be no Minister without it, yet for Ordination it is otherwise, this being the authoritative calling of a Minister, and the other but a rite annexed to the calling. In which place he counts ordination so essential, as that a Minister can be no Minister without it, and yet in the very next page confesseth, as we see, that in some case one may be a Pastor without ordination: whereupon it must needs follow either that one may be a Pastor without any authoritative calling or else that ordination is in effect, but the same with imposition of hands, and so there is no such difference between them as is pretended.  
But so many Pastors send a Pastor to a Congregation, though that Congregation never choose him.  
Answ. Take your own words for answer pag. 496. We never read that in the Apostles Church a man was obtruded upon the people against their will and therefore Election by the people in the Apostolic Church as Act. 1. 26. Act. 6. 2, 3, 4. Rev. 2. 1, 2. Act. 20. v. 28. must be our rule. Any election without the people's consent must be no Election, for if it please not the whole multitude as Act. 6. 5. it is not a choice. And in pag. 465. he tells us that all incorporations have power by the law of nature to choose their own rulers and officers, and that Christ hath provided the same in an eminant manner for his Church. And therefore for this passage that many Pastor may send a Pastor to be Pastor to a Congregation, though that Congregation never choose him, we desire that he would take his own money for payment.   

CHAP. XXV.  
Whether a Ministers calling consist in Election or in Imposition of hands, and whether of those is greater, and whether is prior or posterior. Whether, 1 Tim. 4. 14. Act. 6. 2, 3, 4. Act. 13. 1, 2, 3. do prove that the Ministers calling consists in imposition of hands by the Presbytery, and that such imposition of hands is not a consumatory rite, or benedictory sign. Also whether Rom. 10. 15. do prove that a man cannot be a Minister except some Presbytery ordain him afore the People choose him, and whether otherwise the people do send a Minster to themselves: and whether the people of God may not aswell discern a man's fitness to be ordained as his fitness to be elected.  
PAg. 493. If the people may elect Officers, then in some cases they may ordain them also, because Ordination is less than election, and dependeth upon it as a necessary antecedent, and it is nothing but a consummation of election, or the admission of a person into the possession of that office, whereto he had right before by election. If then a single Congregation may elect, which is the greater, they may ordain, which is the less. And for this he allegeth the Answer pag. 46, 47. And then gives answer thereto in these words, Ordination is the more and Election the lesser; for Ordination is an act authoritative of the Presbytery, 1. Tim. 4. 14.  
Answ. Take Ordination as we take it for Imposition of hands on a Church officer, and then we think it is less than Election, as being but a Rite or Ceremony used at a Minister's entrance into his Office, but not at all of the essence thereof. Nor are we alone, or the first that have so thought: For to omit others, he that wrote the book, called the unbishoping of Timothy and Tytus affirmeth pag. 114. That it is no essential, but a ceremonial part of Ordination, which may be sufficiently made without it, and saith that Angelus de Clavasio, Peter Martyr and others both Papists and Protestants affirm the same. And in pag. 116. he saith it is an act of service or Ministry, not of Authority, and no more than an external compliment or Ceremony, alleging Dr. Ames & others for the same tenant. But now election is more than a ceremony that may be omitted, Mr. Rutherford himself being judge: for in his pag. 496. He tells us, that in the Apostolic Churches, a Minister was never obtruded upon the people against their will, but that they still had the election of their Ministers, and this he saith must be our rule, so that any election without the people's consent must be no election, for if it please not the whole multitude it is not a choice. And in p. 202. he tells us out of chrysostom that all Election of Pastors is null without the consent of the people. Whereby it seems that Election is something essential; and so consequently more than imposition of hands, which is but a Rite or Ceremony, which may be absent, and yet a man have all the essentials of a Minister notwithstanding. As for 1 Tim. 4. 14. the imposition of hands of the Presbytery there spoken of, I conceive, could not be any act of superior authority but only an approbatory sign or rite which might be used by inferiors towards your superiors. For Timothy being an Evangelist, how could any ordinary Presbytery have authority over him, or give office or authority to him? Besides it is not said that Timothy received his gift by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery, but by the Prophecy, and by the laying on of Paul's hands, and with the laying on the hands of the Presbytery. Now between those two phrases, by the laying on of hands, and with the same, there is great difference, the one importing some cause or authority or power, the other importing no more but an approbatory rite, or a sign used in a solemn commending of one to God by Prayers: Altar Damascen. pag. 161. of which more is to be seen in the plea for the Churches in New England part of the second chap. 12. quest. 2, 4.  
For aught I see the Authors might argue thus, The people may ordain: Ergo, they may preach and baptise, for all the three are Presbyterial acts given to men in Office.  
Answ. We read in Mornay de Ecclesia chap. ●. that of old time it was an argument rise in the Church, he may baptise, he may administer the Lords supper; Ergo, he may lay on hands; but such arguing as Mr Rutherford useth, they may lay on hands, ergo, they may baptise; this we remember not that we have read in any authors, except in him: Nor do we think the consequence the same, inasmuch as in the one the argument proceeds from the greater to the less, and in the other from the less to the greater, and yet affirmatively in both. Thus the argument is understood by the forenamed author of the unbishoping of Timothy and Tytus, who in pag. 100 speaking of these words of Mornay lays down the argument thus, He can baptise, he can consecrate and administer the Lords supper which are the greater and more honourable actions, Ergo, he may lay on hands which is the less: and this kind of arguing for my part, I think to be good▪ but for that of Mr. rutherford's, I see no more consequence therein, then if one should say, he that may do the lesser, may do the greater also▪ in which I see, no strength of consequence at all.  
Pag. 493, 494. Whereas some say Act. 6. 3, 4, 5. Election of seven men to be Deacons goeth before Ordination or Imposition of hands, v. 6. Answ. Election of the people goeth before Ordination in the relation of Luke, true; Ergo, Election is prior by order of nature, it followeth not.  
Answ. The place cannot be so satisfied; for the text is very plain, that these seven were elected by the multitude afore the Apostles laid their hands on them; yea, and not only afore in respect of priority of nature, but also in respect of time; for otherwise, how could the Apostles say as they do unto the multitude; brethren look out seven men among you whom we may appoint over this business? Can any man imagine they would thus have spoken, if themselves had already found out the men, and likewise had imposed hands upon them? for my part, I see no reason for such an apprehension; but think it is undeniably plain in the text, that the election of these seven by the people was prior to their Ordination, by Imposition of the Apostles hands, not only in the relation of Luke as Mr. Rutherford would have it, but also in nature and time, and that the contrary cannot be said without violence to the text, and injury and wrong unto the Apostles, who by Mr. rutherford's exposition are made to have bidden the multitude to look out for the men amongst them of honest report, etc. with a profession that when the multitude had so done they would then appoint the men to the business, when as by this exposition they had already appointed them thereunto, and had imposed their hands on them, which kind of dealing had been such, that I think that Apostles were far from it.  
It cannot be that Election of the people is the whole calling of a man to the Ministry, and Ordination only a supplement & a consummatory rite, or a benedictory sign, which may be spared.  
Answ. Take Ordination as we do, and why cannot this be? himself told us p. 492. That he thinks not Imposition of hands so essential, but that a Minister may be a Minister without it, and that to him it is but a rite annexed to the calling: which is just the same that we hold, and yet when it comes from us it cannot be accepted. Again, he told us pag. 186, 187. That there are true and lawful pastors, who have no call but people's election: Which if it be so, doth it not then follow, that the election of the people with the man's acceptance thereof is his whole calling? For if ●●ey be true and lawful pastors, who have no more but this election, it seems it must needs be that this is the whole, and yet here this is denied. But let us hear the reasons of this denial.  
1. Because by the Imposition of the hands of the Presbytery Timothy was made a Minister, 1 Timothy 4. 14.  
Answ. The text is not by the Imposition of their hands, but with it, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as was noted afore out of Didoclavius Altar Damascen. p. 161. who also showeth in the same place at large, that this Imposition of hands upon Timothy was only for a testimonall of the approbation of his calling, and for a ceremony used in commending him to God in their Prayers. And in as much as the office of Timothy was the office of an Evangelist, how could an ordinary Presbytery giving him either the gifts or the power belonging thereto? When Mr. Rutherford hath satisfied Mr. Calderwood in these things (a man of his own nation) for I suppose Mr. Calderwood to be the author of that treatise of Altar Damascen. then if we require more may be said of this place. In the mean time I proceed to the next.  
By this Imposition of hands Paul and Sylas were separated to preach to the Gentiles, Acts 13. 1, 2, 3.  
Answ. Paul and Sylas are not once mentioned in that place, but Paul and Barnabas; But not to insist upon this mistake, let M. Calderwood answer for us concerning this scripture: Litigent, saith he, inter se pontifieii utrum impositio ista manuum fuerit ordinativa, etc. that is, let the Papists contend amongst themselves whether this imposition of hands was for Ordination, or only for Prayer: we hold that it was for Prayer and Comendatory (for they commended them to the grace of God, as it's said, Act. 14. 26.) yet as they could not ord●●n them and call them to this Ministry they being Apostles, who were called extraordinarily, so neither could they appoint them to any certain employment or place, for the holy Ghost did direct the Apostles in their troubles, and here it is expressly said, that they were sent forth by the holy Ghost Altar Damascen. pag. 160. and then speaking of certain words of Spalleto, who saith, this Imposition of hands was a pious ceremony, and used at that time as a certain part of an efficatious Prayer; he addeth, Rectius diceret fuisse, etc. he might more rightly say, it was a rite and gesture of one that prayed, showing the person for whom he did implore grace, rather than to call it an efficacious part of prayer. Where we plainly see that he counts this Imposition of hands on Paul and Barnabas no ordaining of them to the office, as some Papists and it seems Mr. Rutherford would have it; but only a rite or gesture used when the Presbytery commended Paul and Barnabas to God by Prayer. This author of Altar Damascenam also addeth, Cum assumendi erant Levitae, etc. That is, when the Levites were to be taken from amongst the Children of Israel, the Lord commands that they should be brought before Jehova●, and that the Children of Israel should lay their hands upon the Levites, Numb. 8. 9, 10. Although the Lord had commanded to consecrate these Levites unto the Ministry; yet he commands the Israelites to lay their hands upon the Levites, as if they had of their own accord in their name given them up to the Ministry, as Junius in his Analysis doth fitly interpret it: Thus far Mr. Calderwood whose judgement of this scripture Numb. 8. whether it be not the same with ours, which was formerly expressed, let Mr. Rutherford himself be judge.  
Mr. Rutherford addeth that by Imposition of hands the Deacons were ordained, Act. 6. and that this is enjoined with the right manner of acting it to Timothy, 1 Tim. 5. 22. and 2. 2. 2. as a ministerial act.  
Answ. Whereas, he saith, it cannot be that laying on of hands should be only a consummatory rite or benedictory sign, and brings the example of these Deacons, Acts. 6. for proof, I desire no more, but that he would accept his own words for answer. Now in pag. 169. his words are these; It is not said that the Deacons were ordained with Fasting and Prayer, as hands are laid upon Paul and Barnabas, Act. 13. 3, 4. but simply that the Apostles prayed and laid their hands on them; which seems to me to be nothing but a sign of praying over these Deacons, and no Ceremony or Sacrament conferring on them the holy Ghost. Now if it was nothing but a sign of Praying over these Deacons, than 1 the substance of their calling consisted not in this laying on of hands, but in some thing else; and what should that be but their election by the people? 2. If it was nothing but a sign of praying over then, then why is a consummatory rite and a benedictory sign gainsaid and opposed? For what great difference is there between a sign of prayer and a benedictory sign? And how shall he be reconciled with himself, that saith it was nothing but such a sign of praying, and yet will not yield that it was only a benedictory sign?  
And for the other particular where he saith, this laying on of hands was enjoyed to Timothy as a ministerial act, if by ministerial act he mean an act that could be lawfully performed by none, but only by a Minister; then I desire some proof that this was so enjoined to Timothy. That it was enjoined to him I grant, but that it was so enjoined needs some better proof than a bare and naked affirmation; specially sith many things were enjoined to Timothy in those examples, which were and are justly appliable to all Christians.  
Furthermore suppose it were true that Imposition of hands were enjoined to Timothy as a ministerial act, how doth this reach to make good the thing in question? what should hinder but the people's election might contain the substance of a Ministers calling notwithstanding? or how doth it therefore follow that Imposition of hands was not a consummatory rite or benedictory sign, but something more? Is there any such necessary consequence here, that the one of these must needs follow upon the other? For my part I see it not, nor see any thing to the contrary, but if Imposition of hands were such a ministerial act, as he saith it is, yet it might still be merely a consummatory rite or benedictory sign, and the substance of the calling consist still in the people's Election. Himself doth say, as we hear even now, that Imposition of hands Act. 6. though here he call it a ministerial act, was nothing but a sign of praying over the Deacons. And therefore these two, to be a ministerial act▪ and yet to be nothing but a sign of prayer or benedictory sign (which to me are the same) are not so inconsistent by his own doctrine, but that they may well stand together; And himself doth also hold that the laying on of hands mentioned Numb. 8. 10. was a ministerial act, and that they who did it, performed the same as Ecclesiastical Elders; and yet I hope, he will not deny that the substance of the Levites calling was in the immediate designment and appointment of the Lord, and not in the performance of this laying on of hands. And therefore it follows, that if laying on of hands were granted to be a ministerial act, yet still it may be merely a benedictory sign, and the substance or essence of the Ministers calling not consist in it, but in some thing else.  
A ministerial calling standeth in an authoritative sending, Rom. 10. 15. and I see not well how the people do send a Minister to themselves.  
Answ. But it is not easy to see how they choose a man for a Minister to themselves, being sent unto them by God? And if God do furnish a man with gifts, and an holy propensity of mind to the work in general, and to such or such a people in particular, and make way by his providence thereto, than who can deny, but such a man is sent of God unto that people? And then if that people observing Gods sending of him in this s●●t, do hereupon elect and choose him, and promise to be obedient to him in the Lord, what is there now wanting to the substance and offence of such a man's calling to such a people? and yet the man is not sent by them to themselves, but sent by God, and received and chose by them: Parcus understands this sending, Rom. 10. of Gods sending▪ and so doth Piscator, and who not? And to understand it otherwise would be to condemn the Prophets and Apostles, who were not sent by men at all, and yet did truly answer this scripture, in that they were sent of God: True it is, ordinary Ministers are not sent of God in such an extraordinary way as the Prophets and Apostles were, but in an ordinary way, and by ordinary means; which way and means if they do observe, they also may be truly said to be sent of God unto the people.  
But peradventure our brother means that the people may not lawfully choose a man for minister unto themselves, except he be first sent unto them, in an authoritative way by some other men, and that otherwise he is not sent unto them of God; which if it were true, than it would follow, that the Apostles and Prophets, as I said, were not sent of God: for plain it is, that men sent them not. It would also hereupon be requisite to be cleared, that some men besides the Church have authority to send Ministers to the Church, and who these men are that have such authority had need to be cleared also; which I for my part think will not be done in haste. And till this be done, I know no reason, but I may still retain this apprehension, that men who are qualified according to the rule of the word and duly elected and chosen to some office of the Ministry by God's people, are truly sent of God unto that people.  
The people have not either formally or by grant of Christ virtually, the keys committed to them, how then can they give the keys to Pastors?  
Answ. Yet in p. 7. He tells us that he denies not but there is a power virtual, not formal in the Church of believers, to supply the want of ordination of Pastors, or some other acts of the keys simply necessary, hic & nunc: and this power, saith he, is virtual not formal. Now to say they have this power neither formally nor virtually, and yet to say they have this power virtually though not formally, what is it but an apparent contradiction?  
But suppose it were true that the people had not this power either formally or virtually, yet Mr. Ball and Mr. Bai●s afore him do tell us, that ministerially they may give what they never had, viz. As ministering to him who hath power and virtue of deriving its as a man not 〈◊〉 a penny of his own may give an 100 l. if the King make him his Almoner. Thus the Church deriveth a● taking the person whom Christ describeth, and out of power will ●ave placed in this or that office in his Church. The power of the imperial dignity is not in the elector of the Emperors, nor the power of that office and authority, whereunto a Minister is elected, in the Church, who chooseth him to that office. Ball Trial of Separate. pag. 239, 240.  
Pag. 494, 495. People may as the sheep of Christ discern his voice, Joh. 10. and so have a power of election of their own Pastors: nor doth this make good what our brethren say, that therefore they may judge of a ministers fitness?  
Answ. That which we say in this Answ. pag. 51. There must be some ability to discern whether men be qualified according to the rule, afore they ought to be elected and chosen into office; and the people of God have so much ability as is of necessity required afore there be preceding unto ordination? Wherein it is plain that our arguing is from the people's ability to discern of men's fitness afore they be elected, to their like ability to discern of their fitness afore they be ordained. They who have so much as to discern who are fit to be ordained: but the people of God may have the former. Ergo, they may have the latter. Now what saith Mr. Rutherford hereunto? The assumption he denies not, but in plain words grants it, saying, they may as Christ's sheep, Joh. 10. discern Christ's voice, and so have a power of election of their own Pastors. It must then be the consequence that must be denied, or the conclusion must be yielded: what then brings he to overthrow the consequence? Nothing but this, that there is a two fold knowledge, one of Christians not denied to women and believing children, who cannot lay on hands, nor ordain Mi●isters, as the Presbytery doth. But what the other knowledge is he doth not plainly tell, except any thing may be gathered from the words following, where he saith, But for trying of Ministers if they be the sons of the Prophet's apt to teach, able to convince the subtle heretics, and gainsayers, and to put them to silence, there must be in a constituted Church a College of Pastors and Prophets to try the Prophets with a Presbyterial cognizance.  
Answ. But if Mr. Rutherford would have spoken to the point, he should have given some reason why the people may discern a man's fitness for election, and yet not discern his fitness for ordination, for this is the consequence of our argument which he denies. But in all that is here said about a two fold knowledge, one of Christians, and the other of some body else, what is there in all this, that hath so much as the least show of overthrowing or weakening the consequence? su●e nothing at all that I can find: For as for that which is intimated, that Christians have not so much knowledge as to try Ministers whether they be apt to teach, etc. this makes nothing to the point in hand, that they can discern whether a man be fit to be elected, but not discern whether he be fit to be ordained; but if it have any strength in it at all, it is as much against the ability of the people, which he expressly grants, as against that which he would deny; as much against their ability of discerning his fitness for ordination. And therefore how this should overthrow the one and not the other, I do not know: for to any man's understanding it makes no more against the one then against the other; but either against both, which he will not grant, or else against neither which I conceive is the very truth? To argue in this sort, they have not ability to convince 〈◊〉 Heretics; Ergo, they may not choose their Ministers, this Mr. Rutherford will not own; for he plainly grants they may choose: and therefore how can this arguing be good, they want ability to convince Heretics; Ergo, they may not impose hands in ordination? How the one kinds of reasoning can be better than the other, I do not know, except we would say some may be lawfully elected and chosen to the ministry, who cannot lawfully be ordained, but this I suppose cannot be said with truth.   

CHAP. XXVI.  
Whether the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, wherein there are contained rules of direction in laying on of hands, do prove that the action may not in any case be performed by non-officers, but must be performed only by Presbyters; and whether the argument do not make as strongly for the appropriating of laying on of hands to the Prelates, as to the Presbyters, and do not as well exclude the Presbyters from meddling therein, as exclude the People.  
THere is only one place more where I find Mr. Rutherford excepting against the answer; and that is in his pag. 497. where alleging the answer pag. 59 which I conceive is misprinted for pag. 49. He sets down these words as ours, viz. If people may not meddle with ordination, because it is proper to Timothy and Titus, this may prove that they were Bishops who did ordain Elders there alone, which Ministers may not do there, for these Epistles are not written to them as Bishops alone, nor as Elders alone, but as to a mixed state including the People.  
Answ. The order of the dispute is this: Reverend Mr. Herle arguing for ordination of officers by a consociated Eldership, and not by a single Congregation with or without a Pastor, brings this reason for his judgement, viz. Rules of direction how to proceed in ordination, and the Epistles where those rules are laid down, are not written to the Churches or Congregations, but to Timothy and Titus. In answer whereunto we spoke to this purpose, that if this be a sufficient reason to prove that the people may not in any case meddle with Ordination, then by as good reason it will follow, that Ordination belongs not to the Presbytery or Synod, but only to one man, as the Prelates would have it; the reason we give is, because Timothy and Titus were each of them but only one man. And we there further say, that we do approve the answer given to this kind of reasoning by the refuter of Dr. Down●●s sermon, at L●●beth, who shows that what was written in those Epistles, was not only written for Timothy and Titus, but for other Ministers also, and also in some sort for all the Saints, and that therefore there is no more reason to appropriate those rules, only to the use of Presbyteries and Synods, then only to the use of Prelates.  
Now what saith Mr. Rutherford to this?  
Some parcel of these 〈◊〉 are written, saith he, to Timothy and Titus as Evangeli●ts. Somethings are written to them as Christians; and finaditer & objective all is written for the Churches good, but the bulk of the Epistles is written to them as Elders, and especially. 1 Tim. 5. 22. 2 Tim. 2. 2. for these and the like they were to do with the Presbytery as is clear, 1 Tim. 4. 14.  
Answ. This Scripture 1 Tim. 4. doth show that Timothy had a gift given him by Prophecy with the laying on the hands of the Presbytery; but how doth it hence appear, that not only Timothy but Titus also was to dothing with the Presbytery? Titus is not at all mentioned in that Scripture. And as for Timothy, Scripture tells what the Presbytery did to him, but what he must do with the Presbytery it tells us nothing at all. Again, if the bulk of the Epistles be written to them as Elders, and the Churches be no otherwise concerned therein, but only finaliter and objectively, the Epistles being written for their good, then what shall be the meaning and reason of these words in the conclusion of the Epistle to Titus, and of the latter to Timothy, where it is said, grace be with you, and grace be with you all? doth it not plainly appear hereby, that more than Elders, even all the Saints in those places are written unto in those Epistles? Thirdly if there be rules in the Epistles that do belong to Elders alone, yet sith it is confessed, and may not be denied, that other things therein do concern all Christians, how shall we be assured that such passages, as concern ●aying on of hands are of the former sort, and not of the latter? For to say it is so, and it is clear, we think doth not clear it at all, unless some further proof be added. Lastly, if all this were granted, which here is said by Mr. Rutherford, yet for aught I see, our answer is not removed thereby, but still stands fair and good: For in that place of the answer alleged, we say two things, 1. That these rules about ordination in Timothy and Titus may with as fair a colour be appropriated to one man, as to Presbyteries and Synods. 2. That the Epistles and the rules therein are not to be appropriated to Bishops alone or Ministers alone, but are indeed of general concernment for all the Christians. Now neither of these two is discovered by Mr. Rutherford. For as for the former of them, he saith nothing thereto at all; and the latter he doth in a manner grant, not only by saying that all here is written for the Churches good, but also by saying that somethings are written to Timothy and Titus as Christians which is in effect the same that we had said before. And how our answer can be disproved or satisfied, either by saying nothing at all thereto, or by saying the same that we had said before, I leave it to the Judicious reader to consider.  
FINIS.